Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974

Potential WP:NLT violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nice short and sweet one. Vaugnandco00001111 was reverted by CBNG, so the user decided to come to my talk page with... not so much threats, but anyway, you'll see. Helpful Link: User talk:Rich Smith#JAMES O'TOOLE WIKI ENTRY

Cheers!

-- - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Panix comics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A very new and very combative editor is making non-constructive edits that do not follow MOS or grammar; has edited others' comments on a talk page; has started an RfC with a contentious and heated post rather than a neutral statement or question; and is edit-warring despite my good-faith attempts at discussion — as well as admin C.Fred's request [1] that this editor "propose some smaller edits that can be more easily evaluated" in discussion, rather than edit-war.

On January 12, Panix comics, made edits to Marshall Rogers that were filled with non-constructive edits such as

• an unexplained deletion [2],
• a large number of MOS errors and grammatical errors (for example, see line beginning "Rogers Born in Flushing, Queens, NY" here),
• and clunky, non-encyclopedic-tone (for example, see sentence containing "his heart wasn't totally committed to it" here).

After I reverted [3], stating those reasons, he did not follow WP:BRD but instead began of series of edits restoring his non-constructive additions and adding more (see edits of 21:17 - 21:53, 13 January 2018‎).

I restored the last stable version and began discussion at Talk:Marshall Rogers#Today's edits on 01:20, 13 January 2018. There he gave a hostile reply with the uncivil edit summary ""Tenebrae - war on editors". He again began edit-warring on the article, and at some point — and it's hard to tell because his talk-page posts are non-chronological and all over the place — he began an RfC with a screed containing phrases such as "I fixed this and then it was reverse make false claims as to me not identifying the reasons for the edits" and "he seems intent on zero sum rollbacks and refuses discussion or compromise." Obviously, that's not a neutral statement or question, which I pointed out here.

After C.Fred urged discussion, I wholeheartedly agreed [4]. After Panix comics replied, I posted the first of my comments about his edits here.

And that began a series of nasty, insulting comments by him that displayed little or no understanding of Wikipedia policies, guidelines or MOS (starting here). Additionally, he posted a series wall-of-text responses with poor grammar and lots of meandering. And he edited my comments by changing my subhead and by confusingly inserting his comments within my own. He also blatantly added a subhead ("refusal to collaberate" [sic]") above one of my sentences ("What are your thoughts?") that he separated from a larger post.

I asked him to please put his talk-page posts in chronological order and not within other editors' comments, so that we could properly continue discussion [5]. That request was met with another nasty reply, insisting it's "normal" to edit others' comments by sticking your own within them! [6]

It gets worse. I made that request at Monday 23:00, 15 January 2018. I was then away from Talk:Marshall Rogers for one day, returning today, Wednesday, 21:57, 17 January 2018‎ ... and in the meantime, that one day was enough for him to accuse me of "refusing" to collaborate. He unilaterally restored his contentious, poorly written and non-MOS version ... with the barely comprehensible edit summary "RFC and refusal to colab or discus" [sic].

After days of this, including my own genuine, perfectly reasonable attempt to discuss specific edits (here), I think his abusive and combative behavior needs to be brought to admin attention. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that it is considered normal in some contexts to comment within a thread. Since he's a new editor, he probably just needs to adjust. It took me a while to get used to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This situation looks WP:BITEy to me. I agree that Panix comics' edits were poor quality and that the original seems to be better, just from a basic English perspective, but I also understand why they got annoyed with Tenebrae's response. To a new editor, an edit summary like "rvt numerous inexplicable, non-constructive edits by an editor with one day editing Wikipedia" looks a lot like "I've been here longer than you so I get to revert what I don't like", especially when it's the initial piece of communication (and followed by this). Maybe both parties should step back for a day or so, do something off-Wikipedia, and then return with a clear head. Marianna251TALK 00:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, WP:TPO states, "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." And I did ask him politely to restore my edits, rather than touch his talk-page edits myself. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Chaipau(Disruptive editing)

• Chaipau (talk · contribs)

Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially the edits made on the pages Chutiya kingdom[7],[8] and Paik system[9](The used references can be verified if necessary).The user seems not to stop disruptive editing the pages and uses fake excuses like wrong sources mentioned, could not find source(whereas proper links and sourced are added) and sock-puppetry, thus deleting important information in the guise of essential edits.2405:205:1084:A4F0:B46E:F42F:82B4:EAC9 (talk)

• • This incident has been added here by a suspected sock puppet who is under investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LauraGoldstein67. The user has been blanking the page [10]. This user has the habit of top posting[11], which he did on this page as well [12]. Chaipau (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• • @Kleuske: Chaipau (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• As it is evident here, the user Chaipau has been taking down valid users under the case of sock-puppetry, while himself cunningly removing sourced info. I am a new user well versed with these articles. He has some POV mentality involved with the articles related to the Chutia community.
• Even the top posting he mentions seems to be not valid as "Chutia" is the correct spelling of the word. For instance look at Sonaram Chutia. Even the organisation involved with the community has the name All Assam Chutia students (https://m.facebook.com/allassamchutiastudentsunion/). On the other hand the word "Chutiya" is a well known slang/curse word in India. Therefore, it is evident that the user is trying to defame the community name due to some personal reasons.(https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/chutiya).

2405:205:1084:A4F0:B46E:F42F:82B4:EAC9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted blanking of an SPI-page. That's where my involvement ends. The rest looks like a content dispute to me, on which I have no particular opinion, although diffs are required to back up any claims. Kleuske (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Arcarius

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

Arcarius has been editing for a decade, but the same issues persist. They do not usually respond to messages from other editors, even when it is clear questions and repeated concerns being raised about the same issues: mainly referencing. You can see at [13] the many messages many editors have sent. I see my name is on the page 72 times - none of the messages were responded to. I have directed Arcaruius to WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required and tried many times to engage Arcarius in a discussion about their editing, to no avail.

Arcarius has been editing too long for this, and also did edit their user talk page back in 2016, so does know how to use the page. I would like Arcarius to join a discussion here and show that they understand Wikipedia is a collaborative project where it is required that you respond to editors when they raise concerns. I would also like Arcarius to show a good understanding of WP:V and to realise that if mann issue with sourcing, this should inform their future article creations. Some of the redirects are concerning too, redirects from terms which are not mentioned in the article at all. I'm not sure how else to get Arcarius to engage. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any current ongoing disruption or any edit disputes in progress that requires this user's input to resolve? I see that you're concerned about ongoing issues over time, but I'd like to review any current issues that are in progress. Someone not responding on their talk page isn't something I can force this user to start doing... obviously :-). But if there are current disputes and issues where communication and his participation are needed and disruption is occurring in lieu of this (such as edit warring), then that's another matter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. There seems to be a history of failure to engage. And there's a new issue where we can see if they respond. He's just edited an article[14] adding 2 section headings with underneath them "TO BE ELABORATED FROM THE ITALIAN WIKI". I'll try to get him to respond about that, but I'm also concerned about his continued failure to source. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'll bother to post on his talk page. He's been busy editing since he got the ANI notice (at least 10 edits) and still hasn't responded here. I don't have time to waste. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As a long-established editor he doesn't seem to know about date formats - see grotty recent additions to Tharros. PamD 15:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing issue is the lack of sources in articles Arcarius has created, discussion about the seemingly misleading redirects etc. They are also going against the policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party: Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia...Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus...Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius, we can see you are still editing, can you please contribute to this discussion? We are just trying to resolve these issues, and we can't do this without you. Please be aware that if you refuse to engage with this discussion, you risk an indefinite block. Just talk to us. Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius has now disappeared as soon as I mentioned here that we could see they were editing but not communicating. I think at this stage an indefinite block is the only way to get Arcarius to communicate. Arcarius, please prove me wrong and join the discussion. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Dan56 (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not surprisingly, Dan56, who once declared that he was done "wast[ing] too much time on here as it is concerning myself with self-righteous bores and misguided pests at articles no one reads", is back, and although he doesn't seem to be as active as he used to be, he's still up to no good; on Raw Power, for example, we get into a dispute and have a lengthy discussion about it, he stops responding, and after I proceed to make the edit again, he reverts it within half a fucking hour and even opens an RfC about it. This isn't the first time he's opened an RfC about something so trivial; even if it isn't ownership anymore, can someone please do something about it? Esszet (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You didn't get the memo? Jimbo Wales is editing Wikipedia under the username "Dan56" these days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm straining to see the good faith in this request, but it is difficult. If someone reverts you, talks, then you change it, then they revert you and then start an RFC, that sounds like the normal editing process. Doesn't mean it is always pretty, but as long as he actively engaging in the topic in good faith. He started the RFC, a few participated, all of them agreed. Whether it is an official RFC or just talk page poling is meaningless to me, its all the same: building consensus. Right now, it sounds like you are complaining about someone building consensus. Unanimous consensus in the one example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but he was the one who stopped responding, and if you were more familiar with him, you'd see what I mean; if you look at his contributions, you'll see that pretty much all he does now is revert other people's edits, often without explanation. By the way, both of the other people in the previous RfC (yes, there were only two) said it was a stupid thing to have an RfC for. Esszet (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, calling someone a "raging egoist" is a personal attack, so I would recommend striking it. Second, your report here is mainly complaining about how you don't like him yet you haven't managed to articulate a single policy he has violated. Claims like "he's still up to no good". You complain that he stopped responding, right after complaining about the lengthy discussion. You complain about the revert, but you admit he immediately put up an RFC to get a broad consensus view. If two people are reverting each other back and forth, on any point (petty or not), putting it up for the community to decide is exactly the right solution. As for looking through his contribs, the onus is on you to present diffs that demonstrate a policy violation, to at least give us some direction. Throw us a bone. Telling us that you simply don't like someone and that we should just go on a fishing expedition through hundreds of diffs, that isn't likely to bear fruit. If you have a specific policy violation claim and the diffs to demonstrate it, by all means, present it. Otherwise, this is frittering away a lot of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

His last edit appears to be tagged with rollback - which if rollback was actually used is an abuse of the tool. -edit- actually taking a look at his contributions, quite a lot are tagged with rollback which are almost all content/style changes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In Twinkle, there are three rollback features: a bad faith, a good faith and a neutral one. The neutral and good faith are not much different than an undo, except they are much more convenient. If he is tagging good faith edits as vandalism, that is a problem. If he isn't, then he's just using the tools that we've provided for faster reverts. Not always optimum, but the tools exist for a reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As I understood twinkle, if the editor has the rollback permission it uses that, if it doesn't, it performs a standard revert? As he appears to have rollback rights, is twinkle using that permission to rollback non-vandalism? If it is, its irrelevant what tool he is using, the rollback user-right is not to be used for non-vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

About to make the commute, so I don't have time to look up. Mainly, I'm looking at the summary, which doesn't mention vandalism and the verbiage is no different than an UNDO except it says ROLLBACK instead of UNDO. No mention of vandalism or other negative words. Rollback used to be a negative thing only, but not now. It is just a fast way to automatically undo all of an edit, or multiple edits, without the chance to modify them along the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note - In the last ANI discussion between these two, Dan56 was on his way for a boomerang and 1RR restriction before he "retired" to avoid scrutiny. I recommended for the restriction to still be implemented for his inevitable return but it seems the thread was simply closed without any action.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, it appeared that there was no consensus. Had there been a clear consensus, it would have been closed with action. I'm not going to retry that case, the community has already shown they were split on those issues. I've looked for clear policy violations in this report but no one has presented them. I can see some potential problems, but it isn't my job to do all the homework and present the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

May I ask how you read this discussion as having no clear consensus? There were 7 editors in favour of the sanction (6 if you don't count Dan56 himself), and of the two opposes, one was clearly in bad faith by an editor who has been indefinitely banned, and the other had clearly misunderstood the proposal. Cjhard (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess the issue here really is ownership; judge for yourself whether an RfC was necessary here or in the previous instance. Especially in light of his past behavior (see here), I really am inclined to think a lot of this really isn't in good faith and he's trying to drag out the discussion as much as he can just to make it difficult to make edits he doesn't like. It may not seem that bad – yet – but I'm trying to nip this in the bud. By the way, the vote count in the previous thread here was 6-2 in favor of sanctioning him – I'm not trying to be snotty, but is that not enough? Esszet (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And yes, using rollback to revert good-faith edits is considered an abuse of the tool, but sanctioning him for that probably wouldn't do much; he'd just start doing standard reverts instead. Esszet (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case, for example, I ‘’was’’ trying to establish consensus (hence the discussion on the article’s talk page), and what I think he’s doing is trying to discourage other people from participating by the sheer length of the discussion (if he was, it worked) and then opening RfCs when the other person simply won’t give up. As I said, it isn’t that bad – yet – but at the same time, you shouldn’t have to have a lengthy discussion and an RfC every time you try to make an edit he doesn’t like. Esszet (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Only in death:? Esszet (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've said all that I felt needed saying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, I thought I spelled things out pretty clearly the second time around. Esszet (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this was very poorly done. What I was going after was WP:FILIBUSTER or maybe WP:DISRUPTIVE, but two (petty) RfC's aren't enough for that. This can be closed now. Esszet (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleting opinion in RfC on Talk:Cary Grant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, folks. I added a Support opinion in a Request for Comments on Talk:Cary Grant. User:Cassianto removed it, writing this has been closed by a bot. I did my best to explain to Cassianto on his talk page that Legobot doesn't actually close RfCs, only humans do, and restored my opinion. Cassianto deleted my comment off his user page, without response, and deleted my comment from the RfC on the article talk page with the edit comment are you doing your best to piss everyone off today?. So, rather than edit war, to reinstate my opinion yet again, I'm asking for administrator assistance. And for some opinions on Cassianto's last question - have I really done my best? I mean, I wasn't really aiming towards that goal; and yet, I have been told that I should try to do my best in everything I do ... --GRuban (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, well, well, you are busy tonight, aren't you. Cassianto^Talk 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto, if the discussion hasn't been formally closed, then it doesn't really matter if the bot's timer has expired. You shouldn't be removing comments there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Akhiljaxxn

Warned him before[15][16] that if he continues his disruption he will be taken to ANI and it seems that he wishes to continue it. One can agree that he speaks very bad English, and he claims on his userpage that he is "a native speaker of the English language".[17] There are many competence issues. He has been disrupting the articles about Michael Jackson, sometimes creating WP:POVFORKs by violating WP:COPYVIO,[18][19] and removing what he believes to be negative against Michael Jackson.[20][21]

He was blocked months ago for sockpuppetry[22] and recruiting people from social networking sites to help him on-wiki,[23] but he made his way by "canvassing different admins via email",[24] with one admin that he canvassed from Malayalam Wikipedia would assure that the user will "be carefull editing articles".[25]

During debates, he usually posts his opinions and turns talk pages into WP:FORUM.[26][27] Also prefers to edit war about the things where no one else would ever agree with him and he reverts[28][29] until there are multiple editors to revert him. (also see last two diffs of first paragraph) Also contrary to WP:BRD, he will never start the discussion on talk page.

And I have just checked that he reverted one of recent my edit, calling it a "rv possible vandaliam"[30], contrary to WP:NOTVAND, and has been warned about that before as well."possible_vandalism?" I believe that a block or any kind of other sanction for this disruption is warranted. Excelse (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that most of the diffs are several months old. Besides reverting one of your edits, what has Akhiljaxxn done recently that you feel deserves a block? Billhpike (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree the editor should not have called your edit vandalism but it seems unlikely it's enough to warrant sanction due to months old misbehaviour in different areas. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the issues presented here are all from 2017 (and many of which took place months ago). Blocking this user or taking administrative action towards them over issues that aren't recent, current, and/or in-progress (especially if they're from the past like this) - would be extremely inappropriate and unjustified. What concerns or issues are occurring with this user's edits that are recent or in progress? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Billhpike, Nil Einne, and Oshwah: His activity is low, he is disrupting Wikipedia for more than 3 years and these incidents demonstrate the long term problems with the user still exist. I omitted the mentions of the incidents where I didn't had the article on watchlist or the incidents are old. He made only a few edits since those "several months old" diffs. The diff from 12 January, where he willfully called constructive edit a "possible vandaliam",[31] alone shows that he is not competent enough to collaborate here. In fact there was no need of making the revert and he also failed to discuss his edit. Even if he decides to discuss his edits, he will just use talk page as forum with his very bad English. These are not small but big problems and the user has demonstrated that he is not going to hear. Since he has serious competence issues it is impossible to think that he will ever reform. Excelse (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by "no need of making the revert and he also failed to discuss his edit". The reversion appears to either have been a mistake or a content dispute. If it was a mistake then I guess you're right there was no need to make the revert. But if it's a content dispute then reversion is sometimes an acceptable part of handling a content dispute per WP:BRD as the information is sourced, and does refer to to the impact of Michael Jackson, there could easily be resonable dispute about whether or not it belong in the article which should be dealt with in the manner of all content disputes, i.e. via discussion not via ANI. And the talk page for the article has some recent discussion from you touching on scope, but nothing that seems to deal with the particular removal. Therefore you have not really discussed it either and cannot resonably complain about someone else "failed to discuss", it's intrinsic on both parties to discuss and it rarely does anyone any favours by arguing the other person should discuss first, nor that edit summaries are sufficient. If you do raise the issue on the talk page and leave time for responses and there are none, it's likely to be resonable to re-instate it and if anyone continues to revert without at least entering the discussion, then you can bring it to ANI. As for the other issues, as already mentioned since sanctions are intented to be preventative not punitive it's difficult to argue in favour of a block when there is very little evidence of much recent misbehaviour. If we blocked everyone for calling something vandalism when they shouldn't I wouldn't be surprised it the number of blocks issued increased by an order of magnitude. If this editor continues serious misbehaviour report it then and they will hopefully be quickly blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes there was no need to make a revert if we go by policies and guidelines, we can remove the undue large quotes that have nothing to do with subject. But these things are just too much for Akhiljaxxn. He hates do discuss his edits, he never starts talk page discussion neither he carries it on, although he prefers to edit war. His problematic approach to turn specific articles into fancruft and misrepresenting policies is also an issue. He won't consider removing the content that makes his preferred article look less of fancruft, yet he edit wars over valid content on other articles, I have already mentioned one,[32] another example is Vijay (actor) where he edit warred over valid content (mostly), by calling it "not fan page", "puffery"[33][34] he falsely claimed that the editor has COI. Of course we can block any editors who are being disruptive for over 3 years and they still don't understand, because competence is required and evidently he lacks it. Excelse (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree that this edit removed puffery. Do you think articles should have phrases like honour Vijay's spectacular achievement in the movie industry and rising to glorious heights.? Billhpike (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I had said "mostly", if you read properly. You must have also ignored that in these diffs, he is not just removing the content, but himself adding unsourced and puffery like "is an extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu" and also claiming that the editor has COI, which is itself a serious allegation. We are talking about an editor who spent more than 3 years on Wikipedia, violating copyrights, edit warring, sock puppetry, offline canvassing, has a very bad English and still doesn't understand what is vandalism. I am not seeing how a block is not justified. Excelse (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Billhpike, Nil Einne, and Oshwah: Excelse is a problamatic wikipedian who always fights with different wikipedians and has been warned by different wikipedians and blocked for 2 weeks period for sock puppetery. As you can see he is a elvis fan and he always tries to malign other artist pages and he behaves with me a sense of vengeance. Before taking a decision on this i'm kindly requesting to all the wiki admin over here to take a look of the contribution [35] and talk page [36][37].If you check his contribution we could see that he has a fighting mentality and you could see nobody has an issue with me only to excel but excel got warrned by different users for his conflicted edits. I thought i shouldn't be here to justify my action but i see excel writes several falsehoods about my edit on actor vijay's page like i added puffery's like "is an extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu" This is is factully wrong, i only restored the previous version by removing the puffery.Excel is following me like a shadow And interferes in all activities of mine .Is it possible to hide my contribution from excel? If yes pls help me to do that- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But you were indeffed for socking and off-Wiki canvassing a few months ago and you canvassed many admins by emailing them to get yourself unblocked and you have failed to meet their expectations. Yes you had added the puffery, "extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu", twice and also added the COI tag.[38][39] Even your statement confirms that you added this puffery while removing a lot of content that was valid. By calling these diffs a "falsehood" you are only demonstrating your incompetence and giving others a reason why you should be blocked. You have failed to convince others for preserving your MJ fancrufts and it should not mean that I am against you. While your comments are entirely without evidence, I can remind you that you were trolling on a WikiProject and you even claimed that "Michael Jackson literally dominated EVERY MARKET music was sold",[40] though Michael Jackson was always far from that. Do you really want me to count how many editors/admins have warned you to this day? One can always look at the history of your talk page which is full of warnings and you were also engaged in vandalism.[41] Just because you have always removed your warnings it doesn't means that we can't see them. By misrepresenting these two diffs[42][43] and using them as rebuttal, you have made it even more clearer that you have serious competence issues. Don't hope for a fictional feature "to hide" your contributions, because your existence doesn't stop anyone from checking your edits and rectifying them. Excelse (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse: Please read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, WP:PERSONALATTACK, and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Billhpike (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So I need to assume good faith with his deliberate deception? You need to read AGF is not a suicide pact, WP:CIR and WP:CHERRYPICK, unless you are telling me that we need to tolerate highly incompetent users and let them disrupt Wikipedia as much as they want. Excelse (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Gross reversions without reference to Wiki guidelines

I'm in a situation where a person dedicated to high school article editing according to his own very strict standards is clearly calling on his close contacts to support him without any critical judgment (see time schedule on reverts, and immediate comments on talk page). Neither they nor he (User talk:John from Idegon) have given me answers to where I might find the interpretations that he is insisting upon. I think that in the article Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School it is helpful to any reader to know the successfulness of this model at this school, by drawing on evaluations of the model as they have occurred, with relation to the model itself. I know noone at this school and have no connection to it, but I believe that it would benefit any reader to get the best objective appraisal of what is going on there that we can provide them. There's no way I can get a host of editors to back me up as John can: I don't know personally a single editor in Wikipedia. Could I get your independent opinion on what parts of my edit is against Wikipedia policy, and perhaps also where I can get the most explicit guideline on this? Jzsj (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:Third Opinion? If that doesn’t work, you are welcome to try to establish a consensus via an Request for Comment. Billhpike (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• In this edit, you write "As described in a Presidential Medal citation..." and then cite from an award ceremony--"as described" means "the following is true and it is described this way in this document". That is not appropriate (per WP:NPOV), and neither is the namedropping of what all colleges the students got into: we cut that in every single article we run into, where it is usually placed by school administrators who copy it from their annual report. WP:NAMEDROPPING doesn't exist, but it should be obvious. And these aren't John's "own very strict standards"--the rules are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Jzsj, by posting here at this noticeboard, you have ensured that several other editors and administrators who share John from Idegon's strict standards for high school articles will evaluate and comment on this article. But we do not resolve content disputes here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I just hadn't run into such crude comments from administrators as I was getting from him, or such collusion from associates who obviously didn't take time to read the article (check timing) or to be specific or distinguishing in their criticism. I made 5 separate edits hoping that he would allow one or other of them, but he simply dismissed all at once without any further explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to give me some Wiki references to pursue. Thanks. Jzsj (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I don't believe John from Idegon or anyone who commented on the article's talk page is an administrator and even if they were that would not give them any special advantage in a content dispute. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, you were WP:BOLD and made what you percieved to be an improvement to the article; another editor, however, felt differently and reverted your change in good-faith. This is part and parcel of participating in a collaborative editing project such as Wikipedia and the thing to do when there are disagreements over content such as this is to discuss them on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Moreover, assuming that everyone who feels differently from you is in cohoots with John and posting comments such as this are not very conducive to such discussion; you're basically accussing him of WP:CANVASS without providing any WP:DIFFs in support. If people disagree with you, it could simply mean that you have not done a good job in explaining why your proposed changes should be made. Finally, making multiple edits involving the repeated addition of contentous content in the hope that one might stick is not a very constructive approach to editing in my opinion; it would be better to propose the changes on the article's talk page first and see if there's a consensus for them per WP:CAUTIOUS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. Y'all throw a party for me at ANI, and I have to hear about it from a third party? That ain't right! Sorry I was late to the ball, but it looks like you've got this wrapped up without me, assuming the OP actually internalizes what was said here. I'm not gonna do the stereotypical thing and shout boomerang. G'nite from Idegon. John from Idegon (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruptive activity by an IP

It looks like IP 173.177.124.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing their disruptive editing behavior, even after they were released from a recent 3 day block. From what I can tell, very few edits appear to be in good faith. I do not follow much NASCAR so I would not know about the quality of their edits on relevant articles, though my reversions on such articles, if any, were primarily based on other previous reversions of similar material made by the same IP. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• The only thing I know about NASCAR is that it's boring and pollutes the world so companies can sell beer, but you are going to have to explain what is disruptive, because all I see on the user talk page are generic warning templates. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have to ask - why is Quaker State 400 presented by Advance Auto Parts called that, rather than simply Quaker State 400? (And the same for all of the other races). Are we an advertising firm now? This seriously needs to be sorted - we don't call the FA Cup the "Emirates FA Cup" or the Grand National the "Randox Health Grand National". This is nonsense and needs to be looked at seriously ASAP. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Black Kite - that article title is beyond the pale.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It was moved from just Quaker State 400 back in November by Zacharycook597. As the move is clearly controversial, I have moved it back and would encourage anyone who wants the title changed to start a move discussion. SkyWarrior 01:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto with Buckle Up in Your Truck 225 presented by Click It or Ticket. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted Coke Zero 400 powered by Coca-Cola back to its original name as well; thankfully, that appears to be the last of them Zachary has made, though I do see some other questionable moves in his log. SkyWarrior 02:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Drmies Simply put, it's not just NASCAR that's the issue, but rather other subject areas. i.e. I do not see why one would make an edit like this IP did to Superman (1999 video game), which Freikorp reverted for what I assume is a violation of WP:COMMONNAME (not all sources refer to the game as Superman 64.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jd22292, I also don't see why the IP would make that edit but I don't know Superman. The problem is I also don't easily see why Freikorp reverted it--the problem with this edit is that it says nothing at all and I'd count it as rollback/Twinkle abuse. There is no way an admin like me who doesn't know the subject matter can decide what's what. If those editors leave edit summaries, and more detailed notes on the user talk page, we can do stuff. Without it, not so much--and it's obvious from your words above that you're also having to assume why editors revert. If they did their work better, you could present a better report, and I could do something, if justified. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because Superman 64 was not the official title of the game. This should not require an explanation, any more than I'd need to explain reverting an IP who changed the name of Green Day to "Green Day 75" or Star Wars to "Star Wars 69". How about we don't add random numbers to the names of things? Ping me back if you need me for some reason; this conversation does not interest me. Freikorp (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuous IP disruption on NFL subjects

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It has been almost a month since this IP was released from their previous block, and 98.167.47.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add material without sources as well as speculative information about future events. Also pinging Jauerback as the last administrator to block this IP in December. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

He's pretending Minnesota and Jacksonville are already going to the Super Bowl. A block would seem to be in order. At least until after February 4! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Three months this time. And it'll probably be Seaman vs. Rhinos again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plagiarism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Active plagiarism by User:Starple on page Joyce Carol Oates

diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joyce_Carol_Oates&type=revision&diff=820230359&oldid=819822500

I believe it violates WP:PLAG Specifically section 1.1.2. I also believe it violates WP:NPOV. Can an admin review please, and see if it's a violation? S806 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@S806: You should review the next section on PLAG, particularly the listings, both green and red, that mention quotation marks. In the section you're removing, the only copied text is encased in quotes, which are a sign to the reader that these words are not the writer's but someone else's. If quoting someone and adding the requisite punctuation still constitutes plagiarism, what can be put in quotes that wouldn't qualify? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:D52E:18EF:70E4:4B6 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this User:Starple with a sock puppet? Do we have a Magic 8 ball to verify who's IP this account belongs to? And why are you editing a page that is under administrative review? You also still haven't addressed the WP:NPOV concern. S806 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Really, that's not plagiarism. The IP is correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If the verdict is it's not plagiarism, that's fine. That section has to be cleaned up then, because there are massive issues with it. S806 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:86.20.193.222

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is trying so hard to be a smart ass in my view, I don't find the comments here above my response constructive. Could a administrator have a look at this? I seriously don't want to speak to not-registered users and if they would like to contribute then they should register. And if they continue to lets say cyber-bully they should be blocked! They've already had a number of warnings on its talk page but no action. And not to mention the signature which I use was copied and edited and it was originally an administrators signature can't remember which one though. Central · Python ✉ 18:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CentralPython: I suggest you lose your "don't want to speak to not-registered users" attitude pretty darn quick. You also failed to notify the IP that you posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CentralPython: Tbh, your reply was hardly conducive to a collegiate editing atmosphere ("Don't gve a shit about the sig bit" does not persuade me that you are in the business of taking criticism—however possibly unfounded—calmly). You could've discussed it on the IP's talk (and no, a template does not constitute an attempt at discussion) before filing at AN/I. Over-reaction, much? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll loose that attitude then. But it doesn't explain the IP's attitude to me. Central · Python ✉ 18:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CentralPython: The IP made a valid observation. You then dialed up the aggressiveness unnecessarily. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No attitude here.I removed one comment that the user made - diff. My edit summary should have been enough, but I took the additional trouble of notifying the user [44].

If we AGF on the OP in the helpdesk thread, then I feel it is entirely inappropriate to say "check out #myhotwife"; but I am prepared to discuss that.

I have no 'attitude' toward the user, other than I believe their helpdesk comment was - just as I wrote previously - an "unhelpful comment, not conducive to helping users" - and I believe that removing it was helpful towards to goals of Wikipedia.

86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps the administratori looking at this might inform Mr. Design that calling fellow Wikipedians a "smart ass" is not helpful. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @86.20.193.222|IP 86.20.193.222, I'm missing the connection between CentralPython and Nualdesign, could you clarify? Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think both parties involved just need to agree to mutually stop with the uncivil comments being made toward one another - and agree to pick up the discussion on the right foot civility-wise. You both were throwing sticks at one another; just calm down and agree that things went off on the wrong foot and take the discussion to a positive direction from there. That way, we can consider this ANI discussion closed and just move on... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, please show me where I was uncivil? Many thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Sorry, I don't think this is a case where both sides are equally at fault. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 86.20.193.222 - I apologize. I just realized that I worded my response above terribly wrong. I've modified it to better reflect what I was trying to say. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 - it's concerning my recent activity posting on the helpdesk; my contribs will show the full story if you wish.

Oshwah, thank you for actually investigating.

I would be extremely happy to be accused of a mis-step and shown evidence of such, but I see nothing of that nature here.

I see nothing requiring admin action, other than a trout to Mr. Python.86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:86.20.193.222

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is trying so hard to be a smart ass in my view, I don't find the comments here above my response constructive. Could a administrator have a look at this? I seriously don't want to speak to not-registered users and if they would like to contribute then they should register. And if they continue to lets say cyber-bully they should be blocked! They've already had a number of warnings on its talk page but no action. And not to mention the signature which I use was copied and edited and it was originally an administrators signature can't remember which one though. Central · Python ✉ 18:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CentralPython: I suggest you lose your "don't want to speak to not-registered users" attitude pretty darn quick. You also failed to notify the IP that you posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CentralPython: Tbh, your reply was hardly conducive to a collegiate editing atmosphere ("Don't gve a shit about the sig bit" does not persuade me that you are in the business of taking criticism—however possibly unfounded—calmly). You could've discussed it on the IP's talk (and no, a template does not constitute an attempt at discussion) before filing at AN/I. Over-reaction, much? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll loose that attitude then. But it doesn't explain the IP's attitude to me. Central · Python ✉ 18:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CentralPython: The IP made a valid observation. You then dialed up the aggressiveness unnecessarily. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No attitude here.I removed one comment that the user made - diff. My edit summary should have been enough, but I took the additional trouble of notifying the user [45].

If we AGF on the OP in the helpdesk thread, then I feel it is entirely inappropriate to say "check out #myhotwife"; but I am prepared to discuss that.

I have no 'attitude' toward the user, other than I believe their helpdesk comment was - just as I wrote previously - an "unhelpful comment, not conducive to helping users" - and I believe that removing it was helpful towards to goals of Wikipedia.

86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps the administratori looking at this might inform Mr. Design that calling fellow Wikipedians a "smart ass" is not helpful. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @86.20.193.222|IP 86.20.193.222, I'm missing the connection between CentralPython and Nualdesign, could you clarify? Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think both parties involved just need to agree to mutually stop with the uncivil comments being made toward one another - and agree to pick up the discussion on the right foot civility-wise. You both were throwing sticks at one another; just calm down and agree that things went off on the wrong foot and take the discussion to a positive direction from there. That way, we can consider this ANI discussion closed and just move on... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, please show me where I was uncivil? Many thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Sorry, I don't think this is a case where both sides are equally at fault. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 86.20.193.222 - I apologize. I just realized that I worded my response above terribly wrong. I've modified it to better reflect what I was trying to say. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 - it's concerning my recent activity posting on the helpdesk; my contribs will show the full story if you wish.

Oshwah, thank you for actually investigating.

I would be extremely happy to be accused of a mis-step and shown evidence of such, but I see nothing of that nature here.

I see nothing requiring admin action, other than a trout to Mr. Python.86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.