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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Iranian opposition articles

Merged three ANI reports Three ANI reports were merged concerning BLP, BMP and BDPs in Category:Iranian activists, Category:Iranian revolutionaries, Category:Iranian prisoners and detainees, Category:People murdered in Iran, Category:Fugitives wanted by Iran, etc. ^Leviv_ich 05:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying that I had merged Thread #3 with the already-merged Threads #1 and #2. Another user had previously merged Threads #1 and #2. Yet another user added Thread #4 to the previously-merged Threads #1 through #3. Thereafter, yet another user unmerged Thread #2. Somehow, this has caused confusion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The explanatory note I left erroneously suggested that I had singlehandedly merged the first three threads; my apologies for being unclear. ^Leviv_ich 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

POV pushing by Saff_V

Saff_V. is marking articles of prominent Iranian political prisoners that are part of current events on AfD (One Two) and tries to call sources that talk about these people unreliable. (Special:PermaLink/880859969#Radio Farda and some other sources). This behavior is concerning to me. Ladsgroup^overleg 23:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This is wikipedia and users can edit on any subject by observing rules. I just ask user:Ladsgroup more RS but he accused me to support Iranian politic.Interesting reason! I nominated Radio Farda as a disputed source and here it was proven I am right because of propagandistic mission.Saff V. (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not see anyone agree with you that Radio Farda is a disputed source and as such should not be used, quite the opposite. How did the link you provide "prove" any of your points? MPJ-DK (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is not any exact confirmation to using it because of propagandistic mission. Any way I did not remove any material sourced by Radio Farda in mentioned articles (Ali Nejati, Esmail Bakhshi and Sepideh Gholian) unless the radio Farda news did not cover the material. Saff V. (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

In your own words not any exact confirmation - How does that lead to the conclusion it was proven I am right? If you mis-represent something that badly it's hard to have any faith in your interpretation of the other events. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I tend to be a lot more critical of the way certain WP:RS/N users treat leftist state sources vs. American funded sources WRT propaganda vs news than most people on the board, but even I wouldn't suggest that brief discussion proved anything beyond that Radio Farda has been connected to propaganda in the past. Whether they can be a reliable source in context doesn't appear to have been exhaustively discussed in that thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I remove the AfD labels he has put on Sepideh Gholian and Ali Nejati articles yet? How much longer are you humoring this guy? Fredrick eagles (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No the AfD's should run their courses. If the nominations are baseless, the community will pint that out. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Both closed as "keep" User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC))

Proposal: WP:TBAN Saff_V from Iran related subjects

• Support. For obvious POV pushing and disruptive editing, as well as not showing any signs here of willing to change their behaviour. Poya-P (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - it would be a breath of fresh air to ease-down on the POV-pushing against political oppositions to the Iran clerical rule. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, there is POV pushing. However sources in Iran (and Radio Farda outside of Iran) do require discussion. Some of the AfDs were ill-advised (but the canvassing to the AfDs (by the "other camp") was worse). As suggested this is overly broad as based mainly on an assertion of POV and not on disruptive behavior. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral I reported Saff_V for POV pushing, just acknowledging that such thing has happaned and a warning is enough for me. Ladsgroup^overleg 13:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see enough concerns to warrant a topic ban from entire area. Kraose (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Blanket removals by user:Pahlevun

Pahlevun has been blanket-removing text from articles concerning political oppositions to the Iranian government:

• Organization of Iranian American Communities: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5]

• List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran: [6], [7], [8]

• Peykar: [9], [10], [11], [12]

• Zahra Merrikhi: [13], [14]

• Mohammad-Reza Kolahi: [15], [16]

• Maryam Rajavi: [17]

• Massoud Rajavi: [18]

Several editors including user:Jeff5102, user:HistoryofIran, and others have reverted Pahlevun’s edits; and I have warned him on his TP, but he’s continuing to blanket-remove text:

• People's Mujahedin of Iran: [19]

• Organization of Iranian American Communities: [20]

• List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran: [21]

• Massoud Rajavi: [22]

These are all political oppositions to the current Iran government, which links to the report above by Ladsgroup concerning political POV-pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it's starting to ridiculous now. Even when this user is "expanding" articles, he stealthily removes/changes information that clashes with his POV. There has generally been a lot of political pov-pushing going on in articles of peoples/groups/protests that criticize/oppose the clerical rule in Iran, a country with poor human rights, where people aren't allowed to criticize the regime cough cough. See a pattern here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used in this way. This seems to be a coordinated POV effort by these users against political oppositions to the Iranian clerical rule. This needs admin attention.Poya-P (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree; At best, I can say that Pahlevun is a bit too solistic. At worst, Pahlevun is transforming articles into attack-pages, which is frustrating to see. Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not going accuse any user here, because it is not the right place and the right time. However, in order to clarify the situation, I should shed light upon these two points first (Please note that all of the articles mentioned are all somehow linked to the MEK):

1. Since (at least) 2016, there has been coordinated efforts to purge anything unfavorable about the MEK here on English Wikipedia. It has been technically proven that multiple sockpuppets are involved in the campaign (please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12/Archive for more details) and as User:EdJohnston has pointed out recently, "It seems to be a fact that the socks are always here to defend the MEK".
2. Based on various reports by different media outlets, we also know that the MEK spends lots of money to manipulate information about itself on the internet and even maintains a "troll farm" whose "online soldiers" are tasked to do that on a daily basis. (for instance, please read the reports by Al-Jazeera and The Guardian)

This is a baseless accusation against me. In fact, was trying to contain the ensuing disruption, which is in my opinion still ongoing. If necessary, I can show that my edits on any of these articles are complying with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Pahlevun (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pahlevun, this is the time and the place. I could block you right now for disruptive editing, considering your wholesale additions and removals on People's Mujahedin of Iran that are unaccompanied by edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for seven years now and I was never blocked. I did the same thing here on KIA Football Academy, and unaccompanied by edit summaries. Do you consider it disruptive editing? Pahlevun (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Do you think that edits to some soccer thingy are in any way comparable to those on the MEK? I mean, what are the politics of the soccer thingy, the POVs? So I can consider the one disruptive because of the subject matter, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Pahlevun, so, according to your own statement, your blanket reverts ignoring numerous RfCs and Talk Page discussions is the fault of other editors and/or are within guidelines? Poya-P (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:TBAN Pahlevun from Iran related subjects matter, excluding soccer

• Support. For disruptive editing that includes blanket reverting and POV pushing, ignoring RfCs and Talk Page consensus, as well as for not assuming any responsibility as shown by his/her response here.Poya-P (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per disruptive editing and shared conclusion with other editors here including HistoryofIran, Jeff5102, and Poya-P. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per the comments above and the fact that he has had more than enough chances to stop but yet kept going. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the second time you're canvassing Jeff5102. Be careful about it. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, though would limit to geopolitics (or some more limited scope than all of Iranian topics sans football). I have opposed all other proposed sanctions against other users in this section (three of four) - as while they have their faults (as all humans do), they have been trying to edit collaboratively. The situation with Pahlevun is different. Pahlevun, it seems, returned from a short wiki-break and went a bit of a blanket-revert spree. No edit summaries. No discussion. And this on articles, in which there have been ongoing discussions on part of these disputes for months (and in some cases - in which consensus was reached after a rather rough and long consensus forming process). To add insult to injury, his answer (or rather non-answer followed by no-answer) to @Drmies: indicates that Pahlevun doesn't realize that they don't understand that this behavior is disruptive - and suggests that they will continue with this disruption. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per Icewhiz Ladsgroup^overleg 15:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I know Pahlevun for about 2 years and I sometimes had conflict with him (for example: 1, 2 and 3); but he is one of the best users in articles refers to Iran. I wondered about Pahlevun's TBAN Proposal for editing articles about Iran!! Benyamin-ln (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding Mhhossein (talk · contribs) to this discussion

Mhhossein (talk · contribs) should be added to this list of editors POV-pushing against Iranian political activists. Mhhossein was recently warned about making controversial page name changes of recent Iran protests, and this. All three editors (Pahlevun, Saff V., and Mhhossein) are also heavily involved in POV-pushing at the People's Mujahedin of Iran page.Alex-h (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Er, no. 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot seems the best name for this article - out of the two that are being edit-warred over - as whilst it is undisputable that it was an assassination plot, the article uses the word "allegedly" throughout on whether the Iranian leadership were involved. There's an "Alleged responsibility" section. Nowhere does the article state as a fact that the plot was orchestrated by Iran, because as the US Govt admitted, they can't prove that it was. It probably does need to go to RM, but mainly because both of the titles that are being edit-warred over are unsatisfactory. Why is it not simply called Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot, and then both of those could redirect to it? Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Yes, “alleged” may be a better way of describing it considering the points made. I don’t think all edits made by these editors are questionable, but they do seem to have an agenda that makes it very difficult to aim for neutrality on these articles concerning political oppositions to the Iran clerical rule.

For instance, Mhhossein has pushed to have the following inserted on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article (one of the main opposition groups to the Iran clerical rule):

1. "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)
2. "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by this group)
3. "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government." (no RS found confirming that this group is involved in the Syria conflict)

On the same article, Pahlevun has recently blanket reverted month's of TP discussions, ignoring consensus and RfCs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&action=history

Is it just me, or is this disruptive to say the least? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Putting this here as well, this is defo worth mentioning; Mhhossein, didn't you support [23] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [24]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - yes, there is POV pushing. Yes, some of the behavior is concerning. And yes - some of the past complaints by Mhhossein to AN/I were baseless. However, Mhhossein has also been attempting to discuss and his behavior has not risen to the level we should impose a harsh ban for. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria

I was not willing to put energy on this discussion and were inclined to use it (the energy) elsewhere on editing the articles, given my limited time. However, now that there's an ongoing ANI discussion opened by Stefka Bulgaria, I think there are things I should share with others for the sake of the project and I don't care if it will lead to the result I'm seeking:

• Despite my warnings, He's been by hounding me and trying to confront me (see this one for example). Notably, he even hounded me to my RFA in Wikimedia Commons!!! and tried to inhibit my admin nomination. The admins questioned Stefka Bulgaria's act, since it was really questionable/dubious (see [25], [26] and [27]).

• He's been harassing me by repeated mentioning ([28], [29], [30]) of my ANI participations, regardless of the outcome of those ANI reports.

• This is the third or fourth time that the reporting user is harassing me by mentioning my viewpoints notably for my inserting "hypocrite" into the lead, despite the fact that, after the insertion was contested by others, I actively discussed my viewpoint with others and I even asked for more comments by opening an RFC in this regard!

• He has made personal attacks against me notably by repeatedly accusing me of "POV pushing" numerous times ([31], [32], [33]), despite my warning ([34], [35]). In another place he commented on me by accusing me of "smearing a political group". It should be added that I had warned him in the past against commenting on the editors. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the nominator: He's harassed me numerous times and admin actions need to be taken for the above behavioral issues.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, I didn't propose the TBAN above, someone else did, I just reported what's been happening.

Your Boomerang proposal, however, is hardly a surprise to me; both you and the other reported user:Saff V. have been falsely reporting me for a while now ([36][37],[38], [39], etc. ), a collaborative effort that also used to involve user:Expectant of Light, who was blocked last year for being a sockpuppet and "Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East." Also, worth noting that both you and Saff V. have edited over 300 pages together, see a pattern?

Beyond the already mentioned, your POV edits have also included claims that Black people in a picture were "MEK Rent a Crowd", a claim based on your own conclusions, which some would argue is trying to turn Wiki articles into attack articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#%22Non-Iranian_rent-a-crowd%22_image

You have also made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[40] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[41] for my inclusion of a quote from RS, which, unless I'm mistaken, is not how we should handle ourselves on Wikipedia per WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.

I believe your POV pushing is disruptive, the way you deal with controversial topics has been uncivil, and think this is also evident by your numerous previous ANI incidents: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]) Having said that, I'll stop monitoring your edits now that I've reported this here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Your global hounding is never acceptable. Btw, You're using "POV pushing" against me although you're warned/advised not to attack others. I suggest you stop digging your self deeper by bludgeoning the process. Wait for the admins comments, instead. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is definitely not the whole picture that is being painted. Stefka is a good user that tries to do his best in articles that are constantly being ruined due to POV-pushing. Also, Mhhossein, didn't you support [57] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [58]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria's edits speak for themselves. If you have issues regarding Commons, take them to my Commons talk page or, as you did, talk to other admins. Here, we're talking about Stefka Bulgaria's misconducts including personal attacks, hounding and harassment. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes they do indeed, which is why I'm opposing. Also dodging my comment is not gonna work. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

So, a good editor is the one who hounds you globally and ...? come on! --Mhhossein ^talk 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support: What is it proven by this contribution as well as it have been seen some anti Iran subject in contribution of Icewhiz and Stefka Bulgaria, while Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written ‘’collaboratively’’ by the people who use it. Consider People's Mujahedin of Iran and review TP (as an instance) , most of discussion were began by me or Mhhosein or all of our edit (affixing facts) were supported by RS. Which of them is the sign of POV? Do you believe in pov issue if users follow exact subject?Saff V. (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Saff supporting this, who would have thought. Also, you might wanna ping @Icewhiz: when you make such accusations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Much of this complaint is meritless rehashing of old complaints to AN/I that closed as no action. Stefka has been discussing the content disputes in a clear and level headed manner (most of the time) on the relevant talk pages.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz: So you endorse his global hounding and repeated personal attacks? Also, the problem is exactly Stefka Bulgaria's mentioning of those "old complaints to AN/I that closed as no action". Up to when should this harassment continue? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not endorse behavior on either side - note my oppose above to Stefka's proposal. How about we focus on reaching agreement on content (something there has been some progress on) - as opposed to an ANI discussìon?Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not a content dispute and I'm talking about a repeated behavioral issue which need to stop somewhere. That said, I'll address content disputes on the article talk pages, but not here. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

One more thing, you opposed because you believed "Stefka has been discussing the content disputes in a clear and level headed manner". What does it have to do with my Boomerang proposal focusing on Stefka Bulgaria's hounding, harassment and personal attacks? I suggest you disambiguate your defending comment or others get the impression that you were endorsing his repeated use of "POV pushing" against others and his harassment. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Much of the enwiki stuff seems to be mutual interest in Iranian articles. The comments at the commons RFA, on the other hand, I agree were ill-advised. However (at least on enwiki) - RfA is an open process for comment - and often partisan rivals will show up (and, as happend here, are often shouted down as partisan commentary).Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per User:Icewhiz Ladsgroup^overleg 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support He slandered pushing POV, without showing clues. He made WP:Harrassment. Hounding to the Commons isn't acceptable. Benyamin-ln (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I did provide diffs for my claims of POV pushing. If I may add CaroleHenson's reply to Expectant of Light during their report (and block) for disruptive editing concerning certain political topics: "We have been trying to move through the dispute resolution process, but you and Mhhoissen have been fighting it each step of the way without providing evidence to support your personal opinions... and you both have tried to discount the view or votes of others." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is nothing in this diffs that support any kind of sanction --Shrike (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wikihounding around Wikipedia and even on Commons speaks a lot. Removing content by adding a misleading edit summary on People's Mujahedin of Iran further shows that the editor is editing with a WP:BATTLE ground mentality. Kraose (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  Stefka's edit summary is fairly accurate - he reverted Pahlevun's edit chain (which AFAICT contained many edits that were against talk page consensus).Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  I've pointed to some of those, let's say, misleading edit summaries on the article talk page. However, this one is a clear and fresh example, where, despite what he claims to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, he's mass removing some sections without discussing them with others. I can provide more examples at the request of the admins. That said, Stefka Bulgaria's behavioral issues should be considered along with his editing pattern. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sorabino engaging in nationalistic POV pushing at Serbo-Croatian by ignoring WP:CONSENSUS

User:Sorabino has been engaging in an edit war at Serbo-Croatian to push an unscientific nationalistic agenda in the lead paragraphs. A discussion was initiated on the talk page to see if there were some way for him to compromise to reach a consensus. He has proven to be completely unwilling to compromise. User:TaivoLinguist has marshalled multiple reliable sources to demonstrate that the views Sorabino wants to push are not supported by either linguistic science or a preponderence of linguists in the field. Taivo agrees that an appropriate comment is warranted in the middle of the article to express the unscientific minority position that Sorabino advocates. A half dozen other editors, including one administrator, have weighed in on the Talk Page and have uniformly and unequivocally supported Taivo's position. Not one single editor has supported Sorabino's position. Sorabino refuses to recognize that consensus is against him and continues to insert his unscientific fringe position in the lead. It is crystal clear that Sorabino's agenda has nothing to do with scientific accuracy and everything to do with pushing a nationalistic agenda by this entry he made on User:Vanjagenije's Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

All claims of user TaivoLinguist are false. For years now, he has been policing article Serbo-Croatian, and several other relating articles, by suppressing all content on scholarly views that are different from his own. That is why I initiated discussions on relevant talk pages here, and here, and also pointed out the similar problems here. In all those talks, I was advocating the introduction of relevant and referenced content, that would represent full scope of scholarly views on the subjects in question, while TaivoLinguist was constantly opposing to that. He continued to police and manipulate the content, reverting referenced edits on several occasions. Believe it or not, he was constantly removing data on official ISO classification, until the issue was raised on the talk page. And even than, he continued to oppose any balanced addition to the lead of the article. Please, take a look of his latest reverts. For example, he reverted this referenced and 100 % neutral edit: "Several questions regarding the linguistic nature and classification of Serbo-Croatian have been the subject of long-standing debates and disputes. Within the scholarly scope of Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, there is a wide spectrum of different views and opinions regarding the question whether Serbo-Croatian comprises a single language, or a cluster of closely related, but separate and distinctive languages. Current linguistic views on those subjects are spanning from the notion that Serbo-Croatian still exist as a unified language, up to the notion that it never really existed as such, with majority of views falling somewhere in between those two opposite poles". And he is labeling that as "nationalism". But, it is very good that these problems were raised here finally, because something has to be done regarding the state of Serbo-Croatian article, and several other related articles that have been policed and censored in similar way for a very long time. Sorabino (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As with the entire discussion at Talk:Serbo-Croatian, User:Sorabino exaggerates and ignores the actual truth of the situation. I'll take it point by point:

• "For years now" Serbo-Croatian has been on my watchlist, but the notion that I have been rigorously "policing it" is false. My edits on it have been few and far between and have all been related to reverting the fly-by-night nationalists from Serbia and Croatia who practice hit-and-run tactics. This is common in articles on the Balkans.
• I have suppressed no "scholarly views", but only the nationalistic misinterpretation of isolated, cherry-picked statements that editors like Sorabino have found with limited searches on Google Books. For example, Sorabino found a quote from Ronelle Alexander where she called the standard forms of Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian "languages". However, when one actually reads the entire text, one finds that she actually says that "Serbo-Croatian" is one language from the linguistic "communicative" angle and three national languages only from the non-linguistic "symbolic" angle. I added this interesting and relevant detail in the Sociolinguistics section of the article while Sorabino only wanted the "several languages" misrepresentation added to the lead. In addition, Sorabino consistently wants to highlight a comment from Encyclopedia Britannica and has ignored the fact that EB is considered a poor quality source when there are peer-reviewed scholarly works that don't simplify the issue and are considered the best sources per WP:RS. Another source that Sorabino wants to highlight is ISO 639-3, but he has been told multiple times on the Talk Page that among linguists that is not considered a source for linguistic classification at all, but is simply a cataloguing tool, not based on rigorous linguistic methodology. He consistently ignores all reliable linguistic classifications that linguists themselves respect (such as Glottologue) that don't fit within his nationalistic POV.
• His "neutral claim" is actually based on his ignoring WP:UNDUE. He has simply worded his POV to make it sound like the sources are balanced when they are not. Because he has cherry-picked quotes based on biased Google Books searches (and not actually handling the books themselves and examining the entire chapter on the topic), he ignores all the qualifications that the authors give for why Serbo-Croatian is, indeed, a linguistically-defined single language, but that sociolinguistic factors make the national standards seem like different languages because of differing names.
• Sorabino's nationalist POV was most pronounced when he asked User:Vanjagenije why he took my side and didn't stand up for the honor of Serbia here.
• Sorabino also confuses the two meanings of "Serbo-Croatian". The majority of his arguments deal with the standard language in use during the Yugoslavia era. But the linguistic meaning of "Serbo-Croatian" as a language is the cover term for a group of dialects that includes Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian. The Shtokavian dialect consists of Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Serbian national standards plus a couple of minor non-national subdialects.
• During the discussion at Talk:Serbo-Croatian, the following editors have, to one extent or another, expressed support for at least part of my position in the complex discussion: User:Uanfala, User:Vanjagenije, User:Surtsicna, User:Nama.Asal, User:Vorziblix, User:Rua. User:GregorB supported part of Sorabino's position, but asked for my references. I provided him with a link to a detailed discussion and he responded with WP:TLTR and then took no further part in the discussion. Thus, there is a clear WP:CONSENSUS that the extensive introduction of WP:UNDUE and, in some cases, WP:FRINGE, comments in the lead is inappropriate. I have included all of Sorabino's references in the Sociolinguistic section of the article along with brief summaries of the various positions. But the misinterpretations of their positions and the inclusion of radical minority positions in the lead is inappropriate.

--Taivo (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• From the instruction on the top of this page: Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.- MrX 🖋 12:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, this topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions. If you can support your assertions with diffs showing policy violating conduct, WP:AE would probably be a better place to seek resolution.- MrX 🖋 12:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I would like to be told which of my edits are actually problematic? There is no need for me to go into further polemics with my accuser here, since he is not presenting any facts relevant to this discussion. In fact, maybe administrators should take a look at this recent chain of my accusers edits: first he removed totally neutral and fully referenced content from the lead, then he reverted that same edit, and then he replaced same content with his own, totally different content masking it as "summary", and finally, he removed his own content. Four steps in a row, each and every of them pure manipulation of content. Sorabino (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorabino, you are the editor who wrote the following at User talk:Vanjagenije: "On the other hand, you are an administrator, from Serbia, and that gives you additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language. Whatever your personal views are, it is not proper for an administrator from Serbia to side with someone who is openly denying the full scope of Croatian language. That looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic Serb from Serbia. So, please, do not use your authority as an administrator to support or empower such radical views." That is an overtly nationalistic appeal for an administrator to side with you in a content dispute simply because you are both Serbians. That is shocking and utterly unacceptable nationalistic behavior in my view, but we will see what other editors have to say about your behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, I am quite surprised by your comment, so please help me to understand where did I appeal to that administrator to side with me, and what was "nationalist" in my behavior? I appealed to him not to side with users who were denying the full scope of Croatian language, but you did not cite that section, which precedes the one you quoted and gives context to it. Do you think that it was wrong of me to state my ethnicity and nationality? I am an ethnic Serb, from Serbia, is it forbidden to say that? And I was taking in favor of the full scope of Croatian language, not against it! So, that was "shocking and utterly unacceptable nationalistic behavior" by your standards? Did I attack any other nationality? Obviously not. So, maybe your should save your outrage for real cases of nationalism that are not rare. Sorabino (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

1. ...you are an administrator, from Serbia, and that gives you additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues...
2. ...it is not proper for an administrator from Serbia to side with someone who is openly denying the full scope of Croatian language.
3. That looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic Serb from Serbia.
4. So, please, do not use your authority as an administrator to support or empower such radical views.

It would have been shorter to quote the parts that weren't "a nationalistic appeal for an administrator to side with you in a content dispute simply because you are both Serbians." ^Leviv_ich 17:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, man! If there ever was a blunt carving of someones edit and taking it out of context, totally ... Why are you misrepresenting my edit in such way? I did not call that administrator to side with me in any way, nor did I state my ethnicity because of that! During past years I had several disputes with that same administrator and he knows very well that I am from Serbia too. Precisely because the two of us never agree on anything I was free to comment in that way, just look at my previous comment on him, during the same debate. Read that and you will see that I clearly did not expect him to side with me on the subject. But, here is my edit in full: "Why are you supporting user TaivoLinguist who is openly advocating against the full scope of modern Croatian language, most recently in talk pages of several articles, like "here" and "here"? You are very well aware that for several years now he is trying to reduce Croatian language to Štokavian variant only, by claiming that Čakavian and Kajkavian variants do not belong within the scope of modern Croatian language. But, those are his views. On the other hand, you are an administrator, from Serbia, and that gives you additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language. Whatever your personal views are, it is not proper for an administrator from Serbia to side with someone who is openly denying the full scope of Croatian language. That looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic Serb from Serbia. So, please, do not use your authority as an administrator to support or empower such radical views". As you can see, the very essence of my edit is totally different from your fragmentary misrepresentations. Sorabino (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sorabino: You, above: "I would like to be told which of my edits are actually problematic?"

Cullen328: [specific quote]

You: "...please help me to understand where did I appeal to that administrator to side with me, and what was 'nationalist' in my behavior."

Me: [highlighting even more specific quotes]

You: "...out of context, totally..."

The part where you made a nationalistic appeal is the part where you told an admin that because of their nationality, they have "additional responsibility" and that "it is not proper for an administrator from [it doesn't matter what country] to side with someone who is...[it doesn't matter what the content dispute is]" and that this "looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic [doesn't matter] from [doesn't matter]."

An editor's nationality is never a reason for them take a certain side in a dispute and it never means an editor has any additional responsibilities. To suggest otherwise is–what are the words I'm looking for?–"an overtly nationalistic appeal...shocking and utterly unacceptable nationalistic behavior...".

By the way, that "previous comment" you linked to, the one where you say to the same admin, You are known to be a staunch advocate of Serbo-Croatian "language", so there is no need for you to pretend to be neutral in this debate. For years now, you were just fine wit continuous suppression and censorship of all other views in this article and other related articles...you are trying to cover yourself, as an administrator who bares great responsibility for the creation of this problem. Since you are part of the problem, you should let other administrators to make their impartial judgement here., borders on a personal attack in my view. ^Leviv_ich 19:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This is rich, indeed. You are accusing me now that I was trying, in the same time, to personally attack that administrator, and also to make him side with me, as you stated before :) And in fact, I was not doing any of that, since I was only criticizing him and making comments on his support for some other users and their problematic views. And that is all clear as a day. But, you obviously tried to misrepresent my views by carving my edit, and now you went even further, inventing the totally opposite, but equally unfounded accusation. To much free time, I guess ... Sorabino (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sorabino, your edit was at the very least casting WP:ASPERSIONS upon an administrator and attempting to influence their actions that would conform to a behavior more to your liking. Personally I thought @Sorabino had turned a new page from this kind of canvassing type behavior on 'patriotic' grounds as was done in 2018 on Serbian Wikipedia, with attempts to draw editors [59], [60] from there into disputes on English Wikipedia that earned him a block [61]. Its concerning to see that pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing has reappeared with @Sorabino which have the hallmarks of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. The editor is more interested in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Looking at the comments of the editor, I don't think they are here to build this encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Just a hint: I guess you're trying to depersonalise the dispute or something, but it's very weird to refer to yourself in the third person in this way, especially when you didn't give any hint until your signature that you're referring to yourself. In fact there's a strong risk commenting in that way could be seen as misleading as you're making it sound like you're referring to what someone else did when in fact you're referring to what you did. Your views on how you marshalled RS etc are always going to be seen in that light. (This doesn't mean they are wrong.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

W.r.t. Taivo's comment above: a couple of minor corrections and remarks. While I indeed saw some merit in Sorabino's position, I asked him to bring some references.[62] WP:TLDR (TLTR is presumably a typo) was my reaction to the rest of the discussion at Talk:Croatian_language#Croatian, and the discussion at Serbo-Croatian proved to be no better: endless walls of text - largely mutual recriminations - which make it rather difficult for other editors to even follow the discussion, let alone join it. I took no further part in the discussion, yes, but it's been just three days, and this issue is too complex and cannot be properly analyzed in half an hour; after all, we all have other stuff to do besides Wikipedia.

I don't think this is a matter for WP:ANI. It is a bona fide - if somewhat messy - content dispute, perhaps best resolved through WP:RfC - at least that would be my recommendation. GregorB (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@GregorB:, I certainly didn't intend to misrepresent your position so if I did not summarize accurately enough, I apologize. Your correction is, indeed, how I saw it as well.

And as a note, I did read the request above for diffs, but have not had the time to marshal them from a complex back and forth that actually spanned several Talk Pages before it was (thankfully) centralized at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. Sorabino seemed to be spamming the entire range of pages related to the Serbo-Croatian dialects with virtually identical comments. I eventually began to just copy and paste my responses from page to page. There is a lot of sorting to do. If this were a normal content dispute, I agree that this would not be a proper ANI. However, the nationalist call to arms is a behavioral problem as well as editing in the article against WP:CONSENSUS. The failure on his part to learn and to willfully ignore the details of linguistic science even after having them carefully explained to him is a content issue, of course, as well as his reliance on less-than-reliable sources and cherry-picking quotes out of context from otherwise reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all - as I said, these are minor corrections, mostly for the sake of clarity.

Failure of the discussion - in my opinion - lies in the fact that it got out of focus. To me, it was a bit hard to understand what (i.e. what exact change to the article) is being proposed. To editors less familiar with the topic, it is probably nigh impossible. GregorB (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

New claims of TaivoLinguist are 100% false. Administrators should be aware that user TaivoLinguist was policing and censoring those articles for a long time, covering his actions by claiming on many occasions that there is some kind of scholarly "consensus" on the "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic controversy, while it is common knowledge that such consensus does not exist, since all questions relating to that subject are constantly debated among scholars, who have several different views on the subject. To claim that there is any kind of consensus on that controversy is absurd, but user TaivoLinguist went even further, disregarding all scholarly sources that were showing the full scope of views on the subject, and he kept removing such content from the article, keeping the lead 100% one-sided. That is not constructive editing, as pointed out here. He is the only user who is opposing the introduction of balanced approach in the lead of Serbo-Croatian. Currently, believe it or not, the lead is representing only one, literally only one view on the entire "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic controversy. That is the core of this entire problem. User TaivoLinguist was constantly suppressing all scholarly content that was not in accordance with his POV, and I called him out for that. Its the only reason why we are here now. Sorabino (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The only reason you think that I'm the only editor who objects to your edits is because you have ignored the half-dozen others who have made comments in support of my efforts there. They are listed above for your reference if you're curious. --Taivo (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not true! You are the only user who is objecting to introduction of the full scope of scholarly views in the lead! There is not a single user in all those debates who claimed that lead should be kept one-sided, as it is now. You deleted neutral content with scholarly references, and you did it several times, stating "consensus" as an excuse, but such consensus does not exist. Your censoring of that article is in clear odds with editing guidelines. Sorabino (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that other editors have kept quiet for fear of becoming the target of your behaviour? It certainly applies to me. Your heavy-handedness and persistent personal attacks towards other editors made me stay away from the discussion. Rua (mew) 20:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You are inventing "personal attacks" narrative! Whom did I attack? How can you accuse me in such manner? You are now attacking me by accusing me of attacking users! What is your proof for such accusations? Sorabino (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Here are the comments that are directly related to the lead and what should be in it. The whole issue of what should and should not be in the lead hinges on WP:DUE and prominence.

• Uafala says no to ISO in lead.
• Vanjagenije says no to prominence of minority views and he states that my references clearly show that I am presenting the majority view.
• Surtsicna says that Sorabino doesn't understand the meaning of WP:DUE and I am the only one who is discussing science.

--Taivo (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Non of those users advocated for one-sided lead, and now you are misrepresenting their views on particular subjects! Why are you doing that? There is not a single user, except you, who was claiming that only one scholarly view should be presented in the lead! Sorabino (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand the meaning of WP:DUE. It means that no prominence should be afforded to any view that isn't a majority view. "Prominence" means that your entire paragraphs devoted to minority nationalistic views are not appropriate. If you actually read the third paragraph of the lead as it currently stands you will see that the last three sentences deal precisely with the nationalistic perceptions of the nature of the Serbo-Croatian language. That's all that it should require. You have also completely ignored the actual position of the majority of linguists. The linguistic point of view, as overtly expressed by Ronelle Alexander in her sociolinguistic commentary, says that there is one language when measured in linguistic terms only. She then goes on to call the "three-language option" the symbolic point of view that is not based on the science of linguistics, but on politics and other factors. The lead of a language article should always give prominence to the linguistic issues, not the political and symbolic ones. I have never opposed the addition of a MINOR note on the political viewpoint which is the only one that you know anything about (and apparently the only one you care to know anything about because of your constant appeals to nationalism). But I have opposed (and will continue to oppose) the paragraph-long comments that include the entire range of political views from the sublime to the ridiculous. It's about WP:DUE, not about national pride. --Taivo (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Taivo, some editors are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it shows when edits done by them are WP:TENDENTIOUS.Resnjari (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) In fact, at different points in the discussion I have asked you [Sorabino] to propose a sentence or two that could be added to the lead. You have either ignored the request or inserted one or two paragraphs into the lead. A sentence or two is all that is warranted. A paragraph or two is a violation of WP:DUE. --Taivo (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Man, you are inventing stuff and wasting everyone's time here. I was never advocating "nationalist" view for the lead, as you falsely claim here in front of entire community! I was advocating 100% neutral addition to the lead, that literaly goes like this, with additional scholarly references: "Several questions regarding the linguistic nature and classification of Serbo-Croatian have been the subject of long-standing debates and disputes. Within the scholarly scope of Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, there is a wide spectrum of different views and opinions regarding the question whether Serbo-Croatian comprises a single language, or a cluster of closely related, but separate and distinctive languages. Current linguistic views on those subjects are spanning from the notion that Serbo-Croatian still exist as a unified language, up to the notion that it never really existed as such, with majority of views falling somewhere in between those two opposite poles". You are the one who are deleting that, and suppressing other views. That entire question should be resolved here, ass you know, but in spite of that you are continuing to mislead people here. Sorabino (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In other words way too much undue, non-linguistic politics since the linguistic consensus is not what you just wrote. But you're just retracing the same old nationalistic steps that got us here in the first place. You're not learning linguistics, you're not learning the meaning of WP:DUE, you're not learning the difference between the linguistic definition of "Serbo-Croatian" and your political non-linguistic labeling. --Taivo (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I have started an essay at WP:NATIONALIST about single purpose accounts and POV-pushing relating to nationalism that other editors may wish to contribute to. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Every editor involved with this content dispute really needs to understand that this noticeboard simply does not adjudicate content disputes, and so all the words and electrons you expend debating the content dispute here are completely wasted, and going on and on and on about the details of the content dispute just make each and every one of you look bad. This noticeboard deals with behavioral issues not content disputes. I identified what I perceived as overt appeals to national identity by Sorabino, who claims to be "quite surprised" by my interpretation of their words which I read as nationalistic. Perhaps that editor's judgment is clouded by Serbian nationalism. I happen to be an American editor and if I was involved in a content dispute with editors from the UK about the War of 1812, a conflict that led to the British sacking Washington, DC and burning the White House, and I then appealed to an American administrator to side with me on the content dispute because we are both Americans - well, I think that I would be deserving of harsh condemnation. And I would never ever engage in such nationalistic behavior. So, my opinion is that you should apologize for your behavior, Sorabino, and abandon that kind of nationalistic behavior going forward. Do any editors uninvolved in Balkan disputes disagree with me? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328: Wow man! Thank you for your post, because it is clear now that you got it wrong 100% on that edit of mine, so I have to repeat it, and then explain to you where you made a fundamental error in judgement. This is the edit: "Why are you supporting user TaivoLinguist who is openly advocating against the full scope of modern Croatian language, most recently in talk pages of several articles, like "here" and "here"? You are very well aware that for several years now he is trying to reduce Croatian language to Štokavian variant only, by claiming that Čakavian and Kajkavian variants do not belong within the scope of modern Croatian language. But, those are his views. On the other hand, you are an administrator, from Serbia, and that gives you additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language. Whatever your personal views are, it is not proper for an administrator from Serbia to side with someone who is openly denying the full scope of Croatian language. That looks very bad for all of us, and I am pointing that out as an ethnic Serb from Serbia. So, please, do not use your authority as an administrator to support or empower such radical views". And here is your error. Yous said above: "I happen to be an American editor and if I was involved in a content dispute with editors from the UK about the War of 1812, a conflict that led to the British sacking Washington, DC and burning the White House, and I then appealed to an American administrator to side with me on the content dispute because we are both Americans - well, I think that I would be deserving of harsh condemnation". You are 100% right there! Yes, right - not wrong, because such behavior would be totally improper on all accounts. And let me apply that to the case that was the subject of my edit, and that is the question of the full scope of Croatian language. I will paraphrase your conclusion and say: I happen to be a Serbian editor and if I was involved in a content dispute with editors from Croatia about the full scope of Croatian language, a subject that is often debated between Serbs and Croats, and I then appealed to a Serbian administrator to side with me on the content dispute because we are both Serbians - well, I think that I would be deserving of harsh condemnation! That is how your objections would apply here, but alas, non of that really happened! In the debate on the full scope of the Croatian language I, as a Serbian user, was not involved in any kind of dispute with any Croatian user! It was non-Croatian user TaivoLinguist, who denied the full scope of Croatian language on several occasions, like here and here. He was claiming that Čakavian and Kajkavian variants are not part of Croatian language, while I was claiming in three separate debates that those variants do belong within the full scope of modern Croatian language. So, my stand was, so to say, very pro-Croatian! And on several occasions, I was labeled by TaivoLinguist as "nationalist" for my pro-Croatian stand in this debate. That is the main reason why I was compelled to emphasize that I am Serbian. When I saw that administrator Vanjagenije, who is also Serbian like me, started to support user TaivoLinguist on some issues, I decided to tell him to be mindful on the sensitivity of the issues related to Croatian language, because - and here is a very important thing, all those sensitive subjects within the Balkan scope fall under discretionary sanctions! That is why I was mentioning "additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language" in my edit! Therefore, I did not, as your conclusions would imply, ask another Serbian user to side with me in some debate with Croatian users on the full scope of Croatian language, since I debated a non-Croatian user TaivoLinguist, and in that debate my stand was 100% pro-Croatian! So, you got it wrong on all accounts, because it seems that you did not take the trouble to analze the facts, but still you passed the judgement, that was, simply speaking, not based on facts. I apologize because this edit of mine is to long, but I had to defend myself from false conclusions and unfounded accusations. Sorabino (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sorabino: So you were not saying to the admin: "side with me against a Croatian because we're both Serbian." Rather, you were saying, "don't side with this non-Croatian against Croatians because you're Serbian and that makes all Serbians look bad, I would know, I'm Serbian, too." Do I have that right? ^Leviv_ich 08:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich:, you are continuing to create constructions, and I really do not understand why? It is 100% clear what I said, referring to to TaivoLinguist on the subject, without any mention of his nationality in my edit, so please, stop with your constructions! The only reason why I reminded user Vanjagenije that he, as an administrator from Serbia, has "additional responsibility in all regionally sensitive issues that are so frequently debated in relation to politics, history and language" is because we all know very well that all subjects within the Balkan scope fall under discretionary sanctions, and therefore we should be mindful of any action that could be potentially controversial, like the subject in question (the scope of Croatian language). And that's it. Your constructions are your own, having nothing to do with my edit. Sorabino (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, Cullen328, Taivo, the user in question has a bit of a relevant history of canvassing based on nationality on hot topics. See here where he canvassed on Serbian wikipedia regarding an English wiki RfC (example : [[63]]), presenting the other side as a "group of Albanian users" (група албанских корисника) in fact quite false -- only a minority were Albanian and many weren't even from the Balkans. This was after he had already been warned about canvassing, and resulted in a temporary block. If it appears that he has again been canvassing (an admin nonetheless) based on nationality, then that is quite disappointing... --Calthinus (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This exchange, from Talk:Croatian language is revealing about how deeply nationalism drives User:Sorabino's attitude toward Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not true, since it was you who for some reason introduced Ukraine-Russia conflict into the debate on Croatian language, making unfounded analogies, and I had to respond to that and point out that you are in error, and that you are just projecting Ukraine-Russia situation on the Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy. Everyone can read that exchange and see that there was nothing innapropriate there. Sorabino (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding @Sorabino: Apart from other issues @Sorabino keeps referring to editors and administrators in ethno terms like Serbian and Croatian instead of focusing on the topic and not the (perceived) ethnic background or identity of Wikipedia participants. @Sorabino is not here to build this encyclopedia and this circus on Balkan topics will continue. @Sorabino in the past has been sanctioned for similar behavior and as we are here again appears not to have learned any lessons. Its time for something substantive. I propose a WP:TOPICBAN for @Sorabino from all Balkan topics (covered under WP:ARBMAC). Maybe a period of time from not editing Balkan topics will make the editor change their behavior and ways.Resnjari (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would like to thank user Resnjari for turning this into a witch-hunt. No further comment is needed on his allegations against me, since those allegations are not based on any facts. Sorabino (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"Witchhunt"? Casting WP:ASPERSIONS again. Just goes to show further why @Sorabino is not here to build an encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Since user TaivoLinguist is accusing me of "nationalism", here is a prime example of totally inappropriate national labeling, made by user TaivoLinguist in the debate on Croatian language. In order to show that many prominent linguists are advocating balanced approach to all controversial issues regarding Serbo-Croatian language, I quoted famous linguist Wayles Browne, from his article in Encyclopædia Britannica. That single quote obliterated users TaivoLinguist claim that there is some kind of "consensus" on Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, and he tried to undermine the authority of Wayles Browne's by labeling him as Croatian linguist (here). I was stunned by that comment, since Wayles Browne is an American linguist, with global reputation as an expert in South Slavic languages, and I tried to correct user TaivoLinguist, but he stood his ground, trying to justify his labeling by stating that Browne's education was partially at the University of Zagreb (here). This is the prime example of attempted discrediting of a person by the use of a national labeling, that was not only inappropriate, but also misleading, since it was factually wrong. That is the real face of my accuser here. Sorabino (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• content dispute, perhaps best resolved through WP:RfC I agree with this conclusion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not a content dispute - the Talk Pages for the Balkan language Serbo-Croation clearly have a header demonstrating what S-C is and why it will be used on Wiki. Nationalists are constantly trying to get around this by incremental tweaks and "sneak-ins" on that article and the standardized-language articles. Taivo (and others) were quite correct in pointing out this editor's misuse of editing here. 50.111.22.143 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

@Antidiskriminator:. User:HammerFilmFan is quite right. This is not a content dispute at its core. At the top of Talk:Serbo-Croatian, prominently displayed in a white box, is the notice: "In English, the language spoken by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Wikipedia." It is part of the warning box that all editors of the page must abide by. One of the jobs of administrators is to protect the encyclopedia from editors like Sorabino, who push their monochromatic nationalist agenda based on quotes cherry-picked out of context from Google Books searches, know nothing about the science underlying the topic, and refuse to read dissenting and better reliable sources even when that reliable source is one of the ones they cherry-picked an out-of-context quote from. It's not a content dispute, it's the behavior of a nationalist POV-pusher (evidenced by his using nationalistic jingoism to try to recruit User:Vanjagenije to his cause). --Taivo (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Claims of TaivoLinguist are 100 % false, on all accounts. There is not a single edit of mine in the article Serbo-Croatian that could be labeled as "nationalist" or in any way contrary to editing rules or guidelines. So far, in all of this discussion, my accuser did not produce a single edit of mine that would prove his claims. In fact, user TaivoLinguist is the one who is using national labels as tool of discrediting people, as shown above, and his negative attitude towards people from the region of former Yugoslavia is noticed by other users too, as can be seen from the histories of the relevant talk pages. From the very beginning, I was advocating introduction of the full scope of scholarly views in the article, while he was placing labels on people. I urge administrators to take a look at recent developments related to Serbo-Croatian and related articles, since it is clear that serious talks should be initiated on the community level regarding systematic suppression of the full scope of scholarly vies on those subjects by users like TaivoLinguist. History of this users talk page is quite revealing, with several warnings related to these particular subjects. +Sorabino (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note to administrators. Some users, who are self-declared linguists and advocates of Serbo-Croatian as a single language, might be using Wikipedia for goals that are in odds with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Within academia, there is an ongoing debate regarding structural organization of departments and programs related to the study of South-Slavic languages. In recent decades, there were many changes in the field. It seems that advocates of a single Serbo-Croatian language are in full retreat within academia, particularly in English-speaking world, because many scholarly and educational institutions are no longer providing degrees in "Serbo-Croatian" as a single language. It has become a dominant practice within academia to cluster several individual, but closely related languages (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian) into joint BCMS programs, that are combining specialization in one of those languages and comparative studies of others. That is the reality of modern scholarship in this field of study. And yet, here on Wikipedia, some users who self-declared linguists, are constantly policing and censoring relevant articles, suppressing full scope of views, insisting on the sole validity of their definition of "Serbo-Croatian", and dismissing all other views by labeling people. It is time for a full-scale policy-discussion on the entire cluster of articles related to BCMS languages. Sorabino (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin who keeps a weather eye out on Balkan issues, I have to say this has already used up far too much space at ANI with all the above argy-bargy. While I agree with Cullen328 about the attempt to garner support from an admin based on ethnicity, this is, at its core, a content dispute, as GregorB has accurately pointed out (and surprisingly, I agree with Antidiskriminator on something for once). A neutrally-worded RfC or two is the way to deal with it. The opposing sides will just have to accept the consensus that hopefully results from such RfCs. If they do not, and continue edit-warring about it, then that may be a matter for ANI or another relevant drama board. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, you got it wrong too, as did Cullen328, who made totally unfounded analogies, as shown above. I was not trying to garner support from an admin based on ethnicity or in any other way, as can bee seen here. That edit of mine shows how much in odds were our views on the subject in question, and that is why I asked him for additional explanations in my "incriminated" edit, reminding him of sensitivity of all issues regarding all regional controversies. His support for the user TaivoLinguist, who was denying the full scope of Croatian language was the subject in question, not the nationality of any user. Sorabino (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the administrators don't want to deal with this behavioral issue, this thread can be closed. --Taivo (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorabino is welcome, of course, to provide actual evidence (instead of unsupported assertions) that I have offered "totally unfounded analogies" regarding that editor's behavior. Note that I never said that I would back a pro-American analysis of a hypothetical content dispute about the War of 1812. Perhaps in such a hypothetical scenario, I might well advocate the position of many British historians that this conflict was a minor front in the Napoleonic Wars, rather than a genuine full-blown war, certainly a reasonable viewpoint in many ways. If I solicited support for my preferred content based on the ethnicity of other editors, insisting that an American administrator back me because of our shared ethnic/citizenship identity, that would be unacceptably nationalistic. That is what Sorabino did. Note also, that I never mentioned Croatians. He did. In this debate, Sorabino assumes I will take a certain hypothetical stance because I am an American, and assumes that I am thinking of Croatians when I never even mentioned or alluded to Croatians. These are indicators of a nationalistic point of view when editing, and that is why I must "Support" a topic ban from Balkans conflicts, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 your entire conclusion is 100% fictional construction, as shown above! Can you provide any edit of mine related to article in question or any other related article that would be a violation of any Wikipedia rule? On what grounds are you advocating sanctions against me? State some facts, for a change. And I did not make any "assumptions" on your nationality or your attitude towards any other nationality, you made that up 100%, that is clear as a day! Sorabino (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Readers of this thread should note how many times Sorabino has categorically stated that another editor's comment is "100% false/fictional/wrong/etc." without a shred of evidence either to prove the error or to support his own position. Exaggeration is a classic indicator of an editor with an axe to grind or a nationalistic agenda to pursue. This exaggeration includes falsely stating how "famous" or "influential" the author of a particular quote is or overstating the importance of another source by falsely claiming that it's "official". --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

From the very beginning of this discussion, no one has produced a single edit of mine, regarding the article in subject (or any other related article) that would go against Wikipedia editing rules. Some users have even mentioned a topic ban, but without stating a single violation of content, or problematic editing of mine! All this talk and time was spent here, with 100% lack of any factual backing for accusations against me. On the other hand, I showed that it was my accuser TaivoLinguist who was trying to discredit people by misuse of national labeling (here). Administrators should take a good look at his long-time policing and censoring of articles related to Serbo-Croatian, and BCMS languages in general, not to mention all those warnings on that users talk page, and various conflicts he had with several other editors on the same subjects during past few years. Something is going on there, and all those articles are greatly affected by such behavior. Sorabino (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Its why TaivoLinguist i proposed a topic ban for @Sorabino from all Balkan topics otherwise this circus continues as the editor repeatedly shows they are not here to build an encyclopedia via their editing and so on.Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorabino exaggerating the importance of an unreliable source: [64] (ISO as "official"). Sorabino exaggerating here again, referring to "the entire linguistic team" of ISO 639-3 when he knows nothing about the ISO process (there is no "entire linguistic team", the changes are made by recommendations from linguists outside the organization then based on consultations with "interested parties"). Using Encyclopedia Britannica as a definitive source here.

Sorabino stating "100% wrong/false/etc.": "Not a single source has been produced" here even though there is a list of a half dozen reliable sources from one of my previous comments to him. "You have been proven wrong that such a thing does not exist" here. "All of your claims have been proven wrong" here. Vanjagenije states that I am right here. (This is the administrator that Sorabino later tries to lay a guilt trip on to support him for purely nationalistic reasons listed previously and again below.)

Sorabino exaggerating the qualification of a specialist: Calling the author of an Encyclopedia Britannica article a "top class linguist" here (he's not that well known outside Slavic circles).

Sorabino claiming suppression: here, here, here, here. Sorabino attempting to recruit User:Vanjagenije for purely nationalistic reasons: here even though he had criticized Vanjagenije for nationalism here. More righting great wrongs here

Sorabino claiming ignorance of things that have already been written: here, here

That takes me up to 1 February, but the pattern continues throughout the remainder the thread. Sorabino isn't here to improve Wikipedia, but to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by exaggeration, by WP:IDHT, by nationalist WP:CANVASSING (with Vanjagenije), etc. --Taivo (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is becoming totally pointless. I urge administrators to take a look at each of those edits, and compare their real content with misrepresentations of my accuser here. Non of those edits of mine is in odds with editing guidelines, on the contrary - I was advocating full scope view on the subject, backed with scholarly references, while my accuser was constantly suppressing referenced content. Just take a look at his comment that I "had criticized Vanjagenije for nationalism" and compare that with the real content of that edit. It has become clear for some time now that real problem here lies with my accuser and his attitude towards articles related to BCMS languages in general. I called him out on relevant talk pages, other users criticized him too, and he picked on me - that is how we ended here. Sorabino (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

In other words, Sorabino is determined to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as he perceives them, and practices WP:IDHT whenever I present him with actual linguistic facts and reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think, based on what I personally have seen of the past editing on these issues, that Sorabino will not be able to get past his nationalist POV to be much help in improving articles where ethnic hatreds based upon the atrocities committed in the Yugoslav wars have not yet died out. Hopefully, in 50 years, this sort of thing will be mostly gone. Today, Admins are going to have to take this into account. Maybe a short (4 weeks?) topic-ban as a 'warning' will curb the passions and allow the stability of these articles - that have been attained after many a long disruption over the years - to stay intact.50.111.22.143 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is absurd, the user is implying ethnic hatreds based upon the atrocities committed in the Yugoslav wars! I was never involved in any dispute related to Yugoslav wars, nor did I take special interest in editing related articles. So, what would be the basis for the proposed topic ban? My non-involvement in those issues? I have to repeat: in the dispute on Serbo-Croatian I was advocating the full scope of the Croatian language, while my accuser was denying that. In other words, my position on the subject was quite pro-Croatian, and since I am a Serbian that shows that I am not burdened with regional animosities. Sorabino (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is functionally a content dispute on a contentious issue. If it were up to me, I'd close this word soup, start an RfC on the article's talk page to see if there's any consensus for the change, make a general warning on any interactions between Sorabino and TaivoLinguist at the RfC (ie state your opinion and then unwatch the discussion) and come back to ANI if Sorabino disrupts the RfC in any way. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User:SportingFlyer, that's not a bad idea in theory, but we have to avoid the "regular" RfC based on nationalist disruption. If we had an RfC every time that a Ukrainian wanted to force renaming Kiev to "Kyiv", or that a Greek wanted to force renaming Republic of Macedonia to "FYROM" we'd be in RfCs constantly. The issue was decided in the past, hence the note in the header section at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. Sorabino is here simply because he refuses to accept WP:CONSENSUS and the evidence for both a scientific consensus and a Wikipedia consensus. Do we reward the persistent nationalist? I'm not basically opposed to an RfC, but thinking it might cause more problems than it would solve. IMHO. --Taivo (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: Eh, the content dispute to me seems relatively narrow. This is a very awkward topic, especially since my assumption is most current contemporary sources wouldn't use Serbo-Croatian as a term (outside, possibly, the linguistics community - I have no idea about that one.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I urged several times for a full-scale review of article on Serbo-Croatian and related articles on BCMS languages, since there is no scholarly WP:CONSENSUS on that subject. Claims of user TaivoLinguist that there is some kind of "consensus" on that subject are fictional, since it is common knowledge that the entire field is South-Slavic languages and their classification is subjected to linguistic debates among scholars. As I stated above, academic world is dropping the "Serbo-Croatian" label, by large in English speaking world, no one is getting degrees in "Serbo-Croatian" anymore, studies are focused on particular BCMS languages, combined with comparative approach. That is the reality of the subject, but contrary to that, user TaivoLinguist continued to advocate only one view, policing articles, suppressing content on the full scope of views, and labeling people as "nationalist" just because they are pointing to current problems regarding all those articles. And now he states: we have to avoid the "regular" RfC based on nationalist disruption! No further comment is needed there. Sorabino (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As usual, Sorabino completely confuses the issue because he is not a linguist and views this only as a political question. The issue is not the label "Serbo-Croatian", although that is still the most common label for the single pluricentric language that includes the dialects Chakavian and Shtokavian. The standardized languages Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are all subdialects of the Shtokavian dialect. That is, indeed, a linguistic and Wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS. All these Shtokavian forms are almost entirely mutually intelligible and therefore constitute a language in the linguistic sense. There is no linguistic debate on the mutual intelligibility of these dialects (references at Talk:Serbo-Croatian) except for Chakavian, which might be considered a separate language. Sorabino confuses the political anti-Yugoslavian landscape and refuses to recognize the linguistic one. That is the problem here. Sorabino wants to reshape the article to reflect political considerations rather than linguistic ones. --Taivo (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sorabino...there is an old Wikipedia consensus. There are people who enforce it on your edits, and there is only one solution that can lead to a desirable outcome(for you). WP:Consensus can change. Make a RfC if you think the old consensus is outdated, with a neutral question. Present your arguments to change, look at the responses, and discuss with valid arguments. Do not try to force something through by editing articles contrary to established guidelines when others tell you to stop.

User:TaivoLinguist, you can't stop others from making a RfC to evaluate consensus. The closer should take nationalist based reasoning into account by giving those votes no weight.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

User TaivoLinguist continues to misrepresent my views and actions, but that is of no importance, since editing histories of all those articles are showing that I was only trying to add referenced content on the full scope of scholarly views into those articles. More important problem here is that user TaivoLinguist also continues to misrepresent WP:CONSENSUS on the subject, since there never was any "consensus" in favor of systematic suppression of all additions that would inform readers of the full scope of scholarly views on all those subjects. That problem was indicated by several users during past few years, but all objections to one-sidedness of content were suppressed, and problems continued to grow. Since the very term "Serbo-Croatian" is destined to migrate into linguistic history, it would be best to separate two subjects. Article Serbo-Croatian should be reduced to the historical "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic phenomenon, that existed during the 19th and 20th century, while on the other hand we should create a separate and very much needed article on modern BCSM languages, that would reflect current linguistic situation and academic reality that exists in modern scholarly studies of the field. Those two subjects, former "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic phenomenon, and present situation of BCMS languages, should be separated. That would solve many problems, and open new space for future development. Sorabino (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The only reason that Sorabino thinks I misrepresent his views is that I am dealing with actual linguistics and an existing WP:CONSENSUS. He has misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia and the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS, thinking that he can insert his POV into the article by the sheer force of his self-righteous nationalism. I understand him perfectly and have stated the actual nature of his views because I have seen his kind in Wikipedia a hundred times before. I have the full weight WP:CONSENSUS behind me. It is his responsibility to create a neutral RfC. He is right in one regard--this article should be split into two--one that deals only with the Yugoslav standard called "Serbo-Croatian" and one that deals the single language (per linguistic consensus) that deals with the dialect complex that includes Chakavian and Shtokavian (and used to include Kajkavian). Right now that single language is commonly called "Serbo-Croatian" by linguists, but we can judge WP:COMMONNAME by a survey of reliable sources if the Wikipedia community agrees to splitting the content into two articles. --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please. @Sorabino:: the language is still functionally Serbo-Croatian, and there's tons of linguistic literature showing it's one language. The "four distinct languages" is a political situation, not a language situation. If you want to add specific commentary on what's currently in the article that's ultimately contentious, put it in an RfC on a talk page and be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion if it doesn't go your way. From a purely linguistic point of view, your viewpoint will almost certainly will not be accepted. @TaivoLinguist:: You're not wrong, but you also don't WP:OWN the article. There's a pointy op-ed in a WP:RS from October from a major Croatian newspaper lamenting the fact Croatian communities are now being forced to use Bosnian, even though the Bosnian government literally switched out one word on all of the government buildings. There is a political reality here all four countries are trying to claim the language as their own, and while I think the article does a good job of explaining this, I don't see anything wrong with a neutral RfC to discuss the modern difficulties of this viewpoint if something needs to be added to the article. If the RfC isn't actually neutral, have confidence you have the weight of consensus behind you. And please, for all of our sakes, stop responding to each other. This word soup has changed absolutely nothing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Motion to close

• The above thread has expended far too much verbiage on the content of the dispute and too little on the conduct of disputants to be actionable. Currently it exceeds 10,000 words total. Simply put, this is tl;dc (too long; don't care). I propose that it be closed without action and with an instruction to the disputants to conduct an RfC at the article talk page. If there is a repeat of whatever behaviour is being alleged then I suggest it be taken to WP:AE. That venue is better suited for this as statements must be succinct and supported with appropriate diffs. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I'm not sure there was ever anything actionable anyways, just a spillover of the dispute. SportingFlyer T·C 00:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Nothing productive will come from keeping this open. ^Leviv_ich 01:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support There was a behavioral issue early on, but it got buried and I'm partly to blame. If User:Sorabino wants to initiate an RfC, I have no objections. --Taivo (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The takeaway from all this should be the following: editors should focus on content and process - establishing consensus in particular - and not on other editors' behavior or background. GregorB (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neither for against closure - Personally i think this report should have been taken to an WP:AE as things got muddled and behavioral issues where not properly addressed regarding @Sorabino and if it transpires again it should be taken there.Resnjari (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear stealth canvassing by User:Fredrick eagles

This section was originally merged by Levivich, however I think this clear evidence of off-wiki canvassing needs to be addressed separately. This report says that AFDs were advertised in Twitter by users active here. Is it normal? If not, why is this advertisement left untouched? Having gone through the Twitter links, I've added my own subsection. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Awful contribution

I have to address awesome contribution in AFD of Sepideh_Gholian which I nominated for deletion because due to People notable for only one event , she is not notable, in fact the event -Haft Tappeh workers protest- is. So why do users devoted pages to Ali Nejati, Esmail Bakhshi and Sepideh Gholian. In addition, subject are not supported by RS and Independent sources. There are some points:

• First, it seems to take place the Wikipedia:Canvassing in social media and some one [[REDACTED - Oshwah] twitted]
• Second, user with just 4 edits or 15 edits (in English wikipedia) participated in AFD of Sepideh_Gholian
• Third, other users confirm that a Propaganda is appearing
• Finally Fredrick eagles reverts heavy material without source or RS.

I have to say that such as adventures is happening in Ali Nejati. Some one by this [[REDACTED - Oshwah] twitt] call other to vote.

Please check AFD of this and this Saff V. (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I have tagged the AFD to remind editors that it is WP:NOTAVOTE, but instead strength of argument which applies. If you believe there are potential sock or meat puppets, then I suggest you raise a report at WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 11:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Saff V., I suppose you meant to write awful rather than awesome in your heading. I've taken the freedom of changing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your Immediate response, at this moment I am finding [[REDACTED - Oshwah] another twiit] which was written by [REDACTED - Oshwah] and User:Ladsgroup commented that we have to report pov issue for Saff V. by informing the Office! Saff V. (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This should probably be merged with the previous report regarding POV-pushing by Saff V., since the source in question in the previous report is a significant component in the AfD discussion mentioned in this report. Grandpallama (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This AFD is also being subjected to off wiki canvassing, such as at [REDACTED - Oshwah] Canterbury Tail talk 13:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The tweet is {{tq|{{lang-fa| [REDACTED - Oshwah]}}.}} followed by a link to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sepideh_Gholian and four twitter handles (@[REDACTED - Oshwah]), which [[REDACTED - Oshwah] Google translates] to: If you believe that Wikipedia's English page has the necessary criteria for not removing, then leave a comment on this page. Use the same syntax that I used ([REDACTED - Oshwah])). ^Leviv_ich 02:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yep, that's a comical AfD. HeShe is almost certainly notable, but I reckon that nine Keep !votes in a row without any of them being of value may well be a record. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Nejati (where the same problem is occurring) might be a different question, though - it does smack a bit of WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  This is she --Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Whoops, thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Saff V.’s edits are reminiscent of the the report against Pahlevun below. Both editors seem quite involved in POV-pushing concerning political activists against the government of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Don't accuse me POV issue without representing document.What connection is between edits of me and Pahlevun? Admis can check my edits, I always try to respect to rules by citing material with RS and avoiding OR.Saff V. (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

When I nominated Sepideh Gholian and Ali Nejati for AFD, [[user:[REDACTED - Oshwah]]] called other users in twitter (I released links of twits above):If you believe that Wikipedia's English page has the necessary criteria for not removing, then leave a comment on this page. Use the same syntax that I used ([REDACTED - Oshwah])).Every one can check the history and history and see the result of metacanvassing!As well as He is keeping canvassing in Gholian AFD BY THIS COMMENT:"Thank you. Gharouni and Jayron please also take a look at This AfD on Ali Nejati that Saff V. has created. He is intent on deleting Nejati's page but is incapable of providing any rational reason for it." such as Obvious canvassing!

In other hand, these articles ( Sepideh Gholian and Ali Nejati and Esmail Bakhshi) are full of material with fringe source (such as instagrag, youtube and ...) or without source. I removed some of them (here, 2,3 and I explaned in tp but User:Fredrick eagles with any reason in summary or TP or providing RS, reverted them more and more in in this article and Bakhshi. Are not they serious pov issue from Fredrick? Also we have in WP:AFDFORMAT that Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely All in All I asked serious decision for such violation and propaganda.The quality of wikipedia article should be protected.Saff V. (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: and @Canterbury Tail:, Can I ask you review user:Fredrick eagles's contribution that I reported some of them above as well as his PA on me (hysteric and the brute force of the state apparatus of a shia theocracy! Regards. Saff V. (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Why the twitter account (@[REDACTED - Oshwah]) belongs to User:[REDACTED - Oshwah]

The community has rejected this type of sleuthing. A canvassing notice has been placed on the AfD page. That is enough to warn the closing admin, who will surely ignore the canvassed votes. To be clear, don't discuss editors' off-wiki activities on Wikipedia. Whatever they do on this site is fair game for discussion. Whatever they do on other sites is not. If you feel there has been off-wiki malfeasance, privately email an administrator or ArbCom. Thank you. And, to any editor who's been soliciting meat puppets on Twitter, I suggest you stop, because you risk being banned from Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's clear and already detailed. See the twitter comment: {{tq|{{lang-fa|[REDACTED - Oshwah]}}.}} [[REDACTED - Oshwah] Google translates]: If you believe that Wikipedia's English page has the necessary criteria for not removing, then leave a comment on this page. Use the same syntax that I used ([REDACTED - Oshwah])). @[REDACTED - Oshwah] is instructing others to contribute to AFDs using the "syntax"es he, i.e. User:[REDACTED - Oshwah], [[REDACTED - Oshwah] used in one the AFDs]. This is clearly an inappropriate notification. Should the user go without any warnings/actions? --Mhhossein talk 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Unless you can prove for certain that the twitter account and the Wikipedia editor in question are one and the same then no. The AFD closer (I would imagine, in this case, it would be an administrator) will be able to discern/discount any clearly canvassed meatpuppet votes. Fish+Karate 10:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Hi and thanks for the response Fish and karate. How can it be proved for certain? I mean what more is needed to prove they're the same...You can see the twitter account is referring to his account in WP.--Mhhossein talk 16:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Until and unless the Wikipedia account refers to the Twitter account as being his, then as Fae says, you are running the risk of WP:OUTING a user. Fish+Karate 09:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC) This is attempting to out a user! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC) This appears to be a deliberate attempt at doxxing or outing a Wikipedia contributor's off-wiki social media accounts. My understanding of policy is that this is strictly forbidden, and speculating about accounts on-wiki is normally considered harassment. Unless the editor has voluntarily chosen to connect these accounts on-wiki, not only is there nothing to do here, but this section should be revision deleted for privacy concerns. --Fæ (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC) @Fish and karate: The twitter account is certainly connected to the Wiki account in question. See [[REDACTED - Oshwah] this tweet] where the account is saying his creation, i.e. [[:fa:[REDACTED - Oshwah]]], was nominated for deletion. [[REDACTED - Oshwah] Here], he talks about having completed and rewritten 90% of Esmail Bakhshi. In [[REDACTED - Oshwah] this one] he talks about editing Ali Nejati. [[REDACTED - Oshwah] This one] announces that Sepideh Gholian is under construction by him. [[REDACTED - Oshwah] Here] he talks about having edited [[:fa:[REDACTED - Oshwah]]]. There are certainly more tweets in this regard. @Fæ: Having done such a clear canvassing, the user will not "voluntarily chosen to connect these accounts on-wiki". I think you're too optimistic here. "doxxing or outing a Wikipedia contributor's off-wiki social media accounts"!!! He's already advertised many of his works/edits. --Mhhossein talk 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC) So, Fæ, [[REDACTED - Oshwah] is this your account?], where canvassing also seems to have gone on? Just asking - could be an impersonator. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC) This may be something Iranian, but the Twitter terminology in the previous sections made me cringe sometimes. A small lecture: in English, the platform is Twitter, a post is a tweet, and a twit is what "retarded" persons are sometimes called. So please don't use twit. Just don't... --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 'Twit', commonly used in the UK, is never used for 'retarded' which is mainly an American insult. If a Brit is calling you a twit, it means they think you are being foolish or a bit stupid. Its a lesser form of 'idiot'. If someone calls you 'retarded' they are stating you are mentally deficient. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Yes, you are correct. By adding external links to a user's off-wiki social media accounts (even if it's not true) is an attempt at outing another user and is absolutely against policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC) If a Twitter account engaging in blatant canvassing states their wiki username it is certainly *not* outing to discuss the twitter accounts actions on-wiki. It may not be true, the twitter account may be lying, but refusing to even discuss it (where the wiki account is actively engaged in the discussions where the twitter account is urging others to follow their lead) is condoning and aiding off-wiki canvassing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC) The following tweets, which are unrelated to [REDACTED - Oshwah], may be relevant to the general stmt by OID above regarding twitter accounts: [[REDACTED - Oshwah] tweet by twitter user A], [[REDACTED - Oshwah] tweet by twitter user B]. Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC) That is not correct. It's considered an attempt to out another user if you provide a link on Wikipedia to an external website containing any off-wiki information, identification, or data about somebody and say, "this is User:Such-and-such" (or anything like that) and if the user has not made the external link to the website provided, or the personal information it provides, public - even if it turns out to not be true. It's a violation of policy and is handled and redacted as such. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC) @Jehochman: I was not talking about any AFDs. The user in question is making off-wiki canvassing which needs to be considered given the links I provided. @Fish and karate: Do you also think the discussion should be closed despite the new links? --Mhhossein talk 12:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC) @Jehochman: it isn't true that the closing admin would necessarily spot canvassed !votes. In particular, it is not true if the people who have been canvassed are in any case frequent contributors to en-WP. You'll note my comment to Fae above, which occurred not long before your close. I realise that might be construed as thread hijacking but where do you propose I should post it? And if not at all, why not? - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Upperclass Twitter of the Year EEng 22:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Surmeetjones

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

---

Disruptive editing by Surmeetjones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Probably a sock of Martinvito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Like the other socks they add unsourced perpetrators to terrorism-related articles and sometimes make up terrorist motives when the sources say that the motives are unknown.

• Adding an item as a terrorist attack when the source says that the motive is unknown and adding "Islamists" as perps on another item without a source.
• Changing the perpetrators in the attack they added
• Adding unsourced perps

Warned on January 20 and several times when editing under other user names. Sjö (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Does indeed look like a sock to me. WP:DUCK. similar types of edits and topics as the banned account. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding the reluctance to block this user. The sockpuppet investigation has been up for more than two weeks and this report hasn't yet led to a block. This is a persistent sockmaster, and I fully expect to encounter him again. Please advise how I should report him in the future to get a quicker result. Should I include more diffs? Should I report him as a vandal instead, since his edits seem to fit with WP:VANDTYPES (as hoaxing vandalism or "including adding plausible misinformation")? Sjö (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the Surmeetjones account for having similar edits to Sundeepnor and Martinvito per the evidence in the relevant SPI report and have updated the SPI case. The network range comes back as 2a02:2121:200::/39 when I run only the IP users listed in the SPI, and as a network range of 2a02:2120::/30 in the WHOIS when I run it. The /30 range is out of the question; it's too wide and with too many unrelated edits to consider blocking due to collateral damage. However, I'm not opposed to blocking the 2a02:2121:200::/39 range if such related disruption continues. I decided to hold off, since no edits have been made by this range since January 19 of this year. If things do pick up from that range, file another ANI report and link to this one or let me know on my user talk page (you'll also want to link me to this ANI and the SPI so that I remember... haha). Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Figure skating edits

I've asked someone dozens of times (leaving comments in edits summaries + talk pages) to stop

• needlessly abbreviating (e.g. changing 2018-19 to 18-19 when the results table only covers one season)
• needlessly widening results tables by removing abbreviations of event names in cases where they're clearly useful in keeping the table narrow and easier to read
• changing names of events or re-arranging the order of results in a way that doesn't make sense (moving Junior Worlds below Youth Olympics even though the Youth Olympics are for younger skaters and the International Skating Union considers it less important).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marjorie_Lajoie&type=revision&diff=857318882&oldid=857298820
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marjorie_Lajoie&type=revision&diff=872642579&oldid=872602844
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marjorie_Lajoie&type=revision&diff=877406989&oldid=875120042
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marjorie_Lajoie&type=revision&diff=878684967&oldid=878684671

This user has also repeatedly removed content without explanation.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alysa_Liu&type=revision&diff=879454199&oldid=879454177
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ting_Cui&type=revision&diff=871169676&oldid=871140777
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anna_Shcherbakova&type=revision&diff=881615366&oldid=881602700
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Petr_Gumennik&type=revision&diff=881616843&oldid=881566439

I've left comments in edit summaries as well as on these talk pages.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skater0000
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:5.148.112.148

He or she completely ignores my comments. Even if I leave a hundred more comments, there's no sign that this user will read or take them into consideration. I think that the above users and the one below (and possibly others) may be the same person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.10.42.166

Hergilei (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• This concerns Skater0000 (talk · contribs) who has made over 730 edits since August 2018, mostly in articles, a few in drafts, and none on talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Where have you tried talking to the other editor, Hergilei, on user talk pages or article talk pages? Comments in edit summaries (which are probably not seen) and template warnings don't count as discussion. Your comments might not be ignored if they are personal comments directed to an editor on a talk page which are focused on problem-solving, not just messages to come to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I left messages not only in edit summaries but also these user talk pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skater0000
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:5.148.112.148

Hergilei (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hergilei - I see that you've left messages on Skater0000's user talk page regarding the user's editing and formatting here, here, and here, but all in the month of October 2018. You left this user an unrelated message on January 10, 2019 (and of course, an ANI notice of this discussion the other day), but nothing since October 2018 and in regards to this topic area... I think that you should leave an escalated warning on their talk page that includes a summary of the user's issues and a link to the relevant policy or guideline page that outlines the way things should be vs what they're doing. Ask the user to please respond and work with you to sort this out.

You also messaged the 5.148.112.148 IP user (diffs: 1, 2, 3) in September and October of 2018 - again, I don't consider these messages recent enough to merit that any action is necessary. You did leave two messages (diffs: 1, 2) on the user's talk page on 25 January 2019 (which I would consider a recent attempt at discussing the matter), but nothing else other than edit summaries, which (as Liz stated above) does not count as any kind of discussion or attempt to come to a consensus or resolution. You have left no messages or communicated at all with 92.10.42.166.

You also left those recent messages on the talk page of 5.148.112.148 with the assumption that Hergilei and this IP user are the same person. You also make this assumption here - how do you know for 100% certain that Hergilei, the IP user (5.148.112.148), and the IP user (92.10.42.166) are all the same person? Can you please provide diffs from anywhere that explicitly state or prove without a doubt that they're the same person? If you can't do so, then we obviously can't make that assumption. Accusations, implications, or assumptions like this must have proof. Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming they're all the same person because of the strong similarity in the types of edits they choose to make:

• removing results from the National section (with no explanation)
• removing clarifications such as "Advanced" for novice (the clarification is needed because there are several levels of novice)
• removing abbreviations which help keep the table narrow
• changing Gardena to Egna

• moving Junior Worlds below Youth Olympics

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luc_Economides&diff=prev&oldid=881642685
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anna_Shcherbakova&type=revision&diff=881905220&oldid=881632142
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anna_Shcherbakova&type=revision&diff=881615366&oldid=881602700
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Anna_Shcherbakova&type=revision&diff=880604097&oldid=880182535
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=882039425&oldid=880838028
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=880603993&oldid=880267544
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=876265043&oldid=876186459
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=875106700&oldid=874217449
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=872701654&oldid=872653435
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Siao_Him_Fa&type=revision&diff=871885740&oldid=869077109
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yuhana_Yokoi&diff=prev&oldid=881899106
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kaori_Sakamoto&diff=prev&oldid=875054936
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rika_Kihira&diff=prev&oldid=875054992
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rika_Kihira&diff=prev&oldid=881640656
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wakaba_Higuchi&diff=prev&oldid=875055215
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alexia_Paganini&type=revision&diff=879798266&oldid=879798197
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elizaveta_Nugumanova&diff=prev&oldid=875052443
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Koshiro_Shimada&diff=prev&oldid=872701399
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Petr_Gumennik&diff=prev&oldid=872701168

Hergilei (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sashko1999

Sashko1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

Report by Argean

I noticed that this user's strange behavior, changing all the links for demonyms in the infoboxes of various countries, started after being confronted at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, where repeatedly posted new comments with their opinion on how the change of the name of the country should reflect on the change of demonyms. When the discussion there didn't show an obvious consensus on the matter, and the need for consensus was noted by other editors, the user tried to manipulate the discussion by opening new sections to continue supporting their own claims, or by deleting comments by other users, clearly showing signs of WP:PUSH. The user eventually got involved in the aforementioned massive editing, showing signs of WP:POINT behavior to prove that their claims on the specific change are consistent with wikipedia. When confronted that their proposed changes constituted WP:OR and required WP:RfC the user ignored repeatedly the calls or provided insufficient evidence, showing signs of unwillingness to engage in discussion and to adhere to the rules (which also was stated explicitly), stating that their proposed changes are there to make wikipedia better. The user has also made comments to other users that constitute WP:NPA, has tried to disregard others' people capacity to provide arguments, and has tried to perform WP:CANVAS to manipulate an RfC, showing a clear pattern of problematic behavior consistent with a propagandistic agenda, that should be investigated for WP:NOTHERE.

Report by DIYeditor

When I encountered Sashko1999 they were changing every single demonym parameter in country article infoboxes from linking to the article of the same name as the demonym to an article on the demographics of the country. They were marking all the edits as minor so I assumed it was trolling/vandalism, but I saw that they were able to present a somewhat sensible argument about it, and I repeatedly suggested they start an RFC. However it became clear that this editor had been warned a number times about WP:MINOR and seem to be intentionally ignoring the warnings, because their English skill is adequate (although Thomas.W doubted this) and understanding of what a talk page is also seems to be adequate - except for things like utter refusal, no matter how many times warned, to WP:INDENT and stop marking edits MINOR. User seems to feel privileged to ignore whatever portion of messages he chooses and not be interactive. User appears to be a WP:NATIONALIST POV pusher and not really here to build an encyclopedia.

Sanction history

Sashko1999 has a prior history of a topic ban from Macedonia[65], 3RR and NPOV warnings, and being blocked by NeilN for edit warring[66] and violating arbitration decisions[67].

Diffs

• CIR and failure to collaborate, understanding messages, warnings and policies:
  • Completely and stubbornly ignores WP:INDENT (see the mess the user is still leaving on User talk:Sashko1999, Talk:Denmark) [68][69][70][71][72] (etc.)
  • Ignores many WP:MINOR notices [73][74][75]
  • Basic CIR warning by Thomas.W [76]
  • Disruption re: ethnic group warning by Doug Weller [77]
• WP:CANVAS [78]
• WP:CONSENSUS:
  • Refused to understand why an WP:RFC was needed [79][80] (etc.)
  • According to the editor everyone else is wrong and doesn't understand their point [81], [82]
  • Saying what's right is what matters not the rules [83], [84]
  • Warned by NeilN[85] to use talk page if user is ever reverted
  • Additional diffs of examples of not working toward consensus [86]
• WP:DISRUPT Changing massively all the links of the demonyms in the infoboxes without providing adequate rationale is disruptive behavior (see also POINT below)
• WP:NOTHERE Seems to be here to push Bulgarians vs Macedonians-related POV (example here: [87]). Also made a large number of edits in almost every language wikipedia in pages related with Bulgarians. [88]
• WP:NPA Calling people with different opinions hard nationalists [89], [90], or disregarding other editors' capacity [91]
• WP:OR Claiming that will "correct" all the "wrong" links in the infoboxes, based on their own definition of demonym that supports with inadequate resources [92], [93], [94]
• WP:POINT Too many diffs to link, see edit history for his reaction to failing to prevail at Macedonia over some kind of ethnic/nationalist/whatever issue by changing on the demonym links
• WP:PUSH Has repeatedly posted new comments at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, and manipulated the discussion by deleting other comments [95], opening new sections [96] on a matter that was already discussed [[97]], and later trying to hide their pushing behavior by deleting the titles of the new sections [98], [99]

Submitted

Submitted by Argean and DIYeditor at 00:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sanction proposals

Some possibilities:

1. Topic ban from all articles related to countries, nations or ethnic groups
2. Final and official warning to cease all inappropriate behavior
3. Immediate indef
4. No action

Survey

• Indef - This user is fundamentally problematic and is not able to understand or comply with rules. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - This user has repeatedly created controversies, failed to engage in discussion, and showed complete lack of adhering to rules and respecting other editors. The problematic behavior pattern of the user is clearly fundamental and not showing signs of assuming good faith. Argean (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR (with respect to several very basic and essential requirements of participation on this project), and profound WP:DISRUPTION that we have no reason to believe will be alleviated, even if we first tried intermediate sanctions, since this editor does not seem to have any interest in making even basic efforts to respond to community concerns--take your pick. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - WP:NOTHERE. Qualitist (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

This is downright scary.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not notice Also made a large number of edits in almost every language wikipedia in pages related with Bulgarians while we were putting this report together. That is concerning and maybe broader action is in order? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DIYeditor. Sorry that I didn't make it very clear. I noticed it when I checked the user's global contributions. I have no idea if the user speaks all these languages, but all the edits are in articles related to Bulgarians and by checking quickly some of the edits it seems that the user is changing some of the terms (I have no idea why). Clearly looks like the user is involved in a mission or something in wikipedia and this involves Bulgarians and especially their relation to Macedonians. Argean (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Was not aware of the malice intent of the editor.....though we were just dealing with someone that needed some guidance. Clear that this editor has lost any credibility with the community.--Moxy (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would support banning this user "just" for being here three and a half years and still refusing to indent their talk page contributions, but it's clear that the issues here go much, much deeper than that. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Update 09/02 I just want to notice that the user is ignoring this WP:ANI, and

• continues stubbornly not to WP:INDENT their talk page contributions [100], [101]
• continues to WP:PUSH their WP:NPOV, causing WP:ATPD (same diffs as above)
• trying to perform WP:CANVAS ([102], [103], [104], [105], [106]), with obvious object to cause WP:DISRUPTION that will serve their goal to manipulate (WP:POINT) the discussion on Talk:Republic of Macedonia, and circumvent the need for WP:CONSENSUS. --Argean (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Rejs12345

Rejs12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the past four months, Rejs12345 (talk · contribs) has been engaged in edit wars involving automotive articles. He has persistently attempted to make the Fiat Freemont redirect a full article by copying and pasting information from the Dodge Journey article (the Freemont is merely a rebadge of the Journey). More recently, he instigated an edit war on the Fiat Punto article by copying and pasting information from the Fiat Grande Punto article (the Grande Punto is the third generation of the Punto). Sending warnings on Rejs12345's talk page is futile, as he does not respond to them and continue to make his dubious edits.

In my opinion, Rejs12345 should be given some time out so he will learn how to properly edit articles here. - Areaseven (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Areaseven Make sure you inform Rejs12345 on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice}} Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Fiat Freemont redirect has been fully protected due to edit warring and content disputes. I've also fully protected the Fiat Punto for two days due to the edit warring. I see that Rejs12345 was given a warning for edit warring and 3RR on February 4 by Areaseven; I'm glad Areaseven did this, as I typically don't consider any kind of administrative action for edit warring violations unless the user was warned beforehand and continued despite having it given to them. Since being warned, the user made another revert to the article on February 5. Unfortunately, more than a day has elapsed and the user hasn't edited Wikipedia since then - a block being placed right now would be for an issue that would be considered stale, and would most likely be ineffective since edit warring blocks typically start with a duration of 24 hours. If the user doesn't edit again until after tomorrow, they would only know that they were blocked if they read their user talk page and saw the block notice (and given what's been stated, it sounds like the user doesn't even bother to read the notices that are left for them there). We need to wait until this user is causing additional disruption so that action can be taken and while it's current and in-progress at that time. Else, the user won't feel any "pinch" or "nudge" from the block and the inability to edit, and this problem will only just continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems this user is persistent on trying to get certain vehicles separate articles in favor of redirects. They sent me a message today on my Talk page requesting not to "remove" the page, to which I advised the user to copy the content into the draftspace title of the same name (I am still waiting to see if they've read my reply). The only problem I see is their persistence in the improper request for unprotection of Fiat Freemont, which as Oshwah stated was fully protected to prevent edit warring, which this user was involved in. If anything, I'd also advise the user be familiar with the draftspace and the AfC process and the user not overwrite redirects for a while. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Two days ago Rejs12345 posted a plea to have protection removed, so that they could expand the redirects to full articles, on multiple talk pages including Fiat Freemont, Dodge Journey, Fiat Grande Punto, and Range Rover Vogue - I probably missed a few. Today, within the past few hours, they forum-shopped the same plea to my talk page and the pages of the other admins who imposed the protection. I would say this is not a case of “stale” activity; the user has not given up their disruptive attempts to expand those articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray

DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in gross POV pushing that he neither understands what he is editing about, neither he shows any willingness to accept where he is completely wrong. He deliberately misrepresents sources and policies to justify his POV and resorts to personal attacks and bludgeoning so often that he has become a timesink.

• On Human rights abuses in Kashmir  he has been whitewashing human rights abuses by Indian army[107] while hyping the abuses from militants and Pakistani army. He misrepresents sources and frequently removes long standing content which he don't like by making a false claim that the content was violating copyrights or  NFCC,[108] Since last few days he is removing more content by providing the same fallacious reasoning,[109] and making threats on edit summaries.[110] despite being told otherwise on talk page.[111]

• He has been misrepresenting sources and showing his inability to understand English by not getting the fact that "counterterrorists" means excess carried out with an intention to counter terrorists. Not that it means excess carried out during "counter terrorism operations". It is ironic that he has been harassing other editor on talk page by saying "it appears to me as an English language related WP:CIR."[112] Though anyone can tell that DBigXray is the one with CIR.
• After getting reporting for gaming WP:1RR rule by removing the same content without getting consensus, he made a personal attack on me that I belong to a "{{tq|sock/meat farm",[113] see WP:ASPERSIONS.
• Has been told by 2 editors and an admin[114] that there is no violation of copyvio or NFCC, still he was not agreeing.
• I reverted him again,[115] and he quickly reverted me but this time he reverted claiming "no consensus for adding these either, first complete the talk page discussion",[116] despite he never gained consensus to remove the longstanding content at first place. He also left a 3RR warning on talk page of mine when I am nowhere near 3RR. His recent talk page comments can be best described as WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALL.[117][118]

• I commented on a DYK[119] where the concerning article is created by a different editor. DBigXray interpreted my comments as "battle grounds to attack editors".[120] His incivility and aspersions include "unfortunately i am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts... Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article)"[121] He also falsely claimed that I "already confessed above that you are going through" his contributions, when I haven't and "consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article"[122] when multiple editors on talk page are discussing the name change.[123][124]

He has restored to mass bludgeon the talk page where the consensus was being developed to change the name of the article.[125]

Other recent examples

• Makes 4 reverts in 3 days to label Zabiuddin Ansari as a "Islamic fundamentalist" and a terrorist, in violation of WP:TERRORIST[126] then engages in IDHT on talk page.[127] Extreme labels like "Islamic fundamentalist" are not even supported by any of the sources he is using.[128]
• Labels Ajmal Kasab as a terrorist  by reverting other user then bludgeons on talk page.[129]
• After one editor brought two above articles to WP:BLPN,[130] and other uninvolved editor replied[131] DBigXray WP:BLUDGEONed the section to the degree that now no one would touch the section even with 100 feet pole.[132]

These examples also describes the pattern of DBigXray, to edit war by misrepresenting sources and engage in gross POV pushing, then bludgeon the talk pages so that no one would participate or remain interested in the article in question for any longer. Further evidence of POV pushing and deceptive editing can be seen on Kunan Poshpora incident in which he was whitewashing the entire incident into Indian Army's favor by using misleading edit summaries. His prolonged edit warring on Rafale deal controversy and IDHT over there also appears to be disruptive.  MehrajMir (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Taking all this into consideration and agreeing that this cumulative behavior of edit warring, harassing other editors, misrepresenting policies and sources, mass bludgeoning, battleground mentality and IDHT is undoubtedly disruptive, I am proposing a complete topic ban WP:ARBIPA, because he has been reported enough times on ANI and has only retrogressed further.   MehrajMir (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer.  MehrajMir (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Mehrajmir13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I would note here that this user above has been editing with an extreme anti-India bias at Human rights abuses in Kashmir diff and Kunan Poshpora incident [133], on Human rights abuses in Kashmir instead of joining the talk page discussions or WP:DR for content disputes, he has tried tag teaming with an IP (who is clearly someones sock) at WP:AN3 [134] and when AN3 did not work out he tried to disrupt a DYK I had submitted and is now trying out ANI here.
• The IP had joined Mehrajmir13 and filed an AN3 case against me with false claims about EdJohnston, within a short period of time without any invitation Mehrajmir13 reached AN3 to argue (diff) against me and to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) It did not work out as expected [135] after which they tried other ways [136] to get sanctions on me.
• Regarding the massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA act [137], I had raised my objections on the talk page [138] since I had felt that it was both COPYVIO and undue. It was later clarified that it may not be considered COPYVIO which I accepted. On the talk page I had stated that [139] this copying of entire AFSPA act is still undue and an article on Human rights should discuss the implications of the AFSAP Act and not just copy paste the entire act in the Human rights article instead of giving a link to the act itself [140]. After staying away for a week, and instead of joining the discussion Mehrajmir13 again restored the disputed content [141] into the article.
• Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support (diff) an Edit warring report on an article with 1RR restriction, but at the same time he is outraged for getting [142] the standard Edit-warring template for his continued edit-warring (diff, diff, diff) on the same article.
• After having a content dispute and trying an AN3 complaint against me, Mehrajmir13 hounded me (diff) to a recent DYK, that I had submitted. The DYK had already been approved by a reviewer [143] and yet Mehrajmir13 tried stalling an already approved DYK, on entirely frivolous grounds and asking for rename or merge. Mehrajmir13 was also warned [144] by another editor WBG on Mehrajmir13's frivolous thread (diff) on the article's talk page.
• The discussion at Talk:Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir among several editors that included User:Hamster Sandwich, User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Kautilya3, MarkZusab showed that the consensus was against any renaming or merging of the article since the current article was a consensus title, that had been decided after long discussion on the talk page as well as WP:TEAHOUSE [145][146][147] [148] [149].
• On the DYK page, When I noted that he has hounded me [150], He responded [151] stating " I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you." To this claim about my edit counts I had responded stating [152] "Congrats to you that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. you have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that You have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this."
• After this reply from me, Mehrajmir13 filed this ANI thread filled with Lies, hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement and most important of all, "including his proposal for topic ban", which shows his clear intentions to snipe the opponent and to get his way in a content dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is requesting a sanction because the editor dared to actually discuss an editorial issue, which is what you're supposed to do, and which long before this request was opened was already posted at the appropriate noticeboards. It's another in an unsettling recent string of seemingly independent proposals to sanction DBigXray specifically which have all amounted to nothing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Consider justifying his nationalist POV pushing, bludgeoning, harassment edit warring, misrepresentation of sources and probably tons of other issues raised here in a proper manner. I don't see any of that except canvassing and further bludgeoning by the disruptive editor in question who is thoroughly unfit to edit this subject given his inability to even represent the sources or policies.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Ivanvector: The most egregious line in the frivolous filing, that also gives you an insight into the level of deception and coordinated offline planning, by this group is the line when they say (diff) "I am proposing a complete topic ban WP:ARBIPA, because he has been reported enough times on ANI and has only retrogressed further.". So quite clearly, the plan here was to keep on filing an ANI report every week, and now the time has come when, they can claim "Enough number of (frivolous) reports have been filed against DBigXray, lets block/ban him." This is exactly what has been happening in the past couple of months. Perfect example of "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". --DBigXrayᗙ 10:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment one thing is correct clear here, there is WP:NATIONALIST POV bickering going on. If the editors are having trouble collaborating and reaching consensus maybe they would be happier editing entirely different topics. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment as an interested and somewhat involved party. When I see terms like "bludgeoning" "thoroughly unfit to edit" "deliberately misrepresents sources" etc. with no proof of those particular things, I tend to believe the complaint is less about merit, and more about leveling a measure of opprobrium. Not to dismiss their complaint entirely... User:DBigXray used some "tangy" language with the complainant, but saying you're not interested in a "Dick measuring contest" is different from saying "I have a bigger dick than you" or even "You are a dick." Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have provided evidence for misrepresentation of sources on Human rights abuses in Kashmir and Zabiuddin Ansari. You can check the diffs in my original complaint.  MehrajMir (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Without this becoming too much of a "timesink" on my resources, I followed up on the claims concerning your issue with the Zabiuddin Ansari article. Am I correct in assuming you take issue with this individual being identified as an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist? He has been identified as belonging to a named group of organized terrorists; whom the cited source describes as being philosophically inclined to violence based on their agenda of violence for payment couched in their religious affiliations. This is more widely known as "terrorism" for those people afflicted by sectarian violence. It certainly is IMO. Now, I have seen enough of this, and been involved enough in this to have made a determination to have no more of it. If we need to agree to disagree, so be it. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Before we fork another content discussion onto ANI, note that this exact issue is already being discussed at WP:BLPN. DBigXray did make a lengthy series of arguments there but all were on-topic and addressing the issue at hand. There's a lot to unpack, but it's a complicated issue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - The crux of the dispute seems to be whether to include text from the AFSPA (an Act giving special powers to armed forces in dealing with the insurgency) in this article on human rights. The straight answer is no. The Act is not an abuse, but it is possible that it has led to abuse. If so, the abuse should be documented, sourced to reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, not the act itself. I admit that this tricky territory, and advise the editors to take it to WP:DRN. The filer exhibits WP:IDHT tendencies and is difficult to deal with. I recommend closing with no action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, not faulting the commenter, but if this is about a content dispute and not (as stated) a behavioural issue with one editor, the form response ought to be "take it to WP:DRN". ANI is not for content disputes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• But DBigXray was removing content by mislabeling it as "blatant WP:NFCC violation(s)"[153] and now removes it by claiming that there is no consensus when he is the only one to remove it. "reliable WP:SECONDARY sources" have been already provided to DBigXray which discuss the act as relevant in the context of human rights abuses.[154] DBigXray is absolutely engaging in nationalist POV editing. I also don't see any consensus for this edit as claimed by DBigXray. This is not the only one article where he is being a problem. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Harmanprtjhj, there are many reasons why we discourage excessive quotations in articles. See WP:QUOTEFARM. People explain it in many ways, ranging from "it is unencyclopaedic", "affects readability", "excessive quotations", "COPYVIO" etc. etc. Not everybody has a good understanding of the applicable policy, but their instincts are right. In this particular case, I agree with you that NFCC is the wrong thing to cite, because a Government Act is essentially public property, free for everybody to quote and use. But that does not make it appropriate for use in this article. If Mehrajmir13 couldn't agree with DBigXray, there are any number of places he could have gone for getting a third opinion, where people would have told him exactly what I am saying. But he seems to have convinced himself that DBigXray was acting in bad faith. That is not conducive to collaborative atmosphere we would like to see. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Content is long-standing, no one has problem with it other than DBigXray by deceptively claiming the content to be a violation of NFCC and then misrepresenting sources. How can anyone expect such an incompetent editor to deal with a sensitive subject? We already had "third opinion" on talk page. Fact that you are not aware of it simply sbows that you are not even checking the diffs.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• As shown in this edit from 2014 it was User:Mehrajmir13 who added this disputed content.
• User:Mehrajmir13 is again clearly lying here when he says "Content is long-standing, no one has problem with it other than DBigXray" because one can see in this diff [155] and [156] that Admin RegentsPark had removed most of the content added by User:Mehrajmir13 there.
• His content was further challenged [157] by me on the talk page and instead of discussing the validity and veracity of the said content on the talk page, he is is continuously trying to get the objecting editor blocked/banned first in a totally frivolous AN3 report (diff) and now here at ANI.
• If User:Mehrajmir13 is unable to tolerate or discuss objections to his controversial edits then he should rather stay away from controversial articles, instead of kicking up a shit storm with lies and Drama at admin boards.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hamster Sandwich, I don't see evidence of behavior that needs to be sanctioned here. All the edits are reasonably explained and the accused is open to discussion. Work it out. --В²C ☎ 00:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Born2cycle: For starters, where is the resonable explanation for these false claims of copyright violation?[158] In which world one can believe that someone with that level of incompetence would be capable to work it out?  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support You can't expect constructive discussion from DBigXray as he always engages in harassment and battleground mentality. For example, he fails to agree that he is using a primary source when the source is written by an involved police officer. I started a thread on WP:RSN where DBigXray started his response by making personal attacks on me,[159] and continued to claim the source is non-primary and completely reliable even after more than 7 editors told him otherwise.[160] He has been wikihounding my contributions by appearing on pages that he never edited earlier,[161] and reporting admins over trivial issues.[162] He has violated copyrights on articles related to Punjab insurgency and his violation of WP:TERRORIST can be also seen on Khalistan Commando Force, where he made 6 reverts to claim the militant group as "terrorist" and their supporters a "radical" (without providing any sources).[163][164] Not surprised that this disruption has now moved into Muslim-related articles. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am sorry, I have seen unbridled hostility emanate from your from the beginning: 20:29, 7 January 2019 ("it needs no rebuttal but large chunk of removal to restore sanity of the article"), 20:54, 7 January 2019 (" Have you carefully checked the article on Osama Bin Laden? Even that is more grammatical and neutral than this article written by you"), 21:37, 7 January 2019 ("you are going to do yourself a favor only if you fix the article. Anyone who knows A and B of this subject would know that article is in a very bad shape.") etc., where the last of these sounds more like a threat, not even hostility. Many people watch the pages that you are dealing with. If you discuss things in a calm and polite manner, people will come forward to help sort out issues. But if you shout at the top of voice all the time, people will walk away.
• If you want to accuse him as having made 6 reverts (I don't know over what period), then you need to provide 6 diffs. The diff you have provided 09:23, 11 January 2019 shows him adding sources. Since the sources exist and he wasn't simply making it up, it was verifiable. So I don't see what the problem is that you are alluding to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Quotations of posts added for immediate evidence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Diffs cited by you don't show any hostility. You are just being too sensitive over DBigXray who was totally engaging in IDHT and battleground mentality against this user.
• Anyone who has edited Wikipedia for a little time can count those 6 reverts, they don't "need to provide 6 diffs", especially when those edits are that recent.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• These are again similar lies and deception that Harmanprtjhj had tried to use in his last "Snipe the opponent at ANI" thread against me, to get a way out of his content disputes. They over exaggerate content disputes with hyperbolic language and add lies and deception hoping that gullible folks will fall for their old tricks. To give an example, Harmanprtjhj's talk page is on my watchlist since 5 January and Ad Orientem had blocked and warned[165] Harmanprtjhj on his talk page, regarding what Ad Orientem then believed as "disruptive edit" on Yusuf Soalih Ajura, after which I made this edit on [166] and also noted this on the same thread [167]. But one can see that these facts never stopped Harmanprtjhj from cooking up a false and deceptive narrative, because "why let facts spoil a good story". --DBigXrayᗙ 03:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• My reading shows that it was a mistaken block as acknowledged by Ad Orientem. If anyone is engaging in "lies and deception", that is only you. Not to mention that none of this justifies your harassment of other editor.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Another example of WP:CHERRYPICKING by Mehrajmir13 for misrepresentation. In my above line, did you miss reading the phrase "regarding what Ad Orientem, "then believed" as "disruptive edit", I have bolded it so that it is easier for you to read.--DBigXrayᗙ 04:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• You are misrepresenting entire thing and distracting. Ad Orientem never "warned" me and made a block in error only after after reading an automated report.[168] Having a user's talk page in your watchlist doesn't means you can wikihound their edits. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Perhaps it is time to consider a topic ban or some other solution for the OP. Dlohcierekim talk 15:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Comment no opinion on the topic ban, but it appears both Mehrajmir13 and DBigXRay are replying to any posts opposing their side with content seemingly intended to discourage !voting from that side. It's not quite as bad with both sides doing it as only one side (for that encourages nonrepresentative conclusions), but it may be adversely affecting participation, and thus, a balanced result. Surely any reasonably experienced editor would have formed a definitive opinion before commenting, and a reply from the editor whom they have opposed accusing them of "lies and deception" or the like isn't going to sway their vote; if anything, it will cement them further into their current position. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support on-going pattern of disruptive editing is evidenced by many other recent examples, which includes his 10 reverts on Rafale deal controversy by engaging in POV pushing and creating Rafale deal controversy/Sandbox by abusing autopatrolled user-right to evade full protection. History of this sub-article shows DBigXray made a few botched page moves to retain this misuse of article space. Making 5 reverts on 1984 anti-Sikh riots by misrepresenting sources and superficially using BLPCRIME as exemption[169][[170] to edit war when no BLP was concerned (December 2018). 4 reverts on Jaggi Vasudev for violating BLP (November 2018). 6 reverts on Khalistan Commando Force (January 2019) and all these pages resulted in full protection because of DBigXray's lame edit war. What is even more interesting that his edits received no support from any other editor in spite of his bludgeoning on each of the concerning talk pages[171][172][173][174]. His disruption on talk pages has been beyond disruptive because he attack opponents[175][176], modify others comments[177], remove others comments[178] and engages in typical IDHT.[179][180] I note that how all of these articles attracted no controversy before DBigXray started disrupting them. It is clear that he can't edit without righting great wrong or harassing other editors. Note his creation of Pakistan administered Kashmir against consensus (December 2018) and his DRV against deletion of this CFORK with no one supporting your demand to overturn the result. Further disruption was also seen on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears where he was alone arguing for deletion because the article concerned a documentary on human rights abuses by Indian military, the same issue over which he is now edit warring on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It took him less than 2.5 months to produce all these examples. A topic ban is a no-brainer. Qualitist (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. DBigXRay could afford to make fewer reverts when he edits contentious topics, but his edits generally tend to be based in policy. The extent of mudslinging here suggests a couple of a boomerangs are in order. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely sanctionable behavior given the final warning on one of the previous ANI and aspersions and bludgeoning in this thread. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@शिव साहिल: Which diff do you think is the violation of the warning the reported user was given here? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Wikihounding,[181] exclusively attacking contributors[182]][183], and accusing them of sock puppetry[184] does show violation of that warning. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems to be an evergreen ANI thread. The user in question has a target on their back and has had some questionable editing habits in the past. But I don't see anything here which isn't a content dispute at this point which could be resolved through discussion or RfCs. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A overblown content dispute which the OP has with misplaced zeal brought to an inappropriate forum. There doesn't seem to be anything remotely actionable. In fact, looking at the content under dispute, I am inclined to support the removal of the excessively long quotations. The other changes made also seem reasonable. No harassment of the OP is visible. The elephant in the room are the supporters of the topic ban who seem to be hell bent on getting a net positive editor topic-banned from Wikipedia and have resorted to digging up unrelated mud from a month or two back in the hope of getting some of it to stick to the wall. It is this sort of behavior that I (as a spectator who has seen all these incidents play out in front of me) find utterly disgusting. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 13:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Dlohcierekim says, it may be time for a boomerang against the OP, whose wall of text doesn't make a case. It is true that DBigXray sometimes becomes stubborn; so do a lot of editors. Maybe they should be warned, but the OP should be warned first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: OP has reported evidence that DBigXray is falsely attributing content as a NFCC violation, misrepresenting sources on multiple articles, making baseless accusations of socking, bludgeoning and edit warring. This is a established pattern of DBigXray's editing. Even in this same thread, DBigXray is accusing OP of evading scrutiny as an IP. I don't see why a user should not be sanctioned for it. What are we waiting for? Qualitist (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: per Ivanvector. Simply discussing an issue on a talk page instead of warring it out in the mainspace isn't grounds for a topic ban. God forbid someone wants to actually discuss something first. Has DBigXray been stubborn? Sure. Does that warrant a topic ban? Absolutely not. SITH (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as minimum per the evident repeat problems shown. That said, although no personal attacks here, canvassing and clear attempts to bludgeon the thread shows there are broader issues and we will be back here again. I really do think some type of sanction is necessary for this to be solved as complaints about BigDRay's behavior is fairly frequent and the OP has indeed shown some misrepresentation of sources and baseless accusations that don't seem like they are ever going to stop without at least some action. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• In addition the warning शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil pointed out [185] with the conclusion being "admin should block if behavior continues" warrants at least some action to correct this if we are ever gonna have an end to these notices. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• And it should also be noted how these users are 'frequently' seen baying for blood and trying too hard at every thread filed here at ANI. e.g. diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff --DBigXrayᗙ 19:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is another example of WP:BLUDGEONING. I have no personal qualms with DBigXRay. I've supported action against him on exactly two other threads simply because i thought the action was warranted in those cases, and the first case i thought was definitely an injustice because he basically baited a noob and got him banned. All he did was post my edits to the same posts I made and then posted the edit i made on this thread to make it seem like i have an extensive feud with him when i dont. If he wasn't always appearing on ANI i wouldnt be posting those comments I'd be posting on other posts in ANI. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Request an investigation and correction of the Wiki article - University of Management and Technology (Virginia)

Dear Wikipedia:

My name is Yanping Chen, President of the University of Management and Technology (UMT). As a Wiki supporter and a donor, I am dismayed to see that Wiki has allowed two users, Flickotown and Wildcursive, to seize control of the UMT Wiki article to repeatedly add defamatory materials and false info about me and my university, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Management_and_Technology_(Virginia). I am also disturbed to see some Wiki administrators, two in particular, eagerly and quickly support the ill-intent of a disruptive player, Flickotown. Such blind support of Flickotown undid the consensus building by other editors and readers who were trying to build a university Wiki page according to the best practices of WikiProject_Universities.

In “View History,” you will notice that since 28 December 2018, Wildcursive and then Flickotown have taken a tag team approach (i.e., sockpuppet) to engage in a smear campaign on the Wiki page against me and my university. Interestingly, Flickotown created his Wikipedia account five days before the Wildcursive attack. You will see that they colluded to revert to their rendition describing the university based on defamatory materials and false information, deleting other useful information that a university Wiki page needs to display, such as institution authorizations and accreditations, academic and professional programs, various scholarships, and faculty and academic leadership and etc. Their coordination in the attack on the Wiki article can be seen in Flickotown’s note to Wildcursive at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wildcursive.

Having been rigidly supported by two Wiki administrators, Flickotown fought other Wiki editors and readers to turn our university’s Wiki page into a tabloid news jungle: while several editors had tried consensus editing to salvage the Wiki page, on 9 January responding to a call made by Flickotown on the NoticeBoard, Serial Number 54129, reverted an editor’s contribution ignoring the WikiProject_Universities best practice, and Bbb23 immediately blocked 4 users indefinitely who shared a common IP address on the grounds of “sock puppetry”. Again, on 28 January per Flickotown’s request, Bbb23 immediately reverted an edit completely, returning the Wiki article once again to the defamatory page written by Flickotown, and issued a “semi-protection” that retained Fickotown’s highly negative portrayal of the university as seen in the Wiki article today (See “View History” of the article and “Talk” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23).

Flickotown’s and Wildcursive’s deleting the material describing our university and populating the Wiki page with absurd and irresponsible claims that are patently and demonstrably false, defame me and the university both directly and by implication, and will cause irreparable damage to our reputation, professional standing, and our faculty and students well-being. A corrective action should be taken by Wiki immediately.

As no other university’s Wiki page is treated this way on Wikipedia, I hereby ask Wikpedia: 1) to investigate the relationship between Flickotown and Wildcursive, and their multiple Wiki accounts, 2) to delete cherry-picked “facts” added in the article by Wildcursive and Flickotown as a smear campaign against me and my university because they are outright false that are currently being addressed in litigation in a federal court of the United States, 3) review all editors’ productive, consensus-focused contributions to the Wiki page, and correct the mistakes made by Wiki administrators in their edits that blindly supported Flickotown, 4) review the comments made in “Talk” by a reader aimed at restoring Wiki’s neutral presentation of a university, 5) unblock 4 wrongly accused Wiki users, and the Wiki page to allow the editors and readers to contribute to this university Wiki page adopting the best practice of WikiProject_Universties.

Very truly yours,

Yanping Chen, MD, PhD, PMP, PMI Fellow, UMT President — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.25.194 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You may wish to read this and this. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying they're suing Wikipedia, but that they currently have ligitation relating to the press claims on which part of our article is based. I could be wrong, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Content such as UMT is approved by U.S. Department of Education to participate in Title IV program to provide Federal Student Aid (FSA) to qualified students to finance their studies in UMT education programs. seems unnecessary, and the editors adding it appear to be doing so to attempt to promote the university by giving WP:UNDUE weight to mundane claims. The material regarding possible ties to the Chinese government seems well-sourced [186]. I'm not sure what content is supposed to be defamatory, other than the very-verifiable fact that the named people were affiliated with this institution. Overall, I don't think there is anything that administrators need to do here, other than perhaps making the current semi-protection indefinite. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It'd be good to have "Controversies" section that isn't almost completely sourced to Fox News, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There's not a lot out there, I think because no charges have been filed against anyone, which raises a legitimate BLP issue with respect to Chen; however, there is this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing she's here because her obvious employee User:Bikerun (and his sockpuppet User:Mgtguru) isn't getting anywhere in justifying an unblock. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• As usual, all links are broken by the archiving system (this seems to come from a flat internal lack of competence, not from the bad will of any intelligence agency, from any country). In any case, the following link is interesting: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#Coordinated_editing_attack_on_University_of_Management_and_Technology_(United_States). Pldx1 (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding the World Tribune article mentioned by Bbb23:

• The headline is "Report: School continues to receive Pentagon subsidies despite probe for China ties", but there is no specific information about subsidies; the only mention is a two-sentence paragraph quoting someone from a Fox News interview, claiming it's a bad deal for the taxpayers.
• The article seems to be sole-sourced from Fox News, which is mentioned 12 times.
• The article is almost two years old.
• Odd that World Tribune lists their legal counsel and backup paralegals in the footer of their pages.

I haven't researched the topic, so I don't know what part of any of it is true, but IMO, this article (and maybe the source) is not a WP:RS. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"World Tribune.com more fairly qualifies as something between a newspaper and a rumor-mongering blog."[187] Its facetious listing of legal counsel lists one as dead 30 years and the others as invented (Hammer and Tong, Rude and Nasty, Hussein). Its "mission is to provide leadership-minded readers everywhere with need-to-know reports missed by “mainstream” corporate media" and it claims to share reports with DrudgeReport.com, The Washington Times, Hoover Institution, Geostrategy-Direct.com, Breitbart.com, Hudson Institute, WorldNetDaily and East-Asia-Intel.com. It "endorses Good and rejects evil".[188] It does appear WP:QUESTIONABLE. 92.19.28.243 (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Request: That Wikipedia editors and administrators support Wikipedia’s policy on BLP and follow WikiProject Universities’ guidelines when making editorial and administrative decisions. The posted version of the Wikipedia UMT article (as of 11:00 am, 02/09/19) is given a low rating of “Start Class” by WikiProject Universities/Assessment. That’s the bottom of the barrel and reflects the sensationalist mess that is currently posted on the UMT article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Universities/Assessment#Quality_scale Since Wildcursive’s 12/28/18 posting, followed by Flickotown’s tag team edits and reversions, almost all academic content has been removed from the article. Authorizations (e.g., accreditations, government approvals, professional society approvals, and more) have been gutted. Authorizations are a standard feature of university Wiki pages and are crucial when describing a university’s standing, because they give students insights into the qualifications of the educational organization. Also, the low quality rating reflects disregard for the BLP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons owing to the persistent attacks on Dr. Yanping Chen’s character. Not conforming to Wiki-approved BLP practice is explicitly identified as a potential deficiency of schools whose pages receive a Start Class rating. UMT is an established, accredited university with 23,000 alumni, and it deserves to have a Wiki article that describes its capabilities and achievements. Wikipedia administrators and editors need to enable UMT’s Wiki article to achieve the highest standards defined by WikiProject Universities, which cannot be done so long as the UMT article is continually vandalized with “facts” coming from politically-colored tabloids.

Request: That Wikipedia editors and administrators recognize when making editorial and administrative judgments that a large portion of the Fox News story is not reliable on its face. The Wiki article is filled with false information based primarily on a single unreliable source of information, Fox News, which built its story on one-sided information illegally leaked to it by a single unhappy source. Because the information is leaked without attribution, it cannot be validated. Interestingly, when the Fox News story came out two years ago, no reputable newspaper (NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, others) reported on it or conducted their own investigations, because they recognized the lack of credibility in using distorted, sensationalist intent of the published pieces. Contrary to the Fox News claims, the University was never a target in the FBI’s investigation in 2012 or in 2017. The sole source of information for the Fox News claim of a renewed FBI investigation (reported in the June 28,2017 Fox News article) was then Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who when interviewed by Fox News said regarding the FBI, “They’re quote, unquote reopening the investigation.” Quote, unquote? That’s it … nothing more. At the end of the news, the author acknowledged that when queried, the FBI neither confirmed nor denied it had "re-opened" the investigation. Also, neither Fox News nor Chaffetz mentioned that Chaffetz was leaving Congress in two days and joining Fox News as an analyst three days after being quoted in the article. (https://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/28/jason-chaffetz-join-fox-news-channel-contributor-role-press-release ) Conflict of interest? The undisputed fact is that there was an FBI investigation based on racial profiling that lasted five years, and resulted no charges were bought against Yanping Chen, or anyone else affiliated to her. This reality is buttressed with the fact that in Spring 2016, Yanping Chen was informed by the US Attorney's office that the investigation was closed. Even Fox News acknowledged this in its articles. So that’s it. The US Attorney Office in the US Department of Justice made the decision, and if someone in the FBI didn’t like it (which is what Fox News reported), too bad. That’s how the rule of law works. UMT Admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.25.194 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikihounding and IP hopping from anonymous user

An anymous user (67.1.112.110) is engaged in wikihounding. He appeared suddenly on February 2 and 100% of this editors' contributions involved following and reverting my recent edits. I have had no prior interaction with this editor that I'm aware of that would have triggered this behaviour, nor have I had disputes with any editor. The edit summaries gave a variety of largely misleading reasons for the reverts, as seen below. Note that IP address is in Tucson, AZ.

67.1.112.110

• [189] - "adds nothing"
• [190] - "self promotion"
• [191] - "claims must be referenced" despite proper source/citation
• [192]
• [193] - properly sourced edit reverted as "biased inuendo"
• [194] - bogus claims not mentioned in citations restored as "NOT bogus" despite absolutely no verification by cited sources. This seems to be the edit that triggered the anonymous editor's behaviour, as far as I can tell.

User was advised to disengage the confrontational behaviour: [195]

On Feb 4, what appears to be bthe same anonymous user reapperaed under IP address 67.1.216.242. This editor also appeared out of nowhere and initially targeted only my edits:

• [196] - standard CE mischaracterized as "vandalism"
• [197] - good faith edit mischaracterized as "disruptive nonsense"
• [198] - properly sourced edit reverted as "vandalism and moral attacks upon subject"

Note that this address is also in Tucson, AZ. I have no doubt both IP's are the same editor.

Looks like pretty clear wikihounding. User has made no attempt at discussion or dispute resolution. Note that at least one article was targeted by both IP's. I'd like an admin to intervene, as a warning was previously issued and not heeded. The fact that this user is also IP hopping also indicates deception and lack of good faith. SolarFlash (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked the most recent IP, though they've been active dynamically on IPs on a very large range. If they think this is "valid and useful info" they're clearly trolling, and if that doesn't establish their motive then this certainly does. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There may be connections to this account and this IP as well as this one. Probably more will turn up. SolarFlash (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

SolarFlash, I did some investigating and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laibwart on your behalf. Feel free to add any comments you may have there as well. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

MattLongCT, much appreciated. I'll take a look at the SPI when I get a minute. SolarFlash (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

SF - Also keep a list of the IP addresses in your sandbox. You can use this to build a rangeblock request, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

These are the confirmed IP addresses associated with this user that I've been able to compile so far. The editing patterns are identical and all have been utilized for unconstructive edits and little else. Note that repeated attempts (over a period of almost five years!) to smear the subject of the Jeff Rense article using bogus or non-existent citations seems to be a principal motivation of every IP on the list; I'm amazed nothing's ever been done about this:

• 67.1.98.69
• 67.1.104.210
• 67.1.106.208
• 67.1.108.109
• 67.1.112.110
• 67.1.116.112
• 67.1.128.151
• 67.1.132.85
• 67.1.132.156
• 67.1.136.109
• 67.1.136.131
• 67.1.139.227
• 67.1.142.253
• 67.1.146.126
• 67.1.148.228
• 67.1.154.195
• 67.1.156.196
• 67.1.192.179
• 67.1.198.189
• 67.1.204.98
• 67.1.205.15
• 67.1.206.59
• 67.1.206.174
• 67.1.208.51
• 67.1.216.242
• 67.1.226.74
• 67.1.228.165
• 67.1.231.138
• 67.1.238.83
• 67.1.239.133
• 67.1.241.152
• 67.1.249.187
• 67.1.253.53

If anyone wants to think about applying a range block, start with this. SolarFlash (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• CheckingDlohcierekim talk 13:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  67.1.98.69/16Dlohcierekim talk 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector blocked 67.1.216.242. The closest I got to a range was 67.1.216.242/17. A lot of CIR edits, but too broad and collateral damage as well. Perhaps one of the many users more experienced than I.Dlohcierekim talk 14:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Of the several IP's contributions I looked at from the list above, only one was recent, and most were several years old. A range block is not appropriate here. For this ISP, single IP blocks, lasting for at least a week - a month being entirely appropriate - are the way to go here. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

67.1.216.242 and 67.1.112.110 are the two responsible for the recent problems. I'd like to see those two blocked for a month and then deal with any additional issues as they arise. SolarFlash (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil and threatening comments by User:Moylesy98

this looks unnaceptable to me.Charles (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• What I hadn't realised previously (obvious, but I just hadn't looked) is that the YouTube videos which Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) is persistently adding to WP articles aren't just random finds on YouTube, they're actually links to his own channel.

We have a long-standing problem with Moylesy doing trivial and non-encyclopedic additions to WP, which aren't specifically against policy but that are getting very close to WP:NOTDIR. They've often been described as "trainspotting", certainly the short term stuff, not the long-term encyclopedic content, i.e. "Loco 1234 has completed a ten year overhaul and is now back in service on the East Sodor Railway, here's a video". It's debatable whether this should be on WP or not, but it's certainly not the core function of WP.

If this has got to the point though where it's all related to one YouTube channel (and I've not checked), then I see this as a worse problem and into promotional use of WP, which we're definitely against. I'm happy for someone to make a case justifying it - there are plenty of film archives where we see their content as so valuable that we're happy to have any use of it which we can get. But is that the case here?

Given the problems noted, and given the unending difficulty of getting Moylesy to understand some of the basics of how WP needs to operate (see the talk: page), I'm now thinking a topic ban (WP:TBAN) on any addition of YouTube links is due. This wouldn't exclude anyone else adding or keeping them, if the link is thought objectively worthwhile, but the process of adding them seems to be causing far more trouble than its benefit. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Some diffs please? Paul August ☎ 14:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Talk and Contribs will do it. Just from their last few edits today (the same event, mirrored across a number of articles):

1. West Coast Railways A single loco move, in an article on an operating company with a number of locos
2. Rolling stock of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway A preservation status update
3. LMS Jubilee Class 5596 Bahamas The same update
4. LMS Jubilee Class same relocation, this time on the loco class article
5. LMS Jubilee Class 5596 Bahamas do we really need day by day updates?

I would see this update as pretty relevant on the individual loco article (it's an article on the preservation and history of that loco) but elsewhere it's tenuous. The class article is a technical and historical review of what these locos were for. It should note those which are preserved, even where they're preserved, so that they may be seen in action. But we are not here (NOTNEWS and NOTDIR) to replace the monthly steam magazine press. It's inherent in the nature of preservation that it's a dynamic process: locos come and go in and out of service. To what level should we record this? Now I'm much less against this than some other editors are hereabouts: if we list locos as being preserved, and that changes, then yes, we need an update. I see it as something I wouldn't do myself, but I'm not against others doing it. However there have been past problems (see talk:) for issue of sourcing and weight. We shouldn't be doing this if that involves skipping the other requirements on WP:V etc.

There are questions of weight: SR Merchant Navy Class 35018 British India Line is what has been described as "train spotting" by other editors (and again, I've not been the person most against this). I can't see how this information gets past UNDUE, even in the article on the individual preserved loco. We do care (in "modern railway preservation in the UK") that steam specials are back-ended by a more modern diesel loco. We do care, in the individual loco articles, when it returned to service and what route was used for their premier trip (Shap is a famous and difficult line - a brave choice for a first outing). We might even care that this special was back-ended by an electric loco, nearly as old as some of the steam locos. But do we really care to know which loco was the backup, and where on the line they changed roles? Especially not if this is going in unsourced.

For the videos, I'm more concerned. SR Merchant Navy Class 35018 British India Line. I don't know who "SAYFILMPRODUCTIONS" are, but I'm assuming David Moyle is Moylesy98 and my tolerance for "adding stuff I wouldn't bother to add myself" gets very thin when it starts to look like self-promotion of off-wiki assets.

I had a run in with them a couple of weeks back ANEW, because they didn't understand WP:REDLINK and preferred to edit-war over it. Again, no big deal (I'm not the one getting regularly wound up here), but it does show that they're just expecting WP to work on their terms, not to find out what the ground rules for all of us on WP are and stick by them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would certainly consider those additions trainspotting and unencyclopedic. Mackensen (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there further a copyright problem for linking given on [199] "All content in this video is © & ℗ of David Moyle, Moylesy Productions & Mr Moyle's Photography and was shot by myself and nobody else. Re-use elsewhere is not permitted without my permission"?SovalValtos (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Why should a copyright claim in relation to a YouTube video be an issue? It isn't hosted on Wikipedia/Wikimedia servers, and if he shot the video, he almost certainly holds the copyright. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which forbids citing/linking copyright material, and if there was, Wikipedia would have a great deal of difficulty finding sources to cite at all. I agree with others here that the videos probably shouldn't be linked, but because they are self-promotional, rather than over some imaginary copyright issue. 86.147.97.26 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that. Linking a YouTube video that shows something definitively newsworthy is one thing, but adding a fairly unimportant section to an article and then linking your own video to that is, well, just no. I've been poking around the user's contribs and there are certainly issues; the history of West Coast Railways is certainly an issue, I've reverted some other dubious edits as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that adding an external link to a web page that contains media, images, or other content that's copyrighted by the apparent owner that's linking it to Wikipedia should be removed by principle, and mostly due to other issues, policies and guidelines (COI, OR, and others) - Hence I also agree that any references or links added by Moylesy98 to videos that he's created and uploaded to his YouTube channel should be removed and are not considered a reliable source.

To explain things by principle (since copyright is being mentioned here): It does not constitute a direct violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies to add external links to websites or web pages that contain media or text in violation of the original owner's copyright or license. Wikipedia's copyright policy page discusses situations regarding the direct upload and use of media and images to Wikipedia that are copyrighted and with an incompatible license, and the copy-and-paste (plagiarism) and close paraphrasing of text and content added to articles instead of paraphrasing them completely in one's own words. However... I think that a fair argument could be made in rebuttal that the spirit of the rule is being violated in cases such as (for example) users linking to external pages they created themselves that contain obvious violations of copyright by the original owner in order to circumvent policy. I'm not saying that this is what this user did, nor am I accusing the user of violating any copyright policies with any of the videos they've added saying that it's "self-created". I'm simply responding to clarify what the copyright policy contains in text and what it does not. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: it's not just against the spirit of the rules. It's explicitly forbidden by WP:ELNEVER and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works to intentionally link to content which appears to be hosted in violation of the copyright holder's copyright. The later says "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." If the person linking to it is the person who created the copyvio, this is in many ways even worse, although you're right this arises for other reasons. That said, is there actually any evidence of external copyvios here? If someone wants to make material and keep their copyright without releasing it under a free licence, they are entitled to do so elsewhere. We may or may not link to that material, and the person shouldn't add it to articles themselves, but it's not a copyvio issue unless the person has used material copyrighted by others without their permission (either explicit or implied by obeying any licence). If someone else copies that material elsewhere, then that is likely a copyvio issue. But all it means is we need to link to the original material if we find it useful rather than the unauthorised copy. Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

For almost three years I've come across this user, time and time again, using Wikipedia as a blog. This edit from earlier today is almost typical, although it shows two improvements in behaviour compared to six months ago: first is the use of "it's", which although ungrammatical, is better than "her" which Moylesy98 previously used universally; the second is the presence of a ref (which will go dead within a month). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Their talkpage is littered with warning notices, they seem not to use it (and article talkpages) to discuss issues and they've been blocked three times this year already! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• I left them a final warning about the spamming and a comment about their response to a concern about their spamming. I told them about this discussion. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - Oops... I probably should have checked the user's talk page and history before doing what I did... because I responded to their borderline-threatening message and then left a note on Moylesy98's user talk page as well... Sorry if I stepped on any toes; I didn't mean to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Not at all. I haven't any toes to step on, you did what you thought best w/ information available, and your message reinforces the one I left. The concurrence of opinions makes the message stronger. They've edited since I messaged them but haven't responded. I do hope the problematic behavior stopped. I did ask them to drop by here. Not encouraged by their not doing so. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim - I appreciate the response. :-) Even if the user doesn't respond, it's fine... so long as the incivility doesn't continue and the user complies with Wikipedia's civility policy consistently from here on out, we have nothing to worry about. If it continues, we've warned the user clearly and appropriately and subsequent administrative action is justified and of their own doing. The ball's in his/her court; be respectful and civil toward others, or be prepared for sanctions and consequences. Simple as that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: In addition to the civility issue, there's also the "spamming" issue. Paul August ☎ 12:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul August - I agree, and I think that any and all external links added to articles by this user that are to videos or media the user uploaded externally themselves should be removed as unreliable at best, and original research at worst. Either way, they shouldn't be here at all and the user cannot add any more external links or references like this. Otherwise, I would endorse administrative action in order to prevent more disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No opinion on any other aspect of this matter, but so you're saying that, with respect to reliability or OR issues, it might be OK to link to a video uploaded by some random person we know nothing about (because we definitely do that sometimes) but never OK to link to a video apparently uploaded by one of our own editors? See WP:OI. EEng 03:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Since both halves of your statement are untrue, I'm going to go with "no". --Calton | Talk 06:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Examples of articles linking to videos uploaded by random persons we know nothing about are easily found: for example, search youtube in [200][201][202][203][204]. EEng 15:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing on Muhsin ibn Ali's Page

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

---

One user, Tufail.jan (who I will notify about this discussion), has been performing edits on the page of Muhsin ibn Ali. His edits have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, but he continues to make the same (or very similar) edits on the page that multiple other users have removed. He has been warned multiple times not to edit-war and to use the talk page instead, but he apparently refuses to do so. Many users have told Tufail.jan that his edits were not constructive (in the page edit history as well as on his own talk page), but he continues to make these unconstructively edit the page, despite multiple editors undoing his edits. I would appreciate it if an administrator(s) could possible prevent that user from further such edits. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Tufail.jan has written why they did it on their talk page. I gave them a note on how to proceed instead, and told them why that course of action isn't helpful. I hope that helps.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've left the user a message on their user talk page regarding their edits and the discussion here. I'm hoping that this is all that's needed. If it continues, please say so or let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Update: The user edited the article yet again and after the messages and notices have been left. I've left the user an edit warring notice (the "softer-wording" version) on his/her talk page in response. If the edits continue and I'm notified, I'm afraid that a block will be justified. Looking back on this user's talk page, they've been talked to nicely, offered help, and politely asked to stop enough times. Enough needs to be enough at some point. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Quartertoten

• Quartertoten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brian Desmond Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A Letter from Ulster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quartertoten has been edit warring on these articles for a little while now. After he got blocked for breaking 3RR, he slowed down enough that he's only making at most two reverts per day. This is still disruptive. There's been discussion on one of the talk pages, and a few of us have expressed opposition to what we see as original research. Quartertoten doesn't see things that way and has accused us of vandalism. He's been warned before about calling other editors vandals. I'd like an uninvolved admin to look this over and decide if another block is necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Very disappointing to find this entry about myself. I have been editing pages for 10 years and have never encountered this sort approach that some users employ to supress information that is important context on an entry. Unfortunately a small number of users over a number months have suddenly entered the pages referred to above and deleted a large section opinionated commentary and/or vague assertions. Some users were more helpful and in response the section in question has been rechecked and is factually correct. Furthermore some additional source material has been added by me in the hope that this recurring deletion will stop and I repeatedly urge users to contribute, with precision, any factual errors (which I will review and correct, if appropriate)to the talk pages and allow the section to be developed. The conduct of some users is very sad to see and Hurst deserves better. The point about vandalism is interesting but poorly positioned above as I have not called any user a vandal (so the point above is incorrect) however I have suggested that the act of deleting a large section on a wiki page without any substantive comment or without first using the talk pages (as I repeatedly urge) is effectively vandalism as it goes against the spirit of wiki. I too would like to involve an admin as the section is relevant, factual, sourced and vital to the context of the life of Hurst and should remain and evolve via discussion on the talk pages and the recurring deletion should stop. I am prepared to devote whatever time and hours is necessary to evolve this section using factually correct information to ensure that the entry on Hurst is correct. Thank you to any users who take the time to read this positioning and attempt to rebalance the previous point above.Quartertoten (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quartertoten - I have a few things to say in response to this ANI discussion started by NinjaRobotPirate, and your response made here:

• You're repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth manner on Brian Desmond Hurst and A Letter from Ulster, and in place of following proper dispute resolution protocol and discussing the dispute on the articles' talk pages as you should be doing. You are engaging in edit warring on these two articles, plain and simple. Forget about 3RR; it's a bright-line rule that's defined simply to "create a line" for users who need one. 3RR simply means that if users violate it, will almost always be considered edit warring and the involved users subject to administrative action (i.e. blocking), and those actions are almost always considered appropriate by the community. Edit warring does not mean that 3RR is being violated; violating 3RR means that you're edit warring. There are exceptions to 3RR that, if made, aren't considered edit warring, but this is a content dispute between the two articles and doesn't apply here. I've fully protected both pages in order to stop the reverts and edit warring, and direct everyone involved to discuss the matter on the articles' talk pages. Please participate and appropriately and civilly comment, respond, and help these disputes come to a positive and peaceful consensus or resolution. Stop the reverting. Stop the edit warring... seriously. Following the warning and previous block placed on your account in January of this year for edit warring, you were warned for edit warring again on February 5, and you have reverted those two articles numerous times since then. The only reason I didn't block you was because you responded to this ANI discussion here, and I felt that there might be a possibility that my respose to you here could stop the disruption as opposed to applying your second block. Please follow the policies I've linked here, and please follow protocol and resolve the disputes the right way... :-)
• You don't have to directly say, "Oshwah's edit here is vandalism" in order to accuse someone of engaging in vandalism. If you say, "This edit removes a bunch of content and I think that this is a form of vandalism" - If the edits were made by Oshwah (I'm using myself as the mule as an example) it's still indirectly accusing the user who made those edits of engaging in vandalism. Please understand this. While we're on the subject of speaking about these edits you believe are forms of vandalism, I'll correct you by stating that the edits you describe are actually good faith removals of content. I actually didn't need to review the edits in-depth to make that determination. Aside from experience, I don't need to because we assume that edits are made in good faith by default. Unless they're explicit or blatant beyond question, we don't use "vandalism" to describe the edits by other users. Please remember that Vandalism is the intentional, malicious, and purposeful modification of articles and content with the intention of causing damage to the encyclopedia... and the edits are not vandalism.
• Your statement, "Hurst deserves better" concerns me a bit, here... When I see users who say these kinds of things about an article subject, it usually means that the user has a strong point of view regarding the article subject, or there's something between you two that draws into question possible conflicts of interest or other things that I won't bring up here. This would possibly explain the reverts and edit warring, the long-term issues described here regarding the addition of original research and unreferenced content, as well as your particular response here... I'm not going to accuse you of anything, but that statement in your response here... it's alarming. And I believe that you understand why...

Stop edit warring; if it continues or it happens again, you will be blocked from editing and without further warning. Discuss the disputes on the articles' talk pages, review what is and is not vandalism before you make those kinds of statements again, and please reflect upon the conflict of interest guidelines and your personal points of view regarding the article subject, because something's not right, here.... Thanks. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Well said, Oshwah, as always. Did anyone mention the possibility of WP:OWN per User:Quartertoten#Articles predominantly written by this user. With all due (and considerable) respect, it might be time to step back and gain some perspective. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and you will see that I try very hard to engage people through the talk pages but rather than do that some users just repeatedly delete the section and then encourare others to do the same and it seems unfair that the deletion prevails as the page is now locked down without the section. Please be assured that I am trying really hard to encourage people to develop and build the section and spent all this morning writing this even more referenced and contextualised section which I would like to propose is inserted and encourage people to review and only revert with specific fact or correction:

Woah! No need to paste it here! Just discuss it on the article's talk page; add it there. lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

==Conflict on film legacy== The case for Hurst being the greatest UK film director in the genre of 'conflict on film' is set out in Theirs is the Glory. Arnhem, Hurst and Conflict on Film which showed why Hurst, as a trained artist, "was an enigma, but a master of the genre, and at his very best when focusing on the subject of conflict on the vast canvas of film". Brian Desmond Hurst's conflict films chronicle four decades of conflict from the 1920s to the 1950s: Ourselves Alone (1936)- about the 1920's conflict in Ireland. The Lion Has Wings (1939- jointly with Michael Powell)- about conflict at the end of the 1930s and 'preparing the nation for the war ahead and the vital role of the RAF' A Call For Arms (1940)which is 'A rallying call for war production and more women to work in the factories.' Miss Grant Goes to the Door (1940)which is about 'preparing, but not alarming, the nation for an invasion by Germany.' Dangerous Moonlight (1941)which is about 'the fall of Poland and how her airmen came to the rescue of Britain' A Letter From Ulster (1942)which shows you need to 'treat your allies well'. Theirs is the Glory (1946)which is 'the definitive film on Arnhem; it will remain the veterans lasting tribute to their comrades that did not return.' Malta Story (1953) which is about the 'isolated island of Malta in the Second World War ... and ...how we spend ourselves for the common good'. Simba (1955)about 'Kenya,the Mau Mau and the end of colonial rule... and...you must makefriends with these people, as otherwise you'll findyourself not fighting a few thousand fanatics, but five million angry people. The Black Tent (1956) which is about the the Second World War in the North African desert and 'a brother's loss and his adventure to find the truth'. In terms of Hurst's status amongst the greatest of the UK film directors on the genre of conflict three of the four directors honoured by the Directors Guild of Great Britain under their blue plaque scheme According to Imdb (the internet film database) David Lean's conflict film output includes In Which we Serve (1942) The Bridge On the River Kwai (1957) and Lawrence of Arabia (1962). From the same source, Michael Powell's conflict film output includes the following conflict films: The Spy in Black (1939 -jointly with Emeic Pressberger) The Lion Has Wings (1939 jointly with Brian Desmond Hurst) An Airman's Letter to His Mother (1941) 49th Parallel (1942- jointly with Emeic Pressberger) One of Our Aircraft Is Missing (1942-jointly with Emeic Pressberger) The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp(1943-jointly with Emeic Pressberger ) The Volunteer (1943-jointly with Emeic Pressberger) A Matter of Life and Death (1946 - jointly with Emeic Pressberger) The Small Back Room(1949- jointly with Emeic Pressberger) The Battle of the River Plate (1956-jointly with Emeic Pressberger) Ill Met by Moonlight (1957- jointly with Emeic Pressberger) References

Ok got that. Thanks (but the random deletes and one word inputs has been disappointing to have to deal with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartertoten (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Both pages have now been fully protected for a week, following continued edit-warring. Flapjacktastic (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz and R9tgokunks

Would someone(s) mind addressing the situation that's arisen at User talk:Nyttend#User Icewhiz and recurrant POV edit warring.? Yesterday afternoon my time, R9tgokunks raised allegations of misconduct by Icewhiz, there was a response, I responded to both, and they continued arguing all night long (my time zone); I had 14 talk page messages and an email when I got up. I was offline when the first messages came in, but I haven't said anything since. I can't understand why I was brought in at all (R9's only explanation sounds like flattery, you have seemed proactive and judicious). The focus is our article on John Hagee, who's said a lot of things on Israel-Palestine, and the discussion has spilled over into other Israel-Palestine issues. No other individuals have appeared. Also, R9 raised this issue at User talk:NeilN#Continued Wikihounding /POV edits. a while after coming to me, but before I was aware of the situation; it's not WP:ADMINSHOP. Nobody else participated there, except User:MarnetteD, who warned that this might be ADMINSHOP, and all I said there was responding to Marnette. Apparently NeilN participated in previous discussions between these two, but he last edited in October and hasn't done much of anything since August.

If desired, I can copy the arguments here, but the thread is already big enough I didn't want to do that without someone requesting it. I'd appreciate it if things were addressed here, so I don't have lots more appearances of orange You Have New Messages notices. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend - I apologize for over-responding on your talk-page - I probably should've ignored R9tgokunks‎ post on your page, and definitely shouldn't have continued responding. The dispute, seems to me like a content dispute (and a rehashing of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive229#R9tgokunks from April 2018 which seems to still cause tension). I reverted poorly sourced (and un-sourced) material from John Hagee (un-sourced stuff, stuff that was WP:OR on various religious texts, a press release from catholic.org that was used for statements of facts (and quotes) on a BLP that didn't issue the statement, etc.). There is a discussion at Talk:John Hagee#Recent edits which started after the back and forth on Nyttend's talk page (and the talk page is where the discussion should have begun) - and which is where this discussion should continue. Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

At this stage, I see a content dispute. I've left some notes at the TP, but basically it'd be useful if Icewhiz could explain his BLP concerns in detail rather than reverting large swathes because they contain some unspecified BLP problems, and if R9tgokunks could take BLP concerns seriously and in good faith. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Kuwait College of Science and Technology

• 31.203.84.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Dan9055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drmunir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drkvirk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Drkvirk originally created the Kuwait College of Science and Technology article, full of ad-speak. Various editors have tried to remove the promotional language, tag it with maintenance tags, etc., with edit-warring by Drkvirk, then Drmunir, and recently Dan9055, all of which appear to be WP:SPAs with WP:COI.

Some of the battling has been against an IP editor (80.164.111.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who seems to have an axe to grind against the school. I sourced one of their edits, though, regarding an award by a vanity mill, and moved it down to an appropriate place, but had it reverted by Dan9055 without explanation. I reverted with explanation, but it was then removed again by 31.203.84.74. Details/diffs are at Talk:Kuwait College of Science and Technology#Award section, to which there has been no reply by the three users (who were pinged).

Aside from the SPA/COI/meat issue, should the info about the award remain, or is it WP:UNDUE? They were happy to advertise it until it got attention in their article here, after which they scrubbed it from their linkedIn page and even got one of the sources I cited to remove the pic from their article. It's not our job to expose such things, but neither is it our job to go along with a cover-up. I recognize that it's not exactly widely covered, which is why I'm on the fence. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring, COI, sock or meat puppeting at several biographies

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

---

• Shakir Qasmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Waheed Zafar Qasmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zahir Qasmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shiraz Qasmi (talk · contribs)
• ShirazQ (talk · contribs)
• Pcheeku (talk · contribs)

Edit warring on vanity bios by multiple apparently related accounts. Perhaps blocks or page protection needed. See also [205]. 2601:188:180:1481:2C:5F1F:6A04:8E55 (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I encourage any passerby CheckUser to look into this. Pcheeku is similar to Tcheeku, an account blocked in 2016. Based on the sheer number of edits at Waheed Zafar Qasmi, it seems pretty likely there's a sock/meat campaign going on here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, blocks on both [206]. No mistake, using both accounts disruptively. 2601:188:180:1481:2C:5F1F:6A04:8E55 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Jazz1972

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

---

Jazz1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in Disruptive editing in some Cyprus-related articles recently.

He has been active in Cyprus crisis (1955–64) where he has been re-inserting POV templates to some sections [207] His edits were reverted reverted once (by TU-nor), re-inserted, reverted twice (by me), re-inserted again, removed for a third time, re-inserted, removed, re-inserted. removed by IamNotU, re-inserted, removed, re-inserted. There has been a discussion in the Talk Page, where Jazz1972, me and 2 other users participated. The basic problem of the discussion is that Jazz1972 has not been listening. His first (and major argument) was to ask "Can anyone here name me those 103 villages?" [208] Dispite explaining to him that there is no need to dig to primary sources to find the names of the 103 villages, dispite the fact that primary sources have been presented [209] he agrues without any evidence that there are some problems with the Primary Source. What is more frustrating though, is his constant accusation that the rest of users, besides him, are POV pushers and we have managed to expel the good npov users (one example out of many: Chronic team work on enforcing this propaganda POV narrative, is constantly taking place by anti-Greek-Cypriot POV users and admins. All NPOV users have been chronically banned, while all the POV ones, are chronically immuned.Jazz1972 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2019 [210] or we are engaging doublespeak. The phrase War is peace ignorance is strength is repeated 3 times [211],[212],[213]

The same pattern, but definitely less intense, is repeated in the EOKA article. removing, the same info again and again. He has resorted to the Talk Page where he presents no evidence, but again repeats the POV and doublespeak accusations: So you don't even know who were the presidents of the three parties in Cyprus, while you are pushing the turkish goverment's propaganda POV, everyday, all day long about Cyprus.? You can imagine my shock!!!! Lol!!!! Speaking for POV, the king of it. War is peace ignorance is strength...Lol!!! Of course I have. Do you really think that is a difficult task, to give sources about this....?Jazz1972 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[214]

At the article of Cyprus. Removing once twice, third time

Worth noting that this is not the first time he speaks of NPOV and POV users. In October 2018: You do not have a single clue about the case, and you are repeating the turkish side's fanatical war propaganda, that was debunked by the turkish officials themselves. You are a very poor POV user, that incites hatred against Greek Cypriots and a victimhood culture in Turkish Cypriots. If you want to improve start reading non propaganda and non turkish sources and stop being a fanatic. Don't expect to respong to this ludicrus comments of yours, if you don't come with NPOV comments and don't expect to pass this pretending a soft way to do it, like you are doing in your second response. You are making it even more ludicrus like thatJazz1972 (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC),[215] an incidence that probably I should have reported but I let it go. I wont do the same mistake again. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It is the opposite that is happening. Cinadon36 is deleting all the NPOV information in all related articles about Cyprus and team working with other anti-Greek Cypriot users in order to enforce total propaganda narratives and have any NPOV users banned. He is doing it for a very long time. He is already banned for a long period in the Greek version of Wikipedia, for his actions. He is vandalizing all NPOV information and wants to enforce the turksih goverment's POV propaganda. Even his user name is the one that is plotting against Sparta. I will soon prepare a full report on what he is doing, with all the history behind it. If I see my account to get banned in a team work, I will have to react, since this is happening for a very long time, with literally all NPOV users, in Cyprus related matters.Jazz1972 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've indented your comment. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Jazz1972, Cinadon36 has provided edits that support his charges against you for disruptive editing. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims that other editors are trying to enforce total propaganda narratives and have any NPOV users banned? Because otherwise, they qualify as unsubstantiated personal attacks and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• In the past couple of weeks I've been trying, with little success, to help resolve the situation in Cyprus crisis (1955–64). I won't comment on the content dispute, but I'm concerned that the level of personal attacks from Jazz1972 has crossed the line. Here I'm accused of criminal hate speech: incitment of total hatred against a whole race of people, based on propaganda and lies Special:Diff/881905578/882034345. The irony is that I haven't even edited the article, apart from a revert where Jazz1972 had removed large sections of it with no explanation, plus some simple cleanup.[216] Jazz1972 was blocked once already by Acroterion for personal attacks, but it seems to have made no impact. --IamNotU (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying, with little success, to help resolve the situation in Cyprus crisis (1955–64) – I'd say you're 55 years too late. EEng 11:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Jazz1972, please explain to us the concept of NPOV. What is a NPOV(Neutral Point Of View)? What is the Neutral Point of View in Cyprus crisis (1955–64)? Please refrain from accusing others when answering these questions. There might or might not be a time for that, later(with all due civility, of course).Lurking shadow (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Jazz1972 is continuing a nationalist campaign against consensus, and appears to have learned nothing from the block I imposed for personal attacks. Based on the comments above: Cinadon36 is deleting all the NPOV information in all related articles about Cyprus and team working with other anti-Greek Cypriot users in order to enforce total propaganda narratives and have any NPOV users banned. He is doing it for a very long time. He is already banned for a long period in the Greek version of Wikipedia, for his actions. He is vandalizing all NPOV information and wants to enforce the turksih goverment's POV propaganda. Even his user name is the one that is plotting against Sparta. I will soon prepare a full report on what he is doing, with all the history behind it. If I see my account to get banned in a team work, I will have to react, since this is happening for a very long time, with literally all NPOV users, in Cyprus related matters. I'm blocking for a month for resumed personal attacks and nationalist POV-warring against consensus. This is Jazz1972's last chance, the next block will be indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Koraskadi, User:Garam, User:Vif12vf

I was redirected here I do not know whether https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=882353664&oldid=882352170 I do not often edit something on wikipedia. But here for many years there are very doubtful things.

I decided to still bring them to the scientific mind. Cited references. Gave the opportunity to speak to all parties. And provide archaeologically based links. Discussed on the Talk page for each article.

But these users began to behave not ethically. Defending the position of South Korean Korean nationalists. Obviously working collectively. On link is in detail what and how it was. I am not a professional employee of Wikipedia or any Info lobby. And just a person acting out of the positions with sources and request the same. Therefore, I do not know all the protest procedures on Wikipedia - which are very confusing. So please treat with understanding if this request is not true targeted. Hatchiko (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hatchiko, there is a bright gold message when you edit this page that states you have to inform editors whom you are discussing in your complaint. I have done so for you and I hope Koraskadi, Garam, Vif12vf can add their thoughts to this discussion.

Also, it is typical in ANI complaints to supply "diffs", or edits, that are you using to back up your statement that these editors are not behaving ethically. Do you have any evidence to support this charge? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• All the evidence in the magazines of the articles themselves and the talk pages of these avenues - try to look at them before making counter accusations against the men who defended the scientific point of view - but to you here, apparently, nobody needs it. Well that zhd Korean Nazis reassure nuclear bomb. And here you live in the fictional world of Fakepedia.Hatchiko (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• I think user Hatchiko doesn't understand Wikipedia's rules well, so he/she unintentionally have created unnecessary argument until now. --Garam (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please look at the current state of Balhae, which is Hatchiko's version, and judge for yourselves whether I am "vandalizing" by rolling back Hatchiko's edits. Many of the sources in fact are Western sources, not South Korean, and yet he labels them as "South Korean" viewpoint, and for others that disagree with his view, he labels them "unreliable". Koraskadi (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki harassment by a blocked sockmaster

• Justicwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2606:2E00:8003:10:0:0:1:2A69 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Ylonuwed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Justicwiki", someone's sockpuppet (self-confessed),[217] left me this note yesterday on Commons.[218] I reported the sock to Commons ANI; admin Taivo subsequently indeffed him.[219]
Now he's using IP socks[220]-[221] and another account (Ylonuwed) [222]-[223]-[224] to leave me the exact same harassing note on other Wiki projects.

Can any admin deal with this?

Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• en.wiki admins can't deal with this, I'm afraid, as of course they don't have permissions on the numerous other wikis that you mention. A request to block an account that is harassing you at numerous wikis may be lodged at this venue. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• (multiple ecs) The IP is already blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Opened a request at the venue you mentioned.[225] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I did some digging. It would appear these are socks of Rowingasia,[226] at least based on their editorial conduct. I checked the global contributions of User:Ylonuwed, IP 2606:2e00:8003:10::ff23 and IP 2606:2e00:8003:10::1:2a69. Other than just leaving me weird notes, they also wrote very insulting comments, in Persian, about @Mohsen1248:.[227]-[228] As you know, User:Mohsen1248 has filed numerous succesful SPI's on Rowingasia, so Rowingasia would have good "personal" reasons to hate him. Furthermore, we know that Rowingasia is related to the country Iran, at least in some way. Last but not least, these sock IP's and accounts became active right after the last CU sweep was conducted, less than 24 hours ago.[229] Behaviorally, they are a match IMO; but you, as a CU could probably shed more light on the "technical" part of the story. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I was pinged here, I don't know how I can help but I can tell you this is the same sockpuppet based on this which is insult toward me (or at least that's what he think, calling me gay) and yes he is from Iran and his English is very bad. that's probably why he mostly only attacks me because he probably can't curse others in English LOL. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mohsen1248: Yeah he now fully admits he's Rowingasia.[230] He keeps stalking me on other Wikiprojects and keeps insulting you. He's now making threats as well:

"Otherwise, if you want to refuse me, I will also deal with you in another way (...) As long as I do not have a compelling answer, I will pursue. Meanwhile, I am not always calm, patient and polite. It depends on your behavior."[231]

@Drmies: @Ymblanter: @Doug Weller: @Oshwah: - LouisAragon (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

But none of us is administrator on the German Wikipedia. I will be happy to help if it spreds into Commons, Wikidata, or (unlikely) Russian Wikivoyage, where I am administrator, but it is very little we can do beyond blocking the IP once they show up here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you for your reply. I have edited a section on Wikidata, previously opened by Mohsen1248.[232] He's literally leaving me a comment on every Wikipedia project out there, including Wikidata. Leaving me more threats as well ("hi loius. reply your mistake otherwise my calm will be end.")[233] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Here you can see his global contributions.[234] He's literally going through every Wikiproject. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

LouisAragon, now globally locked according to CentralAuth. SITH (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I semiprotected your talk page on Wikidata and indefblocked the user who left the last message there for harassment.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: @StraussInTheHouse: Thanks a lot, but he's at it again.[235]-[236] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Taken care of--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

POV, WP:TEND, and other issues with Inowen

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

Not quite sure what to do here, but I've noticed some very problematic behavior from Inowen. This user has been, in my view, POV pushing on Talk:Homosexuality. They wish to increase the visibility of the fringe theory that homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse of children. This user has been on Wikipedia long enough that it should be safe to assume they understand WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE.

Yet they point to Conservapedia as a model for content here and that there are gay activists are in force on Wikipedia [that act as a lobby, and for political reasons brush away theories connecting homosexuality to sexual abuse, physical violence, and other environmental factors]. Inowen insists that the actual fringe theory is that God made gays gay in the genetic code and that if the idea is that there is no God anyway, then that's injecting atheism into the argument and connecting homosexual politics with atheism. Also see [237]. Additionally, credentialed researchers propose outlandish theories like "gay genes are real and there is no God and homosexuality is normal".

Today, when Mathglot replied to this user, Inowen expressed concern that a "genderqueer atheist/agnostic just called [Mathglot] to intervene here on his [sic] behalf" which would discredit anything Mathglot has to say. Inowen went on to express concern that Wikipedia is injecting atheism and demanding that all articles honor atheist point of view.

I am not sure what to do about this other than bring it to the community for consideration. This user clearly hold strong and rather extreme beliefs, but their approach to editing this article and working with other editors does not appear to be constructive and is tendentious. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

So far he hasn't edited the article, just posted his crackpot comments to the talk page. Nothing the gay cabal can't handle. Not an ANI matter, at least not yet. EEng 21:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

What, nothing about Monarchy? Shocking. Qwirkle (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Not following that one tbh. EEng That's why I wasn't sure what to do about this. The personal attack rustled my jimmies a tad, and I recognized that, but it still seemed to be moving past regular nonsense we see and into agitating tendentious nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This might explain it. Creative connections between ideas appears to be his metier. Qwirkle (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

See here also; this editor appears to have a particular ultra-crank theory that (1) British democracy is a fake, (2) Britain is secretly still ruled by the monarchy, (3) agents of said monarchy are trying to subvert America, (4) Wikipedia is their chosen medium for doing so and (5) because everyone else on Wikipedia has been subverted by agents of the monarchy it falls on him to fight back for the forces of democracy against the fake democrats. ‑ Iridescent 00:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

So it's like he said: a cabal of queens controls everything. EEng 00:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Um, EvergreenFir has several times misrepresented what I have said:

• He said: "They wish to increase the visibility of the fringe theory that homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse of children" - My interest is in whether there have been some inquiries into whether maybe just maybe some of why gays are gay is because they were abused when they were younger. EvergreenFir characterizes my interest as an agenda; God forbid anyone be interested in environmental factors; and he uses the wording "fringe theory" for anything environmental; which is POV pushing in the idea that gayness is genetic. The main issue EvergreenFir seems to have is that I disagree with their gay POV pushing.
• I didn't say gays acted as a lobby here, I said that the typical Conservapedian would make arguments of a similar kind, that gays work together like a lobby here. Continuing along those lines, gay POV pushers, call them whatever group name you want, seem to be against the idea of environmental causes like abuse (including physical abuse and stress at home) as a factor in being gay. There is a little bit of handling of the research I brought up, but it looks like its been buried at the bottom of the environment and sexual orientation article.

Qwirkle raises something totally unrelated, me in discussions on the monarchy article, as evidence of my tendentious editing. Heaven forbid anyone having no love for the British Empire, and how dare anyone think gays were not created gay but have faced abuse and difficult situations. I ask that, because other topics are out the scope of this ANI, this ANI be confined to Talk:Homosexuality, which is indeed about queens, ;) , but a certain type of queen and not any other (by the way "queen" can be a plural). To come up with a hodgepodge of criticisms of me would be improper here, so if that's what you want to do, do it formally.

Iridescent wrote:

"this editor appears to have a particular ultra-crank theory that (1) British democracy is a fake, (2) Britain is secretly still ruled by the monarchy, (3) agents of said monarchy are trying to subvert America, (4) Wikipedia is their chosen medium for doing so and (5) because everyone else on Wikipedia has been subverted by agents of the monarchy it falls on him to fight back for the forces of democracy against the fake democrats."

Yes, that's all correct, except the part about using Wikipedia only. They threaten the US if the US doesn't comply with their schemes, and they extort money from the US because they don't generate wealth; because dictatorships like Venezuela dont inspire economic confidence. But that has nothing to do with the ANI here. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought that was the Jews. EEng 01:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't say anything not supportive about the Jews either. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I got mixed up with the shapeshifting reptiles. EEng 01:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Well don't get confused. The science fiction stories are just metaphors. Metaphors. Drawn from real life, but not actually true. Not reptiles, exactly. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, metaphors. Metaphors drawn from real life. It all makes sense. EEng 01:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Qwirkle raises something totally unrelated, me in discussions on the monarchy article That’s simply untrue, as a glance at the link showed above, and shows here now. You were soapboxing on the WP:Signpost’s suggestions page, and drew some remarkably big inferences out of very little evidence, in a way that suggested racing thoughts. Qwirkle (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

File:11 Renault JP.jpg

Many people have thoughts of racing.

-EEng

Racing thoughts? Is that a psychological diagnosis? Its possible you are a shrink, but even so this is not the forum for your professional opinions. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, luckily, Wikipedia doesn't rely on your opinions or mine (or reptiles) about homosexuality or the monarchy but on reliable, secondary sources. I don't think you will find very solid ones representing your POV. It seems more like we need another reminder that article talk pages are not discussion forums to share ones opinions and argue about social issues with other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've noticed Inowen popping up at various TPs and discussion forums (VPP, Signpost) and I'm not sure there's a remedy under present circumstances, although if any of this material gets into articles, then it becomes a different story. Imho, he is WP:NOTHERE. The best capsule description was Jayron32's, at this RefDesk thread: "[T]he OP [Inowen] seems to be here to seek affirmation rather than information.". That's it, in a nutshell; he's here to promote a (sometimes wacky) POV, and right great wrongs.

Even when something is well outside the normal scope of culture war hot-button issues, like Syllable, he manages to introduce some pure OR (diff) that gets rapidly reverted, accompanied by appropriately derisive comments on the Talk page characterizing the changes as "nonsense", "meaningless", and "demonstrably false". Can't wait to see what happens when he edits Homosexuality. I've left comments (twice) about V and RS at the discussion thread linked to in the OP, but after a year he should know basic principles.

I think that now, we're at the intersection of ROPE and CIR, and we just have to see which way things break. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm close to supporting a site ban. I'm seeing they're still pushing their fantasy world about how the queen has hacked the UN and is trying to destroy America and wikipedia via defamation law or something (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 November 1). If they're now branching out into causing problems in other areas, it's probably getting time to show them the door. The fact that they're largely sticking to talk pages, reduces the problem, but not when it's so extreme. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The reservations regarding immediate action that have been expressed here so far seem to be predicated less on the community members not viewing this user as problematic and more a matter of consternation that they are not violating brightline rules such as edit warring or personal attacks against specific editors. But even in the absence of such edits, an editor can still be a disruptive influence and clear case of a net negative as regards WP:CIR, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and WP:NOTHERE.

It's the last of those that is the crux of the matter here, as I don't think this user shows any signs of being willing to learn how sources are interpreted and serve as the underpinning for our content on this project. Rather I think it's pretty obvious that the extent of their engagement with policy has been to learn just enough of the jargon of talk page process to continue to push their favourite conspiracy theories and WP:FRINGE science without standing out too much, but also without making even a basic effort to accept and internalize WP:DUE requirements, which is particularly an issue given they seem to edit entirely in controversial areas. At a certain point, I believe it's entirely appropriate for the community to decide that they are unlikely to suddenly start understanding how these fundamental policies work, because their objective is not to work within those guidelines but rather to try to conform the articles they work on to the beliefs which brought them here in the first place. And we are by no means beholden to entertaining that behaviour forever, regardless of how little direct editing they do to the article in question and how willing they are to discuss, where such discussion is actually just protracted arguments in which they steadfastly refuse to really learn our core content policies. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• When this thread opened I didn't realize the breadth of the insanity. A ban or indef seems appropriate. EEng 15:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• God—or reptilian serpent overlord from the Shadow Kingdom—forgive me, but despite everything I'm going to oppose blocking (striking, see below) at this stage. Certainly, Inowen has spent the last few months spewing idiocy of a level so stupid even the other conspiracy theorists consider it garbage (the UK has had 17 major elections/referenda in the past decade, all of which have produced wildly varying results; presumably if democracy is a sham to rubber-stamp the decisions made by the Secret Rulers Of The World, the SROTW have changed their minds about their preferred course of action 17 times in that period, and it seems somewhat unlikely that any self respecting serpent-man would select Boris Johnson or Arlene Foster as their divine instruments; plus, the whole theory is predicated on the assumption that not a single person has noticed the conspiracy in the 300+ years since the rest of the world believes the British monarchy lost the last of its powers). However, as far as I can see nobody has explicitly warned him (I think we can safely assume this is a 'him', and if such things as this are anything to go by extremely young as well) that such things aren't acceptable and that Wikipedia reflects only what reliable sources say, not whatever drivel he happens to believe. I don't consider the initial point at Talk:Homosexuality#Studies of abuse which prompted this to be particularly problematic; the idea that sexuality is a product of experience rather than of hormones or genetics may not be widely accepted, but it's certainly not wholly discredited and it's legitimate to discuss whether it should be given greater weight in an article. While I very much doubt that Inowen is likely to be willing to comply with Wikipedia's rules—which require us all regularly to say things we don't personally believe provided that's what the sources say—I'm extremely reluctant to kick someone out for what appears to be a cack-handed but good-faith effort to comply with policy. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: From your earlier notion that the user claims "agents of said monarchy are trying to subvert America", I wonder if this current issue has anything to do with it... SemiHypercube 20:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No; he's been hawking his "Britain is secretly ruled by the Queen" conspiracy theory for months now. See here, here or here. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a borderline case and though I personally lean towards recognizing the WP:NOTHERE spade for a spade and taking some action now (topic bans if not an indef), WP:ROPE with a strongly worded warning is reasonable alternative solution for even a concerned community member to endorse here. However, I have to disagree as to one very central point: I don't see much effort here to comply with (or indeed, even a good-faith effort to try to understand) policy. Looking specifically at the thread you linked to, this editor predicates their arguments in:

• Ad hominems and misinterpretations of policy to try to invalidate the position of other editors "[I think that probably] the one who self identifies as a genderqueer atheist/agnostic just called you to intervene here on his behalf; that would completely invalidate everything you have said here above, (even though it paraphrases standard reference to policy) as you are acting as an agent for the other party.", and
• Tendentious straw man arguments ("The other side proposes the idea that God made gays gay in the genetic code which is actual fringe.", where no one has mentioned any role for divine influence but him),
• Arguments which advance a philosophical debate rather than discussion predicated on sources and the actual metrics we use to resolve content disputes ("Also any idea where 'behavior x is permissable because there is no God' is injecting atheism and demanding that all articles honor atheist point of view.",

This user has been here for a year and has clearly been made aware of editorial requirements in the vein of WP:reliable sources and the prohibition on WP:original research, and yet all of their arguments attest to a steadfast denial to either understand or apply those standards. What we have here is not someone trying to comply with policy, but rather someone who superficially applies a little of the policy language they have heard, but warped through a lens that it simply means whatever they need it to mean to affirm their POV pushing (for example, dropping the term "weight" liberally into a discussion to argue for why a fringe concept should be included in the article and then never supplying so much as a single reference to a reliable source). At the end of the day, it may prove to be consensus to give this editor a little more time to adjust, but if that's the case, it will only be for procedural reasons linked to our being able to have confidence that we are not applying our processes hastily, not because we can have very much confidence that this user will adjust and that we won't have to apply sanctions eventually. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

SemiHypercube: "the idea that sexuality is a product of experience rather than of hormones or genetics may not be widely accepted, but it's certainly not wholly discredited and it's legitimate to discuss whether it should be given greater weight in an article." Right, its "not wholly discredited." There is theory bias; where the question of what the moon is made of being dominated by fromagers, who write a lot of papers, but in the end it is made of rock, like the some people have been saying. The only problem with the article that I see is that it gives undue weight to genetic theories, which seem to be fromager craft.-Inowen (nlfte) 20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I hadn't realised that this editor was this guy. In light of the demonstrable history of being told what was and wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia—and this spectacularly clueless comment, which I can only interpret as "I don't care what the sources say, my opinions take priority"—Wikipedia is clearly not the appropriate place for Inowen. Switching to support indef. ‑ Iridescent 21:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that "spectacularly clueless comment" is the one right before yours only two comments up from this one. Others can read it for themselves. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Swansboro, North Carolina

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

---

Someone using the range Special:Contributions/2606:A000:F8C5:CA00:0:0:0:0/64 has been causing disruption by adding excessive occupations to film and TV biographies. The person started last September, and very quickly the range was blocked for a week by Widr. Other blocks have been placed on individual IP addresses, for instance on 2606:A000:F8C5:CA00:25C5:7110:4E0E:ED59 a month ago. Can we get another rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked one month. Katie^talk 12:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Editor with ties to Russian government

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

---

Basim dj1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Watch from 7:55 in this link (use link below). New York Times claimed that this user was connected to the Russian Government, with loads of evidence. According to the source, he had pictures in Commons in Russian, and that the car that they used was from its military. Plus, in the Al-Tanf (US base) page that he created, (there is another page with the name about the area)he wrote a bunch of stuff that obviously was directed to the US. Would anyone like to possibly find out if there are more socks connected or if we should block the user and/or request stewards to check the Russian Wikipedia? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is an Updated link. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The article has since changed before the user created it, with no more Russian POV, but I feel like it may have done much more damage on other wikis or by using socks. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

First, this editor made 34 edits in November 2017 (and 2 in December 2017). So, she/he isn't exactly prolific or active. Their edits should be checked out for promoting a Russian POV but is this an urgent problem?

Second, just assuming for the moment that the editor's edits are seen as adequate, are we going to disqualify any editor who has ties to a government? Because we have editors who work for the U.S. government (and probably other nations as well), should we assume they have an inherent COI promoting their nations? I think that it's helpful that the NYTimes put this editor on our radar so we can check them out for a possible COI but I think we need to judge an editor based on their edits, not take the word of even a reliable source like the NYTimes to be an indication that an inactive editor needs an immediate block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen the diffs? The editor claimed that the US was helping terrorists, and that the Syrian Army were ‘armed gangs’, using biased Russian refs. Plus, he wrote the whole article in 3 edits, the first one adding the most information, with complete refs. How is that possible?

As you said, the user itself isn’t that much of a problem, since it can be blocked easily, but the main problem is if there are more of these accounts spreading the Russian POV. We should probably just block. The IP could, however, be looked into more to see if there are other socks also promoting the same thing. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Liz, I am pretty sure I have ties to state government if that counts for anything. Either way, what I think Oshawott 12 meant to say was the editor is being accused of being a part of a government-funded and coordinated disinformation campaign. That's slightly different than a simple intern like me. However, I do not think a ban is the right answer. If we ban the user, then we will have a harder time finding others. I suggest we keep the user under monitoring to see what they do next (if they do anything at all). ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The association to the Russian government is that the user appears to be Russian military or more likely a contractor, and if the uploaded pictures are genuinely theirs, they've been on the ground in rather sensitive areas. That said, working for a government in a certain capacity does not necessarily imply being part of another capacity, such as an orchestrated influence effort. The user's edit are clearly from a Russian perspective but such views are not only the product of specific and targeted craft, they are common and pervasive across the Russian cultural sphere. It may very well be that the user is simply contributing his or her (heavily slanted) 'knowledge' in their free time and not as part of a specific program. Working for a government, adversarial or not, should not be grounds for automatic blocks or COI suspicions. Plenty of editors work for the U.S. government and yet are not paid to spread U.S. perspectives, though such perspectives obviously inform editor biases (just like working in a given industry or sector). In this specific case it is the introduction of POV which needs to be monitored, and warnings and blocks issued on those grounds only. The NYT's find, while very interesting, is entirely tangential and not prima facie evidence of a direct effort. Obviously that's not to say Wikipedia cannot be a battleground for information warfare; if the user is more than meets the eye it may well be that there are eyes on them anyway. My two cents. — Define Real (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Continued WP:NOTHERE editing by User:1DHNK1

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

---

• 1DHNK1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please refer to this previous ANI case.
Admin Dennis Brown decided, in good faith to extend a massive amount of WP:ROPE the previous time this "editor" was reported (27 January 2019),[238] hoping he'd improve his ways. Unfortunately, to no avail, for "1DHNK1" just continued (9 February 2019)[239]-[240] with the exact same disruptive editorial pattern, without ever responding to the numerous warnings left on his talk page by users and admins alike.[241] Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• NPA block in 3... 2... 1... SITH (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"Blocked 48 hours for personal attacks and resumed edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Abusive edit war on Tirupati_Airport

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

---

Disruptive edits by some IP address like https://2405:204:541D:C6A0:830D:4C82:72A6:F95B https://2405:204:541D:C6A0:F7A3:B0CE:22EE:1682 In tirupati airport article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirupati_Airport He is Using vulgar and abusive words in hindi language as part of edit/reversion reason.

I suspect this is is WP:Sock of User User:LeoFrank Request you to investigate about the IP. By LovSLif (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your links aren't working right, but looking through the history the IP is engaging in vicious personal attacks (the edit summary is a swear word in Hindi). Blocked the latest IP and semiprotecting for a bit, plus I've revdeled a couple of the most egregious edit summaries. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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