Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Iranian opposition articles

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

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

POV pushing by Saff_V

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: WP:TBAN Saff_V from Iran related subjects

• Support. For obvious POV pushing and disruptive editing, as well as not showing any signs here of willing to change their behaviour. Poya-P (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - it would be a breath of fresh air to ease-down on the POV-pushing against political oppositions to the Iran clerical rule. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, there is POV pushing. However sources in Iran (and Radio Farda outside of Iran) do require discussion. Some of the AfDs were ill-advised (but the canvassing to the AfDs (by the "other camp") was worse). As suggested this is overly broad as based mainly on an assertion of POV and not on disruptive behavior. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral I reported Saff_V for POV pushing, just acknowledging that such thing has happaned and a warning is enough for me. Ladsgroup^overleg 13:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see enough concerns to warrant a topic ban from entire area. Kraose (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral Yes, the POV is difficult to work through, but at least there has been a Talk page discussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think there is enough disruption to warrant a topic ban. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support The behavior just in this mess of ANI reports suggests an editor who is unable to work objectively in this topic and is quick to assume bad faith on the part of others. The entire filing here has been disruptive. Grandpallama (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Blanket removals by user:Pahlevun

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

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

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

• Peykar: [9], [10], [11], [12]

• Zahra Merrikhi: [13], [14]

• Mohammad-Reza Kolahi: [15], [16]

• Maryam Rajavi: [17]

• Massoud Rajavi: [18]

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

• People's Mujahedin of Iran: [19]

• Organization of Iranian American Communities: [20]

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

• Massoud Rajavi: [22]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support, though would limit to geopolitics (or some more limited scope than all of Iranian topics sans football). I have opposed all other proposed sanctions against other users in this section (three of four) - as while they have their faults (as all humans do), they have been trying to edit collaboratively. The situation with Pahlevun is different. Pahlevun, it seems, returned from a short wiki-break and went a bit of a blanket-revert spree. No edit summaries. No discussion. And this on articles, in which there have been ongoing discussions on part of these disputes for months (and in some cases - in which consensus was reached after a rather rough and long consensus forming process). To add insult to injury, his answer (or rather non-answer followed by no-answer) to @Drmies: indicates that Pahlevun doesn't realize that they don't understand that this behavior is disruptive - and suggests that they will continue with this disruption. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per Icewhiz Ladsgroup^overleg 15:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I know Pahlevun for about 2 years and I sometimes had conflict with him (for example: 1, 2 and 3); but he is one of the best users in articles refers to Iran. I wondered about Pahlevun's TBAN Proposal for editing articles about Iran!! Benyamin-ln (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If TopicBan is true for Pahlevun who have tried to edit a vast number of articles by using RS and representing logical reason, respecting to discussing , also it should be done for Stefka Bulgaria, consider that most of his edits are related to MEK or it's member, between 10 top articles and main edits, 6 of 10 is awesome!After getting the report his strategy changed.Saff V. (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support For blanket reverting spree without discussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm opposing though Pahlevun had reverted some of my edits. I think the user is accurate and open to discussion. I don't think there should be a ban, or something like this. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think that he should be banned right now. This must be first time ever he has been reported. He needs to take a strong message regarding his mass removals but topic ban is not yet warranted. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per their POV-like behavior here and their nonsensical, oblivious responses to Drmies. Grandpallama (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding Mhhossein (talk · contribs) to this discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

• To Admns: This is a clear example that Mhhossein tries to Open a deviant subject to escape answering for his POV and to make the above less important. What is so interesting with working in two wikis? My main activities are in WP- English and I don’t see anything wrong with working in fa wiki as well. Could you please make sure Mhhossein stops harassing me and stops WP:Libel?It’s the second time. Alex-h (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's dubious that your first edit in ANI was editing against me in a topic which had nothing to do with you! It's dubious that you're doing your best to transform my report against Stefka Bulgaria's well documented behavioral issues into a completely different scenario. You may want to tell us how you appeared here. You've already opened a topic against me, as your first edits in ANI, and saw the result. So, this is you who is Harassing me by hounding me. You can have this message as warning against harassing and hounding me. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

With all the baseless libellous accusations you've made here, I think it's time someone placed a Boomerang on your Boomerang. Alex-h (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex-h ,This is the first time you're editing ANI, where you are not called, pinged and is not related to you. You're making too many comments in a discussion which is not related to you. To be frank, it raised questions for me, too. Every one with some years of editing in WP will have such a question? What you're seeking here? Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mhhossein, I suppose you mean this and this discussion, and this undiscussed blanket revert by you which ignored my, Saff V.'s, and Stefka's contributions, before you requesting the page to be protected and accusing me of being involved even though I had only edited the article once. The edits were being discussed, and you blanked reverted them. If anything, your edit summary was misleading, and Stefka restored the article to the point of Talk page disucussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean this one where, despite what he claims to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, he's mass removing some sections without discussing them with others. No, there was no consensus over the mass removals by Stefka Bulgaria he needs to get warnings for blanket removals. You were/are truly involved. Let's not dig it deeper. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, about that one, I repeat, there was an ongoing discussion here and here, where myself, Saff V., Stefka, and Icewhiz were participating and contributing. You blanket reverted all of these contributions saying the edits were not being discussed, but they were. You keep accusing me of being "truly involved" (whatever that means), please do "dig it deeper", otherwise you're casting aspersions.Alex-h (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Also per User:Icewhiz. Poya-P (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No violation, just content dispute with lengthy Talk page discussions. Alex-h (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No content dispute but actionable behavioral issues. He already promised not monitor me and you say no violation! If you say no violation, it does not mean there was no violation, since those hounding and harassment diffs I provided are clear enough. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

What's clear enough is that you have a POV and seem to report those who disagree with it, and seem to be fine with disruption as long as it supports your POV.Alex-h (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note to the admins: It should be noted that Alex-h and Poya-P, both active in Fa wiki, are editing ANI for the first time (See [59] and [60]). It's interesting!!! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is that "interesting!!!"? Unlike what you have proposed, I have been active on English WP for a while now. Is this the reason you've accused me of being "truly involved" here? For a year or so I worked in Fa wiki as eliminator . In the course of these activities I have often referred to Wikipedia English including Administrators’ Noticeboard. Poya-P (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Too much evidence to ignore. I don't understand why there was a need to wikihound at commons. Shashank5988 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Icewhiz and others. This seems like a largely retaliatory proposal here by an editor who's upset their own behavior has suddenly been put under scrutiny. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: There are evidences of harassment. Links show that Stefka Bulgaria has used the administrator's noticeboard links against the user many times to discredit him and hounded him even to commons. I think it is not good and constructive to accuse others of 'POV pushing' such many times. Going after the user and harassing him is even worse. The user should stop this behavior.M1nhm (talk)

Sashko1999

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

Summary

Report by Argean

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

Report by DIYeditor

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

Sanction history

Sashko1999 has a prior history of a topic ban from Macedonia[61], 3RR and NPOV warnings, and being blocked by NeilN for edit warring[62] and violating arbitration decisions[63].

Diffs

• CIR and failure to collaborate, understanding messages, warnings and policies:
  • Completely and stubbornly ignores WP:INDENT (see the mess the user is still leaving on User talk:Sashko1999, Talk:Denmark) [64][65][66][67][68] (etc.)
  • Ignores many WP:MINOR notices [69][70][71]
  • Basic CIR warning by Thomas.W [72]
  • Disruption re: ethnic group warning by Doug Weller [73]
• WP:CANVAS [74]
• WP:CONSENSUS:
  • Refused to understand why an WP:RFC was needed [75][76] (etc.)
  • According to the editor everyone else is wrong and doesn't understand their point [77], [78]
  • Saying what's right is what matters not the rules [79], [80]
  • Warned by NeilN[81] to use talk page if user is ever reverted
  • Additional diffs of examples of not working toward consensus [82]
• WP:DISRUPT Changing massively all the links of the demonyms in the infoboxes without providing adequate rationale is disruptive behavior (see also POINT below)
• WP:NOTHERE Seems to be here to push Bulgarians vs Macedonians-related POV (example here: [83]). Also made a large number of edits in almost every language wikipedia in pages related with Bulgarians. [84]
• WP:NPA Calling people with different opinions hard nationalists [85], [86], or disregarding other editors' capacity [87]
• WP:OR Claiming that will "correct" all the "wrong" links in the infoboxes, based on their own definition of demonym that supports with inadequate resources [88], [89], [90]
• WP:POINT Too many diffs to link, see edit history for his reaction to failing to prevail at Macedonia over some kind of ethnic/nationalist/whatever issue by changing on the demonym links
• WP:PUSH Has repeatedly posted new comments at Talk:Republic of Macedonia, and manipulated the discussion by deleting other comments [91], opening new sections [92] on a matter that was already discussed [[93]], and later trying to hide their pushing behavior by deleting the titles of the new sections [94], [95]

Submitted

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

Sanction proposals

Some possibilities:

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

Survey

• Indef - This user is fundamentally problematic and is not able to understand or comply with rules. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - This user has repeatedly created controversies, failed to engage in discussion, and showed complete lack of adhering to rules and respecting other editors. The problematic behavior pattern of the user is clearly fundamental and not showing signs of assuming good faith. Argean (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR (with respect to several very basic and essential requirements of participation on this project), and profound WP:DISRUPTION that we have no reason to believe will be alleviated, even if we first tried intermediate sanctions, since this editor does not seem to have any interest in making even basic efforts to respond to community concerns--take your pick. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - WP:NOTHERE. Qualitist (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - This user not willing to comply to the rules. Due to WP:COMPETENCE, WP:NOTHERE and violating WP:CONS, I support indefinitely blocking the user. INeedSupport ^:3 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Switched to no action - The user has made its response here and seems to know how to reach a consensus. No warning is necessary. INeedSupport ^:3 19:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef per Snow Rise, with the understanding that indefinite, as always, is not equivalent by definition to infinite. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 21:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Warn – There were serious issues prompting this ANI report but the editor seems to have changed their behavior since earlier !votes were cast. It appears the editor has stopped editing mainspace disruptively and joined ongoing content discussions. Perhaps they have gotten the message and this change will stick. If so, I think an indef is too harsh here. That said, it would be most helpful if the editor joined this conversation. Pinging Sashko1999 in case that helps. Leviv ich 06:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, In my defence I want to say that I didn't do nothing out of the rules. Yes, i changed the links of the demonyms of the countries because I thought that that's correct, but they were reverted and it was told that we need a concensus about it. Until that we opened discussion here and until now 3 people supported me and one say no but he/she agree with me that there is a problem about this issue. I call and the rest who didn't join until now, to join, to discuss and to vote. Also, I want to say that some people without any concensus decided the articles about the ethnic groups to make them and articles who will look like they cover all the citizens where that ethnic group is dominant, that kind of change was already made to the article about the Danes and I little changed those changed because this is a very serious issue and we first should talk and vote for it. Thank you. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999: No explanation of ignoring MINOR, INDENT and ANI notices for so long, without saying anything or asking for clarification? In addition to ignoring those, is I call and the rest who didn't join until now, to join, to discuss and to vote your justification for WP:CANVASSing people you thought would agree with you and asking them to support your position, rather than explain that you understand you are not allowed to do what you did? (I repeat the same below because I have grown accustomed to having to repeat myself many times with this user.) —DIYeditor (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

• continues stubbornly not to WP:INDENT their talk page contributions [96], [97]
• continues to WP:PUSH their WP:NPOV, causing WP:ATPD (same diffs as above)
• trying to perform WP:CANVAS ([98], [99], [100], [101], [102]), with obvious object to cause WP:DISRUPTION that will serve their goal to manipulate (WP:POINT) the discussion on Talk:Republic of Macedonia, and circumvent the need for WP:CONSENSUS. --Argean (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Disappointing to see the editor ignore this thread....clear indication their not willing to engage the community in a normal manner.--Moxy (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Update Feb 12 User has been notified 3 times about this discussion ). Like everything else it seems to take an indeterminate number of attempts to get their attention and help them understand. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I strongly urge an admin to please take a look at this, evaluate the discussion and, at the very least, block Sashko1999 until they are willing to participate in this discussion. Currently they are still making the same or similar changes and arguments (two dozen today, a dozen and a half yesterday, and so on) with the same poor effects (apart from anything else, their English is...idiosyncratic and non-standard). Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 21:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Editor's recent contribs show they have stopped marking all their edits minor and have started to indent. Progress. The PA diffs don't seem very serious to me. A lot of the diffs posted in the report are 1–2 years old. Any recent diffs of problems? Leviv ich 02:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This clown has wasted enough of my time already personally. If you find it acceptable that they ignored like 20 directions (with link) to indent (without even saying anything about it?) and aren't coming here to explain why that was, after 3 (at least) links to ANI indicating that there is a discussion about them, then I hope you are the one who has to deal with this person in the future. And no they are still marking non-minor edits to articles as minor. This (etc) is not listed on WP:MINOR as a minor edit. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

    True, that is not a minor edit. But it is a correct edit. Leviv ich 03:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

    What's going to stop them from continuing to obstinately ignore policy links and other advice, and continuing to make sweeping potentially contentious changes to whole classes of articles in fits of conviction that everyone else is wrong? Being BOLD is one thing but the user had already been instructed by an admin to use the talk page if ever reverted (among other warnings), and their first response to the changes being reverted was to change it right back. If this is a good faith editor who just happens to have an interest in some nationalist-related issues, it is a very difficult one who does not seem to want to play by the rules without teeth being pulled. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

    I think this ANI report made a difference, judging by their recent contribs. And judging by the ongoing discussions here and here, the editor isn't alone in their view on the underlying content disputes. There was a serious problem leading up to this report, but it may have subsided, and I'm always in favor of alternatives to indef'ing opponents in a content dispute. Leviv ich 05:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  The issue with the discussions is great, if he is no longer beating the horse, though the couple i checked yesterday seemed to be rehashing the same arguments. I am more concerned with his mainspace edits, which are still questionable or outright wrong. Though i lent my support to an indef above, that is a strong and potentially heavy-handed response; the best outcome would be if he responds to community concerns, and i'm not certain yet that is happening. I hope to be proven incorrect. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly, arguing on the talk pages is one thing, although the user hasn't improved their communication skills and is merely repeating over and over the same thing rather than engaging in discussion [103], [104], but disrupting the main articles to make a point and failing to see what is the problem with that is very concerning for me. The slowly disruptive edits at Danes (most still marked as WP:MINOR), just in the last couple of days [105], seem as an effort to separate the meaning of "nation" and "ethnicity", so the user can prove their claim that the propose is the people to read about the ethnic groups(sic) ([106]), and eventually try to justify their claims on delinking the demonyms, that in turn is being used as a means to make a WP:POINT at Talk:North Macedonia. That particular manipulative train of actions is for me a strong indication that the user is WP:NOTHERE to contribute, but rather to make a statement on their own POV, and they will keep disrupting wikipedia in order to do so. Anyway, the user has now been notified 5 (!) times about this ANI ([107],[108],[109], [110], [111]), so if they continue to ignore it, probably means that they don't really care about it. --Argean (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I read the discussion and I want to say that I didn't do nothing out of the rules. Yes, i changed the links of the demonyms of the countries because I thought that that's correct, but they were reverted and it was told that we need a concensus about it. Until that we opened discussion here and until now 3 people supported me and one say no but he/she agree with me that there is a problem about this issue. I call and the rest who didn't join until now, to join, to discuss and to vote. Also, I want to say that some people without any concensus decided the articles about the ethnic groups to make them and articles who will look like they cover all the citizens where that ethnic group is dominant, that kind of change was already made to the article about the Danes and I little changed those changed because this is a very serious issue and we first should talk and vote for it. Thank you. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sashko, I think I should make you aware that it does not matter what the result of that discussion ultimately is, because you hosted it in the wrong place: please see WP:advice pages. Groups of editors working on a WikiProject are expressly disallowed from creating their own idiosyncratic rules about a chunk of articles they believe to be within their special purview/authority. So basically, even if the discussion had gone your way, you still would not have prevailed and been able to reverse the result of any earlier failures to gain consensus on various article talk pages, because those discussions were appropriate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussions whereas your discussion at WP:WPC was not a permissible way to establish a valid consensus to change policy. In order to make a change to our guidelines, such that you create a new default rule for all articles of a type, you need to host such discussion on the talk page for a relevant policy, guideline, or MoS page which will itself be changed to introduce the rule.

Sometimes in the alternative, one can host a discussion in WP:VPP or other central community space and then transport the language into a policy, but what one definitely cannot do is get together with a group of editors interested in a given topic at a WikiProject, decide for themselves that their particularly keen interest gives them special authority to ignore the WP:PROPOSAL process and decide by fiat how all articles of a given sort are to be treated, with regard to this or that issues. There is long-standing community consensus against that, as it is recognized as unwieldy--what if another WikiProject (or two, or five) creates their own idiosyncratic rules and there are hundreds of articles both (or all) could claim "ownership" of--disruptive, and against our normal consensus procedures, and this broad community consensus has been codified by ArbCom in numerous high profile cases over the years.

All of that said, I wouldn't be embarrassed about not understanding this as a newer editor. Indeed, as you can see, no one else !voting in that discussion realized any result would be void, and these discussions constantly pop up her at ANI where someone has to point out to involved editors that they discussion they are arguing over has no effect anyway; it's one of our less well-promoted rules of consensus, and we've needed to move it into a more high profile policy page (or give it it's own page) for a while--it just has never gotten done. Anyway, that's just a note for all parties here to walk away with, not criticism of you in particular. I do have additional misgivings about how you have approached things, but now that you are here discussing matters, I hope those can be resolved without the need for sanction, and I'll try to stop back by to comment as to such matters (and hopefully be able change my !vote above) as discussion progresses. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko: Wait, you still think you did nothing wrong? Ignoring WP:INDENT, WP:MINOR and WP:ANI notices for so long was not wrong? You are still going to insist WP:CANVASSing wasn't wrong? I didn't do nothing out of the rules and I call and the rest who didn't join until now, to join, to discuss and to vote to me is just more evidence action should be taken here. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment @Sashko1999: As I already posted at your talk page, I do acknowledge the fact that you are paying more attention to your edits, but it's not really helpful that you deny making serious mistakes. The WP:CANVAS that you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries is a serious breach of guidelines and I'm worried by the fact that you still claim that are people supporting you there, even if they were [[WP:CANVAS]ed in the RfC. I'm also worried by the fact that all your previous bans and warnings were due to edits that you did in articles related to ethnic groups in general or to [[Macedonians (ethnic group}]] ([112], [113], [114] and your recent history of edits show that you are once more involved in disputes in the same area of topics. How can we expect that you will stop this pattern if you still claim that you did nothing wrong? --Argean (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Leviv ich said he has changed his behavior. Can we give him more chance? Maybe a warning is enough if he promises.M1nhm (talk)

DBigXray

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

• On Human rights abuses in Kashmir  he has been whitewashing human rights abuses by Indian army[115] while hyping the abuses from militants and Pakistani army. He misrepresents sources and frequently removes long standing content which he don't like by making a false claim that the content was violating copyrights or  NFCC,[116] Since last few days he is removing more content by providing the same fallacious reasoning,[117] and making threats on edit summaries.[118] despite being told otherwise on talk page.[119]

• He has been misrepresenting sources and showing his inability to understand English by not getting the fact that "counterterrorists" means excess carried out with an intention to counter terrorists. Not that it means excess carried out during "counter terrorism operations". It is ironic that he has been harassing other editor on talk page by saying "it appears to me as an English language related WP:CIR."[120] Though anyone can tell that DBigXray is the one with CIR.
• After getting reporting for gaming WP:1RR rule by removing the same content without getting consensus, he made a personal attack on me that I belong to a "{{tq|sock/meat farm",[121] see WP:ASPERSIONS.
• Has been told by 2 editors and an admin[122] that there is no violation of copyvio or NFCC, still he was not agreeing.
• I reverted him again,[123] and he quickly reverted me but this time he reverted claiming "no consensus for adding these either, first complete the talk page discussion",[124] despite he never gained consensus to remove the longstanding content at first place. He also left a 3RR warning on talk page of mine when I am nowhere near 3RR. His recent talk page comments can be best described as WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALL.[125][126]

• I commented on a DYK[127] where the concerning article is created by a different editor. DBigXray interpreted my comments as "battle grounds to attack editors".[128] His incivility and aspersions include "unfortunately i am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts... Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article)"[129] He also falsely claimed that I "already confessed above that you are going through" his contributions, when I haven't and "consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article"[130] when multiple editors on talk page are discussing the name change.[131][132]

He has restored to mass bludgeon the talk page where the consensus was being developed to change the name of the article.[133]

Other recent examples

• Makes 4 reverts in 3 days to label Zabiuddin Ansari as a "Islamic fundamentalist" and a terrorist, in violation of WP:TERRORIST[134] then engages in IDHT on talk page.[135] Extreme labels like "Islamic fundamentalist" are not even supported by any of the sources he is using.[136]
• Labels Ajmal Kasab as a terrorist  by reverting other user then bludgeons on talk page.[137]
• After one editor brought two above articles to WP:BLPN,[138] and other uninvolved editor replied[139] DBigXray WP:BLUDGEONed the section to the degree that now no one would touch the section even with 100 feet pole.[140]

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

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

• I would note here that this user above has been editing with an extreme anti-India bias at Human rights abuses in Kashmir diff and Kunan Poshpora incident [141], on Human rights abuses in Kashmir instead of joining the talk page discussions or WP:DR for content disputes, he has tried tag teaming with an IP (who is clearly someones sock) at WP:AN3 [142] and when AN3 did not work out he tried to disrupt a DYK I had submitted and is now trying out ANI here.
• The IP had joined Mehrajmir13 and filed an AN3 case against me with false claims about EdJohnston, within a short period of time without any invitation Mehrajmir13 reached AN3 to argue (diff) against me and to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) It did not work out as expected [143] after which they tried other ways [144] to get sanctions on me.
• Regarding the massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA act [145], I had raised my objections on the talk page [146] since I had felt that it was both COPYVIO and undue. It was later clarified that it may not be considered COPYVIO which I accepted. On the talk page I had stated that [147] this copying of entire AFSPA act is still undue and an article on Human rights should discuss the implications of the AFSAP Act and not just copy paste the entire act in the Human rights article instead of giving a link to the act itself [148]. After staying away for a week, and instead of joining the discussion Mehrajmir13 again restored the disputed content [149] into the article.
• Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support (diff) an Edit warring report on an article with 1RR restriction, but at the same time he is outraged for getting [150] the standard Edit-warring template for his continued edit-warring (diff, diff, diff) on the same article.
• After having a content dispute and trying an AN3 complaint against me, Mehrajmir13 hounded me (diff) to a recent DYK, that I had submitted. The DYK had already been approved by a reviewer [151] and yet Mehrajmir13 tried stalling an already approved DYK, on entirely frivolous grounds and asking for rename or merge. Mehrajmir13 was also warned [152] by another editor WBG on Mehrajmir13's frivolous thread (diff) on the article's talk page.
• The discussion at Talk:Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir among several editors that included User:Hamster Sandwich, User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Kautilya3, MarkZusab showed that the consensus was against any renaming or merging of the article since the current article was a consensus title, that had been decided after long discussion on the talk page as well as WP:TEAHOUSE [153][154][155] [156] [157].
• On the DYK page, When I noted that he has hounded me [158], He responded [159] stating " I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you." To this claim about my edit counts I had responded stating [160] "Congrats to you that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. you have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that You have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this."
• After this reply from me, Mehrajmir13 filed this ANI thread filled with Lies, hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement and most important of all, "including his proposal for topic ban", which shows his clear intentions to snipe the opponent and to get his way in a content dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

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

---

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

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

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

• I would note here that this user above has been editing with an extreme anti-India bias at Human rights abuses in Kashmir diff and Kunan Poshpora incident [161], on Human rights abuses in Kashmir instead of joining the talk page discussions or WP:DR for content disputes, he has tried tag teaming with an IP (who is clearly someones sock) at WP:AN3 [162] and when AN3 did not work out he tried to disrupt a DYK I had submitted and is now trying out ANI here.
• The IP had joined Mehrajmir13 and filed an AN3 case against me with false claims about EdJohnston, within a short period of time without any invitation Mehrajmir13 reached AN3 to argue (diff) against me and to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) It did not work out as expected [163] after which they tried other ways [164] to get sanctions on me.
• Regarding the massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA act [165], I had raised my objections on the talk page [166] since I had felt that it was both COPYVIO and undue. It was later clarified that it may not be considered COPYVIO which I accepted. On the talk page I had stated that [167] this copying of entire AFSPA act is still undue and an article on Human rights should discuss the implications of the AFSAP Act and not just copy paste the entire act in the Human rights article instead of giving a link to the act itself [168]. After staying away for a week, and instead of joining the discussion Mehrajmir13 again restored the disputed content [169] into the article.
• Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support (diff) an Edit warring report on an article with 1RR restriction, but at the same time he is outraged for getting [170] the standard Edit-warring template for his continued edit-warring (diff, diff, diff) on the same article.
• After having a content dispute and trying an AN3 complaint against me, Mehrajmir13 hounded me (diff) to a recent DYK, that I had submitted. The DYK had already been approved by a reviewer [171] and yet Mehrajmir13 tried stalling an already approved DYK, on entirely frivolous grounds and asking for rename or merge. Mehrajmir13 was also warned [172] by another editor WBG on Mehrajmir13's frivolous thread (diff) on the article's talk page.
• The discussion at Talk:Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir among several editors that included User:Hamster Sandwich, User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Kautilya3, MarkZusab showed that the consensus was against any renaming or merging of the article since the current article was a consensus title, that had been decided after long discussion on the talk page as well as WP:TEAHOUSE [173][174][175] [176] [177].
• On the DYK page, When I noted that he has hounded me [178], He responded [179] stating " I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you." To this claim about my edit counts I had responded stating [180] "Congrats to you that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. you have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that You have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this."
• After this reply from me, Mehrajmir13 filed this ANI thread filled with Lies, hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement and most important of all, "including his proposal for topic ban", which shows his clear intentions to snipe the opponent and to get his way in a content dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is requesting a sanction because the editor dared to actually discuss an editorial issue, which is what you're supposed to do, and which long before this request was opened was already posted at the appropriate noticeboards. It's another in an unsettling recent string of seemingly independent proposals to sanction DBigXray specifically which have all amounted to nothing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Consider justifying his nationalist POV pushing, bludgeoning, harassment edit warring, misrepresentation of sources and probably tons of other issues raised here in a proper manner. I don't see any of that except canvassing and further bludgeoning by the disruptive editor in question who is thoroughly unfit to edit this subject given his inability to even represent the sources or policies.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Ivanvector: The most egregious line in the frivolous filing, that also gives you an insight into the level of deception and coordinated offline planning, by this group is the line when they say (diff) "I am proposing a complete topic ban WP:ARBIPA, because he has been reported enough times on ANI and has only retrogressed further.". So quite clearly, the plan here was to keep on filing an ANI report every week, and now the time has come when, they can claim "Enough number of (frivolous) reports have been filed against DBigXray, lets block/ban him." This is exactly what has been happening in the past couple of months. Perfect example of "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". --DBigXrayᗙ 10:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Here is a threat I received from Qualitist on 23 January (diff) along the same lines that said, "you (DBigXray) will get the time for it one day since it is very usual to see 'some' editor dragging you to ANI because of your CIR". This threat gives interesting insights about how this harassment campaign against me is being carried out.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• But DBigXray was removing content by mislabeling it as "blatant WP:NFCC violation(s)"[181] and now removes it by claiming that there is no consensus when he is the only one to remove it. "reliable WP:SECONDARY sources" have been already provided to DBigXray which discuss the act as relevant in the context of human rights abuses.[182] DBigXray is absolutely engaging in nationalist POV editing. I also don't see any consensus for this edit as claimed by DBigXray. This is not the only one article where he is being a problem. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• As shown in this edit from 2014 it was User:Mehrajmir13 who added this disputed content.
• User:Mehrajmir13 is again clearly lying here when he says "Content is long-standing, no one has problem with it other than DBigXray" because one can see in this diff [183] and [184] that Admin RegentsPark had removed most of the content added by User:Mehrajmir13 there.
• His content was further challenged [185] by me on the talk page and instead of discussing the validity and veracity of the said content on the talk page, he is is continuously trying to get the objecting editor blocked/banned first in a totally frivolous AN3 report (diff) and now here at ANI.
• If User:Mehrajmir13 is unable to tolerate or discuss objections to his controversial edits then he should rather stay away from controversial articles, instead of kicking up a shit storm with lies and Drama at admin boards.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

• @Born2cycle: For starters, where is the resonable explanation for these false claims of copyright violation?[186] In which world one can believe that someone with that level of incompetence would be capable to work it out?  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support You can't expect constructive discussion from DBigXray as he always engages in harassment and battleground mentality. For example, he fails to agree that he is using a primary source when the source is written by an involved police officer. I started a thread on WP:RSN where DBigXray started his response by making personal attacks on me,[187] and continued to claim the source is non-primary and completely reliable even after more than 7 editors told him otherwise.[188] He has been wikihounding my contributions by appearing on pages that he never edited earlier,[189] and reporting admins over trivial issues.[190] He has violated copyrights on articles related to Punjab insurgency and his violation of WP:TERRORIST can be also seen on Khalistan Commando Force, where he made 6 reverts to claim the militant group as "terrorist" and their supporters a "radical" (without providing any sources).[191][192] Not surprised that this disruption has now moved into Muslim-related articles. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• These are again similar lies and deception that Harmanprtjhj had tried to use in his last "Snipe the opponent at ANI" thread against me, to get a way out of his content disputes. They over exaggerate content disputes with hyperbolic language and add lies and deception hoping that gullible folks will fall for their old tricks. To give an example, Harmanprtjhj's talk page is on my watchlist since 5 January and Ad Orientem had blocked and warned[193] Harmanprtjhj on his talk page, regarding what Ad Orientem then believed as "disruptive edit" on Yusuf Soalih Ajura, after which I made this edit on [194] and also noted this on the same thread [195]. But one can see that these facts never stopped Harmanprtjhj from cooking up a false and deceptive narrative, because "why let facts spoil a good story". --DBigXrayᗙ 03:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• You are misrepresenting entire thing and distracting. Ad Orientem never "warned" me and made a block in error only after after reading an automated report.[196] Having a user's talk page in your watchlist doesn't means you can wikihound their edits. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Perhaps it is time to consider a topic ban or some other solution for the OP. Dlohcierekim talk 15:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Comment no opinion on the topic ban, but it appears both Mehrajmir13 and DBigXRay are replying to any posts opposing their side with content seemingly intended to discourage !voting from that side. It's not quite as bad with both sides doing it as only one side (for that encourages nonrepresentative conclusions), but it may be adversely affecting participation, and thus, a balanced result. Surely any reasonably experienced editor would have formed a definitive opinion before commenting, and a reply from the editor whom they have opposed accusing them of "lies and deception" or the like isn't going to sway their vote; if anything, it will cement them further into their current position. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support on-going pattern of disruptive editing is evidenced by many other recent examples, which includes his 10 reverts on Rafale deal controversy by engaging in POV pushing and creating Rafale deal controversy/Sandbox by abusing autopatrolled user-right to evade full protection. History of this sub-article shows DBigXray made a few botched page moves to retain this misuse of article space. Making 5 reverts on 1984 anti-Sikh riots by misrepresenting sources and superficially using BLPCRIME as exemption[197][[198] to edit war when no BLP was concerned (December 2018). 4 reverts on Jaggi Vasudev for violating BLP (November 2018). 6 reverts on Khalistan Commando Force (January 2019) and all these pages resulted in full protection because of DBigXray's lame edit war. What is even more interesting that his edits received no support from any other editor in spite of his bludgeoning on each of the concerning talk pages[199][200][201][202]. His disruption on talk pages has been beyond disruptive because he attack opponents[203][204], modify others comments[205], remove others comments[206] and engages in typical IDHT.[207][208] I note that how all of these articles attracted no controversy before DBigXray started disrupting them. It is clear that he can't edit without righting great wrong or harassing other editors. Note his creation of Pakistan administered Kashmir against consensus (December 2018) and his DRV against deletion of this CFORK with no one supporting your demand to overturn the result. Further disruption was also seen on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears where he was alone arguing for deletion because the article concerned a documentary on human rights abuses by Indian military, the same issue over which he is now edit warring on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It took him less than 2.5 months to produce all these examples. A topic ban is a no-brainer. Qualitist (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. DBigXRay could afford to make fewer reverts when he edits contentious topics, but his edits generally tend to be based in policy. The extent of mudslinging here suggests a couple of a boomerangs are in order. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Absolutely sanctionable behavior given the final warning on one of the previous ANI and aspersions and bludgeoning in this thread. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

@Mhhossein: Wikihounding,[209] exclusively attacking contributors[210]][211], and accusing them of sock puppetry[212] does show violation of that warning. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• In addition the warning शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil pointed out [213] with the conclusion being "admin should block if behavior continues" warrants at least some action to correct this if we are ever gonna have an end to these notices. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Comment: I was inclined to comment after seeing the final warning issued by User:cyberpower678, which शिव साहिल brought to our eyes. Falsely accusing others of Sockpuppetry, after getting warnings against making harassment, calls for action. I'm interpreting "Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support" as accusing Mehrajmir13 to have a IP sock (am I right?). The case was filed by an IP, in fact not Mehrajmir13. I may be wrong, but in this diff, also coming after the last warning, he's harassing another user by comparing him with a banned editor. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The admins who are familiar with the WP:ARBIPA topic area, (some of whom have also commented in this thread), know very well about the massive sock and meat puppetry going on in the India Pakistan topic area. So much that there is an ongoing proposal for Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict at WP:AN. You see, Mehrajmir13 has still not clarified this and I am still very interested to know how Mehrajmir13 reached WP:AN3 (diff) within minutes of the IP filing a frivolous AN3 case involving me. And Mehrajmir13 then attempts damage control by trying to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) --DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the India-Pakistan articles are hot topics, but, hmm...I think you're again harassing the user by making these comments. Though, I would not blame you if you had opened a SPI report accompanied by clues. Did you get the point? Needless to mention that you did the same for Dilpa kaur. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If DBigXray genuinely apologizes and condemns his actions, he should be forgiven. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't totally disagree with this, if he does correct his behavior its of course fine. The problem is, given his extensive edit history and frequent appearances on ANI [214], [215], [216] I don't see how his behavior is ever gonna change without some kind of action. This doesn't mean we need to permaban him of course, but unless there's some type of action I expect this behavior will persist. At the very least, admins can give another final warning or something and see if this actually helps correct his behavior. I doubt it will unless we implement even a small temporary sanction, which is why i think some kind of action is necessary. But who knows. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikiman5676: See this comment repeating socking accusations coming after the apology request! --Mhhossein ^talk 05:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. I do not believe he will alter his behavior unless action is taken. What i describe above was a proposed bare minimum action. Basically give him one last chance to correct his behavior before sanctions. I think this is taking a very lenient approach but I just wanted to put the idea in the air. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. When the proposer of a sanction is an involved party, it is inappropriate for them to propose sanctions, unless they have extremely clean hands. I don't see that here. --Blackmane (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivanvector, В²C, Dlohcierekim, Vanamonde, SportingFlyer, FR, Robert McClenon, SITH, Blackmane, and the fact that DBigXray has been polite, considerate, factual, and kept to the point in all of our several encounters, whether direct or indirect. For the record, a gift of Lassi for being a no-fuss admin did not sway me, only an Orange Julius could do that! (For the humor-deficient, that's a joke.) – Athaenara ✉ 06:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:0716pyhao as SPA for making controversial move without discussion

• 0716pyhao (talk · contribs)
• Thiago Alcântara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) C&p move attempt on 2017-03-13, warned by Frosty, RM to 0716pyhao's proposal (which also nominated by others) had been rejected many times
• Medhi Lacen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) another C&p move attempt and have been warned by GiantSnowman
• Antonio Dominique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) yet another bold move and have been warned again by GiantSnowman
• Serdar Tasci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) bold move attempt on 2018-08-03, warned by myself, move reverted. RM started again by 0716pyhao, consensus not to move to 0716pyhao's proposal
• Riqui Puig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 2018-08-07, no one contested, but actually football project had argued legitimacy of nickname + surname as the candidate of the most common among common names
• Abdul Rahman Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) bold move again from Baba Rahman to Abdul Rahman Baba on 2019-01-12. However, the exiting citation did not support the new article title, e.g. Chelsea press release use Abdul Baba Rahman, BBC use Baba RahmanIndependent (Ireland) use Baba Rahman

The user made repeated attempt to move articles either by C&P or bold move to controversial title, and had been warning before, is there anything to do to stop the user to make controversial move without discussion ? Matthew hk (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Have we tried reaching out to the user directly to warn them about the controversial moves, show them the policy page so they can review it, and ask them to stop? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page it does seem like the editor was notified, although not "warned" per se. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Six bold moves in two years = ANI thread? Levivich 06:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't caught him for his recent (January) bold RM right away despite having 10,000 entire in watch list (may be football articles is decreasing in composition, or my watch list just contain popular footballers). But given his recent 50 edits span for more than 6 months , which already contain 3 bold move, in which Baba Rahman last bold move (carried by other user in 2015) to other title was reverted and have a thread in the talk page to discuss it, i doubt he does not know it is controversial, and he was told by an admin GiantSnowman and other user what WP:RM process for controversial move.

To sum up, either he is a SPA or not, he keep to ignore the message in his talk page about move and he did started a RM for Serdar Tasci after his bold move was reverted, so he can't possibly doesn't know how to tag.

So, can i propose topic ban for him for making any bold and uncontroversial move by himself, which the former he must use WP:RM to start a thread and the latter he must post it in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests? Matthew hk (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A topic ban? Why? No, the problem is the insufficient communication here. You gave them the link to ANI yet they don't come here and try to sort this out(and instead make an edit somewhere else). All their contributions to talk pages are either requested move templates and corrections of those(with no further comments in the discussion), removal of everything on their own talk page, or talk page moves. The correct answer to this problem is an indefinite block(indefinite because of the long time between some of their edits) to make the user communicate properly.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you feel you looks another SPA (or WP:HAND) that most of your recent edit are in WP:ANI and WP:AN only ? Also active in 2016, not active for a long time until a burst of edit in November 2018, and resurface only in this week ? Matthew hk (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This account is no WP:HAND nor is the usage of an account(at least, if it is the only account) for a single purpose a problem. These bursts of activity(or rather, the long time of inactivities) have different reasons. If you look at my recent contributions you will see that I am not trying to escalate problems but the opposite - something that is consistent with the goals of Wikipedia.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This user has been warned numerous times before (March 2017, March 2017, May 2018, August 2018), and still doesn't get it. Given their editing to date, a topic ban from page moves will likely be ignored. I therefore suggest we stop delaying the inevitable and indef if they continue with undiscussed page moves. I don't see any recent edits justifying action at this stage, however. GiantSnowman 13:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't the reported user responding to comments? M1nhm (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Except the RM, 0716pyhao did not reply to any message in his talk page. It is predicable they did not response to ANI either. Matthew hk (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

In fact, the only edit by them in user talk namespace, is blanking the page . While in talk page namespace, most of them involve RM or bold move. Only comment not related to move is this one Talk:Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone#Track maps of Zorbas and Adrian needed. Matthew hk (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Odd editing history

178.220.71.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing something strange. Not surewhat the point is or whether it needs to be addressed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

They seem to be correcting whitespace errors (if they can be called errors). I don't think there's any point to doing it but it's not harmful, per se. IPs can't game extended-confirmed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there a sockmaster whose MO is screwing around with whitespace? I seem to remember some issue with a whitespace vandal, there's an edit filter for it. Someone who knows should take a look at this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is, I can't remember who it is. At this point all of the IP's edits have been constructive edits to whitespace, at least to the extent that editing a page only to play with whitespace can be considered constructive (it's not destructive, I guess, they're not removing all whitespace or adding huge gaps and breaking things). I don't remember if that matches the sockmaster's behaviour or not, but as long as they continue not breaking things I think we can leave them alone. Of course I'm open to other opinions, if someone has a good reason why this is disruptive, there could be something I haven't considered. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any harm. It just looked weird so I wanted to ask. Perhaps he is writing a secret program using the Whitespace programming language... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not only there is no Vandalism, but also removing extra space help to improve the article. however, it is a marvelous strategy. So It needs to more time for hounding IP which began to edit from 2 weeks ago and finally find its aim.M1nhm (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP at Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education

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

---

2A01:CB10:383:B300:438:3E9:DD6D:2CD6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making clear legal threats in an edit request. [217] Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

• Who is this "IP" I keep hearing about? It seems like he's responsible for the great majority of legal threats, vandalism, and other disruption on the project. Has anyone tried to find out more about this person and see if some IRL action can be taken? EEng 00:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think his last name is Freely. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As soon as the right fact situation arises I'm gonna file an ANI containing the phrase "This IP freely [accuses/edits/reverts/whatever]". EEng 02:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please. Feel free to do so. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

IP Freely? Watch it, RickinBaltimore, Moe is gonna hang up on you. Bishonen | talk 02:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

HA HA Fish+Karate 16:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible NOTHERE

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

---

See [218] and other contribs of Stealthfighter2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All the usual stuff - blanking warnings and so on. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Stealthfighter2000 hasn't been here long, nor edited frequently, but his editing is very tendentious. He specializes in removing sourced negative content about right-wing figures and groups. Example: he removes "neo-fascist" from a description of The Proud Boys,[219] stating in the edit summary: "The reference provided does not describe any sort of fascistic involvement with any group". This is a misunderstanding of how we use sources, and of what sources we allow. It's enough that an independent source with a reputation for fact-checking says the Proud Boys is a neo-fascist group (it does say that). It's no part of Wikipedia editors' job to critique a source's evidence, per WP:OR. This is just one example.

I frankly don't have the impression that the user is here to build an encyclopia, and it's easy to see an indeff or a topic ban in his future, but maybe not quite yet. The worst sign of all is an apparent unwillingness to use talkpages (with the exception of his own, which he edits diligently for the purpose of removing criticism, warnings, and advice). I've posted on his page urging him to talk and discuss on articles talkpages; edit summaries are not enough. But if a little extra rope brings no improvement, well. Bishonen | talk 02:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

(Non-administrator comment) Lots of evidence they are WP:NOTHERE. Clear agenda in their editing, all of which has been problematic and reverted. Intentionally deceptive use of the "minor edit" flag and innocuous-sounding edit summaries. I don't see how someone with that sort of history can suddenly change. If they do, let them make a convincing appeal to lift the block/ban. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear agenda only editor. You do not have to look very hard to see this. Removing "far right" or adding "far left" labels and such from various pages with the edit summary "corrected misinformation". [220] [221] [222] Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to note in one edit [223] he literally changed White Nationalists to Patriots, with Patriots redirecting to White Nationalism. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This editor removes referenced content from articles about far right political topics, and adds unreferenced derogatory personal commentary to articles about left wing groups. They like the word "ironically". Their talk page includes a screed asserting that "left-wing fascists control Wikipedia". I do not think this person is here to improve this encyclopedia in accordance with the policies and guidelines, or to collaborate with the community of editors, but rather to push a specific point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, I missed the White nationalists —> Patriots thing. That does it. Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

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

User:Alex 21

I'd like to invite administrators to look into the recent talk page behaviour of Alex 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), particularly at Module talk:Episode list#Sandbox version update and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Accessibility disagreement. Last month I directly offered an olive branch in response to a previous disagreement, which was not taken in good spirit. More broadly, I believe this to be symptomatic of WP:OWNERSHIP across the television WikiProjects, through which Alex habitually cherry-picks policies and/or guidelines to justify his opinion rather than forming an opinion based on policies and guidelines, while refusing to recognising the validity of any opposing viewpoints (even, as in the examples linked above, when consensus is against him). This behaviour makes editing and discussing television articles an unpleasant and unwelcoming experience, and I therefore believe it to be detrimental to the Wikipedia community. I have pointed this out to Alex on my talk page, but he simply does not seem to care about the experience of other editors. Happy to take on any advice or censure regarding my own actions as part of this; I am a far less experienced editor than Alex, but have gone into multiple articles with intentions to improve the project over the last few weeks and have found his obstructive attitude very hard to deal with. U-Mos (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, my first advice is rather than just make a great big pile of assertions, aspersions, and assumptions, all without context, please provide diffs, or this will not be going anywhere. Fish+Karate 12:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I too would be interested in seeing any diffs provided, so that I can reply and defend my actions accordingly. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one who's had to deal with this User. After being threatened about being blocked, I became agreeable to his change, though he still feels a need to be sarcastic and rude. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (GMT)

@MichaelCorleone7: You were edit-warring. However, looking at your talk page, this isn't the first time an editor has had to warn you... -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes and likewise, others are tired of your rude nature, that was the difference between other users on my Talk Page and yours, where you had to add a sarcastic remark. Instead of attacking and threatening other Users, try and be more polite and provide constructive criticism. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (GMT)

Tried that, but to no avail. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If you feel that you were being polite - then you need to re-assess your vocabulary. Your behaviour was similar to that of an internet troll. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2019

• Comment: No diffs have been provided. I would like to remind both U-Mos and Alex 21 that discussion of content and edits should be confined to article talk, and should never be posted on usertalk. I'd also like to remind U-Mos that the correct way to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved in normal discussion threads is to use some form of WP:DR, such as an WP:RFC or posting a neutral request for participation at a WikiProject talkpage, rather than bringing the issue(s) to ANI. Beyond that, I think this ANI thread can be closed for lack of evidence, unless diffs are provided. Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought talk page section links were more efficient than a mass of diffs in this case, but will happily provide them if necessary. They will follow below shortly. U-Mos (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials: Uncivil reply & groundless accusation [224];refers to a user's work as "horrendous" [225] & restates this when challenged by Bilorv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [226]; deliberate manipulation of Bilorv's following comment [227]; repeatedly diverts discussion to derail [228] [229]; groundless WP:CANVAS accusation on my talk page [230].

Regarding templates for discussion: Highly uncivil responses to Zackmann08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [231] [232] [233]; deletes my comment [234]; further spurious accusation, made uncivilly [235] (see also self-contradictions below).

Regarding episode list module/MOS:ACCESS: Refuses to recognise accessibility guidelines and states direct intention to contradict them in reply to Gonnym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [236], continues when WP:POINT violation noted by RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [237]; uncivil comment to Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [238]; attempts at WP:GAMING [239] [240]; describes accessibility improvements as "unreadable" [241]; WP:WIKILAWYERING [242]; accuses Gonnym of WP:CANVAS [243]; shifts goalposts in discussion to suit non-neutral viewpoint & uncivil comment to me ("What a mess!") [244], latter denied [245]; further major incivility against Redrose64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [246], Gonnym [247] and me [248]; misrepresents the comments of Redrose64 [249] and Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [250]; finally resorts to denying an issue was ever raised and repeats incivility towards me [251] [252].

Other infractions: sarcastic uncivil response to my RfC request [253], repeated in response to proffered olive branch [254] & spurious accusation of poor faith [255]; shows no concern for Wikipedia community as long as he's "happy" [256].

Self-contradictions, suggesting WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:GAMING: Inferences from guidelines should stand in articles while discussed [257], unless the inference is made by someone else [258]; single-use or little-used templates are acceptable [259], except when they're not [260] [261]. On the latter, after contradiction was pointed out Alex claimed he was now neutral on the earlier discussion [262], refused to acknowledge that on the still-live TfD because "I don't care" [263], then denied any change of mind when I noted it in the TfD [264], and further refuted evidence of WP:GAMING (and misrepresented the entire discussion, clearly listed as a merge proposal) [265]. U-Mos (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

OK then, diffs have now been provided. Leviv ich 07:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank for you providing these diffs; I will be taking time to reply to them. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No such "groundless accusation" was made[266]; at that point, a reply had been made to every opposing comment, so I asked if you planned to continue to do that. How you interpreted that it up to you. Yes, I called the work "horrendous"[267]; perhaps a beter word could have been used, but I am allowed to express my opinions of a suggestion, especially when it did not seem to improve Wikipedia whatsoever. Given that that discussion closed with no consensus, it was clear that there was no widespread agreement to support the changes either. Continuing onto "deliberate manipulation"[268], I asked for a source that supported their statement. Nothing less, nothing more. They stated that the specials could include, "in four years time, perhaps Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year" episodes. I asked "Can you back up the fact that there will be a Boxing Day special?". I find this to be a baseless accusation. "Derailing" the conversation[269], you yourself said "this isn't the place to discuss that." I asked "If it's not the place to discuss that, then why bring it up here?" If you do not wish to discuss an item in a discussion, then do not raise it in the discussion and then assume that it will pass without dispute. In fact, raising an item in a discussion, when unrelated to the main discussion at hand, and then trying to divert away from it so that it can be included in the result of the main discussion, that could very easily be considered derailing itself. For the second diff[270], the changes to the article were going to have a widespread affect across a multitude of other articles, so that needed to be addressed. For example, the Stranger Things article was recently split, and thus when discussing the split, the matter of the main article changing with the update also had to be address. Same case here: Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials was possibly going to be changed, as well as a number of season and series articles, and thus the statuses of List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) were a major concern. The CANVAS question[271], it was not an accusation, but a question. You posted on the talk pages of two separate editors[272][273], with posts that stated "This page is of interest to this WikiProject", a statement which clearly does not relate to a specific editor. I asked if there was a reason for it that did not violate CANVAS. That's not saying that you were CANVAS'ing. Turns out, there was a reason, and I was happy with your response, after you updated the incorrect statements in the posts on the user talk page to say "As a participant in an earlier related discussion, you may wish to participate" instead.[274]

Templates for discussion.[275][276][277] The comments were less uncivil, more requesting why the editor was requesting the mass deletion of a number of related templates, without proposing any sort of substitution. Another editor proposed a merge, and I was happy with that; something that was not done in the original post.[278] If Zackmann08 had an issue with that, he would have brought the issue to ANI himself. I had extremely good grounds to revert (not delete) your edit[279]: you do not edit other editor's comments. If you had wanted to post your own, then you should have done so without editing any others. I warned you about this on your talk page[280]. Per WP:TPO, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Editing my comment was seen as an act of bad faith, especially in the face of such a guideline. If any further spurious accusation were made,[281] it was because you were attempting to connect two unrelated discussions solely from our previous (current at the time) interactions at the time. The discussion of the module had zero place at the discussion for the unrelated template deletion.

Episode list module/MOS:ACCESS. Throughout this entire discussion, I was told that it was against policy and guideline to include rowspans in the midst of a table. Every time I requested proof of this, proof that it was part of a policy or guideline, I was never given a straight answer. I have not yet been linked to policy or guideline that states that we cannot include rowspans in the midst of a table. Yes, at the time, I did declare my decision to revert such changes,[282] as I had not been provided with anything that support bold changes; if I remember correctly, bold changes that are undiscussed in templates and/or modules that are high-use are against policy. I'll see if I can find that one later. RexxS stated that I was [283] "wiki-lawyering"; barely a supportable accusation when all I stated was that the guideline provided banned only the use of <br> tags, and nothing else. DTAB makes no mention of <hr>. Hence, they are similar, but you cannot state the guideline that bars one thing and then state yourself that it encompasses all. And a threat for ANI because of it; I actually missed that bit. I made no edits to "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", the entire interaction was through discussion. The reply to Pigsonthewing,[284] an editor who I've had interactions with in the past, and who attempts to bring my personal life and statements into the discussion, and debating if I'm an editor that is "worth their salt". Yes, the comment was irrelevant. Gaming?[285][286] I think not. I quoted exactly what the guidelines state. Is this to say that I cannot quote guidelines? I find no reason behind this; what do you mean by it? "improvements"[287], again, after no policy or guideline was supplied when I asked for it. You want to make a statement against rowspans, or anything else, you back it up. Just as I had/have through quoting guidelines and policies. Another Wikilawyering accusation?[288] I must ask how. I related episode titles and serial titles to be titles in general. If you mean "As the editor who's talk page you went to stated, there is no guideline or policy that dictates that rowspans cannot be used", this[289] was their reply: "My $0.02 on this is that it is clear that WP:ACCESS needs to be updated to make the problems with 'rowspan' (and 'colspan') in tables spelled out explicitly (currently the issues are just "implied") – it's just that somebody has to take the first step and either do it and make the changes to WP:ACCESS". This supports the fact that there is no such supporting evidence. Yes, it may need to be added, but at the time, it was not. That's not Wikilawyering. That's not not going by what an editor personally says about a guideline, when the guideline itself does not say that. Gonnym's WP:CANVAS[290], they posted on the talk pages of two specifc editors[291][292]. As far as I know, the posts did not conform to WP:APPNOTE. Simply stating CANVAS is not automatically an accusation, please do understand that. It was a request. And yes, I said "What a mess".[293] Because I believed that the current example was a complete mess and would not improve the Wikipedia whatsoever. Further examples were proposed, primarily by RexxS,[294] that I coded into the module via sandbox, opting to then discuss them rather than implement them. I did not deny that I said it[295]. I was clear and up front about it. "latter denied"? Do you mean that I denied that I made the comment, or that it was uncivil? If it was the latter, then again, I am allowed an opinion. Strong language is not necessarily uncivil, it is my opinion on the matter. Incivility claims[296][297][298]: First one, all I said was that "already accepted the advice given, proposed a coded solution based off of the example given in this very section". I was told that that was wrong. That's not incivility. That's summarizing what happened. Second: Another opinion. If you believe that everyone's opinions can only conform to your views, then I recommend that you learn that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and that not everyone will agree with you. I stated "creates more hassle, given that another module will need modifying to support one series". Is this incorrect? Changing the module as proposed would require the modification of more than one high-used module. If this is incorrect, please do inform me. Third: you did indeed jump in halfway through the discussion.[299] May I request how so? Were you following the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility page? In the comment before mine, you summarized all screen readers to be the same, when you were told that all screen readers are different. You went in the face of the recommendations of supporting editors in the same discussion. No misrepresentation occurred[300]; I believed that Redrose64's comments were further backing (not necessarily on their part, but this is my opinion of their comments) for my position. I never said they support it. I stated that their comment was further backing for my support. Notice, however, that Redrose64 did not mention you either. Assuming that it was misrepresentation indicates that you believed their comment was for support for your position; this too could be viewed as misrepresentation on your part. Best not to make accusations when nobody other than the posting editor knows what they meant. And yet again, quoting an editor is not misrepresentation[301]: as I've already stated: "you summarized all screen readers to be the same, when you were told that all screen readers are different". That's exactly what I quoted back at you, the other editor's comments. They stated "Unless your reader comprises more than 80% of all readers used, it should offer information for us to improve layout but should not become a standard for us to follow." You made it a standard. I most certainly did not deny that an issue was ever raised. I stated that titles was not the primary concern, it was the rowspans in the middle of the table.[302] In the comment before mine,[303] you stated "let's use our information to improve the layout as best we can then. Separating the serial and episode titles into different columns seems like a good place to start". This seemed to me a very bad faith comment after we'd just had an entire disagreement over the content. And then you wanted to start it over again? How was that constructive? It was not.

Response to your RfC request[304]; is sarcasm against policy now? I wasn't aware of that, my apologies. (/s) You showed no willingness to actually have a discusson with editors. You went straight to RFC. That indicates that you hold no respect for your fellow editors and you would rather ignore them then discuss it. That's why I said that your edits were in "poor faith", as you said.[305] As I said: "I recommend that you learn that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort". Pages only go where they are through discussion. Discuss. My talk page[306], my decision on how I respond. If you don't like it, I would recommend not posting to my talk page. I'm a sarcastic person. Have been for the four (almost five) years I've been editing here. I'm not changing it for one person, apologies. You stated "shows no concern for Wikipedia community as long as he's "happy""?[307] Wow, that's the biggest misinterpration I've heard. I said that I'm happy. I said nothing about the Wikipedia community and my happiness's position in that. You stated, about my editing, "It's a real shame". I could take offense to that, just as you have about my comments of suggestions being a "mess", etc., but I'm happy (yes, happy) to ignore them and continue on. You accused me of three reverts. You were incorrect. Please acknowledge that.

"Inferences from guidelines should stand in articles while discussed"[308]; correct. Your edits to the article were reverted, and you continued to force them[309][310][311]; that is the definition of edit-warring per WP:EW. I recommend that you actually read those guidelines that I presented you; everyone else abides by them, so why don't you have to? Maintaining that your edits had to stay in the article while being discussed is certainly "suggesting WP:OWNERSHIP", but on your part. "unless the inference is made by someone else"[312] - I don't get this bit. Inference is made by who? What inference? The guideline did not support your statement, a discussion that closed with consensus against you. Are you listing this because I opposed your edits? I'm confused. "single-use or little-used templates are acceptable"[313][314][315]. Interesting how you list this, given that you support that single-use or little-used templates/edits are acceptable except when they're not ([316] not acceptable, acceptable when an editor proposed it[317] and you continue to support it). I recommend a firm WP:BOOMERANG there. I did not say that I was neutral on the discussion[318], I said that "I don't care which way that discussion goes.", so yes, I continue to deny[319] being "neutral". First sarcasm isn't allowed, now I can't say "I don't care"? Wow. You further stated that I "misrepresented the entire discussion, clearly listed as a merge proposal"[320]. It most certainly was not. As I clearly stated: there was "no merge !votes in this discussion, and only one comment mentioning the word "merge"." The proposal was to merge, yes. I never said that a merge would not happen. If the merge continues, sure. It can be merged. Nothing was said about not allowing an alternate proposal.

I truly do apologize for the walls of text, but I felt the strong need to defend myself here. To summarize, it seems that a vast majority of this is a misinterpretation of my often-present sarcasm and responses where I disagree with a solution; "What a mess", "I don't care", "horrendous", being "happy". I've met far stronger oppositions in my almost-five years here, and I continue on. I apologize if this has upset or hurt the OP; I'll be sure to take their feelings into consideration. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I was pinged so I'll just quickly comment regarding the CANVASSING accusation. I deliberately did not respond to the accusation when Alex raised it, as I've found that some editors tend to derail the conversation so no solution can be found. Regarding my post at IJBall's talk page: during the discussion at Module:Episode list I said "There were a few discussions in the past which, if I remember correctly, said that using a rowspan is ok as long as it is continuous, but shouldn't be used in the middle of a table.", Alex replied with "I would be interested in seeing such discussions". My post to IJBall was not asking him to join the discussion, which he did not do until Alex posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television here, but to ask him for links to the discussion (as I knew he had a few of those) so I can provide them for Alex. What did Alex expect me to do? Search manually all of Wikipedia in the hopes that I'll find those discussions? Regarding my post at Izno's page: Since I knew Izno had technical experience in this field in the past, I asked him to join the discussion and give his opinion. As this is a technical issue and not a personal preference one, I would have thought that having an editor with experience in this topic, would be a good addition to the discussion. To me personally, that accusation seem very bad faith and seemed with the intent to derail the discussion, which is why I ignored it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I was also pinged so I'll reply: the description of a user's work as "horrendous" is shockingly rude. Alex digged himself deeper when I asked him to remove this. I note he also gives a non-apology here: "Yes, I called the work "horrendous"; perhaps a beter word could have been used, but I am allowed to express my opinions of a suggestion". Very much missing the point. Indeed Alex is allowed to do this, as his comment was not a personal attack. It was merely an uncivil remark and I don't think his behaviour in the rest of the discussion violated any policy, much as I disagree with his position. The problem with this "horrendous" comment is not that it's blockworthy, but that it's going to make the subject feel hurt and discouraged from future editing (at least, that's how I would feel). I don't believe Alex's actions warrant an ANI thread but I would encourage him to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground even when it's a topic he clearly has very strong feelings on. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a very fair summary. I thought very carefully about starting this ANI, only chose to do so because it's a sustained pattern that I have witnessed for over a month, and despite it being pointed out on several occasions Alex has shown no recognition of how detrimental it can be to the collaborative community.

Mostly, I think it is best for me to step back and allow other users to comment here, but I'll respond to the questions Alex asks me and make a couple of brief points for context.

Diff 243 above: There were just two comments to my proposal at this point. The first, true, I probably didn't need to reply to; the second was yours, where you asked direct questions that I was in a position to clarify. On the receiving end, it seemed very soon to be charging in with a WP:BLUDGEON accusation, and certainly didn't feel like good faith was assumed. Subsequent diffs included to demonstrate the combative stance taken throughout, which was highly detrimental to that discussion.

Diffs 248-51: In the context of our opposing positions in the discussion, this felt like an accusation and an attempt to discredit. And, as you never responded to my reply, I was never aware that you recognised I had acted appropriately. Glad to see that now; it would have been very beneficial at the time.

Diff 256: I found it very hard to know what to do in this situation, as your altered position was clearly relevant to the TfD and you declined to mention it there. I stand by the comment, but recognise that striking out your vote was the wrong call. You had every right to revert that. That does not, however, justify you removing my comment at the same time, which violates the very guidelines you drew my attention to. I did not bring up the module discussion at the TfD, only your comments regarding the template.

Diffs 262-3: Rolling out the 'it's only a guideline so I can ignore it' and WP:IAR in the face of guidelines disagreeing with your inclination seems pretty game-y to me, especially in the middle of a discussion where consensus is starting to form against your position.

Diff 265: Yes, I believe you were "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express", by insisting repeatedly that accessibility matters could be ignored because they aren't explicitly discussed in WP:ACCESS.

Diff 274: Your comment opens "Terrible. A mess." That is your opinion, yes, but is expressed uncivilly. Per WP:IUC, this is regular behaviour that has been drawn to your attention before.

Diff 276: I'm really not sure why you keep bringing up my time of entry into that discussion. I came to Module talk:Episode list from your WikiProject notification, and missed the switch to another talk page for a little while, that's all. To use that minor circumstance as a stick to beat me with when I fail to guess correctly which previous "alternate suggestion" you comment referred to was rather unpleasant.

Diff 278: I did not generalise all screen readers, other than in one stray aside that I readily corrected. And neither did I at any point suggest setting a precedent from the individual case being discussed, so the deployment of another user's words was inappropriate ("misusing" more accurate than "misrepresenting", on second thoughts).

Diff 279: We were in the middle of a long discussion over the titles column and accessibility, as part of the wider discussion, when you directly stated that No accessibility issues have been raised concerning the titles column for the suggested options, essentially telling me that my contribution to the discussion was worthless to the point of non-existence. You then further told me that I didn't understand the full issue regarding rowspans, which I had already commented on multiple times.

Diff 284: Yes, you said nothing about the Wikipedia community. Exactly. I told you how unpleasant your attitude had made contributing to the project, and your only concern was for your own happiness.

Diffs 285-8: Les Misérables (2018 miniseries) is a strange one. Sorry to say I got sucked in, as a matter of days after you censured me for literal interpretation of guidelines [321] you were practising the exact opposite position when the roles were reversed. What's strange is you could have informed me of the precedents (over applying guidelines that I still think read far too vaguely to the uninitiated) you later revealed when I raised the matter at the guidelines talk page, or you could have let me know that Derek Jacobi wasn't in fact in the second episode (or any other) and thus we weren't actually in dispute over the article content, but the unnecessary situation was exasperated for no good reason.

Diffs 293-4: Those are not my edits.

Diffs 295-6: You cannot both not care about a matter, and oppose it. And if you meant something else, then my original reason for raising that contradiction stands, i.e. why a little-used template is fine by you in one instance, but a primary reason to stand against proposed changes in another?

I will now take a break and allow others to state their thoughts. U-Mos (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@U-Mos: The link numering you refer to will change when earlier sections of this page are archived. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex refers to me, in this section, as "an editor who I've had interactions with in the past, and who attempts to bring my personal life and statements into the discussion, and debating if I'm an editor that is "worth their salt". Yes, the comment was irrelevant." He doesn't link to those previous interactions, nor say how (nor, indeed, whether) they are relevant to the issue at hand. His claim that I have "brought his personal life and statements into the discussion" refers to my commenting on a statement on his user page here on Wikipedia; that is something that he, not I, has brought to Wikipedia. I have never commented as to whether he is "an editor that is 'worth their salt'"; given that what I actually said was "any web developer worth their salt understands accessibility issues", it's hard to see such a claim as anything other than a deliberate misrepresentation. The comment which he claims was irrelevant was suggesting that he should read Web Content Accessibility Guidelines; which is highly relevant in a discussion of, well, web content accessibility. All of this may seem trivial, but it typifies the wikilawerish approach he brings to his troubling attempts to disregard serious issues affecting the accessibility of Wikipedia content to its readers, and the solutions to them which have both found long-standing consensus on Wikipedia and become best practice on the wider web. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've never personally had any issues with Alex, he's been friendly when we've interacted on here in the past and seems to be someone sensible with how they maintain pages. It's a huge contrast to some of the egoists I've encountered since editing here that really don't like being told that they're wrong or are just plain uncomfortable to deal with because of their attitude. After reading some of the comments here It looks like to me that he's simply guilty of hurting someones feelings, not of breaking some kind of rule. And the last time I checked that's not a ban worthy thing, we can't all be right in our opinions, but sometimes you just need to accept that and move on. Esuka (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

My concern reading this is that Alex is too quick to assume poor faith. Bad faith is when an editor has the intent of hurting the Wikimedia project, and U-Mos' actions (editing a comment made by Alex and starting an RfC before holding a discussion) were not intended to hurt the project, even though these actions are questionable, and Alex was welcome to criticize them, but not welcome to call them bad/poor faith. Regarding Alex's sarcasm, my personal belief is that sarcasm is O.K. but he should be careful to ensure it's civil. IMO much of Alex's incivility appears to be tactless, rather than outright malevonent (e.g. calling an edit "horrendous" was tactless), so Alex should be careful to ensure that his comments are not able to be intrepreted incorrectly by a sensible person (e.g. This could quite easily be interpreted as an accusation of canvasing, even though it wasn't). However, some of the diffs that U-Mos has provided weren't problematic, e.g. Alex accusing them of bludgeoning was not uncivil, it was a founded criticism of their behaviour (that I witnessed). I would also point out that WP:GAMING, as it says in the first line, mentions it's done in bad faith, which Alex has not acted in, so these accusations should not have been made. But my main belief is the Alex's behaviour is not malevonent and is not done with intent to cause a poor editing experienece to others. --TedEdwards 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

BankPR65

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

---

Keeps on adding the same cut and paste POV soapboxing [[322]] across multiple related articles. Their edit history also looks very SPAy [[323]]. It is becoming very distributive to have to undo this stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And it looks like they are editing warring too.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't all editors start as SPA accounts? It isn't a policy violation. edit warring is tho. 2600:100F:B125:1224:D075:21D1:EB81:E6AD (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Hmains

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

I am concerned about some contributions from Hmains (talk · contribs) that seem to be placing speed of operation over accuracy and quality. My attention was drawn to this on his talk page at User talk:Hmains#For the last time, where EEng and Headbomb complained about Hmains' AWB editing, suggesting that his privileges be revoked. The principal complaint is "The problem is that many of Hmain's edits either have nothing to do with MOS (e.g. changing {{Quote}} to {{quote}} or inserting or deleting whitespace in the source text) or actively introduce violations of MOS (inserting hyphen-hyphen as a dash). Plus, even where Hmains seems to be trying to do something that's appropriate and useful, he doesn't know how to formulate regular expressions to make the changes correctly in edge cases, so that he introduces new errors.". Hmains' original response was "There is nothing wrong with my edits" which raises an immediate red flag. At the time, I declined to revoke Hmains' AWB priviliges, believing he deserved a last chance now he knew what the problems were. Now, I have discovered BrownHairedGirl, who has previously blocked Hmains for disruptive editing, has complained about him at User talk:Hmains#Category:Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland, linking to categories that do not exist, and a further suggestion that we should take sanctions.

As I don't really know much about Hmains' editing patterns too well, I thought the best thing to do would be to come here and let the interested parties make their case and see what sort of sanctions, if any, we should make. I appreciate I haven't come here armed with much in the way of diffs - I just want to start a discussion here instead of taking admin action unilaterally, and I'm hoping the people making the original complaints will be able to supply them in due course. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to @Ritchie333 for opening this discussion.

I'll try write a longer post later today, but for now I just want to note that Hmains is a prolific editor whose good intent to me to be seems beyond question. He's always civil, and I have seen no sign of any intentional disruption.

The problem I see is long-term patterns of Hmains introducing plentiful errors which other have to clean up, and Hmains showing little sign of learning from these issues. It's the lack of learning which concerns me. Every editor has a non-zero error rate, but most editors learn how to avoid particular types of errors, or at least to check their own work and clean up after themselves. That doesn't seem to happen with Hmains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Given both the number of bots and editors which do nothing but change the sort of thing discussed here, it seems that there isn’t actually a problem for the reader. If some wikiteur is incensed because someone made a long dash by putting two short dashes together, even though the content associated is good, it may not be the writer who is the problem. Qwirkle (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• I can't speak to active errors at all, not having reviewed Hmains' edit history to see what's going on — but what I do want to point out is that AWB automatically applies its own "general fixes" (inserting missing whitespace where it's needed, deleting extraneous whitespace where it isn't, converting template links from redirect-title to direct-title, etc.) independently of the job that the user actually coded for. For instance, if I use AWB to do a tagging run on articles in a maintenance queue, AWB will also apply all of those same fixes at the same time as it's making the changes I actually planned for. Not because I coded for that, but because AWB is preprogrammed to automatically apply those changes separately from what I coded for. So it's not fair to criticize Hmains for that, because AWB simply does that automatically as a side dish to the job the user is actually trying to do.
  If Hmains is making active errors that are breaking stuff, then that's a different matter — but please keep the discussion on focus, because criticizing Hmains for AWB's automatic genfixes isn't productive or helpful. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  If Hmains is making active errors that are breaking stuff – Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. Those in a hurry might start at [324] and read forward as necessary, and backwards according to taste. I want to echo BHG's sentiment that there's no question Hmains is sincerely trying to help. EEng 15:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be more impressed by seeing examples of him breaking stuff, not being told he is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I've read through the relevant threads on Hmains' talk page and also the diffs contained therein, and I agree there appears to be some kind of competency issue, I think some diffs would help here. Hmains seem like a very nice person, which is probably why they still somehow have managed to retain their AWB privileges (and please note if this changes that both Hmains and Hmainsbot are on the checklist). All that being said, doing this gnoming work is a thankless task, Hmains' intentions are 100% good, and we need to be kind, please. Fish+Karate 16:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to be honest and say that I don't personally understand what the issue is with Hmains, probably because I don't go anywhere the MOS or AWB so these edits never turn up on my watchlist (or if they do, they don't trigger sufficient interest for me to notice). However, while EEng can be .... an "acquired taste" to some, I find it very uncharacteristic that he would ask me to drop Hmains' AWB rights for no reason whatsoever - so there must be something going on here that I don't get. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant to mention that I'm offering free tastings all this week and next. EEng 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder to folks - spit, don't swallow. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that they're applying custom fixes, which work 90% of the time, but don't review their edits and they break stuff 10% of the time. An example is changing ... to _..._ (where _ is a space). That may be fine in prose in most situations, but it will break things like Bibcode:2018A&A...616A...1G. There are other example, but the point is repeated WP:AWBRULES violations and they edit in a broken-WP:MEATBOT-like fashion. Revoke AWB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Even after requests, I see no DIFFS being offered, just opinionns. 2600:100F:B125:1224:D075:21D1:EB81:E6AD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Or you know, you could just have followed up on many of the several links that were offered here. Like User talk:Hmains#For the last time. Or User talk:Hmains#Bibcodes, again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Question: Would a removal of AWB (and a ban from it) resolve the issue, or are there further/deeper competency issues? If a removal of, and ban from, AWB would resolve the matter, then I Support that. I've seen all too many things get messed up at best, and broken at worst, by AWB use, especially at speed. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  See my !vote below. EEng 07:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Revoke AWB rights

From what I have seen on this thread and on Hmains' talkpage, this is well and truly needed, and overdue. Pinging EEng, Headbomb, BrownHairedGirl, Ritchie333. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite revocation of AWB rights. Hmains can go back to regular, careful editing, of things he understands. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per User_talk:Hmains#Request_that_AWB_access_be_revoked seems like a good idea for a while. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support plus... the problem's broader than just AWB use. Per BHG's suggestion at User_talk:Hmains, in addition to no AWB we really need something along the lines of a topic ban from systematic/repetitious stylistic and formattimg edits. EEng 07:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support we can revisit the situation in a few months. Don't see the need to remove access to other tools however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, 6-month AWB ban This user is here in good heart but misused AWB, so I think a brief break from it is good enough. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 10:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: the discussion on Hmains' talkpage—linked to by EEng—raises sufficient concerns which, combined with the disruption (low level, but still) evidenced here, indicates that this particular use of AWB is...over excited, perhaps. A break is called for. It's merely a break; nothing punitive, and no-one is being sat on—it's just a (six month) pause for breath in which Hmains recalibrates their approach. ——SerialNumber54129 10:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• support as per EEng's outline and clear approach to this situation, well supported by similar comments. I doubt the user is benefiting from this method of contribution either, although it is not my business to speculate on compulsion to act and aversion to scrutiny (which describes virtually everyone, in some way), and they may also reflect on this as a good outcome. cygnis insignis 13:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, plus a ban on systematic/repetitious stylistic and formatting edits as I suggested at User_talk:Hmains, and as noted above by EEng. The problem is that Hmains doesn't take sufficient care over what they do, and while this is exacerbated by tools such as AWB, it is not limited to AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • PS Note that back in January, in a discussion at User_talk:Hmains, I opposed @EEng & @EEng's proposed revocation of AWB rights and proposed instead a 6-month suspension.[325] Since then, I have changed my mind on that.

In hindsight, I think I was reacting to Hmains's undoubted niceness and goodwill, and trying to be gentle. However, having reviewed the long history I don't think there is any reason to assume that the problems of working outside their skill zone will be resolved in 6 months. So it seems to me that a 6-month suspension is unhelpful to everyone, because promising Hmains reinstatement without any test of whether the competence issues have been resolved just invites a re-run of this discussion shortly after the 6 month ban expires. So now I think it's better for everyone to make the revocation indefinite, and leave Hmains free to reapply at any time if and when they can demonstrate that they have gained a better understanding of the problems which have arisen, and demonstrate that they now have ability to avoid them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support temporary revocation - Hmain has contributed very well to Wikipedia for a very long time, but his AWB use is very concerning. Plus, the lack of response to the ANI threat and the user's talk page (as of 2/14/19) sends a red-flag to me. However, I think the user can learn from his/her mistakes. I think a temporary revocation is necessary, perhaps around three to six months. A permanent revocation is a bit too much for a punishment. INeedSupport ^:3 15:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  threat ==> thread? Not permanent, but indefinite in the way a block can be indefinite. He can ask for it back when he can explain why things will go better than they have. In the meantime there're plenty of other ways to contribute. EEng 16:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

RightTruthTeller

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

May well be an Sock of a banned account, they are however (as this edit summery makes clear [[326]]), not here to build an encyclopedia but are here to fight the good fight (and a clear SPA).Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If you think the user is a sockpuppet, I'd recommend filing at WP:SPI. Edit: But upon review the user's edits, it does seem they are NOTHERE and WP:RGW. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If they are a sock, they got blocked early into their original account's activity, or else they are are attempting a bluff, as they dispaly zero familiarity with our WP:OR and sourcing standards: [327], [328]. I do think this is looking likely to end in a WP:NOTHERE block based on their TP comments thus far, to say nothing of the sandbox comments (apparently now revdelled) which could not be a more explicit statement of ideological agenda. I wouldn't argue against a prophylactic block under the circumstances, but heavy warnings, some coaching on basic policies and, and a bit of WP:ROPE (with very clear indications that they are already on the cusp of sanctions despite their just having arrived here) would be my preference. Unless Steven can put a finer point on the sock issue, that is. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The name and tone seems familiar, but mainly the name. It might just be the same kind of person is going to pick the same kind of name.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, please don't forget, you are obliged to leave a notification on the user page of any party whose behaviour you raise as the topic of a thread here. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have notified RightTruthTeller. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry thought i had, Guess I got it mixed up wit the many posts I made there before.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Lancepickell not here: antisemitism, white supremacy

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

---

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

---

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

Basically all this user's edits are to push anti-semitic positions or to adjust portrayals of various white supremacists, with no particular concern for sourcing etc. Here's a quick sampler: talk page rant, adding the phrase "Neoconservative shill for Israel" to a BLP, this charming bit of anti-semitic dog-whistling, nice friendly Adolf Hitler, whitewashing white supremacy, and some more clear-cut antisemitism. There is no evidence in their edits of anything valuable that would be lost by an indef block. --JBL (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• QZD, why did you say "no reliable source" when you reverted? This is just another antisemitic trope--the Rothschilds, you know, the Jews who own everything and want to take your guns... Yes, a block would be fine. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Further though required.
Splitting parentheticals
over lines is crass. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Playing with AIV like mad

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.132.231.213 is exploiting the bot in use and inside the talk page playing with the warnings like a toy. 31 hour block seems too easy and the bot might not understand the nuance of the issue... JarrahTree 00:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

resolved... JarrahTree 00:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

JarrahTree, Which AIV bot were they exploiting? SQL^{Query me!} 01:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

My sincerest apology - I mis-read the issue - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.132.231.213&action=history - I dont think there was a bot there - as far as I can tell the problem was due to the block not extensive enough for the being able to write within the talk page... JarrahTree 01:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The IP is a mobile phone address, so the length is probably appropriate. I think the problem is that the IP was reported to AIV where, because it was already blocked, it was quickly removed by the bot.[329] In that sort of case, it's fine to report such things here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain the issue. JarrahTree 01:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Obvious Evlekis-sock needs TPA removed...

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

---

... see page history of User talk:HARP TOOK BAR SET. All Evlekis-socks should always have TPA removed, as standard procedure... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Anonymous Disruptive User

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

---

Hello, now I don't really know how to start this so I'll get straight to the point. Whilst doing some research on the history of Syria and it's government, the Wikipedia page President of Syria I found was vandalized by an anonymous user (really not the first time someone has vandalized the page) identifiable only by his IP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.90.156.10 is the list of his contributions, I hope for the administration to quickly deal with the aforementioned vandalizer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisuvia (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've protected the page so it can't be edited by anon IPs. This is probably a more effective solution, as many vandals move from one IP address to another. Deb (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by two Wikipedians

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

---

On the page of Eddie Vedder, two Wikipedians namely Calton and Regents Park have caused havoc. The Legacy section of the forementioned page needs expansion as an 'expansion needed' template is visible there. So trying to help the cause i decided to add a quote said by Roger Daltrey about Eddie vedder which comprised of 51 words, none of which had been altered in any way and so it abided by all the rules laid down by the authority as one can check here.Special:diff/882834638 After this Regents Park who has already been warned nearly 6 times on his talk page about edit warring, reverted the edit without giving appropriate reason here.Special:diff/882858584 As far as i know, No edit is a sockpuppet and so one should not revert an edit which improves a particular article even if it is done by a sockpuppet as you will then be hindering the improvement. But regents park didn't seem to care about these basic principles. Reporting this act to one of my friends Martinevans123 on his talk page, i added that quotebox again to check if he gives reason this time but this time Calton sprung to the occasion and reverted my edit with a reason that didn't make any sense at all, here Special:diff/883080897. Calton has been subject to personal attacks on other editors for approximately 8 times and cautioned for edit warring 6 times(one can check it from his talk page). I, in provocation then re added that quotebox but reverted my own edit because i knew that no article should become a place of edit war and so i stepped aback. Considering the previous ill-behavioured comments of Calton and RegentsPark towards other editors and disruptive editing done by both of them in the case above, i henceforth seek for attention of an administrator towards the matter and suggest:

•RegentsPark to either lose his adminship or be blocked for a definite period.

•Calton be blocked for atleast a month.

•Permission to add the quotebox.

I just suggest these and the above points are just my opinions so please dont mind if you disagree. All upto you guys. REGARDS 2405:204:A507:3721:0:0:1C46:E8A1 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edit was good faith. The formatting could be nicer and the description wasn't neutral, but those are easily fixed by editing, which I have just done. Hopefully that'll be end of the issue, unless anyone wants to revert that, in which case I'll open a discussion on the talk page. As for "any person reverts an edit which improves the article as in this case then he is said to be causing vandalism" - that's not true. See Hanlon's razor. I'm not inclined to take any action towards RegentsPark or Calton other than this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's normal practice for the editor raising an issue here, to alert any named editors? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC) p.s. I already know.

• It was unclear to me why a three sentence legacy section needs a long quote from Roger Daltrey to bolster it but I should have said so in the edit summary. The praise, combined with a blacklisted url as a citation, led me to believe that you were the long term Pearl Jam promoting sock. Apologies if that's not the case. --regentspark (comment) 12:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a reciprocal quotation from Vedder on The Who, which is my most contributed-to article, which is probably why I thought it wasn't necessarily a bad idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Please also see this from my talkpage, where the above editor admits to being a sockpuppet. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've not come across Calton before, but he really needs to control his temper a bit. (I realise this is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, but still....) Some recent examples:

• "Do you have the SLIGHTEST evidence that anyone, anywhere, gives two shits what a Reddit subedit thinks?"
• "Sure you are (restoring neutrality)"
• "Misconduct? What are you on about?"
• "It doesn't appear that Jimbo Wales has died and left you in charge."
• "You know, altering the actual title of the cited NY Times article counts as lying"
• "My talk page, not yours, genius. Try the honesty approach to rewriting history"

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Calton, play nice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

RegentsPark Not a three line legacy. Also I was going to correct the URLs' value but some error occurred. Better take care from now Regents. This ain't the first time you've done such thing but anyways. I am a sock but still I always edit constructively and only one provocative comment from peoples like you led me to commit a mistake which I am sorry of, I say it again. Thanks to all of you guys especially Martin but have you been as much lenient in my case then you wouldn't have lost a honest and well mannered Wikipedian like me. Happy blocking me. Cheers 47.9.81.186 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, losing track of IP addresses. Not sure who we've "lost" or why. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I would advise you no socking for six months and then Wikipedia:Standard offer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I didn't mean it to you. I meant it to the administrators who reviewed the matter. So dont worry. You've have always been friendly towards everybody and that's why i trust you. Regards117.234.230.10 (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

So that's IP address number 3? Hard to know who is who sometimes Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a giant game of cat and mouse. I guess the IP (playing the part of the "mouse") will hope Bbb23 (playing the part of the "cat") will get fed up and snap in response. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this is just one editor, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• puts hand over one eye* .... bang goes his application then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

86.172.26.58

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

---

Needs a block for persistent vandalism over at mark dices talk page. [[330]][[331]][[332]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Jus' sayin'

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

---

I've seen four Haikus on this page in the past week or so and have been thoroughly enjoying them. If they stop, I will be very disappointed in the admins.

Thought provoking poems,
made of structured syllables
help to ease tensions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

People who cannot

Write encyclopedia

Get banhammered fast Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I feel less tense already. "I'll go to the foot of our stairs" (as they say in Yorkshire). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

People who can write

Encyclopaedia well

Get hammered later. GoldenRing (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WI K I

I PE

D I A

Am I doing it right?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You spelled Wikipedia wrong bro INeedSupport ^:3 16:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Glistening frost hills, Wikipedia on screen; YouTube NOT RS

Dumuzid (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I can almost feel cherry blossom falling on the snow Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

182.30.190.211 (Suspected to be EurovisionNim)

Recently I done a edit on a semi-small article. The IP been making unnecessary edits such as removing invisible sections of a car article. [333][334]. I have already created a sockpuppet investigation of this suspected IP and I think this should require attention. --Vauxford (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford - Have your updated your SPI report and added these diffs to the evidence statement? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah Yes, I updated the recent diffs on the sockpuppet page. --Vauxford (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford - Great, just making sure. ;-) I know that this SPI has been open for some time. The number of SPI reports filed lately have been more than we typically see on average (I dunno, I guess the moon must be out or something... lol); we're working to get caught up, respond, investigate, handle, and close SPI reports in as timely of a manner as possible. Just understand that it may take a bit more time than what's expected before it starts seeing comments and attention. One way or another, it'll be handled and matters investigated. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Planetary Chaos Redux

Planetary Chaos Redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As a result of some stuff by Mark Dice there have been some issues with not here accounts being reactivated for the sole purpose of pushing Mark Dices agenda. The above accou t has not been active for 4 years and then posted this [[335]], since then (and despite my asking) they have made not one constructive edit. But have continued to complain and ignore requests to not soapbos [[336]] [[337]]. It is clear they are just trolling.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, just finished blocking them. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mark_Dice_related_blocks. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep misunderstood your comment.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn this one. The block fails WP:AGF and WP:BMB. One bad edit is not a reason to indef, especially when the editor in question has never been blocked before and is respected enough to have the rollback permission. wumbolo ^^^ 18:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Its two bad edits (the only two apart from my (and his talk page) in the last 4 years), and a host of "I do not want to hear it" over at both his and my talk page (including a frivolous welcome message). It is clear meatpuppetry and SPAing. But maybe an indef is too far, a block is not.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

They can appeal an indef. That will force a conversation. Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

They have using the UTRS system, so I certainly cannot converse about it (I also always thought that was a final, not first, court of appeal).Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Likely they will be referred to their talk page, as they haven't lost talk page access. (It just was) RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to the block being shortened and I've already said that if they're willing to back off I'd be fine with unblocking them. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• endorse blocks And I think Wumbolo needs a block for disruption by encouraging these obvious meatpuppets. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)