Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Rather than this man acknowledging his blunders and promising to stop doing them, he starts namecalling, using the word "joker", thereby committing one more violation against WP:CIVIL.69.204.2.184 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 "raceandhistory.com" in order to try to support a position of yours? If so, why did you do this? Also, do you consider the source raceandhistory.com 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 raceandhistory.com 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)

• Comment I hope to dig into this in greater detail, but at the moment it seems to be a slight over-reaction. I do not think a topic ban should be applied where a lesser remedy will suffice. In this case, plenty of evidence has been provided demonstrating that Nadir Ali is a prolific edit-warrior; in which case, the logical step would be to place him under a 1RR restriction. To justify a topic ban I would need to see more evidence that their edits are unconstructive in and of themselves. The claim about raceandhistory.com is concerning, but very little substantive evidence has been provided that there is a recurring problem of competence or inappropriate sourcing. Vanamonde (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Please review Light2021's behaviour at AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous blocks

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

Personal attacks and uncollegial hostility

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing

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

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

Here are recent instances of canvassing:

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

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

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

Reverting AfD closes

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

Tag bombing

Light2021 frequently tag bombs articles. Here are several examples:

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

Declined speedy deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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 damage}⁄_berate 19:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• "altogether it does give me the impression that he doesn't really know what he's doing and his edits probably need watching closely, but I'm really not sure the good parts of his editing justify this." – well said. Many of the same concerns here were mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 and the same disruptive editing continues to happen eight months later.

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

User: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 damage}⁄_berate 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. –Davey2010^Talk 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)
    • And this continues to make my point. Those of you saying that his toxic behavior is worth it because he rapidly identifies and deletes so much bad content, ask yourselves if the site is better because of him. How many editors will he drive away? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • These attacks are continuing here. Here is an excerpt from Light2021's longer post:

        I think eventually this pathetic Paid Keep army will win the race, and Wikipedia will become another PR host and eventually a threat to biggest notable source of knowledge. These contributors make the reputation participating on random discussions so it will look neutral, and get paid for their work with all corporate spams. No doubt some of the admins are also involved. This dirt can not just come from users alone. Do not want to name any admins here. This is corruption of high level.

        AfDs participants like TimTempleton and me are not part of a "pathetic Paid Keep army". We are volunteer editors.

        Cunard (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow you read and twist everything he says in the worst possible light. There is no personal attack there. He is commenting on the state of paid editing that is introducing unrelenting spam here. Many editors share these concerns. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • • • Sorry, If I am too blunt and direct. This is humiliations of my work and contributions. I Must speak clearly here. I have to write this. I have to defend my dignity as a contributor also whether he likes me or not. Here is the the complete thought, which has been selectively presented with Quote. Seems like a disturbance to someone. I have never used Cunard or anyone's name. Why they are so much bothered if they are just contributors here? and why making Personal attack? As far as I can see this ANI is dedicated to Cunard where from my past contributions to present he has given so much work. He covered 70-80% of this ANI. I do not understand his problems with me personally, there are several people who disagree to me, but I also accept my part, No one is doing or making such ridiculous attacks as he is doing. I also disagree or agree with people. I am not making such attacks as I have been accused of. Deliberately going on every AfD I have done, making irrelevant lengthy commentary just for the sake of it. Evidently clear by other contributors also, he does not know what he is copying or pasting or from which source? where I can be wrong, but this is way beyond anything and personal attack. One Good Question to ask, has he ever ever made a Delete comment on any of my AfD, he claims to my AfD are so bad, the results and works shows otherwise though. if they are so neutral and great contributors, isn't they be neutral on participation? others agree to me and disagree to me. but these are the one, no matter how bad is article, they will go Keep, or No-consensus to every contribution I made. isn't that personal attack?

          I am shutting myself down completely. But just for note on updates on my contributions. I am not paranoid but something is definitely going on making a personal attack on Every AfD I have done (not in terms of language, but deliberate keep votes/ discussions to justify anything by any means just because I am involved, they definitely not like me much), No-consensus is also a Keep, these people can do anything. I do not want to tag anyone here as it would be wrong. But It is evidently clear, sometime with 2 votes they close the discussion with Keep, they do not care to relist them. many times they relist the delete driven AfD, till they get their army and lengthy piece of Copy-Paste into AfD to mislead it, and they close by no-consensus. They know good how to keep an articles with using Wikipedia Policies only. Its just I am helpless as their army is bigger than my thoughts and they drag me and attack me and I can not do anything to justify. and letting this Wikipedia doomed with such people. I think eventually this pathetic Paid Keep army will win the race, and Wikipedia will become another PR host and eventually a threat to biggest notable source of knowledge. These contributors make the reputation participating on random discussions so it will look neutral, and get paid for their work with all corporate spams. No doubt some of the admins are also involved. This dirt can not just come from users alone. Do not want to name any admins here. This is corruption of high level. But what we can do ? We have limited platform to justify or make an appeal, these people knows well and how to use them. and they will blame on my language or counting numbers of something. They are afraid that their shop is going to shut down by contributors like me. It is just a wake up call, where we really want to go with Wikipedia? As such people are definitely in abundance to exploit this platform by any means. i am glad they got a real hit with my work.

          Light2021 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support T-ban, rapidly moving into Indef territory with the PA immediately above. John from Idegon (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no PA - there is selective quoting and a false allegation of a personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• As the person who started this thread, in a change from my previous position I think I would now oppose a blanket indefinite topic ban from AfD. That's too strong, I feel, and we do need people who'll nominate spam articles at AfD. The problems here are about excessive zeal and needlessly personalising disputes, but I do feel this is someone who's basically here to improve the encyclopaedia. A sensible and proportionate remedy would consist of a parcel of less drastic measures. I've reflected some more and I would suggest (1) no pinging people or posting directly on their talk page to attract their attention to deletion discussions; (2) no G11s; (3) no speedy deletion nominations on articles about corporations (but PROD and AfD are permitted); (4) a positive requirement to provide intelligible rationales when nominating for deletion; and (5) a one-way interaction ban with Cunard, appeal at AN/I permitted after six months of good behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Site ban as per implied expectation of Light  Light has reported an intent to disrupt Wikipedia until banned, by writing (grammar and capitalization errors in original), "As such people are definitely in abundance to exploit this platform by any means. i am glad they got a real hit with my work."  Note that I am an involved party here as I have recently identified and reverted Light's personal attack, by the use of tag bombing, on multiple content contributors at diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Indef. block At this point, I don't see the editor's behavior improving. If the load of blocks didn't work, I don't see how this editor can restrain from violating a T-ban. This is just a simple case of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. There's a current discussion at WP:NCORP#How to raise NCORP standards? which discusses similar concerns as expressed by Light21 and many others at company AfD. The more I learn about paid editing, the more prevalent the problem seems to be. Some editors subsequently banned for undisclosed paid editing and / or misuse of multiple accounts have been known to participate at WP:AFC -- ouch. WP:ARTSPAM is an on-going problem, unfortunately, and banning a contributor in this area seems counterproductive. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

It just bothers me is all considering some of your past comments towards IPs and the like. Here is a recent example: [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. —JJB^ers 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• No action per Knowledgekid87. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Imposing interaction ban with Sk8erPrince and User:AnimeDisneylover95

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support one-way IBAN Everyone can move on then. --Adam in MO Talk 01:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. —JJB^ers 20:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, before moving on I want to object to the one-sided position left behind regarding the closed discussion.  Calling the action "horrible" is a pejorative, not a policy statement.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy and IDHT

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

---

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

Added convenience links. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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: [42][43][44][45][46] 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 ([47][48][49][50][51]) which he claims would prove that I change the data given by the sources to PS. The first example is the Porsche Carrera GT. Someone confused PS with hp and I corrected wrong information. The second example is the BMW E12. The source actually gives data in PS in that case. The third example is the Mercedes-Benz L3000. I did not change any data since there was none, I added data which again is given by the sources in PS. Fourth example: Volkswagen Typ 3. Again, I did not change any data since there was none, I added data which again is given by the sources in PS. Fifth example: The BMW E28. The sources give data in kW. And I used kW.

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

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

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

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

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

The consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles seems clear that RPM is preferred over min⁻¹, and yet here [52] we have an edit by Jojhnjoy that was made after that consensus was reached and that goes against consensus. There appear to have been more than adequate warnings made. I also find it troubling that two different users have asked Jojhnjoy to stay off their talk pages: User talk:Jojhnjoy#Off my talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Dennis Bratland said he read the source carefully (The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source). Reading the source carefully means that you check the technical data section. Therefore I assume that he knows that the information he added is false. I don't want to accuse Dennis of vandalism, but you could hardly say that adding false information after checking the sources carefully was not on purpose. Kendall-K1, this is the aspect you completely ignore. Now tell me, what would you choose? Reverting this edit, even though ten authors think minutes should not be used though they are not wrong or leaving wrong information in the article? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC) This is about disruptive editing, not a content dispute. I don't care if you want to change one of the statistics of one car from 125 to 130 or whatever. If your edit had changed only {{cvt|125|kW}} to {{cvt|130|kW}}, you would be well justified by the bold, revert, discuss cycle that we use to build this encyclopedia. But you made a wholesale revert using this 125 vs 130 quibble as an excuse to return to your pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style Power at 1/min 70 PS (130 kW) at 5800 Torque at 1/min 23.8 kp·m (233.5 N·m) at 4000", for the entire table. A dozen 8 other editors wasted an appalling amount of time trying to make you accept the fact that consensus is that this contradicts the MOS, and it's considered harmful, and that zero editors agree that there is any benefit whatsoever to this incongruous formatting. That is why we are here. That is what this is about. Nobody else wants to hear you go on and on about 125 vs 130 kW. You have gone on the attack with snide edit summaries like "Please refrain from distorting valid information." Followed on this page with "I cannot assume good faith anymore" and "Dennis neither asked for my help nor left a note on the talk page of the article. The only thing left I can assume here is that he wants to add false information on purpose." These statements are hostile, violate the AGF and civility policies, and express an absolute disregard for the unanimous chorus of other editors, many of them engineers, many in the automotive field, and all skilled Wikipedia editors, who have said 'no, Jojhnjoy, you are the one who has got it wrong.' Maybe I did get a fact wrong (I admit to doing so all the time) but don't attack me. Convince all those other editors. Or realize you tried to convince them all, and failed spectacularly, and must now stop (or give Wikipedia:Dispute resolution a try). And then you follow that with another snide, arrogant attack, now targeting 1292simon, "Since you obviously need help...". You dismiss editors who maintain Template:Convert, "several other authors did not seem to understand it". If you're right that every single other editor at Wikipedia is a stubborn ignoramus, then what possible good can you do here? If you are utterly unwilling to even consider that the real problem might be your attitude, then what can you accomplish here? Jojhnjoy should be blocked from editing for disruptive editing, specifically WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Nothing anyone says gets through to this guy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC) There is no excuse for adding false information to an article on purpose. If you don't care about the sources, I cannot help you but tell you that I consider such editing behaviour disruptive. Desperately trying to create a reason to get me blocked from editing does not help. I dislike your word choice "pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style" for something which is completely common and even used in the article's source. In my opinion, it just expresses that you don't want it since you dislike it. Reverting an edit that contains false information added on purpose completely is acceptable. The comment in the edit summary is neither a snide comment nor an attack. "Please" and a "help-offer" should indicate it. My edit summary was meant to be firm with you but still polite. Maybe you could help me: When you add false information on purpose to trigger a revert you could abuse to start this discussion in which you want me to get blocked from editing, what should I assume? Good faith? Please excuse me, but I don't think so and I guess that this could be comprehenisble to other authors. 1292simon just reverted my edit even though I pointed out that the information you added was false. That leaves me two options. Either, he ignores the sources or doesn't understand them. Assuming good faith would mean assuming that he doesn't understand them. Therefore I decided to explain it. Ignoring physics means that one does not understand. Otherwise I cannot explain it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I did not "add false information on purpose". The source said 125 kW. I wrote "125 kW". Simple. And even if I did deliberately change 130 to 125 for no good reason, even if I'm a terrible person, a vandal who hates truth and only edits Wikipedia because I'm evil at heart, so what? I'm only one person. Surely you've dealt with vandals before. How can I, a lone "vandal" vex you so? Just revert me 3 times, report me to the WP:AIV noticeboard, and get me blocked. Simple. The reason that is absurd is that I'm not one terrible editor. Every single other editor who has looked at this issue has told you you are wrong. That's what this is about. Deal with that problem, and stop worrying about how diabolical my intentions are. You ask this question: "does ignoring physical principles, valid sources and inventing facts and rules to create a killer argument help the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia?" The answer is found at WP:TRUTH. You believe with all your heart that you are right. We get that. What if a crazy person who believes 2+2=3 behaved as you behave? How would Wikipedia solve that? If eight editors tell him that 2+2=4, and he still believes that he alone knows the TRUTH, what then? If he is willing to back down and bow to consensus, and then either go edit some other topic not involving adding two and two, or else patiently bide his time while methodically following the steps at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, then even an editor who believes 2+2=3 can remain in good standing. Or turn it around. Let's say you're the only editor who knows 2+2=4, and evil Dennis Bratland, and everybody else says 2+2=3. What can you do? If you persist in disruptive editing, Dennis and all the other lunatics will get you blocked from editing. Evil wins. But if you admit that at the moment, consensus is 2+2=3, then you get to edit another day. You can use the process to seek other opinions, and eventually convince ONE editor that 2+2=4. Or, to drop the metaphor, convince one editor that you're right about how we should use SI units. Convincing only one editor isn't enough, but it's a start. Way better than you're doing now. If you still, even after all this, still sit here and won't admit that you have failed to gain consensus, and admit you must drop the stick until you have, patiently, taken the next step at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, and instead you keep attacking me (i.e. WP:NOTTHEM), then I can't see how you won't be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Let's check the source, page 89 and 90. For understanding, it is important to know that technical units were the official units until 1978 and the conversion made by BMW is wrong. I already mentioned that before. Source information: 528: 165 DIN-PS // 23.8 mkp 525: 155 DIN-PS // 21.5 mkp 520i 130 DIN-PS // 18.1 mkp 520: 115 DIN-PS // 16.5 mkp 518: 90 DIN-PS // 14.5 mkp Let's see what I wrote in the article: (I had to convert this manually since the template:convert lacks a function to convert kilopondmetres to other units) 528: 165 PS // 23.8 kp·m (233.5 N·m) 525: 155 PS // 21.5 kp·m (211 N·m) 520i 130 PS // 18.1 kp·m (177.5 N·m) 520: 115 PS // 16.5 kp·m (162 N·m) 518: 90 PS // 14.5 kp·m (142 N·m) And now Dennis' edit: The changes in values I made were done after carefully checking the source. — Dennis Bratland 528: 238 N·m 525: 215 N·m 520i 181 N·m 520: 165 N·m Also worth mentioning is that you changed 115 PS to 85 kW which makes the template display 114 hp. However, 115 PS rather equal 113 hp. 518: 143 N·m. I withdraw the accusation that you added false information on purpose. Though, then it means that you don't understand the source, possibly because of → a nescire ad non esse. If you need an explanation, feel free to ask. You did not ask yet. I even offered help on the according talk page. Instead, you consider it a snide, arrogant attack. You accused me of something and want me to get blocked because of that. You commented three times on this page and three times you desperately mention that I should get blocked from editing. In my inital comment on this entire thing I explained why your accusations are unfounded in fact. Since you did not try to explain that any further, I don't see a reason why I should get blocked from editing. I also understand that your "dozen authors" were a metaphorical figure. Note, ″evil Dennis Bratland″, I don't hold any grudge. I suppose we should correct the wrong figures in the BMW E12 article and ask more users about the displacement and rotational frequency using WP:RFC. Also, I guess we now have a good reason for adding the kilopondmetre to the template:convert. I suggest that we both refrain from changing rotational frequency and displacement in each others articles and let more users comment on the question whether common German figures should be used for German vehicles or not. In conclusion I hope that you would withdraw your proposal that I shoud get blocked from editing and that you mark this incident as solved. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I've wrapped the last part of this in {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} because this is far too long a thread for anyone at AN/I to read. Please reply above {{Collapse bottom}}. I know English isn't your native language, but from what I can tell, you are quite fluent. Yet you seem ignore what is said to you over and over. I keep saying I don't care if you change the data, yet you keep repeating your arguments for why the this or that statistic should be be changed. Change it! Let's try this. Please answer the following questions, only with a yes or no answer. Below your answers, you may write several paragraphs of rhetoric if you wish, but please begin with only yes/no answers. If you think the question is unfair, a false dilemma, or whatever kind of fallacy, then by all means, answer "unfair" instead of "yes" or "no". But that's it. Yes, no, or unfair. Do you agree that a dispute over 125 kW (170 PS; 168 hp) vs 121 kW (165 PS; 162 hp) is a content dispute? Do you agree that I don't object to you changing 121 kW to 125 kW? Do you agree I don't object to you changing 238 N⋅m (176 lbf⋅ft) to 233.5 N⋅m (172.2 lbf⋅ft)? Or even 233.5 N⋅m (23.81 kg⋅m; 172.2 lb⋅ft)? Do you agree that I wouldn't even object to skipping {{Convert}}, and just doing the conversion by hand, writing 233.5 N·m (23.8 kp·m) @ 4,000 rpm? Because it's the formatting, not the data, that we are taking issue with? Does that explain why I pay no attention to your offers to "help"? Do you think Trekphiler, 1292simon, or I, or any participant in this dispute, would have a strong objection to you changing the data in BMW 5 Series (E12), as long as you kept the typical format xxx kW (xxx hp) @ 5,800 rpm xxx N·m (xxx lbf·ft) @ 4,000 rpm? Do you agree that this AN/I discussion is not a content dispute? If I am the one guilty of bringing a content dispute to AN/I, i.e. the wrong forum, shouldn't you argue only that I'm guilty using the wrong forum, but not argue about the content itself? Do you agree that WP:Disruptive editing is not about content, it is about editor behavior? Do you know what I am referring to when I repeatedly use IDHT, or point to WP:IDHT? Do you know why your suggestion to add kilopondmetre to {{Convert}} was rejected/ignored at least twice, and no participant voiced support for adding it? Do you understand what the editors in these diffs were saying? [53][54][55]? Do you agree that they were telling you that you are not listening at all? If you do not have "links to articles in which this conversion is used, the output is unclear, and a change to the template would make the output more clear", are you justified in returning to Template talk:Convert and asking, again, to add kilopondmetre? Do you agree that your arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, Talk:BMW 5 Series (E12), and Template talk:Convert, regardless of whether or not they were true, were totally unsuccessful? If a new editor has posted a dozen or more times, writing hundreds of words, yet won no support at all, would you, as a mentor, advise them to keep reverting and keep arguing, simply because they believe they're right? Or would you advise this editor stop, and to try something else, such as the options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE? If there were an RfC resulting in a change to WP:UNITS that said we should use min-1 or /min instead of rpm on German-related topics, do you think I should accept it, even if I disagree? Have my comments so far told you that I would follow the MOS, even if I believe I'm right? After all this, do you intend to keep posting links to sources about PS, SI units, DIN standards, and BMW 528 cars? Or will you focus instead on the behavior problem you are accused of, "Failure or refusal to "get the point"? Can you recall any time in the past when you believed you were right, but later realized you were not? Do you wish you had handled that situation differently? Do you think those times when you were in error are all in the past, and will never occur again? I know these questions are hectoring, but I've tried everything else. Several others have tried everything else. Why not try this? Answer these yes or no (or unfair) questions, and see if that gets us anywhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Well, thank you for saying I am quite fluent. Off-topic question: Would you agree that my level of English is near-native? 1. Yes, I know what a content dispute is. Germanic languages have compound words 2. Yes, I am aware and that disappoints me to be honest since you should object to anyone changing information based on sources to something the sources don't cover. 3. Yes, you technically repeat the second question. Though I would want say that we should display the original information given in the source to avoid confusion. Therefore I would choose neither 238 N⋅m (176 lbf⋅ft) nor 235.8 N⋅m (173.9 lbf⋅ft) but 23.8 kp·m and 90 PS (66 kW). 4. Yes of course. 5. No, it does not since you apparently ignore valid information in favour of formatting. Something I don't support. Correct information with bad formatting is better than well formatted false information. 6. No, I don't think that correcting wrong information would result in any objection. That's why I don't understand that you re-added false information even though you said you would have checked the source carefully. 7. Yes of course I know this is page not meant for laying out content disputes. But why do you do it then?. 8. Unfair question. You were the one who told me not to fork discussions away from other participants. What would you have said if I would not have said anything here? Don't you think that not replying would have increased the chance that my account would have been blocked from editing? Don't you think that I have the right to say something to your accusations? 9. Yes, of course I am aware. However, which rule is more important? WP:NOR or WP:IDHT? 10. Yes, actually I can read. I am a mentor for new users in the German Wikipedia and therefore know the German rules quite well. The rules here differ, something I would consider a big point is WP:NOR. In the German Wikipedia, nobody would object to edits such as these since refraining from false information saves this project and has a higher value than formatting. 11. No. Honestly not. There are several good reasons for adding it but I assume the problem is a nescire ad non esse. If I don't something, it does not exist. And the objection to physical principles is something that made me abandon the adding-attempt. 12. Yes, I understand what they are saying though they don't seem to understand my point. The problem is that the kilopondmetre is not really in use though it is necessary. A lot of sources provide a wrong conversion, for instance, this one. To ensure that articles contain correct information, it is mandatory to have the source information in the article and converting that to Newtonmetres. I cannot provide links to articles for that. 13. Yes of course, they were not understanding though. It's like telling "every German source has min−1" and getting a reply "I never heard of this nonsense". The reply doesn't make the statement unproved and therefore I ignore it. 14. Unfair question, see 12. Also, kp·m·s−1 ≠ kp·m 15. Yes, the problem is: a nescire ad non esse. 16. Yes, if they have good reasons, of course. See WP:IGNORE. But keep in mind: I am not a new user. 17. No, I would not since I believe that someone who has valid arguments that are based on sources has a right to add and improve content. Even if it is against a popular opinion of several other authors. I support authors with unconventional valid arugments and sources to give them a lobby. 18. Yes of course. And even if this would result in rpm, I would accept it. Currently though, we lack a rule since it has never been an issue. Usually, native speakers of Germanic languages know English on a high level; though this level is usually not sufficient for contributing to the English Wikipedia. Trust me, 95 % of native German speakers are uncapable of contributing to the German Wikipedia since they don't know their own language well enough. Though they could read and understand both English and German language articles. Maybe I am the first one who is able to mention that min−1 is common and that's why it hasn't been an issue for so long. 19. This is not a yes-or-no-question. 20. Unfair question. I will keep posting links to the evidence that prove that the information I add is valid and based on a reliable source. 21. Unfair question. An accuse doesn't require any change in behaviour. 22. Yes of course, everbody can. 23. Depends on what you mean. Since some of your prior questions were based on each other, I assume this question is based on 22. Answer: Depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 24. No, of course not. I do not possess divination powers. Do you? I hope that my answers help you but to be honest, do you still wish that I get blocked from editing? Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Sorry for all the badgering. Like I said, I thought it was time to try a different approach. Your answers speak for themselves, so I won't try to pick them apart an further. To answer your first question, it's unlikely a native speaker would make the mistake of thinking #19 "Have my comments so far told you that I would follow the MOS, even if I believe I'm right?" is not a yes-or-no question. I think the subordinate clause at the end threw you. There are numerous other examples. Still, quite fluent. Perhaps you're a native English speaker putting on a fake persona. Who cares? Behavior is what matters. To answer your last question, yes, I think an indef block is required, and it is because of your repeated play-acting that you don't understand what is said to you. Even beyond the actual misunderstandings, the evidence is compelling that you are misconstruing others' words in bad faith. You first show you got it, then later pretend you don't got it. You're messing with people. And your repeated affirmations that you won't used any of the usual dispute resolution tools, and instead will keep up what you've done, reverting when you know consensus is against you, and these overlong debates where you reject every single word others say, and don't understand the need to compromise and accede consensus, even when you know consensus is "wrong". Topics lke Abortion or Global warming or Art are battlegrounds with editors who are utterly committed to their incompatible beliefs. The ones who agree to put that aside and go along with consensus until they are able to get consensus to change are still here. The ones, like you, who think believing you're right is enough to ignore consensus have been blocked, and will go on being blocked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

 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

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 Agree I pointed specifically to where Jojhnjoy was misrepresenting MOS:UNITS.  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. Later still, I repeated that I'm OK with min-1, but we should follow the MOS and avoid confusing readers  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. 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. 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.  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. Yet Another editor repeats that Jojhnjoy is misreading MOS:UNITS  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 (...)" 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.  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. 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. Yet another editor clearly says Jojhnjoy is misreading MOS:UNITS.  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. 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.  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. 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. 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. 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.  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. 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.  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. 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. 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.  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. 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.  Disagree I never missed it. I just didn't agree this was a convention. 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.  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. 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.  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. 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.  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)

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Please drop it. It's clear you don't understand what happened, but so what? You don't need to understand it. It isn't relevant. I am more than willing to stipulate that I am indeed the worst if it makes you happy. But, as WP:NOTTHEM tells you, no matter how awful I am, it doesn't help you much. Yes, personal attacks or not assuming good faith are not allowed almost anywhere but noticeboards like this one. AN/I is the place where editors make accusations. I'm not going to be blocked for that, especially when multiple editors support my evidence. A plausible WP:BOOMERANG argument might be that my edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles were the real cause of Jojnjoy's alleged disruptive editing. You could try to argue that, but none of the disinterested third parties who were there agreed. And I was never present at Template talk:Convert, so if I'm to blame for that, I have superpowers. I will admit that my proposal for an indef block has gained no traction at all, not even one editor is considering it. So I won't bring it up again unless I have a substantially new and more compelling argument, which I doubt. I persuaded no one and so I give up. A topic ban has a lot of support. I predict that a topic ban saying "Jojhnjoy can't change unit conversions or formatting" will be followed by Jojhnjoy changing rpm to /min or or bhp to PS or whatever he likes, and then saying the topic ban doesn't say I can't do that! Because past behavior is an indicator of future behavior. Jojhnjoy looks at the same text you're looking at and tells you with a straight face it doesn't say what you can plainly see that it does say, and he never, ever backs down from that. We shall see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:31, 24 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, 79.71.19.76 for correcting mistakes, this entire thing is extremeley exhausting, I guess that explains it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

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)

Is that up to and including? Because we haven't been doing enough of that recently at ANI, and morale has dropped as a consequence. EEng 01:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my support for public flogging here, as the psychic horse medium tells me that the stick is now completely worn out.Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 27 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?

#4 is a doozy. It's the wall of text from hell. You were warned. Seriously. Don't click show. You'll thank me later

4. Finally. You asked the English/Computer Science major to parse a sentence for you. Let's parse away. Parse like the wind! Let's parse 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 rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera). In essence, the sentence says "X is Y". That's it. Simple! <SUBJECT> EQUALS <NOUN>. What is X, the <SUBJECT>? The subject is "units". What is the key adjective that identifies X, the "units"? "Primary". Primary means first in order, of chief rank or importance. The MOS is flexible and tolerates other units. Using units that are not the primary units is not an emergency, but it's an issue. It's something that is fixed by WikiGnomes. New additions to wikipedia might not conform to the MOS, but over time, editors work to make small changes which tend to progress closer to the MOS. So if Editor 1 changes a non-primary unit to THE primary unit (there can be only one, that is what primary means), then Editor 2 should not revert. Especially when he has been TOLD NOT TO, and PROMISED not to. Great! Now, we ask, what is Y, the <NOUN>? Y is a list of three possibilities, separated by commas and the conjunction "or". Remember, primary means only one of these applies. It isn't free choice. The three things are 1) SI units, 2) officially accepted non-SI units or 3) "other units" described as "conventional". Now here, your mistake is thinking that since SI is on this list of 3 options, then SI can be the primary unit. You simply get to pick any one of these three, and edit war with anybody who changes it. But is that so? No. If could be the primary unit SI for any topic, then this entire sentence is pointless. It need only say, "always use SI". Or "use whatever you want". Or not even exist. It doesn't mean that. Under what circumstances must the primary unit be the second item, or the third? The inherent logic of a sentence "there exists one widget such that either no conditions are fulfilled, some conditions are fulfilled, or even more conditions are fulfilled" is that if the topic falls into the scenario with the most strict conditions, then it must be that option. This must be so because otherwise, why even have these three options? Option 3, "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" is the most restrictive of the three. Reliable sources are not just any blog or tweet or livejournal. They are a high bar to meet. And there must be multiple such discussions, and they must agree with each other. If every other article in Motor Trend or The Motor wavered between cm3, and cc, then there is no convention. It's high bar to meet, to have the situation (which we indeed have) where easily 95% of all English language motor vehicle publications use cc. And it's a high bar to meet for all these discussions to not only use cc almost all the time, but to all be about a single topic: motor vehicles, or (an even higher bar) internal combustion engines. Wait! You say, what about German sources? See WP:NOENG. Non-English sources are acceptable, but English sources are preferred. It matters not that the English and non-English sources don't share a convention for engine displacement; it is enough that the convention exists in English. Am I sure? Yes, I'm sure. If this were not the case, then the third possibility could never happen. There's like 7,000 languages. No unit convention could exist that they all agree on. Might as well not even have this MOS rule. We must assume the MOS was not written by imbeciles. So we have found ourselves in this narrowly-defined situation, where we pass all the stringent conditions of the most restrictive of the 3 choices for the thing I call Y, or <NOUN>. If we didn't meet all these conditions, then we would fall through the sieve to the more accommodating choice 2. Here the only condition is that your topic can make use of one of a short list of unofficial but accepted non-SI units. Like minutes, or AUs. This is a broad category, but still, it is a bar that must be met. If the topic were the height of basketball hoops, no unofficial SI unit exists. The nearest miss is AUs, but that is absurd. So if you can't meet that bar, then you fall through to the broadest category of the three: SI. No conditions at all. There need be no conventions used by reliable sources, it ban be any topic, and SI has a unit for everything. You do not pick one of these three on a whim. That would be a pointless MOS rule. The rule is clear, there is only one primary unit, and there is only one logical way of choosing which unit to use that treats the rule with any respect at all. If you don't follow this algorithm, starting with the most narrowly-defined of the three options, then you make a mockery of the rule. It is interesting that this is instinctive to English speakers. It never would have occurred to me that other languages don't have this kind of implied logic. Just as few native English speakers are aware there is a rigid rule for the order of adjectives, and most couldn't tell you what that rule is. But put the phrase "yellow old favorite dirty t-shirt" in front of any English speaker, and they will instinctively rearrange it to read "favorite dirty old yellow t-shirt". They don't even know they're doing it. This parsing 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 rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera). is HIDEOUS and nobody should have to read such a thing, let alone write it. That is why you should simply listen to others. Listen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

:::::Dennis, thank your for this long explanation, however, I understand it. As you said, or is a conjunction. That means that in this case basically we got 3 options. And now I just want to cite you: ″Option 3, "conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic" is the most restrictive of the three.″ → So you just said it is the most strict of these. But is it? Which is the option we should apply? I don't think that these options really allow telling which one is the "right". I could argue that "using SI or using units allowed with SI" is based on each other and therefore these two options support each other and make the option 1 an option you would rather choose. How is it defined? Where is the rule? How is someone who does not know about eight other readers opinions supposed to read it? Imagine someone would use normal SI-units and would really read MOS:UNITS and Specific units, I guess that they would never expect other authors to object cubic centimetres. If there is a strong consensus, why don't the rules express it? Why don't the rules tell that one must stick to cc? ″Reliable sources are not just any blog or tweet or livejournal. They are a high bar to meet.″ → I agree. ″And there must be multiple such discussions, and they must agree with each other.″ → Where should these discussions take place? In Wikipedia? In science? ″If every other article in Motor Trend or The Motor wavered between cm3, and cc, then there is no convention.″ → So, what is your definition of a convention? Convention = All the books you read use cc? ″It's high bar to meet, to have the situation (which we indeed have) where easily 95% of all English language motor vehicle publications use cc.″ Your expression of these "95%" show me that you might be overconfident. You are much more wrong than you would expect. Do you think that I would believe you if you keep using arguments based on imaginations? Of course it could be a rethorical figure but in my opinion rethorical figures at such points are arguemnt boosters that would rather make me ask myself: "Does Dennis really want to convince me?" It is obviously not true that 95% use this cc. I read scientific puclications (about automotive engineering) a lot and I have never encountered it. (BMW does not use either by the way.) Actually, the first place I found it was Wikipedia and it surprised me that it means cm3. Since I have seen British engines before, I thought the common form of displacement was in3, even the name indicates that (6.354; 354 in3 = 5801 cm3 which is the exact displacement of this thing.) ″Wait! You say, what about German sources? See WP:NOENG. Non-English sources are acceptable, but English sources are preferred.″ → I understand that, but do you ignore that I cited an English language source that did not even tell it is not permitted to use cc but also that not using cc avoids confusion (and therefore makes things easier to understand)? Wikipedia rules suggest that you could use both. So I decided to go with the SI-permitted way. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

"I understand it". No you, don't. Everyone is telling you that You're not listening. "If there is a strong consensus, why don't the rules express it?" It does express it. It is perfectly clear to everyone except you. The reason I'm so confident that there is consensus amount reliable automotive sources that everyone except you says so. We don't need an exact count of the number of times sources have used cm3 because everyone except you agrees it's not even close. It doesn't matter if it's 95% or 99% or 83%. What matters is, it's overwhelming. I could go on saying the same thing to every one of your repetitive arguments. Everyone except you rejected the sources you cited. Nobody except you is asking for "convention" to be defined. Could you be the lone editor who sees the TRUTH? Maybe. After all, as Carl Sagan said, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Perhaps you are the lone voice of reason. But everyone thinks you're the metaphorical Bozo the Clown in this. The MOS could have errors, and it could be edited to be more clear. But it will never be perfect. There will always be some editors who don't understand it, whether due tho their own language issues, or the flaws in the wording of the MOS. The solution to that problem is not for one editor to go on a crusade. The solution is, always, to use the normal consensus process, which means listen to other editors. Nobody is attacking you for misunderstanding MOS:UNITS. That is forgivable, and easily solved. Your behavior is being criticized because you won't listen, won't back down, and won't recognize that all of the arguments you're making about SI units and conventions and so on were considered and then were rejected. You lost. You are, in the words of WP:IDHT "sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. " That is disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 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 [56]. 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)

Extended content

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 ... [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] ... 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 tell 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) I know that, but also, it does not mean that cc is preferred over cm3. It expresses that both could be used but cc is rather American I guess? ("cubic centimeter (U.S.): cc)" --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) You implied that the format of the table implies that cm3 is somehow preferred; I told you it doesn't. That's all. EEng 17:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Jojhnjoy, your accusation "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" is hurtful, and violates WP:FAITH. As for your question about why I chose those particular articles, I am happy to explain. The main purpose of my work was to implement the change from min-1 to rpm, as per consensus at Wikiproject Automobiles. Yes, I figured that articles you have edited would be a good place to look for min-1s to change, so that's where I started. Nothing personal. Then, while I was editing those articles, I noticed the cm3 and decided to change them. You might disagree whether this is an improvement (although I suggest you are own your own there), but that was my motive for the changes. Yes, I also there was the odd article along the way with no rpm change, but rpm was the main purpose. Sorry for the typo in the Trabant article. But it says a lot that you went on the attack about an innocent mistake, when you could have just fixed it instead... 1292simon (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Well, an edit that makes a correct information wrong makes an article worse. That is a fact. Also, I wrote most likely not intentionally. To me it seems like... For instance, you also ignored commata mistakes, etc. and not only once. That made me write: you just wanted to change it. Not to improve the quality. But doesn't that opinion make sense? I did not write that you don't want to improve the quality. I wrote it seems like that to me in this case. Do you understand why? I understand the rpm change and don't question it. "Yes, I figured that articles you have edited would be a good place to look" → There is no coincidence, as I guessed. "I noticed the cm3 and decided to change them. You might disagree whether this is an improvement (...), but that was my motive for the changes." You changed them since you noticed them. Interesting. Well I contacted you on your talk page and you replied with a rule that suggests that you could use it for certain (especially American) displacements but didn't tell me that cm3 was wrong. What do I have to expect here? Imagine I had corrected that typo myself, since some users really think that I could violate a ban that was just propsed but not imposed, I have to fear more such comments and therefore I shall refrain from changing anything. This entire thing is completely unpredictable but I don't want an administrator to agree with such opinions; the easiest way is just not generating them. That's why I didn't correct it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) My comment about you violating the proposed ban was not intended for you and I don't expect you to understand it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Definitely a strong case of IDHT and refusing to listen to others. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. This is crazy IDHT. EEng 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to make this clear: I would not change my opinion but accept other opinions and I shall refrain from changing units (which I wouldn't do anyway). Feel free to change whatever I write to something more right as long as the information itself is not getting distorted, (make 73.5 kW out of 100 PS but not 74.5 kW for instance). I will ignore everything but the latter. But please, don't think about changing "bonnet" to "hood" or "boot" to "trunk"... --Jojhnjoy (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Way too late, and you should save your attempts at humor for elsewhere. You can ask for a review of your topic ban after a year, if you've shown in the meantime that you can behave yourself. EEng 01:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion — In response to several obstinate, disruptive posts, broaden the TBAN to prohibit Jojhnjoy from any article or talk page edit related to switching terminology, conventions, word choice, phrasing, or units to anything other than those considered conventional in English-language reliable sources. His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions. He won't drop pointless debates for en.wikipedia.org to bend over backwards to save ESL readers the trouble of looking up an English term the don't recognize. He is still welcome to submit proposals to add Denglisch to the list of national varieties of English, or eliminate en.wikipedia.org's various rules that give precedence to English over other languages. But don't debate it elsewhere. Accessibility is nice, but Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia explicitly seeks to accommodate ESL readers, en.wikipedia.org does not. In all cases where Jojhnjoy is unsure about this, he is required to either just drop it or go ask at the talk page of this AN/I report's closing Admin. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

You consider my opinion disruptive even though I explained it? Even though the first thing I wrote was that I would not want to remove any such figures? Before that, I wrote "For the sake of comparability, I do not recommend adding real wheel power output to articles." Do you know what a recommendation is? I also wrote: ″I would support external tests that test the engine power according to DIN 70020 or SAE or whatever standard.″ You tell something about English-language reliable sources? You safely ignored the most reliable English language source for min–1 and cm3 (SI-Brochure). You accuse me of edit-warring? Prove it! You cannot, since you lied. Wait, who started the pointless debate? Ah! Dennis Bratland did. Very interesting that you close a discussion even though there were only two main participants, one being me and one being you. The result is your opinion. You ignored my objection and the reasons for my objection. There is no clear result. You just claim this is the result. Well, if you think so. Also, I did not use caps lock and the word fuck excessively. I did not critcize the other discussion participants but the point. I tried behaving politely and discussing factually. ″YOU DON'T NEED TO KEEP FUCKING REMINDING US THAT OTHER LANGUAGES HAVE OTHER FUCKING WORDS FOR THINGS. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A DIFFERENT FUCKING LANGUAGE." – Dennis Bratland Well, Dennis Bratland, I explained it: ″only native English speakers would know what it means since the word horsepower translates to what the unit symbol PS is used for, lacking approxiamtely 10.25 W. (This is a different story though.)″ Do I go on about your misunderstanding? No. So pointing out that English is not my first language is not relevant. I suggest that you stop with anything like that. I shall just ask two questions: Who is behaving properly? And whose behaviour is disruptive? Someone who discusses politely and factually and explains their standpoint in a way that should be comprehensible? Or someone that does not cite sources properly, criticizes other discussion participants inappropriately since they disagree on the own opinion and are non-English rather than criticizing their points, uses the word fuck in caps, accuses other discussion participants of having a "thick head" and considers a discussion resolved even though 50 % of the other main discussion participants disagree? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC) I stand by what I said. Your response right here is further evidence that the TBAN needs to prohibit all of kinds reverts or talk page badgering related to word choice, unit choice, or terminology, construed broadly. You should be allowed to ask once (and only once) what a term means, or what the correct term or unit is, but you must accept the answer you get, and not debate it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Do you think that lying increases your credibility? I consider that weak. Lying to get somebody blocked from editing. And you still stand by what you said? ″His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions.″ (– Dennis Bratland) ″You accuse me of edit-warring? Prove it! You cannot, since you lied.″ (– Jojhnjoy) ″I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″ (– Dennis Bratland) ″Dennis was blocked for repeatedly asking for a block of someone with whom they had an interaction ban″ (– Floquenbeam) --Jojhnjoy (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC) You don't understand what an interaction ban is. Hence your inane comments about it. The proof of what I say is right here in your own posts. I respect the ability of my fellow editors to read your posts and judge for themselves. Your inability to respect anybody else is the point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban per above and retaliatory filing at #Dennis Bratland and WP:NPA below. Experience at Template talk:Convert shows that two-way communication is not possible. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we close this?

The proposal is for a topic ban on unit names and conversions. We have four five in favor of the proposal, two in favor of any sanction up to but not including flogging, and one opposed. How do we get an admin to penetrate the smokescreen and actually implement the ban? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

+1 Kendall-K1, this is a good attempt to solve this. I shall refrain from editing unit names and conversions. Further, I shall not add, modify, change or correct any units in existing articles. Whenever I find mistakes, I will mention that on the corresponding talk page and cite reliable sources. When I create a new article and have to add units, I will just cite the source word for word and perform no conversion at all. Any objection? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• And now Jojhnjoy has decided to advertise his tonedeafness even more widely -- #Dennis_Bratland_and_WP:NPA. At this point I think we need to just consider a very long block, period. Why are we wasting our time on this guy? EEng 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wasting our time seems to be Jojhnjoy's specialty. Just take a look at the length of this ANI report and contemplate how much editor time went in to it. I tried to find some way we could keep him around. He really did make some useful contributions. And he came so close to getting off with just the tban. I will now support any sanction anyone wants to impose, up to and including indef block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Self-reporting to avoid further escalation into multiple venues

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

---

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

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

Relevant talk is at:

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

Samsara 02:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, everyone

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a named party to this I must admit to being somewhat confused myself. Windows XP is on my watchlist so when I saw an IP edit with the summary "Undid revision 791434022 by User:Codename Lisa (talk) Undo obvious COI by an editor with a long history of acting in Microsoft's interest" I checked it out. The IP had restored an edit that had been reverted by Codename Lisa, an editor of good standing with a long history of constructive editing at that, and other articles. I was aware that she had started a discussion on the talk page,[66] so I reverted the IP with the summary "Edit has been opposed - take it to the talk page",[67] 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.[68] There was no dispute, what I reverted was at best disruptive editing. Now that I am aware of the history, I see it as pure vandalism. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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. —JJB^ers 19:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A clean start

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

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

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

Details: On 20 July 2017, Codename Lisa reverted a poor contribution to the Microsoft Office 2010 article: [69]. 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 ([70]: disruptive reversion) and the Windows Server 2012 article ([71]: 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)

• Hello, Samsara

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)

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

DagosNavy and WP:TROUBLES

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

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

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

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

Similar behaviour at other articles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding involved editor Minimax Regret and notifying them. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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)

Isn't this a case for WP:AE rather than ANI? Nfitz (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Repeated misuse of minor edit box

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the risk of piling on, I looked at those edits and they are definitely not minor. While we don't have the ability to block and editors use of the 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)

I don't want to spoil harmony, if Mondiad has decided to err on the side of caution here, but this really does look like a tempest in a teapot to me. First, while I would not have marked any of those particular edits as "minor", most of them are borderline enough that I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if I saw someone else doing it. More importantly, I just don't understand the fear here; any review of a contributions or revision history page where one would see the "minor edit" tag will also be simultaneously presented with other data and metrics regarding the edit; it's more or less impossible to hide a potentially contentious edit from experienced editors merely by marking it "minor"; most of us are so used to the variability in how people use the "minor" checkbox that we tune it out altogether when looking at revision histories. Or at least, I assume I'm not the only one who does that. So I don't understand the problem--or at least, I feel it is being overstated.

Maybe if this discussion was about a complex set of editorial habits which tended to obscure or mislead issues, I'd view this as a source of more concern. But I see no implication of such criticism in this discussion; the only concern raised so far is about this contributors idiosyncratic use of that function. For that matter, WP:MINOR is not a policy or guideline page and describes its advice in terms of "etiquette", not a firm mandate. (WP:MINOR is an info page, but their status relative to general policy is actually a matter of frequent debate of late; so long as they are not created by a full WP:PROPOSAL process, I don't think they can ever be just assumed to be a reflection of fully vetted community consensus, and thus are closer to an WP:Essay in how binding they are, even if the idea is that they should be more neutral than an essay). Again, if Mondiad is willing to comply for the sake of assuaging concerns, then that's all the better, and probably the best possible outcome. But I remain confused as to the nature of the damage/disruption that is alleged to result from Mondiad's departure from the norm on checking that box. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not mislead the editor. WP:MINOR is crystal clear and pretending that standard procedures don't matter is very unhelpful. People are welcome to do all sorts of silly things, but when guidance is provided, they should behave collaboratively, not act as if "This is a minor edit" means what they want it to mean. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where I'm "misleading" anyone. I'm raising the question of whether or not the editors here, when they criticize another editor's deviation from their expectations on this issue, have solid policy rationale for doing so. WP:MINOR is an WP:information page, not a WP:POLICY or WP:Guideline; the idea behind info pages is that editors who write them are encouraged to make them more neutral than WP:essays, but they do not go through the WP:PROPOSAL process or get vetted by the broader community in any significant way, so they do not have the status and force of a guideline. You use the phrase "standard procedures" as if that is some kind of behaviourally significant term on this project, because you knew you couldn't use the word "policy" there, and that in itself should tell you something.

If this user has not in fact violated a community guideline (I haven't seen one cited yet, anyway), then his behaviour may yet still be disruptive, but I would like to hear a more significant argument as to how, before we condemn him for his actions. Any time we depart from the firm, established community consensus that is enshrined in policies and guidelines, we need to be extra certain that we have a really good pragmatic reason for doing so, especially if it is to censure another editor. If you really feel this passionately about WP:MINOR as a "standard procedure", you could always put it through the PROPOSAL process to make it a guideline; I bet you it would be successful, but I bet that some of the current idiosyncratic wording on the page would also be lost in the process. Regardless, I'm not going to come down hard on another contributor for having a different assessment of "minor" from me--not when it's not going to change how I analyze his edits, anyway. And I don't think I'm "misleading" anyone by pointing out that he doesn't seem to have actually violated any community guideline. I have said, and I'll repeat again, that if he has already started to adjust his approach, he should just continue with that solution; striving for harmony with his co-contributors is still the best and most principled way forward here, regardless of the debate of what he is "technically" allowed/not allowed to do. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I just accidentally marked my last post minor (perhaps because it was on my mind), but I'm sure it's not the first time I've done it and it highlights another issue; its an incredibly easy thing to do without intention of meaning. It's not like typing out a PA, or repeatedly clicking revert in an edit war; it's right there when you are already about to save your changes, and it can't be undone once done. I bet for gnomes who work mostly on correcting small formatting or grammatical errors, it's an incredibly hard habit to break when they do tackle something more substantial. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Puppet Disruptive editing

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

---

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

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

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

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

Just looked at the ip address location and I can confirm that me nor 107.77.221.126 are puppets of Leviathan648.107.77.221.158 (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So let me get this right, NRP: we're dealing with multiple different IP socks of two different indeffed editors who are continuing to spar on that article? Good golly. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing by GetSomeUtah ‎

GetSomeUtah has been engaged in Tendentious editing and deleted "Iranian" from the profiles of many Iranian-Swedish individuals without giving sufficient reasons. Discussions with him does not prevented these disruptive edits. Examples of his disruptive behavior is provided in the following: [72] [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] Nochyyy (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

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

− −

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

− −

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

I reverted some of your other arbitrary edits, here[104] 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 [105][106][107]. 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 [108], 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 [109] 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

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. 74.70.146.1 (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)

I agree with the suggestion of boomerang action. The additions of links to Swedish Iranians such as [110] borders on linkspam and is done by an IP editor. Nochyyy's diffs clearly show that GetSomeUtah is in the right for reverting here. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The guy was born in Iran and is its citizen, how including Iranian-swedish in his profile is a linkspam? Just because it is done by IP editor, it should be reverted?Nochyyy (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal tone on a talk page

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)

Yes, I fumbling that. I didn't realize the signature had to be changed manually. When I found out, I changed it myself. Approaching (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not important, I suppose, but it does seem a little surprising that you wouldn't notice for an extended period that your posts were being signed with the old username. Was it something you eventually needed to alter in your "Custom signature" preferences that fixed it? -- Begoon 13:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It was a while ago, I honestly don't recall. In fact, if there's a way to keep it to default, I usually do that unless there's a good reason. Approaching (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It was just 2 months ago. In the middle of a pretty contentious discussion. It would have appeared, at the time, to anyone involved in the discussion, that it was two separate users commenting. I'm sure you can see how that would be troubling when the point of discussion is consensus building? Ditch ∝ 19:58, 27 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)

Isn't it customary to be notified when one is (at least partly) the subject of an Admin action request? I just found out about this thread. It seems to me that it's been tentatively resolved so there's no point in adding much else. However, I would like to request some Admins please monitor the page for a few weeks to keep everyone honest. Thanks everyone. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for diff(s)

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. [111] [112], [113], [114], [115]. 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". [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] 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)

Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) @KoshVorlon: The fact that they "go back to the beginning of July" is perhaps suggestive of establishing a pattern, rather than being stale! — fortunavelut luna 10:15, 26 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 (talk • contribs)

• 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)

Since this incident involves an admin refusing to even acknowledge their behaviour - there's a clear case to be made for removal of the admin tools. Possibly via arbcom if need be, but nobody here wants that. As such, I would like to make the following proposal... Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, then! I'll start putting together a case - I'll wait 48 hours before filing to allow for response - They've already had weeks so I feel that I'm being generous here... Twitbookspacetube 04:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to comment on my close, Twitbookspacetube, I strongly believe community-based desysopping should exist in order to ensure adminship isn't such a big deal. It's been repeatedly proposed and shot down, though, so meh. As it stands, a discussion on desysopping wouldn't be actioned by the beauracrats or stewards, so it's not possible. (This is not a comment on the specifics of this case; I haven't read anything about them.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Also by way of observation -- if you do put together a case to bring to ArbCom, they're very unlikely to take it up unless you show a history of misconduct or abuse of the admin tools. I think that a single instance would have to be particularly egregious before it qualifies as the basis for a desysopping case. (In fact, I'm not sure if I've ever seen them take a case brought to them based on a single instance -- as opposed to when they themselves react to a instance of misbehavior, and desysop on their own initiative.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

30+ hours since this was filed and no sign of any appropriate response from Arthur Rubin. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, he said he will respond in about 21 hours, 25 hours ago. I've been also waiting for the input though. Alex Shih^Talk 19:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been waiting three weeks for the input. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But Alex why did it require multiple requests by TRM and an ANI report to compel Arthur Rubin to provide diffs? He is not a few hours tardy; he's missed the mark for two or three weeks now. As a person who edits almost exclusively on a mobile device, I find his smartphone excuse unconvincing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I seem to be running a fever. My next edits anywhere on Wikipedia under any of my accounts will be a personal status update or the diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nudging this thread to prevent premature archiving. Of course, the discussion over why it would take three weeks for an admin to provide evidence to substantiate the various personal attacks can continue regardless, the diffs themselves are, by now, almost irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed removal of admin tools from Arthur Rubin

This is not permissible under current policy. If you want administrator access to be reviewed, file a case request with the Arbitration Committee. ~ Rob13Talk 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Due to conduct unbecoming of an Administrator including, but not limited to, violations of WP:NPA and WP:ADMINACCT, Arthur Rubin is to have their tools removed. If they resign due to this proposal, it will be considered to be 'Under a cloud' and they will have to go through another successful RfA to regain the tools. Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Support As proposer Twitbookspacetube 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Oppose Neutral comment In principle, I totally agree that this should be a thing that's available to the community at all times - the ability to reach consensus and desysopp a user. Unfortunately, this is not going to go anywhere; there are no community policies or guidelines that make this allowed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

ARBCOM case

As instructed above, I have waited 48 hours after my last comment here, then filed a case at arbcom which can be found here. Twitbookspacetube 05:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing battle result quilifier

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 Shih^Talk 16:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Uncivil editing: user:LittleJerry vs. User:Roy Bateman

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

---

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)

I am suggesting that "Caelifera are pretty much universally called grasshoppers" may have become self-fulfilling because of Wikipedia - the truth is actually rather more interesting, partly because it contains pygmy mole-crickets which are no relation to mole crickets. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:58, 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)

Yes - it is in the article Caelifera - if LittleJerry doesn't censor my input again. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

LittleJerry is not even quoting what I wrote correctly - at least three reliable sources are quoted that have infra-order Acrididea (not Acridoidea) as the group of subfamilies that are grasshoppers or grasshopper-like. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardess, I checked the sources you used and they do not state what you say that do. LittleJerry (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made changes to Caelifera which may resolve the content issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Power~enwiki, but they do not resolve the issue. I should point out that Power~enwiki's proposal, that the taxonomy and phylogeny section in grasshopper be moved to Caelifera, was tried by Roy without consensus and rejected by the other users. I should also point out that Roy was split the articles again despite the fact that this conversation has not been resolved. LittleJerry (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I was called to this discussion by a note on my talk page after filing this report on WP:AN3 about this fiasco. Edit warring and 3RR violations all over the place by several editors. Multiple blocks are in order. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree not to make any more changes to Caelifera until the conversation at the noticeboard is done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - but that was after having deleted the content (to at redirect) for the seventh time (now restored). Not only is this attempted censorship, but makes it difficult to get to the talk page there. You have also used Threats and intimidation (e.g. on my talk page). I hope you appreciate that you are removing inputs from other editors when make these (now >6 kB) deletions. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Caelifera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After checking the edit history I determined that Roy Bateman and LittleJerry are the main edit warriors at Caelifera. They have been constantly reverting the article back and forth since June 19 (a 6000-byte edit that changes it from a redirect to Grasshopper to a freestanding article). So I blocked both parties 48 hours per the edit warring complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

IP edits at ccTLD articles

• Evidence is at User:Johnuniq/ccTLD because I suspect more attention will be needed in the future.

An individual using slowly changing IPs has been disruptively editing multiple articles for at least a couple of months. They add dubious or blatantly false factoids often with {{citation needed}} tags. The edit summaries could be interpreted as trolling. At enwiki, most edits focus on ccTLD articles. The problem is cross-wiki, although different topics get more attention at other Wikipedias.

There are a couple of difficulties regarding this case. First, very few editors watch the ccTLD articles, and second, the topic is esoteric so general editors may not recognize the absurdity of the changes. Whereas many of the edits are obviously poor quality, a general editor may think the IP is making a good-faith effort. Reviewing the evidence page above should dispel that thought.

I will alert the IPs that have been active in the last three weeks about this report: 81.135.204.201 (talk · contribs) + 86.134.240.162 (talk · contribs) + 86.174.198.166 (talk · contribs). Let's see what happens, but if disruption continues, I recommend deciding that the individual is effectively banned so their edits can be rolled back without tedious explanations, and new IPs blocked. Target articles may need temporary semi-protection. Any thoughts on action regarding other Wikipedias? Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The ccTLD articles being hit seem to be those of small, mainly African, ccTLDs with low numbers of domains (<100K). Some of these smaller ccTLDs are run out of local university computer departments and are very small operations. The Canadian ccTLD registry published a list of the top TLDs in its 2016 report ( https://cira.ca/factbook/domain-industry-data-and-canadian-Internet-trends/domain-name-industry ) and the German ccTLD registry publishes an updated top ten list of TLDs ( https://www.denic.de/en/know-how/statistics/international-domain-statistics/ ). The largest ccTLD is the Chinese ccTLD, .cn, with approximately 20 million domains. While it is a bit of an esoteric subject, the ccTLD registries tend to watch their markets closely and a ccTLD with 69 million registrations would not go unnoticed. The .com TLD has 127 million domains and .net only has about 15 million domains. Wikipedia may also be used as a reference site by people working with spam filters and the addition of non-existent subdomains and registry links to some of these ccTLD articles can cause problems. The subdomains are generally listed on the ccTLD registry sites as part of their policy documents. The IP edits kept adding spurious subdomains to some of the ccTLD articles. The IPs seem be associated with an ISP range and they are dynamic and change every few weeks or so. It may be necessary for the ccTLD articles to be semi-protected so that only confirmed users can edit them. Jmccormac (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The identified problematic editing is still continuing from 81.135.204.201 (talk · contribs), mainly on .ng today, despite being asked to stop whilst this is discussed. Gricehead (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Folks, this needs attention! Sorry it's drama-free but a quick look at User:Johnuniq/ccTLD should be sufficient to show there is a real problem that needs a community approach. This discussion does not need to finish with a sanction, but there does need to be a demonstrable consensus that the IP should be strongly rejected—reverts escalating to WP:RBI would be my recommendation, with semi-protection as needed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I agree this is a problem, and however I can help I will - do you have any suggestions? Is there a credible pattern to the types of edits that might benefit from an edit filter? Or are we looking at long-term semi-protection of the articles (something which won't sit well with a lot of people)? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Helping would involve monitoring the related changes link in my evidence page and reverting the IP. I think all their edits should be reverted, as if they were banned. That is the only way to (eventually) persuade them to have fun elsewhere, per WP:DENY. That's why I want this ANI report to reach a strong conclusion. Some way of searching for their trolling edit summaries would be useful to detect activity in other articles (commentsearch?). An edit filter could help by detecting many of the nonsense summaries, but it would be pretty easy for the user to change that strategy. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• I threw a block at the most recent one--fat lot of good that will do. I assume a rangeblock would have too much collateral damage, since the net seems to be wide; then again, perhaps a few focused rangeblocks might help. I have no problem with long-term semi-protection, but it would be nice if some smarter person did that, doing all those articles in a batch. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been checking to see how many semiprotections might be required. From the table at the bottom of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 there are 249 country codes. But the abuse documented in User:Johnuniq/ccTLD does not extend to all of them. I'd be willing to semiprotect the 60 TLD articles itemized in User:Johnuniq/ccTLD#Overview. That would be a start. If you look at the edit history of .bi you will see the nonsensical edit summaries "RUNTIME ERROR' and 'INTERNAL SERVER ERROR' left by the IP 81.135.204.201 (talk · contribs). Most of the documented abuse consists of inserting bad numbers in the articles. Semiprotection has the downside of excluding any good-faith IPs, but the frequency of good IP edits to these articles appears low. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • As for doing the whole lot at once, cascading protection would likely be the best idea? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Nope, because that doesn't work with semi-protection any more :( -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd also support a ban to make it a little easier to block. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Spam / "hack" (loosest sense) edit needs followup

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

---

this edit by Matt mathis (talk · contribs) introduced a fixed position div covering the top part of your browser's viewport, and linked to an offsite page, such that any attempt to use normal Mediawiki controls (including stuff like rollback buttons, undo, etc.) will send you to the offsite link. I would suggest indef the account and revdel the edits containing the offending code (that includes their user page). Oh, and the template in the diff above should probably have an increased protection level (isn't there a "template editors" group?). --Xover (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind the block. Geni is on the case it seems. :) (but revdel + protection is still needed imo). --Xover (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no editfilter that disallows "position:fixed"? Maybe with an exception for autoconfirmed people with 500+ edits. It seems unlikely to produce many false positives. Of course there can be infinite spaces before and after the colon. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent thought. Also, perhaps one of the project's most visible pages isn't the best place for this whole "How-to" discussion? Just a thought... -- Begoon 11:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there already is one, which has been active for years now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Non-Summit IMDb link

Basically all articles about movies and TV shows on Wikipedia have IMDb links, regardless of whether their official websites are also listed. Examples: X-Men:_Evolution#External_links, Will_&_Grace#External_links, SpongeBob_SquarePants#External_links.

user:Bonnielou2013 seems unaware of that or wants to get the IMDb link removed specifically from Non-Summit because he/she made the most edits to it and feels like he/she is the "owner" of that page.

I've reverted the removal of the IMDb link, but I'm afraid that he/she will remove it again and keep doing it.

Please contact him/her officially as an admistrator to tell them that removing IMDb links isn't a practice on Wikipedia, and point out the proper discussion page where one can suggest removing IMDb links altogether from all articles if they find them inappropriate. -- 2804:14C:B1:815F:F159:765F:9F33:6870 (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like they're getting confused between using IMBb as a source (not reliable) vs using it as an External link (generally allowed). I'll drop them a note. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• By the way, you are required to inform them that you have mentioned them here - I've done that for you. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As Black Kite said there may be some confusion on the part of the other editor here about when IMDb is disallowed and it would be good to correct that confusion. However there also seems to be some confusion on your part. There's no policy or guideline that requires IMDb links are present. The closest is Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb which says "Generally yes" not that IMDb links are required. Therefore the editor is fully entitled to dispute the inclusion of an IMDb link in a specific article and doesn't need to discuss it anywhere other than the article talk page where it becomes a WP:Content dispute and should be handled via normal means of dispute resolution none of which should involve ANI. They will obviously need to provide a valid non WP:OWN reason for this, but no administrator is going to contact them officially in the manner you suggest. Other the the fact the advice would be wrong, that's not how administrators work. Of particular note is that it's a South Korea game show and IMDb seems to have significantly less info than even our article, so it's possible a good argument could be made in the right places the IMDb link is not useful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, yeah, having now seen the IMDb page, it's not adding anything useful at all. Personally I'd leave it out here. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the article talk page on the merits of the IMDb links. But in doing so I looked more closely at this dispute. Ccan you please point to where Bonnielou2013 indicates any form of WP:Ownership of the article? Far as I can see, the only thing they did related to this was a single revert with the edit summary "one external weblink sufficient per WP rules; IMDb not reliable WP source". They don't seem to have discussed it anywhere nor did they revert after you reverted them. As said above, the reason suggests a misunderstand of guidelines and policies but it doesn't seem to indicate ownership problems. If you have no real evidence of any ownership tendencies, please refrain from making such accusations. It could be regarded as a WP:Personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you both Black Kite and Nil Einne for responding to the above issue. Yes, as you pointed out, I was confused with policy pertaining to the use of IMDb after a recent notification of my own incorrect usage of it [127]. And reading your discussion of it Black Kite, I agree that for this page Non-Summit, the IMDb does not provide anything useful and would leave it out.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Harassment by Ms10vc

Hi This used harass me. He tries to put pressure on me and intimidate me by trying to influence an administrator.. The page said: "this page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline." And these contributors have knowledge on the subject, there is no harm in asking their opinion. And I have the right to write to a contributor in his own talk page if it is to let him know some clarifications. It is an appropriate notification. So I did not do anything who is prohibited by the rules. On this case, we are in full harassment of this account where it tracks down my messages on the contributor's talk pages. This behaviour should be stopped. He has done canvassing here by asking a contributor who does not pass on "en.wiki" to come here for no reason. Colokreb From then on, such a contributor no longer has any reason to reproach me with anything. I have a witness @Jean-Jacques Georges: --Panam2014 (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Panam2014, while I do agree with you about Ms10vc's general behaviour, you'd do best to show diffs about what he's doing here and on other projects. It would be more useful, and more convincing to the admins, than simply asking for my opinion, especially since I took no part in your current debates with him. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a large file on the actions of this individual who uses Wikimedia Commons to communicate here and besides it is clear that he tries to modify the same pages to influence a decision on the francophone page. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Then show them to the admins here : it will be certainly more decisive than just pinging me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, please provide some diffs which show harassment. I note that the above link to Drmies's talk page ended in advising you to come here, so what exactly would you like us to do? :) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. First, the conflict began in french Wikipedia. After that, the groupe attempted to provok a new conflict here. Then, it is clear that there are no consensus to add that fictitious flag (see talk pages). And, in the end, from 15 April to 1 July Ms10vc attempted to impose the flag in english wikipedia, arabic, italian, spanish, and turkish (and has been reverted). --Panam2014 (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not good behaviour, I agree - however, it doesn't appear like the editor has harassed you? Do you have anything to back up the claim of harassment? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Ms10vc track down the slightest of my movements and spend his time accusing me of wrong things to try to sink me. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well that's more actionable - could you provide some links to that? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime:He harass me and defame me for the third time : [128] and [129]. Every time I do something that does not please him he comes out of the wood. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The facts are clear and simple. I have promised to User:Drmies to always have a good behavior and to always discuss and give sources ==> [130]. In order to avoid doing anything wrong, I prefer to ask his advice. Panam2014 was already warned about his personal attacks ==> [131]. After that, he reverted my modification pretending that I did not provide any source ==>"No source for the flag stop now". But in fact, the source is present in the Commons' page of the flag. I asked Colokreb to send me the relevant pages of the book and he kindly did it. If it's a matter of source, I can send the pages to anyone who wants to verify if I'm lying or telling the truth. Last but not least, Panam did a new personal attack by accusing me of lying ==> [132], and then he went the Wikipedia:Canvassing way ==> [133] and [134]. And because the best defense is a good offense, he now tries to fool the game by accusing me of harrassment. Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The account Ms10vc have promised that but he has not meet its commitments. In line with his pov pushing on several Wikimedia projects, he tries to accuse me of anything whenever I move. Today, Ms10vc has been warned for his behaviour by Dirmes. For the rest, Ms10vc did "canvassing" at the beginning of the month trying to contact Colokreb who never intervened here. In view of this, he has no legitimacy to reproach me (wrongly) for what he is doing openly. For the moment, I was right to say that no source was provided. Speaking of source, I was referring to the fact that no source was provided to prove that one of the two flags is more true than the other. The sources do not allow us to conclude. Giving the sources is not enough given that we have contradictory sources. Accusing someone of lying is not accuse it of being a liar. And I explained how it was a lie. For the second point, "this page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline." And these contributors contribute to the English version and have knowledge on the subject, there is no harm in asking their opinion. And I have the right to write to a contributor in his own talk page if it is to let him know some clarifications. It is an appropriate notification. So I did not do anything who is prohibited by the rules. On this case, we are in full harassment of this account where it tracks down my messages on the contributor's talk pages. And now, @L3X1: is agree with me. This behaviour should be stopped. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to add something. In addition to my other diffs, when we see that the conflict only took place on "fr.wiki" and that much later Ms10vc modified several versions of Wikipedia on the same day and in the same way, it shows that for the story that concerns us here, the purpose of the modification here is only to influence the debates on "fr.wiki". It should also know that Ms10vc is blocked indefinitely on "fr.wiki" and he lost 4 pseudos (minimum : [135], [136], [137] (the last harrassed me and JJG have accused Zivax (admin) to helping his friend Panam2014 about a story with JJG). So we are in full "WP: Meat puppetry" knowing that he can not intervene directly. As for the rest, we saw that he tried to bring Colokreb here to try to influence the debate. It is indeed "WP: Canvassing". Finally, it is clear that his behavior is not irreproachable on Commons : [138]. Finally, I am willing to give more diffs if needed. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks on me

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

---

★Trekker has been using personal insult because they disagree with my edits. This started when I separated Marvel Music the record label company and Marvel Music the imprint as separate articles. Here are some notable quotes from him.

If they are indeed notable they should both be included on the template, not one removed like this incessant editor keeps doing for some moronic stupid reason.★Trekker (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Contacting people who have been previously involved in an issue is common courtesy on wikipedia. Stop being an annoying tool who thinks they know more than they do.★Trekker (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Why did you change the header to a warning to someone else, what is your problem? Also, I have already pointe doubt why your edits are dumb as hell several times.★Trekker (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel that this sort of attitude is not warranted. I can understand disagreements with the interpretation of information, but this user is clearly trying to take my edits personally. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, those comments definitely move into personal attack territory. I'll give them a warning to stop. A warning is probably sufficient for now, but if they don't stop, it could be escalated to blocking. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That being said, Iftekharahmed96, you need to notify any editor you discuss at ANI like this with a talk page message. You'll likely find yourself in hot water yourself if you forget to do this in the future. Please keep it in mind. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this Sergecross. So in the future, I should notify said person who is being reported that I may report them before actually reporting them, right? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You can either write a message on their talk page, or just add a "{{ani}} ~~~~" which gives a template and your signature on their talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: You don't need to warn them that you may report them, but you do need to inform them once you report them. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying 331dot, I'll keep that in mind next time. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I misread what you said. No, you don't need to warn them that you may report them, you just need to write something on their talk page as soon as you have reported them here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You really should use proper linking to these edits, right now it looks like I wrote these things here, which isn't the case.★Trekker (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Halimah Yacob

Sections merged. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

== Evasion of user block ==

Reid62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for one week, and is editing pages such as Halimah Yacob and Adnan Saidi using the logged out IP 202.156.181.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --202.172.56.4 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

== Continuos vandalism on [[Halimah Yacob]] page ==

202.172.56.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing Halimah Yacob page together with this IP 118.189.63.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) countless times. Suspected sock-puppetry. They also engaged in edit warring. Please investigate. Thank you. -- 202.156.181.76 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. This looks like a WP:BOOMERANG if I ever saw one. OP has serious WP:NPOV issues, not to mention making threats he cannot back up, i.e. WP:BLUDGEON, like here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Per a 3RR complaint the article on Halimah Yacob has been semiprotected for two months. This is enough for the moment to save the article from a non-stop war. Other admins may see a need for some blocks, and if so they should go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit makes 202.156.181.76 look like a sock of Reid62, but I'm not 100% sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - Pahlevun

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

---

There is an issue with user Pahlevun and their disruptive editing on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. Their disruptiveness and asserting ownership makes it impossible for other editors to contribute to the project. I suggest a topic ban be imposed. Below is a list of examples of poor editing behavior:

• Disruptive editing - tendentious editing, Rejects or ignores community input. “His or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.”
  • Examples:
    • Uncivil, Personal attack - Pushing certain view accusation (07:33, 29 June 2017), hijack references accusation (12:03, 8 April 2017).
    • Undoing work of other editors without explanation: 12:10, 12 April 2017.
    • Marking major / non-minor edits as minor including additions, reverts, and removals. These edits do not meet the criteria for minor “edit”: 18:30, 26 July 2017; 07:14, 15 July 2017‎; 18:23, 9 July 2017; 11:50, 22 May 2017; 5 May 2017‎; 19:47, 8 February 2017; 14:41, 28 February 2017; 12:38, 30 March 2017;
    • Large additions without providing edit summary - 08:20, 29 June 2017‎; 15:49, 25 March 2017‎; 17:53, 4 January 2017‎.

• Ownership
  • Examples:
    • Reverts good-faith change without providing an edit summary: 08:25, 5 May 2017.
    • Multiple additions made within a short amount of time without discussing on Talk Page: 07:00, 15 July 2017‎ and 15:31, 15 July 2017‎; 16:45, 29 January 2017‎ and 13:02, 3 February 2017‎.
    • Unwilling to work with editors, it’s their way or no way: 12:11, 12 April 2017 (→‎Lead Clean).

DirectAttrition (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

OP has been indeffed as just one of at least 11 confirmed sockpuppets that have been making a sustained effort to purge People's Mujahedin of Iran of negative material about the group. (It's likely that there are even more socks out there, or will be soon.) Pahlevun has in fact been a saint trying to contain the ensuing disruption; I suggest a speedy close. For more on the socking, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have never tried to engage in "disruptive editing", nor felt ownership on any article. The complaint is now proven to be a WP:SPA and not here to build an encyclopedia. I don't know if it is necessary to explain myself. Pahlevun (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here. I think that, given the complainant is a sock it's probably all moot now. I went through the provided diffs, and there is very clearly no personal attacks or incivility as far as I could see. That said Pahlevun, it probably is a good idea to ensure that edits to controversial articles always have edit summaries. If there's no objections, I'll cinch this section up for posterity. A Train^talk 21:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring and personal attacks –User:Whatisurproblem

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

---

User:Whatisurproblem – also editing as 70.79.43.23 – has been making edits introducing idiosyncratic terminology and other questionable changes[139] the majority of which have been reverted by various editors as confusing, low-quality, or contrary to MOS. His reaction from the beginning has consisted of edit-warring, abusive edit summaries,[140][141] and summarily deleting (or replacing with profanity) all attempts to discuss his edits or to warn him about problems with his conduct on his Talk pages.[142] He asked at the Teahouse for help dealing with what he ironically calls "persistent editors", then attacked an uninvolved editor whose response he didn't like.[143] He seems to have good intentions, but – as exemplified by his choice of username – shows no ablity to work constructively or abide by WP standards of conduct. Magic9Ball (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Notification of this discussion was made but reverted.[144] Magic9Ball (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Whatisurproblem is WP:NOTHERE. Please block forthwith. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have also been involved in this, primarily from the Danielle Campbell page. A new IP has appeared - 50.64.27.247 - which I also suspect (based on this edit, and geolocation) is the same user. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked for 60 hours to prevent ongoing disruption - after the block expires if this behaviour continues they will be indefinitely blocked -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks by Bulldog4

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

---

I have been threatened and falsley accused of vandalism and personally attacked by Bulldog4. I feel that this is a violation of the principles of the wikipedia community:

• False and unfounded accusations of a personal vendetta. (link)

• False and unfounded accusations of Vandalism. (link)

• False accusations of using a sock puppet account as well as the ridiculous accusations of placing a "device" on Bulldog4. (link)

This is really not making wikipedia a safe place to be for me, his multiple allusions to legal action and attempts at trying to defame my account and edit reputation is frustrating. I would like to see some intervention.Moist towelett (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to better link diffs, but this one in particular strikes me as a legal threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moist_towelett&diff=prev&oldid=792497819 Suggest blocking. --Tarage (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Also it appears that Bulldog4 may be editing with a COI. --Tarage (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I will state that Bulldog4 has alluded multiple times to the fact that they are the subject of the article they are editing.Moist towelett (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. They do seem to have a COI, but that is irrelivant considering they have issued a very clear legal threat, on top of their increased incivility. Thankfully their edit history is not very long... --Tarage (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The subject was also previously editing under user:Strathisla1.Moist towelett (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even if their comments only skirt the lines of a legal threat, it is nonetheless chilling any attempts at discussion and is almost certainly meant to intimidate. Agree with a block, we don't need people like here. Blackmane (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the above, a CU might be worth running as well. Both editors probably need to be dealt with, considering they both appear to have a COI. --Tarage (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for the vague legal threat and the above behaviour, but primarily because they are clearly here to push an agenda and not to contribute to the encyclopedia -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 07:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

With all due respect There'sNoTime, what about the other user who is probably related? Why did you close this without the CU? --Tarage (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That other account stopped editing two years ago. There is nothing that CU can do since such information is not accessible after three months. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift action by everyone in this thread. If the username appears again and makes another Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest claim where should I report them, back to here?Moist towelett (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked sock/editor articles created

A blocked sock/editor has created quite a few new articles that I checked while patrolling new pages. Are these pages supposed to be deleted? If so, how should they be tagged for deletion? The articles look like they were created before the block.

Best Regards,

Bfpage (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You're going to need to supply some evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:G5, but yes, please give us some details, particularly so that the account(s) can be blocked if they're determined to be socking. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Damien Moore

• Damien Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Earlier today I noticed that sourced material from this BLP had been removed by an IP. I restored it and left a message on that IP's talk page. Given that this a statement about the sexuality of a politician I did check if this person had made any public comment about this. He has [145], so I added this too. The IP left a message on my talk page which I responded to, explaining why I had restored the material. The IP continues to remove the material and has now made a legal threat [146]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Firstly, I don't believe this is a direct legal threat (though it's thin ice, and deserves attention). Secondly I don't believe that source refers to Damien Moore as being openly gay, and would prefer it if a second reliable source could be found to confirm or deny the statement. As it stands, and given this is a BLP I'm going to revert the edit until a second source can be provided. This isn't anything against you, it's solely to calm the situation down a little so that we can move forward in improving the article. What do you think? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As I was typing this, multiple sources have been provided - I have reverted the IP, and protected the page. Apologies for the above (struck) comment -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's ok, I was in agreement with your approach to play things safe with a BLP and not add claims without an adequate source. There were several sites published content using material from the same journalist/interview on the same day (12 June)- on another site [147] the article describes Moore as "openly-gay". Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Has anyone contacted his office?

As someone with property in his constituency I've been following this guy in the news for a while. He's about as "openly gay" as an MP might be expected to be, short of camping it up on Little Britain. There is no secret of this in local press coverage, either by him in interviews, or in comment pieces. This should stay, but we should talk to his office first. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for the further confirmation, my initial reaction was based on the fact this is a BLP and I wanted to ensure this could be added with plenty of references. It's now been added, and the page protected. Do you believe contacting his office is still necessary, given how well it is publicised? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, sort of. We should see exactly what the problem is, but it could just prolong and complicate matters further. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned given the IPs involved are legitimately Parliament-based, however on the other hand given the references available which do directly describe him as openly gay I would be hard pressed to see that statement removed.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The IPs WHOIS lists them as coming from that building. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The IP self-identified as "work[ing] for Damien Moore",[148] so I have advised them of COI and paid-editing guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting for someone to contact me on the following number: [redacted]. This is the number of the office of Damien Moore. He is not openly gay, the Pink News article referencing his being gay is inaccurate and unsolicited. The Southport Visitor article also cited as a source makes no mention of him being openly gay. I am sure that even you people would agree that Mr Moore would know better than anyone if he is openly gay or not and I can assure you, he is NOT!194.60.38.227 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Relevant quote from the cited Southport Visitor: "Mr Moore, who has quit his job as a manager with supermarket giants ASDA to concentrate on his new parliamentary career, said his sexuality had not been an issue in the campaign. 'I would never deny being gay if asked, but I never flaunt it. The issue was not raised either in this campaign or the one in 2015. In fact I was never asked.'"[149] —C.Fred (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

C.Fred Logically to most of us that's somewhat of a confirmation but at the same time it's plausible deniability. He's not actually confirming it there imo and I'd say the two sources are rather lackluster as far as reliability goes. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: By what means do you infer that they are not reliable? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Two local papers reporting the equivalent of a quick sound clip with little context doesn't exactly make for the most RS as it pertains to making a broad statements about a living person's sexuality where they haven't explicitly identified as much. I just think we should be erring on the side of caution re: BLPs. Someone saying "I wouldn't deny it" is not, in my opinion an affirmation. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I share Chrissy's concern about QLocal. I can't find a masthead to see who their editorial staff are.

As for PinkNews, that is on the one hand the strongest source, because the author is an academic researcher. However, there's nothing in the article to corroborate Professor Reynolds' claim about Moore's sexuality. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The IP has stated that they are going to ask for an amendment to that QLocal source. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)This appears to be more a semantic question in real life than a behavioral one on Wikipedia; The subject seems to be using one end of the phrase's meaning, and some of the journalists another. To look at an analogous case, it is trivially easy to find examples of cites claiming that a certain recently paroled person is a "murderer", yet he was famously acquitted of that charge. Now, Wiki wouldn't print that, but that's more a question of protecting Jimbo's ricebowl than of accuracy or common decency - which should both be part of what the BLP restrictions are about. Anmccaff (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the content in question given the dispute - BLP articles should not contain controversial material, and until some further references are provided (and a consensus formed on the inclusion) I think it's best that we don't have this statement. We can always re-add it. This isn't an admin action, though I would ask interested editors to discuss before reverting per where we are in the WP:BRD cycle -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I endorse this decision. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree that no admin action is needed at this time related to the article. Situation best handled by discussion at article talk. If any further intervention is necessary, BLP/N is probably the better venue.

I think the IP is transparent enough that no action is needed related to WP:PAID. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to summarise the issues at Talk:Damien_Moore#Content_dispute, and would encourage interested editors to address the issues there -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I find it worrying that the person claiming to be at his office has not left a name. I find it strange that the y costently say "openly gay" perhaps they think he is just "gay" and that the openly menas somthing other than just admitting it. I did call the number given and never got through, thoughit a real number at HoC and his office.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Request: Check whether the article creations are made by someone close to the channel

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

---

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.194.46 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2017‎ (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done so for you. The best way to determine if that account is used by someone close to the channel is to simply ask them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate non-admin closure of an AfD

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

---

I'm raising a concern I had about the recent non-admin AfD closure for Aturaparijnana by User:Anoptimistix. There were only two comments made: the nominator's and my "Delete" comment. Anoptimistix attempted to improve the article (which as I understand is totally fine). But then rather than make a "Keep" comment and maybe notify the other commenters that there was new information to consider and/or ask for a relisting, they instead closed the AfD as a "Keep", even though there was certainly no consensus to do so. Moreover, I feel that the attempted improvements didn't really address the main issues raised in the AfD in the first place (so I have since renominated it for deletion; I hope that's not a problem). --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a complete misreading of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures. That wasn't a Keep by any stretch with just one comment in the way of deletion and no keep comments, and if anything the AfD needed to be relisted, not closed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First I agree that this was a problematic close. Almost certainly done in good faith but definitely running afoul of WP:INVOLVED. However the correct course of action here would have been to first contact the closing editor with your concerns and suggest they re-open the AfD. If that failed the next step would have been WP:DELREV. I am inclined to revert the close and delete the current AfD. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that's the right way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. There being no immediate objections, and given this doesn't look like an especially complicated case, I'm going to move on that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Yeah I feel this is the best course of action for the time being --Kostas20142 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Close of original AfD reverted. New AfD deleted per CSD G6. Article reverted to last pre-close form. Seafood for Anoptimistix tonight. -20:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban for editor stating "I believe Islam is cancer"

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

---

This may be controversial, but I do not believe that an editor with such a strong dislike towards a religion (or indeed people) should be editing related articles or related material within articles. Music314812813478 (talk · contribs) had the statement "Since I could not find any userboxes for it, let's just say that I believe Islam is cancer." on his userpage until it was removed.[150] Their response to the removal was "I don't like this "it hurts, so it should be taken down!" culture, but I guess I'll have to play along."[151]. Note that their two blocks for edit warring were both on Islam related subjects.[152] [153] Doug Weller talk 20:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've checked a couple of their contribs at random, and many of them should be reverted. I have reverted a couple myself. A topic ban from Islam related stuff would be a good start, but I am worried that that may not be enough. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There are many antitheists on youtube, who believe that the world would be saner without religion. They don't have topic bans for having beliefs about religion similar to my beliefs about Islam. Why should I get a topic ban then? Also, how is disliking a set of beliefs somehow bigotry? I said Islam is cancer; I never expressed hate for Muslims.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've waded through the user's edits and there's a readily apparent tendency to wade into contentious articles and make brash POV edits without discussion or consensus-seeking. A very high proportion of the user's recent edits have been reverted as unhelpful. I would go so far as to say that the user might not be quite ready to make edits to any religion-related articles at all. [Edit conflict] Actually, wow, look at the post from 21:33 UTC above. I think Music314812813478 means well but maybe they should be editing articles about ABBA songs or the Mets or something. A Train^talk 21:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't organise mass reverts of my edits assuming they have anything to do with my statements about Islam, especially if my edits are well sourced. And frankly, some of you may subconsciously insert your own biases in reverting my edits. And why extend my topic ban to ALL religion articles just because of what I said about Islam? I source my edits, and am willing to discuss them. They may have a slant, but so do the edits of most editors (such as User:StAnselm), and a slant does not necessarily mean a bias.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Slant is a pretty good synonym for bias, as far as anyone is concerned. Playing semantic games on ANI is not a great look. Your larger problem, MusicPi, is that your biases make you into a bull in a china shop. Here's a representative slice of your recent edits (all of which were immediately reverted).

• Here you use a naive and academically dismissed perspective on Hitler in an attempt to distance Christianity from the Third Reich.
• Here you make a non-sensical edit to deflect criticism from Christianity.
• Here you add a strange, tone-deaf, Christian-centric conclusion to the intro paragraph of the History of ancient Israel and Judah article
• And finally this doozy, where you add Nazism to a template about socialism, presumably because Nazism is literally called "National Socialism". This is either immensely naive or just malicious. There are thousands of devoted Christians editing Wikipedia who don't edit the way you do.

In conclusion, I suspect that you're not here to build a collaborative encyclopedia, but to artlessly push your point of view. I think if you voluntarily agreed to walk away from religion and politics articles you would stand a chance of escaping the community-imposed ban I see on the horizon. A Train^talk 22:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the TBAN seems rather obvious given the strong beliefs and apparent actions taken upon those personal beliefs. I happen to be non-theist. But, I don’t act upon that as an editor, and have argued in favor of including various miracles and dogma in religious articles even though I consider such nonsense. One must look at such in historical, scholarly ways. Question is, does the editor understand that you leave your biases behind when you sign in? Objective3000 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Objective3000, yes I do indeed. My edits are well-sourced and I am willing to add content contrary to my beliefs if the source contains such.Music314812813478 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Doug, for filing this. I think this should perhaps be extended further, to all religion? Very problematic edits about Judaism and "Hebraism" -- bad refs, copyvio, content not supported by sources at two articles. They are trying to add overbroad content praising ancient Israelites' contribution to western civ at two articles....

history Hebraism article (some of that waiting for rev]]del)

history at History of ancient Israel and Judah,

To be more specific diff of the content they were intially trying to add at both articles, just stuck into the lead:

Hebraism is just as important a factor in the development of Western civilization as Hellenism, and Judaism, as the mother religion of Christianity, has considerably shaped Western ideals and morality since the Christian Era.

References

That is a creepy late 19th century orientalizing ref (see https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3vs8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA40 here]) that has no place in WP (except as a primary source for outdated orientalist history writing). And after we had said "no way" to that ref at the talk page of the Ancient Israel/Judah article, and Music had proposed a better one (a contemporary high school/freshman level textbook) that we had said "well ok" to, they ran and did this at Hebraism article, keeping the creepy old source but adding stuff from the new one as well.

And they are making just the strangest arguments at the two talk pages, including asking me if a proposed edit is copyvio or not. If somebody doesn't know if they are copying out of a source and pasting into Wikipedia, that is a whole deeper level of problem, along with the CIR yet POV-pushing problems in content creation. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

T-ban? Just block him. Look at it this way: If he would have made the same statement about Judaism, everyone, me included, would be dragging him to the gallows. Why is it ok for Islam? It's a bigoted statement and bigots do not understand that their POV is not a fact. That's what makes them bigots. And bigots are of no use here. John from Idegon (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If I promise to not edit-war and always use gold-plated reliable sources for Islam related articles, would you spare me the topic ban?Music314812813478 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've read your opinion about CNN. Our opinions about what a gold-plated reliable source is differ too much. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not bigoted for thinking negativley about Islam. I love Muslims as a people. There are peole who have infoboxes saying similar things abot ALL religions, not just Isllam or Judaism. Why should I get a block for saying something similar on my user page.?Music314812813478 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed them, but could you point me to the "This user thinks Buddhism is a cancer" infobox templates? Because we should probably address those at the same time. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE seems to be the best solution. We are building an encyclopedia. Agenda-driven SPAs are not helping. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This extends beyond religion. Look at Music314812813478's edits about Nazism and socialism -- I've pulled some of the diffs above. Given how disingenuous the editor's replies have been on this topic alone, I'm not sure it's fair to ask the community to shoulder the extra work of monitoring and enforcing the ban. It's very hard to WP:AGF give the above. A Train^talk 22:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Good grief. Should be nowhere near politics. Objective3000 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:I got that ref from the Christianity article. I am a youth living in modern times, living modern ways. I had no intention of orientalizing anything. And I did propose new stuff after you challenged what I added right? And I was asking if what I added was tooclose to what the source says.

+

WP:NOTHERE seems to be the best solution. We are building an encyclopedia. Agenda-driven SPAs are not helping. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

T-Ban appears to be a foregone conclusion. The hatred toward Islam, the huge percentage of edits devoted to religion, including ACT! for America, an anti-Islam group; and the desire to keep editing religious articles support NOTHERE. Objective3000 (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

−

Please guys, I don't want any more drama. I promise to never say or do anyhing similar to such an obnoxious statement ever againMusic314812813478 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

− Music314812813478 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That seems excessive. Look, I don't disagree that this editor seems to have significant bias issues that cut to the very question of their ability to contribute here in a neutral fashion. Even the very act of having posted that comment on their user page and didn't expect the certain response raises the question of how much perspective they can really have on what is inappropriate or inappropriate commentary on this project--in userspace, let alone articles that have to comply with WP:NPOV. But blocking them for a having a strong opinion that happens to be objectionable? I don't think so; all community sanctions are meant to be as minimally targeted as necessary to address problem behaviours--not unpopular thoughts, whether we happen to find them bigoted or not.

Now, editors reviewing his edits in the area of Islam seem to agree that a bias is showing there (quelle surprise!), and even if we weren't seeing the signs in the edits, a topic ban would seem a reasonable precautionary measure, given just how deep the declared negative emotions are here, with regard to the topic. Taking the entire evidence, a very broadly implemented TBAN is something I can get behind. But blocking for having a bias...I'm sorry, I'm just not comfortable with that. Whether we want to believe it or not, we're all here operating under biases--powerful biases. It's just that for most of us, they aren't as blatantly obvious as they are for this contributor.

So are we going to penalize them for being forthright about their views? Don't get me wrong, that message should have been taken down (per WP:POLEMIC and common sense regarding what we are WP:HERE for. But the worst that resulted from that blunder was that the rest of us became aware of the bias and recognized a larger problem. A problem that can (hopefully) be remedied by a topic ban. The alternative, if he begin to block people for being close-minded, is that we create a system that incentivizes them to just suppress their bias as efficiently as possible and learn to fly under the radar in implementing it, by learning the "proper" things to say while still working at their agenda. Or, even more potentially damaging to content, editors can double think themselves into believing they are being neutral, while continuing to operate from a strong bias. That kind of thing is much harder to detect or to confront. It's a best of limited choices situation, to be sure, but I'd just as soon have a situation where such editors are allowed to express themselves out of the content areas they otherwise would have turned into WP:BATTLEGROUNDs.

Now, is it possible that this editor is going to just prove too dogged on this issue and we will have to consider broader sanctions. Sure, of course. I mean...they seem to have a long way to go towards leanrning what neutrality means on this project, at a minimum. But they've expressed a desire to be an unbiased, productive editor by removing their personal emotions from the equation. I'm just not convinced WP:NOTHERE applies to them. I'm not altogether impressed with them, but I think they have an understanding of the communities priorities. And though I don't think they can be trusted with Islam-related articles (not now and not for a long time), I don't see sufficient reason to remove them from the project. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Obvious straw man argument is obvious. No one is in favor of, and I quote: "blocking them for a having a strong opinion that happens to be objectionable". We have looked at their contribs. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There are many antitheists on youtube, who believe that the world would be saner without religion. They don't have topic bans for having beliefs about religion similar to my beliefs about Islam. Probably because we don't say things as inane, meaningless and pointlessly confrontational as "I think Islam is cancer" but rather make the effort to demonstrate that we have, actually, put some thought into it, studied the subject, and come to a conclusion more along the lines of "I can fully understand the attraction and benefits of organized religion, especially when one is raised in a culture defined in part by it. Indeed, progressive elements of religion are often amazingly sane and logical, and on balance produce far more good than harm. But the potential for harm that comes with dogmatic and intolerant religious beliefs is, without question, one of the most damaging forces this world has ever known; the root of much evil." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright I agree to stay out of religion and politics articles.Music314812813478 (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you agreeing to a topic ban on articles pertaining to religion and politics, narrowly construed? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes.

I was under the impression that we can say anytingbon the user pages. I was naive and rreckless. Please don't ban me for my own foolishness, I swear I will try to edit solely for building ajbencyclopediaMusic314812813478 (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• If the user escapes a block and is amenable to the idea, I would volunteer as mentor. Personally, I think the responses here demonstrate that mentorship would be effective, and that, combined with a topic ban (indefinite for now, but with the standard "appeal in 6 months" clause) as defined in my previous comment would settle the matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sir, does this extend to arguing for my past edits? Just asking.Music314812813478 (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you're asking if I (assuming a mentoring/topic ban solution is accepted here) would argue on your behalf for your past edits, the answer is "No". If you're asking if you would be permitted to continue to engage other editors in discussion about the value of your past edits, then the answer is "Only edits which don't touch upon the subjects of religion or politics". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I mean if I could still argue for my past edits on the talk pages of religion and politcis related articles, whilebstaying out of the articles themselvesMusic314812813478 (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC).

No. A topic ban is a prohibition against edits dealing with those subjects, including talk page. Having taken a quick look at your editing history in those subjects, I assure you that you would be best served by not doing so. For example, adding a socialism sidebar to Nazism is indefensible: Nazism is a right-wing ideology and socialism a left-wing ideology. It's equivalent to adding a Star Wars sidebar to Star Trek. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants if you're willing to keep an eye on MusicPi and the editor agrees to abstain from editing any religion or politics articles indefinitely (subject to review), then personally I see no reason for an immediate block. A Train^talk 22:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@A Train: I am. I do believe, however, that the topic ban should be formalized, and defined as being narrowly construed, because religion and politics are massive subjects, and it could be easily argued that many edits tangential to those subjects (almost everything in philosophy except epistemology, for example) would fall under a broadly construed topic ban. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the mentorship is a generous offer. One could argue that arguing for past edits would be up to the mentor; but then it wouldn’t be a Tban, would probably be unmanageable and also indicates a desire to continue with religious articles. A Tban has to be a Tban. I'm fine with narrowly construed under mentorship. Objective3000 (talk)

You're a better man than me, MjolnirPants. :) Anybody want to take a stab at codifying this tban with a proposal? A Train^talk 22:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban with mentorship

I'm proposing an indefinite topic ban on the subject of religion and politics, narrowly construed and with the option to appeal in 6 months. This is to run concurrent with formal mentorship, for which I've volunteered. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support and good luck. Objective3000 (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I look forward to Music314812813478's incredible rehabilitation. A Train^talk 22:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support and god help you. --Tarage (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants is far too kind. Its not like there is a baby among the bathwater. I tried finding contribs that were not related to politics or religion and found 2 articles on the 9th of June that were not related to those topics, but Music's edits were. [154] [155] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We can always indef next week. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support I do not have as much patience as ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants has. I am often accused of being a pessimist. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And even more often accused of being a potato.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support The situation here is that someone promoted a strongly negative idea about a religion on their user page. Imagine if another editor did the reverse and gave the impression they were here to ensure that non-observers were put in their box. Neither approach works at Wikipedia. Thanks to ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants for the "put some thought into it" explanation above. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The editor has agreed to it, and it seems reasonable. Mentoring cannot hurt and if Mjolnir is in a position to see if/when things truly going off the rail again, the community will know all the sooner. Easily the best combination of options discussed above. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support and godspeed EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Heads-up on heavy sockfarm/COI/paid editing activity.

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Undisclosed_paid_editing_sockfarm. Several sockfarms seem to have recently created about a hundred promotional articles. Some have been matched to ads for Wikipedia editing on Upwork. (For a sense of that problem, see [156].) Over at WP:COIN, articles are being tagged and deletions proposed. No need for admin action yet, but that may happen. Because of the large number of articles, I'm using PROD heavily.[157]. Anyone can remove a PROD, but often, the paid-by-the-job paid editors, having been paid, don't. John Nagle (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Potential socks

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

---

Just saw User:Jd forlife2k16 and User:JD-LIFE2k17 on the userpage patrol log. I actually patrolled one before I saw the other. It could be that they accidentally created two accounts or wanted to change their username and weren't sure how, but I thought it'd be best for somebody else to take a look in case they are socking. As of now I am not notifying either account per WP:BITE. If they're innocent, I don't want to drive them off. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Dennis Bratland and WP:NPA

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

---

Dennis Bratland insults me. I don't consider his behaviour acceptable anymore. I clearly expressed that I don't like that. It is enough. Please stop, Dennis Bratland. Unfortunately, I don't see any other way than reporting him here.

• He claims I have been edit-warring even though it is a lie. Possibly to get me blocked from editing, at least he desires that. Even though he knows it is wrong, he wants to stand by what he said, that is why I accuse him of lying.

• (″His IDHT editing isn't limited to edit warring over using German unit conventions″)
• (″User:Jojhnjoy has been (...) edit warring (...)″)
• (″I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″)
• (″I stand by what I said″)

• He says I am inable to respect other persons.

• (″Your inability to respect anybody else is the point.″)

Further stuff to take into account:

Extended content

He keeps referring to my ability to speak German and I feel like he talks disparagingly about it, also, he acts like I would not know English sufficiently. For instance: ″He is still welcome to submit a proposals to add Denglisch to the list of national varieties of English″) (″I said you are stereotyping Germans. (...) When you see phrase that strikes you as odd, consider that you have just met an English idiom, and you should spend a half second googling it before going off on a tangent because you misunderstood″) (″I know English isn't your native language″) (This could be seen as a vague point, however, I feel insulted. Also, he is just assuming that English isn't my native language even though it sort of is.) He says that my comments are inane even though I explained that I am confused by his block log saying intentional violation of interaction ban, after very clear warning. (″You don't understand what an interaction ban is. Hence your inane comments about it.″) (I asked a question about that here, I linked the reply to my question.) He compares me to Bozo the Clown. (″ "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Perhaps you are the lone voice of reason. But everyone thinks you're the metaphorical Bozo the Clown in this.″) (Not exactly an infamous person, though somebody to make fun of). He accuses me of not being here to build an encyclopedia but troll blatantly. He says my opinion and objection are "disingenuous time wasting bullshit". (″I have no more patience left for this disingenuous time wasting bullshit. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. This is blatant trolling, or what we call 'disruptive editing'. I hope you are blocked from editing indefinitely, and soon.″) He keeps accusing me of editing disruptively even though there is serious doubt. (″This is (...) what we call 'disruptive editing'″) (″obstinate, disruptive posts″) (″That is disruptive editing″) (″Jojhnjoy should be blocked from editing for disruptive editing″ He chooses condescending words to describe what I do and which opinions I have. (″crackpot version of SI units.″) (″pseudo-German, bastardized-SI formatting style″) (″cut the crap″) He cites me and writes: (″Nobody gives a rusty flying fuck″) (″Please stop this bullshit″) He "yells" at me: (″THIS IS ENGLISH FUCKING WIKIPEDIA GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD. YOU DON'T NEED TO KEEP FUCKING REMINDING US THAT OTHER LANGUAGES HAVE OTHER FUCKING WORDS FOR THINGS. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A DIFFERENT FUCKING LANGUAGE.″) He calls me unrepentant and accuses me of intellectual dishonesty: (″Jojhnjoy is unrepentant, and his intellectual dishonesty continues right up to his last post above″) He justifies his behaviour. (″Some people never listen until you yell at them. Probably won't work but it's worth one try.″) Even though he knows that I feel uncomfortable with that: (″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.″)

--Jojhnjoy (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy, this is a really, really, really super-ultra totally bad idea. Suggest you withdraw this while you can. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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

This guy really, really, REALLY likes the 5th Iranian president

• Farzad Khorasani (talk · contribs)

As near as I can tell, most (if not all) of Khorasani's edits on Wikipedia have been to add pics of Mohammad Khatami to articles. I cleaned up a few clearly inappropriate instances (where other editors had not already done so), but left a huge mass of Iran-topics alone (where the pics may or may not still be lending undue gravitas); suggest someone more familiar with those subjects remove as necessary. Dropped a note on his TP.--Froglich (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

admin attention requested at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere

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

---

There's an outline of behavioral evidence at the page, and Moltenflesh is as obvious a avian aquatic fowl as I've ever seen. Same exact mannerisms, same exact non RS sources, same exact POV-pushing claims derived from them (compare this and this, and see this for where Moltenflesh admitted being the IP of the first), same exact poor logic at the talk page of their particular fascination, the same exact retaliatory behavior. Note how two other socks (one of which was pushing the same exact edit) were found that weren't matched to the sockmaster via checkuser: It's pretty obvious this is a case of someone trying to be slick by using proxies (there have been blocks on IPs from all over the world who were obvious socks of this editor), and it's once again turned the talk page of the article into a giant wall of WP:IDHT and really really bad logic. I'm all for WP:AGF, but this is just so obviously a sock by now that it's time to start playing whack-a-mole again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Point of information: are there any nonavian fowl? EEng 02:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No, though I suppose it's possible that there are editors who don't randomly transpose elemental adjectives from time to time. Clearly, I'm not one of them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I notice you don’t give any examples of diffs to support your accusation, likely because this all revolves around generalizing as much as possible to make anyone sound like anyone else. I have already been cleared by a checkuser, the rest of your “evidence” amounts to “I disagree with him so he’s bad!”. I have no relation to anyone you’ve mentioned, and checkuser has shown this.

Ironic that you’re talking about ``really really bad logic`` when you’re, as seen here, looking for even the vaguest excuse to revert my edits such as ignoring WP: PRIMARY and making logically impossible accusations of WP:SYNTH when my edit utilized one source!

Oh and that edit you say links me to a sock? You supported it too! Of the version that I want to add, you said that it: ``would be supported by the source, and uncontroversial enough``. If you would simply discuss on the Talk page instead of slinging insults, you wouldn’t have to be on a witch-hunt. And on that note, I’ve been cleared by a CheckUser of any socking. As for you however, let’s review the evidence for you socking:

MjolnirPants and his alt MPants at work show identical interest, behavior, and style to the account Lord Mondegreen, including several near-simultaneous actions that are far too much to attribute to coincidence. I believe that Lord Mondegreen is primarily a sockpuppet that MjolnirPants/MPants at work use on the argument from authority page.

Lord Mondegreen’s edits consistently reflect someone with much greater experience than the account’s small amount of activity, which is almost totally restricted to the argument from authority talk page, would suggest. See this and here at the bottom. Within 48 hours of being made, the account was creating an archive of a Talk page as its fourth edit, and the very next day was making semi-protection requests for pages. This reflects a knowledge of Wikipedia that is unusual in the extreme for accounts only a few days old and with less than ten edits. Note that it would only be weeks before MjolnirPants/MPants at work would be on the page creating archives as well, despite the Talk not being archived for several years prior: [158].

The Lord Mondegreen account also joined another contentious Talk page discussion as part of its first edits, where it was citing Wiki policy at a high level of proficiency. In fact, the account is used almost exclusively for editing Talk pages and noticeboards. As seen there, 71% of all of its less than 110 edits have been to such pages.

After it began by joining in these Talk discussions, the account essentially went inactive until March of 2016. Its very first edit after the long absence was to join in a Talk page discussion supporting MjolnirPants, where it explicitly mentioned and praised him.

After supporting MjolnirPants there in March 2016, it then goes inactive again for over a year until May 2017, where its first edit after all this time is to support MjolnirPants in an ANI post about his behavior.

Now, on June 20th, MjolnirPants went on a WikiBreak. The Lord Mondegreen account had only very light activity during the time he was on this break, undoing two small edits on the argument from authority page.

On July 16th, I began to discuss at length on the Talk page with Lord Mondegreen, and the account posted to my Talk accusing me of being a Sock. Sure enough, MjolnirPants’ the very next day comes off of the WikiBreak supporting Lord Mondegreen's claim.

The highly unusual use of the Lord Mondegreen account, most of which’s edits are supporting MjolnirPants/MPants at work combined with each account’s repeated apparent knowledge of the other’s activities even during long periods of inactivity or even outright declared absence strongly suggests that all of these go much beyond a simple coincidence. We have WP:PRECOCIOUS, WP: IDENTICAL, WP: NEEDED, WP:OCUSE, and several other red flags all met.

Many other behaviors also suggest a relation between the accounts. Aside from the argument from authority page, the most popular topics for both are alt-right topics and religion. MjolnirPants/MPants at work regularly edit pages related to Pizzagate, Milo Yiannopoulos, George Soros, etc. Similarly Lord Mondegreen edits discussions related to Sean Spicer, white privilege, and so on.

Both also sound very similar stylistically, and quote in similar manners with {od} and {tq} that I don’t see used often elsewhere, especially with such rarely used accounts as Lord Mondegreen’s, see [159] and compare with [160].

If anything, all of that is what would need Admin attention. Moltenflesh (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

...the same exact penchant for blatant falsehoods (four diffs in the OP, which I might point out is rather more than "none") and giant walls of retaliatory accusations. But I can dig up more. It's just that those are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your accusations of "exact mannerisms" and "same sources". Your only example is one source that your yourself voiced support for being on the page! If you would discuss it there rather than refusing discussion or cursing people out in edit summaries this discussion would take all of a total of 20 minutes editing time at most between us. Moltenflesh (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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

New User blanking page and using N Word

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

---

Blanking page: [161] Using N-Word: [162] page vandalism: [163]

Casprings (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's better to let this be handled at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where I reported him. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice

User:A35821361 has created biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the highest elected governing body of the Baha'i Faith. Several editors (User:Smkolins, User:Onel5969, User:Dragfyre) have found the biographies to generally lack notability from reliable sources and the content created by User:A35821361 to be poorly sourced about living persons. The great majority of third party sources used in the biographies do not mention the individuals being biographied and are tangential to the subject, much of it original research. Substantial information about the individuals is not supported by any references at all. It is fairly trivial to show that the content was not meeting policies. I pared down the biographies to sources that actually mention the subject beyond just a name (which left many biographies with just one paragraph) and described the details of my edits on talk pages (see list below). User:A35821361 has been edit warring and restoring the poorly or unsourced material.

Full disclosure, User:A35821361 is a former adherent of the Baha'i Faith who left and is dedicating efforts to bring to light information he feels could be damaging, thus the desire to make pages about people in leadership. Myself and User:Dragfyre and User:Smkolins are Baha'is, though not associated with the leadership. User:A35821361 left an edit in his sandbox that links to an attack page blog that mirrors much of the data A35821361 has put into the biographies (without using the blog as a source).

I wrote on his talk page about it in May 2017, Dragfyre warned him 11 July 2017, and I warned him again 27 July 2017. I told him here that I posted on this noticeboard.

As User:A35821361 has not addressed concerns in any meaningful way, the policies involved are pretty straightforward, and it has turned into edit warring, I'm bringing it here for a resolution. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Living Persons

• Gustavo Correa - created by User:A35821361 12 June 2017. Edited by me 20 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes. A35821361 restored the objectionable content four times [164][165][166][167] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics.

• Farzam Arbab - created by User:A35821361 12 June 2017. Edited by me 24 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes 3 days later. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 3 times [168][169][170] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics.

• Douglas Martin (Bahá'í) - created by User:A35821361 19 September 2016. I redirected the article 20 July 2017 because it was sourced from a discussion board. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 3 times [171][172][173] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics. User:Onel5969 nominated for AFD.

• Stephen Hall (Bahá'í) - created by User:A35821361 31 May 2017. I nominated it for deletion, which ended in keeping. Afterwards I edited the content 26 June 2017 to make it clear which sources actually mention Stephen Hall. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 9 times [174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182] while User:Smkolins and I tried to discuss with him on the talk page in detail, pointing out that sources in his version don't even mention the person or are speculative.

• Stephen Birkland - created by User:A35821361 30 May 2017. This page looked largely like an attack by sourcing most content from a few former Baha'is that didn't like him and went on to post about him in online forums. In the absence of reliable sources, the attacks created undue weight to what normally wouldn't be notable. After significant discussion and warnings, even today he reverted to the page that highlights an attack on a living person without using third party reliable sources.[183]

• Paul Lample - created by User:A35821361 1 June 2017. Edited by me 2 June 2017 and further 20 July 2017 along with talk page description of the changes. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 2 times [184][185] before making a half-hearted effort to comment without addressing any specifics.

• Payman Mohajer - created by User:A35821361 12 June 2017. Edited by me 20 July 2017. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 2 times [186][187].

• Kiser Barnes - created by User:A35821361 6 July 2017. The article was redirected by User:Smkolins 6 July 2017 using edit comments. A35821361 restored the objectionable content 2 times [188][189].

• Glenford Eckleton Mitchell - stub was redirected by User:Dragfyre 11 July 2017 due to lack of notability. A3 restored content 2 times [190][191]. User:Onel5969 nominated for AFD.

Deceased

• David Ruhe - created by User:A35821361 4 July 2017. User:Onel5969 redirected the article 4 July 2017 due to lack of notability. A35821361 reversed the redirect 2 times [192][193]. User:Onel5969 nominated for AFD.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)