Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion

Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles[edit]

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

This is not an "edit war" across multiple pages. I have opened discussions on those two pages, the Kalash article is disputed, and as user:Mar4d pointed out, the vast majority of sources support for Animism. So mentioning most in the article, a basic fact you seem to ignore and openly reject in the article is going to be a problem for many users, the dispute is still on and I will point administrators to talk:Kalash and talk:Hindu at discussions I myself started for verification before simply believing Knox490's attack accusations. I have been on Pakistan topics for a year and a half.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I did not start any edit war with you. Check the article history. I pointed you to user:Mar4d's comments on the talk page and you left this comment in your edit summary, as such I placed the disputed tag. After that you suddenly opened an ANI. I request administrators to review the talk pages first and article history.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In my opinion, this is a content dispute and should be treated as such. The talk page is the best venue to solve any inconsistencies, and I have already left my input there. I would not say the current article is perfect, but it is nevertheless somewhere on a middle road. Having studied the various WP:RS produced on the subject, the majority of the scholarly view suggests the Kalash religion is animistic. There are some sources which construct a link to pre-Vedic Hindu beliefs, but the connection remains vague and not as extensively discussed by sources, they are still incorporated in the text though, as they are theories. I have already indicated that the most reasonable rewrite would be one which primarily focuses on their animistic practices, and combines input from those sources which suggest a Hindu origin, the majority of the sources favour the former, so in terms of WP:WEIGHT, we should write it according to what the sources imply. I suggest that all involved users use the talk page to discuss this further. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been discussing the disputes, which you have ignored [13][14][15]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that this is a content dispute at this stage. I don't think the description "blanked a large chunk of material" is entirely fair - that diff contains a lot of changes and the movement of a large slab of material to another place in the article. I would advise NadirAli to edit carefully; I'm rather concerned when an editor claims that the "vast majority of sources" supports their view, but what they've actually done is replaced text sourced to Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia with their own text sourced to [16]. If the vast majority of sources support your view, then back your text up with your best sources, not this. If this is actually the best source you have for your position, then I think it's time to back down a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
To GoldenRing:, thank you for your comment, but that is not what I was referring to. Please see the links on the talk page which I posted as well as Mar4d posts. (talk:Kalash people). Those were the ones I was referring to, the other issue I had was the disputed tag removal in the article as in the case of Zia Ul-Haq's Islamitisation (that dispute was been now long resolved). Other issues were edits like these. I have been wanting to have this article to be receive arbitrary sanctions because it has been targeted by various nationalists from Greek to Macedonian to Indian. Your help in nominating it would be useful.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
To GoldenRing: These were the sources I was referring to, in addition to the ones presented by user:Mar4d (some of them may overlap) [17] [18] [19] [20][21][22][23][24]. There's many more, but I think is is good enough. Regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion except that I looked at some of the edits, and the editors are warring with each other, making personal comments, within the Edit summaries. This is not the best practice for anybody and could be grounds for action. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
NadirAli, you just requested article protection because you said "Greek nationalists" and "Indian nationalists" have "targeted" it. This is exactly the reason I came here - your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality should not be tolerated here and I say this as someone of Anglo-Saxon heritage, this is what got you banned from Wikipedia for years and from India-Pakistan articles. I don't think you can edit constructively here and think that sysops here should consider re-implementing that ban.Knox490 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Topic Ban on all India-Pakistan articles. I have not interacted with this editor to my knowledge, but a thorough look at NadirAli's edits seems to show a battleground mentality -- he gets into arguments with people accross numerous different articles, the discussion above also seems to show that NadirAli is willing to delete information backed by reliable sources to push his own POV, rather than accept the best efforts of other users who are willing to compromise with him. This hasn't happened once, but numerous times. Looking at his block log, NadirAli has been blocked over 20 times and I think other constructive users are annoyed in having to deal with his editing behavior. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question - What're your thoughts about much of that same problematic behavior -- e.g. battleground mentality, non-NPOV, non-AGF -- outside the India-Pakistan topic? --EEMIV (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to admins Please take notice of these comments and several other instances past disruptive behavior as noted by others [25].--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I requested arbitrary sanctions (something I accidentally myself got blocked for), not page protection. Big difference. It's already been semi-protected for months. Also look at this comment by user:Dbachmann, an administrator. WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? He's stating pretty much the same thing as I am. It's been edit warred over for years before I touched the page, even if my actions can be seen as "edit warring".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As someone who has written the history section of the FA INDIA as well as the History of Pakistan page, I can say with some confidence that as far as the content dispute is concerned, it is not all Nadir Ali's fault. The Kalash people article is one of the many articles in which India-POV editors typically find some "academic sources" and stuff the lead of the article with Indo-Aryan, "Hindu", "Vedic," etc. I've seen this for over ten years. Contrast the lead of the Kalash article on Wikipedia (which begins with: "The Kalasha are an Indo-Aryan Dardic indigenous people residing in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, they speak the Kalasha language, from the Dardic family of the Indo-Aryan branch. They are considered unique among the peoples of Pakistan.[9] They are also considered to be Pakistan's smallest ethnoreligious community,[10] practicing a religion which some scholars characterize as a animism,[2][3][4] and other academicians as "a form of ancient Hinduism".) with the the New World Encyclopedia article, which is based on the Wikipedia article, and which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Although quite numerous before the twentieth century, this non-Muslim group has been partially assimilated by the larger Muslim majority of Pakistan and seen its numbers dwindle over the past century. Today, sheikhs, or converts to Islam, make up more than half of the total Kalasha-speaking population.The culture of Kalash people is unique and differs drastically from the various ethnic groups surrounding them, they are polytheists and nature plays a highly significant and spiritual role in their daily life." (See here) Do you see the difference, the subtle POV pushing in the Wikipedia article in the service of WP:Lead fixation? Nadir Ali, should no doubt not engage in edit wars, but his opponents are not innocent, just because they are paying lip-service to Wikipedia etiquette and have access to academic sources, which they are no doubt misusing. Every one should be given a warning, a stern one. No blocks or topic bans required at this stage.

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

To Fowler&fowler:, would you and others not agree that the WikiProject Hindu needs to be taken off that talk page? It's an article about an ethnic group, not a religious group. If I were to attempt to remove it, I would be libeled once again, as examples talk:Tajik people, Talk:Pashtun people, Talk:Uzbek people, Talk:Sindhi people, Talk:Tartar people. Despite these people being primarily Muslims, I do not see them tagged with WikiProject Islam. I see this as a move of deliberate appropriation, but again would refrain from removing it for the same reasons have been astonishingly accused of (WP:BATTLEGROUND?).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed WikiProject Hinduism banner, and I suggest no one add it again without substantial discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
To Fowler&fowler:, even if there was consensus that these people were followers of so-called "Hinduism", don't you and others agree that the article is about the ethnic group and not their religion? Tags go in topics about religious groups (ie. Muslims, Jews, Christians etc.) and as I pointed out, no article on Muslim-majority ethnic groups have WikiProject Islam tagged on them for the reason I explained.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Tban. I realize that people can and do change, on the other hand, people are very often creatures of habit. User: NadirAli has been blocked a great number of times and as recently as this month he was blocked. So he is stubbornly and persistently a problem editor. I realize that people have strong feelings about religion/country and often try to impose what they wish was true rather than base matters on scholarship and the use of reliable sources, but we have to keep up our standards and not lower them. A topic ban is appropriate at this point. We can't allow people to aggressively push the use of dubious sources such as the alt-right source and the other poor source that User: NadirAli tried to use. Knox490 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban After reviewing the case and evidence, it is clear that NadirAli continues to be disruptive. NadirAli hasn't demonstrated improvement even after blocks by numerous admins, including five in 2016 and 2017, some for repeat violations after coming out of a block, the extenuating arguments made above are unpersuasive. To say some or many "academic sources" are "allegedly somehow" bad does not make sense, that is asking for a license for POV-pushing and encouragement to abandon wikipedia's content policies such as verifiability, reliable sources and NPOV. We can't pick a side if and when there is a dispute in academic sources, we summarize the sides. If some sources are to be banned from wikipedia, don't selectively delete them in some articles and keep them in others; instead, nominate that source with evidence of wiki-plagiarism, then add them to WP:PUS like admin Utcursch has done with Gyan Publishing etc. If you can't provide evidence, please don't defame living scholars and please don't disrupt. NadirAli, as mentioned above by GoldenRing, removes tertiary source such as "Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia" by James Minahan (whose publications have been favorably reviewed), and adds questionable website sources such as Again shows NadirAli hasn't cared to understand content policies after past blocks, continued disruption and WP:NOTHERE. An indef block, or one where NadirAli can appeal for an admin review after 1 year of constructive editing elsewhere, seems appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
In Nadir Ali's defense, I would like to suggest that the problem of misusing what are putatively high quality academic sources in Wikipedia articles to further a POV is a much more noxious one than one of just edit warring, for which we can all facilely quote WP policy. If Wikipedia has evolved in the last ten years, so has the ability of Wikipedia's editors to access academic sources, with the sheer amount of published academic material available, it is quite easy to find academic citations for assertions that, in sequence, shift the slant of the article. As I stated above I have seen this in a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan related article, in which editors with access to academic sources introduce subtle ideological shifts involving "India," "Hinduism," and so forth, . Consider, for example, the WP article on the Hindu Kush mountain range, situated not far from where the Kalash people live. What do articles on mountain ranges typically have? It is not hard to see, by examining Himalayas, Andes, that they have sections on geography, geology, hydrology, climate, ecology, and then brief sections, if any, on local culture, economy. Indeed the extensive Britannica article on Hindu Kush has precisely such sections: physiography, geology, drainage, climate, .... In early November, 2016, the Hindu Kush, article (total word count 1600) was not quite the model, but proportionally had as much about the mountain system as it did about historical topics (by which I mean; political history, religious history, social history, etc in which the name of the mountain range occurs). Fast forward to the Hindu Kush article in mid-December 2016 (total word count 2800). What has been added? It is the history section, especially a subsection on "slavery," which expands on an old notion that the mountain name got its name "Hindu Kush" because tens of thousands of Hindu slaves from India died in its forbidding defiles, all abducted by Islamic invaders, and so forth. I haven't checked but I'm reasonably sure that what was added was impeccably sourced and prefaced with "according to Professor So-and-so, ...". But you can imagine that when editors from Afghanistan or Pakistan see such changes, they get irritated. There is often not too much they can do because the edits are sourced to scholarly sources, and WP discussion on UNDUE etc are often inconclusive. (It is much easier to add UNDUE assertions sourced to impeccable sources, than it is to show that such assertions constitute a minority opinion in the larger literature on the topic.) This is the sort of thing that editors such as Nadir Ali, admittedly in their characteristic way, are battling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
F&f: Edit warring about "undue assertions sourced to impeccable sources", without a shred of evidence that it is "undue" per reliable source(s), is disruption! If someone has a feeling / prejudice / personal wisdom that "a view may constitute a minority opinion", that is just a feeling/prejudice/personal wisdom unless that someone can provide a reliable source that states "view X is a minority opinion and here is the majority opinion". That is particularly true, in cases where the sources are stating that X is the majority view and the wikipedia article is already summarizing the majority view X. Your opinion and colorful language/assertion does not matter, nor does someone's OR with no source, nor source misrepresentations and nor 'citation pending request' which you seem to miss in this. Sockpuppets and persistently disruptive editors adding unsourced, unverified OR with gross source misrepresentations or pushing a particular POV do not "balance an article", they disrupt and push a POV. Nothing you state actually evidences any extenuating circumstances for NadirAli, since your edit diffs have nothing to do with NadirAli (which raises the question why are doing that), the evidence is that NadirAli keeps disrupting despite blocks by numerous admins, NadirAli keeps deleting reliable sources and edit warring with non-RS blog/website based content. GoldenRing, Knox490 and others are right about NadirAli's disruption, diagnosis and Tban proposal. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Sarah Welch: I already stated, and let me state again: Contrast the lead of the Kalash article on Wikipedia (which begins with: "The Kalasha are an Indo-Aryan Dardic indigenous people residing in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. They speak the Kalasha language, from the Dardic family of the Indo-Aryan branch, they are considered unique among the peoples of Pakistan.[9] They are also considered to be Pakistan's smallest ethnoreligious community,[10] practicing a religion which some scholars characterize as a animism,[2][3][4] and other academicians as "a form of ancient Hinduism".) with the the New World Encyclopedia article, which is based on the Wikipedia article, and which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Although quite numerous before the twentieth century, this non-Muslim group has been partially assimilated by the larger Muslim majority of Pakistan and seen its numbers dwindle over the past century. Today, sheikhs, or converts to Islam, make up more than half of the total Kalasha-speaking population.The culture of Kalash people is unique and differs drastically from the various ethnic groups surrounding them, they are polytheists and nature plays a highly significant and spiritual role in their daily life." (See here) Do you see the difference? All the words Indo-Aryan, Hinduism, are absent in the latter article, which was written by cleaning up the Wikipedia article. Contrast the article Hindu kush that you've rewritten in large part—thereby conferring on it the honor of being the only Wikipedia article on a major mountain range whose history section (with notable slavery section) is bigger than its geology, physiography, palaeogeography, drainage, climate, and ecology put together— with Britannica's Hindu Kush. Do you see the difference? You, on Hindu kush, and other editors on Kalash people, are violating all sorts of Wikipedia guidelines, in spirit if not in the letter. Nadir Ali might be doing it more in the letter (of the law), but so what? Damage to these articles is being done by everyone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • F&f: You are mistaken about the history of the Hindu Kush article (the unsourced text on Soviet tanks there, cold war, Taliban was there in the November 2016 version; all that was neither added by NadirAli, nor I, nor you). This is not the talk page of Hindu Kush article, this is ANI. Nor has that article anything to do with NadirAli, nor this case! Please avoid irrelevant stuff. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sarah Welch, so you call this and this "blogs"? At least it's more straight forward than the vague statements of "a form of 'Hinduism'" (an undefined term for a century and a half). It's the same as the joker who started this thread, persistently accusing me of using "a storybook" as a source, when Empires of the Indus is clearly a non-fiction book, that combined with the other sources I and user:Mar4d posted, along with most academic sources not referring to the Kalash religion as so-called "Hinduism". Using lies or misleading statements and false accusations to report a dispute on ANI should be given the strictest penalties--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • NadirAli: Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Please do provide edit diffs when you cast aspersions on what you label as "the joker who started this thread". GoldenRing and Knox490 have provided evidence, and they do have a valid concern just like the numerous admins who have blocked you in the past. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Rather than this man acknowledging his blunders and promising to stop doing them, he starts namecalling, using the word "joker", thereby committing one more violation against WP:CIVIL. (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Indefinite Topic Ban across all Indian, Hinduism related articles Disruptive editing going on since 2006. There is no chance that this editor will not create any further disruption. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and comment Having seen ANI threads go down the drain as, essentially, mud throwing contests in the past, I'm dispirited to learn that this is going in the same direction. As Fowler&fowler noted, "subtle" ideological viewpoints and editing have characterized South Asian articles since forever. I see it wrong to squarely single out NadirAli, as that would imply he alone is responsible, because that is simply not true, at least from how I have seen him edit constructively on several Pakistan articles. I cannot help but notice that everyone in favour of a topic ban here are mainly those who seem to have had a history with the user, this thread was started with a proposal to "site ban or topic ban" NadirAli. And this is not to cast aspersions, but what is to say that those same users are foolproof clean from personal POVs, leanings and positions on certain issues, editing viewpoints (we all have one after all) and all else Nadir here is being accused of? I at least wouldn't place the odds very high, knowing this topic area and as Fowler&fowler eloquently put out. I think we'll defer the rest to an admin's judgement, but I must say I'm quite disappointed to see things go down this route escalating from what was originally a content dispute (and where I would still back my horses on Nadir's argument; the theory that Kalash have Hindu origins remains vague, and certainly not scholarly favored any higher than their animist origins; and the compromise version thus worked better than the previous revision). Mar4d (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose TBan and comment – It is true that NadirAli appears as a compulsive edit-warrior. I face his edit-warring quite regularly, e.g., [26], [27] at Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization (April 2017), [28], [29] at Hindu (this month, even while the Kalash people dispute was ongoing). I have also seen him move war [30], [31], [32] at Iron Age in India even after RegentsPark told him to file a Request for Move. I have had to spell it out to him that any deviation from WP:BRD constitutes edit-warring, which shouldn't have been necessary for an editor with such a long history, but on the positive side, he does discuss on the talk pages, even if a bit late and even if his argumentation is rarely consensus-seeking, ignores RS, and keeps repeating points in a self-assured way. But beneath all his bravado, there is often a germ of a valid concern somewhere, which might need to be taken into account. Fowler&fowler tried to explicate that above in the present instance, even though I don't accept that the New World Encyclopedia is a better standard to follow. So, all said and done, his presence on the project might be beneficial in the long run for rebalancing articles, even if we have to put up with the annoyance of his aggressive editing occasionally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Kautilya3: would a limited Tban or 1RR restriction or some other approach on NadirAli be helpful to the project in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India space articles? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sarah Walech, I have provided diffs and links, including the links to user:Dbachmann's comment (I hope you & Knox are not going to propose a topic ban against him for this), the book sources I shared as well as the link to Empires of the Indus which says it's a non-fiction book, while he repeatedly claims it's a "storybook" (already provided in the edit summary diff) and removed the disputed tag on that basis. Accusing somebody on an administrators noticeboard of using a "storybook" as a source is lying to administrators and should not come without consequences. GoldenRing already noticed some of the lies posted here, as for the admins who have blocked me, about half of them are gone (including one who was de-sysopped for blocking users who edit warred with him) or semi-active (as will be the case for all of us eventually).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • NadirAli: You write, "Accusing somebody on an administrators noticeboard of using a "storybook" as a source is lying to administrators and should not come without consequences." I searched your edit history and ANI page, Knox490 questions "" as a source. Why and how is that lying? Edit diff please! You did add here, Knox490 does have a valid concern with your editing here and here and etc (something admin GoldenRing notes above). Did one out of 12+ admins who blocked you get de-sysoped for blocking you? Did half of them become semi-active because of you? If so, please provide some evidence, some edit diffs. Otherwise, please see WP:NOTTHEM, avoid mentioning what happened to admins who blocked you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sarah Welch, I never used it as a "source", just to present an argument. I don't ever remember claiming it to be a source, so to accuse me of using it as one is indeed a lie. I presented three links, two of them WP:RS and one for general arguments, but only one was linked here in order to deceive others and discredit me. Regarding the other admins, well you brought it up so I replied. If posted diffs to other admins retiring/semi-retiring because of me, I would just be advocating that I'm the problem in these disputes, rather than pushing for content to comply with the majority and more direct sources, which I am. Now if you'll please excuse me, there are pages I need to work on.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

PS It is not lost on me that the Wikipedia article Greater India today has no mention of geology in its lead. It says, "The term Greater India is most commonly used to encompass the historical and geographic extent of all political entities of the Indian subcontinent and beyond, that had to varying degrees been transformed by the acceptance and induction of cultural and institutional elements of pre-Islamic India." How great does that look when referred to on Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages even when "Greater India" is not wiki-linked. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@NadirAli: Fowler&flower, with his usual WP:TEXTWALL, seems to be falsely implying that you edited Hindu Kush article and gives it as an example "what NadirAli has to face", along with "Granted he [NadirAli] is not innocent" but an excuse for you to disrupt that article, etc!! I do not see you ever editing the Hindu Kush article since 2013? Did you have an alternate account that we are unaware of? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
You can't win any silly brownie points with that literal interpretation. You don't think I already checked whether or not Nadir Ali had made edits on Hindu Kush when I examined the history of all edits on that so assiduously. I gave that as an example of the more general point about what Pakistani and other editors have to put up with. I gave that as an example of the sheer scale of the sourced UNDUE that is being added to these articles, not to mention, in the passing, the UNDUE antecedents of the very people who are crying so piously for Nadir Ali's blood. Kalash people (not edited by you); Hindu Kush (not edited by Nadir Ali) and Indian subcontinent (edited by you and Mar4d, who has made a post above) were just three examples. I said, "This is the kind of 'cited to high quality RS' UNDUE content that people like Nadir Ali have to put up with. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In other words, now you stating "NadirAli never tried to edit Hindu Kush since 2013, but you know that NadirAli somehow got upset with "having to put up with" the "reliably sourced, but allegedly undue content" in Hindu Kush article; that you allege somehow justifies disruptive behavior by NadirAli in other articles." This "he can't put up with the content in our Mickey Mouse article, so he disrupts that other article" is unpersuasive for any ANI case. Strange but thanks for clarifying, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
In my very first post, I offered in comparison, the New World Encyclopedia article on Kalash, which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan." I then clicked on Wikipedia's Hindu Kush and the UNDUE edits were manifest. I then wrote in my oppose, "India- and Hinduism-related UNDUE edits are being made on on a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages." ANI threads are not just about the people whose name appears in the section title; they are also about the people who are pointing fingers, crying for blood, but themselves making edits in the same topic area that violate WP guidelines. If you think you haven't violated DUE at Hindu Kush take me to the WP forum of your choosing and I will offer proof, but before that you might want to consider how you managed to add to an article on the great mountain range of Central Asia the sentences, "Al Biruni found it difficult to get access to Indian literature locally in the Hindu Kush area, and to explain this he wrote, 'Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed wonderful exploits by which the Hindus became the atoms scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. (...) This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares and other places'" (See here with edit summary, "add sources.") What is this if not a flagrant example of an "India- and Hinduism related UNDUE edit on a Pakistan- or Afghanistan related page?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Topic Ban on all India-Pakistan articles This editor has not learned from his previous mistakes, despite the multiple chances given to him, as shown in his extensive block log. Many of his contributions demonstrate aggressive POV pushing, such as those listed by User:Ms Sarah Welch above. --EngiZe (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose any topic ban as direct party involved and also note the one proposing the topic ban also voted in favor of the same thing he proposed, an attempt to add more votes. @EngiZe, is this your first ANI post? It seems like it for a user only here a year and a half (how did you happen to find this board and specific topic?). Prior to that what disputes were you involved in before your "clean start"? You seem to have edited in this topic area too.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I also wonder if all the blocks in my log are ever cross examined in a review board or a review case, not that such a system exists yet on Wikipedia to my knowledge. Many blocks would turn out to be unjustified, especially Rama's Arrow, who kept blocking other users besides me that also opposed his aggressive edit warring and putting in falsified reasons in block logs, some of them included User:Szhaider, a former Urdu Wikipedia administrator. Even now, as back then, while many users were opposed to me (many of which turned out to be sockpuppets/masters in the past month and others who had their own previous squabbles with various other users as user:Mar4d questioned and I pointed out, including the user posting above who went by another username before their "clean start"), there are many good standing editors with good reputations including administrators who agree with me on these topics, not to mention my valuable contributions to Wikipedia, including this area. Szhaider voluntarily left because he had no hope in the system as do I.[33] And I never really intended to stay here that long. But seeing Wikipedia is already on the decline, I thought I might as well fix it up as much as I can before my presence on the site goes away with the website itself.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Although I opposed desysopping of Rama's Arrow back in Feb 2007, I did mention some issue he had, that in my current view, made it all too easy for NadirAli and two other Pakistan editors to receive blocks. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There was more discussion on that on WP:RFA/Hkelkar-2, where RA was revealed to be using his rollback tools to dodge 3RR and team tag edit warring and then blocking the same user he edit warred with for edit warring. In my block log and other Pakistani users block log he put some strange reasons without providing any evidence for it or posting it on ANI, so I'm arguing to cite my block log without cross examination of each case is a deception, at least evidence should be provided to back it up. Another was Blguyans block of my in 2009 to indefinite despite me having been gone a full year and based on a decision where most of the "evidence" was twisted statements from the one side and the ability for the other side to break the very principle rules of Wikipedia and get away with it without even a warning. So how can half the blocks in my log even be taken seriously, but to add to Fowler and Mar4d's statements on WP:UNDUE, I think these are strings of cases of WP:Systematic bias, where some vague statements are being inserted in the lead and infoboxes to change public perception on the whole subject, when the majority of sources make clear cut statements for animism as in the case of the Kalash article, yet they're both being treated equally. Even the sources I posted in the discussion were never addressed and instead I was accused of "removing 'reliable sourced' content" when under the current compromise, I just made the factual edit that majority of scholars refer to the religion as a form of animism, but in the end, I am repeating that it matters less. Given the inevitable decline of Wikipedia -now from second website to tenth most viewed website plus the loss of over a third of contributors because of unjust treatment and favoritism, my repeated question is what will it matter what happened ten years ago or last month? Imagine looking back at these disputes in the next few years when Wikipedia will end up somewhere much further below.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

At this point, I am starting to think that perhaps NadirAli should be banned from Wikipedia, he has shown little to no remorse relative to his bad behavior. At the very least, he should be topic banned. Knox490 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Continuous repeat of previous lies. Just as that "storybook" accusation that you made. I posted numerous reliable sources, including one from Oxford University and attempted to remove what was WP:UNDUE and not properly sourced statements as pointed out by other users. You also accused me of WP:BATTLEGROUND for requesting arbitrary sanctions on the article because it was targeted by various nationalists when User:Dbachmann made the same comment on talk:Hunza. Again, I do not believe posting untrue statements on an administrators board should come without consequences.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
NadirAli, on the talk page of the Kalash people article, did you use the alt-right source "" in order to try to support a position of yours? If so, why did you do this? Also, do you consider the source to be a reliable source or an unreliable source? If you consider it to be a reliable source, please explain why you feel it is a reliable source.
If you agree that is an unreliable source, was my questioning of your competency a legitimate concern? If not, please explain why my concern was unwarranted.Knox490 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please review Light2021's behaviour at AfD[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous blocks

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

Personal attacks and uncollegial hostility

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Here are recent instances of canvassing:

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

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

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

Reverting AfD closes

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

Tag bombing

Light2021 frequently tag bombs articles. Here are several examples:

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

Declined speedy deletions

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

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

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

  • I close a lot of AfDs within WP:DSI and in the process I go through most of the listed AfDs in detail, even if I'm don't close them or consider closing them and I've found Light2021's behavior at AfDs to be perplexing to say the least. On one article with a few independent sources they'll !vote delete and then on another with almost no sourcing they go on to !vote keep and question the credibility of the other participants. This is clearly a case of not showing the level of understanding of our policies, guidelines, and processes or something more fishy. An indefinite topic ban from any deletion process seems to be in order. —SpacemanSpiff 04:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't have a ton to add other than that the one speedy deletion by Light2021 that I declined in the list above was not the only one. See [34], [35], [36]. I do appreciate that they later took the articles I declined to speedy delete to AfD. There are lots of articles that should probably be deleted but that don't meet the CSD; though Light2021 should have known not to nominate these three for speedy deletion, they were correct to take them to AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Based on the evidence presented, I feel that a temporary topic-ban from deletion-related processes would be in Light2021's best interests. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, can we go with Spaceman Spiff's "indefinite topic ban" rather than Power's "temporary topic ban" and expand "deletion-related processes" to "processes related to content removal"? Would be nice to restrict the tag bombing and inappropriate merge nominations as well.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I support your expanded proposal, S Marshall, which will address the disruptive editing. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The editor's comments to me at the ZoneMinder AfD were frustrating. First, his response had to do with him thinking that I said that the self-published book showed notability (I didn't). Then, of course, the editor said that the sources that I was referring to do not show notability and asked if we were creating a directory, he is very combative in AfDs and it seems like he wants the last word. Magazines like Infoworld do show notability for tech and such sources definitely do not count as spam as the editor told me. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My Version

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans nominated by me, kept by admin, generally he relist all my article when delete is in majority till he gets many votes. here he kept it for no reason. later got deleted thankfully. my selection are not wrong, Non-consensus does not mean a bad nominations. It was definitely doubtful one. I am making over 95% good AfD (From last 200 only/latest). Not bad for making This wikipedia spam free, right? Light2021 (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Cunard is not an admin.
  • " Cunard comes to every AfD with copy paste job by making a Keep Vote, without even analysing the sources" Actually, even if I don't agree with him, Cunard is one of the few AfD regulars that does analyse the sources. So this is nonsense as well.
  • "These are selective and biased admins who just want to keep any kind of Spam just for the sake of being into war field." and "No doubt by such Corrupt and biased admins we are screwed and compromised as a Wikipedia". Apparently this means "they didn't agree with my opinion".
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans was kept because you didn't provide a valid deletion rationale. Not for any other reason. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ironically, sometimes I agree with Light2021, and there are too many editors willing to spam low-quality keep votes to any old promotional garbage that a paid editor wants to throw up, but there are limits to behaviour, and Light2021 has crossed them. Agree with the topic ban mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • On my behavior to straight forwardness, you are also simply stating what you feel like, as we all are free to say what we have to say. Shall we also judge your behavior on similar ground. Neither I have abused anyone here, but every-time this Ban, Ban and Ban comes in as if I am doing some non-sense here. My analysis are not random, they are Spam filled in Wikipedia, from the previous Ban I have learnt a lot, and I never went ahead to any of the contributors here, Yes, I can ask questions as we all do, as you did, and the language you used its simple and straight. Thats how people express. And I have never said everyone is corrupt here. There are many Senior admins Who agrees to me sometime and sometime do not, it does not mean I am just misbehaving, I accept their point as well, every time this Ban will not be any good to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia will seriously become a PR Host/ another Blog where Paid editors known very well how to maintain these articles. Proudly I am just one of them who are tirelessly working on making Wikipedia Spam free. Other are just making money keeping just nonsense here.
  • Can you state me Only one example after April 2017, where I have misbehaved with any one the contributors or discussed in any harsh manner? Simply Ban is not an option. people learn here. It is simply an attack and nothing else. i have learnt a lot. I don't just nominate articles I do not like, its the global companies or products. It is baseless accusations and Ban is not right where I can learn things. and my AfD are not wrong, it is over 95% accurate (From last 200 only/latest), if you count No - consensus. As we all know how to make articles as No-consensus. By paid media or some contributors works for this.
  • On Cunard detail analysis. What happen to KISS Logic? can't he just give the link so people can read going on the source, unnecessary making an discussion so lengthy that it repels the contributors, as it seems so authentic, whereas it simply copy-paste the Press coverage from the Blog, sometimes its from Good media, but most of the times its just Copy-paste, where in my opinion I doubt he even reads them. He just open the link, Copy whatever he gets and paste on Discussion. How come its a good analysis? His Keep votes gets No-Consensus where he gets the majority of success. Its not substantial ground for analysis. Eventually articles are kept even by means of No-Consensus. Light2021 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Request your advise and guidance on repeated Ban on me. How it is justify on my time and contribution here? How I can contribute fighting this Biased opinion on me? They drag me personally, makes a case like I am guilty, ignoring all my works, every one express here, when they express blunt, its acceptable when I do, they makes an Ban issue? I have never abused anyone after April 2017. Please analyse my behaviour after this time, as above discussion is misleading by quoting Past examples. Need Opinions and Pinging senior contributor here. Just for note they agree and disagree with me several times, but they teach me good things, and do not just become attacking me. DGG, David Gerard, K.e.coffman, SwisterTwister, Lemongirl942, Grayfell, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,Bejnar, Jimfbleak, Lankiveil , RHaworth, Brianhe, GorillaWarfare Light2021 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • One Suggestion from all of you. As I understand this discussion and Ban thing, these people have problem with my Language, but My selections are not bad for Wikipedia. I can just nominate AfD/ Speedy, participate in Votes. And I will not counter present my points, I will be as details on AfD as it should be, that way I can avoid the feeling for these people who got hurt by words. and that way we can make it work. Just my suggestions. you can track my activities, I will never make or ask any question of a any kind, I am doing simple task to contribute to Wikipedia. If that allows and accepted by everyone. I am happy to do that. Thanks. Light2021 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Light2021's recent and long term AfD stats are running better than 75% for exact match and even better for effective match. He votes Delete a lot and nominates a lot of pages. An analysis of his own noms shows a very good success rate as well. [37]. User:Cunard votes Keep an awful lot, nominates few pages, and is running around 72% match to the exact result. [[38]. The two editors evidently have very different approches to AfD and deletion, it looks like Cunard is trying to disable a pro deletion editor that does not fit their inclusionist viewpoint. I don't find Light2021's highlighted comments especially uncivil and have had far worse things said to me with no action taken against the editors who said it. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Light2021, let me make a blunt but polite observation. There are two problems that I see. 1. You get blinded by what you think is "right", and get sloppy with your rationales when voting and nominating deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presans is a perfect example. It is insufficient to be right, you have to provide a policy based rationale to prove it. and 2. You don't know when to shut up. I don't say this to be mean, and in in my youth I also did not know when to shut up. Sometimes I still don't, but you really get off track and stick your foot in your mouth too much. As far as Cunard's habit of posting long, detailed "keep" votes, it is unusual, but when Cunard posts something, you know it is honest to the sources and is the best available material, he gives you something to either change your mind or it gives you something to refute, so he's kind of doing you a favor, even if you find it annoying. In a nutshell, sometimes you act like a jerk. You should stop doing that. I could easily call for a tban, but my singular opinion is that you need to voluntarily step away from deletions for a month and do some soul searching about how you communicate with others. If you don't modify this behavior soon, I would be forced to support sanctions. Dennis Brown - 16:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Another last chance to change? Last time I checked, this user had exhausted several of his last chances, and got into escalating block territory. And now he's quite some way up the escalator. Do Wikipedians ever run out of last chances?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm just one voice. Unless he says something below my comment to convince me he has had an epiphany, I wouldn't be that difficult to persuade; in the end, however, it is always my hope to rehabilitate rather than swing the ban hammer. Dennis Brown - 18:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
* Just as you stated clearly the concern with my behavior. It is not with my AfD selections but how I write to them/ contributors. I Understand. I can change it, as I am quite good with your blunt observations. Yes! I might need to shut up, and that is what I should do for next 30-45 days (or probably more). 1. I will only nominated with giving Detail rationale to it for AfD. 2. I will not counter any of the contributors, no matter what they write, or how they write (To avoid any of the language or behavior problem). 3. I will only vote with my opinion, will not get on anyone's opinions. 4. That way I can be respectful to the community, as I am unknown to all, as they are to me. Nothing is personal here. I am happy to contribute with my rationale, right or wrong, its community work, and not individuals choice. I hope my points are clear. and you all are observing me, if by mistake I deviate from my promise, you have the rights. thank you. Light2021 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't stop another admin from taking action here, understand that. And understand that you are probably going to be under a microscope for a while. I think you have a lot to offer, it just gets drowned out with rushed replies that are more centered on emotion than fact. If you can do all that you say, everyone is better off. Dennis Brown - 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Nearly echo Dennis Brown.While there are enough negatives about his/her contribs.--(specifically blatant canvassing along with ridiculous two-word nom statements--both of which seemed to flow unabated.), the sole reason I am opposing a Tban is that his/her work has not entirely shifted to a net-negative zone.I am inclined to offer a last-chance.And Light2021 will probably do well to abide by the self-imposed restrictions.And above all, please improve your communication skills, know how to bluntly accept a mistake(For one, I didn't even slightly buy your arguments rel. to ignorance of canvassing policies at your talk!) and cease to act like a jerk.Winged Blades Godric 04:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Last chances"

    I agree with S Marshall (talk · contribs) that "this user had exhausted several of his last chances":
    1. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 31 hours for disruptive editing.
    2. April 2016: Randykitty blocked Light2021 for 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts. A number of sockpuppets were also blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Light2021/Archive.
    3. April 2016: Boing! said Zebedee blocked Light2021 indefinitely for persistent vandalism.
    4. June 2016: Ohnoitsjamie unblocked Light2021 and wrote, "Given the exchange below, it's reasonable to give you another chance, though I would like to note some concerns."
    5. November 2016: At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, Kudpung wrote in the close, "further repetition of inappropriate behaviour will be met with incremental blocks at admin discretion that will not necessarily require further long-winded discussion here".
    6. January 2017: Ohnoitsjamie blocked Light2021 for disruptive editing.
    At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021, when there was strong support for a block, Light2021 wrote in November 2016, "I understand that the problem is that I have not respected the community and other members of the community" and "I will respect consensus decisions". These are broken promises. Light2021 also wrote:

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

    Continued canvassing

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

    In this very ANI discussion about a topic ban, Light2021 canvassed 13 editors, this is despite Kudpung's 20 January 2017 warning to Light2021 to stop canvassing. This is also despite my post in this ANI discussion about Light2021's canvassing.

    Continued misunderstanding of speedy deletion

    At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamil Design, Light2021 wrote, "Speedy Delete Blatant Promotions" even though Light2021's earlier {{db-spam}} tag was declined by Seraphimblade. Light2021 still does not understand the criteria for speedy deletion. An article is not eligible for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} once an admin has declined the speedy.

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

    • Note It has been deleted by AfD Process. It was not a bad nominations again. I do understand what I am doing, just for clarifications. Light2021 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cunard:--Well, I personally felt the ban-hammer to be a little heavy.Anyway, the speedy delete option is viable and I fail to see any policy violation in the quoted !vote.Many of the frequenters at AfD replicate the same behaviour at AfDs(incl. me) of subjects having a declined CSD.And I am unable to contribute on his relative knowledge/application of CSD without the log.Winged Blades Godric 06:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Light2021's support in the AfD for speedy deletion under {{db-spam}} even after Seraphimblade declined the speedy deletion reflects a continued misunderstanding of the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. As Seraphimblade has said in the November 2016 discussion, "And I'm not exactly well known for being lenient on spam, promotion, and CVs, so if I think your G11 requests are out of order, there's probably a problem."

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

G11 is an area where there is a wider range of interpretation. Voting to Speedy per G11 after a decline only means that someone disagrees with the Admin's decline. I just had an MfD where an Admin declined a G11 and all three people that voted expressed surprise it was declined as G11. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC). Note the decline said "Not quite G11, but could use a lot less product info" so it is very unfair to say that Light2021 misunderstands CSD's based on that decline. You should know better Cunard - your examples are undermining your case here. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem is not Light2021's !votes. I think he's erratic but he's entitled to his opinion and his !votes. This thread is about aggressiveness, his highly personalised targeting of Cunard, his tag-bombing and his canvassing.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that the key problem is not the votes--G11 especially is tricky to interpret, and the interpretation is often disputed. The standard for whether we delete or fix spam is similarly controversial; in practice I don't think Light is any more extreme on his side than some editors are on the other (but it must be admitted that I have a position myself which is fairly to similar Light's view of things) But I would consider it a COI to try to block someone who often opposed me at AfD. The key problem at this point is the canvassing. If that were to stop completely, I think that would be enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not particularly active at AfD, though I agree with DGG that the most concerning behaviour is the canvassing there. The other issues raised about the way he contributes in deletion discussions I think can be overlooked - I'm not convinced of how much trouble he's really causing but I'll leave that to people who are more involved at AfD. What I can comment on is my experience with him at CSD, and a lot of what he does there seems similarly erratic and unpredictable, he nominates a lot of articles for CSD, particularly for G11, which is a difficult criterion to interpret and everyone's view will differ, but his nominations are very hit-and-miss. In addition to the list compiled by Cunard above I have declined G11 nominations of his on these three occasions. He has a particular habit of nominating articles which have been in existence for several years have been edited by many contributors, he digs up a lot of promotional articles which probably should be deleted, but floods the queue with a large proportion of poor nominations too. I'm not sure any of this really rises to disruption, but altogether it does give me the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and his edits probably need watching closely, but I'm really not sure the good parts of his editing justify this. Basalisk inspect damageberate 19:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Cunard you seem to be throwing up every allegation you can think of in hopes something sticks. You evidently don't like Light2021's views on deleteion. Suck it up and try policy at AfD instead of trying to railroad an editor you don't agree wity. User:Light2021 make sure you turn on your CSD log under twinkle preferences. That will help you refute the alleged CSD mistakes. We all get CSD declines, the question is are they a big percentage or not. Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I support topic-banning Light2021 from deletion processes because of their pattern of inadequate application of policies and guidelines related to deletions. They create a lot of unnecessary work for other editors in reviewing deletion nominations, as well as risking unnecessary deletion of many articles, which is not good for Wikipedia; in their contributions to AfD in the past few days during this ANI discussion, I see inadequate application of WP:BEFORE combined with rapidly nominating many articles for deletion. I went through several of their recent AfD nominations where the nomination reason was based on lack of notability and sources, and I saw sufficient sources to support a keep vote for six: Qwikcilver, Wrike, Mavenlink, Rightware, Eckovation, Paymentwall. I couldn't find sufficient sources for three, but I did find additional sources that weren't noted in the nomination: Olympusat, PurpleTrail, FusionForge. I didn't review all their recent AfD nominations, but out of those ones, it's not a good ratio. (For the record, XfD Stats for Dreamyshade says 80.8%.) Dreamyshade (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from deletion process, per WP:CIR. Despite numerous cautions and blocks, Light2021's deletion rationales rarely make much sense. Sure there is a problem with business promotion on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of other Wikipedians working on the issue that have a much better grasp of deletion policies and who are capable of constructing cogent (and coherent) arguments. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have just had to decline another G11 nomination, again for an article that has been edited by several contributors since 2011. I think that, if he is not sensible enough to keep a low profile and reign in his nominations whilst an ANI discussion is ongoing, it is highly unlikely that Light2021 is going to be able to edit in this area in a constructive way, at this point I would strongly support a topic ban from the deletion process. Basalisk inspect damageberate 12:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose he is doing a good service with no one presenting evidence his nominations are regularly outside policy. NO we don't have enough users working on removing SPAM and we should not be removing a deducted SPAM fighter, that G11 decline was borderline and the page is in fact SPAM. Had the page been newer with fewer editors it would be an easy G11. Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The editor has had numerous chances to adjust and fix their mistakes but instead they continue with the wrong CSDs, AFDs etc etc so an indef topic ban is the only answer, Temporary won't work because they'll just go back to how they were and we'll all be here again. –Davey2010Talk 16:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban, support block the next time they canvass. As has been pointed out above, their G11 tagging is not that far off the mark especially since the standard is so variable and neither is their AfD !votes. We should not be clubbing the opposition, even if I disagree sometimes with them. I am equally supportive of the position that the editor should be summarily blocked again if he continues to make personal attacks. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban- this editor's value doing useful spam fighting work significantly outweighs their semi-regular misfires. Reyk YO! 17:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support ban - despite being warned and making promises to the contrary, he continues to attack and tag bomb articles. Strike 1 was changing my discussion title in the talk page to accuse me of being a paid editor. Strike two was tag bombing the article. Strike three was canvassing, which resulted in two delete votes. Srike four was just adding new tags [[39]] despite being warned here. There are other critical editors like DGG, SwisterTwister and K.e. Coffman, but they are all civil and non-disruptive. Here's where he badgers DGG for doing an afd delete closure - a rare one where Light actually wanted to keep the article. [[40]] He's making it unpleasant for the rest of us and needs to stop. He can't help himself and will need to be banned to stop. 18:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)TimTempleton (talk) (cont)
    • Just for note: You (others to check his claims) can go through the discussion made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Ferrazzi. I am sure my AfD was justified as still not convincing with No-consensus was a bad nomination. Reason for his disappointment with me, he has been questioned for being a paid editor for the way he made his contributions (Undisclosed paid editing revisited). On his talk page. or like this article NJFX, questioned for being promotional. and many such cases. I don not want to add into this ANI. Nothing to say more.Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC) thanks. Light2021 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

As you've already noted, that's unrelated to the issue at hand. The restriction is gone, so it doesn't apply here (even if it wasn't, that still wouldn't affect how I report other users, as my T-ban was deletion processes, not WP:anime or WP:BLP). Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
It just bothers me is all considering some of your past comments towards IPs and the like. Here is a recent example: [41]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
That wasn't directed at an IP user, and the incident with another IP user was a long time ago, and it has already been resolved. Anyway, the focus isn't me, but User:AnimeDisneylover95. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
When you bring a report here the focus is on both parties involved. The closing admin is going to look at the conduct of both sides. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No action - Sk8erPrince should be admonished for the pre-mature close of a discussion. Going forward this should be worked out via other venues such as Mediation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No action per Knowledgekid97. —JJBers 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No action per Knowledgekid87. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Imposing interaction ban with Sk8erPrince and User:AnimeDisneylover95[edit]

  • Impose two way interaction ban permanently: I have no interest in interacting with this user, and seeing as he can't stay calm when interacting with me (and doesn't conform to logic), nothing good will ever come out of any discussion between him and I, so I'd rather just avoid any interaction with him altogether. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95, but not in reverse. —JJBers 02:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95. I had hoped that mediation would be a way out for Prince but it looks like he has no interest in the likes of dispute resolution, the edit summaries are also just too much for me, these snide remarks have got to stop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support one way IBAN with Sk8erPrince not being able to interact with AnimeDisneylover95. I don't know what Sk8erPrince's issues are but he can't seen to stop trying to being unnecessarily aggressive. I'm very close to recommending a block because he won't leave AnimeDisneylover95 alone. --Tarage (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Considering Sk8erPrince's history of interactions with other users (he was given a six-month ban from nominating articles for deletion last year), and considering his attitude in the previous discussions, I agree that some kind of interaction ban is needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    The way I see it working is Prince would be allowed to report User:AnimeDisneylover95 in the case of harassment on ADL's side. This would make it so Prince isn't a potential sitting duck. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. IBans have no correlation with harassment, so just because I won't be allowed to interact with said user in the future, that doesn't mean I can't report them. Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice for other editors to weigh in here but if you are okay with a one way IBAN then I see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that's exactly what an IBAN means. Reporting a user who you have a one-way IBAN with is an instablock. (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support one-way IBAN - described in the above votes. Although I also believe his behavior deserves more sanctions. Hey Sk8erPrince I'm very disappointed to see you re-implemented the list of deleted pages you apparently deleted (even though you aren't an admin), as I recall, you removed them during the appeal of your tban to prove you have changed. I guess that was far from the truth.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we can all agree that Prince is on a very thin rope here, I would not object to something like a block if these kinds of things continue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support one-way IBAN Everyone can move on then. --Adam in MO Talk 01:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support one-way IBANThis seems to be the best solution in view of the findings above. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


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

A few corrections: One, I am not an admin. Two, I went ahead and reported you; it's no threat (look right above you). This isn't a joke, bud. You aren't upholding the spirit of Wikipedia (in the sense that it operates on consensus), so there is definitely a need to impose a sanction on you (besides the fact that you aren't keeping a level head as an editor). If you think I'm a problem, you might as well think everyone that was involved in that discussion is a problem as well. Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Why would I also report everyone else if their views/opinions are a lot different than yours, as they said the additional voices are allowed if "notable" or cited with "source"!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
'If "notable" or cited with "source".... [with the prioritization of named roles]'. Please don't just read the parts you like; read the whole thing. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

The RFC was open for less than a day. What the hell are you doing closing it that quickly? --Tarage (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I felt like the user in question was raging too much, and it wouldn't be beneficial to keep the discussion going. However, I agree with Knowledge that the discussion should be opened longer. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Do not be the one to close it. That is horrible form. Let someone else close it. --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)\
That's perfectly reasonable. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Christ the more I read about this the more it seems like Sk8erPrince is WAY out of line. You are being horribly aggressive here where it isn't needed. Calm the hell down and stop attacking other editors, it was a mistake on your part to bring this report. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Thank you for the non-biased assessment. It's accurate. Closing the discussion prematurely was my fault; I'm sorry. I'll wait until someone else closes it. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up the issues, I just feel bewildered to see this issue continue to being brought back up and whether or not reliable sources (e.g. articles, end credits of a movie, show & video games, resumes, and convention bios) are necessary for these voice actors?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources are always needed for verification in VA BLPs. The issue here is whether or not the inclusion of additional voices is necessary. That's the whole point of the discussion here; to settle content disputes like this. When the discussion is over, there is no more room for argument. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you please stop arguing with every post he makes? You made your point, there's a talk page discussion that now has many eyes on it. You are still being overly aggressive to the point where I'm starting to wonder if perhaps you need a break. --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Considering both users have had a history of actions like this, I agree with the above statement that some kind of action (either a temporary interaction ban or meditation) is in order here. I agree with some of Sk8erPrince's points but his attitude above and in the WT:ANIME discussion has a lot to be desired, as for the discussion itself, while I agree that closing the discussion (and by the proposer no less) was premature to say the least, given its nature and how many articles are to be affected, a discussion in a wider venue (i.e. in a different WikiProject's talk page or even at the Village Pump) might be necessary. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no objection with an interaction ban with User:AnimeDisneylover95 (preferably permanently), seeing as he clearly hates me. I, for one, would not like to be on the receiving end of his uncontrolled outbursts. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry I outbursted myself but honestly their is no reason to act in the same situation at me, especially in regards to a 2 year old issue that continues to be brought back up over and over again from not only you but also to anyone that continues to have this conflict.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I continue to have concerns about Sk8erPrince, in light of their continued edit warring without using the talk page even though that was requested by an administrator and failure to cease making edits regarding notability while the RFC is still open. This is not collaborative behavior. --Tarage (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm leaving the Sailor Moon article alone for now, unless unsourced info pop up. I have no intention to edit war; but I don't appreciate the fact that my edits are repeatedly reverted without a valid reason. Seeing as another editor has explained why the tags are relevant, I have no reason to take any further action. However, I must clarify that I made a mistake in John's article regarding the edit summary - it wasn't a notable issue, but an issue regarding RS (IMDB is NOT RS; that's a known fact). Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Ad Orientem who was the one who initiated the protection. --Tarage (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. If additional protection is required or someone is engaging in nakedly disruptive editing let me know, that said, I'm not going to jump into this dispute for a variety of reasons, chief among them that I am not familiar with the subject or genre so there would be CIR issues. And beyond that, it looks like there is a (gasp!) fairly constructive discussion going on above and I don't want to rock any boats. But if something comes up that obviously requires admin action, or a strong consensus favoring some sort of action that requires the tools develops, just ping me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel this can be closed so we can all move on, I am not seeing any additional input and everyone seems to be on the same page regarding the I-BAN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Implement the IBAN for Sk8erPrince, and close this. Agreeing. —JJBers 20:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional behavior by OPamuk1967b[edit]

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

Anyone? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a tough case EvergreenFir. This user is not an obvious spammer because he actually uses reliable sources, even though they are of the same type. Therefore, admins, or editors, cannot make the editorial decision of mass reverting this editor's sources. I would suggest contacting this user and, based on his response, proceed further, but I can't see a case for mass reversions, based only on the fact that his/her sources are of the same type. However, if he resumes another mass addition of this type of sources to more articles without explaining the reasons, then, perhaps, he can be asked to stop until he explains himself. Another approach would be to take these sources to RSN for a closer examination. I just hope this editor is not trying some kind of SEO. Dr. K. 00:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certainly, it beggars the imagination that everything the man ever wrote is "exhaustive" of the subject, so I have removed at least that from all the examples given above as WP:PEACOCK words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So, User:OPamuk1967b has 50 edits in their 4 1/2 years of editing here, and every single one involves Franz Lidz. This is either a person with a real thing for this writer, or this is paid promotional editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I've asked them directly on their talk page why they only edit about Franz Lidz, and if they are paid to do so, or have a COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Well i for one consider him a genius composer, not to mention one of the greatest concert pianists of all time. EEng 15:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

From the talk page (2010):

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

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

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

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

Some other accounts:

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

I mean, I'm convinced the WP:DUCK test has been satisfied here with regard to both the COI and socking. But given your last post, maybe you should consider taking this to SPI. If you get a positive checkuser report on him, the block will be quickly implemented, making it the most efficient route. You could of course debate the likely COI issues here and maybe, with the sheer volume of diffs you're unearthing, you'll get an admin to act on it, in a few days, the community here can always be your back-up plan, but please let me gesture you towards....the path of least resistance. :) Snow let's rap 18:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 Checkuser needed All of these accounts should be blocked for unregistered WP:PAID editing, and the oldest one marked as the sockmaster. Per WP:BURO, does a formal SPI really need to be filed given the evidence here? User:Pastoes777, why don't you listed the additional socks you are aware of? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a formal SPI needs to be opened.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I for one am for it; some might argue that his edits can't all be harmful and that they ought to be considered on a case by case basis, but A) I trust you or other editors repairing the damage can use common sense as to that, and B) given the sockmaster's cookie-cutter approach here, and the numerous examples already supplied, it's hard to imagine that many of these additions are truly neutral, WP:WEIGHTed appropriately, and necessary to the articles they have been shoe-horned into. Plus, this being a case of socking, once that is established, you have a pretty airtight argument for removing them as disruptive. You might still run into the occasional WP:LOCALCONSENSUS argument from an editor working on one of those articles, so you might have to explain why you are removing a sourced comment and provide context for why and how its relevance has been overstated, but if you get the SPI resolved, you can then reference back to it (and this discussion) in your edits summaries as you remove the detritus. Snow let's rap 21:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
What User:Snow Rise said. And props to Pastoes777 for pointing us to the unintended amusement provided by shameless boosterism. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed a number of gratuitous excerpts from Lidz' writing that had been inserted into articles -- usually in the lede -- with no necessity for them to be there, as they generally add nothing except Lidz' opinion about the subject. I have not removed his stuff in a knee-jerk way, as some of it was useful, but the stuff that appeared to me to be there simply to promote Lidz I removed as "rem promo". I also added a COI notice to Franz Lidz, and CSD'd as "no context" a sub-stub which was nothing but the quote from Lidz' writing, with, literally, no context about where, specifically, it was about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent work BMK. Thanks. Dr. K. 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Holy crap! This became much bigger than I expected. Well done Pastoes777, this seems to be a blatant case of boosterism/SOAP/paid editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This is truly epic. Thanks for the legwork. Evergreenfir, Pastoes777 and BMK! Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • KrakatoaKatie ran a CU, and blocked OPamuk1976b and other accounts. Most of the accounts listed above were stale, so we should keep an eye on them to make sure they're not re-activated. A job well-done by everyone! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Very good work: thank you all. But perhaps there's more to be done. I clicked on half a dozen articles that linked to that on Lidz: there was little or nothing to worry about in all but one of these, but that one article asserted that the definitive book on such-and-such a subject was an "urban historical" written by Lidz, citing Lidz for this judgement. (Ha ha, no: I terminated this.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • These will all be too old to do anything about, but dollars-to-donuts, other "staffers" of Bloomsbury USA include these editors:
I think we all should be on the lookout for promotional editing on behalf of Bloomsbury USA, since they seem to do this as a matter of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • More work indeed; one of the earliest suspected socks of this master left a long-winded and caustic rant on the Lidz talk page, sharing the ire of himself and his fellow "staffers" (he claimed to be editing on behalf and Lidz via a kind of PR relationship with Bloomsbury Publishing). The screed ends with:
"So, take it from here, chimps. I'm acceding to the publisher's wishes. If it helps, we monitor the entries of 154 authors in all. Happy hunting."
Now, that's a very dated post and the trail will be cold for some of the older promotion, but there does seem to be a not insignificant network of sock and meat puppets here, and if they are organized in a similar fashion in even a fraction of the articles they claim, it's worth the community being mindful of. Anyone noting similar disruption via socking and hyper-promotionalism on article for authors that seem to be represented by this group should consider using the just-concluded SPI as a starting point; there's a good chance the CU will find a relationship. The length of time (more than six years) and the degree of effort put forth into consistent activities to plaster Lidz's name across the project suggests to me that we should treat the sock's assertions (as to the scale of their operation) with some seriousness. Snow let's rap 05:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I've just now cut some more promotion. -- Hoary (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • User:OPamuk1967b hasn't commented here despite being pinged multiple times. Given that their edits are very promotional in nature, I would encourage them to become familiar with Wikipedia's policy on disclosing the relevant information outlined at WP:DISCLOSEPAY. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
OPamuk1967b has been blocked for socking, per the results of the SPI referenced above. Snow let's rap 12:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

International Project Management Association[edit]

Main opposing concern to sanction was on the lack of concrete evidence of paid editing. This is no longer as relevant after the information from ArbCom provided by Callanecc, which indicates the user is likely evading a previous indefinite block. Past problems with copyrights and general standards of this user is reflected on newly created articles highlighted in this discussion, which can be concluded as serious lack of competence, and not here to build an encyclopedia. Alex ShihTalk 01:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

It is not, IMO, remotely ready. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
User:MADRASS2014 - Please explain why you think that that stub is worth wasting the time of the administrative community and other experienced editors to ask to have a stub accepted that is completely unworthy of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the IPMA one of those scam certification-mills which will basically hand out a professional certification to anyone who pays the necessary fee? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
And looking at their contributions, MADRASS2014 appears to be an undeclared WP:PAID editor/PR person. They created Kenneth K. Hansraj, who appears to be a non-notable surgeon, and then edited nothing but that article for the next few days. Then, a month later, they created in their userspace Paul Mason (producer), who appears to be a barely notable TV producer, and edited that for a couple of days, before stopping and picking up two months later and doing a flurry of edits in one day before moving it to main space (a bunch of these edits have been rev del'd or oversighted). Finally, this month, MADRASS2014 started working on IPMA article in their userspace, and now wants to move it into mainspace, this stinks to high heaven of undeclared paid editing, and I suggest MADRASS2014 be indef blocked, and their three articles be sent to XfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Reference to my Talk Page question: Why on earth you should suspect me whether I am a paid editor. If every one who had initially created an article on Wikipedia, he would have some interest of the subject, does that mean, he is biased? Then the total Wikipedia project's mechanism is suspected. Or do you think Wikipedia editors as volunteers, should be strictly without any interest over articles? Then why they should create an article, on which basis? MADRASS2014 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
And here is what I answered on your talk page:

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

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
My response to the above on my Talk Page: I am not a paid editor whether you believe it or not. Yes, my interests and involvements are mostly unrelated.MADRASS2014 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you outright deny being a paid editor, but you're doing some pretty damn fancy tap dancing about why you created the articles you did. So far, you're basically repeating the mantra "They came to my attention, and I thought they deserved an article," but you won't say how they came to your attention, and why you thought they deserved an article. Especially with the case of IPMA, you really need to explain why you thought it was a good idea to re-create an article about this organization when the previous article(s) have been deleted and salted, until you can explain these things, I remain unconvinced by your denial of being a paid editor, since your editing pattern is like the ur-fingerprint for paid editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Please stop questioning me anymore, I don't want to give every other details of my intention to you.
If a Spanish Wikipedia can have article on International Project Management Association, why English Wikipedia can't have one?
I am not going to waste my time anymore answering your borderline stupid questions; let other administrators handle this issue. If they wish let my account get it blocked. Bye.MADRASS2014 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
MADRASS2014 has been unable or unwilling to explain the reasons he created these specific articles, instead relying on generalities such as the above. Since their pattern of editing is so distinctly that of a paid editor, and they cannot explain their motivations behind creating articles about disparate and disconnected subjects, there really is nothing for it but to reiterate my call for MADRASS2014 to be indef blocked as an obvious undeclared paid editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Paul Mason looks to barely clear the notability bar if the sources check out. I'd also be looking at Chitranjan Singh Ranawat as well, which, like Hansraj, looks like it doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Chitranjan Singh Ranawat article was not created by me.MADRASS2014 (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
No, but it's similar to Hansraj's, and linked from it, which is why I pointed it out as a similar one. Black Kite (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That article's creator is still active, and could be asked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


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

Robert, I don't think you are an administrator or CU to come out with such a chaotic conclusion that I should be topic-banned until the year 2038. If I think, it is relevant I should disclose my real identity, I will do it via ArbCom mailing list, there they will be convinced, I am not a paid editor. I have contributed and created many more articles which are sensitive geopolitics concerned via my other accounts since 2005.MADRASS2014 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
What's this about "other accounts"??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, MADRASS2014, what are your previous accounts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Since they are geopolitics concerned, I have abandoned, but still I can disclose them to ArbCom.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting to be a sockmaster. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Let the ArbCom decides whether the personal safety or having alternate accounts is more important.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
If you're really concerned about personal safety for editing here, your best bet might be to abandon Wikipedia altogether. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
(ec) @MADRASS2014: If you do disclose your previous accounts to ArbCom, make sure that you also point them to this discussion, so they understand that the question of your previous editing is not simply a theoretical one, but has importance as evidence concerning whether you are or are not a paid editor -- as well as the usual questions about whether you changed accounts for your safety, or were acting to avoid scrutiny of your edits, which is forbidden by WP:Sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You alone can't force that on to someone, the entire community should decide that. I know well experienced editors have left Wikipedia or become inactive, even some ArbCom members.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the community should decide, but it can't because you won't give it any information to base a decision on, such as why you created those articles about those specific subjects, or who your previous accounts were. You say we must decide, but you refuse to answer our inquiries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I have responded you already, you should stop asking the borderline stupid question to me, reasoning why I selected those subjects. Better you get out of Wikipedia for some time and read more articles, books and travel, you will get the answer why sometimes we are wild in taste. I don't need to disclose my alternate accounts here, let the ArbCom handle it.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Your repeated invoking of "stupid" might get you a block for incivility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, if that really offends, I won't repeat it. MADRASS2014 (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
BB: In all fairness, MADRASS2014 didn't call me "borderline stupid", he called my questions "borderline stupid", so there's probably no PA there. But, of course, my questions aren't "borderline stupid", they're an attempt to get from MADRASS2014 the kind of information that will help determine if he's a WP:PAID editor, as his editing pattern would indicate, or not, as he claims is the case, his failure to answer those questions, when answering them would appear to be in the best interest of an editor with nothing to hide, is, of course, quite telling, as is his hiding behind "geopolitics" and "personal safety" after he let slip that he has edited with other accounts.
Soon, without much doubt, someone is going to assail me for not practicing WP:AGF, but assuming good faith pretty much went out the window when his pattern of editing was so distinctly that of a paid editor -- and, besides, as is often said, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Undeclared paid editors are a serious problem that we have to stop sweeping under the rug and deal with, especially if it results in such poor articles as Kenneth K. Hansraj, Paul Mason (producer), and User:MADRASS2014/The International Project Management Association. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The user's chippy attitude isn't winning him any favors either. His refusal to come clean about his past leads to the obvious conclusion that he's hiding something - such as being previously indef-blocked (possibly more than once) - and his unwillingness to be open also leads to the reasonable suspicion that he's lying about not being a paid editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I never got single cent from Paul Mason, Kenneth H. Hansraj or IPMA, but calling me as a paid editor, and tagging on the articles that they are contributed by paid editor, ridicule the entire project. I think some Administrstors should monitor these pages. If a fully fledged article International Project Management Association can have a place on Spanish Wikipedia, why the English Wikipedia can't have one. First this question should be answered before branding me as a paid editor.MADRASS2014 (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The Spanish article, while hardly a Good Article, at least probably could survive an AFD in the English Wikipedia. Submitting a translation of it and requesting acceptance wouldn't be insulting the English Wikipedia community, while submitting that stub and requesting acceptance was insulting. Either the Original Poster is a paid editor, or the Original Poster has a competence problem. I concede that my attempt at technical humor about 2038 being the end of the world failed. However, the original post should also be considered a failure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It's great that you are not a paid editor. However, why are you trying to promote nonsense like this IPMA draft? The first half of that is:
International Project Management Association(IPMA) promotes competence at all levels for projects succeed internationally.[sixteen references!]
That is pure marketspeak, and applying WP:AGF I assume it was copied from a press release because if an editor voluntarily wrote that, they should be requested to contribute at another website. The sixteen references are merely a dump of external links found in Google. If it's not a case of undisclosed paid editing, it is a competence issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Johnuniq - Exactly. If the editor isn't being paid and really thinks that stub is good enough to be accepted (as opposed to being A7), they have a competence problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
After I read competence issue only, realizing whether I jump the gun?MADRASS2014 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Now, I consider to delete the draft under {g8}.MADRASS2014 (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to be an administrator let alone a CU to propose community sanctions in an attempt to prevent a user continuing with their problematic behaviour. That's the whole point of community sanctions. Actually an admin or CU could unilaterally block someone as a sock but can't unilatetally topic ban them in general. There are of course exceptions in particular, cases where discretionary sanctions apply. Note I'm specifically not commenting on whether such a topic ban etc is justified or you're a paid editor but simply pointing our you don't seem to understand how AN//I or en.wikipedia works. As for the other accounts as others have said we can't force you to disclose them but if your behaviour is causing concern your refusal to disclose them may increase our concerns. If you wish to disclose them to arbcom that would be a good solution, as others have said you should also inform them of this thread. I suggest you do so rather than getting into pointless arguments like above. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I have disclosed my previous accounts since 2005/6 to a couple of ArbCom members via email.MADRASS2014 (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. Which ArbCom members, please? I would like them to understand why the information is significant, and revealing who you told should not be a privacy issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You could always ask them individually, whether they've received communications from this user, and point them to this discussion. Given that he might be lying about other things, his claim to have contacted ArbCom could just be a bluff, although the editor's poor English (see below) should be enough to knock him out of here on competence grounds. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
English can be my second language, you can't block me based on the language perfectionism. Why I should bluff, even some of the yesteryear ArbCom members are now my real life friends.MADRASS2014 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, they CAN block you for incompetence. Of course, if you're copying promotional literature into articles, the English might be better. And by the way, some of my best friends are admins too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Friend, getting blocked on Wikipedia is not the end of the world. Fine, you have got some Admin friends on Wikipedia!MADRASS2014 (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
We are not friends. Maybe someday, but not today. All we are today is Wikipedia editors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
You say, in the previous post, "some of my friends are admins too", again in the above post you say, "we are not friends. Maybe someday, but not today". I think you are joking with me. MADRASS2014 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
No, some of my friends are admins. You are neither an admin nor a friend, at this point in time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That also I can keep as confidential. Let them take their own time and communicate with me via email, if they wish before they block my account. You don't need to interfere at this juncture, they are wise and power enough to take next course of actions.MADRASS2014 (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

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

"When the going gets tough, the tough get going." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Since you refuse to indicate which Arbs you sent the information to -- something that can't remotely be said to be withheld for your self-protection -- I have contacted the Committee in toto, alterting them to your claim to have sent the information to several Arbs, and pointing them to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought you are a dedicated Wikipedia editor, I think you are more a vicious human being. How can you change, "I have disclosed my previous accounts since 2005/6 to a couple of ArbCom members via email" into that , your claim to have sent the information to several Arbs; most of other editors who are questioning me are your friends in network; that also one of the reasons many senior editors left the Wikipedia.MADRASS2014 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
In English, "a couple" and "several" are cognates. And, yes, we only have your claim to have sent the information to Arbs, we cannot know for certain that you did so unless one of the Arbs acknowledges receiving it, it would be easier to find out had you been open and aboveboard about who you sent it to, since there's not a reason in the world to hide that information, even though you chose to. As for the other editors here being my "friends in network", I am familiar with all of them by name, but I have been here for 12 years, so that's hardly unusual. If you're implying that I am part of some sort of WP:CABAL to "get" you, I'm afraid you're mistaken. I am a member of no cabal, and generally call them as I see them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised to learn that "a couple" and "several" were cognates. And even if they were cognates, the fact wouldn't be relevant here. ("Skirt" and "shirt" are cognates. "Sofa" and "divan" are synonyms.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You (and the rest of us too) would be best off to just keep silent about this ArbCom business for a while, until or if something comes of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing evidence that supports paid editing. Yes, evidence has been presented, but nothing definite, for example:
They created Kenneth K. Hansraj, who appears to be a non-notable surgeon, and then edited nothing but that article for the next few days
Yes, it could be a paid editor, or an editor that happens to know this person and believes they should be in Wikipedia, this dosen't prove this person is a paid editor. Seocond we have:
Then, a month later, they created in their userspace Paul Mason (producer), who appears to be a barely notable TV producer, and edited that for a couple of days, before stopping and picking up two months later and doing a flurry of edits in one day before moving it to main space (a bunch of these edits have been rev del'd or oversighted).
Once again, doesn't prove paid editing, could be the act of a zealous editor, or one that knows this person and believes they need to be here. Thirdly, we have
Finally, this month, MADRASS2014 started working on IPMA article in their userspace, and now wants to move it into mainspace.
Again, just as the other two above, could mean they think this person belongs here, or are juist zealous. Nothing here proves that they're a paid editor, repeatedly asking them if they are without proof is casting aspersions. Unless proof can be found , and obviously, it would have to be in camera to the arbs, this needs to end. Just my two cents.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 16:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Obviously, I interpret the available evidence quite differently from you. I'm not going to harp on it, but in summary I'd say there are two factors which point in that direction:
  • The pattern of editing - Work like hell on an article about someone of fringish notability, and then lay off of editing for a significant period. Rinse and repeat.
  • The refusal to provide simple answers to simple questions about motivation - I know that if you asked me why I created any of the 100 or so articles I've created, I would be able to give you some idea about why I did it. Obviously the further you go back in time, the fuzzier my memory might be, but with MADRASS2014 we're talking about fairly recent activities and almost the only activities (at least for this account), their failure to provide any reasonable backstory besides "They exist and I thought they should have an article" is, to me, quite telling, and screams out "paid editor (or at the very least COI editor) who doesn't have an independent reason for creating an article."
Does this prove anything? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder. You don't think it does, I think it's very, very compelling evidence, as do some others here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that this person's edits look completely like a paid editor's. Badly sourced and promotional, and their creation of Paul Mason (producer) involved many diffs of COPYVIO per its history, it is so odd that they posted here at ANI, drawing this kind of attention on themselves. So odd.
Of course we cannot prove if Madrass2014 has been paid or not, and their repetition of that fact, is basically grinding our faces in the reality of how vulnerable our mission and values make us to bad faith editors.
Behaviorally Madrass2014's edits are indistinguishable from those of an undisclosed paid editor who is WP:NOTHERE, harming WP by adding badly sourced, copyright-violating, promotional content to the encyclopedia. Their defense of their terrible editing makes this situation unsalvageable, in my view, they should be indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Well said, Jytdog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Is MADRASS2014 a single editor? Above, the editor's English is flawed but very good, certainly up to the task of editing articles. But all this fuss about User:MADRASS2014/The International Project Management Association! This has a total of two (2) sentences. One has mere typographical errors, but the other reads:
International Project Management Association(IPMA) promotes competence at all levels for projects succeed internationally.
Aside from its vagueness -- all levels along which dimension? -- this is a syntactic wreck. I don't think I need to point out how or why. Now, I'm sure that I have sleepily perpetrated worse in my time, but not in something that either was so short or whose articleworthiness I was trying to argue. Can the person pleading here in WP:AN/I really have created it? -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
"All your base are belong to us!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing Time ?[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for making me laugh! As I noted above, I find points 2 and 3 compelling. But perhaps we should wait to hear if Arbcom has anything to say? Don't know if they can say anything but even "We have looked at this, but we cant say anything" would be useful. I do think this could be temporary closed/hatted for a couple of days until we hear from them, which should end the dramah. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I've added some pertinent information to the thread on the COI board. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support block per combination of #2 & #3. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support block per #2 & #3 - unless an Arb steps in to say that MADRASS2014's previous accounts show strong evidence that they are not a PAID/COI editor. If no word from ArbCom, then proceed with block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a block as per #2 and #3 unless an Arb advises not to. (That is same as BMK says.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a block as per #2 and #3 unless an Arb advises not to. (Sounds like an echo chamber, doesn't it? Good thing we have CC-by-SA.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Now that we have a response from one of the Arbs, I feel even more strongly in favor of an indef block. The problems are very serious, and are not explained away by language issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I understand perfectly the issues here and I agree that the signs appear to point to what might seem to be significant evidence, and I also concur that MADRASS2014 is tap dancing on his defence. However, although I am one of the most vigorous opponents of paid advocacy on Wikipedia in all its forms, the evidence presented here is not, IMO, sufficiently conclusive. I discount the language issue(s); MADRASS2041 is obviously from India as his name implies, and although English is an official language and very widely used in cities and by reasonably educated people, hardly anyone there (I have lived and worked in India) is a 100% perfect native user and almost all new articles from that region (now approximately 80% of the intake of all new pages) require some cleaning up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Distractive side issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I can't speak for anyone else, but the language issue had nothing whatsoever to do with my !vote; I didn't even take it into consideration at all. I understand that you don't think the evidence is conclusive, and I respect that, but I think your bringing up the language issue is something of a red herring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should read the thread again - in detail. That said, I wasn't discussing your vote. I'm one of the most vigourous opponents of paid editing in all its forms as Robert McClenon knows only too well, but I was summoned here because no other admin could be bothered, and following the discussion and looking at what has been presented, I am bound by our rules to AGF, whatever I personally think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say this to a very long-term editor, but you've totally misconstrued AGF. AGF is an assumption, until evidence is presented otherwise, it's not something you hold on tightly to in the face of that evidence.
There's obviously no way that we can absolutely prove that MADRESS2014 is a paid edior, because we can't out him (even if we have the evidence to do so), we can't force him to tell the truth, we can't do anything except line up the available evidence and try to see what it says. I understand that you don't find it convincing, and that's fine, but don't wave AGF as the reason, the assumption of MADRASS2014's good faith is long out the window: you yourself pointed at his "tap dancing" around instead of providing straight-forward answer, as is often said, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, it's our starting position until such time as it's no longer tenable -- very much like the presumption of innocence in the American legal system (which could do with a third verdict, that of "Not proven" to go along with "Guilty" and "Not Guilty".) If, as you seem to indicate, you "personally" think that MADRASS2014 is a paid editor, then your !vote to "oppose" doesn't help the encyclopedia, and that is your primary responsibility, both as an admin and as an editor, not to bend over backwards and twist yourself into a pretzel giving someone the unwarranted benefit of the doubt.
As for the question of MADRASS2014's poor English skills - yes, I read the discussion, and if you read it again carefully, you'll see that that question was brought up in the context of asking how the editor's skills could be so poor in this discussion, and on his talk page, but relatively good in the articles he created. Where did that ability come from? Does it indicate copyright violations in the article? That's a very relevant question when discussing possible paid editing, don't you think? That was the context, not "let's block this person because they don't have good English skills." Again, it's totally a red herring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
BMK, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones; you too don't have a clean past. I will disclose my real world acquaintance with Kenneth K. Hansraj, Paul Mason (producer) and Project Management to the admins involved here and the couple of ArbCom members; they all are in puplished sources well before I started to create articles on them. As KoshVorlon indicated above in the thread, " editor that happens to know this person and believes they should be in Wikipedia, this dosen't prove this person is a paid editor."I will also disclose to the admins and ArbCom members an article created by me via one of my alternate accounts on a Latin American woman who was assassinated by a Drug Cartel is a Wikipedia Good Article now; who might have paid me on behalf her? MADRASS2014 (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You failed to note the end of that story, in which the complainant was found to be a sockmaster and was indef'd.[42] Also, it was 7 1/2 years ago. What was your ID at that time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Kudpung, User:Beyond My Ken I will comment on Option 3 that I wasn't referring to the OP's lack of command of English as incompetence. I don't expect everyone to have attended an American elementary school, an American high school (which is of course taught in American English, and American universities. I was referring to the OP's submission of a stupid stub and requesting that an administrator accept it over create-protection as having been an appropriate request to the community. I haven't yet seen an innocent explanation of the original request. Either the OP is being paid by IPMA, or the OP is stupid in thinking that stub was worth wasting the community's time. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Beyond My Ken, please don't lecture me, my friend, otherwise we can take your aspersions up in another thread. I have never been overly enthralled by your version of a collaborative spirit, and I would remind you that at the end of the day, whatever and whoever posts here, it is admin territory and I will not be muzzled by the peanut gallery for making a perfectly reasonable observation just because 'you' don't like it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Questions for ArbCom:
    • Has any Arbitrator received the information which MADRASS2014 claims to have given to some Arbitrators, outlining his previous accounts, and the reasons he had to change accounts because of "geopolitics" and his personal safety?
    • Has anyone analyzed that information to determine if his changing accounts was legitimate, or was done for the purpose of avoiding the scrutiny of his edits, possibly as a paid editor?
    • Can anyone weigh in on this current discussion, in which the possible indef blocking of MADRASS2014 is being discussed, not to express an opinion, but to outline what the evidence that's been provided says about it?
  • Thanks for any clarity you can bring to this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have e-mailed ArbCom to bring their attention to the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken and MADRASS2014: (Just a note first that this is my personal analysis, not agreed on by the Committee). Yes we have received some information from them. My notes are:
  • Their first account (around a decade-ish ago) was compromised and blocked without prejudice to a new account being created.
  • After that, they created an account in 2009 (which was legitimate per my above dot point).
  • There was an SPI which resulted in a duck block for a sock (but no blocks for the original account), they disputed that it was their account/sock.
  • Main account was indef-blocked due to copyright violations after warnings (I haven't looked at examples).
  • They socked with two accounts during their indef-block until they were blocked 10(ish) months later.
  • Paid editing never appears to have been suggested (but it was before the current focus on that issue).
Therefore they are evading a indef-block at the moment, however this discussion could, of course, choose to ignore that (and hence grant an appeal by default). Let me know if you have any questions. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Callanec Thank you very much for your response, which I think gives a lot of information for those interested in this case to chew on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef block - Block evaders must be blocked. That's standard procedure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef + 1 year autoblock IP range Per #3. —JJBers 21:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef block per the information provided. I've been reading this over the last day or so hoping that there'd be good news, but I think the history provided rather tips my hand. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block and Site ban - It doesn't matter whether they are doing paid editing. This is a remarkably blatant history of systematic abuse. (In view of the fact that we now know there is a history of systematic abuse, there is no longer any reason to assume good faith with regard to paid editing.) It appears that they actually thought they could bluster their way through getting a stupid stub approved by lies. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Jojhnjoy and IDHT[edit]

User:Jojhnjoy has been ignoring consensus and edit warring over formatting changes to articles about German cars, in order to supposedly match German style, and follow some crackpot version of SI units. Specifically, changing engine speed values from rpm to min-1 or /min, omitting the word "revolutions". Other deviations from MOS:UNITS and WP:CARUNITS include replacing cc with cm3 (cm<sup>3</sup>), and removing the commas from numbers. Data given by sources in hp, bhp, or kW is changed to PS, as if that's "more German", even though PS was officially obsolete in 1972. Examples: [43][44][45][46][47] This kind of thing is not an urgent problem, but over time one should expect WikiGnomes to eventually come along and fix it, changing cm3 to cc, adding commas in numbers, and using rpm, not min-1 or /min. One should not revert editors who are making small tweaks that bring an article closer to the MOS and WP:AUTOCONV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • There is a simple reason for my recent revert: Dennis Bratland added false information to the BMW E12 article. The BMW E12 is a German vehicle from the 1970s. Back in that period, technical units were used and to have accurate information in the article, these technical units given in the sources are essential. That's why I added them. Dennis Bratland changed these figures, for instance, he changed the torque figure 14.5 kp·m to 143 N·m. (He did it with all torque figures for the German models in that arcticle.) That is wrong, the source 12, page 89 and 90 which the torque information is based on, doesn't match Dennis' edit. Since he claims that he checked the source carefully, I cannot assume good faith anymore. I wrote in the edit summary: Please refrain from distorting valid information. The sources don't match your edits. If you need an explanation, feel free to ask. I also offer help with German sources on my user page: If you need help with anything from Germany or Austria, especially vehicles, engines or sources in German, feel free to ping me on the corresponding talk page. Dennis neither asked for my help nor left a note on the talk page of the article. The only thing left I can assume here is that he wants to add false information on purpose.
  • Apparently, Dennis Bratland seems to dislike some units. For instance, he considers min−1 nonsense (also here), ignoring all arugments and sticks to cc even though he knows that cc must not be used, in discussions we head he read the SI brochure (and that's why I guess that knows about that): It is not permissible to use abbreviations for unit symbols or unit names, such as (...) cc (for either cm3 or cubic centimetre) (...). The use of the correct symbols for SI units, and for units in general, as listed in earlier chapters of this Brochure, is mandatory; in this way ambiguities and is understandings in thevalues of quantities are avoided. This is strong evidence that using cm3 makes articles easier to understand. For me it hardly appears that he really wants to improve intelligibility anymore.
  • Above, Dennis wrote: Data given by sources in hp, bhp, or kW is changed to PS, as if that's "more German", even though PS was officially obsolete in 1972. This is just wrong in several ways. 1. I always stick to the data given by sources, however, I work on articles on German historical vehicles mostly (I even mention this on my user page) and therefore the sources I use (which are in German) usually give data in PS. German sources never give data in bhp or hp. I cannot change something that was never written in the sources. 2. I just use the original data given by the source and put that into the Template:Convert as explained. When sources give information in kW or hp, I use them instead of PS. Claiming I would prefer PS over other units is just wrong, since I prefer the most accurate data. 3. Even if Dennis Bratland does not know that technical units were the official units by law until 1978, he should look that up before claiming something which is wrong. I even explained that several times, he should be able to check this, but he does not. Instead he claims "PS was officially obsolete in 1972", that is not true: Bundesgesetzblatt, April 13, 1973: Bis 31. Dezember 1977 dürfen außer den gesetzlichen Maßeinheiten noch folgende Maßeinheiten verwendet werden: (...) d) das Kilopondmeter (kpm) (...) f) das Kilopondmeter je Sekunde (kpm/s oder kpm·s−1) = 9,80665 Watt; g) die Pferdestärke (PS) = 75 Kilopondmeter je Sekunde = 735,49875 Watt.(...) In English: "Until December 31, 1977 the following units may be used besides statutory units." 4. Dennis Bratland gave five examples ([48][49][50][51][52]) which he claims would prove that I change the data given by the sources to PS. The first example is the Porsche Carrera GT. Someone confused PS with hp and I corrected wrong information, the second example is the BMW E12. The source actually gives data in PS in that case, the third example is the Mercedes-Benz L3000. I did not change any data since there was none, I added data which again is given by the sources in PS. Fourth example: Volkswagen Typ 3. Again, I did not change any data since there was none, I added data which again is given by the sources in PS. Fifth example: The BMW E28, the sources give data in kW. And I used kW.
  • Yes, I did not use commata in some cases. That is a bad habit though and I don't forget commata on purpose, as far as I know, for four-digit numbers, commata are not necessary. And as you can see here, I try using dots and commata correctly. I also use min-1 or /min since there is nothing wrong with them. We had an endless discussion about that, let me sum up my key points: The sources use minutes, some technical and scientific literature does, minutes are understood by everyone, according to SI, frequency may be displayed in base units (s-1) and minutes may be used with SI which makes min-1 totally acceptable. Also, min-1 and /min are the same. When sources give frequency in rpm, there is nothing wrong with using that. However, in this case the sources do not and changing something which is not wrong to something Dennis prefers does not add anything useful to an article, since I consider ignoring useful changes to an article bad, I re-added some of Dennis' contribution.
  • Also, in earlier discussions I said that MOS:UNITS does not mention rpm for rotational frequency. Dennis wrote: He swears MOS:UNITS says the opposite of what it says, ignores one editor after another who tell him he is misreading it. Now it is very easy to claim that I am misreading it since it was changed in the meantime. Before, it said nothing about rotational frequency and still there is no rule that prohibits displaying rotational frequency using time units.
  • The problem in general here could be described as a nescire ad non esse: If I don't know something, it does not exist. I suggested that the Kilopondmetre would be added to the Template:Convert; in the discussion, several other authors did not seem to understand it and ignored easy mathematical and physical principles completely. For instance, that kp·m and m·kp are mathematically the same, (2 × 3 and 3 × 2 equals 6 always) and that force is not mass, (you cannot say this car has a mass of 1000 metres or 1000 seconds or 1000 Newtons. It must be 1000 kilograms.)
  • Dennis Bratland should not assume that I don't recognize that this is a collaborative project. The consensus might be overwhelming in this case, but does ignoring physical principles, valid sources and inventing facts and rules to create a killer arugment help the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia? This project has approximately 120,000 active users. Ten of them don't like minutes for frequency. I accept personal opinions, but I don't accept that Dennis Bratlands wants me to get blocked from editing just because I don't agree with his personal opinion.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles seems clear that RPM is preferred over min−1, and yet here [53] we have an edit by Jojhnjoy that was made after that consensus was reached and that goes against consensus. There appear to have been more than adequate warnings made. I also find it troubling that two different users have asked Jojhnjoy to stay off their talk pages: User talk:Jojhnjoy#Off my talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content
Dennis Bratland said he read the source carefully (The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source). Reading the source carefully means that you check the technical data section, therefore I assume that he knows that the information he added is false. I don't want to accuse Dennis of vandalism, but you could hardly say that adding false information after checking the sources carefully was not on purpose. Kendall-K1, this is the aspect you completely ignore. Now tell me, what would you choose? Reverting this edit, even though ten authors think minutes should not be used though they are not wrong or leaving wrong information in the article? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
This is about disruptive editing, not a content dispute. I don't care if you want to change one of the statistics of one car from 125 to 130 or whatever. If your edit had changed only {{cvt|125|kW}} to {{cvt|130|kW}}, you would be well justified by the bold, revert, discuss cycle that we use to build this encyclopedia. But you made a wholesale revert using this 125 vs 130 quibble as an excuse to return to your pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style Power at 1/min 70 PS (130 kW) at 5800 Torque at 1/min 23.8 kp·m (233.5 N·m) at 4000", for the entire table. A dozen 8 other editors wasted an appalling amount of time trying to make you accept the fact that consensus is that this contradicts the MOS, and it's considered harmful, and that zero editors agree that there is any benefit whatsoever to this incongruous formatting. That is why we are here, that is what this is about. Nobody else wants to hear you go on and on about 125 vs 130 kW.

You have gone on the attack with snide edit summaries like "Please refrain from distorting valid information." Followed on this page with "I cannot assume good faith anymore" and "Dennis neither asked for my help nor left a note on the talk page of the article. The only thing left I can assume here is that he wants to add false information on purpose." These statements are hostile, violate the AGF and civility policies, and express an absolute disregard for the unanimous chorus of other editors, many of them engineers, many in the automotive field, and all skilled Wikipedia editors, who have said 'no, Jojhnjoy, you are the one who has got it wrong.' Maybe I did get a fact wrong (I admit to doing so all the time) but don't attack me. Convince all those other editors. Or realize you tried to convince them all, and failed spectacularly, and must now stop (or give Wikipedia:Dispute resolution a try).

And then you follow that with another snide, arrogant attack, now targeting 1292simon, "Since you obviously need help...". You dismiss editors who maintain Template:Convert, "several other authors did not seem to understand it". If you're right that every single other editor at Wikipedia is a stubborn ignoramus, then what possible good can you do here? If you are utterly unwilling to even consider that the real problem might be your attitude, then what can you accomplish here?

Jojhnjoy should be blocked from editing for disruptive editing, specifically WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Nothing anyone says gets through to this guy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no excuse for adding false information to an article on purpose. If you don't care about the sources, I cannot help you but tell you that I consider such editing behaviour disruptive. Desperately trying to create a reason to get me blocked from editing does not help. I dislike your word choice "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style" for something which is completely common and even used in the article's source; in my opinion, it just expresses that you don't want it since you dislike it. Reverting an edit that contains false information added on purpose completely is acceptable, the comment in the edit summary is neither a snide comment nor an attack. "Please" and a "help-offer" should indicate it. My edit summary was meant to be firm with you but still polite. Maybe you could help me: When you add false information on purpose to trigger a revert you could abuse to start this discussion in which you want me to get blocked from editing, what should I assume? Good faith? Please excuse me, but I don't think so and I guess that this could be comprehenisble to other authors. 1292simon just reverted my edit even though I pointed out that the information you added was false. That leaves me two options. Either, he ignores the sources or doesn't understand them. Assuming good faith would mean assuming that he doesn't understand them, therefore I decided to explain it. Ignoring physics means that one does not understand. Otherwise I cannot explain it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I did not "add false information on purpose". The source said 125 kW. I wrote "125 kW". Simple. And even if I did deliberately change 130 to 125 for no good reason, even if I'm a terrible person, a vandal who hates truth and only edits Wikipedia because I'm evil at heart, so what? I'm only one person. Surely you've dealt with vandals before. How can I, a lone "vandal" vex you so? Just revert me 3 times, report me to the WP:AIV noticeboard, and get me blocked. Simple, the reason that is absurd is that I'm not one terrible editor. Every single other editor who has looked at this issue has told you you are wrong. That's what this is about. Deal with that problem, and stop worrying about how diabolical my intentions are.

You ask this question: "does ignoring physical principles, valid sources and inventing facts and rules to create a killer argument help the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia?" The answer is found at WP:TRUTH. You believe with all your heart that you are right. We get that. What if a crazy person who believes 2+2=3 behaved as you behave? How would Wikipedia solve that? If eight editors tell him that 2+2=4, and he still believes that he alone knows the TRUTH, what then? If he is willing to back down and bow to consensus, and then either go edit some other topic not involving adding two and two, or else patiently bide his time while methodically following the steps at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, then even an editor who believes 2+2=3 can remain in good standing. Or turn it around. Let's say you're the only editor who knows 2+2=4, and evil Dennis Bratland, and everybody else says 2+2=3. What can you do? If you persist in disruptive editing, Dennis and all the other lunatics will get you blocked from editing. Evil wins, but if you admit that at the moment, consensus is 2+2=3, then you get to edit another day. You can use the process to seek other opinions, and eventually convince ONE editor that 2+2=4. Or, to drop the metaphor, convince one editor that you're right about how we should use SI units. Convincing only one editor isn't enough, but it's a start. Way better than you're doing now.

If you still, even after all this, still sit here and won't admit that you have failed to gain consensus, and admit you must drop the stick until you have, patiently, taken the next step at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, and instead you keep attacking me (i.e. WP:NOTTHEM), then I can't see how you won't be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's check the source, page 89 and 90. For understanding, it is important to know that technical units were the official units until 1978 and the conversion made by BMW is wrong. I already mentioned that before.
Source information:
  • 528: 165 DIN-PS // 23.8 mkp
  • 525: 155 DIN-PS // 21.5 mkp
  • 520i 130 DIN-PS // 18.1 mkp
  • 520: 115 DIN-PS // 16.5 mkp
  • 518: 90 DIN-PS // 14.5 mkp

Let's see what I wrote in the article: (I had to convert this manually since the template:convert lacks a function to convert kilopondmetres to other units)
  • 528: 165 PS // 23.8 kp·m (233.5 N·m)
  • 525: 155 PS // 21.5 kp·m (211 N·m)
  • 520i 130 PS // 18.1 kp·m (177.5 N·m)
  • 520: 115 PS // 16.5 kp·m (162 N·m)
  • 518: 90 PS // 14.5 kp·m (142 N·m)

And now Dennis' edit:
The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source. — Dennis Bratland
  • 528: 238 N·m
  • 525: 215 N·m
  • 520i 181 N·m
  • 520: 165 N·m Also worth mentioning is that you changed 115 PS to 85 kW which makes the template display 114 hp. However, 115 PS rather equal 113 hp.
  • 518: 143 N·m.
I withdraw the accusation that you added false information on purpose. Though, then it means that you don't understand the source, possibly because of → a nescire ad non esse. If you need an explanation, feel free to ask. You did not ask yet. I even offered help on the according talk page. Instead, you consider it a snide, arrogant attack. You accused me of something and want me to get blocked because of that. You commented three times on this page and three times you desperately mention that I should get blocked from editing; in my inital comment on this entire thing I explained why your accusations are unfounded in fact. Since you did not try to explain that any further, I don't see a reason why I should get blocked from editing. I also understand that your "dozen authors" were a metaphorical figure. Note, ″evil Dennis Bratland″, I don't hold any grudge. I suppose we should correct the wrong figures in the BMW E12 article and ask more users about the displacement and rotational frequency using WP:RFC. Also, I guess we now have a good reason for adding the kilopondmetre to the template:convert. I suggest that we both refrain from changing rotational frequency and displacement in each others articles and let more users comment on the question whether common German figures should be used for German vehicles or not; in conclusion I hope that you would withdraw your proposal that I shoud get blocked from editing and that you mark this incident as solved. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I've wrapped the last part of this in {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} because this is far too long a thread for anyone at AN/I to read. Please reply above {{Collapse bottom}}.

I know English isn't your native language, but from what I can tell, you are quite fluent. Yet you seem ignore what is said to you over and over. I keep saying I don't care if you change the data, yet you keep repeating your arguments for why the this or that statistic should be be changed. Change it!

Let's try this. Please answer the following questions, only with a yes or no answer. Below your answers, you may write several paragraphs of rhetoric if you wish, but please begin with only yes/no answers. If you think the question is unfair, a false dilemma, or whatever kind of fallacy, then by all means, answer "unfair" instead of "yes" or "no", but that's it. Yes, no, or unfair.

  1. Do you agree that a dispute over 125 kW (170 PS; 168 hp) vs 121 kW (165 PS; 162 hp) is a content dispute?
  2. Do you agree that I don't object to you changing 121 kW to 125 kW?
  3. Do you agree I don't object to you changing 238 N·m (176 lbf·ft) to 233.5 N·m (172.2 lbf·ft)? Or even 233.5 N·m (23.81 kg·m; 172.2 lb·ft)?
  4. Do you agree that I wouldn't even object to skipping {{Convert}}, and just doing the conversion by hand, writing 233.5 N·m (23.8 kp·m) @ 4,000 rpm? Because it's the formatting, not the data, that we are taking issue with?
  5. Does that explain why I pay no attention to your offers to "help"?
  6. Do you think Trekphiler, 1292simon, or I, or any participant in this dispute, would have a strong objection to you changing the data in BMW 5 Series (E12), as long as you kept the typical format xxx kW (xxx hp) @ 5,800 rpm xxx N·m (xxx lbf·ft) @ 4,000 rpm?
  7. Do you agree that this AN/I discussion is not a content dispute?
  8. If I am the one guilty of bringing a content dispute to AN/I, i.e. the wrong forum, shouldn't you argue only that I'm guilty using the wrong forum, but not argue about the content itself?
  9. Do you agree that WP:Disruptive editing is not about content, it is about editor behavior?
  10. Do you know what I am referring to when I repeatedly use IDHT, or point to WP:IDHT?
  11. Do you know why your suggestion to add kilopondmetre to {{Convert}} was rejected/ignored at least twice, and no participant voiced support for adding it?
  12. Do you understand what the editors in these diffs were saying? [54][55][56]?
  13. Do you agree that they were telling you that you are not listening at all?
  14. If you do not have "links to articles in which this conversion is used, the output is unclear, and a change to the template would make the output more clear", are you justified in returning to Template talk:Convert and asking, again, to add kilopondmetre?
  15. Do you agree that your arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, Talk:BMW 5 Series (E12), and Template talk:Convert, regardless of whether or not they were true, were totally unsuccessful?
  16. If a new editor has posted a dozen or more times, writing hundreds of words, yet won no support at all, would you, as a mentor, advise them to keep reverting and keep arguing, simply because they believe they're right?
  17. Or would you advise this editor stop, and to try something else, such as the options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE?
  18. If there were an RfC resulting in a change to WP:UNITS that said we should use min-1 or /min instead of rpm on German-related topics, do you think I should accept it, even if I disagree?
  19. Have my comments so far told you that I would follow the MOS, even if I believe I'm right?
  20. After all this, do you intend to keep posting links to sources about PS, SI units, DIN standards, and BMW 528 cars?
  21. Or will you focus instead on the behavior problem you are accused of, "Failure or refusal to "get the point"?
  22. Can you recall any time in the past when you believed you were right, but later realized you were not?
  23. Do you wish you had handled that situation differently?
  24. Do you think those times when you were in error are all in the past, and will never occur again?
I know these questions are hectoring, but I've tried everything else. Several others have tried everything else. Why not try this? Answer these yes or no (or unfair) questions, and see if that gets us anywhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, thank you for saying I am quite fluent. Off-topic question: Would you agree that my level of English is near-native?
1. Yes, I know what a content dispute is. Germanic languages have compound words
2. Yes, I am aware and that disappoints me to be honest since you should object to anyone changing information based on sources to something the sources don't cover.
3. Yes, you technically repeat the second question. Though I would want say that we should display the original information given in the source to avoid confusion, therefore I would choose neither 238 N·m (176 lbf·ft) nor 235.8 N·m (173.9 lbf·ft) but 23.8 kp·m[convert: unknown unit] and 90 PS (66 kW).
4. Yes of course.
5. No, it does not since you apparently ignore valid information in favour of formatting. Something I don't support. Correct information with bad formatting is better than well formatted false information.
6. No, I don't think that correcting wrong information would result in any objection. That's why I don't understand that you re-added false information even though you said you would have checked the source carefully.
7. Yes of course I know this is page not meant for laying out content disputes. But why do you do it then?.
8. Unfair question. You were the one who told me not to fork discussions away from other participants. What would you have said if I would not have said anything here? Don't you think that not replying would have increased the chance that my account would have been blocked from editing? Don't you think that I have the right to say something to your accusations?
9. Yes, of course I am aware. However, which rule is more important? WP:NOR or WP:IDHT?
10. Yes, actually I can read. I am a mentor for new users in the German Wikipedia and therefore know the German rules quite well, the rules here differ, something I would consider a big point is WP:NOR. In the German Wikipedia, nobody would object to edits such as these since refraining from false information saves this project and has a higher value than formatting.
11. No. Honestly not. There are several good reasons for adding it but I assume the problem is a nescire ad non esse. If I don't something, it does not exist. And the objection to physical principles is something that made me abandon the adding-attempt.
12. Yes, I understand what they are saying though they don't seem to understand my point, the problem is that the kilopondmetre is not really in use though it is necessary. A lot of sources provide a wrong conversion, for instance, this one. To ensure that articles contain correct information, it is mandatory to have the source information in the article and converting that to Newtonmetres. I cannot provide links to articles for that.
13. Yes of course, they were not understanding though. It's like telling "every German source has min−1" and getting a reply "I never heard of this nonsense", the reply doesn't make the statement unproved and therefore I ignore it.
14. Unfair question, see 12. Also, kp·m·s−1 ≠ kp·m
15. Yes, the problem is: a nescire ad non esse.
16. Yes, if they have good reasons, of course. See WP:IGNORE, but keep in mind: I am not a new user.
17. No, I would not since I believe that someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources has a right to add and improve content. Even if it is against a popular opinion of several other authors. I support authors with unconventional valid arugments and sources to give them a lobby.
18. Yes of course. And even if this would result in rpm, I would accept it. Currently though, we lack a rule since it has never been an issue. Usually, native speakers of Germanic languages know English on a high level; though this level is usually not sufficient for contributing to the English Wikipedia. Trust me, 95 % of native German speakers are uncapable of contributing to the German Wikipedia since they don't know their own language well enough. Though they could read and understand both English and German language articles. Maybe I am the first one who is able to mention that min−1 is common and that's why it hasn't been an issue for so long.
19. This is not a yes-or-no-question.
20. Unfair question. I will keep posting links to the evidence that prove that the information I add is valid and based on a reliable source.
21. Unfair question. An accuse doesn't require any change in behaviour.
22. Yes of course, everbody can.
23. Depends on what you mean, since some of your prior questions were based on each other, I assume this question is based on 22. Answer: Depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
24. No, of course not. I do not possess divination powers. Do you?
I hope that my answers help you but to be honest, do you still wish that I get blocked from editing? Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for all the badgering. Like I said, I thought it was time to try a different approach. Your answers speak for themselves, so I won't try to pick them apart an further. To answer your first question, it's unlikely a native speaker would make the mistake of thinking #19 "Have my comments so far told you that I would follow the MOS, even if I believe I'm right?" is not a yes-or-no question. I think the subordinate clause at the end threw you. There are numerous other examples. Still, quite fluent. Perhaps you're a native English speaker putting on a fake persona. Who cares? Behavior is what matters. To answer your last question, yes, I think an indef block is required, and it is because of your repeated play-acting that you don't understand what is said to you. Even beyond the actual misunderstandings, the evidence is compelling that you are misconstruing others' words in bad faith. You first show you got it, then later pretend you don't got it. You're messing with people. And your repeated affirmations that you won't used any of the usual dispute resolution tools, and instead will keep up what you've done, reverting when you know consensus is against you, and these overlong debates where you reject every single word others say, and don't understand the need to compromise and accede consensus, even when you know consensus is "wrong". Topics lke Abortion or Global warming or Art are battlegrounds with editors who are utterly committed to their incompatible beliefs. The ones who agree to put that aside and go along with consensus until they are able to get consensus to change are still here, the ones, like you, who think believing you're right is enough to ignore consensus have been blocked, and will go on being blocked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Topic ban We all have better things to do than to repeatedly shout down Johnjoy's unlistening ear over this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Topic ban – But what topic? Anything related to rpm? Cars? Units? The big problem here is that it's impossible to have a discussion with Jojhnjoy. I don't know how to fix that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Warning and perhaps topic ban While this is an editors who doesn't get it I don't think he means to be acting in bad faith. I would suggest a stern warning and maybe a short topic ban if the user doesn't agree to drop it. I think this is generally an editor who is working good faith but simply isn't listening to the group consensus, the topic bad would be adding/changing unit types on any article. Springee (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no need to shout down my unlistening ear over this since I already said I would refrain from changing rpm to /min. If you would read and understand the first sencentence on my user page you would possibly notice that a topic ban would equal a complete ban in this case. Also, User:Kendall-K1, I don't remember that you ever tried discussing with me. You once asked a question and since the answer was not what you expected you immediately resigned. I don't understand how you would even want to judge me. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Indef block. I have evidence in the form of diffs to support a block. Jojhnjoy is unrepentant, and his intellectual dishonesty continues right up to his last post above. Accusing Kendall-K1 of being unwilling to discuss is dishonest, and the discussion at Talk:Convert shows several others were very patient and indulgent with Jojhnjoy, and he didn't listen to a word. Kendall-K1 had no duty to keep up the charade. Anyone who has read the entire discussion at the Autos Project, and the above comments, has no need for me to walk you through it as I do below. This reply to my questions above says it all: "would you advise this editor stop, and to try something else, such as the options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE?"

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

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

no Disagree . I consider your "evidence" weak and unfounded. Jojhnjoy is unrepentant, and his intellectual dishonesty (...) is a personal attack on another user. Would an administrator please delete that? I did not accuse Kendall-K1 of being unwilling to discuss. I said: I don't remember that you ever tried discussing with me. You once asked a question and since the answer was not what you expected you immediately resigned. I don't understand how you would even want to judge me. This does not mean "Kendall-K1 is unwilling to discuss". One would please remove Dennis Bratlands wrong accusation. My reply to Bratlands question does not say it all, he apparently ignores the key point: someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources. He ignores that I am a mentor for new users and that it is my job to support unconventional but valid opinions to prevent new users from resigning from this project when old users tell them their suggestions are bad. I recommend a temporary block of Dennis Bratland to prevent him from continuing with his demand for my block based on false and unfounded accusations, including the accusations that I would handle future conflicts exactly the same, that I would be edit warring and having bad faith, calling me "unrepentant and intellectually dishonest". Though, I do not consider a block necessary if Dennis Bratland just stops. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content
  1. I was the first to speak sympathetically about min-1, calling it "obscure but not unheard of", and saying we should have an explanation of it on some article. Later, 1292simon agrees


  2. I pointed specifically to where Jojhnjoy was misrepresenting MOS:UNITS.

    no Disagree My key point was that MOS:UNITS says "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units [and] non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI (...)". Since minutes are SI-compatible, min−1 is acceptable. That's how I would understand that. Dennis Bratland does not point specifically to where I am misreading it. First, he says "nope" to my statement that I asked an American who understood it. To me this seems as if he would want to deny that. Second, he says all automotive car media use rpm, which is not true (or a lie). Third, "common style guides recommend rpm". Well, okay, but DIN 1301 is no a guideline but a norm and says something different. Okay. Fourth: He claims that BIPM has never heard of this nonsense. There he calls it nonsense, (for the record, this will be important for 16.), and it is not true. It says that time units could be used for frequency (s−1 for instance) and since minutes are acceptable, they can be used too, it also explains that units may be combined and that is common. It does not specifically say that frequency can be expressed in minutes, however it indicates it and it is very common in science, so this assumption cannot be wrong. Instead, Bratland claims real SI would be Herz. (It is not a typo since he did it again.) Fifth: He says, we have zero sources telling us to stop using rpm. Yes, that is true, but I wanted to point out that we don't have sources telling us to stop using minutes either. (Or one would consinder the style guidelines a source though then DIN 1301 has to be considered too. Still no result. Also, the MOS:STYLE does not say "minutes must not be used for frequency". I pointed that out later. So his claim he would have pointed out to where I am misreading MOS:STYLE is wrong.

  3. Later still, I repeated that I'm OK with min-1, but we should follow the MOS and avoid confusing readers

    no Disagree Dennis Bratland does not say he is OK with min−1. He says he has added a photograph of an airplane gauge cluster to the discussion. Then he said from what he could tell, some German car manufacturers use it on non-German markets when they are trying to be different, this is an accusation. From what I can tell, it is normal and does not mean that they are trying to be different. I live in a "non-German market" and German car manufacturers are not trying to be different here by using min−1 since it is normal. Then he says that some manufacturers don't use it and that English sources usually use rpm. I mostly agree, however, I read a lot of scientific literature and there you would find min−1 mostly. So it is not true completely, the consensus or opinion in the English Wikipedia is to use rpm. But again: Where is the rule that tells me that I must use it too? Bratland says that there is nothing wrong with min−1 but that it is not how they do it. I would not prevent other authors from using rpm on their articles since there is nothing wrong with that either.

  4. Here is Jojhnjoy's argument for why we don't need to say x,xxx r/min or x,xxx r min-1, and can omit the r. Nobody believes him.

    Agree Nobody believes me. But that does not mean that I am wrong, for believing that you cannot omit "r" in this case, you must ignore scientific literature, the SI brochure, DIN 1301 and hundrets of European vehicle manuals and technical data sheets.

  5. Again, Jojhnjoy misinterprets MOS:UNITS as if it said we must use SI exclusively, somehow only reading the first half of the sentence "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)." We have already quoted this, and pointed out the misreading.

    no Disagree I did not say that they must use SI exclusively. I said: 'I am not anti American'. Then: Please stop forcing units on topics where they don't belong, that does not mean 'they must use SI exclusively'. After that: Everybody uses and understands SI units. Well it is partly true. Seconds for instance. And in science, even Americans use millimetres. So that statement is not false entirely. Then I said that the argument that readers would not understand "/min" is absurd and not reasonable. I think that is true. And yes, MOS:UNITS encurages me to use minutes with German vehicles. Still.

  6. Yet Another editor repeats that Jojhnjoy is misreading MOS:UNITS

    no Disagree He does not say that I am misreading it. He says that there is no much sense in this discussion and that this is the English Wikipedia, not a specialist one and that min−1 would lead to confusion, this makes sense to me, thats why I said one could use /min instead. But then this user says that "MOS:UNITS covers the case of rpm being the sensible choice", but they ignore that MOS:UNITS said "angular speed" back then, not rotational frequency. Also, it is the last part of the sentence and the first part says "the primary units chosen will be SI (...)"

  7. In reply, he tortures the meaning of the phrase "angular speed" to claim that the MOS is excluding the rotation of car engines. It makes no sense. What else could it be referring to? We don't use rpm to describe the rotation of planets or satellites, or the roll rate of an aircraft in flight.

    no Disagree (I ignore that your sentence lacks some sense since I undestand what you want to say): I did not want to claim that MOS:UNITS excludes the "rotation[al frequency] of car engines". I said that does neither mean rotational frequency for cars nor that one must not use minutes, it did not say "It means that rpm must not be used". It's hard to follow what makes sense for you but since rpm is not used in the technical and scientific literature I read, I don't know how Americans use it. I don't even know when and why they use in³, cuin, ci, cu, cin and cc for displacement and how the rule works, for me only in³ seems like displacement since the other lack the exponent 3. So I cannot say anything to the last part of the sentence, whether it makes sense or not.

  8. A different edtior rejects the argument for excluding r or revolutions, saying it must be x,xxx r/min, at least, not just x,xxx /min. The math error was reading r as a variable rather than a unit.

    Agree , I understand that r can be interpreted as a unit and I know that this "unit" refers to "revolutions", but I would expect that people who claim being engineers know what auxiliary units are. "revolutions" is an auxiliary unit. And those should be avoided when possible.

  9. Yet another editor clearly says Jojhnjoy is misreading MOS:UNITS.

    no Disagree . This author says that his kids would not understand mathematics even though they can read. Well, fair enough, but does that really mean that my point is wrong? Then he quotes the MoS but does not say that I am misreading it. Then he says that "his experience is that for reliable sources for motor vehicles rpm is the conventional choice." Okay, I understand that. And he reminds me that sources wouldn't be engineering texts. Okay, I understand that too, but in the conventional sources for this specific vehicle /min is used.

  10. Here is a disingenuous argument that others cannot claim to have seen r/min on European car dashboards, because it is original research without a citation, while Jojhnjoy allows himself to repeatedly claim that "everyone" easily understands min-1, without citing any evidence at all, and ignoring every request to cite such evidence. Claims the right to assume it at his whim.

    no Disagree . My point was that on German vehicle dashboards, r/min is not used. And claiming that r/min is common is original research. Doubting original research is desired. I could give arguments why this is wrong, instead I decided to post images of German dashboards. None of them showed r/min, some of these photos were even taken by myself. Also worth mentioning is that a lot of German vehicles don't have a gauge that shows the rotational frequency of the crankshaft. (example) I hope that you know the difference between assuming and claiming? "European cars have r/min on their dashboards" is a claim. "I assume that 1/min is widely understood" is an assumption.

  11. Now one more different editor says "Power at 1/min" and "Torque at 1/min" makes no sense, and it needs to include the unit, r or revolutions.

    Agree , he said that, but that does not mean I have to believe it.

  12. Later, I post that "'1000 /min" is just gibberish'", agreeing with the previous editors who say there must be an r between 1000 and /min. Why do we keep having to belabor this stupid point? Everyone is sick of it.

    Agree , you said that, but that does not mean I have to have the same opinion. Also, a there is lot of evidence that proves that it is not gibberish.

  13. Jojhnjoy makes a disingenuous argument that we must define "evidence" before asking for evidence that rpm is widely understood and /min or min-1 is less common, without himself giving any definition of evidence when he asked for it earlier. It's all silly and dishonest, because all of us know what a citation of a fact looks like.

    no Disagree . A fact looks like this: In the English Wikipedia, for rotational frequency, minutes must not be used. or In the English language, minutes must not be used. Not I never heard of that, media say, style guidelines say, etc. Of course I could cite sources that use /min or min−1, scientific sources, engineering handbooks, technical datasheets, DIN, SI, etc. but that would not be evidence for the point that minutes are allowed.

  14. In spite of all this pettifogging, I oblige, and cite a number of authoritative sources that say rpm is preferred, and is therefore widely understood, and in which /min and min-1 is conspicuously absent.

    no Disagree Yes, in your sources minutes are absent. But that does not mean that they don't exist. I could cite sources in which rpm is absent, but why would I do that? Citing sources that don't use minutes don't automatically say they are false and must not be used.

  15. He repolies that these citations are "original research", while posting "I asked an American, she understood 1/min" as if that's not original research? It's not funny. It's blatant dishonesty. OK, it's kind of funny, but it's the kind of funny that gets you indef'd if you don't cut it out.

    Agree Yes, since your sources don't prove the point. When I say that I asked my fried who knew /min, it does not mean that everybody understands it. I never said that. If you really think that it would get anybody blocked from editing, well... no comment on that one.

  16. Jojhnjoy replies with the accusation we're still seeing, "you consider min−1 'nonsense'", after I said twice that min−1 is a convention that is fine if that's your convention. I had clearly said that what I consider "gibberish" and "nonsense" is using this or any thing else, /min or "per minute" without the r or the word revolutions. Several others had already said this clearly. Why is Jojhnjoy speaking as if he doesn't realize that? He's setting up a straw man, as if multiple others hadn't already clarified that.

    no Disagree You said "BIPM never heard of this nonsense." (Remmeber point 2. "for the record"?) Is there anything wrong with saying that you consider it nonsense? Would you say "I don't consider it nonsense but it is"? I know what a convention is, but the opinions of eight other authors don't make a convention automatically. That's at least how I would say it.

  17. In my reply, I say exactly that. If Jojhnjoy missed it the first or second or third or fourth time, he can't miss it now.

    no Disagree I never missed it. I just didn't agree this was a convention.

  18. Jojhnjoy replies directly to this last point. He posts "55 kW at 5800/min is no nonsense. Stop acting like you never saw that, since it appears in so many books and technical data sheets", he is specifically addressing my complaint that the r or revolutions is what's missing, and raging that it isn't necessary. He's admitting he knows what our objection is. Took long enough.

    no Disagree While the first part is true, I worte "55 kW at 5800/min is no nonsense. Stop acting like you never saw that, since it appears in so many books and technical data sheets", it means that I ask Dennis Bratland to stop acting like he never saw that, it does not mean that I address your complaint about the r, I address your acting in general since you would not want to accept my opinion but keep loading your rpm "evidence" on me even though I already mentioned that I know that Americans use it. However, Dennis Bratland called it "nonsense" and "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style". That's something, I don't have to put up with.

  19. Later Jojhnjoy posts that he is adamant that he will ignore consensus. This alone is blockable, if you really mean it, and he has doubled down enough times to show us he means it.

    no Disagree I just cite myself: This is my personal opinion and a recommendation. It does not imply that I would ignore consensus. It does not mean that I would vandalize. Demanding an indefinte block of another user just because they don't share the same opinion is unacceptable, therefore I wish that an administrator stops Dennis Bratland at this point since I cannot see any contribution towards a solution anymore, I feel that the only thing left here is Dennis Bratlands desperate attempt to get me blocked from editing indefinitely and that really makes me feel uncomfortable.

  20. This brings us to the AN/I report, and Jojhnjoy is right back repeating the accusation "Apparently, Dennis Bratland seems to dislike some units. For instance, he considers min−1 nonsense (also here)". In spite of all the above, he is back to pretending he doesn't understand that my only objection to x,xxxx r/min or x,xxx r min-1 is that it's not English convention, not that it's invalid. He is back to pretending that what I called "nonsense" and "gibberish" was omitting the r, he refers to the very long thread on this exact thing, and pretends he won that argument, simply because he believes himself, ignoring his total failure to get even one of eight editors to agree. This same diff says that his woeful misreading of MOS:UNITS was excusable because "it was changed in the meantime." A half dozen editors lectured him on MOS:UNITS, and they were clearly referring to the same version that said angular speed, not rotational speed. The change is irrelevant, and Jojhnjoy knows this because a half dozen editors told him so; in spite of all this, he goes on pretending otherwise.

    no Disagree You call it "nonsense" and "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style". I consider that an expression of disgust, therefore saying that you dislike it is plausible. I accpet the opinions of other authors, but that does not mean I have to agree with them, therefore I failed getting anyone to agree. However, I don't consider it necessary, therefore there is no failure. Also, I never misread MOS:UNITS, the recent change of MOS:UNITS could have given the impression that I did. I just wanted to clarify that. I don't go on pretending..

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I added my comments on these points. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I checked Dennis Bratlands block log. To me, this seems like Dennis Bratland was blocked for demanding the block of another user. Unfortunately, the block log does not tell exactly why he was blocked, though it seems like he had violated an interaction ban, the link links to this page, Bratland says: He (Spacecowboy420) is supposed to be blocked immediately without warning if he posts about me, my edits, or responds to me anywhere on Wikipedia. I am afraid that my assumption is not wrong. Therefore I would like to ask Floquenbeam for a short statement on this to ensure that Dennis Bratland was not blocked for demanding the block of another user. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Dennis was blocked for repeatedly asking for a block of someone with whom they had an interaction ban. This is quite clear from the unambiguous wording of the block log; I don't understand Jojhnjoy's confusion. It is obviously not against policy to demand a block of another user (although "demanding" is unwise 99% of the time), why would I have blocked simply for that? Anyway, I'm replying here because I was pinged, but I have not read the rest of this thread, and do not plan to be involved with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that reply, I didn't know what an interaction ban was since interaction is not limited to persons; the phraseology of Wikipedia terms is misleading sometimes and I never heard of an interaction ban before. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I explained why I would not harm this project and Dennis Bratland ignores it. He considers this edit a reason for an indefinite block. I said there I still recommend refraining from adding cc and rpm in German topic articles (...). This is my personal opinion and a recommendation, it does not imply that I would ignore consensus. It does not mean that I would vandalize. Demanding an indefinte block of another user just because they don't share the same opinion is unacceptable, therefore I wish that an administrator stops Dennis Bratland at this point since I cannot see any contribution towards a solution anymore, I feel that the only thing left here is Dennis Bratlands desperate attempt to get me blocked from editing indefinitely and that really makes me feel uncomfortable. What am I supposed to do? I don't agree with the consensus but that does not mean I don't accept it, also, I mentioned that I would refrain from changing rpm and still, Dennis Bratland does not stop demanding an indefinite block. If he keeps this threat of an indefinite block alive by demanding it over and over again, ignoring everything good I say and do, focussing on all my mistakes and harassing me with questions just to have another reason for adding accusations over and over to this AN/I no matter whether they might be false or right, I consider it harassment, as long as nobody stops Dennis Bratland, I don't see an option for myself and I will surrender, this means I would not want to contribute to this project anymore. Despite the outcome of this, I shall go now and not return for a while. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Topic ban - There are multiple instances identified above, where the editor has shown no respect towards other editors and blatantly disregarded Wikipedia policy. This goes completely beyond any difference of opinion regarding article content. Even the response above this shows no appreciation, let alone remorse, that policy breaches have been committed. Instead, the user believes it is a personal vendetta, so he launches an attack on the creator of this ANI. Past behaviour indicates that these are deliberate strategies, not naive mistakes. I think a topic ban is the only option in this case to stop this unwanted behaviour. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the consensus is for topic ban I would suggest the scope of the ban be changes to unit conversions, not contributions to for example automotive articles. I think a warning would be sufficient. If the editor says he is going to abide by consensus going forward I think that should be sufficient. I think an indefinite block is unreasonably punitive given this is an editor who is trying to make things better. A warning, if heeded, should be sufficient. @Jojhnjoy: this means you need to acknowledge that group consensus needs to accepted. If the consensus is units should be pound*feet for torque vs N*m so be it (don't change the units). However, if you feel that the current source is wrong (ie, regardless of the unit conversion, the value conflicts with a second source) then bring it up at the talk page and let people decide which source is better. I think if you agree to do those two things this a waring should be fine and this ANI can be closed. Springee (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Springee. I said earlier, that I would refrain from editing in a way that doesn't match consensus. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Also, thank you, for correcting mistakes, this entire thing is extremeley exhausting, I guess that explains it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


From the comments above it seems like a topic ban is the popular option. I suggest Jojhnjoy be prohibited from adding or changing any unit names or conversions to articles, he has agreed to stop editing against consensus. My main concern now is that I'm not sure he is able to discern when consensus has been reached, for example, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles the consensus seems clear to me and to everyone else, but not to Jojhnjoy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Stopped editing articles maybe, but the stick is still in action over here today: User talk:1292simon#Volume
Support any block or tban up to public flogging. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Support At least a topic ban. The user is still "arguing" incoherently about "units" at other user talk pages, this isn't going to go away unless prevented. -- Begoon 12:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support WP:TBAN – as nominator. Given the recent talk page activity, it looks like a full topic ban, including talk pages, will be required. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I would also support a temporary block, now that Jojhnjoy has violated the proposed tban even while the discussion is ongoing. I still think an indef block is not required, but we seem to be headed in that direction. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I cannot violate a topic ban that was just proposed but not imposed. Supporting a temporary block because of that does not make any sense to me. Rather seems like creating block arguments out of thin air. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose... but. Again I think Jojhnoy is editing in good faith but I agree he's not listening, this is the English language Wikipedia and 'cc' is a common term in the context in question across the English speaking automotive topics. It would really be a good idea to just avoid discussions of units and unit labels before a TBAN is imposed. My opposition is getting weaker because the stick is still in the hand.Springee (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Just for your info: 1292simon changed cubic centimetres to "cc". I asked them "Why do you change cm3 to cc?" This is a legitimate question since I have never heard of this cc. I looked up the SI brochure and linked, that one must not use cc for cubic centimetres. 1292simon linked this in his reply: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units, however, it says "cubic centimetre: cm3". Also, it says "cubic centimeter (U.S.): cc | Non-SI symbol used for certain engine displacements". So this means that it should be used for topics related to the United States for certain engine displacements, it does not mean that one should change cm3 which is totally okay and SI compliant in topics not related to the United States for engine displacement to something different. No rule, no consensus, they changed it in almost all articles I created (none of them related to an American topic) but refrained from changing other articles, I don't know why. That's why I asked, it was followed by a question by Andy Dingley: "Didn't you get a topic ban or something?" What is this? What do I have to think here? That one is allowed to edit all articles I created just because they dislike something I used that is covered by both Wikipedia rules and article sources? Without a consensus? In the German Wikipedia, such behaviour is considered disruptive. Maybe, the rules here are different. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You've never heard of "cc"? To refresh your memory, you brought up the subject of "cc" here: Template talk:Convert/Archive May 2017#Cubic centimetres. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you know what the difference between seeing and hearing is? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
As an uninvolved observer, I'm compelled to point out another word: "listening". I don't see where you've ever done that at all, and it seems to me that doing that could have avoided most of this. Try listening, is my recommendation. -- Begoon 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, what is the reason for spending more than one hour on changing cm3 to cc in articles of a sepcific user knowing that they wouldn't like it even though neither style guidelines nor rules nor consensus justify it? If you explain it, I shall listen. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
What Andy said, obviously. There is literally nothing anyone can say to this guy that makes any impression, he has read these words 50 times: "In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic." He will sit here until the cows come home denying the words say what the say. You can't fix that. You can't work around it, that is an insurmountable obstacle to editing. But I'm with you guys, whatever you want to try. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Well why does the first part of the sentence exist then? I understand that it wouldn't be wrong using cc, however, cm3 isn't wrong either. So what is the reason for spending so much time on changing all these from cm3 to cc? Could you explain it? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
1. Read WP:COMPETENCE. If misunderstanding English is going to cause this level of disruption, then you cannot edit in Wikipedia.
2. You were told by EIGHT (and counting) native English speakers that you were misreading it. We all make mistakes, and misunderstaning the MOS is normally not a problem, because normally editors listen to consensus. If your English is not perfect, then don't die on that hill. Don't defend to the death your opinion about a language you clearly do not fully understand.
3. How many times did you promise you wouldn't change units? How many times in the last 24 hours alone? Yet you went right ahead and started changing units. Hello?
--Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The latest cubic centimetres issue shows no respect for consensus (not to mention a request to stay off my Talk page), since the topic was already covered [57]. His claim that I made the changes "in articles of a sepcific user knowing that they wouldn't like it" shows both WP:OWN issues and a lack of WP:FAITH (I made the changes because I believe they make the articles easier to understand- whether Jojhnjoy agrees with this or not).

    I am so sick of lengthy arguments with this guy about obscure units, when he just does not listen to anyone, his strategies of victory by attrition and raising the same issue in different locations are a significant waste of other editors time. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I gave you strong evidence that your edits would not make the article easier to understand, also, even harder to understand and you ignored it. You linked to a discussion but you completely ignored the context. My proposal back then was that the template:convert would automatically change cc to cm3 since I thought this was something like ccm (something weird only few people know about for something very common usually expressed differently.) So there is no consensus that we should replace something common with something that usually must not be used. The rules for units indicate that cc could be used for certain engine displacements related to "American displacements", but on the other hand, the first thing the rule mentions is: cubic centimetre: cm3. I guess there is nothing wrong with using it and yet you change it even though there is no consensus. Also, very interesting that all the articles you changed were either created or edited by me. And worth mentioning too is that you did not change cm3 to cc in hundreds of articles I did not edit once. (Search for "cm3" in the Wikipedia search, I cannot link it here.) I think this is too obvious for coincidence. You messed up several things, for instance, you increased the displacement of the Trabant 601 by the factor 10. Such edits could be anything, but you did not increase the article quality. You made it worse (most likely not intentionally) but to me it seems like you just wanted to change it. Not to improve the quality. By the way, I did not waste more than one hour on changing cm3 to cc: 12:42 ... [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] ... 13:45. Well, if you don't want me to discuss, I shall refrain from editing your talk page. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
the first thing the rule mentions is: cubic centimetre: cm3: I designed that table so I'll you why cm3 is first, and that is that it's the most common way overall of expressing cubic centimeters, and therefore putting it first is the most logical presentation. It doesn't mean cm3 is preferred over cc in every particular context. EEng 01:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Self-reporting to avoid further escalation into multiple venues[edit]

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

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

Relevant talk is at:

Samsara 02:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, everyone
I have told administrator Samsara that I am willing to wait the protection out and that I am unwilling to file any complaint against harassment or otherwise. The sentence "Codename Lisa has suggested ANI as a venue" is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
As you can see from the diffs, I tried to close this discussion or remove it because I felt Samsara is trying to forcibly become my attorney by filling a complaint on my behalf. A couple of reverts by my fellow admins (Oshwah‎‎ and Zzuuzz) proved that nobody thinks so. Good! As long as whatever happens under thing thread is not construed as unnecessary hostile action initiated by Codename Lisa in response to a trifle in article space, I am fine: Take all the undue hostile action you want. Everyone is being unnecessarily blunt in this case... ironically, that includes me.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This report isn't really clear - what is the dispute actually about? We'll need some diffs explaining the issue, and what administrator action is being requested. It's not optimal to ask admins to go digging through a number of talk pages to figure out the problem when it's obviously clear to you and others. Black Kite (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure either. I just noticed back-and-fourth reverting here and put a stop to it. I'm talking to Codename Lisa on my talk page; I'm just trying to figure out the situation here... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Samsara - I'm being told that you've been asked by Codename Lisa not to file this ANI. She feels that you're doing so entirely on her behalf, and that she has declined and asked you not to file it. She's upset because she feels that you did so anyway and without her approval. I'm still trying to figure out what this is all about... can you help me out here? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As a named party to this I must admit to being somewhat confused myself. Windows XP is on my watchlist so when I saw an IP edit with the summary "Undid revision 791434022 by User:Codename Lisa (talk) Undo obvious COI by an editor with a long history of acting in Microsoft's interest" I checked it out. The IP had restored an edit that had been reverted by Codename Lisa, an editor of good standing with a long history of constructive editing at that, and other articles. I was aware that she had started a discussion on the talk page,[67] so I reverted the IP with the summary "Edit has been opposed - take it to the talk page",[68] seeing the IP's edit as, at best, an unwarranted personal attack. I was later surprised to see a post by Samsara on my talk page accusing me of engaging in a dispute at the article and directing me to discuss it.[69] There was no dispute, what I reverted was at best disruptive editing. Now that I am aware of the history, I see it as pure vandalism. --AussieLegend () 11:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You did participate in the dispute - you made a revert. There is no ambiguity about this. Samsara 11:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't a dispute per se, it was vandalism. We don't normally refer to vandalism, or reversion of vandalism, as a dispute. --AussieLegend () 13:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Samsara, your report is vague at best. Are you asking for a review of your actions? Then I would say protection was a little hasty, even if it was within discretion. I don't think it would be wise to revert the protection as it isn't abusive or out of policy, it just isn't the best solution, imho. I wouldn't have opened the discussion here, but you may not be aware of the full picture. There is a history of the IP stalking and bugging CL, which may be why she didn't want this report open, as it makes the problem worse. AussieLegend, those edits were not WP:VANDALism. They may have been against consensus, but vandalism is defined only as those edits which seek to undermine the encyclopedia, and that doesn't qualify. Personally, I recommend removing full protection and letting the editing process work itself out, and if needed, simply block anyone that edit wars, at this stage, I don't see a couple of reverts to be that problematic, at least not enough to force all other editors to stop editing. I almost just closed this thread, but felt adding this would be better. I wouldn't blame anyone if they did close this now. Dennis Brown - 13:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "vandalism is defined only as those edits which seek to undermine the encyclopedia". Then they are definitely vandalism, because if my memory serves me well, this person's account was originally blocked on Wikipedia for maliciously introducing inaccuracies into the articles. Materialscientist knows better though. I was not in the ArbCom case, but make no mistake, this stalker is here to undermine. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody notified Materialscientist about being mentioned here and below, so I've taken the liberty of doing so. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Geez...I didn't know that 16 year old software can cause something like this. —JJBers 19:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A clean start[edit]

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

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

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

Details: On 20 July 2017, Codename Lisa reverted a poor contribution to the Microsoft Office 2010 article: [70]. It is my personal belief that this revert is justifiable on the basis of WP:V and WP:NOR, it is also the belief of another editor, AussieLegend, that the reverted edit was "clearly inappropriate".

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

Flyboy didn't stop at the Microsoft Office 2010 article: He committed mischief in the Windows XP article ([71]: disruptive reversion) and the Windows Server 2012 article ([72]: pure vandalism). These have been addressed with the vigilance of AussieLegend and Codename Lisa, the geolocation data for the IP vandalizing the Windows Server 2012 article also tallies with our record. The Windows XP article also got locked. Please see AussieLegend's comment before this thread.

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

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

Thank you.

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

Putting myself in Codename Lisa's or AussieLegend's shoes: If someone were making reverts and edits to hound and harass me, or if I'm trying to revert such edits - I'd feel pretty frustrated to see the articles suddenly full protected followed by a message on my talk page telling me to "take the content dispute to the talk page". I that think the full protection was placed on Microsoft Office 2010 and Windows XP a bit too early, but it's somewhat explainable if Samsura genuinely thought that he was stopping a content dispute or war. Mistakes happen; shoot, I make plenty of them :-).
The issue with the article protection isn't what I'm most concerned about honestly; that can be easily sorted out and resolved - no big deal. My main concern is the fact that Codename Lisa appears to have been (and still is) the subject of long-term ongoing harassment and hounding by an anonymous user. That's a big drain on a user, especially over time. It's absolutely not acceptable, isn't something anyone should have to tolerate, and needs to be dealt with and monitored so that it stops. Codename Lisa, I'll make sure to keep eyes out for you in this regard. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nil Einne - Can you provide me the diff where Materialscientist said this? I'm not trying to take any sides or say that anyone was right or wrong; I'd like to read the discussion where this was explained so that I can understand the full context and what he was trying to explain. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm going by what was said above "(Materialscientist has warned that making this information public is against Wikipedia policies.)" I have no personal knowledge of this dispute other than what I read here.Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, I didn't keep the diff. It might even have been on IRC. Still, Oshwah is an admin. If he asks, I must give a copy, he then can publish, with his own responsibility. Is that okay?
Also, CL has received a similar warning. (I don't know from whom.) Maybe she can give a diff. In fact, it was she who made me swear not to disclose, but her wording made me realize I had received a similar warning a long time ago! (To be honest, last time an admin asked me why I don't publish it, I had no recollection of the warning and just cited CL's disagreement.) FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The dispute and the harrassment are only tangentially related - the original proponent of the edit at Windows XP has not, to my knowledge, been suggested to be part of the harrassment case. Samsara 16:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Because he probably is not! Like millions of others who edited these articles and other articles. Please, for the love of God, focus on the subject at hand. And as far as I am concerned, per WP:SILENCE, there is no dispute in the Windows XP article; just an attempted harassment, which was suppressed, no thanks to you. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes I agree with FleetCommand here. AFAICT no one is accusing User:RecentEdits of being involved in the harassment, they were probably fully entitled to make the WP:BOLD edit. But the point is CL was also fully entitled to remove the edit as part of the typical WP:BRD cycle, and CL did initiate the discussion so it's on RecentEdit or anyone else to continue the editing. I don't see anything wrong with those sequences of edits, they seem to be normal editing which doesn't raise any real WP:Edit warring concerns and don't require page protection, the problem is the IP then came along. If this was just a normal IP then yes edit warring would be a concern and all parties involved should take care and perhaps the page protection would be justified since we all know that the BRD cycle is ideal but there's no simple solution when the reverts continue after the typical BR. (I.E. Perhaps the IP shouldn't have reverted, but it's also not clear if the solution is to revert the IP.) But the issue here is that from it's claimed this isn't a normal IP but a persistent harassing sock. I don't personally see the point getting into arguments over whether or not it's vandalism, WP:DENY and WP:SOCK would fully support reverting the IP's edits without question. We don't allow de-facto? banned serially harassing socks to edit just because they're editing from dynamic IPs. This suggests page protection wasn't necessary and there isn't any real legitimate edit war. There may or may not be a legitimate dispute over the content, that's awaiting RecentEdit or someone else who isn't a serial harassing sock participating in the discussion/disagreement. AussieLegend had a point that their edits weren't necessary taking a side in the dispute, they may have simply be reverting as an uninvolved party, similar to the way an admin doesn't become involved when acting in a purely administrative capacity. I can say if I had seen the edits and was aware of the history I would probably have reverted without even considering much about the merits of the edits. Heck I may have done so and also gone to the talk page to support the actual change. Let me just repeat what I said before, serial harassing socks aren't entitled to edit. Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Heck I may have done so and also gone to the talk page to support the actual change. Based on that comment, I question your ability to impartially comment on this motion. Samsara 07:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, my! An admin resorting to personal attack! That's a new low.
And this is the same admin to whose talk page I went to talk about the Microsoft Office 2010 article; instead he rambled on about the Windows XP article. I question your ability to understand plain English.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments from banned editor removed
″I question your ability to understand plain English.″ This, as well as a general poor grasp of Wikipedia policy, appears to be the core problem of Samsara's actions here and continued hesitance to accept that they've misread the situation and made a mistake. Honestly, it demonstrates an extraordinary lack of competence. Cjhard (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't studied this particular IP, but if an IP is blocked, and another IP continues the same work, blocks and summary reverts are in order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Except that, as a quick Google search just demonstrated to me, by continuing to blindly revert without regard to content, you are creating an inaccurate encyclopedia - Windows 10 is stated by Microsoft to be a supported system for Office 2010. Whatever other motives may be attached, the IP was correct to point out that the source was not up to date and should be replaced/updated, and the "powers that be" were wrong to continue to revert. I have said before that we cannot allow abusive IPs to suppress facts. We need to be sure of our reverts instead of finding reasons to dismiss IPs. I say this not with particular regard to just this case, but to other similar cases. "Oh, he's just evil so everything he posts can be safely assumed to be wrong." just doesn't cut it as a logical argument. In fact, it's a potential vector for attacking the integrity of our material. Samsara 02:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It is good to see that you are finally commenting the correct content, as opposed to commenting on the wrong content and on contributors.
Thanks for finding this source, by the way, even though it is an ex postfacto action. I propose that I will add it to the article if you lower the protection now.
However, the burden of verification is on the person who adds or reinstates a statement. In this case, the malicious person with an IPv6; in addition, from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise. Yes, not only it is not illogical, it is part of the world's legal system, as long as the IP stalker is here to stalk, harass and vandalize, he is entitled to nothing.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Samsara: "I say this not with particular regard to just this case".
That's the core of our problem with you: You don't pay any particular regard to this case. You are analogous to a judge who treats a premeditated double murder like a land border dispute and then prides himself on being impartial whereas he is just being indiscriminate. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why it's not impartial to say you will revert an edit from a defacto banned serial harassing sock even if you support the merits of the edit? As I already said BRD generally means the edit should stay out after it's been reverted once while the discussion is ongoing. Still as I also said, edit warring on keeping the edit out if someone does decide to reinstate it is not always the solution. Even if you support the edit, it's not always the right solution for you to revert the edit while discussion is ongoing (although this is often less problematic), but when the edit clearly should not have happened under any policy or guideline because the IP is a serial harrasing troll, then reverting when that edit is perfectly justified under policy. Generally it's better if you don't have an opinion on the edit. (And frankly if I was actually involved in reverting this edit, that's what most likely would have happened as I really couldn't give a damn about the dispute.) However even if you do have an opinion, it's still perfectly justified. In any case, if you actually support the edit, there's no reason supported by any policy or even common sense to complain that you reverted the edit despite supporting it because it came from a serial harassing troll but continue the existing discussion and come out in support of the edit. Yes you're not a neutral party but you're reverting something you support and for a perfectly policy compliant reason so supporters of the edit have no good reason to complain, it's not like you're reverting in support of your POV but opposed to it, and opponents of the edit are obviously going to be glad you didn't let a serial harassing sock interfere when they shouldn't have; in the end maybe your view and that of anyone allowed to edit participating in the dicussion will win out and the edit will later be reinstated. Maybe it won't be, the point is that we don't allow serially harassing socks to get involved in editing and that was precisely my point. Even if I supported the edit, I would actually have reverted the edit while coming out in support of the edit because it's what any good wikipedian should do. (Note in case there was any confusion, I'll repeat for a second time that I don't actually care about the precise edit involved here.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. You are actually opposed to the edit, nominally you're justified in reverting it if it's from a serial harassing sock. Still to reduce controversy it is sometimes wiser to leave it for someone else who is either neutral or supportive of the edit to revert it if you think this is likely to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You "would have reverted the edit while coming out in support of the edit"? Holy shit is this place fucked! Joefromrandb (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

DagosNavy and WP:TROUBLES[edit]

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

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

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

Similar behaviour at other articles:

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

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

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

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

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

DagosNavy - May I ask about the repeated removal of that template from Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint, as pointed out in the four diffs above? Why the repeated removal? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
A clear case of argumentum ad hominem. 1RR restriction reads "one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period", so four changes within a month, none of them within the 24 hours period is immaterial, not to mention the open threads on my talk page User_talk:DagosNavy#TERRORISM-RELATED_CATEGORIES and Talk:1970 RUC booby-trap bombing per WP:BRD. In my latest edits on Troubles-related articles (Warrenpoint/Cloghoge/RUC bobby-trap bombing) I just removed a recently erased category (not empty, the category was removed by User:Ponyo), later restored by another user. By the way, no sources were provided that these ones were terrorist attacks, and WP relies on verifiable sources as far as I know.--Darius (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps Ponyo would care to clarify why they deleted the category, and whether this was due to a previously uncelebrated outbreak of peace in 1970, or else because you had just emptied the category, against a clear consensus opposing your repeated attempts to do so.
Please do not treat other editors as fools: what you're trying to do here is obvious, and that attitude is why it's now time for a TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
More ad hominem. I didn't empty anything (check my contributions page), Ponyo deleted the category (I later learned) just because it was created by a banned user. User Bastun eventually restored the category on 22 July, after my edits.--Darius (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi Dennis, thanks for your advice, may be I should became more involved in the disscussion. IMHO, however, being in the minority point of view doesn't mean that the burden of proof is on me. Lack of sources supporting this category, instead, breaches WP:VER and WP:LABEL. I promise to get more involved in the talks, thanks again.--Darius (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Being in the minority isn't always permanent, it means that you need to present a case for the change, via WP:BRD. As for sources, categories aren't really sourced, there isn't a way to cite them, they are chosen by consensus depending on if the totality of sources in the article supports the category. This is why the talk page is a must, at least 4 people disagree with your changes, so yes, the burden is on you to create a consensus that is consistent with your desired edits. That is universally true here, that is what we admin are going to look at when we have to decide if sanctions are needed, whether or not someone took the time to develop a consensus. Dennis Brown - 23:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Dennis I forgot to mention that the issue was discussed at User_talk:DagosNavy#TERRORISM-RELATED_CATEGORIES and Talk:1970 RUC booby-trap bombing. I want also to make clear that my latest removal of the category was made on the basis that it was deleted by User:Ponyo, not because my position regarding the topic.--Darius (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It was deleted for a day. You've been here almost exactly as long as I've been, you know you have to walk softly around The Troubles and other Arb restricted topics. Or if you don't, I can provide the templated links for you on your talk page, as I see no one else has. Your talk page isn't much of a discussion and the other article is a local consensus. You probably need to start an RFC if you want a wider consensus. Dennis Brown - 23:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The Troubles? EEng 02:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You're right, I will start an RFC at the appropriate moment. In the meantime, I will restrain myself from making edits regarding the definition of "terrorism" in Troubles-related pages until a wide consensus on a proper definition can be reached, always keeping in mind WP:VER and WP:LABEL, as you can see in my contributions history, I am quite busy right now with other topics (and in real life). Best regards.--Darius (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding involved editor Minimax Regret and notifying them. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am also concerned by DagosNavy's editing behaviour in regards to this issue. I would also like to point out that I have opened a discussion on this category issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Terrorism_categories. Whilst DagosNavy is clearly pushing a POV and trying to enforce it against clear opposition which violates the spirit of the Troubles AE, a centralised discussion should have taken place first. Mabuska (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Mabuska, I was not "trying to enforce it (my PoV) against clear opposition" since that clear opposition relies only on a "local consensus" as an uninvolved admin (Dennis Brown) stressed on 23 july (see above). And I am not a PoV warrior, since I have largely explained that my position is supported by WP:VER and WP:LABEL. I will restrain myself, however, from challenging that "local" or loose consensus, until a wider consensus on the definition of "terrorism" can be formed, as I have already stated on 22 July.--Darius (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You keep citing policy without explaining how it applies in each situation. WP:LABEL does not vindicate your position unless it meets certain criteria and that is dubious as you don't spell out how it applies which would help when several editors are reverting you. I note at the recently opened discussion you didn't try to argue how it applies especially in response to my highlights of key phrases of the policy. Mabuska (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not think there is a consensus, I think Darius is pushing a more neutral tone while you and some others are inserting words like "terrorism" and "murder" into articles in a POV fashion. Darius is the one seeking a more neutral, consensus Wikipedia then a faction wishing to insert these POV terms. As I have noted in other places, it would be NPOV for you to say "Theresa May called this terrorism", it is POV to say "It is an indisputable objective fact that this is terrorism". Minimax Regret (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Minimax your relative newness to this topic is plain to see: DagosNavy has not sought consensus on this issue at all as far as I can see and until you became involved via arguing with Bastun, DagosNavy is the only editor (excluding Apollo for obvious reasons) who truely objects to the addition of fully valid categories; None of the editors here added the categories or article names in dispute in the first place so that part of your argument is irrelevant and misleading; Your position does not match that of DagosNavy who as far as I can tell accepts usage of the term terrorism in regards to IRA attacks on civilians. If I am wrong please correct me; Indeed you instigated an edit-war over the namespace of Murder of Jean McConville which it has stood at without argument since moved in 2013 by a completely different editor! Yet you claim that we are only now trying to add it to the article namespace! You are edit-warring without consensus and citing falsehoods!
It is hardly violating NPOV to call a spade a spade when a proscribed terrorist organisation that carried out a widely accepted and acknowledged terrorist campaign is labelled terrorist. Rather you have highlighted your own POV on the issue. Mabuska (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Repeated misuse of minor edit box[edit]

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

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

@Antidiskriminator:, I consider these to be minor edits. If you don't agree, you can always edit the articles or leave me a message on my talk page. I don't see how this translates to "advancing my position", for instance, have another look at this diff, it is a cleanup, you should thank editors for housekeeping activities. Best regards and good luck! -Mondiad (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No, these are NOT minor edits, and if you think they are you simply need to stop marking any edits at all as minor. The cost of mistakenly marking an edit minor is way higher than the benefit of correctly marking one, so in your case just stop doing it. If you keep this up the community will have very little tolerance. EEng 01:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Please study WP:MINOR because "minor" has a special meaning at Wikipedia. Do not mark edits as minor unless they fully comply with WP:MINOR which yours do not. Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with everyone else. These are clearly not minor edits in the wikipedia context. While you're free to personally believe something is or isn't a minor edit, you need to only use the minor edit flag when it's considered a minor edit in the en.wikipedia context as per the info page above. If you're unwilling or unable to learn what a minor edit is in the en.wikipedia context, you should just refrain from using the tag. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of piling on, I looked at those edits and they are definitely not minor. While we don't have the ability to block and editors use of the flag inappropriately, sometimes I wish we did. Either familiarize yourself with the meaning of the term or just cease using the flag completely.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Mondiad Taking in consideration that after multiple explicit warnings and explanations and even after you are reported here you still insist that you did nothing wront stating: I consider these to be minor edits I am afraid that this can be seen as WP:IDHT behaviour. Instead to acknowledge issues with your editing you cherry-picked one diff to prove you are never advancing your position. Why didn't you picked the first diff I presented (diff) in which you deleted cited text which was subject of disupte and which removal has been reverted a couple of days before with this diff? In order to remove the text you did not like from the lede of that article, you masked your edit as minor. This is only one of many edits you did to advance your position by masking them as minor. This is not an issue of mistakenly using minor edit box, this is repeated misuse of minor edit box to advance your POV, acting like WP:IDHT and WP:CHERRYPICKING. There is no doubt you indend to continue with it untill somebody stops you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator Can you prove that Mondiad misused minor edit flag to advance their POV as you claim? I have seen other editors to mark as minor edits changes that are not really so, it is widespread and most of them have never been reported in this place. Many editors use it in every change they think is not controversial and can not cause disputes. You reported for the same thing another Albanian editor some months ago. There you were told that "there's no need to stir up drama". Do you remember that? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Flag waving faillacy. You want to present this report as ethnicity motivated, its not me who pretends not to understand that it is forbidden to mask major edits as minor, even after repeated warnings and explanations. Its not me who stirs up drama by demonstrating blatant WP:IDHT behaviour; in the first diff I presented and in my last comment above I clearly pointed to the example of diff which shows that Mondiad made a controversial major edit and masked it as minor to advance his position.
I obvously gave a clear explanation in this report because many other editors obviously share my opinion and continued with their efforts to explain to Mondiad that he was wrong. Unfortunatelly he continues to refuse to get the point blaming other editors instead (diff). What he did is wrong. How can anybody adress the tags he put if he masks his edits as minor (diff) You are free to disagree. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


  • STOP! At this point we needn't get into motives. I note that Mondiad has made 5 edits since commenting in this thread, and marked none of them minor. Unless there's further trouble along these lines, there's no need for further comment here. Let's leave this thread open a few days just to see. Report any "minor" problems back here. (signed) He-who-pours-oil-on-troubled-waters aka EEng 21:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Puppet Disruptive editing[edit]

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

What is the problem with their edit? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2600:1008:b100::/41 is definitely Starbucks6789 (talk · contribs). could be, too. is probably Leviathan648 (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I just applied semi-protection on the article for one week. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Just looked at the ip address location and I can confirm that me nor are puppets of Leviathan648. (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by GetSomeUtah ‎[edit]

GetSomeUtah has been engaged in Tendentious editing and deleted "Iranian" from the profiles of many Iranian-Swedish individuals without giving sufficient reasons. Discussions with him does not prevented these disruptive edits. Examples of his disruptive behavior is provided in the following: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] Nochyyy (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

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

− −

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

− −

It has also been obvious in my contribution log since my interactions with David Eppstein that I have ceased and desisted on all things Iranian. Please...for those who want to turn all things Swedish into "Iranian-Swedish," please have it, and I will not stand in your way. I have demonstrated that. If admins feel I am not contributing to Wikipedia, then say so, and I will leave, but don't set people up to watch and revert everything I do and then label it "disruptive editing" or, as Eppstein does, just revert without any comment in the entry at all. Best regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I reverted some of your other arbitrary edits, here[105] you removed cited information without any convincing explanations. You claim that people who have born and raised in Iran and have Iranian names and now reside in Sweden are not "Iranian" without giving any reason, that shows you do your edits based on your personal bias not based on facts. By the way other users warned about your disruptive edits. Nochyyy (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
NB @GetSomeUtah: Notice was provided before you posted here, although, in your defense, it was posted out of chronological order, so you may have missed it. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Nochyyy: I have only looked at the first edit you reverted. I see an article about an individual born in Sweden who was characterized as Iranian-Swedish, but without a reliable source. What was wrong with that edit?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Family name is iranian and there are several sources indicating he is Iranian [106][107][108]. If a page does not include a source, "a citation needed" remark is sufficient. Nochyyy (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Do we have guidelines on the use of hyphenated nationalities?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
You opened this by giving examples of edits without reasons. The edit I looked at contained a reason. Perhaps it can be sourced. Let's not debate whether there are adequate sources, that's a content dispute which belongs elsewhere, let's narrowly discuss your claim that the edit was wrong because it did not have a reason, it did. (I would like to know more about our guidelines in this area was I haven't spent much time with the issue but I see that it is often contentious.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Nochyyy: David Eppstein expressed some concern with these types of edits here And pointed out a potential misunderstanding here. If your multiple examples are in chronological order, all of them precede the admonition by Eppstein; in my opinion this issue should be closed and only raised if the behavior continues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Take this example [109], the reason is "If he fled Iran and has adopted a Swedish identity and citizenship, he is no longer Iranian", so whenever somebody fled their country and go to exile, they no longer citizens of their homeland? This one [110] she came to Sweden when she was 17, and before that she was living in Iran according to the page, suddenly she is not Iranian any more? almost all these people have been born in Iran, had Iranian parents, some of them active in Iranian affairs, just because they reside in Sweden, they are not Iranian any more? Black people in USA after centuries still called Afro-Americans. These edits are completely biased, GetSomeUtah still defends her behaviour and just claims that only one of his edits was wrong Nochyyy (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This is ANI - It is not a place to debate content this is a place to discuss editor actions. You claimed that an editor made changes without giving sufficient reasons, the first one I looked at gave a sufficient reason. I subsequently noted that all of the examples occurred prior to an editor urging them to stop and they have. Why are we here?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick:This was a large scale tendentious behavior that disrupted many pages, there should be some consequences for this kind of behavior. He did that for several days and never even used talk page, just deleted contents.Nochyyy (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Just as an aside, but some people in this debate may have overlooked that per MOS:BLPLEAD, the lead sentence should routinely include the subject's nationality, not their ethnicity. So, unless the person in question actually maintains a double citizenship, ethnic Iranian heritage should in most cases be irrelevant for the lead sentence. Fut.Perf. 08:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In most cases, these people were born and raised in Iran, so they are citizens of Iran. Nochyyy (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggest Boomerrang if OP doesn't drop this[edit]

This was resolved (albeit spmewhat poorly) before it was brought here, yet OP os still insisting on some kind of sanction, which would only be punitive at this point, on top of that edits like this constitute blatant hounding. (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked other edits of GetSomeUtah ‎and in this case, he deleted some sentences for arbitrary reasons. Nochyyy (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal tone on a talk page[edit]

Would some admin please review the behaviour at Talk:William Lane Craig --Epipelagic (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning: Discussion employs words like threeness and whichness. EEng 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I actually find it mesmerizing to witness effectiveness of diversionary tactics employed in the talk page, of which this report is a perfect example. Ditch 02:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a bit of a mess. Special:Diff/791942283 is unacceptable and I've left a warning at their talk page. However, I'm also struggling to see anything constructive that you've added to that section, either. GoldenRing (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I took a look at each edit left at Talk:William Lane Craig by Approaching. Apart from the last thing said here (which, yes, can be seen upon as quite uncivil), I actually believe that Approaching was quite patient up to that point and did his best to ask questions and explain things - sometimes repeatedly. It's not easy to keep cool at times and frustrations can certainly boil; we've all seen it happen. I think that leaving him a simple reminder to try and not let frustrations dictate what is said to others - is the best way to handle this situation. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
If you looked only at edits made by Approaching then you saw only part of what was going on. User Approaching edits also under the name BabyJonas. Beyond that, this issue goes deep into the archives. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Epipelagic: You need to stop saying "User Approaching edits also under the name BabyJonas" as though it's a problem. It's not even accurate, let alone a problem. User: BabyJonas was renamed to User:Approaching in October. There is nothing untoward about that. Keep bringing it up and you're headed for a block for casting aspersions. GoldenRing (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Threatening a block for casting aspersions? I was not making an issue here out of the different user names. By "this issue" I meant the issue of this thread, the personal tone of the talk page, the contributions made by User:Approaching were made under two user names, so Oshwah could not fairly assess what was happening without examining the contributions under both names, and ideally going deeper into the archives. That is a simple fact, not casting aspersions. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Epipelagic: Then perhaps you would like to explain this? GoldenRing (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Very well. I was talking to another editor, and invited him to examine for himself what was going on. I said: "In the archives you will find Bill the Cat and Approaching (along with his sock, BabyJonas) are just two members of a dedicated group (including a number of SPAs and possible other socks) that controls the article in this manner."
The control I'm referring to is the manner in which attempts to add any critical comment is constantly knocked back. I'll give you some diffs if you want, but it's probably easier and clearer to just scan the archives in context. If you look at the revision history statistics, here and here, you will find that since 2009 Bill the Cat 7 has contributed to the talk page 118 times and the article 79 times, and since 2013 Approaching has contributed to the talk page 85 times and to the article 29 times. That shows a measure of long term dedication, some SPAs or near SPAs, focused almost wholly on pro-Christian/anti-atheist POVs, are here and here. Then there are the single purpose IPs that conveniently emerge at times when there is pressure to include something that might be critical of Craig, that raises the issue of possible socks. They are easy to locate, but I'll point you to some if you want. I made an error when I referred to Approaching as having a type of sock, since he was editing under two user names, it didn't occur to me that Approaching had formally changed his user name. Had Approaching just told me it would have ended the matter. I apologise to Approaching for the error. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Epipelagic says "Had Approaching just told me it would have ended the matter." I want to draw attention to when he was first told on the 16th , and after being told, how he continued to cast aspersions on the 17th.
On the issue of socks, SPAs and control: (a) I am not working in concert with anybody, (b) User:Epipelagic should invite the accounts he accuses into the discussion (per the rules). (c) The extent of my control on the article was to disagree with the tone and content of some of the critical edits, and foster dialogue on acceptable and unacceptable criticism. I'm happy to go into further detail if needed. Approaching (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Thank you for apologising. The user themselves explained this to you nine days ago, but you dismissed the idea as "eccentric." I think it's time you stepped away from that article. GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Epipelagic, I hope, in the event that I ever need to apologise to you, that I'll be able to do so with more grace, and less deflection than you did on this occasion. Nevertheless, it's good that you did apologise for your mistake; in other news, that talk page is an absolute festival of people on both "sides" trying to hide behind superficial, faux civility to be objectively "nasty" and "score points". It would be lovely if that could stop. -- Begoon 11:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Well in his explanation he just said it was permissible for him to change his user name. He didn't say he had it officially changed, which is entirely another matter. I just thought it very strange that he thought he could use different names as they took his fancy. And I agree that page is an utter nightmare, and I'm happy to leave it to its fate. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, but you've been here far longer than me, and I know we both know where to look before throwing "sock" comments around. "Sorry" was good, and loses no face. "Sorry, but..." is what my teenage daughter says in similar circumstances. (Not a lecture, just an opinion.) -- Begoon 11:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick point: Unless I am completely mis-reading things, The Baby Jonas --> Approaching name change occurred in October 2016, however, the user apparently continued signing posts as Baby Jonas until mid-May 2017, when, within the same discussion, suddenly the same user (in the middle of a discussion thread) began signing his name as "Approaching." Let me be clear that I am not saying anything was done wrong or against policy- people do all kinds of funny things with their signatures. I am just saying that I could see how it might be confusing, especially happening in the middle of a discussion thread with no mention made of the change. Ditch 22:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: Thank you for absolving me on this. It's quite harrowing when another editor goes about calling me a sockpuppet, ignoring explanation, and smearing me in public discussion, but I'm not the only victim of this. He has also targeted others on the page, who he calls "single purpose accounts". Getting User:Epipelagic to stop such hostile insinuations will go a long way towards improving the atmosphere on the page. Approaching (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, to many respondents, for their fair-mindedness. It has been frustrating, as User:Oshwah has noticed, that talk page has been made unnecessarily toxic to the point of borderline harassment. I pursued advice on resolving this issue elsewhere, but to no avail. I'm going to try a different approach, and I hope to see a real change on that page. Approaching (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Breach of restrictions by Kautilya3[edit]

No violation. --regentspark (comment) 14:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kautilya3 was placed on a casting aspersions restriction in July 2016. Kautilya3 has transgressed this restriction with his repeated casting of aspersions on wiki editor Samm19 that Sam is a sock even though SPI had already settled that the user is not a sock and Kautilya3 also accepted that.

Kautilya3 also got this restriction from User:Lord Roem that they cannot even attempt to bring in any user’s nationality even if their nationality is stated, the notice says failure to abide by this would result in an immediate block.

But Kautilya3 has failed to abide by it. One example is this. Kautilya3 says to a Pakistan based user that they are "Going gung ho about Pakistani POV"

There are other instances too where this user has violated their ban (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • There is no substance in this complaint. Yes, Kautilya is under certain restrictions, but the edits presented here do not violate those restrictions; in the first diff [111] Kautilya is merely stating that some sockpuppets in recent times have been able to dodge the CU; this is a phenomenon others, including myself, have also commented on. He is therefore asking about a behavioral evaluation, this is understandable; the CU only checks for technical, not behavioral, similarities. The second diff [112] is likewise misleading; the comment about "Pakistani POV" is not a general comment on Samm19's editing, but a reference to a specific discussion begun by Samm19. So no issues here. Indeed under the circumstances Kautilya is remaining remarkably civil, and providing useful advice, while being accused of POV-pushing by a relative newbie. Vanamonde (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Insulting behavior by editor[edit]

Boldly closing. We may not have a Statute of Limitations, but there's no way a case built on (minimum of) ten-day old "evidence" and with no activity from the accused since, is going anywhere- except, perhaps, back on the filer, if it is perceived as overly tendentious. Good faith leads me to assume the filer has misread the timestamps of the diffs they present. If there was any cogently-reasoned case actually presented that this was indeed a preventative rather than punitive request it might gain more traction; it isn't, so of course, so it won't. (non-admin closure)fortunavelut luna 09:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Cassianto has been repeatedly uncivil, indeed insulting and abusive (e.g. here, here, here, here, and here, "try and engage your brain when responding to comments" etc), in a discussion about the need to have an infobox in a certain article. Although the issue is evidently of no great substance but rather one of format & appearances, it seems to elicit extreme reactions from many editors. -The Gnome (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Am I missing something? Cassianto hasn't edited since July 14 and is currently under a self-requested block. Has something changed that I am not aware of?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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


I've blocked for WP:NOTHERE reasons. only (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newly registered user created an article about herself via Gabriella Balcells and was trying to remove speedy deletion tags, she also placed her personal photo in articles Daytona Beach, Florida and Virginia Tech. See photo edits: [113] and [114], the user has been appropriately warned for all the edits but no response. Someone resolve this please. Thank you! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII - The article has been deleted. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Supreme Dragon[edit]

No action is required at this time. If relevant disruption continues, action can be taken in the future. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That was one long title. —JJBers 18:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Supreme_Dragon using "retired" template to potentially evade final warning or blocking and the use of archives seem to hide recent relevant activity on the talk page.

[[115]] All User Contributions between (19 February 2017 to 23 July 2017); [[116]] "Archive 1" (19 March 2017 to 21 July 2017)

Here [[117]] "Archive 2" has 4 entries total, all on the same day (23 June 17):

    entry 1 states, "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your last warning Moxy (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)"

5 minutes later...

    entry 2 states, "Copyright violations are a very serious issue on Wikipedia, "Cutting back" is not acceptable, unless your goal is to be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:29, 23 July 2017                   (UTC)"

27 minutes later...

    entry 3 states, "In this edit you changed the birth place from Lithuanian SSR to Lithuania. This is in direct contradiction to the outcome of an RfC you started yourself. Please self revert this edit; in case you have made the same kind of change elsewhere, please also revert them. --T*U (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)" See RFC here [[118]]

10 minutes later...

    entry 4 states, "You are still marking many edits as minor when they most definitely are not. This has now been mentioned to you several times, so there is no excuse for not knowing. Please stop this now! --T*U (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)"

92 minutes later...

    the 2nd archive is born (at 17:38) here [[119]]

3 minutes later...

    a retirement [[120]]

I wanted to use the talk page to notify this User about the possible vandalism here [[121]] This change should have been suggested first on the Flag of Tibet Talk page.

A ri gi bod (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Checking... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Done checking; see my response below.
Well, this user does appear to be moving everything from his talk page and into subpages (archives) of it; I don't yet see where he's tried to delete any talk page messages or warnings in the middle of his "transfer". I also don't see any blatant vandalism at the diff you provided here - can you explain exactly what changes were made here that you believe may be vandalism? I want to make sure I didn't miss something. Also, I see that this user's last edits were made yesterday, on the 23rd of July. Whether or not he chooses to stay retired is his choice, and definitely beyond the scope of what I can do here, as it stands, this account isn't blockable due to the inactivity with editing, as well as the fact that I see no violations of policy since the user was last warned. For this to change, I'll need to see both happen. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't look good, block? (I guess it's fine now. —JJBers 00:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)) But the last thing looks fine, adding a infobox is ok. — 18:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't seem actionable to me. He can retire and archive as he sees fit, from what I can tell, he did stop the copyright issues after being told to stop, unless I'm missing something. only (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Closing time? —JJBers 00:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Sir Charles Forbes (disambiguation)[edit]

Page created. NealeFamily, if you need help with anything else, you can message me on my talk page any time. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am wanting to create a disambiguation page for Sir Charles Forbes because there a several uses for the name, but this requires Admin consent. I have a draft of the content saved in my sandbox should you wish to review it first. NealeFamily (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

NealeFamily - Sir Charles Forbes isn't protected. You should be able to create it without issue. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Vandalism, personal attacks in edit summary[edit]

Blocked indefinitely by Admin Acroterion (non-admin closure)JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barbiegirl303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been adding some unsourced info here and there. When reverted and told about the need for a source, the user responds with this, it seems the user is also a sockpuppet, as their behavior is identical with that described in WP:KIDSTVDATES, and coincides with similiar IPs and other relatively new accounts[122], who also seem to respond with insults when reverted. Basically, whoever's behind all these accounts does legitimate edits and mixes them in with subtle vandalism. Eik Corell (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Immediate indef for racist edit summary cited above. We don't need this, and people who do it need no second chances. John from Idegon (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed on indef - if an edit summary needs to be redacted due to racism, there's a clear WP:NOTHERE issue - never mind the sheer lack of any kind of activity from them on their user talk page! Twitbookspacetube 09:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Indeffed. Probably a long-term abuse case, one of many in that topic area. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for diff(s)[edit]

Arthur Rubin, an admin, has accused me of "lying" (and/or "misstatements" etc) on half a dozen or more occasions, along with stating that I'm incapable of understanding basic English a couple of times. This relates to the curious case of the legitimacy of the official Wikipedia guideline status of WP:RY. [123] [124], [125], [126], [127]. He has then accused me of redacting the claim I made which he found so outrageous; in all cases, I have asked at least eleven times for diffs of the "lies" and the subsequent "redaction". [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] Rubin has stated that he will only present diffs in a formal setting, so this is it, simply a request for him to provide the diff(s) of my "outright lies" and the diff(s) of my "redaction" of said outright lies. I had hoped it wouldn't need a trip to the drama board to sort this out but apparently not. Other editors appear to have made direct and overt statements calling the status of this guideline into question, yet they have not been subject to similar accusations from Rubin. Now I know this is going to spiral out of all control, because this is Wikipedia, this is ANI and I'm TRM, but I'd like, just for once, to focus on the matter at hand please. Other corollary issues which I'm sure will be brought up to divert from this should be placed in their own section, this thread needs to focus on whether this is appropriate behaviour from an admin since such unfounded accusations easily constitute personal attacks and since so many unresolved requests for evidence easily constitute a failure of WP:ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • As a reminder for anyone who wants to look into this. WP:NPA is policy and defines as personal attacks (amongst other things) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed. I'd like to see this complaint addressed on its merits alone, without the usual "spiral[ling] out of all control" - if at all possible. -- Begoon 12:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    Going even further, I'd suggest that other commenters hold back until Arthur Rubin has had a chance to present his response. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of these go back to the beginning of July and might be considered stale at this time, the most recent diff were from July 19th, Arthur Rubin;s been editing as of yesterday. I would still like to hear his side, however, considering all of the diffs are fairly old, unless there's some pretty damning evidence, I'd move to close this as punative.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
KV, it's a continual mystery to me why you make this kind of post when you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. You used to have a sanction against doing so, I think. Has it expired? If so, please point me to where you were permitted to behave like this again so that I can properly object. Begoon 15:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you actually read the complaint? The diffs are showing repeated requests from TRM for Arthur Rubin to provide the evidence required, they're not "stale". Honestly, I agree with Begoon - don't comment here if you don't understand what the issue is. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Too many edit conflicts. I'll reply when I have some time at home, in about 21 hours. Diffs will also show that I told him I could only generate the diff links when I'm on my desktop, that I considered his talk page and ANI the only appropriate place to put them, and that I offered to give him the diffs on his talk page, but he had previously "banned" me from his tall page, and refused to "allow" me to post the list on his talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I will also provide diffs which show that he considers any editor who disagrees with him WP:BULLYing, and that his demand for my not using his talk page was caused by my giving him credit for pointing out problems, and posting requests to fix them in the proper venues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I had a longer reply, but I had edit conflicts, and I cannot easily recover it on my desktop. I also attempted to redact TRM's identity from the complaint, but I further alleged that the misstatements require an admin close for an RfC in Talk:2017; further redaction would make my request for an admin close meaningless. I shouldn't have named TRM as the liar in that venue, but having done so, further redaction is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, the point is that you refused to supply links for the past week or two yet continued to promote this "outright lying" campaign at most venues you could. You didn't need a "formal location" for such diffs, any location you chose to repeat the personal attacks would have been fine. You have certainly been able to respond quicker, and per ADMINACCT, you have failed in that duty. Per NPA, you have also repeatedly attacked me at various venues across Wikipedia with your accusations of (a) me "lying" and (b) me "redacting the lie" while (c) allowing a number of other editors to apparently say the things you accused me of without any recourse. How odd. And yes, as I noted, you'll be attempting to divert scrutiny over your failure of admin duties by providing other spin, do that in another thread because this is simply about your refusal to supply evidence to support the many personal attacks you have made despite multiple requests, per NPA and ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. You have had weeks to get this information together, yet you abjectly refuse. That's not good enough, with your selected attacks on me across multiple venues without evidence, you should resign your mop immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
More nonsense. Your personal attacks against me are quite relevant as to why I didn't redact complaints about your editing, which I posted in the wrong venue. I am willing to apologize for posting them to the wrong venue; however, absurd statements being made about the content and status of WP:RY at Talk:2017 require an admin close of the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Who said anything about personal attacks on you? The only issue being dealt with here is your refusal to supply diffs for weeks and weeks despite you using every venue across Wikpiedia to personally attack me. I'm not interested in your "redactions", I'm interested in your evidence that I "lied" and your evidence that "I redacted that lie" and your reasoning for not supplying this evidence for at least two weeks and your abuse of your position. Now then, I don't care about RY, I don't care about "venues", I care about NPA and ADMINACCT. Address those issues please, and stop trying to obfuscate the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, a couple of things about the ability (or lack of) to post "diffs". Firstly, I tried it tonight, while walking, with a three-year-old iPhone, and copied a diff to my sandbox in around thirty seconds. Secondly, I recommended to you that you seek technical help with accumulating and posting diffs, from someone with the capability to do it in a timely fashion. Thirdly, it would have been so simple to just say "your lie is found at page X with date/timestamp Y". Yet, despite your position as an admin, your requirements per ADMINACCT, your obligation per NPA, you refused to do any of these for more than two weeks, so here we are, wondering why you should be an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, it's time to stop this thread, before it does indeed "spiral out of control". I strongly suggest that comments stop until Arthur Rubin posts his response, as he has above said he will do sometime tomorrow, at that point, either his response will show that he has or has not any evidence for his comments about TRM. At that point, we can continue forwards. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    Sure, so Rubin has had two weeks to post a response and refused to do so. I just wanted others to know that I had given him many, many options on how to proceed before we ended up at the drama boards. Yet again, it needs to be assessed in the context of his position as an admin. And now we wait while he gets to pick when and how he wants to continue. Bravo. 20:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talkcontribs)
  • That's fine - if he doesn't post a response tomorrow, then the situation can also continue forwards. But there is nothing to be gained from a continual back-and-forth between the two of you with no useful outcome, frustrating as it might be for you. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the point has been missed. It's clear from Rubin's edit history that he has been online here every single day since my first request to provide evidence to substantiate his personal attack, he didn't, he hasn't, he's repeated the same attacks across Wikpiedia. It's now actually too late to apologise, redact etc, what we're examining here is his abuse of position, NPA violations and ADMINACCT fail, that needs nothing more from him. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing battle result quilifier[edit]

The user User:Appah Rao is systematically removing qualifiers (e.g. Decisive) from the battle infobox result line, he sometimes claims to be "Removing unsourced content" and other times just removes them with no explanation. Examples of this conduct are: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The use of these qualifiers has been a long-standing practice on Wikipedia and although they are not quoted from one reference they agree and summarize the whole article, there has been no discussion of removing such qualifiers from Wikipeida (to my knowledge and user own justification is the lack of source not general practice agreed upon).

I did not contact the user because I have long ago decided not to engage in disputes with other wikipedians, but he has changed an article that I have created and done the principle work on with no substantial contribution from anyone else and I can't walk away from it because a single user has decided to systematically change Wikipedia's practice by his own whim.--DelftUser (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

DelftUser, communication with other users on content disputes is not optional. The fact that you created the article is irrelevant, it is not yours and you are required to either edit it collaboratively with other editors, or not edit it at all. SeeWP:OWN. When unreferenced content is challenged, it must either be sourced or removed. See WP:BURDEN. Further this noticeboard is for reporting behavioral issues with other editors, that is a risky path for you to be taking, because from this viewing the only editor that is behaving inappropriately is you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This case definitely doesn't belong in ANI. All for "decisive", it's not sourced nor is it important. It's more of a WP:PEACOCK word. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@DelftUser: I recommend asking for input from WP:MILHIST. "Decisive" has specific meaning in describing battles, and they would be able to offer more details on that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, as Nihonjoe pointed out, it's a common usage in military history that describes a significant outcome which effectively ends one phase of the conflict. This is why there are many decisive battles throughout history, particularly when attrition warfare is not an option. Alex ShihTalk 16:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked yesterday, editor returns today using different IP[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP's blocked, and article semi-protected. —JJBers 19:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: was blocked yesterday for disruptive editing & today returned using User:, proof: edits made to articles Green beret and Maroon beret using those two IPs, I can't make heads or tails about this user. Ape89 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I recommend the IPs be blocked for a full year. If more socks appear, block them and protect the article or articles etc. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I blocked the latest block-evading IP for two weeks as it is dynamic and it only has one edit. Articles semi-protected.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

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

User recreating articles[edit]

(non-admin closure) Editor blocked, and article salted. MarnetteD|Talk 21:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gabbartmarketing (talk) has created the article Gabbart Communications several times recently despite the page being speedy deleted. Their Username implies possible COI. Requesting appropriate action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The article page in question has been salted since my posting.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks SamHolt6 as always. User is blocked and the article salted. Alex ShihTalk 21:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Uncivil editing by User:Roy Bateman[edit]

In June, Roy started this topic stating his concerns about grasshoppers and Caelifera. Chiswack Chap relied and addressed his concerns. Rather than continue the conversion and gain a consensus, Roy continued to split the two articles. I reverted and told him to get a consensus first and not edit war. However, he continued to revert, he eventually went back to the talkpage but I reverted his changes since the discussion was still going and he did not establish consensus. Others were asked to give their opinion and it was decided that grasshopper and Caelifera should be the same article.

Now a month later, Roy went against the consensus and split the articles again. I reverted and left a message informing him that he should ask for more opinions from Wikiproject Insects before making changes and warned him that he will be reported, he continued to revert again and again. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

LittleJerry has now made 3 deletions of my work in 24 hours (3RR - again!), so I suggest that it is he who is being uncivil (also see this). The word "consensus" has been much used, but seems to me that the scientific consensus is very clear - (i) the term Caelifera is a valid taxon and internationally recognised as such and (ii) the term "grasshopper" is not synonymous with Caelifera and therefore it is inappropriate to turn the latter into a redirect page, this creates a situation that is both taxonomically and logically false: effectively turning 'pygmy mole crickets' into 'grasshoppers'. I suggest that two editors, both working under pseudonyms, "deciding" that it should be otherwise are promoting half-truths that is potentially damaging to WP.
The first paragraph above is also misleading: you will note that I have continued the conversation (more than is sensible perhaps) and at least one other editor, Cwmhiraeth thought that the separate Caelifera page was appropriate and kindly made an edit - before LJ deleted it! I also noted that the page Acrididea existed and provides a satisfactory resolution of this issue - effectively being the taxonomic equivalent to 'grasshoppers' and inserted this into the grasshopper article (with reference). However, this was also deleted by LittleJerry - who appears to be the self-appointed censor for both this and the Caelifera pages - I object. Roy Bateman (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Roy Bateman, scientific consensus is not what we use here at Wikipedia. We use reliable sources and consensus among editors. If you are running counter to either of those, you are wrong. There have been many users who edit here who fail to understand that distinction. If you cannot abide by Wikipedia's rules, then you shouldn't be editing. "Your work" is not yours, but Wikipedia's. The one damaging Wikipedia is you. --Tarage (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Uh, what? Scientific consensus is all that we use here. To say anything contrary to that is the antithesis of WP, that said, Roy seems to be trying to make an unnecessary differentiation. Caelifera are pretty much universally called grasshoppers in English. Acrididea is already listed as a superfamily of Caelifera in the article. Which are often called grasshoppers anyway so I'm not understanding Roy's attempts to split the article. Capeo (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is marvelous because it includes Criticism of Wikipedia - but read the second paragraph. Roy Bateman (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not considered to be a "reliable source" even within Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I never said that. However, editing against consensus is not okay, wouldn't you agree? --Tarage (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
You didn't say it. Bateman referred to it, as to user concensus, has Bateman provided any good sourcing for his contentions about what the international scientific community supposedly believes, or are you supposed to take his word for it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Chiswick Chap has provided reliable, authoritative sources which treat Caelifera and grasshoppers as synonymous. Roy Batemen has not provided evidence for his "consensus", he has also provided no sources that state only Acridoidea are grasshoppers, only those which simply support the validity of the clade. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)