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)

• Rather than this man acknowledging his blunders and promising to stop doing them, he starts namecalling, using the word "joker", thereby committing one more violation against WP:CIVIL.69.204.2.184 (talk) 20:40, 22 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)

Comment:When making decisions about various matters , one should first do the requisite research via such methods as looking at reliable sources of information. Yet, some people make a decision what they want to believe and then use whatever source/method they can find to attempt to justify their belief along with suppressing scholarship, reliable sources, etc.

NadirAli used an alt-right website to support an edit of his and then deleted contrary information supported by a reliable source (decent book source). He then engaged in edit warring on top of this. This is not an isolated incident. He has repeatedly been banned from Wikipedia. This leopard is not going to change his spots. His whole mindset is backwards. He did sloppy research and then engaged in the disharmonious behavior of edit warring to make matters even worse.

At this point, I am starting to think that perhaps NadirAli should be banned from Wikipedia. He has shown little to no remorse relative to his bad behavior. At the very least, he should be topic banned. Knox490 (talk) 10:40, 23 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)

• "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." – well said. Many of the same concerns here were mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 and the same disruptive editing continues to happen eight months later.

  Cunard (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers

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

---

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: [39] [40] [41] [42], 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)

  I would have add this to the mix. This request at WP:RFPP for full protection (!), For as long as possible (!!), when there is a complete absence of persistent vandalism or anything remotely resembling disruption. That somewhat beggars belief. Blackmane (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  There certainly seems to be a long history of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and it doesn't seem to be improving despite past blocks. only (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support a month long block: This snarky response to a request to not leave messages on another's talk page, especially because he implied that user was a "savage," shows his continued desire to be antagonistic towards others. There's no consensus for a 4-6 month block that's been proposed here, but I'm beginning to support the idea of at least a month block for him because of his inability to collaborate effectively. The bulk of his edits and communications are to antagonize in some way. only (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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.[43] He is a sysop on the Indonesian wikipedia.[44]

I first encountered him in October 2011 when I found him adding copyright from an unreliable source.[45] My latest was this week at Fiery flying serpent[46] 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: [47][48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] 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[57] and that he restored the next day.[58] 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:

[59]

[60] [61][62][63][64][65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70].

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 [71] to this [72]. 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 [73] to this [74]. 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)
• Question- how long is it going to be before an uninvolved admin closes this with a decision? I don't want this thread to just sit here until it is archived, I think the situation is very serious.Smeat75 (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the tban, but I'm not uninvolved. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

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: [75]. - 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)

• Support one-way IBAN Everyone can move on then. --Adam in MO Talk 01:15, 22 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)

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)

Holy crap! This became much bigger than I expected. Well done Pastoes777. This seems to be a blatant case of boosterism/SOAP/paid editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• SPI started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SunRa51 EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is truly epic. Thanks for the legwork. Evergreenfir, Pastoes777 and BMK! Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• KrakatoaKatie ran a CU, and blocked OPamuk1976b and other accounts. Most of the accounts listed above were stale, so we should keep an eye on them to make sure they're not re-activated. A job well-done by everyone! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Very good work: thank you all. But perhaps there's more to be done. I clicked on half a dozen articles that linked to that on Lidz: there was little or nothing to worry about in all but one of these, but that one article asserted that the definitive book on such-and-such a subject was an "urban historical" written by Lidz, citing Lidz for this judgement. (Ha ha, no: I terminated this.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• These will all be too old to do anything about, but dollars-to-donuts, other "staffers" of Bloomsbury USA include these editors:

• User:Reikishisugiru
• User:Lilycraftsbury
• User:Craftsbury
• User:Jrigas
• User:Sharkgod
• User:A4c54155
• User:Editbunny
• User:Jen of Iniquity

I think we all should be on the lookout for promotional editing on behalf of Bloomsbury USA, since they seem to do this as a matter of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• More work indeed; one of the earliest suspected socks of this master left a long-winded and caustic rant on the Lidz talk page, sharing the ire of himself and his fellow "staffers" (he claimed to be editing on behalf and Lidz via a kind of PR relationship with Bloomsbury Publishing). The screed ends with:

"So, take it from here, chimps. I'm acceding to the publisher's wishes. If it helps, we monitor the entries of 154 authors in all. Happy hunting."

Now, that's a very dated post and the trail will be cold for some of the older promotion, but there does seem to be a not insignificant network of sock and meat puppets here, and if they are organized in a similar fashion in even a fraction of the articles they claim, it's worth the community being mindful of. Anyone noting similar disruption via socking and hyper-promotionalism on article for authors that seem to be represented by this group should consider using the just-concluded SPI as a starting point; there's a good chance the CU will find a relationship. The length of time (more than six years) and the degree of effort put forth into consistent activities to plaster Lidz's name across the project suggests to me that we should treat the sock's assertions (as to the scale of their operation) with some seriousness. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:58, 23 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)

Me bully PBS? PBS threatened me with 1RR admin action for reverting the ISIL talk page when the sanctions apply 1RR to articles only, not talk pages! Batternut (talk) 00:06, 22 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)

The admin has this power, yes, and he may have felt smooth functioning would be ensured by his actions (even though not quite to the letter, as no warning was given beforehand as required the GS that you linked). However I concur with those that have reckoned the result is a mess, and I have withdrawn this request. Batternut (talk) 00:06, 22 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)

Just dropping a note that although it's preferred to use a neutral ANI title, if they're filed with regards to actions of one person, it is automatically accusatory and since it's your perception that it's unwelcome, and it's not exactly of an insulting nature, there's really no problem. PBS is a bit too hasty with their words is what I feel. This is a pretty small affair and nothing to be worked up about. --QEDK (愛) 08:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I presume that by "biased" that PBS meant that the conversion was "unwelcome" to Batternut, but not necessarily other editors working on that page or taking part in the discussion. But as you say, section titles at ANI are almost always taken to reflect the particular perspective of the person filing them. At least, that's how I always parse them. And while it's good if editors avoid inflammatory terms or pre-judgement of the issue they are putting before admins and the community, there's no requirement for strict neutrality; this would be an unworkable bar, since the very nature of this space is that a dispute has almost always preceded the need for a thread; the entire point of these discussions is to provide insight and action that may end up reflecting the entire perspective of the OP as being right or wrong, but the forum exists to give them the opportunity to present their perspective exactly as they see it (barring arbitrary complaints, abuse of processes, general tendentiousness, and such), which they are prohibited from doing in content workspaces. And as Batternut points out, thread titles here get a lot more accusative than the one they employed in this case. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The name of this ANI section is not very relevant to this discussion, other than it is a symptom of a deeper problem. The title of this section could have been "Conversion of RfC to RM" which is neutral, by adding "Unwanted" to the start to the section header automatically makes it a contentious introduction and does not help in consensus building. I hope in future Batternut thinks more carefully about such issues, so that section titles and content help in consensus building.

The issue here is that using an RfC for a contentious page name is either a naive mistake (of which Batternut would not be the first to make), or it is a planned strategy. Batternut seems to imply by the reply "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" that indeed it was a planned strategy; in which case Batternut needs to explain how, stating that the RfC is "not a move request - the qualifier is still to-be-decided (TBD)" if agreed upon is not part of a move request. And how it does not limit the proposed future RM to merely deciding on the disambiguation extension? Also and most important if the RfC succeeds but the proposed RM fails to reach consensus, how those who those who support the move to "Islamic State (disambiguation)", and those who did not support the move, would then agree whether the consensus lay with the result of the RfC or the RM on whether to move the page. It is in my judgment better to hold one WP:RM and decide the issue one way or the other, particularly as the RM process is tailored to discus proposed page moves and the process contains an optional move review process where the closer's actions can be challenged -- this is something RfC do not have. -- PBS (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I think you're reaching with the ANI title. Of course in an ideal world, every editor would stretch to find absolutely dispassionate language when dealing with content disputes, but that's an excessive expectation when dealing with the reality of such disagreements. So long as the title is civil and not blatantly, egregiously misleading, we have to live with a little subjectivity. OPs do come here specifically to raise behavioural questions, afterall. And the admins and community members who volunteer their time here know how to read between the lines on titles and claims, expecting at least some degree of bias.

On the other hand, I agree with most of the rest of what you said. Actually something you highlighted there speaks to the core of the issue of what seems to have inspired Batternut to attempt an ill-advised end-run on the normal process there. That "tirade" comment is not the only time that Batternut made a subtle but noticeable comment justifying his decisions regarding process because he had to (to his apparent thinking) manage the "emotional" nature of the countless editors who have reached the same conclusion in more than six RM discussions over the last couple of years. Batternut seems to be suggesting that these many editors are letting their personal feelings guide their decisions here and therefore he took the unconventional procedural approach he did because it would allow him to keep those feelings from "boiling" over, and thus allow the 'right' conclusion to be reached.

This is a deeply perplexing position to me, because it seems to run counter to what I am observing (as someone who just arrived via the RfC) as to which editors are allowing their personal feelings/WP:OR to guide their approach, and which are !voting to be faithful to policy and our sources, even though their personal feelings might make it hard for them. I haven't been involved in editing this page, but I have been RfC'd to multiple talk pages over the last couple of years with regard to issues involving how to refer to ISIL. I believe that most editors on that talk page, if they were to embrace their deepest feelings about ISIL and their desire to not legitimate the group, would be happy to endorse Batternut's approach (and then some), and change the article title to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (horrific group of hateful sociopaths laboring under the delusion that they can actually make this nightmare cult into a state)".

But a high-profile article like this one attracts a lot of veteran editors, and even if they feel like embracing such personal opinions, they also know the value of neutrality and of policies that take our personal opinions out of the equation, by relying on our sources (and WP:COMMONNAME is at the top of the list of such policies in terms of the amount of community consensus supporting it). So I'm inclined to believe that Batternut has the read backwards here, especially given the number of community discussions on the matter that have reached a consistent decision to leave the article with the present title--the title almost all sources use, even if they could not possibly be more aligned against ISIL. The habit of suggesting that the many consensus discussions to keep the title of the article as it can only be explained by other editors not being dispassionate enough really should stop; I wasn't even a party to those discussions and even I find it irksome. And the argument just doesn't track, logically. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:54, 23 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)

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 → [76] 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)

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)

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, MADRASS2014 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 MADRASS2014 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)

MADRASS2014 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 MADRASS2014 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)

No, but it's similar to Hansraj's, and linked from it, which is why I pointed it out as a similar one. Black Kite (talk) 07:21, 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, MADRASS2014, 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)

I have responded you already, you should stop asking the borderline stupid question to me, reasoning why I selected those subjects. Better you get out of Wikipedia for some time and read more articles, books and travel, you will get the answer why sometimes we are wild in taste. I don't need to disclose my alternate accounts here, let the ArbCom handle it.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your repeated invoking of "stupid" might get you a block for incivility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, if that really offends, I won't repeat it. MADRASS2014 (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

BB: In all fairness, MADRASS2014 didn't call me "borderline stupid", he called my questions "borderline stupid", so there's probably no PA there. But, of course, my questions aren't "borderline stupid", they're an attempt to get from MADRASS2014 the kind of information that will help determine if he's a WP:PAID editor, as his editing pattern would indicate, or not, as he claims is the case. His failure to answer those questions, when answering them would appear to be in the best interest of an editor with nothing to hide, is, of course, quite telling, as is his hiding behind "geopolitics" and "personal safety" after he let slip that he has edited with other accounts.

Soon, without much doubt, someone is going to assail me for not practicing WP:AGF, but assuming good faith pretty much went out the window when his pattern of editing was so distinctly that of a paid editor -- and, besides, as is often said, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Undeclared paid editors are a serious problem that we have to stop sweeping under the rug and deal with, especially if it results in such poor articles as Kenneth K. Hansraj, Paul Mason (producer), and User:MADRASS2014/The International Project Management Association. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The user's chippy attitude isn't winning him any favors either. His refusal to come clean about his past leads to the obvious conclusion that he's hiding something - such as being previously indef-blocked (possibly more than once) - and his unwillingness to be open also leads to the reasonable suspicion that he's lying about not being a paid editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I never got single cent from Paul Mason, Kenneth H. Hansraj or IPMA, but calling me as a paid editor, and tagging on the articles that they are contributed by paid editor, ridicule the entire project. I think some Administrstors should monitor these pages. If a fully fledged article International Project Management Association can have a place on Spanish Wikipedia, why the English Wikipedia can't have one. First this question should be answered before branding me as a paid editor.MADRASS2014 (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The Spanish article, while hardly a Good Article, at least probably could survive an AFD in the English Wikipedia. Submitting a translation of it and requesting acceptance wouldn't be insulting the English Wikipedia community, while submitting that stub and requesting acceptance was insulting. Either the Original Poster is a paid editor, or the Original Poster has a competence problem. I concede that my attempt at technical humor about 2038 being the end of the world failed. However, the original post should also be considered a failure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It's great that you are not a paid editor. However, why are you trying to promote nonsense like this IPMA draft? The first half of that is:

International Project Management Association(IPMA) promotes competence at all levels for projects succeed internationally.[sixteen references!]

That is pure marketspeak, and applying WP:AGF I assume it was copied from a press release because if an editor voluntarily wrote that, they should be requested to contribute at another website. The sixteen references are merely a dump of external links found in Google. If it's not a case of undisclosed paid editing, it is a competence issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq - Exactly. If the editor isn't being paid and really thinks that stub is good enough to be accepted (as opposed to being A7), they have a competence problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

After I read competence issue only, realizing whether I jump the gun?MADRASS2014 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Now, I consider to delete the draft under {g8}.MADRASS2014 (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to be an administrator let alone a CU to propose community sanctions in an attempt to prevent a user continuing with their problematic behaviour. That's the whole point of community sanctions. Actually an admin or CU could unilaterally block someone as a sock but can't unilatetally topic ban them in general. There are of course exceptions in particular, cases where discretionary sanctions apply. Note I'm specifically not commenting on whether such a topic ban etc is justified or you're a paid editor but simply pointing our you don't seem to understand how AN//I or en.wikipedia works. As for the other accounts as others have said we can't force you to disclose them but if your behaviour is causing concern your refusal to disclose them may increase our concerns. If you wish to disclose them to arbcom that would be a good solution, as others have said you should also inform them of this thread. I suggest you do so rather than getting into pointless arguments like above. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have disclosed my previous accounts since 2005/6 to a couple of ArbCom members via email.MADRASS2014 (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Which ArbCom members, please? I would like them to understand why the information is significant, and revealing who you told should not be a privacy issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You could always ask them individually, whether they've received communications from this user, and point them to this discussion. Given that he might be lying about other things, his claim to have contacted ArbCom could just be a bluff. Although the editor's poor English (see below) should be enough to knock him out of here on competence grounds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

English can be my second language, you can't block me based on the language perfectionism. Why I should bluff, even some of the yesteryear ArbCom members are now my real life friends.MADRASS2014 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they CAN block you for incompetence. Of course, if you're copying promotional literature into articles, the English might be better. And by the way, some of my best friends are admins too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Friend, getting blocked on Wikipedia is not the end of the world. Fine, you have got some Admin friends on Wikipedia!MADRASS2014 (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We are not friends. Maybe someday, but not today. All we are today is Wikipedia editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You say, in the previous post, "some of my friends are admins too", again in the above post you say, "we are not friends. Maybe someday, but not today". I think you are joking with me. MADRASS2014 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No, some of my friends are admins. You are neither an admin nor a friend, at this point in time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That also I can keep as confidential. Let them take their own time and communicate with me via email, if they wish before they block my account. You don't need to interfere at this juncture. They are wise and power enough to take next course of actions.MADRASS2014 (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Note to Admins: Unless any of the ArbCom members request me to comment here, I want to be away from the discussions which are deviating elsewhere from the original issue.MADRASS2014 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"When the going gets tough, the tough get going." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you refuse to indicate which Arbs you sent the information to -- something that can't remotely be said to be withheld for your self-protection -- I have contacted the Committee in toto, alterting them to your claim to have sent the information to several Arbs, and pointing them to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought you are a dedicated Wikipedia editor, I think you are more a vicious human being. How can you change, "I have disclosed my previous accounts since 2005/6 to a couple of ArbCom members via email" into that , your claim to have sent the information to several Arbs; most of other editors who are questioning me are your friends in network; that also one of the reasons many senior editors left the Wikipedia.MADRASS2014 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

In English, "a couple" and "several" are cognates. And, yes, we only have your claim to have sent the information to Arbs, we cannot know for certain that you did so unless one of the Arbs acknowledges receiving it. It would be easier to find out had you been open and aboveboard about who you sent it to, since there's not a reason in the world to hide that information, even though you chose to. As for the other editors here being my "friends in network", I am familiar with all of them by name, but I have been here for 12 years, so that's hardly unusual. If you're implying that I am part of some sort of WP:CABAL to "get" you, I'm afraid you're mistaken. I am a member of no cabal, and generally call them as I see them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised to learn that "a couple" and "several" were cognates. And even if they were cognates, the fact wouldn't be relevant here. ("Skirt" and "shirt" are cognates. "Sofa" and "divan" are synonyms.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You (and the rest of us too) would be best off to just keep silent about this ArbCom business for a while, until or if something comes of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing evidence that supports paid editing. Yes, evidence has been presented, but nothing definite, for example:
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

Yes, it could be a paid editor, or an editor that happens to know this person and believes they should be in Wikipedia, this dosen't prove this person is a paid editor. Seocond we have:

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).
Once again, doesn't prove paid editing, could be the act of a zealous editor, or one that knows this person and believes they need to be here. Thirdly, we have

Finally, this month, MADRASS2014 started working on IPMA article in their userspace, and now wants to move it into mainspace.
Again, just as the other two above, could mean they think this person belongs here, or are juist zealous. Nothing here proves that they're a paid editor, repeatedly asking them if they are without proof is casting aspersions. Unless proof can be found , and obviously, it would have to be in camera to the arbs, this needs to end. Just my two cents.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 16:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I interpret the available evidence quite differently from you. I'm not going to harp on it, but in summary I'd say there are two factors which point in that direction:

• The pattern of editing - Work like hell on an article about someone of fringish notability, and then lay off of editing for a significant period. Rinse and repeat.
• The refusal to provide simple answers to simple questions about motivation - I know that if you asked me why I created any of the 100 or so articles I've created, I would be able to give you some idea about why I did it. Obviously the further you go back in time, the fuzzier my memory might be, but with MADRASS2014 we're talking about fairly recent activities and almost the only activities (at least for this account). Their failure to provide any reasonable backstory besides "They exist and I thought they should have an article" is, to me, quite telling, and screams out "paid editor (or at the very least COI editor) who doesn't have an independent reason for creating an article."

Does this prove anything? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder. You don't think it does, I think it's very, very compelling evidence, as do some others here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that this person's edits look completely like a paid editor's. Badly sourced and promotional, and their creation of Paul Mason (producer) involved many diffs of COPYVIO per its history. It is so odd that they posted here at ANI, drawing this kind of attention on themselves. So odd.

Of course we cannot prove if Madrass2014 has been paid or not, and their repetition of that fact, is basically grinding our faces in the reality of how vulnerable our mission and values make us to bad faith editors.

Behaviorally Madrass2014's edits are indistinguishable from those of an undisclosed paid editor who is WP:NOTHERE, harming WP by adding badly sourced, copyright-violating, promotional content to the encyclopedia. Their defense of their terrible editing makes this situation unsalvageable, in my view. They should be indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Well said, Jytdog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Is MADRASS2014 a single editor? Above, the editor's English is flawed but very good, certainly up to the task of editing articles. But all this fuss about User:MADRASS2014/The International Project Management Association! This has a total of two (2) sentences. One has mere typographical errors, but the other reads:

International Project Management Association(IPMA) promotes competence at all levels for projects succeed internationally.

Aside from its vagueness -- all levels along which dimension? -- this is a syntactic wreck. I don't think I need to point out how or why. Now, I'm sure that I have sleepily perpetrated worse in my time, but not in something that either was so short or whose articleworthiness I was trying to argue. Can the person pleading here in WP:AN/I really have created it? -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

"All your base are belong to us!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing Time ?

Will anything further come of this? In my opinion, either the community knows enough to take some action, or the community knows enough to close this thread and defer action. Possible closures would be:

1. Accept the stub that started this. (If the OP is a paid editor, this will permit him to be paid. It won't preclude another AFD.) This seems sub-optimal, but the whole situation is sub-optimal.
2. Block the OP as a paid editor based solely on behavioral evidence, a duck test.
3. Block the OP for a combination of incompetence and personal attacks and incivility.
4. If one of the Arbs advises that they have the case under advisement, close this without action to allow ArbCom to act on privileged information (but only if an Arb so requests). (As it is, the community has no actual evidence that the OP has written to the ArbCom. The ArbCom is trusted, but the OP isn't trusted without a statement to that effect by the ArbCom.)
5. Create a subpage to permit some of the participants in this controversy to insult each other.

Will anything further come of this? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making me laugh! As I noted above, I find points 2 and 3 compelling. But perhaps we should wait to hear if Arbcom has anything to say? Don't know if they can say anything but even "We have looked at this, but we cant say anything" would be useful. I do think this could be temporary closed/hatted for a couple of days until we hear from them, which should end the dramah. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added some pertinent information to the thread on the COI board. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support block per combination of #2 & #3. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support block per #2 & #3 - unless an Arb steps in to say that MADRASS2014's previous accounts show strong evidence that they are not a PAID/COI editor. If no word from ArbCom, then proceed with block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support a block as per #2 and #3 unless an Arb advises not to. (That is same as BMK says.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support a block as per #2 and #3 unless an Arb advises not to. (Sounds like an echo chamber, doesn't it? Good thing we have CC-by-SA.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, I understand perfectly the issues here and I agree that the signs appear to point to what might seem to be significant evidence, and I also concur that MADRASS2014 is tap dancing on his defence. However, although I am one of the most vigorous opponents of paid advocacy on Wikipedia in all its forms, the evidence presented here is not, IMO, sufficiently conclusive. I discount the language issue(s); MADRASS2041 is obviously from India as his name implies, and although English is an official language and very widely used in cities and by reasonably educated people, hardly anyone there (I have lived and worked in India) is a 100% perfect native user and almost all new articles from that region (now approximately 80% of the intake of all new pages) require some cleaning up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• I can't speak for anyone else, but the language issue had nothing whatsoever to do with my !vote; I didn't even take it into consideration at all. I understand that you don't think the evidence is conclusive, and I respect that, but I think your bringing up the language issue is something of a red herring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should read the thread again - in detail. That said, I wasn't discussing your vote. I'm one of the most vigourous opponents of paid editing in all its forms as Robert McClenon knows only too well, but I was summoned here because no other admin could be bothered, and following the discussion and looking at what has been presented, I am bound by our rules to AGF, whatever I personally think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this to a very long-term editor, but you've totally misconstrued AGF. AGF is an assumption, until evidence is presented otherwise, it's not something you hold on tightly to in the face of that evidence.

There's obviously no way that we can absolutely prove that MADRESS2014 is a paid edior, because we can't out him (even if we have the evidence to do so), we can't force him to tell the truth, we can't do anything except line up the available evidence and try to see what it says. I understand that you don't find it convincing, and that's fine, but don't wave AGF as the reason, the assumption of MADRASS2014's good faith is long out the window: you yourself pointed at his "tap dancing" around instead of providing straight-forward answer. As is often said, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, it's our starting position until such time as it's no longer tenable -- very much like the presumption of innocence in the American legal system (which could do with a third verdict, that of "Not proven" to go along with "Guilty" and "Not Guilty".) If, as you seem to indicate, you "personally" think that MADRASS2014 is a paid editor, then your !vote to "oppose" doesn't help the encyclopedia, and that is your primary responsibility, both as an admin and as an editor, not to bend over backwards and twist yourself into a pretzel giving someone the unwarranted benefit of the doubt.

As for the question of MADRASS2014's poor English skills - yes, I read the discussion, and if you read it again carefully, you'll see that that question was brought up in the context of asking how the editor's skills could be so poor in this discussion, and on his talk page, but relatively good in the articles he created. Where did that ability come from? Does it indicate copyright violations in the article? That's a very relevant question when discussing possible paid editing, don't you think? That was the context, not "let's block this person because they don't have good English skills." Again, it's totally a red herring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

BMK, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones; you too don't have a clean past. I will disclose my real world acquaintance with Kenneth K. Hansraj, Paul Mason (producer) and Project Management to the admins involved here and the couple of ArbCom members; they all are in puplished sources well before I started to create articles on them. As KoshVorlon indicated above in the thread, "...an editor that happens to know this person and believes they should be in Wikipedia, this dosen't prove this person is a paid editor."I will also disclose to the admins and ArbCom members an article created by me via one of my alternate accounts on a Latin American woman who was assassinated by a Drug Cartel is a Wikipedia Good Article now; who might have paid me on behalf her? MADRASS2014 (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You failed to note the end of that story, in which the complainant was found to be a sockmaster and was indef'd.[77] Also, it was 7 1/2 years ago. What was your ID at that time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kudpung, User:Beyond My Ken I will comment on Option 3 that I wasn't referring to the OP's lack of command of English as incompetence. I don't expect everyone to have attended an American elementary school, an American high school (which is of course taught in American English, and American universities. I was referring to the OP's submission of a stupid stub and requesting that an administrator accept it over create-protection as having been an appropriate request to the community. I haven't yet seen an innocent explanation of the original request. Either the OP is being paid by IPMA, or the OP is stupid in thinking that stub was worth wasting the community's time. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Repeated personal comments in AFD

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

---

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)

• I would suggest not making incorrect allegations. You'll probably find that the snippy retorts will stop on their own. Reyk _YO! 06:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Curious... what incorrect allegations did I make, and if I did what reason would that give as an excuse for personal attacks?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• 1) That I did no BEFORE and that 2) I was using financial income as the measure of notability. The latter was repeated after I clearly told you that wasn't being used. And saying that I may need to draw you a picture isn't really a personal attack in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a robust exchane of views; if slightly more robust from one party than the other. Personally I'd suggest ignoring the entire issue and getting on with establishing / not establishing notability for your league. Happy editing! — fortunavelut luna 11:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the red herrings about stubs, finances, and WP:BEFORE for a start. I'd get annoyed too, if I was talking to someone and they piled on irrelevancy after irrelevancy and put words in my mouth that I never said. You can't go out of your way to try and frustrate and bamboozle someone and then complain that they snap at you. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. You saw it too. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not attempting to bamboozle anyone, and there were no "red herrings" as you say. I brought up WP:BEFORE because many editors fail to do that, I made no accusation. Overall, I was voicing my position in good faith, albeit one of disagreement. Editors should be free to disagree without having a personal attack for that disagreement. Or am I incorrect and disagreement is a reason for personal attack?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Problem is Paul, you didn't disagree. You first implied that I didn't do any BEFORE. Then you started this whole "finance" thing, when it's obvious I didn't say that. Even when I explicitly said that I wasn't using finance as a measure, you repeated the falsehood. So yeah, I got snarky. At that point, I feel you're just being insulting when you were explicitly told the meaning. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I apologize for failing to communicate effectively with you as I intended.--Paul McDonald (talk) 9:04 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Oh. That AFD. An editor requested assistance at DRN, but DRN does not handle deletion discussions, and I advised them to be civil, and of course that didn't go over well. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, I have an idea.... let's see what this horrible "personal attack" actually said: "Let's see if I can put this in language plain enough for you to understand. I do not claim that there is a financial requirement for notability. Is that clear enough? I mean I guess I could break out the crayons..." There is is. Snarky? Yeah. An attack? Not so much. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Policy at WP:NPA states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks."--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36 - While I believe that the discussion between you two started from mis-translating one's responses as "bad faith", your responses here ("Well, at least that's how you are acting. So I'll return the favor and educate you, since you apparently struggle with what "significant coverage" is", here ("Oh wait... you're one of those people who need the obvious explained", here ("I'm sorry that you can't understand the context", and especially here ("Let's see if I can put this in language plain enough for you to understand. I do not claim that there is a financial requirement for notability. Is that clear enough? I mean I guess I could break out the crayons....") - are absolutely uncivil and make personal attacks. This is not acceptable behavior per Wikipedia's policies on civility and the policy disallowing the use of personal attacks toward others. I understand that you two have disagreements on various policies, but this is not the way to get clarification and resolution on this matter.

Wikipedia's general notability guidelines state that significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Back when I participated in AFD, I translated this to mean that enough reliable sources exist that allow enough content, information, and details to be used to write an article without the use of original research. While it's certainly normal to debate the meaning and translation of these definitions, it's certainly not okay to use incivility and personal attacks to discuss your viewpoint and uphold your argument. Please do not make any more personal attacks, and continue your discussion with civility in-mind. If personal attacks and incivility continue, action can be taken to stop the disruption from occurring in the discussion taking place. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've also closed the AFD discussion, as the consensus is clearly reached that the article should be kept. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

If you make a change and it is reverted, the onus is on *you* to gain a consensus for making the change, not on others to gain one for reverting it. A lack of response in a talk page discussion is not a consensus (especially not when two other editors have reverted you), and if you don't get consensus support then you must not repeat the change. If you repeat the change on Sunday as you say, without there being a clear consensus on the talk page supporting you, you may be blocked from editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's both incorrect in practice and in documentation. If disputed material is taken to the talk page and the reverting editors ignore the discussion, the editor is well within their rights to re-insert/remove/make the editorial changes they wish to. WP:Consensus (WP:TALKDONTREVERT) is explicit in this, in that it states "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." If the IP has taken this to the talkpage, and the reverting editor refuses to discuss, they are not required to wait forever for consensus with editors who refuse to engage in *required* consensus-building discussions. On a basic level that would mean any changes to an article can be reverted without discussion or further engagement in consensus-discussion with the outcome being the person they are reverted ends up blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed out a few words there - what I originally had was "A lack of response in a talk page discussion after an arbitrary short period like 2 days is not a consensus" (not sure what I did to lose that part). Other editors need to be given time to respond, and 2 days with no reply should not be seen as a refusal to discuss. Also, providing a deadline of Sunday when today is Friday is also not in line with collegial consensus building. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Well the IP actually opened the discussion on the 18th, I would generally agree that 2 days is a short period of time. I would say that 5/6 days, including a weekend, is more than enough time for someone to respond, given the other editors have been editing continuously in the meantime. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Considering that the edit-warring user already had two days to explain his objections, if any, declined to do so, and yet when I re-implemented my edit he reverted me in less than a minute, I don't think giving him another two days is at all unreasonable. I think this behaviour indicates that it's not about the content at all, but about putting uppity IP users in their place. -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, my involvement/edits were in response to, who has the burden (I should of just said "burden" and not linked to WP:BURDEN in this instance) of consensus and the edit warring, not the challenged information/edit of the IP. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: When a discussion has started, it's generally not a good idea to edit-war the tag on "very common" back in, but perhaps to find a compromise and copyedit that sentence into something everyone can agree with. Perhaps "Dachas are commonly found in Russia" or something similar? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile User:JesseRafe has once again reverted on Grace O'Malley, blatantly lying in the edit summary ("nor any explanation given why this CN is unneeded here", when in fact I explained it in the edit summary, elaborated on the talk page, cited the MOS, the only other editor to join the discussion agrees with me, and yet JesseRafe insists on edit-warring while declaring that I'm here only to edit-war. There doesn't seem to be any point in re-removing the unnecessary tag, because he'll just revert it immediately. He doesn't seem to give a d***n about the MOS. Please, someone have a word with him, get him to stop edit-warring and participate in discussion if he has some point to make? -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This is probably the SIXTH time I've asked to stop tagging me every single time you rail about some imagined slight on you I've made. All my edits are reasoned out and per the MOS. You are being hysterical in addition to clearly lying/misrepresenting the case, ignoring the BRD convention, and, yes, clearly, edit-warring. Your arguments can't be serious, 25% is "very common"? No, that needs to be quantified or removed, because that's clearly uncommon. 1,000 head of cattle is already cited? No, it isn't even mentioned elsewhere. We don't need to mention when a politician made a statement? Really? Etc, etc. etc. You do have an MO as a disruptive editor, because you are targeting tags that other editors use to determine what more work needs to be done to make the encyclopedia better. JesseRafe (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RE cattle. Yes it is and it took me less than 10 seconds to find it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot NG - tools.wmflabs.org/cluebot/?page=View&id=3088676 is 404

https://tools.wmflabs.org/cluebot/?page=View&id=3088676 is 404. 86.156.63.33 (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this, but administrators can't do anything about it. I'm honestly not sure where the proper place to report this is, but I can post a note at User talk:ClueBot Commons. Hopefully, someone who knows what they're doing will see it there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG says: Non-administrators can report a malfunctioning bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 86.156.63.33 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If it was running amok and damaging the encyclopaedia, yes, we would block it to protect the encyclopaedia but in this case, it appears to be linking to a defunct page so no use needed of admin tools and we would refer to people with the technical knowledge to fix this. Thank you for flagging it up. 🙂 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 21

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

---

Could someone fix the malformed template for Constituents of tobacco smoke? (I have tried but templates are not my thing) TY Bosley John Bosley (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it was  Already done. [78] Regards SoWhy 18:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed it, but was then called away, and didn't get around to reporting it here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Sagecandor

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

---

Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sagecandor has recently been involved with disputes on a number of pages involving ownership issues, and edit warring/battleground mentality. Other recent behavior at Talk:Whataboutism seems to also follow this trend that he was warned about by JFG. As a result of the recent AfD on Elijah Daniel they added a bunch of citations to the article, which several editors thought gave it a promotional tone. Anytime an editor has attempted to edit the article to trim it down, Sagecandor has reverted. On 19 July he violated the 3RR on the article (see diffs in my warning). I did not go to ANEW because he hadn't been warned and he agreed to self-revert. Today he reverted twice to restore disputed content [79], [80], and when requested to restore to the trimmed down version to discuss if anything should be restored, he has not done so, even after being given the specifics of why I agreed with each removal and requested that he take to talk to seek consensus per WP:ONUS.

This is in addition to his battleground behavior and Wikihounding with editors who disagreed with him at the AfD (see my talk archives, what appears to be hounding of Anmccaff by going around to articles he has written and adding citation needed tags [81], [82], [83]). Following me to AfDs that I have started immediately after this current dispute (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintessential Capital Management, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overtourism). By looking at this AfD stats after the Elijah Daniels AfD, this also seems to be the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson T700, an area he has not edited before this, but where GammaRadiator made the nomination had also !voted to delete Elijah Daniels. This comment at WT:CSD also follows this pattern of following my edits, because I was currently in the extended user talk conversation with them while I was commented there. These all show an editor who is not working collaboratively with others and views disagreements on content policies as personal attacks to be retaliated against. Because of all these issues, I thought that it should be brought to the community's attention. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm happy and willing to discuss content issues on article talk pages. I've recently brought disputes myself to RFPP [84], RSN [85], and RFC [86]. I've gladly deferred to community consensus when consensus was against me from past RFCs [87]. I've self-reverted at DIFF. The issue at Talk:Whataboutism is being discussed via the Request for Comment process [88]. Prior to that, comments from Binksternet [89] and SPECIFICO [90] supported my research of finding the source, Oxford English Dictionary as a source for the article Whataboutism. I strongly believe in the Wikipedia community processes of WP:RFC and WP:RFPP and WP:RSN, I've submitted myself to those processes in the past, and will do so in the future — even and especially when consensus is against my prior positions. Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The three diffs supposedly showing Sagecandor hounding Anmccaff instead show Anmccaff retaliating against Sagecandor with warning templates. Zeroing in on one of the cases, I looked at Anmccaff's stub article about Battery Harris and to me it looks like its text should be made part of the article on coastal artillery, with a new section written about what was being done in the 1920s to address the threat posed by enemy aircraft. At that article, Sagecandor performed appropriate cleanup, added three fact tags (when one would have been sufficient), and removed an unreliable source. If Sagecandor is hounding Anmccaff there should be some better diffs put forward to prove the case. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I don't think "retaliating" is an appropriate description for warning someone that you think their edit is disruptive or vandalistic, although I'd agree that the diffs above should have been a couple back, or perhaps a range. When someone shows up, suddenly, on a bunch of pages they probably have never looked at before, all connected by another person....well, that may be circumstantial evidence, but so is a trout in the milk can.

I'd also differ, strongly, that he removed an unreliable source; he did so based solely on the appearance of the site's name, and a misinterpretation of WP:CIRC ...but that is something for elsewhere, at least for now. There's a discussion on RSN. I'd agree the Battery Harris piece could be incorporated into the main CA article, but, again, that's not for here. An admin Sagecandor canvassed (IMO) about one of the reverts I'd made has promised to look into it after returning from vacation at month's end; I'd be perfectly happy to leave it until then. Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet:With regards to that particular issue, I myself brought the matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, where I received valuable feedback in detailed anlayses from Slatersteven, Location, Hijiri88, GoneIn60, and Objective3000. [91]. And yet, even if consensus had gone against me, and especially so, I would defer to community consensus from that article content issue. Sagecandor (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've started a Request for Comment myself at Talk:Elijah Daniel at DIFF. I'll gladly defer to community consensus from that outcome. Sagecandor (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In reply to Biksternets comment: The concern is with following editors who disagreed with him in the Elijah Daniels AfD around to articles or pages that they have worked on or commented on. Anmccaff !voted on 18 July. The removal of content on articles that Anmccaff was involved in happened in quick succession 5 minutes after this comment from Anmccaff regarding Elijah Daniel (the comment wasn't very nice, but the timing shows it was likely the trigger for the issues on the articles.) The content issues Sage might have been right on, but the behavior when taken together with how he has handled any criticism of Daniel suggests that it was retaliatory. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet and TonyBallioni:I regret if my actions were seen as retaliatory, that was not my intent. I brought the issue to wider community attention to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, and I'll respectfully defer to community action there [92]. As a sign of good faith and to avoid the appearance of any impropriety, I've removed some of my comments at two AFDs at DIFF and DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My concern was less over the opinions or content actions but rather that it looks like you followed me to three conversations while we were in the middle of a dispute about an article (WT:CSD, and the two AfDs), went to three articles edited by Anmccaff five minutes after they had made a negative comment about the Daniel article and then removed or tagged content on those three articles in a one minute time frame, and continued to dispute with them on those articles after that, and that of the two AfDs that weren't mine you commented on after the Daniel AfD, one was by GR, who was the first delete !vote on that article. I do appreciate that you make new articles, but going around and following people who disagree with you and disagreeing with them is not a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and I plan to step back and focus on creating new articles. Sagecandor (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor almost exclusively edits pages related to book on Donald Trump and their authors, and I think it's clear that he has a bias in this area. I filed a complaint at ANI against him approximately 1 month ago [93] regarding his behavior on Malcolm Nance and his edits continue to be both single-purpose and with a clear intent to manufacture notability. I have recently warned Sagecandor several times regarding his battleground behavior and his appearance of bias. [94] [95] He has been extremely involved on the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination), having notified about 25 WikiProjects regarding the AfD (e.g. [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]) and literally begging to keep the article [101]. I note that most of his time spent on the article was ‘’after’’ it was nominated at AfD, and was adding trivial details to the article. I would like to informally propose a TBAN for Sagecandor regarding Donald Trump. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Yes, I have an interest in the topic of Donald Trump. I've created both new articles on books written by Trump himself, and new articles on books critical of Trump. Examples include Why We Want You to Be Rich, by Trump, and The Case for Impeachment, critical of Trump. I'm dedicated to submitting my work to review from the Wikipedia community by multiple stages of review including Request for Comment. The prior ANI was closed at [102]. Sagecandor (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Coupla comments. Seems to be mighty slim evidence for such a wide TBAN. In the Battery_Harris article, the discussion at RSN appears to be heavily favoring Sagecandor’s position. As for spending time adding to an article after it is nominated for AfD; I don’t find it unsurprising that an editor would save an article via improvement. Looks like grabbing at everything to build a case against someone. Objective3000 (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My main concern is his excessive escalation of every editing dispute he has. He has filed two RfCs (on Whataboutism and Elijah Daniel) in the past day, and notified 10 WikiProjects of each, many of which only have minor connections to the subject at hand. Overall, when an editor disagrees with him, he repeatedly calls in more and more people, rather than engaging in civil discussion. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not "escalation" to seek broader editor participation building consensus. "Escalation" is taking a content dispute to ANI under the pretext that there's a behavioral problem. Do you mean to suggest there's a policy or behavioral guideline against using the noticeboards and RfC's to resolve content disputes? That's what it sounds like, am I mistaken? SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me as if there was heavy discussion on both sides in the mentioned articles. RfCs are designed to bring in more people to help resolve such disputes. Objective3000 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just for the record if anyone's confused about where they went, I've removed the claims mentioned above about the Oxford English Dictionary from the Whataboutism article as they're demonstrably false (the actual OED has no entry for "Whataboutism" and never has done). The website being cited has nothing to do with the OED other than also being run by the Oxford University Press (and hence having "Oxford" in the name, which I assume is what caused the confusion.) ‑ Iridescent 19:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I thank Iridescent for the clarification and it appears Nightscream had previously redirected Oxford Living Dictionary to Oxford English Dictionary. The page there for whataboutism is from Oxford Living Dictionary, whose About Page about the site says it is part of Oxford Dictionaries. Sagecandor (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Oxford Dictionaries, of which the OED is not part. The OUP's own explanation of the difference between the OED and Oxford Dictionaries is here, should you really care. ‑ Iridescent 20:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Iridescent:I do really care, and thank you very much for your helpful link !!! Sagecandor (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Now you're telling us that a "warning" from @JFG: is coin of the realm? This complaint is not documented by anything remotely passing the tests of evidence. I suggest you withdraw and get back to work. Sagecandor is highly industrious so it's no surprise some of his edits displease other editors. That has nothing to do with the alleged misbehaviour. There is no misbehaviour no incivility even and nothing resembling Battleground edits. Sagecandor even thanks editors even while engaged in a disagreement. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Hi all, I'm sorry that our wires crossed. Editing in these topics has been stressful and I'm planning to move on to quieter venues as soon as the current AfDs and RFCs close. I thought that the RfCs would be the best way to bring in new voices, but if there are better ways, I'm all ears. In any event, don't want to drag this out. Sagecandor (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sagecandor, thanks for the comment, and I am glad that we are discussing at the talk page: I'm not much of an ANI regular, and I absolutely hate filing reports here. I'm not trying to have you sanctioned, and I am glad that we are having more substantial conversation on the talk page. In regards to your edit above, I read it as saying that you did follow the three of us to different areas of Wikipedia. This was actually the most concerning part of this ANI for me, and I want to make sure that it doesn't happen again because that discourages others from taking place in our project space discussions. I don't want to drag this out, nor do I want an apology, but if this is what you did, I would like for you to acknowledge it (which you may have already) and agree not to follow others around in the future when you have disagreements with them. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni:Agreed that it's not a good thing, agreed to avoid any appearance of that in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Range block needed

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

---

Looking for an admin who's able to perform range blocks, as we need one on "94.102.184.xx". You can view the ones that I tagged in the past days right here. I'd describe the level of disruption as being pretty nuts, given that he, the sockmaster, "Roman Sakhan", is using IPs from this range every single day in order to disrupt this place. Thanks in advance - LouisAragon (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon - I don't see any contributions by this range since July 20, and that was only one edit. It looks like I start to see numerous edits as recent as July 19th. Is there any current ongoing disruption by this IP range that's occurring right now? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah:, well, if you're really talking about right now in the very sense of the word ("22 July 2017") then yes, you are very much correct in your assessment. However, it all doesn't neglect the point that he's pretty damn disruptive, and could basically be at it again in a few hours. I decided to raise the matter here in order to deal with it accordingly, because I had to deal with so many of his IPs in the past few days and weeks (reverting/tagging), and also because I just happened to find another one his IPs (whose edit dates to July 20). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks to be all caused by the same user, and I don't see any collateral damage upon doing so. I'll start with a week-long range block and then we can evaluate and go from there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon - You bet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Jojhnjoy and IDHT

User:Jojhnjoy has been ignoring consensus and edit warring over formatting changes to articles about German cars, in order to supposedly match German style, and follow some crackpot version of SI units. Specifically, changing engine speed values from rpm to min-1 or /min, omitting the word "revolutions". Other deviations from MOS:UNITS and WP:CARUNITS include replacing cc with cm³ (cm<sup>3</sup>), and removing the commas from numbers. Data given by sources in hp, bhp, or kW is changed to PS, as if that's "more German", even though PS was officially obsolete in 1972. Examples: [103][104][105][106][107] This kind of thing is not an urgent problem, but over time one should expect WikiGnomes to eventually come along and fix it, changing cm³ to cc, adding commas in numbers, and using rpm, not min^-1 or /min. One should not revert editors who are making small tweaks that bring an article closer to the MOS and WP:AUTOCONV.

An intractable discussion ensued with User:1292simon at Talk:BMW 5 Series (E28), which was carried over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#rpm or min-1?. The editors at the Automobile Project were unanimous in this: MOS:UNITS says we prefer rpm, and we should prefer typical English language number formatting and abbreviations. Extensive reasons for why we should use consistent, recognizable formatting and units were discussed, as well as the harm that these units could mislead some readers. Jojhnjoy made absolutely clear he would not listen to consensus, no matter if seven, eight, nine or more editors all told him he was wrong. He swears MOS:UNITS says the opposite of what it says, ignores one editor after another who tell him he is misreading it.

I requested admin closure of this discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, because even though it was not a formal RfC, the completely one-sided consensus, and the fact that Jojhnjoy was adamant that he wouldn't stop, made me think that if an Admin officially declared the blatantly obvious outcome, per WP:SNOW, Jojhnjoy might relent. Admin User:Deryck Chan declined my request because the discussion had not been properly set up for closure, and told to me come here to AN/I instead. Fair enough.

Jojhnjoy went back to reverting today, on the false grounds that my formatting changes intruded factual errors. The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source. Even if Jojhnjoy's accusation is correct, he should have only fixed any data errors, and not reverted all of formatting which he knows is supported by very strong consensus.

Rather than begin again with a formal RfC where the same 8 editors are forced come back and !vote all over again that Jojhnjoy is quite wrong about MOS:UNITS, I took Deryck Chan's suggestion and came here to request a block of Jojhnjoy.

This is not an isolated case. A similar pattern is apparent at Template talk:Convert#Kilopondmetres per second, where User:Kendall-K1 warned others against engaging, pointing to Template_talk:Convert/Archive_May_2017#Kilopondmetre where several editors commented on Jojhnjoy's inability to drop the stick, WP:POINT and above all WP:IDHT.

The most succinct way to put it is that Jojhnjoy does not recognize that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where one must at some point drop the stick when consensus is overwhelming. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is a simple reason for my recent revert: Dennis Bratland added false information to the BMW E12 article. The BMW E12 is a German vehicle from the 1970s. Back in that period, technical units were used and to have accurate information in the article, these technical units given in the sources are essential. That's why I added them. Dennis Bratland changed these figures, for instance, he changed the torque figure 14.5 kp·m to 143 N·m. (He did it with all torque figures for the German models in that arcticle.) That is wrong, the source 12, page 89 and 90 which the torque information is based on, doesn't match Dennis' edit. Since he claims that he checked the source carefully, I cannot assume good faith anymore. I wrote in the edit summary: Please refrain from distorting valid information. The sources don't match your edits. If you need an explanation, feel free to ask. I also offer help with German sources on my user page: If you need help with anything from Germany or Austria, especially vehicles, engines or sources in German, feel free to ping me on the corresponding talk page. Dennis neither asked for my help nor left a note on the talk page of the article. The only thing left I can assume here is that he wants to add false information on purpose.

• Apparently, Dennis Bratland seems to dislike some units. For instance, he considers min⁻¹ nonsense (also here), ignoring all arugments and sticks to cc even though he knows that cc must not be used, in discussions we head he read the SI brochure (and that's why I guess that knows about that): It is not permissible to use abbreviations for unit symbols or unit names, such as (...) cc (for either cm³ or cubic centimetre) (...). The use of the correct symbols for SI units, and for units in general, as listed in earlier chapters of this Brochure, is mandatory. In this way ambiguities and is understandings in thevalues of quantities are avoided. This is strong evidence that using cm³ makes articles easier to understand. For me it hardly appears that he really wants to improve intelligibility anymore.

• Above, Dennis wrote: Data given by sources in hp, bhp, or kW is changed to PS, as if that's "more German", even though PS was officially obsolete in 1972. This is just wrong in several ways. 1. I always stick to the data given by sources, however, I work on articles on German historical vehicles mostly (I even mention this on my user page) and therefore the sources I use (which are in German) usually give data in PS. German sources never give data in bhp or hp. I cannot change something that was never written in the sources. 2. I just use the original data given by the source and put that into the Template:Convert as explained. When sources give information in kW or hp, I use them instead of PS. Claiming I would prefer PS over other units is just wrong, since I prefer the most accurate data. 3. Even if Dennis Bratland does not know that technical units were the official units by law until 1978, he should look that up before claiming something which is wrong. I even explained that several times, he should be able to check this. But he does not. Instead he claims "PS was officially obsolete in 1972". That is not true: Bundesgesetzblatt, April 13, 1973: Bis 31. Dezember 1977 dürfen außer den gesetzlichen Maßeinheiten noch folgende Maßeinheiten verwendet werden: (...) d) das Kilopondmeter (kpm) (...) f) das Kilopondmeter je Sekunde (kpm/s oder kpm·s⁻¹) = 9,80665 Watt; g) die Pferdestärke (PS) = 75 Kilopondmeter je Sekunde = 735,49875 Watt.(...) In English: "Until December 31, 1977 the following units may be used besides statutory units." 4. Dennis Bratland gave five examples ([108][109][110][111][112]) which he claims would prove that I change the data given by the sources to PS. The first example is the Porsche Carrera GT. Someone confused PS with hp and I corrected wrong information. The second example is the BMW E12. The source actually gives data in PS in that case. The third example is the Mercedes-Benz L3000. I did not change any data since there was none, I added data which again is given by the sources in PS. Fourth example: Volkswagen Typ 3. Again, I did not change any data since there was none, I added data which again is given by the sources in PS. Fifth example: The BMW E28. The sources give data in kW. And I used kW.

• Yes, I did not use commata in some cases. That is a bad habit though and I don't forget commata on purpose. As far as I know, for four-digit numbers, commata are not necessary. And as you can see here, I try using dots and commata correctly. I also use min-1 or /min since there is nothing wrong with them. We had an endless discussion about that, let me sum up my key points: The sources use minutes, some technical and scientific literature does, minutes are understood by everyone, according to SI, frequency may be displayed in base units (s-1) and minutes may be used with SI which makes min-1 totally acceptable. Also, min-1 and /min are the same. When sources give frequency in rpm, there is nothing wrong with using that. However, in this case the sources do not and changing something which is not wrong to something Dennis prefers does not add anything useful to an article. Since I consider ignoring useful changes to an article bad, I re-added some of Dennis' contribution.

• Also, in earlier discussions I said that MOS:UNITS does not mention rpm for rotational frequency. Dennis wrote: He swears MOS:UNITS says the opposite of what it says, ignores one editor after another who tell him he is misreading it. Now it is very easy to claim that I am misreading it since it was changed in the meantime. Before, it said nothing about rotational frequency and still there is no rule that prohibits displaying rotational frequency using time units.

• The problem in general here could be described as a nescire ad non esse: If I don't know something, it does not exist. I suggested that the Kilopondmetre would be added to the Template:Convert. In the discussion, several other authors did not seem to understand it and ignored easy mathematical and physical principles completely. For instance, that kp·m and m·kp are mathematically the same, (2 × 3 and 3 × 2 equals 6 always) and that force is not mass, (you cannot say this car has a mass of 1000 metres or 1000 seconds or 1000 Newtons. It must be 1000 kilograms.)

• Dennis Bratland should not assume that I don't recognize that this is a collaborative project. The consensus might be overwhelming in this case. But does ignoring physical principles, valid sources and inventing facts and rules to create a killer arugment help the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia? This project has approximately 120,000 active users. Ten of them don't like minutes for frequency. I accept personal opinions. But I don't accept that Dennis Bratlands wants me to get blocked from editing just because I don't agree with his personal opinion.

• I definitely don't want to harm the Wikipedia and you could possibly tell that since I created a lot of articles, some are even 1:1 translations of German Good Articles. I am also a so-called mentor for new users in the German Wikipedia. I hope that I pointed out well enough why Dennis' accusations are unfounded. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles seems clear that RPM is preferred over min⁻¹, and yet here [113] we have an edit by Jojhnjoy that was made after that consensus was reached and that goes against consensus. There appear to have been more than adequate warnings made. I also find it troubling that two different users have asked Jojhnjoy to stay off their talk pages: User talk:Jojhnjoy#Off my talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Dennis Bratland said he read the source carefully (The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source). Reading the source carefully means that you check the technical data section. Therefore I assume that he knows that the information he added is false. I don't want to accuse Dennis of vandalism, but you could hardly say that adding false information after checking the sources carefully was not on purpose. Kendall-K1, this is the aspect you completely ignore. Now tell me, what would you choose? Reverting this edit, even though ten authors think minutes should not be used though they are not wrong or leaving wrong information in the article? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC) This is about disruptive editing, not a content dispute. I don't care if you want to change one of the statistics of one car from 125 to 130 or whatever. If your edit had changed only {{cvt|125|kW}} to {{cvt|130|kW}}, you would be well justified by the bold, revert, discuss cycle that we use to build this encyclopedia. But you made a wholesale revert using this 125 vs 130 quibble as an excuse to return to your pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style Power at 1/min 70 PS (130 kW) at 5800 Torque at 1/min 23.8 kp·m (233.5 N·m) at 4000", for the entire table. A dozen 8 other editors wasted an appalling amount of time trying to make you accept the fact that consensus is that this contradicts the MOS, and it's considered harmful, and that zero editors agree that there is any benefit whatsoever to this incongruous formatting. That is why we are here. That is what this is about. Nobody else wants to hear you go on and on about 125 vs 130 kW. You have gone on the attack with snide edit summaries like "Please refrain from distorting valid information." Followed on this page with "I cannot assume good faith anymore" and "Dennis neither asked for my help nor left a note on the talk page of the article. The only thing left I can assume here is that he wants to add false information on purpose." These statements are hostile, violate the AGF and civility policies, and express an absolute disregard for the unanimous chorus of other editors, many of them engineers, many in the automotive field, and all skilled Wikipedia editors, who have said 'no, Jojhnjoy, you are the one who has got it wrong.' Maybe I did get a fact wrong (I admit to doing so all the time) but don't attack me. Convince all those other editors. Or realize you tried to convince them all, and failed spectacularly, and must now stop (or give Wikipedia:Dispute resolution a try). And then you follow that with another snide, arrogant attack, now targeting 1292simon, "Since you obviously need help...". You dismiss editors who maintain Template:Convert, "several other authors did not seem to understand it". If you're right that every single other editor at Wikipedia is a stubborn ignoramus, then what possible good can you do here? If you are utterly unwilling to even consider that the real problem might be your attitude, then what can you accomplish here? Jojhnjoy should be blocked from editing for disruptive editing, specifically WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Nothing anyone says gets through to this guy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC) There is no excuse for adding false information to an article on purpose. If you don't care about the sources, I cannot help you but tell you that I consider such editing behaviour disruptive. Desperately trying to create a reason to get me blocked from editing does not help. I dislike your word choice "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style" for something which is completely common and even used in the article's source. In my opinion, it just expresses that you don't want it since you dislike it. Reverting an edit that contains false information added on purpose completely is acceptable. The comment in the edit summary is neither a snide comment nor an attack. "Please" and a "help-offer" should indicate it. My edit summary was meant to be firm with you but still polite. Maybe you could help me: When you add false information on purpose to trigger a revert you could abuse to start this discussion in which you want me to get blocked from editing, what should I assume? Good faith? Please excuse me, but I don't think so and I guess that this could be comprehenisble to other authors. 1292simon just reverted my edit even though I pointed out that the information you added was false. That leaves me two options. Either, he ignores the sources or doesn't understand them. Assuming good faith would mean assuming that he doesn't understand them. Therefore I decided to explain it. Ignoring physics means that one does not understand. Otherwise I cannot explain it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I did not "add false information on purpose". The source said 125 kW. I wrote "125 kW". Simple. And even if I did deliberately change 130 to 125 for no good reason, even if I'm a terrible person, a vandal who hates truth and only edits Wikipedia because I'm evil at heart, so what? I'm only one person. Surely you've dealt with vandals before. How can I, a lone "vandal" vex you so? Just revert me 3 times, report me to the WP:AIV noticeboard, and get me blocked. Simple. The reason that is absurd is that I'm not one terrible editor. Every single other editor who has looked at this issue has told you you are wrong. That's what this is about. Deal with that problem, and stop worrying about how diabolical my intentions are. You ask this question: "does ignoring physical principles, valid sources and inventing facts and rules to create a killer argument help the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia?" The answer is found at WP:TRUTH. You believe with all your heart that you are right. We get that. What if a crazy person who believes 2+2=3 behaved as you behave? How would Wikipedia solve that? If eight editors tell him that 2+2=4, and he still believes that he alone knows the TRUTH, what then? If he is willing to back down and bow to consensus, and then either go edit some other topic not involving adding two and two, or else patiently bide his time while methodically following the steps at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, then even an editor who believes 2+2=3 can remain in good standing. Or turn it around. Let's say you're the only editor who knows 2+2=4, and evil Dennis Bratland, and everybody else says 2+2=3. What can you do? If you persist in disruptive editing, Dennis and all the other lunatics will get you blocked from editing. Evil wins. But if you admit that at the moment, consensus is 2+2=3, then you get to edit another day. You can use the process to seek other opinions, and eventually convince ONE editor that 2+2=4. Or, to drop the metaphor, convince one editor that you're right about how we should use SI units. Convincing only one editor isn't enough, but it's a start. Way better than you're doing now. If you still, even after all this, still sit here and won't admit that you have failed to gain consensus, and admit you must drop the stick until you have, patiently, taken the next step at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, and instead you keep attacking me (i.e. WP:NOTTHEM), then I can't see how you won't be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Let's check the source, page 89 and 90. For understanding, it is important to know that technical units were the official units until 1978 and the conversion made by BMW is wrong. I already mentioned that before. Source information: 528: 165 DIN-PS // 23.8 mkp 525: 155 DIN-PS // 21.5 mkp 520i 130 DIN-PS // 18.1 mkp 520: 115 DIN-PS // 16.5 mkp 518: 90 DIN-PS // 14.5 mkp Let's see what I wrote in the article: (I had to convert this manually since the template:convert lacks a function to convert kilopondmetres to other units) 528: 165 PS // 23.8 kp·m (233.5 N·m) 525: 155 PS // 21.5 kp·m (211 N·m) 520i 130 PS // 18.1 kp·m (177.5 N·m) 520: 115 PS // 16.5 kp·m (162 N·m) 518: 90 PS // 14.5 kp·m (142 N·m) And now Dennis' edit: The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source. — Dennis Bratland 528: 238 N·m 525: 215 N·m 520i 181 N·m 520: 165 N·m Also worth mentioning is that you changed 115 PS to 85 kW which makes the template display 114 hp. However, 115 PS rather equal 113 hp. 518: 143 N·m. I withdraw the accusation that you added false information on purpose. Though, then it means that you don't understand the source, possibly because of → a nescire ad non esse. If you need an explanation, feel free to ask. You did not ask yet. I even offered help on the according talk page. Instead, you consider it a snide, arrogant attack. You accused me of something and want me to get blocked because of that. You commented three times on this page and three times you desperately mention that I should get blocked from editing. In my inital comment on this entire thing I explained why your accusations are unfounded in fact. Since you did not try to explain that any further, I don't see a reason why I should get blocked from editing. I also understand that your "dozen authors" were a metaphorical figure. Note, ″evil Dennis Bratland″, I don't hold any grudge. I suppose we should correct the wrong figures in the BMW E12 article and ask more users about the displacement and rotational frequency using WP:RFC. Also, I guess we now have a good reason for adding the kilopondmetre to the template:convert. I suggest that we both refrain from changing rotational frequency and displacement in each others articles and let more users comment on the question whether common German figures should be used for German vehicles or not. In conclusion I hope that you would withdraw your proposal that I shoud get blocked from editing and that you mark this incident as solved. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I've wrapped the last part of this in {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} because this is far too long a thread for anyone at AN/I to read. Please reply above {{Collapse bottom}}. I know English isn't your native language, but from what I can tell, you are quite fluent. Yet you seem ignore what is said to you over and over. I keep saying I don't care if you change the data, yet you keep repeating your arguments for why the this or that statistic should be be changed. Change it! Let's try this. Please answer the following questions, only with a yes or no answer. Below your answers, you may write several paragraphs of rhetoric if you wish, but please begin with only yes/no answers. If you think the question is unfair, a false dilemma, or whatever kind of fallacy, then by all means, answer "unfair" instead of "yes" or "no". But that's it. Yes, no, or unfair. Do you agree that a dispute over 125 kW (170 PS; 168 hp) vs 121 kW (165 PS; 162 hp) is a content dispute? Do you agree that I don't object to you changing 121 kW to 125 kW? Do you agree I don't object to you changing 238 N⋅m (176 lbf⋅ft) to 233.5 N⋅m (172.2 lbf⋅ft)? Or even 233.5 N⋅m (23.81 kg⋅m; 172.2 lb⋅ft)? Do you agree that I wouldn't even object to skipping {{Convert}}, and just doing the conversion by hand, writing 233.5 N·m (23.8 kp·m) @ 4,000 rpm? Because it's the formatting, not the data, that we are taking issue with? Does that explain why I pay no attention to your offers to "help"? Do you think Trekphiler, 1292simon, or I, or any participant in this dispute, would have a strong objection to you changing the data in BMW 5 Series (E12), as long as you kept the typical format xxx kW (xxx hp) @ 5,800 rpm xxx N·m (xxx lbf·ft) @ 4,000 rpm? Do you agree that this AN/I discussion is not a content dispute? If I am the one guilty of bringing a content dispute to AN/I, i.e. the wrong forum, shouldn't you argue only that I'm guilty using the wrong forum, but not argue about the content itself? Do you agree that WP:Disruptive editing is not about content, it is about editor behavior? Do you know what I am referring to when I repeatedly use IDHT, or point to WP:IDHT? Do you know why your suggestion to add kilopondmetre to {{Convert}} was rejected/ignored at least twice, and no participant voiced support for adding it? Do you understand what the editors in these diffs were saying? [114][115][116]? Do you agree that they were telling you that you are not listening at all? If you do not have "links to articles in which this conversion is used, the output is unclear, and a change to the template would make the output more clear", are you justified in returning to Template talk:Convert and asking, again, to add kilopondmetre? Do you agree that your arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, Talk:BMW 5 Series (E12), and Template talk:Convert, regardless of whether or not they were true, were totally unsuccessful? If a new editor has posted a dozen or more times, writing hundreds of words, yet won no support at all, would you, as a mentor, advise them to keep reverting and keep arguing, simply because they believe they're right? Or would you advise this editor stop, and to try something else, such as the options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE? If there were an RfC resulting in a change to WP:UNITS that said we should use min-1 or /min instead of rpm on German-related topics, do you think I should accept it, even if I disagree? Have my comments so far told you that I would follow the MOS, even if I believe I'm right? After all this, do you intend to keep posting links to sources about PS, SI units, DIN standards, and BMW 528 cars? Or will you focus instead on the behavior problem you are accused of, "Failure or refusal to "get the point"? Can you recall any time in the past when you believed you were right, but later realized you were not? Do you wish you had handled that situation differently? Do you think those times when you were in error are all in the past, and will never occur again? I know these questions are hectoring, but I've tried everything else. Several others have tried everything else. Why not try this? Answer these yes or no (or unfair) questions, and see if that gets us anywhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Well, thank you for saying I am quite fluent. Off-topic question: Would you agree that my level of English is near-native? 1. Yes, I know what a content dispute is. Germanic languages have compound words 2. Yes, I am aware and that disappoints me to be honest since you should object to anyone changing information based on sources to something the sources don't cover. 3. Yes, you technically repeat the second question. Though I would want say that we should display the original information given in the source to avoid confusion. Therefore I would choose neither 238 N⋅m (176 lbf⋅ft) nor 235.8 N⋅m (173.9 lbf⋅ft) but 23.8 kp·m and 90 PS (66 kW). 4. Yes of course. 5. No, it does not since you apparently ignore valid information in favour of formatting. Something I don't support. Correct information with bad formatting is better than well formatted false information. 6. No, I don't think that correcting wrong information would result in any objection. That's why I don't understand that you re-added false information even though you said you would have checked the source carefully. 7. Yes of course I know this is page not meant for laying out content disputes. But why do you do it then?. 8. Unfair question. You were the one who told me not to fork discussions away from other participants. What would you have said if I would not have said anything here? Don't you think that not replying would have increased the chance that my account would have been blocked from editing? Don't you think that I have the right to say something to your accusations? 9. Yes, of course I am aware. However, which rule is more important? WP:NOR or WP:IDHT? 10. Yes, actually I can read. I am a mentor for new users in the German Wikipedia and therefore know the German rules quite well. The rules here differ, something I would consider a big point is WP:NOR. In the German Wikipedia, nobody would object to edits such as these since refraining from false information saves this project and has a higher value than formatting. 11. No. Honestly not. There are several good reasons for adding it but I assume the problem is a nescire ad non esse. If I don't something, it does not exist. And the objection to physical principles is something that made me abandon the adding-attempt. 12. Yes, I understand what they are saying though they don't seem to understand my point. The problem is that the kilopondmetre is not really in use though it is necessary. A lot of sources provide a wrong conversion, for instance, this one. To ensure that articles contain correct information, it is mandatory to have the source information in the article and converting that to Newtonmetres. I cannot provide links to articles for that. 13. Yes of course, they were not understanding though. It's like telling "every German source has min−1" and getting a reply "I never heard of this nonsense". The reply doesn't make the statement unproved and therefore I ignore it. 14. Unfair question, see 12. Also, kp·m·s−1 ≠ kp·m 15. Yes, the problem is: a nescire ad non esse. 16. Yes, if they have good reasons, of course. See WP:IGNORE. But keep in mind: I am not a new user. 17. No, I would not since I believe that someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources has a right to add and improve content. Even if it is against a popular opinion of several other authors. I support authors with unconventional valid arugments and sources to give them a lobby. 18. Yes of course. And even if this would result in rpm, I would accept it. Currently though, we lack a rule since it has never been an issue. Usually, native speakers of Germanic languages know English on a high level; though this level is usually not sufficient for contributing to the English Wikipedia. Trust me, 95 % of native German speakers are uncapable of contributing to the German Wikipedia since they don't know their own language well enough. Though they could read and understand both English and German language articles. Maybe I am the first one who is able to mention that min−1 is common and that's why it hasn't been an issue for so long. 19. This is not a yes-or-no-question. 20. Unfair question. I will keep posting links to the evidence that prove that the information I add is valid and based on a reliable source. 21. Unfair question. An accuse doesn't require any change in behaviour. 22. Yes of course, everbody can. 23. Depends on what you mean. Since some of your prior questions were based on each other, I assume this question is based on 22. Answer: Depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 24. No, of course not. I do not possess divination powers. Do you? I hope that my answers help you but to be honest, do you still wish that I get blocked from editing? Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Sorry for all the badgering. Like I said, I thought it was time to try a different approach. Your answers speak for themselves, so I won't try to pick them apart an further. To answer your first question, it's unlikely a native speaker would make the mistake of thinking #19 "Have my comments so far told you that I would follow the MOS, even if I believe I'm right?" is not a yes-or-no question. I think the subordinate clause at the end threw you. There are numerous other examples. Still, quite fluent. Perhaps you're a native English speaker putting on a fake persona. Who cares? Behavior is what matters. To answer your last question, yes, I think an indef block is required, and it is because of your repeated play-acting that you don't understand what is said to you. Even beyond the actual misunderstandings, the evidence is compelling that you are misconstruing others' words in bad faith. You first show you got it, then later pretend you don't got it. You're messing with people. And your repeated affirmations that you won't used any of the usual dispute resolution tools, and instead will keep up what you've done, reverting when you know consensus is against you, and these overlong debates where you reject every single word others say, and don't understand the need to compromise and accede consensus, even when you know consensus is "wrong". Topics lke Abortion or Global warming or Art are battlegrounds with editors who are utterly committed to their incompatible beliefs. The ones who agree to put that aside and go along with consensus until they are able to get consensus to change are still here. The ones, like you, who think believing you're right is enough to ignore consensus have been blocked, and will go on being blocked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Topic ban We all have better things to do than to repeatedly shout down Johnjoy's unlistening ear over this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban – But what topic? Anything related to rpm? Cars? Units? The big problem here is that it's impossible to have a discussion with Jojhnjoy. I don't know how to fix that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Warning and perhaps topic ban While this is an editors who doesn't get it I don't think he means to be acting in bad faith. I would suggest a stern warning and maybe a short topic ban if the user doesn't agree to drop it. I think this is generally an editor who is working good faith but simply isn't listening to the group consensus. The topic bad would be adding/changing unit types on any article. Springee (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to shout down my unlistening ear over this since I already said I would refrain from changing rpm to /min. If you would read and understand the first sencentence on my user page you would possibly notice that a topic ban would equal a complete ban in this case. Also, User:Kendall-K1, I don't remember that you ever tried discussing with me. You once asked a question and since the answer was not what you expected you immediately resigned. I don't understand how you would even want to judge me. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Indef block. I have evidence in the form of diffs to support a block. Jojhnjoy is unrepentant, and his intellectual dishonesty continues right up to his last post above. Accusing Kendall-K1 of being unwilling to discuss is dishonest, and the discussion at Talk:Convert shows several others were very patient and indulgent with Jojhnjoy, and he didn't listen to a word. Kendall-K1 had no duty to keep up the charade. Anyone who has read the entire discussion at the Autos Project, and the above comments, has no need for me to walk you through it as I do below. This reply to my questions above says it all: "would you advise this editor stop, and to try something else, such as the options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE?"

  Jojhnjoy: "No, I would not since I believe that someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources has a right to add and improve content. Even if it is against a popular opinion of several other authors. I support authors with unconventional valid arugments and sources to give them a lobby." No to moderated discussion, no to third opinions, no to RfCs, no to any of the noticeboards, no to mediation. None of it. Jojhnjoy sees no problem with the way he has dealt with this dispute so far, and going forward, he will handle future disputes exactly the same.

  If you haven't already read it all, here are the diffs that show this ongoing dishonesty, and bad faith:

Extended content

I was the first to speak sympathetically about min-1, calling it "obscure but not unheard of", and saying we should have an explanation of it on some article. Later, 1292simon agrees I pointed specifically to where Jojhnjoy was misrepresenting MOS:UNITS. Later still, I repeated that I'm OK with min-1, but we should follow the MOS and avoid confusing readers Here is Jojhnjoy's argument for why we don't need to say x,xxx r/min or x,xxx r min-1, and can omit the r. Nobody believes him. Again, Jojhnjoy misinterprets MOS:UNITS as if it said we must use SI exclusively, somehow only reading the first half of the sentence "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)." We have already quoted this, and pointed out the misreading. Yet Another editor repeats that Jojhnjoy is misreading MOS:UNITS In reply, he tortures the meaning of the phrase "angular speed" to claim that the MOS is excluding the rotation of car engines. It makes no sense. What else could it be referring to? We don't use rpm to describe the rotation of planets or satellites, or the roll rate of an aircraft in flight. A different edtior rejects the argument for excluding r or revolutions, saying it must be x,xxx r/min, at least, not just x,xxx /min. The math error was reading r as a variable rather than a unit. Yet another editor clearly says Jojhnjoy is misreading MOS:UNITS. Here is a disingenuous argument that others cannot claim to have seen r/min on European car dashboards, because it is original research without a citation, while Jojhnjoy allows himself to repeatedly claim that "everyone" easily understands min-1, without citing any evidence at all, and ignoring every request to cite such evidence. Claims the right to assume it at his whim. Now one more different editor says "Power at 1/min" and "Torque at 1/min" makes no sense, and it needs to include the unit, r or revolutions. Later, I post that "'1000 /min" is just gibberish'", agreeing with the previous editors who say there must be an r between 1000 and /min. Why do we keep having to belabor this stupid point? Everyone is sick of it. Jojhnjoy makes a disingenuous argument that we must define "evidence" before asking for evidence that rpm is widely understood and /min or min-1 is less common, without himself giving any definition of evidence when he asked for it earlier. It's all silly and dishonest, because all of us know what a citation of a fact looks like. In spite of all this pettifogging, I oblige, and cite a number of authoritative sources that say rpm is preferred, and is therefore widely understood, and in which /min and min-1 is conspicuously absent. He repolies that these citations are "original research", while posting "I asked an American, she understood 1/min" as if that's not original research? It's not funny. It's blatant dishonesty. OK, it's kind of funny, but it's the kind of funny that gets you indef'd if you don't cut it out. Jojhnjoy replies with the accusation we're still seeing, "you consider min−1 'nonsense'", after I said twice that min−1 is a convention that is fine if that's your convention. I had clearly said that what I consider "gibberish" and "nonsense" is using this or any thing else, /min or "per minute" without the r or the word revolutions. Several others had already said this clearly. Why is Jojhnjoy speaking as if he doesn't realize that? He's setting up a straw man, as if multiple others hadn't already clarified that. In my reply, I say exactly that. If Jojhnjoy missed it the first or second or third or fourth time, he can't miss it now. Jojhnjoy replies directly to this last point. He posts "55 kW at 5800/min is no nonsense. Stop acting like you never saw that, since it appears in so many books and technical data sheets". He is specifically addressing my complaint that the r or revolutions is what's missing, and raging that it isn't necessary. He's admitting he knows what our objection is. Took long enough. Later Jojhnjoy posts that he is adamant that he will ignore consensus. This alone is blockable, if you really mean it, and he has doubled down enough times to show us he means it. This brings us to the AN/I report, and Jojhnjoy is right back repeating the accusation "Apparently, Dennis Bratland seems to dislike some units. For instance, he considers min−1 nonsense (also here)". In spite of all the above, he is back to pretending he doesn't understand that my only objection to x,xxxx r/min or x,xxx r min-1 is that it's not English convention, not that it's invalid. He is back to pretending that what I called "nonsense" and "gibberish" was omitting the r. He refers to the very long thread on this exact thing, and pretends he won that argument, simply because he believes himself, ignoring his total failure to get even one of eight editors to agree. This same diff says that his woeful misreading of MOS:UNITS was excusable because "it was changed in the meantime." A half dozen editors lectured him on MOS:UNITS, and they were clearly referring to the same version that said angular speed, not rotational speed. The change is irrelevant, and Jojhnjoy knows this because a half dozen editors told him so. In spite of all this, he goes on pretending otherwise.

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I explained why I would not harm this project and Dennis Bratland ignores it. He considers this edit a reason for an indefinite block. I said there I still recommend refraining from adding cc and rpm in German topic articles (...). This is my personal opinion and a recommendation. It does not imply that I would ignore consensus. It does not mean that I would vandalize. Demanding an indefinte block of another user just because they don't share the same opinion is unacceptable. Therefore I wish that an administrator stops Dennis Bratland at this point since I cannot see any contribution towards a solution anymore, I feel that the only thing left here is Dennis Bratlands desperate attempt to get me blocked from editing indefinitely and that really makes me feel uncomfortable. What am I supposed to do? I don't agree with the consensus but that does not mean I don't accept it, also, I mentioned that I would refrain from changing rpm and still, Dennis Bratland does not stop demanding an indefinite block. If he keeps this threat of an indefinite block alive by demanding it over and over again, ignoring everything good I say and do, focussing on all my mistakes and harassing me with questions just to have another reason for adding accusations over and over to this AN/I no matter whether they might be false or right, I consider it harassment. As long as nobody stops Dennis Bratland, I don't see an option for myself and I will surrender, this means I would not want to contribute to this project anymore. Despite the outcome of this, I shall go now and not return for a while. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Topic ban - There are multiple instances identified above, where the editor has shown no respect towards other editors and blatantly disregarded Wikipedia policy. This goes completely beyond any difference of opinion regarding article content. Even the response above this shows no appreciation, let alone remorse, that policy breaches have been committed. Instead, the user believes it is a personal vendetta, so he launches an attack on the creator of this ANI. Past behaviour indicates that these are deliberate strategies, not naive mistakes. I think a topic ban is the only option in this case to stop this unwanted behaviour. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - If the consensus is for topic ban I would suggest the scope of the ban be changes to unit conversions, not contributions to for example automotive articles. I think a warning would be sufficient. If the editor says he is going to abide by consensus going forward I think that should be sufficient. I think an indefinite block is unreasonably punitive given this is an editor who is trying to make things better. A warning, if heeded, should be sufficient. @Jojhnjoy: this means you need to acknowledge that group consensus needs to accepted. If the consensus is units should be pound*feet for torque vs N*m so be it (don't change the units). However, if you feel that the current source is wrong (ie, regardless of the unit conversion, the value conflicts with a second source) then bring it up at the talk page and let people decide which source is better. I think if you agree to do those two things this a waring should be fine and this ANI can be closed. Springee (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Self-reporting to avoid further escalation into multiple venues

I just want to make the community aware that FleetCommand has ventured to Mr. Stradivarius's talk page, apparently dissatisfied with advice I gave concerning an instance in which I temporarily full protected two articles to help solve a dispute. Codename Lisa has suggested ANI as a venue, so perhaps it's wise to cut matters short and come straight here before further admins are privately canvassed for intervention. Also pinging AussieLegend who is another involved party, and RecentEdits, a new user, also involved.

To give only the briefest summary of what the two disputes are about, in one case it was suggested that something should be written regarding Petya (malware) for the Windows XP article (and WannaCry, although this was already mentioned), and such a paragraph inserted into the article, and in Microsoft Office 2010, a source was challenged as being out of date by four years. At least some of the same editors are involved at both venues.

Relevant talk is at:

• User talk:Samsara
• User talk:Codename Lisa
• User talk:Mr. Stradivarius
• Talk:Windows XP

Samsara 02:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, everyone

I have told administrator Samsara that I am willing to wait the protection out and that I am unwilling to file any complaint against harassment or otherwise. The sentence "Codename Lisa has suggested ANI as a venue" is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

As you can see from the diffs, I tried to close this discussion or remove it because I felt Samsara is trying to forcibly become my attorney by filling a complaint on my behalf. A couple of reverts by my fellow admins (Oshwah‎‎ and Zzuuzz) proved that nobody thinks so. Good! As long as whatever happens under thing thread is not construed as unnecessary hostile action initiated by Codename Lisa in response to a trifle in article space, I am fine: Take all the undue hostile action you want. Everyone is being unnecessarily blunt in this case... ironically, that includes me.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• This report isn't really clear - what is the dispute actually about? We'll need some diffs explaining the issue, and what administrator action is being requested. It's not optimal to ask admins to go digging through a number of talk pages to figure out the problem when it's obviously clear to you and others. Black Kite (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure either. I just noticed back-and-fourth reverting here and put a stop to it. I'm talking to Codename Lisa on my talk page; I'm just trying to figure out the situation here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Samsara - I'm being told that you've been asked by Codename Lisa not to file this ANI. She feels that you're doing so entirely on her behalf, and that she has declined and asked you not to file it. She's upset because she feels that you did so anyway and without her approval. I'm still trying to figure out what this is all about... can you help me out here? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

As a named party to this I must admit to being somewhat confused myself. Windows XP is on my watchlist so when I saw an IP edit with the summary "Undid revision 791434022 by User:Codename Lisa (talk) Undo obvious COI by an editor with a long history of acting in Microsoft's interest" I checked it out. The IP had restored an edit that had been reverted by Codename Lisa, an editor of good standing with a long history of constructive editing at that, and other articles. I was aware that she had started a discussion on the talk page,[117] so I reverted the IP with the summary "Edit has been opposed - take it to the talk page",[118] seeing the IP's edit as, at best, an unwarranted personal attack. I was later surprised to see a post by Samsara on my talk page accusing me of engaging in a dispute at the article and directing me to discuss it.[119] There was no dispute, what I reverted was at best disruptive editing. Now that I am aware of the history, I see it as pure vandalism. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You did participate in the dispute - you made a revert. There is no ambiguity about this. Samsara 11:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a dispute per se, it was vandalism. We don't normally refer to vandalism, or reversion of vandalism, as a dispute. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Samsara, your report is vague at best. Are you asking for a review of your actions? Then I would say protection was a little hasty, even if it was within discretion. I don't think it would be wise to revert the protection as it isn't abusive or out of policy, it just isn't the best solution, imho. I wouldn't have opened the discussion here, but you may not be aware of the full picture. There is a history of the IP stalking and bugging CL, which may be why she didn't want this report open, as it makes the problem worse. AussieLegend, those edits were not WP:VANDALism. They may have been against consensus, but vandalism is defined only as those edits which seek to undermine the encyclopedia, and that doesn't qualify. Personally, I recommend removing full protection and letting the editing process work itself out, and if needed, simply block anyone that edit wars. At this stage, I don't see a couple of reverts to be that problematic, at least not enough to force all other editors to stop editing. I almost just closed this thread, but felt adding this would be better. I wouldn't blame anyone if they did close this now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• "vandalism is defined only as those edits which seek to undermine the encyclopedia". Then they are definitely vandalism, because if my memory serves me well, this person's account was originally blocked on Wikipedia for maliciously introducing inaccuracies into the articles. Materialscientist knows better though. I was not in the ArbCom case. But make no mistake, this stalker is here to undermine. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Zzuuzz objects to Codename Lisa removing a report because her name appears in it. Really? How then does he explain what he did here [120], here [121], here [122], here [123], here [124], here [125], here [126], here [127], here [128], here [129], here [130], here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.68.31 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC) [131], here [132], here [133], here [134], here [135], here [136], here [137], here [138], here [139], here [140], here [141], here [142], here [143], here [144], here [145] (point directly addressed), here [146] (point directly addressed), here [147] (point directly addressed), here [148], here [149], here [150], here [151], here [152], here [153], here [154], here [155], here [156], here [157] (appears to claim that he selectively edited his user talk page and then submitted the doctored version to ArbCom as evidence in a case), here [158], here [159], here [160], here [161], here [162], here [163], here [164], here [165], here [166], here [167], here [[168], and here [169]? 81.134.89.140 (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A clean start

Hey, fellas. This is the involved party FleetCommand (Speak your mind!).

As Black Kite and Dennis Brown said, the opening post isn't very clear. And, it appears Codename Lisa has become the first victim of this lack of clarity and has diluted the discussion with a drama that is best avoided. So, let's have a clean start with a proper report, solve the problem and make peace with it. Shall we?

Summary: Requesting an admin to lower the protection of the Microsoft Office 2010 article. Justification: This isn't a content dispute; it is vandalism and harassment.

Details: On 20 July 2017, Codename Lisa reverted a poor contribution to the Microsoft Office 2010 article: [170]. It is my personal belief that this revert is justifiable on the basis of WP:V and WP:NOR. It is also the belief of another editor, AussieLegend, that the reverted edit was "clearly inappropriate".

There is, however, a malicious stalker who seeks to harasses Codename Lisa by chasing her around Wikipedia (WP:HOUND). We refer to this entity with the codename "Flyboy". Administrators Mr. Stradivarius, JamesBWatson, Bongwarrior, Zzuuzz and Materialscientist are familiar with this stalker. See their countermeasures here and here. 12 hours after the aforementioned, Flyboy, from the 2601:5c2:200:31ae:f15b:f5c2:8a8c:9212 IPv6 address, counter-reverted Codename Lisa.

How do I know this IP address indeed belongs to Flyboy? Two ways:

1. Geolocation data shows both IPs are contributing from the same location ("United States, Virginia, Charlottesville") and the same ISP ("Comcast Cable") which we have on record. (See below) This is one pattern.
2. The behavior: Quick accusation of edit warring (Microsoft Office 2010) and writing a plausible lie (both Microsoft Office 2010 and Windows XP) are characteristics of him.

As I said, Codename Lisa has a full record of all IPs from which this person has contributed, along with their geolocation data. I have already furnished Mr. Stradivarius with this information. (Other admins may have received it at other times from Codename Lisa.) Any admin here may request a copy. (Materialscientist has warned that making this information public is against Wikipedia policies.)

8 minutes later, administrator Samsara locked the Microsoft Office 2010 article with full protection, citing "content dispute" as a reason. He hastily accused both Codename Lisa and AussieLegend as uncooperative editors and asked them to take the issue to the talk page. It goes without saying that I was baffled with such a heavy-handed response; it is unusual to lock a page after so few reverts. I tried to communicate with Samsara at User talk:Samsara § Microsoft Office 2010 protection and convince him that he is dealing with harassment, not content dispute. But he summarily refused to look at the evidence by saying he is not a CU! (Apparently, he is not aware that admins also have access to geolocation tools.) Furthermore, he refused to comment on the Microsoft Office 2010 article (which was my topic) as well, and instead wrote paragraphs about another article, Windows XP. (See below.)

Extended content

Flyboy didn't stop at the Microsoft Office 2010 article: He committed mischief in the Windows XP article ([171]: disruptive reversion) and the Windows Server 2012 article ([172]: pure vandalism). These have been addressed with the vigilance of AussieLegend and Codename Lisa. The geolocation data for the IP vandalizing the Windows Server 2012 article also tallies with our record. The Windows XP article also got locked. Please see AussieLegend's comment before this thread.

I argue that because this a case of harassment, not content dispute, the full protection is unjustified. As such, I turned to another admin for appeal: Mr. Stradivarius. The discussion can be found at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius § Protection on the Microsoft Office 2010 article. He responded that "I do remember this editor, and my initial reaction is that they should probably be blocked". But of course, there are rules governing an admin reverting another admin's tool use. So, here we are.

I request the protection to be lowered and the disruptive revision by the malicious editor reverted.

Thank you.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Putting myself in Codename Lisa's or AussieLegend's shoes: If someone were making reverts and edits to hound and harass me, or if I'm trying to revert such edits - I'd feel pretty frustrated to see the articles suddenly full protected followed by a message on my talk page telling me to "take the content dispute to the talk page". I that think the full protection was placed on Microsoft Office 2010 and Windows XP a bit too early, but it's somewhat explainable if Samsura genuinely thought that he was stopping a content dispute or war. Mistakes happen; shoot, I make plenty of them :-).

The issue with the article protection isn't what I'm most concerned about honestly; that can be easily sorted out and resolved - no big deal. My main concern is the fact that Codename Lisa appears to have been (and still is) the subject of long-term ongoing harassment and hounding by an anonymous user. That's a big drain on a user, especially over time. It's absolutely not acceptable, isn't something anyone should have to tolerate, and needs to be dealt with and monitored so that it stops. Codename Lisa, I'll make sure to keep eyes out for you in this regard. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Concur, it's a horrible situation and if we can't stop it, we need to do our best to mitigate any effects on CL.

One thing I don't understand is why MaterialScientist says it's a violation of policies to post the list. If all that's in the list is IPs which have edited wikipedia, what they edited and geolocation and other such data on the IPs, this isn't outing. Actually it's a regular part of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse reports and WP:SPI reports. (Although when posting the data will generally be aggregated e.g. a list of IPs from a certain ISP and geolocation and another list if there are other ISPs or geolocation, as there's no need for a list with duplicate info for all the IPs.) Is there some other data that is in this list? Or is it a WP:Deny issue?

Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nil Einne - Can you provide me the diff where Materialscientist said this? I'm not trying to take any sides or say that anyone was right or wrong; I'd like to read the discussion where this was explained so that I can understand the full context and what he was trying to explain. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going by what was said above "(Materialscientist has warned that making this information public is against Wikipedia policies.)" I have no personal knowledge of this dispute other than what I read here.Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, I didn't keep the diff. It might even have been on IRC. Still, Oshwah is an admin. If he asks, I must give a copy. He then can publish, with his own responsibility. Is that okay?

Also, CL has received a similar warning. (I don't know from whom.) Maybe she can give a diff. In fact, it was she who made me swear not to disclose. But her wording made me realize I had received a similar warning a long time ago! (To be honest, last time an admin asked me why I don't publish it, I had no recollection of the warning and just cited CL's disagreement.) FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The dispute and the harrassment are only tangentially related - the original proponent of the edit at Windows XP has not, to my knowledge, been suggested to be part of the harrassment case. Samsara 16:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Because he probably is not! Like millions of others who edited these articles and other articles. Please, for the love of God, focus on the subject at hand. And as far as I am concerned, per WP:SILENCE, there is no dispute in the Windows XP article; just an attempted harassment, which was suppressed, no thanks to you. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree with FleetCommand here. AFAICT no one is accusing User:RecentEdits of being involved in the harassment. They were probably fully entitled to make the WP:BOLD edit. But the point is CL was also fully entitled to remove the edit as part of the typical WP:BRD cycle, and CL did initiate the discussion so it's on RecentEdit or anyone else to continue the editing. I don't see anything wrong with those sequences of edits, they seem to be normal editing which doesn't raise any real WP:Edit warring concerns and don't require page protection. The problem is the IP then came along. If this was just a normal IP then yes edit warring would be a concern and all parties involved should take care and perhaps the page protection would be justified since we all know that the BRD cycle is ideal but there's no simple solution when the reverts continue after the typical BR. (I.E. Perhaps the IP shouldn't have reverted, but it's also not clear if the solution is to revert the IP.) But the issue here is that from it's claimed this isn't a normal IP but a persistent harassing sock. I don't personally see the point getting into arguments over whether or not it's vandalism, WP:DENY and WP:SOCK would fully support reverting the IP's edits without question. We don't allow de-facto? banned serially harassing socks to edit just because they're editing from dynamic IPs. This suggests page protection wasn't necessary and there isn't any real legitimate edit war. There may or may not be a legitimate dispute over the content, that's awaiting RecentEdit or someone else who isn't a serial harassing sock participating in the discussion/disagreement. AussieLegend had a point that their edits weren't necessary taking a side in the dispute, they may have simply be reverting as an uninvolved party, similar to the way an admin doesn't become involved when acting in a purely administrative capacity. I can say if I had seen the edits and was aware of the history I would probably have reverted without even considering much about the merits of the edits. Heck I may have done so and also gone to the talk page to support the actual change. Let me just repeat what I said before, serial harassing socks aren't entitled to edit. Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Heck I may have done so and also gone to the talk page to support the actual change. Based on that comment, I question your ability to impartially comment on this motion. Samsara 07:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my! An admin resorting to personal attack! That's a new low.

And this is the same admin to whose talk page I went to talk about the Microsoft Office 2010 article; instead he rambled on about the Windows XP article. I question your ability to understand plain English.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

NilEinne is wrong. There is no such thing as a de facto ban of an IP editor. Where did he get that notion? Also I note that he describes Codename Lisa's argument as "flawed" and has been deleting comments supporting her. 81.134.89.140 (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Mélencron

Hello. I am writing with regard to one specific user's behavior, who - I believe - is abusing his own privileges in bad faith. He goes by as Mélencron and has vandalized the Jarosław Kaczyński page at least once. I left a message both on his discussion page [173] as well as the discussion page of the article about Mr. Kaczyński [174] to not vandalize it, also stating clearly that while I do not sympathize with his actions, Wikipedia should not be a political playground. However, Melencron simply reverted the edits without even trying to communicate with me and tried to turn the tables by making me look guilty of breaking a guidline, which is only partially true - I made a political statement on the discussion page, but that was not the point of my entry - I stated my opinion regarding Mr. Kaczyński to show that while I dislike him, I still want Wikipedia's guidelines to be followed. I find it very ironic that an user removes my entry under a premise that I do not follow Wikipedia guidelines despite the current situation in Poland, after they make an entry which definitely does not follow Wikipedia's standards, calls the subject of the article names, is clearly unencyclopedic and jeopardizes the article in a way that can result in it getting blocked, which may discourage people from making correct entries, which could - by merely stating facts - undermine Mr. Kaczyński's regime. It's basically digging your own grave, if you ask me. 83.28.194.50 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears these assertions of vandalism have no basis. Mélencron's recent edits to the article have actually reverted disruptive edits: [175], [176]. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and semi-protected the article due to frequent disruptive edits today. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the revert the OP/IP did [177] And Mélencron reverted that twice (which is obviously the correct thing to do). WP:BOOMERANG for the IP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that diff Lugnuts. Obvious troll. I've blocked the IP for two weeks for disruptive editing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

persistent addition of uncited material despite several warnings - a block necessary?

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

---

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 (talk · contribs) 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 [178] and a final warning in June citing 3 examples of uncited material. [179]. despite warnings, Holden persists, adding this a few days ago. it's got to the point of blatant disregard of WP rules. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In this situation - yes, typically. But this account hasn't edited in over 8 hours. Therefore, I can't apply a block at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added a warning to his talk page. Like Oshwah said, he hasn't edited since yesterday and so I'm not keen to block now. His talk page is a horror show though. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually submitted this ANI 3 days ago but no one responded. he actually continued to edit after I notified him of this ANI. My frustration with this User is that he continually ignores warnings. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Persistent addition of uncited material by User:HoldenV8
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#persistent addition of uncited material despite several warnings

Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah and Basalisk: - the editor's talk page is a horror, and looking at it I see that not once has this editor ever responded. This isn't really acceptable, and I'd support an indefinite block until they can show that they will follow our policy and guidelines and not ignore warnings, etc. on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller - I don't have a problem with that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller - neither do I. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think we have a consensus here. The deed has been done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Basalisk - I've also revoked the autopatrolled user right from this editor. Should he successfully appeal his block, his contributions (including article creations) need to be monitored and he'll need to demonstrate relevant policy knowledge before it's given back. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's true that he never responds to my requests in his talk page. I have found hundreds of uncited additions from him. I've politely asked him to fix up many articles he has worked on which he refuses. Instead he ignores warnings and keeps on working on new articles. He continues to work like this because of just one block in years of contributing uncited material. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Fan4Life

Obvious troll since the beginning, ignores WP:PUS and revert edits under the reason "fan edits" Posed in his Talk page, removed it, like he has removed other warnings from other users. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You do the exact same. Your edit summary when you revert my edits is "Fan". There was no reason to revert my edits, Nicki Minaj being the Queen of Rap is widely recognised, if you search it in Google, Nicki Minaj comes up. There are two sources provided for Ariana Grande being the Princess of Pop, just because one says "Pop's New Princess" doesn't mean the other one doesn't matter. Also, referring to me as a troll is a personal attack, which is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia policy. Fan4Life (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fan4Life: You're referring to the last one.. which was clearly a mistake trying to write your name and stated in the next summary. You know how WP:REFERENCES work. "Widely recognized" and you cite Daily Mirror. All your behavior here's been like that. Stop ignoring WP:PUS. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You have put "Stop being a fan" before. But Nicki Minaj is widely recognised as the Queen of Rap, if you search "queen of rap" in Google, Nicki Minaj is the first result. Also, Ariana Grande is widely recognised as being the Princess of Pop, there are various sources out there. Fan4Life (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Fan4Life - I understand if you're unfamiliar Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and potentially unreliable sources, but that doesn't give you the ability or the excuse to ignore such guidelines when others are pointing them out to you - especially when it's in relation to a BLP. Please stop repeatedly reverting edits, and discuss the issue on the articles' talk pages and come to an agreement before making any more changes to these articles. If the reverting continues on these articles, and if calls to discuss the matters in dispute are ignored on top of this - your account may be blocked for disruptive editing. Please work with cornerstonepicker and resolve your dispute, and take the time to review and understand the relevant policies and guidelines mentioned here.

Cornerstonepicker - I understand the frustration you may be feeling right now, but I want to also remind you to discuss this issue and refrain from letting yourself get sucked into an edit war. I've seen some close calls, but none that are recent - definitely keep this in mind. From here, you need to resume the relevant discussions on the article's talk pages and ping Fan4Life so that he'll have the chance to respond and discuss it. If he doesn't and the reverts he made continues, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to have the matter looked into.

Do any of you two have any questions for me? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that both editors make good points. Maybe a small thing can resolve this? How about sighting on the Nicki Minaj page a link to a reference with the term "Queen of rap"? Possibly that would make all parties happy? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The info he keeps posting can't be properly sourced (with a reliable source), I believe it should be removed until then, like always. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have just returned to the 'pedia after a 6 month vacation, so I am not going to use my admin tools right now. However, @Fan4Life: please stop edit warring to include information without sufficient sourcing. Just because a term has been used once by a tabloid and a smattering of blogs does not make it ready for inclusion in that list. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

DagosNavy and WP:TROUBLES

DagosNavy (talk · contribs) has a long running POV on WP:TROUBLES issues. Lately this has taken the form of edit-warring to remove categorisation as terrorist incidents from terrorist incidents, specifically Republican attacks under WP:TROUBLES. See Special:Contributions/DagosNavy.

Specifically: Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint and removal of Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1992 as "Rm unsourced and wrong category, "terrorism" involves the attack on unarmed civilians, this was an attack on military forces)":

• 21 July 2017
• 8 July 2017
• 27 June 2017
• 25 June 2017

That's 4 changes, all opposed, within a month. All on an article with a clear 1RR restriction. This might not be bright line, but it's obvious POV and edit-warring. There is nothing to support this narrowed definition of terrorism.

Similar behaviour at other articles:

• Warrenpoint ambush
• 1970 RUC booby-trap bombing where we see similiar behaviour to remove Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1970, in this case described as "Rm dead category".

1. We do not remove articles from categories because they are "dead" (i.e. empty)
2. We certainly do not do this when the category is only empty because you have just emptied it!

Bastun has reverted this, or I'd have done it too.

This is not a new issue, it has been raised before. Most accessibly, see User_talk:DagosNavy#TERRORISM-RELATED_CATEGORIES

This is a clear POV push. They make no attempt to answer or defend this. It's against clear consensus, it's also now turning into this "dead category" deliberate falsehood. There is no plausible expectation of any improvement in this behaviour.

Topic ban time is overdue. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

DagosNavy - May I ask about the repeated removal of that template from Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint, as pointed out in the four diffs above? Why the repeated removal? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A clear case of argumentum ad hominem. 1RR restriction reads "one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period", so four changes within a month, none of them within the 24 hours period is immaterial, not to mention the open threads on my talk page User_talk:DagosNavy#TERRORISM-RELATED_CATEGORIES and Talk:1970 RUC booby-trap bombing per WP:BRD. In my latest edits on Troubles-related articles (Warrenpoint/Cloghoge/RUC bobby-trap bombing) I just removed a recently erased category (not empty, the category was removed by User:Ponyo), later restored by another user. By the way, no sources were provided that these ones were terrorist attacks, and WP relies on verifiable sources as far as I know.--Darius (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Ponyo would care to clarify why they deleted the category, and whether this was due to a previously uncelebrated outbreak of peace in 1970, or else because you had just emptied the category, against a clear consensus opposing your repeated attempts to do so.

Please do not treat other editors as fools: what you're trying to do here is obvious, and that attitude is why it's now time for a TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

More ad hominem. I didn't empty anything (check my contributions page), Ponyo deleted the category (I later learned) just because it was created by a banned user. User Bastun eventually restored the category on 22 July, after my edits.--Darius (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you removing terrorist attack categories from articles? Obviously that's going to be controversial, it's been discussed in several places, there is no central agreement, and yet, e.g., you removed the category from Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint saying "unsourced" when a) it's an attack by a proscribed terrorist organisation; b) not that categories need to be "sourced" but one of the references in the article, Terrorism in Northern Ireland, describes the attack. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, first of all, sorry for not have been so clear in some of my edit summaries (my fault). Yes, you're right that Terrorism in Northern Ireland describes the attack, but also the American press of the time did so, and they usually dubbed the IRA as "guerrillas"; so did author Tom Geraghty (hardly a republican sympathizer) in The Irish War: The Hidden Conflict Between the IRA and British Intelligence, therefore there is a conflict of sources. I agree with you and other users that the IRA carried out terrorist attacks, but this doesn´t make any IRA action a terrorist act. It is like adding the category "War crimes" to all the battles were the SS became involved just because this was classified by the Allies as a criminal organisation after WWII. We need a source in the article's body supporting that war crimes were committed in that specific battle, not the generic label of the SS as war criminals.--Darius (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Darius, I notice that no one has bothered to use the talk page of the article. Considering this is an Arbitration Enforcement covered article, it would be wise to start a discussion if you want to make a change. Since you seems to be in the minority, the burden would be on you. I really don't care about it being a week between reverts, if you are continually reverting when you know there are multiple people who disagree, then you are edit warring and causing problem. Go to the talk page. That would probably apply to any other article you wanted to do this to. Otherwise, you risk AE sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, thanks for your advice, may be I should became more involved in the disscussion. IMHO, however, being in the minority point of view doesn't mean that the burden of proof is on me. Lack of sources supporting this category, instead, breaches WP:VER and WP:LABEL. I promise to get more involved in the talks, thanks again.--Darius (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Being in the minority isn't always permanent, it means that you need to present a case for the change, via WP:BRD. As for sources, categories aren't really sourced, there isn't a way to cite them. They are chosen by consensus depending on if the totality of sources in the article supports the category. This is why the talk page is a must. At least 4 people disagree with your changes, so yes, the burden is on you to create a consensus that is consistent with your desired edits. That is universally true here. That is what we admin are going to look at when we have to decide if sanctions are needed, whether or not someone took the time to develop a consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis I forgot to mention that the issue was discussed at User_talk:DagosNavy#TERRORISM-RELATED_CATEGORIES and Talk:1970 RUC booby-trap bombing. I want also to make clear that my latest removal of the category was made on the basis that it was deleted by User:Ponyo, not because my position regarding the topic.--Darius (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted for a day. You've been here almost exactly as long as I've been, you know you have to walk softly around The Troubles and other Arb restricted topics. Or if you don't, I can provide the templated links for you on your talk page, as I see no one else has. Your talk page isn't much of a discussion and the other article is a local consensus. You probably need to start an RFC if you want a wider consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The Troubles? EEng 02:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I will start an RFC at the appropriate moment. In the meantime, I will restrain myself from making edits regarding the definition of "terrorism" in Troubles-related pages until a wide consensus on a proper definition can be reached, always keeping in mind WP:VER and WP:LABEL. As you can see in my contributions history, I am quite busy right now with other topics (and in real life). Best regards.--Darius (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Repeated misuse of minor edit box

Mondiad repeatedly misuses minor edit box when they are making major edits or tagging some article. They have been repeatedly warned about this issue but still continue to do it, diff and diff, but they continue with it on a large scale, including this edits: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, ... Many of this edits can be seen as a way to advance his position.

I notified them about this discussion diff.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator:, I consider these to be minor edits. If you don't agree, you can always edit the articles or leave me a message on my talk page. I don't see how this translates to "advancing my position". For instance, have another look at this diff, it is a cleanup, you should thank editors for housekeeping activities. Best regards and good luck! -Mondiad (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No, these are NOT minor edits, and if you think they are you simply need to stop marking any edits at all as minor. The cost of mistakenly marking an edit minor is way higher than the benefit of correctly marking one, so in your case just stop doing it. If you keep this up the community will have very little tolerance. EEng 01:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please study WP:MINOR because "minor" has a special meaning at Wikipedia. Do not mark edits as minor unless they fully comply with WP:MINOR which yours do not. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with everyone else. These are clearly not minor edits in the wikipedia context. While you're free to personally believe something is or isn't a minor edit, you need to only use the minor edit flag when it's considered a minor edit in the en.wikipedia context as per the info page above. If you're unwilling or unable to learn what a minor edit is in the en.wikipedia context, you should just refrain from using the tag. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, I looked at those edits and they are definitely not minor. While we don't have the ability to block and editors use of the flight inappropriately, sometimes I wish we did. Either familiarize yourself with the meaning of the term or just cease using the flag completely.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

JuiianPE socks

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

---

I stumbled upon these three accounts with the same name: JuiianPema, Juiianpe1, and JuiianPe. All these accounts so far have made disruptive edits even after being warned twice. I need anyone's help to deal with these accounts as continue to disregard warning from other users and it is getting out of hand. Nuobgu (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

JuiianPema has been blocked for 36 hours for the repeated addition of unsourced /poorly sourced content. The second account you listed has only made two edits, and the third account doesn't exist. I'll keep an eye on things, but I can't block them all at this time for sock puppetry. So far, I haven't found enough evidence to justify it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is the link to the third one, I made a mistake with the name. The edits on this account is similar to the first account you blocked. Tainted-wingsz is witness as well. Nuobgu (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@above, when I noticed the edits. Was over at the Deadman Wonderland page or simply 'article.' As over by the article's body section by here, but that was a few days ago. Then there was similar edits on different articles. Which felt somewhat curious about it, like the start of an air date to a show, or its shows' season. (If it ended a time ago, as to this.) Or by this edit too, when it was changed back 'to last known part.' Tainted-wingsz (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser needed:

About the date "March 26, 2018", diff 1 - User:JuiianPe, diff 2 - User:JuiianPema.

About the date "January 7, 2012", diff 1 - User:Julianpe1, diff 2 - User:JuiianPema.

FYI to User:Tainted-wingsz, I think the master account User:Julianpe1 have a temp block would be better.

SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• JuiianPema, JuiianPe, Julianpe1, and Julianpe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed to each other. Katie^talk 03:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Bagged and tagged. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Puppet Disruptive editing

User: 68.112.105.202 and 2600:1008:B156:BB82:180F:87BE:7CC1:9AB4 keeps vandalizing Ink Master (season 9) and continues to spread numerous lies. I believe its the same puppet from Wisconsin. 107.77.221.126 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the problem with their edit? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

2600:1008:b100::/41 is definitely Starbucks6789 (talk · contribs). 68.112.105.202 could be, too. 107.77.221.126 is probably Leviathan648 (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I just applied semi-protection on the article for one week. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by GetSomeUtah ‎

GetSomeUtah has been engaged in Tendentious editing and deleted "Iranian" from the profiles of many Iranian-Swedish individuals without giving sufficient reasons. Discussions with him does not prevented these disruptive edits. Examples of his disruptive behavior is provided in the following: [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] Nochyyy (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'm surprised that I was not given the courtesy of a heads up on my talk page as required when flagging these incidents on the noticeboard. Regardless of that, I have noted elsewhere that I have been trying to restore changes that a seeming over-eager IP editor made without any explanation. Nochyyy (talk) seems bent on reverting pretty much all my edits on every topic that have nothing to with Iranians, including the Mayor of Provo, Utah, and Bozeman, Montana, of all topics. I fail to see what is disruptive about my edit there: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_R._Curtis&diff=prev&oldid=791949972. Indeed, Nochyyy's reversions seem somewhat trivial.

− −

Is this what admins do? I'm confused. I'm always happy to discuss substance, but having Nochyyy file complaints and not inform me strikes me as an odd way to build confidence and trust in resolving issues.

− −

It has also been obvious in my contribution log since my interactions with David Eppstein that I have ceased and desisted on all things Iranian. Please...for those who want to turn all things Swedish into "Iranian-Swedish," please have it, and I will not stand in your way. I have demonstrated that. If admins feel I am not contributing to Wikipedia, then say so, and I will leave. But don't set people up to watch and revert everything I do and then label it "disruptive editing" or, as Eppstein does, just revert without any comment in the entry at all. Best regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)