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

Dispute about block warnings and AN/I block request

This is essentially a self-report:

There has been an ongoing discussion on several Wikipedia pages about the way fact that I quickly went to WP:ANI after issuing a final warning on Henia Perlman's talk page, following a pattern of adding content to The Holocaust or a few related articles that were reverted because they were not in a form ready to be posted to the article or it was not cited at all or not properly. The user has mentioned that she is challenged by some of the technical formatting in Wikipedia -- and this has been an ongoing theme, so I am posting this so that this can be sorted out.

As I understand it, the user is concerned that I issued the block report on this incident page very soon after she posted content… and just before she took me up upon my offer to format the citations. As I understand, her issue is that 1) it went very fast and 2) she would have preferred that it went to WP:Mediation, per one of her latest postings on this - item #1. She has said that she feels I should be investigated about:

1. Whether I did anything wrong in the manner in which I notified her about the block and then very quickly posted the ANI after the final edit?
2. Should I have taken this to another venue instead of issuing the request to block at ANI?

User talk:Henia Perlman#The block is a summary (with diffs) of the warnings and activity that resulted in me posting a request to block on June 19th, which is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Request block of User:Henia Perlman. The ongoing editing issues are discussed throughout Talk:The Holocaust, but the specific edit in question is discussed here and here, regarding the final edits: this edit (08:43, June 19, 2017 ct‎), which I reverted (09:34, June 19, 2017 ct), and this edit (10:51, June 19, 2017‎ ct), which I reverted a few minutes after it was made here (10:53, June 19, 2017 ct).

As a side note, she has not been performing edits since the 31-hour block, and is instead posting proposals for edits on the article talk page.

Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have no idea even what's being requested here, but please, please can we not have this end again with a block of an intelligent, good-faith editor who's having trouble learning her way around? (Later: After looking around a bit more, it does seem like Henia Perlman is preoccupied with vindication in the matter of her prior block, or something, and that never ends well. Our focus here should be on getting her to realize that that it's nothing anyone will care about a month from now, and she should just forget about it.) EEng 01:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

EEng#s, I am absolutely not asking for a block, nor any sanction against Henia. I am doing a self-report to see if there's something I did wrong. Is self-report the wrong term? Again, it is to determine:

1. Whether I did anything wrong in the manner in which I notified her about the block and then very quickly posted the ANI after the final edit?
2. Should I have taken this to another venue instead of issuing the request to block at ANI?

It seems that she needs to have that done to move on. Any suggestions to help resolve this are greatly appreciated! I haven't been successful in my attempts to try to move this on - like this. I am stumped. I am lost. I feel bad and I don't know what to do to move this on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging a few people from the earlier thread who might be able to give Henia some helpful words: Rivertorch, Seraphim System, Mathglot. EEng 03:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to an editor who is having trouble learning their way around, but that isn't why this block was imposed. There was a very clear proposal under discussion at AN/I regarding a voluntary Article Ban. There has been a lot of good faith extended and assumed, but the discussion at AN/I wasn't ambiguous — the editing at the Holocaust article has been disruptive, and it is not a good article to learn on. I don't think CaroleHenson acted wrongly here. To help Henia, I will say that any discussion at AN/I is serious, and the community worked out a voluntary article ban proposal as an alternative to indefinitely blocking a new editor. We want Henia to have an opportunity to get used to how things work here, but that doesn't mean the discussion isn't serious. If an admin issues you a final warning, and there is an open discussion at AN/I about a voluntary article ban, and you agree to it, and then edit the article you will get blocked. That's how you learn. Asking for justice against our admins (who are much beloved) at AN/I usually doesn't end well, so the sooner we move on from this, the better for Henia. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EEng.

If someone doesn't mind taking a look at the questions, that would be great. I think the issue was that she didn't feel she should be blocked for making edits that were not meant to be unhelpful and that there should be another official remedy other than moving to blocking if the edits were not meant to be disruptive.

Regarding Mediation, my understanding is that is for content disputes - to resolve disputes regarding specific language in an article... which is not the issue here.

This issue seems to fall into the category of conduct disputes - and the page discusses the use of templates (which I did) and WP:ANI. Perhaps, I could have posted a message on the ANI requesting assistance, rather than requesting a block in cases like this. It would truly be helpful to get input about whether there was another approach I could have taken. That was my intention for the posting, because I think answering the questions will help both Henia and me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get an edit conflict and my posting was made on top of Seraphim System's comment... which appears to answer the questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much bowed out of it after Henia posted a rambling message on my talk page saying that other editors at The Holocaust "see [her] as a threat". I replied to her, offering what I hoped were helpful words. I was pretty frank, though. My advice hadn't seemed to be having a positive effect, and she had appeared to be grasping at straws since her block, distrustful of people (such as CaroleHenson) who had gone out of their way to help her and shopping around in some sort of futile quest for...I don't know what. Vindication? It didn't make sense to me, and I had begun to dread logging in for fear of finding that more drama awaited me. I really don't have anything else to offer, helpful or otherwise. Henia will either move on from her block and make a concerted effort to become a competent Wikipedia editor or she won't. Calling for investigations isn't productive. Does anyone really have time for this?

I'd like to offer a word or two to CaroleHenson, who feels bad but shouldn't. Rarely have I seen such forbearance directed toward a new user whose edits are having a disruptive effect, and CaroleHenson, you were a big part of that. You made a concerted effort to help a newbie, and when that appeared to be failing, you acted with the best interests of the project in mind. You did nothing wrong, and there's no need to second-guess yourself. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Heartfelt agreement with that word or two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you feel about all those other words? EEng 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I was the admin who gave the 31 hour block originally to Henia regarding their editing on The Holocaust, after multiple editors, admins and non-admins, advised her to stop. I feel like a lot of editors have gone out of their way to try to help Henia, some offering mentoring which they seems to take up, but have fault with at the same time. Henia's last rather lengthy post on my talk page here: [1] brings up a number of these same concerns that CaroleHenson mentioned. Henia is an editor that I also feel will be a great help in the future with their knowledge and information, and hopefully the people they have working with them helps out. Carole, you've had the patience of a saint in helping her, and I don't see that you've done anything remotely wrong. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone that contributed to this issue. As I understand it, I followed the processes correctly, which means that in addition to discussion on talk pages, I properly used templates to warn about the issue on her talk page, and followed the block policy correctly. As I summarized (and no one disagreed), Mediation is for content disputes and this was a conduct dispute, so mediation is not the proper venue for these kinds of issues. To this point, I have not heard of alternative strategies.

As an FYI, I am not an administrator, but I am a seasoned editor and NewPages reviewer.

I totally agree with EEng that it's nothing anyone will care about a month from now and RickinBaltimore that Henia is an editor that I also feel will be a great help in the future with their knowledge and information, and hopefully the people they have working with them helps out. (Her latest mentor added a post several days ago to Henia on their talk page.) There are many other nice and encouraging comments that have been made and I am happy to summarize them on Henia's talk page.

EEng#s, Is this sufficient input? Is there anything else that is needed to resolve this issue?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but because of my nobly gracious bearing I'm often mistaken for one. You showed great patience in an extremely frustrating situation. While it's always possible to say, "Well, you could have done this or that as well, before going to ANI", you did nothing wrong. EEng 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia input and further conversation

Henia Perlman posted the following at RickinBaltimore's page:

"Prior to imposing a block, administrators are expected to be fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation." You wrote: "My reason for the block was that Henia was continuing to make the same edits that they were repeatedly told by multiple editors (including an admin) not to make."

Please, specify

1) "the same edits",

2) the name of the admin who repeatedly told me not to do the same edit,

3)why was I guilty of socking.

Thank You.

Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

So, I posted it here for continuity of discussion - and hopefully to resolve this once and for all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman:

1) "The same edits" means that you continued to add content that was not ready for the article and was not properly cited. See the warnings on your talk page, for instance.

2) Ealdgyth is an admin

3) Socking refers to WP:Sockpuppetry, which was discussed at User_talk:RickinBaltimore#Rachelle/Henia..... You used two different accounts, the Rachelle Perlman account and the Henia Perlman account after you were blocked. We've been all through that - you explained it had something to do with a computer issue - and now that you're using just one account, we're good on that count as long as you just use one account.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I am asking RickinBaltimore to answer my questions.

Because of my physical disabilities, I cannot interact with everybody.

Thank you.

Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Henia, I want to apologize for a delay in getting back to you. Weekends are a very slow time for me on Wikipedia, as I'm busy with family stuff, and it's hard for me to jump on frequently. Carole did however summarize exactly what I was going to respond with. The block was originally for your conduct with disregarding editors asking you to use sourcing, and this was after multiple warnings and requests to not do so. As Carole stated, Ealdgyth is an admin, and they explicitly told you that you needed to work with the community on this issue. As for the multiple accounts, I was perfectly OK with your explanation on what happened, and I know you're just using this account now. I'm not going to be monitoring this or my talk page much today or tomorrow, since I'll be busy, but anyone here can assist you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Good morning Ricki and all,

It is very hard for me to keep up with daily/hourly comments in this site, or any other.

I understand the solidarity behind Carole, a very experienced editor.

I would like to focus only on the 2 incidents that directly caused the block.

It seems to me that I was specifically and immediately blocked, because

1. I didn't provide sources for Shanghai's statement, and continue to post this statement;

2. Carole mentioned Ealdgyth, an admin, in her request to block me, because Ealdgyth objected to posting, after Shangah.

RickinBaltimore, is it correct?

Thank you,

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the block was due to the repeated posting of information that was not properly sourced, and despite a number of editors asking you to please refrain from posting it until you had the discussion on the information you were posting. This was not immediate, as the issue appears to have been on going for a few weeks prior to my issuing the block on June 22nd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman,

1) You are not listening or understanding - and I don't know why you need for Rick to restate, once again, what the issue is. (See his initial comment here.) The reason why you have been blocked has been stated over and over again - endlessly - including in this incident and User talk:Henia Perlman#The block. I don't know how many times you need to be told this before it's understood. See WP:NOTGETTINGIT.

The incident that directly caused your block was when you went ahead and made changes to The Holocaust rather than finishing the discussions about the two ways to prevent the block on this AN/I forum.

2) It is insulting to the people that work this page and the process to say, I understand the solidarity behind Carole, a very experienced editor. You can make yourself a victim, or you can be someone who learns from your experiences.

Your inability to get that you might have done something wrong... and that it was a part of a pattern, not just the Shanghai edits raises concerns about your ability to capture key concepts here at Wikipedia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Carole, thank you for your thoughtful answer.

Can you please take out of from your archive the discussions we had about the Shanghai posts, and repost them in your talk page, as I would like to better understand what happened there?

"The incident that directly caused your block was when you went ahead and made changes to The Holocaust rather than finishing the discussions about the two ways to prevent the block on this AN/I forum."

Well Carole, I thought I would have a reasonable time to think about the 2 proposal and the block. I was not informed of a deadline, and I was waiting for one.

I see no harm in me being a slow reader, because of my physical disabilities.

I can go forward after I read again the posting about the Shanghai postings, now in your archive, and going over every disruptive post, that you took the time to mention.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, and your cooperation to help me better understand.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman, All the posts that you made to my talk page are at User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 12 and User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 13, but I don't see that the Shanghai edits were specifically discussed there.

All the information specific to the block is at User talk:Henia Perlman#The block, including the two sections of Talk:The Holocaust that discussed your final edits. There were also the final and "only" warnings posted to your talk page.

There was never an issue about you taking more time to review the proposals - and you never asked for time to consider the proposals. This had nothing to do with timing. You were blocked for additional improper edits. See [2].

I am done with this issue, Henia. If you continue to talk about how I improperly blocked you, I will refer to the summary on your talk page and this ANI discussion. Other than that, I am done and see no use in my continuing to repeat myself with ZERO impact.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Folks, I hate to be ants at a picnic – especially since when issues with this user first popped up, everyone agreed that, aside from some problems, she was a good faith editor with a lot to offer Wikipedia – but when I looked through Henia Perlman's talk page commentary at that time, I got the distinct impression that this could be pretty sophisticated trolling, as opposed to a newbie user lost in the maze of Wikipedia. I would ask that someone who hasn't looked into this before take a closer look with that in mind, because I'm far from convinced that the editor is what she claims to be. But then, I may just be overly suspicious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, I can see how you might think that. Or, a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT / WP:CIR.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Carole, to your two questions at the outset above: (I am responding as an involved non-admin)

1. No, nothing wrong in the manner which you notified HP of the block.
2. No. What other venue has juridiction and actionability to block someone, if not ANI? Bringing an issue here is not equivalent to issuing a block; you merely raised the question. You could have been unanimously shouted down by a tsunami of admins, had that been appropriate, but instead a block was issued. This was the right venue. (As a postscript, Henia's edit pattern was such that a 31-hour block wasn't even sure to get noticed, and as I recall, she later said it had expired before she realized it had been in effect.)

Just a few observations in order to try to bring anyone encountering this for the first time up to speed quickly. I have offered suggestions to Henia in the past which I hope were helpful, as numerous other editors have. At the same time I tried to offer some some non-sugar coated reality-checks that I realized might sound harsh to her but which I thought would be beneficial in helping her avoid an impending block which I saw coming clear as day, by contrasting her expertise in one area (Holocaust studies) with her neophyte status in another (Wikipedia). I tried to explain how others might see her activities at WP as being disruptive in a way that she might not understand and could easily interpret as ganging up on her or bullying, although that was certainly not the case. Far from being the latter, Henia is in my experience the editor who has received the most forbearance and largest number of offers of help of any editor that I have seen. Imho her responses have been sporadic and unpredictable, ranging from obsequious gratitude to dark innuendo of conspiracy (both of which I've been on the receiving end of), with a dash of mentor-[s]hopping without a clear rudder being established anywhere, nor even an anchor, so she ends up blown about by the winds or whatever the last breeze some editor or admin blew her way. My working theory up till now has been that she is what she appears to be, a Holocaust expert, with some issues of being frazzled by technology and computers, not to mention Wikipedia's set of policies and guidelines which takes a while to negotiate, and perhaps also her age (by her own say-so) and perhaps also by other personal issues that generally make things even harder for her. I have to admit not having considered Beyond My Ken's theory up till now, and reading it gave me a jolt, and now I can't "unthink" it, and don't know what to think now. I still believe it's probably CIR and a steep learning curve, but in the end as one frustrated editor remarked after giving up trying to help, (paraphrasing from memory): "In the end, it doesn't matter what the reason for the problem is."

I think Carole raised the issue here at ANI pointing at herself out of an abundance of caution in an attempt to be more than fair to an editor who had discussed raising "investigations" (here and here) into Carole's activities and those of other editors interacting with her (how I escaped that list I'll never know) and who may be too new here and thus unfamiliar with the rules and conventions at ANI to raise an issue herself. Having said that, if Henia is serious about having various editors investigated, it is for her to say whether Carole's formulation of the issue represents her concerns, whether she (Henia) wishes to continue on with this statement of it or take it up some other way. As far as I'm concerned, given Carole's statement of the issue at top of section, there's nothing remotely to be reproached here.

(Note: Pinging Ealdgyth who has been mentioned in this thread, but not notified I believe.) Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional background and weighing-in on the topic. The thing is: the nature of her edits were abundantly clear. 1) She continued to be warned about adding content that was not properly cited (on French and English Wikipedia) and was given offers to help format the citations, and 2) posted content that was not ready or appropriate for the article: a) too much detail for an overview article, b) fringe theories, c) continuing to add content that was discussed as problematic on the article talk page - or continuing to question why it was problematic, and d) adding content that was not ready because it was poorly constructed / edited (and received offers to work on this by others, which she ignored). Based upon previous comments, she seems to think that other editors should be cleaning up her edits. The fact that she cannot see that these are issues means to me that if she hadn't been blocked, she'd still be trying to make problematic edits. In addition, she is not understanding very clear points that have been made to her repeatedly at Talk:The Holocaust. If she doesn't like an answer, she has a habit of asking the question over and over again... on the article talk page or by posting messages on multiple user's talk pages to the point that users that once helped her are now ignoring her.

I have also seen that she does shop for someone to adopt or mentor her... but once someone agrees to help, it seems that their advice or suggestions are completely ignored. She has not responded to comments and suggestions from her most recent mentor, ONUnicorn, on their talk page.

I have been the eternal optimist, thinking that it just needed to be explained differently and she'd get it... but she's not getting it, and doesn't want to get it... whether it's due to trolling or CIR. If it's CIR, I feel really bad for her. If she's trolling, she has been highly effective at being disruptive and must be laughing at us quite a bit. Whatever the cause, though, this has been disruptive, time-consuming, and exhausting and, based upon her endless questioning why she was blocked, even now, I don't see an inkling that she's open to self-reflection.

I don't know how we prove trolling, but since she has stated herself that she has competence issues regarding Wikipedia (most recently here and here) + isn't working with her mentor, can we come up with a solution to resolve this (e.g., topic ban for The Holocaust, warning about needing to actively work with a mentor, warning about WP:LISTENING, other)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all

I don't want anymore to investigate Carole's actions.

Carole, you made a great impact.

I have been reading all your links, and those by Simon, Mathglot, Ealdgyth and others.

Carole, I am getting it.

And you noticed: I am not editing.

My only goal: I do want to help improving content, like all of us.

Carole, sorry:

I posted all the citations for you to format about Shanghai, in Talk page of Holocaust, and not at your talk user page.

I wanted to provide Ealdgyth the citations.

Mathglot:

I have read very carefully all your thoughtful postings.

I admit: I should have waited before posting about Shanghai, without citations.

"b) fringe theories"

I gave what I believed to be reliable sources to my proposal for new lead:

ushmm, Elie Wiesel, Berenbaus and others.

Holocaust history is very complex, and has been the subject of many controversies.

Historiography of Holocaust has been evolving very fast in the USA, especially in the last five years.

I have been keeping up with that.

It has been very interesting.

"She has not responded to comments and suggestions from her most recent mentor, ONUnicorn, on their talk page."

I have responded.

I don't laugh at anybody.

Mathglot and others: I cannot respond to all your thoughtful postings.

I can read and type only during a certain amount of time.

I am still traveling.

I do understand the frustrations that I have caused.

I apologize for that.

Thank you all.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I continued reading articles in wiki, and those relevant to editors who are experts.

Mathglot, I found out that the lead in 2004 was: The word Holocaust (Greek, "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering") was introduced in the late 20th century to refer to the attempt of Nazi-ruled Germany to exterminate those groups of people it found "undesirable".

I printed the 51 pages of the current Holocaust article, and read them.

I don't have the time and physical endurance to be involved.

Be well.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I struck out the request for a warning / other.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia, if you're monitoring this, I have a specific question for you regarding Historiography of Holocaust has been evolving very fast in the USA, especially in the last five years. Please see your Talk page. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia's response to "Aspersion"

I. It seems to me that Carole shouldn't have put a request to "block{ed} for additional improper edits" - "final edits" (Shanghai and lead).

1. First final additional improper edit: 14:43, 19 June 2017‎ Henia Perlman. (→‎Other occupied countries: Jews in Shanghai): In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe… the Japanese government ignored the Nazis, and didn’t murder the Jews, who left Shanghai after 1945.

14:53, 19 June, in the article talk page, I posted: I will also appreciate help in putting template for links (this time I couldn't do it!): In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe, …14:53, 19 June 2017

15:34, 19 June 2017‎ CaroleHenson ‎(Reverted 1 edit by Henia Perlman (talk): Addition of uncited content.

CaroleHenson (talk) 15:40, 19 June: I reverted the edit where you added uncited content. … I am not posting a request to block you because you have continued to ignore wikipedia guidelines, regardless of the warnings you have received.

Henia Perlman (talk) 16:14, 19 June: So sorry! 1. I pasted the wrong post without citations, and I have to find the correct one, because I have always posted with citation (temperature here was 105!). I am looking in my comuter for the posting on Shanghai with citations, as I have done it in the past. 2. I did ask to discuss with me comments, before reverting my post.

Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 19 June: I would have reverted your addition not only for the for the lack of citations, but also the formatting issues and the tone of the addition. We cannot call someone a butcher without a source. Nor is calling someone that encyclopedic tone. Nor do we need a paragraph on the Shanghai situation in an overview article on the entire Holocaust, so it had WP:UNDUE issues.

CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 19 June: Would you please post what you want to add here, rather than posting it to the article and I will work on getting it ready? Please.

16:51, 19 June 2017‎ Henia Perlman (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Shanghai: I added one citation - looking for the others in my computer. Thank you for your patience)

16:53, 19 June 2017‎ CaroleHenson (talk | (Reverted 1 edit by Henia Perlman (talk): Did not address issues raised on talk page by two people.

Henia's comment: After I added a citation, Carole is again reverting me, but now, because of two people and comment of undue weight – so issue of content.

CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2017 Block's request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#No_further_response_to_the_2_options.2C_went_ahead_and_edited_again: "This user, who says that she has been a teacher for more than 20 years (Carole does not specify that I have taught the Holocaust course in academic setting). … She had been given warnings about not adding unhelpful or uncited content and continues to make edits after a final warning. The last edit was this edit" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=786463732&oldid=786452371

But, in "this edit", Henia did put one citation : Revision as of 16:51, 19 June 2017 Henia Perlman (talk | contribs) (→‎Shanghai: I added one citation - looking for the others in my computer. Thank you for your patience.

"after receving comments from here": Ealdgyth 16:37, 19 June 2017: I would have reverted your addition not only for the for the lack of citations, but also the formatting issues and the tone of the addition. … Nor do we need a paragraph on the Shanghai situation in an overview article on the entire Holocaust, so it had WP:UNDUE.

So, 23 minutes after Ealdgyth's content comments, 9 minutes after my Shanghai edit with one citation, and 7 minutes after Carole reverted me because of issue of content raised by Ealdgyth, Carole put a request to block me because of Shanghai without quotation.

And, Ealdgyth did later decided that Shanghai does indeed have weight, and added a Shanghai statement with one citation like I did: 18:28, 20 June 2017‎ Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Germany's allies: add data and source): Jews in Shanghai were confined, but despite German pressure, they were not killed.[131] So it was ok that Henia added Shanghai with one citation.

"and here: Revision as of 16:39, 19 June 2017 (edituCaroleHenson (talk | contribs)

(→‎Shanghai without citations: I have asked you to work with me regarding making sure that the content is "article ready" due to your history of edits and the fact that you have received so many warnings about your edits. I am trying to keep you from being blocked. Would you please post what you want to add here, rather than posting it to the article and I will work on getting it ready? Please.

At 16:51 Henia added one citation, adding that she will post more.

Henia Perlman (talk) 17:06, 19 June 20. Thank you Carole for your help! I just reposted before I read the two above messages. Here your message for your kind formatting: In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe, because they could emigrate there without a visa.[1] [2] After the Wannsee conference, Hitler’s Germany sent SS-Colonel Joseph Meisinger, the “Butcher of Warsaw to Shanghai, Norman Goda The Holocaust: Europe, the World, and the Jews, 1918 – 1945 Pearson, 2013 p. 267. But, the Japanese government ignored the Nazis, and didn’t murder the Jews, Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust 89 who left Shanghai after 1945. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206019.pdf

2. Shanghai is not undue weight and sources mention it even in overview. Thank you Carole!

CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 19 June: Henia, I have been offering to format your citations for quite some time. You pushed ahead after the final warning and the messages here on the talk page. As you likely saw on your talk page, I have submitted a request to block your account.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust#Shanghai_without_citations)

But, 1) I did post with one citation, like Ealdgyth: "16:51, 19 June 2017‎ Henia Perlman (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Shanghai: I added one citation - looking for the others in my computer. Thank you for your patience)"; 2) Carole mentions the request five minutes after I provided more citation as promised at 16:51; and 3) Carole reverted me a second time because issue of content, and not issue of citation.

The facts speak for themselves.

I edited the Shanghai statement with one citation, and it was not undue weight.

I can also refute other examples mentioned by Carole.

I strongly suggest that administrators consider putting a deadline for proposals and appeal to block, because some people do not log everyday.

I welcome your comments.

It may take me time to answer.

Thank you for your attention.

Henia Perlman (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Admin help please

This posting is ten days old. Henia said that she was dropping the protest of the block in this edit on July 11 and is now essentially restating the issues of the block and my summary of the timing of the final edits (from the initial post) as if that's a reason why she shouldn't have been blocked.

Is there any way we can resolve this? I know that it's a long posting at this point, but it would be nice to be able to close this out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As has been commented many times in the past, there comes a point when extreme issues of incompetence become indistinguishable from deliberate trolling. Numerous editors have expressed the opinion that Henia has a lot to offer Wikipedia, but she has, unfortunately, shown absolutely no ability or willingness to understand how we do things. I'm afraid that the only answer is an indef block, which can be lifted once she exhibits the capacity for editing here without causing continuing problems. Therefore, reluctantly: Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

User:Henia Perlman should be indefinitely blocked from editing until she is able to convincingly display her willingness and ability to abide by Wikipedia's processes and procedures and become a net positive to the project.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't believe that WP:CANVASSING has any application cross-Wiki, but I will note that on French Wikipedia Henia Perlman has summarized (incorrectly, I believe) the latest incident and has requested help there with her troubles here. [3]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support, and assume that this would apply to her alternative account, User:Rachelle Perlman (See [4], [5]).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the block is intended for the person and not for the specific account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I displayed my willingness and ability to abide by Wikipedia's processes and procedures.

I didn't edit, as per the proposal.

The matter of investigating Carole Henson about the block is closed.

I just wanted to address the issue of "Aspersions".

What I did in French wiki was a long time ago, and I just wanted to understand matter.

You can archive this issue, as I am dropping any request for investigation.

Thank you.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You said a day or so ago that you were dropping the matter, and you lied about that that turned out not to be the case, because you came back and tried to re-open it. I'm afraid I don't have a lot of faith in your statements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Distractive side issue. Adjustment made in comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Beyond My Ken: Whoa. Easy there, pardner. Have you ever said you were going to back away from something and then changed your mind? If so, did somebody accuse you of lying about it? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC) If you change your mind, then you say "I've changed my mind." If you just come back and pursue the matter, without preamble or explanation, that's a different thing entirely. Henia does a lot of explaining ("I'm traveling", "I'm unwell", etc.), so she certainly knows how to do that, but she didn't in this case, she just hauled anchor and steamed back into the channel after assuring everyone she had no intention of doing so. I don't know about where you come from, but where I am, that's called "lying". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC) I don't care to disclose where I come from, but the climate is moderate, the people are fairly laid back, and we generally call that "oversight". At worst. She might also have different ideas about the proper protocol in that situation. I don't think it's covered in Wikipedia guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Where you come from sounds lovely, but, after all, one can be too laid back. Henia's history points towards a kind of passive-aggressive obstinacy, if not outright trolling (I can no longer distinguish them in her case) and a tendency to play on people's sympathy through her description of herself as a frail, sickly, travelling, ex-academic just trying to do the right thing for Holocaust studies, but bewildered by all the folderol connected with editing Wikipedia. Any time anyone tries to pin her down, she falls back on her mantra ("I'm ill", "I'm travelling"), and backs off, to the point that even if everything she says about herself is true she's not well-suited to edit here, especially since she can't seem to pick up the thread of how to do things. There's a lot here that just doesn't quite gel for me, but I've extended just about all the AGF I have at this point, and I'm completely out of sympathy - hence my evaluation of her unexplained about-face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Yep, there is a lot of frustrating, time-consuming, exasperating backstory that involves a number of experienced editors who tried to help her.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Don't misunderstand me, I'm not here supporting Henia Perlman in this matter. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion one way or the other. I only objected to the word "lied" above, and I stand by that objection. And that's about all I have to say about it. (That is, I think that's all. If I decide to say more later, even if I fail to begin with the words, "I changed my mind", please don't accuse me of lying!) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Gotcha. I see your point. FWIW, I took it as a lie, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Certainly, we all change our minds. I mean, look at this, where when it was pointed out to me that my !vote in an RfC contradicted an opinion I expressed 7 years ago, I took stock of the matter, had a serious re-think, and came up with a third opinion that was different from the other two - but I made it clear that it was a re-evaluation on my part, I didn't just reverse my stance from a few days before without any explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This makes me very sad, but it looks as if this person is either unwilling or unable to adapt to the collegial, collaborative editing environment of Wikipedia. I feel almost guilty—not for trying to help her but for urging others to be patient with her when our patience has been rewarded by passive-aggressive conduct and continued disruption in one form or another. This has been an enormous distraction to several editors, and it needs to stop now. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Counter-proposal withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment and (Counter-proposal): Just to keep the facts straight, Beyond My Ken's assertion above that Henia "summarized" (incorrectly or not) "the latest incident" is incorrect; the supplied link points to a June 22 edit of hers. Henia's claim that what she "did in French wiki was a long time ago" is correct, at least wrt to BMK's link. That said, I largely agree with the comments of Carole, BMK, Rivertorch (and others in other venues), and I also believe some kind of block is warranted. I'm not well-versed in matters of block lengths, but can someone explain to me why we go from a 31-hour block, to indef? Seems to me in other discussions about blocking other users for other reasons, there was usually a ramp-up of increasing lengths of blocks, ending in an indef if they didn't come around. But maybe, probably even, I don't understand how this all works exactly. Nevertheless, I'd like to put in my: Counter-proposal: Can we try a 1-month or 3-month block, while still allowing Henia access to her Talk page? How exactly would it hurt the project if this was implemented, rather than an indef? And Henia, if you're monitoring, please don't see this as dividing editors here into two camps of your "friends" and "enemies". Everybody here is just trying to do what's right for the encyclopedia. I'm not your "friend" because of the counter-proposal, and others are not "your enemies" for seeking an indefinite block; they are doing that only for the purposes of protecting the encyclopedia. In my opinion, your best bet now, if you wish to continue to contribute here, is to not argue about anything that happened in the past, nor with anything you disagree with here in this thread. Just let it slide, and listen. If you end up receiving a time-limited block, don't fight it, accept it graciously, and concentrate on showing on your talk page how you will change in the future. If allowed Talk page access, don't say a word about the Holocaust during your block, but think about how you're going to return here without making the same mistakes. Honestly, I just don't know if you're capable of doing that, but I hope so. I still think you could be an asset to the encyclopedia, but all this Sturm und Drang has to stop right now, and you need to show you can take suggestions, even if you don't agree, and act on them. I'm not an admin, and others here are much more experienced than me in these things, so we'll see what happens. But really, above all, stop the argumentation, and just listen, and try to learn. That's my best advice to you at this point. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Mathglot: Yes, blocks do often ramp up, but Henia's initial block was for a specific incident. If there was another specific incident, one would expect the next block to be a ramp-up, but this proposal is not about a specific incident, it's about the entire corpus of Henia's editing here since she started, which seemed to me to be deserving of an indefinite block -- which is not an infinite block, you realize, it can be lifted whenever Henia is able to make a convincing case for that to happen. With the indefinite block, the ball lies in her court to take positive action. With another timed block, she simply waits for it to be over. We'll see what happens, but my experience is that someone coming in with a counter-proposal simply muddies the waters and very often leads to no sanction at all -- but maybe I'm wrong about that, maybe folks agree with you that a short, timed block is better. I just don't see what it's meant to accomplish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, I see what you mean, thanks for that explanation. As far as what it is meant to accomplish: a couple of things. If I'm not mistaken, the 31-hour block was completely missed by HP as she didn't even try to log in during that period. So, one intent of a longer block would be a serious wake-up call that can't be ignored. I do realize that indef is not infinite, but other than appealing an indef, what can she do, really? In fact, with an indef, she might be tempted to start appealing immediately, which would just exhaust everybody, I fear. With a 3-month block, and a friendly word to just wait it out and perhaps to reflect on her TP what to do differently this time around, she wouldn't have to resort to appealing right away but could focus on what happens in 3 months, and perhaps addres that on her TP. At that point, if nothing's changed upon her return, well, we know where to go from there. And to be very clear, I'm not arguing for no sanction at all, I think that would be a mistake. It's clear everybody is exhausted, me included, but a three month block will solve that problem for all of us who tried to help her and let us get on with business, no? I hope this answers your question about what it is meant to accomplish. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Mathglot, The more I think of the suggestion, the more that I think that Wikipedia can be a challenging environment - it requires using Wiki-formatting, writing from an encyclopedic mindset versus expressing a particular/specific point of view, collaboration on article talk pages, learning and following Wikipedia guidelines, etc. All of these have shown to be challenging, and I think it's unfair to Henia and the community to continue to try. (As has been said several times, editors have found that Henia has had more guidance, from more people, than they have seen for any other newcomer.) My hope is that she finds the right place to contribute based upon her skills and experience - perhaps contributing to a blog[6], writing or contributing to publications, helping to develop educational material for one of the Holocaust musuems, offering editorial input for writers or publications, volunteering to create material for the school(s) she worked at previously, etc. There are many ways that she might be able to be able to add value, and I deeply and sincerely hope that she finds the right niche for herself.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Carole, that's a good response, and I don't have a good answer to it. You are probably right. Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Withdrawing previous counter-proposal. This makes me really sad, but I've been persuaded by CaroleHenson and Beyond My Ken. Sigh. I really had hoped it wouldn't come to this. Darn. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Reluctantly. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this either, but I don't think that Wikipedia is right for her at least at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• BLOCKED There is a clear consensus here that this is an issue of both competency and WP:IDHT. I've read the numerous talk page discussions and found evidence for: patient explanations to Henia Perlman about Wikipedia guidelines, AGF actions of editors, and sincere attempts at mentorship. Despite this, Henia Perlman persisted in disruptive and contradictory behavior. (e.g., seeking than refusing mentorship, re-opening of old discussions on numerous pages, acceptance of help alternating with accusations of unfairness, etc.) Additionally, their sole subject of concern (The Holocaust) is on Wikipedia’s list of vital subjects which requires editing without controversy or disruption. I have indefinitely blocked User:Henia Perlman (and the alternative account User:Rachelle Perlman per consensus opinion. The Wikipedia:Standard offer will be available in six months should they desire. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sad it's come to this, but at some point competance becomes an issue. Sorry I didn't get a chance to weigh in, as I've been either sick or painting rooms the last week. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know what you mean. Even though I'm still not personally certain about what was going on (CIR or trolling), the outcome didn't make me feel good, it was simply the only solution that seemed viable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

User:DePiep

Complaint

I have a complaint against User:DePiep of uncivility, and particularly of edit-warring and personal attacks. My apologies for the length, but as DePiep has been a persistent problem I believe full documentation is necessary.

On 1 June DePiep – self-declared as "recently entered the earthquake domain, coming from the physics department (actually: as a formatting fanatic)" (diff) — began opining at Talk:Seismic scale (diff) that the symbol "M", as used in identifying earthquake magnitude scales, should be italicized. (Related comments subsequently made at Template_talk:Infobox_earthquake#Magnitude_notation.)

He has subsequently argued at Talk:Seismic scale#It would be better to use "Richter" instead of "Richter scale" (6 July diff) that "scale" should be removed from various section headers in that article, and even article titles (e.g.: Moment magnitude scale -> Moment magnitude).

I have expressed reservations about some of his ideas, and as I am the only other commentator I would expect that he understands that he does not have consensus. (Especially as "pushing change without consensus" was the very point he complained of regarding someone else on the 4th [diff].)

Nonetheless, on 22 June he "boldly" – which is to say, without discussion or consultation specific to that page – added a formatted "M_L" symbol to Richter magnitude scale (diff). When Dawnseeker2000 reverted (diff), with the edit summary "Please wait until an agreement on formatting is made, DePiep restored his edit (diff) just fifteen minutes later, with the edit summary "??? This is how we write M_L. What is your point?".

Recently (6 July) he began editing the documentation for Template:M (a template I have been preparing for readily formatting and tracking the use of earthquake magnitude scales) by relabeling links to "Richter magnitude scale" to "Richter magnitude" (diff. When I reverted (diff), asking him to discuss if he has an issue, he restored his edit (diff), saying: "I already *did* discuss & source (ISO, SI) this." He certainly did not discuss that change at Template talk:M, where his only contribution to that point (see history) was to assert that using a magnitude symbol without an equal sign (i.e.: "M_w") is a "Major error". (It appears that he considers his remarks at Talk:Seismic scale enough discussion for proceeding.)

He made some additional edits, and when I reverted one, asking him to "Discuss before resuming", he again restored (diff), with the edit summary: "Undid revision 789694974 by J. Johnson (talk) per WP:BOLD and WP:BRD: improvements. Don't just blindly say 'undiscussed so bad' Why do you revert this table cleanup?"

Since the 8th he has been heavily editing Template:M itself (see history), which has caused some breakage. When I reverted his initial edit (diff), with the comment "Please do not break the template simply because you don't like theformat.", he reverted (six minutes later, diff), with the comment: "Undid revision 789694079 by J. Johnson (talk) 1. I did not break anything. 2. the testcases page now is double again. 3. another personal jab in your es (why?)". At which point I felt it was useless to chase after all his edits. I reverted several edits this morning, but he immediately undoes them (see history).

On 9 July DePiep revised the use of Template:M in some 50 earthquake articles, and around 30 lists of earthquakes. While these edits may have indeed been improvements, again it was without discussion. When Dawnseeker2000 (who has been maintaining many of those articles and lists) objected (at Template_talk:M#Major error, (diff)), DePiep's response (diff)was to evade responsibility and blame it on me: "I used the style as provided & documented by this template (created by J. Johnson)." (To forestall DePiep's anticipatable retort: Dawnseeker2000 is not complaining of the formatting produced by the template, but of how you used template.)

All of the above demonstrates demonstrates a lack of respect for other editors, and for established norms of conduct, all constituting an in-grained lack of WP:CIVILITY. Additionally, DePiep has repeatedly insinuated that I have attacked him. E.g.:

• At Talk:Seismic scale#Lede, when I suggested that attempting to "define, measure, and describe" magnitude in the lede was "rather pedantic", he construed it as "A jab that could be perceived as a personal attack even." (diff),

• At Talk:Moment_magnitude_scale#Distracting_editsummary_vs._clear_statements he stated (diff) that an edit summary of mine (diff) "introduces a distraction of the topic even introducing Accusation about personal behavior that lack evidence."

• At Template_talk:M#Major error: "your responses are touching WP:PA, WP:BF, WP:CIVIL trespassing without being helpful or improving." (diff)

I believe a close examination of each of these cases shows that his imputation of a personal attack is baseless.

For all of his incivility and failure to respect other editors, and for his particular disruptions, I ask that user DePiep be banned from making any edits to Template:M, or its documentation, or to any article or list regarding earthquake magnitudes or magnitude scales. Because of his long history of incivility and personal attacks (see block log), I ask that this ban be made permanent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Due to commitments in RL, I cannot comment earlier than later today (UTC). -DePiep (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to hear from DePiep but this does not look good — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI can be harsh, and I'm not here to throw anyone under the bus (I've been the subject here a few times). I usually don't have much to say, but let me start by saying that up until this post, I considered DePiep's stance and tone a little unusual. This was the case in an edit summary after I'd reverted a change of his on Richter magnitude scale with the explanation to wait until we have an agreement on formatting. This was soon reverted with the tail end of his summary saying "what is your point?". That's fine I suppose, but I did not challenge or even attempt to communicate about it because it was clear to me from what he chose to say that we were nowhere near on the same page and that it would have been fruitless to press.

I can also say that the work that I've seen J. Johnson do with earthquake prediction and the new template places him in a very small club. Only a few editors that I know of can dive as deep as he has into these topics. Most of what he works on is beyond the scope of my understanding, so I casually observe and rarely comment.

So for my final few words, I'd like to say a few things not about this dispute, but about this project and the people that make it happen. Now keep in mind that I've been the topic here at ANI. Not necessarily for these reasons, but I've been impolite and rude during some clashes with editors during 10 years of editing. I have a mark on my block log. I did not know of DePiep's block history until now, but I think there's something to be said about it. I see it as an indication of something going on under the hood and/or a possible lack of ability to learn from one's mistakes. To be fair, my editing style is one that usually keeps me by myself in some dark corner of WP, because that is something that helps to avoid conflict. Not always of course, but that is a strategy that usually that works for me.

Looking at the most recent item for the 3-month block last summer is the log entry "Trolling other account during ANI discussion about his trolling". We really don't see super egregious block reasons like that all that often. At least I don't. To me, that is over the top, but what bothers me the most about that incident is that DePiep probably offended another user by attempting to pipe their username in a bad light ([[User:keep your trolling to yourself if you don't want to go the same way|Andy Dingley]]). When asked about it, he lied about how it came to be, by saying it was a copy and paste issue. That's nonsense. We've all seen editors get into disputes here and have heated conversations, but lying is a problem that probably shouldn't be overlooked. Looking at the current issue alongside last year's, I'm seeing an editor that should be watched and contemplated. Dawnseeker2000 02:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

re the edits in Richter magnitude scale, a nice example of uncontroversial (BRD) editing. 1, me, 2. your rv 3, my rv. I clearly added (not changed) the Richter symbol (M_L ) to the lede, as other magnitude scales have (Surface wave magnitude, Moment magnitude scale). I claim this is simple article improvement, outside of the formatting discussion, and so not to be pre-discussed but can simply be done by WP:BRD. (The actual format I choose to use is the same JJ had coded before in {{M}} for Richter). OTOH, your es Please wait until an agreement on formatting is made is referring to the open formatting discussion. Sure that issue is to be decided, but that does not mean we can not add or use a symbol (aka label, denotion) meanwhile. Had you edited the symbol into some other format, say "RL" (which very well could be sourced & motivated too), that would have been fine there even while touching the open controversy. Just don't remove the symbol.

re the work that I've seen J. Johnson do with ... the new template places him ...: Yes, I can agree. I actually edited articles to use the template as J. Johnson defined it!

re your restarting of a closed discussion: Please reconsider and remove. -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Takes more time to reply than expected, sorry. I am working on it. -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply by DePiep.

Allow me to describe this issue from my perspective. I know this reply is very long, but allow me a 'better safe than sorry' in this.

Core topic was and is is the writing of earthquake strengths, think Richter and MMS, in wording, formula and sequence: using symbols, formatting with/without uppercase, italics & subscripting and in wording. Apart from this, broader area is WP:EARTHQUAKE.

Initially, I added talkpage items re the topic on {{infobox earthquake}}, seismic scale and template:M. This way, posts did overlap & cross-reference. My approach was: treat as physical quantity, as described in the authoritative SI-brochure. Later on I added ISO 80000 [7], nicely advised by J. Johnson (JJ), into this recap. My core topic proposals were and are "under discussion", that is: no consensus for change. I did not implement any such proposal.

Innocent edits: I also did edits in the earthquake domain not concerning the "under discussion" topic: [8] use ENGVAR in infobox (not challenged), lede (was rv'ed with a talk), sp, [9], [10] rm page from maintenance category.

Me editing Template:M: I did not change the template's function, intention, or aim. What I did edit were template-technical improvements (like: refine error message, simplify code, remove unused and double code, expand abrreviations, remove code unfit for mainspace, fix code errors, add errorhandling) [11]. In its documentation, again I did not change the essence. I did do clean up, added examples, fix spellings, add user-helpfuls, etc. [12]. None of these edits changes the template's basic documentation or regular output.

Using {{Template:M}}: Before I joined, on June 16, JJ already had announced its roll out, and later published its usage in mainspace. (Note that JJ's formatting per the template and my formatting proposal are in agreement!). Strange is that JJ here says a template I have been preparing (sic): it was live in mainspace in ca. 150 articles. The template did not claim any restriction for its usage. So I recently edited ~50 articles already using that template, following all its intents and purposes (and, not coincidentally, the ordering as done by USGS) e.g., [13], [14].

So far. Edits outside of the under-discussion topic can't reasonably be called controversial, or editwarring. There is no blanket rule to say: you should discuss each and every edit first. WP:BOLD and BRD will do.

Now about the controversial topics & edits. Sure there are edits I better had made differently or not at all, for various reasons: like [15], [16]. In other words: these are incidents.

Edits by JJ making an issue personal: Your personal conception of "truth" is irrelevant in es. First ignoring SI and ISO sources, then turning this as if it is something "personal". I already noted this here.

Here JJ writes: Before you over-extrapolate your physics in an area new to you. Above, in this ANI, in paragraph 2: DePiep, self-declared as "recently entered the earthquake domain, coming from the physics department" is used as a argument somehow in ANI? While actually, here is the literal example from WP:NPA#WHATIS: "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?". (I also note: The diff is possibly off-topic, or even can be read supporting my layman's point in there).

In one reply [17], JJ says both is just your personal opinion and you have not cited or provided any basis or authority for your opinion other than to chant "SI! SI! ISO!".. So while ignoring the sources I mention, blaming me for not mentioning sources and then attacking the strawman. Note the dismissive wording "to chant".

Before JJ and I met, an other editor is addressed And you are being a jerk [18]. Not that I went to search for this, but it's hard to not-read it.

Blaming me for starting talks. In this very ANI post ([19]), paragraph 2, 3 and 4, JJ blames me for starting a talk and arguing. [DePiep] began opining at Talk:Seismic scale that ..., He has subsequently argued ..., I have expressed reservations about .... Why is this an argument in ANI at all I wonder, other than to compliment me for going to Talk in the first place??? Some talks I started: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. AFAIK, I have not made any edit based on any inconclusive talk I opened.

Touch of WP:OWN: JJ seems to think that by saying "Do not edit this", no edit may be done. However, that is not how WP work. For example, this reply says For now, leave it alone as a command (while the better, harmless and non-controversial edit is to switch it off for being untested and unfit for mainspace). Also commanding is Absolutely do not ... (it should be by argument of course) [26].

Reverted with the wrong reason: Six edits by me were reverted in a pattern. In the es, JJ mentioned a reason to revert, but that reason was incorrect. These are the edits: rv1-2-3: no, the template was not broken, no it was not an "I don't like the format" (turning this personal btw), and yes there was an an improvement. rv-4, rv-5 (the example was sourced in the es), rv-6 - it was and is. It looks as if they were reverted without having any consideration wrt the actual change.

Blanket complaint. JJ's approach is throwing all my edits into one basket. Edits should be differentiated. In the 2nd sentence opening line: DePiep has been a persistent problem is personal (in itself not that noteworthy, but it relates to the whole approach).

Round up. All in all: Bad edits, as exceptions, I already admitted. Controversial edits hardly occurred, but instead were extensively addressed on talkpages. Edits of non-controversial nature (e.g., improve existing documentation, template-technical edits, use template) were done using existing templates, talks and practices, for example as created and promoted by JJ. Usually these are fit for BOLD and BRD. Claiming that each and every BOLD/BRD resolvable edit is under this ANI-complaint is not fair, and so is the editwarring and not-talked accusation that follows that misconception. I did point to some unhelpful edits by JJ, both by making things personal and by making less correct edits (like rv's). That are ngog presented as cut-and-dried trespassing judgements, but they do paint the atmosphere.

Re Dawnseeker2000: to speed up this posting, I will reply to their post later on.

I conclude: I fully accept that some of my 100+ edits in this area were bad up for improvement (afterwards or even beforehand). Also I tried to describe here that the other edits were either out of controversial area (BOLD and BRD acceptable), were within accepted writing (e.g., by current template usage), and other edits were about improvements of the topic in dispute (Talkpages).

I protest the approach by JJ of blanketing all my edits into one ANI complaint, for example even mentioning Talks I started as objectable. I also pointed to some unhelpful edits by JJ, both in say BRD-handling and personalising an issue (earlier; yes, pot & kettle).

How to proceed?: I think in this situation it's hard to get this WP:EARTHQUAKE area back on track in communications and article improvements between us. To allow such improvement though, I therefore propose that I voluntarily shall not edit in this area for a year. The area includes: WP:EARTHQUAKE esp wrt seismic scales, templates etc. and their talks. Unless, that is, I am explicitly invited by an active WP:QUAKE member. -DePiep (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Rejoinders

DePiep protests I have made a "blanket complaint", that I am "throwing all [his] edits into one basket." That is correct. I am not looking for relief regarding a number of individual edits ("100+"?), which would be tedious and even tendentious to raise here, but on the pattern of his behavior.

He argues that "[e]dits should be differentiated", but that is to evade the pattern of behavior. (As lawyers say: when the other side has you on the law, argue the facts; when they have you on the facts, argue the law.) Nonetheless, I do agree that patterns should have a factual basis, and a close examination of some these instances could be in order. And even welcome, as I see his interpretation of several cases as being higly skewed, even false.

Which I think touches on a key problem here: DePiep's highly skewed perception of various matters. E.g., the background I provided of where this issue started he characterizes as "Blaming [him] for starting talks.". That characterization is simply ludicrous.

Similarly for his defense of his using the template. He goes to some length to prove that it was okay to use the template, but (as I anticipated in my complaint) he still fails to understand that the issue is not the use, but how he used it.

He states: "Controversial edits hardly occurred, but instead were extensively addressed on talkpages." Apparently he does not consider reversion of his edits as an indication of controversy. Or perhaps he does not accept that as controversial unless we persist in reverting his edits. That, of course, would be edit-warring, which I and Dawnseeker2000 eschewed. I note he rejects some of my reversions as having "the wrong reason"; I don't believe the significance of a reversion depends on his assessment of the reason given.

Nor were his edits "extensively addressed on talkpages." As mentioned in my complaint: he started editing the template on the 8th, and the documentation on the 6th, while his initial edit at Template_talk:M ("Major error") does not pertain to any actual edits. Not until the 9th was there any discussion (and very thin at that) pertaining to any editing.

DePiep has offered a voluntary topic ban, but only for a year. I don't find that limitation acceptable, as I don't want to have to go through this again in a year. And it should be an enforced (non-voluntary) ban, lest he have any confusion it is at his option. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Earliest time to reply: Saturday or Sunday. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

re J. Johnson (JJ). In the WP:EARTHQUAKE domain, I started several talks in the undecided topic of formatting the magnitude physical quantity. I did not edit articles in this topic.

I did do:

1. Made technical improvements to Template:M like refine errormessages, rm unused code [27] (12 edits; numbers are by approximation)
2. Cleanup and improve its /documentation (twice with a source even) [28] (25)
3. Reverse a rv reverse that was based on an incorrect judgement: the template was not broken (6)
4. Remove maintenance category from articles [29] (30)
5. Use template:M, already in the articles, following its original setup and documentation [30] (50)
6. Started a Talk on topics that were under discussion/controversial [31] (<=6)
7. Made trivial improvements
8. Made obvious improvements explained

None of these edits are in the 'controversial' topic. So these edits should be struck from the list of my edits beforehand. Remaining edits (if any at all) are hardly enough to show a "pattern", and diffs are missing. This is not 'evading' the pattern, this is disproving the "pattern". There is no pattern.

I have described what the controversial topic is, and subsequently pointed out that I did not edit articles re that topic. Of course then, JJ has not provided diffs in this. In this reply, JJ quotes me while leaving out that description (my "Controversial edits hardly occurred, but instead were extensively addressed on talkpages" became: Nor were his edits "extensively addressed on talkpages: note the disappearing of 'instead' and 'controversial', changing the meaning profoundly by some 180 degrees). So by taking my words out of context, he declares each and every edit 'controversial'. But reverting or opposing an edit is not the same as declaring controversial. I repeatedly wrote, here too, that for most edits outside of the topic under discussion, simply a WP:BOLD or WP:BRD process will do. But JJ did not go to "D". He now seems to reason: 'I reverted, so it's controversial, so all edits are blocked'. This is incorrect, and an example of WP:OWN attitude.

I used Template:M as created and promoted by JJ [32], following its documentation, while already in the articles. That is "how" I used it. JJ has not made clear why I should not use this template as published.

In paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of the opening complaint here, JJ accuses me of starting talks and arguing. How this could be a reason for an ANI action is still unclear to me. Then, in this reply, JJ writes: his initial edit at Template_talk:M ("Major error") does not pertain to any actual edits. Yes! That is the controversial topic, so I started a talk beforehand and did not edit! JJ is vindicating me. Why is this a problem? See also this cynical comment. Again JJ is blaming me for starting a talk on a controversial issue instead of editing.

JJ did not reply to the various personal attacks I listed. Too often JJ has turned a technical issue into a personal jab. See the listing with diffs in my first #Reply.

More and more JJ shows an attitude of WP:OWNERSHIP. Requiring respect for other editors here as an argument, commanding to not edit "For now, leave it alone", "Absolutely do not ...", claiming I-say-controversy-so-edit-is-forbidden in this reply above.

I request that admins view this as a complaint on blockable PA and OWN offences. However, my proposal to drop the stick still stands. -DePiep (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said before: I believe a close examination shows that all of DePiep's imputations of a personal attack by me are baseless, and therefore constitute a personal attack by him. We can explore that if anyone has any questions.

DePiep continues with this strawman argument of accusing me of accusing him "of starting talks and arguing" (not at all the case), he continues to defend his use of the template where that is not the issue, has a curious concept of "controversial", and he makes demonstrably false statements. (E.g., re his "I started a talk beforehand and did not edit!": his first comment at Template_talk:M that pertained to any actual edits was at 20:32, 9 July, by which time he had accrued 15 edits at Template:m/doc and 11 edits at the template itself. DePiep's notion of "beforehand" and "did not edit!" seem confused.) He also keeps trying to make this about me, presumably to deflect attention from his own block history.

Unless anyone has a question, I don't believe DePiep's comments require any further reply. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Just an observation

• I hope both of you realize no one's going to read all this, right? EEng 02:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope concluding admins do. How else can one judge? Sure I see the problem, but I saw no other way. It is a blanket accusation (a "pattern"), which I needed to respond to by debunking re sets of edits & diffs. Other suggestions anyone? -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have, glazed eyes and all. The solution may be DePiep's offer of a one year topic ban, as the goal is just to stop disruptions and get people back to editing in that topic area productively. It would have to be an enforceable topic ban (in lieu of a block) where he understands that if he breaches it, it will mean a block of no less than say, two weeks. That would provide the proper incentive. Him admitting some of his work was less than helpful makes this a bit easier to work with. As for "having to deal with this again in one year", while that is a valid concern, a one year solution is better than none, and that is kicking the can far enough down the road that I think it is worth considering. Terms would read "Depiep is topic banned from all earthquake topics including seismic scales on all pages of Wikipedia, broadly construed. A minimum two week block will be imposed on any clear violation of this topic ban. As this is a voluntary topic ban in lieu of a block, there are no provisions for appeal." with no exception for invitations. Depiep would need to agree to this tban, which is slightly stronger than his idea, and the community would need to have no strong objection to it. I think you have to leave out exceptions simply because that makes it harder to police and can lead to problems. It has to be a cut and try tban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No one other than Dennis Brown, of course. That goes without saying. EEng 20:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I could accept that. And I would offer that he can make suggestions on my talk page, provided he understands that if I "disinvite" him he is expected to respect that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem with exceptions is that they must be interpreted by the community each time. Better to have no exceptions. He can always email you ideas, as email is exempt from the tban, as long as he doesn't talk about the emails here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the remarks by Dennis Brown, that adjustment might be fine. I don't think the formalisation is that much required, as any trespassing would create a small post here at ANI. JJ's talkpage is not part of the topic (unless JJ really claims ownership of the earthquake project). I note that above, I've added a request to judge JJ's activities as PA and OWN, so possibly grounds for blocking. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MSGJ, Dennis Brown. This is getting out of hand. I proposed a voluntary 1-year self-imposed ban, which was rejected by complaining JJ. By now, my generous drop-the-stick proposal (into a clean, fast, and no-fuss closure to enable the good wiki workings), is turned into a formal ban, with the time limit removed, which is not part of my proposal and which rewards JJ's sloppy, smearing, and underfounded complaint. Also, I seriously complained and documented that JJ breached WP:PA and WP:OWN (even before this thread opened, for example on their talkpage). JJ now is applauding a formal ban, while actually "in a year" it might be JJ just as well that is trespassing again. Therefor I put my offer on hold, until the whole of JJ's behaviour is scrutinised and judged as well. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: I can fully agree on dropping the stick. That's about all I can say. —JJB^ers 20:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I proposed so, then J. Johnson rejected it. -DePiep (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles

Despite the fact that User:NadirAli was warned not to edit war by User:GoldenRing just four days ago at Arbcom [33], this man has continued to do so, ignoring consensus established by at least three to four users. The issue started when NadirAli blanked a large chunk of material from the Kalash people article [34]. He was reverted by other users, including myself, but then proceeded to continue edit warring and tagging the article [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. On the talk page of the article, he justified his inclusions by using story books and alt-right sources such as "raceandhistory.com". It seems that this individual suffers a major WP:COMPETENCE issue, which has been noted by other users before, like User:FlightTime [40]. Other users disagreed with the troublesome behavior, including User:Capitals00 and User:Anupam noted that two different held by scholars should be represented in the article and this was agreed upon. Nonetheless, NadirAli defied consensus in the talk page and gave more weight to his preferred view [41]. Countless users regularly waste their time telling this man not to edit tentenditiously on India-Pakistan articles, such as User:Joshua Jonathan [42] or User:Kautilya3 [43]. This man was banned for several years from India-Pakistan topics and doesn't follow consensus on other topics either, including articles about Star Wars, as noted by User:EEMIV [44]. Is it time for us to consider whether the project is wasting their time having to constantly block and coach this stubborn man? I'm mostly a WikiGnome but I can spot trouble when I see it. Two options - site ban or topic ban? Knox490 (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I have been discussing the disputes, which you have ignored [45][46][47]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that this is a content dispute at this stage. I don't think the description "blanked a large chunk of material" is entirely fair - that diff contains a lot of changes and the movement of a large slab of material to another place in the article. I would advise NadirAli to edit carefully; I'm rather concerned when an editor claims that the "vast majority of sources" supports their view, but what they've actually done is replaced text sourced to Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia with their own text sourced to [48]. If the vast majority of sources support your view, then back your text up with your best sources, not this. If this is actually the best source you have for your position, then I think it's time to back down a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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

To editor GoldenRing: These were the sources I was referring to, in addition to the ones presented by user:Mar4d (some of them may overlap) [49] [50] [51] [52][53][54][55][56]. There's many more, but I think is is good enough. Regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment/Question - What're your thoughts about much of that same problematic behavior -- e.g. battleground mentality, non-NPOV, non-AGF -- outside the India-Pakistan topic? --EEMIV (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Note to admins Please take notice of these comments and several other instances past disruptive behavior as noted by others [57].--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Indefinite Topic Ban across all Indian, Hinduism related articles Disruptive editing going on since 2006. There is no chance that this editor will not create any further disruption. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, and comment Having seen ANI threads go down the drain as, essentially, mud throwing contests in the past, I'm dispirited to learn that this is going in the same direction. As Fowler&fowler noted, "subtle" ideological viewpoints and editing have characterized South Asian articles since forever. I see it wrong to squarely single out NadirAli, as that would imply he alone is responsible. Because that is simply not true, at least from how I have seen him edit constructively on several Pakistan articles. I cannot help but notice that everyone in favour of a topic ban here are mainly those who seem to have had a history with the user. This thread was started with a proposal to "site ban or topic ban" NadirAli. And this is not to cast aspersions, but what is to say that those same users are foolproof clean from personal POVs, leanings and positions on certain issues, editing viewpoints (we all have one after all) and all else Nadir here is being accused of? I at least wouldn't place the odds very high, knowing this topic area and as Fowler&fowler eloquently put out. I think we'll defer the rest to an admin's judgement, but I must say I'm quite disappointed to see things go down this route escalating from what was originally a content dispute (and where I would still back my horses on Nadir's argument; the theory that Kalash have Hindu origins remains vague, and certainly not scholarly favored any higher than their animist origins; and the compromise version thus worked better than the previous revision). Mar4d (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose TBan and comment – It is true that NadirAli appears as a compulsive edit-warrior. I face his edit-warring quite regularly, e.g., [58], [59] at Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization (April 2017), [60], [61] at Hindu (this month, even while the Kalash people dispute was ongoing). I have also seen him move war [62], [63], [64] at Iron Age in India even after RegentsPark told him to file a Request for Move. I have had to spell it out to him that any deviation from WP:BRD constitutes edit-warring, which shouldn't have been necessary for an editor with such a long history. But on the positive side, he does discuss on the talk pages, even if a bit late and even if his argumentation is rarely consensus-seeking, ignores RS, and keeps repeating points in a self-assured way. But beneath all his bravado, there is often a germ of a valid concern somewhere, which might need to be taken into account. Fowler&fowler tried to explicate that above in the present instance, even though I don't accept that the New World Encyclopedia is a better standard to follow. So, all said and done, his presence on the project might be beneficial in the long run for rebalancing articles, even if we have to put up with the annoyance of his aggressive editing occasionally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP Violations by Liberty7777

I noticed this on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#James White (theologian).

User:Liberty7777 has been inserting material into the BLP at James White (theologian) with citations to youtube, facebook, jihadwatch.org, conservativereview.com, etc. Using the Jihad Watch source appears to be a BLP violation, and the conservative review page does not appear to mention James White. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

...and he has kept doing it, after getting his ANI notice and Notice of discretionary sanctions.[65][66] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the edits made by Liberty7777 have been disruptive and highly problematic. Since no edits have occurred since July 12 (it is now July 16), administrative action doesn't appear justified at this time. However, I will note that any further disruption by this user on James White (theologian) will be grounds for sanctions and/or an arbitration enforcement request being filed, and without further warning or notice. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please review Light2021's behaviour at AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous blocks

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

Personal attacks and uncollegial hostility

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing

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

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

Here are recent instances of canvassing:

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

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

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

Reverting AfD closes

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

Tag bombing

Light2021 frequently tag bombs articles. Here are several examples:

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

Declined speedy deletions

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

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

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

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

• I don't have a ton to add other than that the one speedy deletion by Light2021 that I declined in the list above was not the only one. See [67], [68], [69]. I do appreciate that they later took the articles I declined to speedy delete to AfD. There are lots of articles that should probably be deleted but that don't meet the CSD; though Light2021 should have known not to nominate these three for speedy deletion, they were correct to take them to AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

My Version

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

articles, but isn't it little biased where you missed how many were deleted, and many of them from 27 articles are on AfD and they will do their course. I do understand its a human nature to like or dislike someone, here its clearly a case where facts are presented selectively. Cunard is an admin, its good, but the way he makes and Keep argument with lengthy copy-paste job, does not look mature. second his Keep arguments gets less than 50% results, means he might be wrong also, but I am also not perfect 100%, I am getting closed to with my Afd. Whatever community decides, be independent, unbiased, and check the behavior after April 2017. I have not abused anyone, it is very normal to ask questions, some people get offended when they have been asked about their behavior or decision. It is also fine. Thanks. I am just making my part. Its obvious all Past arguments/ blocked will be brought again and again and again. It is irrelevant to judge the present by past! In the above discussion, its more about my past than present, where I am getting better. Admin makes so many mistake, I am also learning. Light2021 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Emails from blocked sock puppets

Hi, I'm occasionally getting emails from users that I never interacted with, usually pointing me to a discussion or an edit. The account is usually blocked for being a sock puppet. I presume this editor saw some of my other edits/discussions and assumes that I would represent their POV in the matter they are canvassing me into, thus acting as their meat puppet. If this is done to me, presumably it is done to other editors as well. Why at all is there a possibility for a permanently blocked account to send emails ? “WarKosign” 19:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Socks aren't "permanently" blocked, although it may seem to turn out that way in the case of some. In any event, e-mail access is not disabled by default when an account is blocked. If you are being harassed, you'll need to disclose who and the contents of the e-mail. If for some reason the content is private (to you, not to the sender), you can forward the material to an administrator, perhaps the blocking administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Last email I got was from user:AmirSurfLera, this is the content:

Don't you think this is WP:Undue weight? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict&type=revision&diff=790388449&oldid=789898286

Usually it's just 1-2 emails from each such account. Tracking who blocked each email sender is more bothersome than the emails themselves. I can handle a handful of such emails in a year, the problem is that such behavior can be practiced at all while it's so easy to prevent.

As long as the user's page says that it's permanently blocked, what's the purpose of leaving email access ? If the purpose is to be able to appeal, only email access to admins is needed, allowing emailing other editors seems like an invitation for canvassing. “WarKosign” 21:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why should tracking be hard? At the bottom of the e-mail it tells you who the user is.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You wrote I should contact the admin who blocked the account. I would need to extract username from the email, open the user's page, see the block notice, go to the blocker's page, put a notice. The admin would need to look the user up, try to remember what the situation was - sometimes over a year ago - and consider blocking email access. All of this for one or two emails. Not worth the bother. “WarKosign” 07:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

All users have the option, under Preferences/EMail Options to uncheck the box "Enable email from other users". Nobody is required to enable emails. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but if a blocked user is blatantly abusing his ability to email others - I'm for disabling it (provided that it's true and ongoing, of course). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• No user's page says that it's permanently blocked, just indefinite, which is not the same thing. And it's almost always open to appeal - the vast majority of indef blocked users do not abuse the email facility, and it is a legitimate way to appeal (and there's no technical way to restrict email access to emailing admins only). If a blocked user abuses the email facility, then yes, we do remove their access to it once they are identified, but the recipient of such an email has to start the process. Identifying the user who sent an email and the admin who blocked them is trivially easy, and we are not going to change Wikipedia policy and revoke email access as standard just because a recipient can't be bothered to perform such a simple task - and this is not the right forum to try to change Wikipedia policy anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned getting emails from multiple users who have been blocked as socks. Are they members of the same sock farm? Is this a person you had corresponded with before? If the emails are harassing, you could forward them to the functionaries or arbcom lists. However, not to spill any WP:BEANS, but - it's not entirely possible to prevent unwanted emails unless you just disable your email altogether. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

For some of them there was a link to an SPI with a long list of socks, a few of them I saw around. For some of them, like the last one, there is no link to SPI so I can't tell. All the suggested edits/discussions are in the same area of interest, which is the area where I usually edit. I presume the puppet master(s) believes that I share their POV and am likely to act upon their suggestions in the way they intent, so they must have seen me around. If someone wants to look into it, I can compile a complete list of these emails.

Each email by itself is not harassing, what bothers me is the idea that blocked sockpupets use email to operate meatpuppets.“WarKosign” 12:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No one else has mentioned that they get this. What attracts them to you? Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Victim blaming ? In case you have a doubt - no, I don't have a "please email me for free meatpuppet services" on my user page. “WarKosign” 22:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Victim blaming? Not sure why you think that? Doubt - why would you think I doubt anything? I was just thinking that if you get these and others don't, that there's a reason. So if we can figure out the reason, maybe it's easier to deal with. So what attracts them to you - is it something here, or something out in the real world? Nfitz (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't usually like posting here, but I would like to give a quick synopsis of this thread as I see it. A user who is being harassed by a blocked user(s) over email is here asking if something can be done to stop that. The answer, of course, is yes, though more information is needed to initiate the specific technical actions that would allow for that. Instead of getting that one-sentence worth of critical information, the requestee has instead been bombarded by the terminology police and been asked to check his/her own behaviour to see if they are doing anything that would attract such abuse. I would argue that both such comments aren't useful, or relevant to the request at hand. As someone who has experienced email-related abuse myself, I can tell you that it can randomly happen to those who respond to vandalism and spam. If I were asking the same question, I would be pretty annoyed and perplexed by some of the answers given here. Hopefully WarKosign can glean the useful information out of this thread and move forward with it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is the user didn't just ask what can be done about it. They asked why users who are permanently blocked can send emails. They didn't just ask once but twice, even after it had already been explained to them why this was the case. It's not "terminology police" to explain that this is a fundamental misunderstanding as editors are not permanently blocked and so by default can send emails while blocked. If the editor didn't want an answer to this question, they shouldn't have asked about it two times. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss concerns and refusal to properly source blps

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

I came across Durneydiaz's edits while working on the New Page Patrol. I was concerned that Durneydiaz was repeatedly creating articles on living people which had no references, just external links, such as [70]. There were many examples. I also came across a page on New Page Patrol that was completely blank. There are 337 messages on Durneydiaz's talk page, including mentioning a 2011 ANI and most of the messages are about referencing concerns, and over many years. After taking advice from other members of NPP, I moved the blps with no clear refs (although some had links in an 'external links' section which didn't mention if they were used as sources for the article) to draftspace and sent talk page messages trying to engage Durneydiaz in a discussion and advising not to move the articles back to mainspace until they had inline citations. Instead, Durneydiaz ignored my messages at User talk:Durneydiaz and instead starting editwarring by moving the articles back into mainspace without any references (some external links, exactly as before). I would really just like Durneydiaz to discuss the issues, and start inline citations for blps, especially as Durneydiaz creates many. According to the talk page, these exact issues have been raised with this editor for more than 7 years with no changes. Matías Fissore is a typical example - it wouldn't take long for the creator to format and refernce this properly, but it would be very difficult for anyone else. 21:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs)

• (Non-administrator comment) The talk page (User talk:Durneydiaz) is filled with CSD-notices. Kleuske (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Try looking for sources for these BLPs. If you find them, add them to the articles and problem solved. If you can't find any then AfD them and let the process take care of the rest. If he starts disrupting that process we'll have to deal with that as the problem arises. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Basalisk, adding sources is a good approach, but Durneydiaz has created 1605 articles and more by the day. I wouldn't be able to deal with such a big issue, plus most sources would be in other languages. I added 'blpsources' and 'inline' tags to some, such as [71] here on Maximiliano Sigales which Durneydiaz removed twice yesterday, although did nothing to resolve the issue. I see no sign Durneydiaz will stop. And the nearly 400 messages on the talk page, mainly on the same issue, seem not to have been responded to at all, not one. I also think WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP would be quoted repeatedly at me if I took them to AfD. Boleyn (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• How long have I been saying we should just drop all coverage of footy players? EEng 03:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

and K-pop and MMA and... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

...and beauty pageants and music genres and pornstars and Ru Paul. Yes. Not worth it. Oh yeah: "professional" wrestling. And video games. EEng 04:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

What about the champion Cristiano Ronaldo? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Basalisk: That's well and good to a point, but NPP is overwhelmed because of articles like this, and the backlog on "pages needing work" is out of control. I encountered this individual last year over an unsourced BLP and too time out to write a polite & detailed message explaining how to cite, why to do so, the advantages of using draft space, etc. I am FAR from the only person so have done so, but he simply ignores us all and continues, creating more extra work for everyone. As of today's newsletter the new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. If we stop to find references and add them not from someone new who doesn't know better or doesn't know how, but from a serial offender who sometimes does it multiple times in a day, and is only one of many such offenders, what're the chances we ever catch up? This is someone abusing the system to do things badly in hopes that "someone else will do the work." I'm not arguing that he be banned or blocked, but that someone at admin level impress upon him what we've all been trying to say only to be ignored or reverted. JamesG5 (talk) 10:44 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

I agree, JamesG5, there have also been concerns raised several times as to whether all the articles being created are notable, so that would be a lot of work for another editor, that would possibly be a complete waste of time. With this editor often creating several articles a day, I would have to spend hours a day on these articles. It would also encourage them to write even more. I really just want them to stop writing articles like this, preferably just taking a complete break from writing new articles for a while, and not removing clearly applicable inline tags. Some communication would be helpful too. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Fastily, Dennis Brown and Sphilbrick since these admins have dealt with User:Durneydiaz in the past. Unless we can persuade Durneydiaz to change their approach it may be time for admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to be made clear that creating many BLPs without actual reliable sources is unacceptable and puts a load on the rest of us. My recollection is that there is a comprehension concern here, possible CIR. Can't remember if I've linked WP:Communication is required to them or not before, but they need to read it. They have exactly zero article talk edits, and zero editor talk edits except for removing templates from their own talk page in 2010. Communication is non-existent, even with three blocks. Two blocks were reduced without any input from them, so WP:ROPE isn't working. In previous cases like this, the only thing that has gotten someone to TALK is to indef block until they do, then any other issue they may have becomes more obvious by their responses. Strong medicine, but we don't have a lot of tools for cases like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that link before, but I would draw Durneydiaz's attention to it: If you are getting multiple complaints on your talk page or on an article talk page about your editing, you are expected to either stop the action that is causing the complaints, or discuss it with the community of editors at the appropriate venue. This could be a formal noticeboard, an article talk page, or on your talk page. Ignoring the complaints is not an option. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I wrote it two years ago specifically for cases like this, so it is still fairly new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support block. They are quite simply taking up more time than the value of their BLP-violating contributions are worth. If the editor had not edited their talk page at all I would be willing to assume AGF and that they didn't understand how talk pages work but in this case their reverts of warnings and removal of personalized notes that new page patrollers took time to write out for them show clearly that their outlook is fundamentally incompatible with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As a bit of background, I spend a fair amount of time at OTRS, and deal with a lot of people who are unhappy about an article being deleted on notability grounds. There are a fair number of people with some decent accomplishments who don't quite meet WP:N. We don't have a space problem. While I'm far from ready to open up to any article on any subject, I would be supportive of a move to weaken the notability hurdle. That said, this is not the place to propose such a change; I'm simply pointing out my mindset. While I'd like to make it easier for subjects to be included, I'd like to see us tougher on requiring sources. We sort of have a policy that a BLP has to have a source. I'm sympathetic to NPP being overwhelmed. If we believe that a BLP needs to have at least one independent, published reliable source, why can't we simply declare that an article in mainspace (not draft space or user sub page) can be immediately deleted and any editor who creates three such articles after being warned can be blocked. A draft or user sub page isn't in violation until it is submitted for review. If an editor submits a page for review without a valid source it counts toward three strikes and you're out. Not out forever, maybe a two week block. If the community doesn't feel comfortable applying these rules in general, can we at least agree to apply them to the specific editor. If so, I'd set the counted zero and not block until three more failed attempts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That is creating new policy and ANI isn't the place. Even if we could, this person has never communicated. Ever. If you can't get them to agree to something, it is moot. Like I said, TWO of their blocks were reduced in length without them saying a word. (one of those was mine, and I was talking into stepping back and allowing the 1 week block to be reduced). Allowing them to not communicate has gotten us exactly no where except a metric tonne of unsourced articles. I don't think you can compromise with someone who won't talk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support block based on their editing since this ANI was initiated. This includes:
• Continued refusal to communicate, despite being asked by several editors here and on their talk page. I didn't even find any edit summaries.
• Taking the articles I'd moved to draftspace, and moving them back to mainspace with no attempt to fix the issues (which probably wouldn't even have taken them long), e.g. [72]
• As I didn't want to edit war by moving them back to draftspace, I added {inline} and {blpsources} tags to some of the articles moved back. 190.161.34.95 is an IP who has edited only over the last couple of days, and only on the 3 articles Durneydiaz has moved back from draftspace to mainspace, and only to remove the tags I applied, repeatedly. I'm calling WP:DUCK. After editwarring on the tags several times, the IP then added one inline source [73], which is a positive step, but that is not sufficient for a blp and the IP has continued edit warring to remove the tags on Facundo Barcelo, Maximiliano Sigales and Matías Fissore.

I see no signs this is an editor who is going to respond to anything less than a block, and I don't know if a ban on creating new pages until they communicate is possible, but I would certainly advise Durneydiaz to stop creating new pages. Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ok. In the name of progress, and since this is an ongoing problem, I have blocked the account indefinitely. Given that prior fixed-duration blocks have had no impact on the deafening silence from this account, I don't see any sense in another fixed-term block. This is the only option we have left so let's at least see if it makes a difference. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User continues to remove sourced material

Hello,

Joobo (talk · contribs) doesn't stop whitewashing the article on Germany's far-right politician Frauke Petry by removing the well-sourced assertion that Petry cited German law wrongly; a sample edit is

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=6 October 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

. Explaining the mistake to the user has no effect; instead, Joobo falsely states that the inclusion of such material may violate WP:BLP (naturally without citing the specific guideline which my edits would go against, since such does not exist). A strategy is deployed which I met among various WP users who seemed to have a political inclination, namely a mass of meaningless verbal garbage is produced which is then taken to be an argument, even though it does not make logical sense. On the grounds of that, the article is then being reverted, with a remark to check the talk page (or whatever page it was deposited on) for a reason.

I should mention that this user has been noted for strange behaviour before, see for instance here. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to add that said user edits the Wikipedia full-time as it seems (see Special:Contributions/Joobo). --Mathmensch (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive346#User:Joobo.2C_User:_Peter1170:_reported_by_User:Nagle_.28Result:_Both_warned.29 --Mathmensch (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The BLP-claim is bogus (article statemen is sourced to FAZ) and seems to be a substitute for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kleuske (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I will comment on this whole situation amply to give a broad and detailed overview of the situation.

Firstly, I never had any contact with the user Mathmensch before the quarrel at the BLP of Frauke Petry occured. By reverting the edit I followed the necessity of WP:BLPREMOVE. However, it is incessantly argued by the opposite that the content would be sourced and that reverting it would be "bogus" as user Kleuske now wants to state. I gave already detailed explanation to why (here on the BLP talk) the phrasing is not accurate and needs to be removed respectively rewritten as I did. It is about a hypothetical legal application of a law. The statement by the BLP cannot be ultimately labeled as "false" simply as under such circumstance statements can neither be qualified as right nor as wrong in an ultimate definition. This more detailed argumentation by me was basically ignored on the talk, simply by once again pointing out to the "source" which was claimed to be absolutely sufficient. My hint that the source also only evaluates the possibility of a wrong legal statement by Petry was simply ignored as well.

It seems that Mathmensch cherishes personally negative views on this BLP as well as on others he might categorize as morally unfit, why? Mathmensch wrote on my talkpage concerning a discussion with me and another user regarding the article Donald Trump this. It was about a revert by me which was adequate, explained and backed by other users on the main talkpage of the concerned article (see), however Mathmensch seemed to have a problem with this and calling it a "monarchy" like, weeks after the situation was already handled. He was/is obviously angry with the position by me and other users about the question of the inclusion of the point which was raised in the talk. To highlight the antipathy of Mathmensch for particular subjects respectiveley his approach to editing and other users a simple look on his user page is enough to read this:

 "I decided to put this up since there may be U.S. citizens here, who chose Donald Trump as their president.
 I have a foolproof criterion to sort out who is morally or intellectually compromised: Namely those who really think they're superior because of their race or ancestry. If I find out you think that way, I will react properly.
 I would like to express my solidarity with all Jewish, African-American, Hispanic and even Muslim citizens of the U.S. (although I am critical of all religions, including Islam). I am a white German, but I don't feel particularly superior to anybody else (at least not on the grounds of race), and I want to live without racism. I do not want to be associated with bigots of my people who are cruel and idiotic.
 I am sick and tired of seeing black people being ashamed because they are black. The greatest pianist of all times was black. The greatest living mathematician is an ethnic Chinese, while the greatest mathematician of all times was Jewish." 

This user apparently in any case he feels someone edits against his personal beliefs is automatically somehow against "him" or Wikipedia etc. will start to act inappropriately. He has as he says "foolproof criterion to sort out who is morally or intellectually compromised [...] If I find out you think that way, I will react properly." These statements really speak for themselves.

Furthermore I also like to point out to Matmenschs linking to an ongoing discussion on an admins talk me being involved he apparently found out by checking my history. The discussion was basically most likely initiated due to a misunderstanding of another user who viewed some of my edits and got misleading impressions. After i gave simple and detailed explanation concerning the edits brought up nothing anymore happened or was complained, neither by the original user who raised the point at the talk nor by the admin himself. It was eventually just about the behavior regarding me and the other user of the situation. Now Mathmensch for whatever reason jumped on the train at the discussion again without even trying to understand of what the situation there was actually about. Apparently he saw my user name and the topic and immediately tried to defame me, caliming out of nowhere I would be "counter-productive". Now Mathmensch is trying to scratch all kinds of apparent negative stuff together to portray myself in a somewhat bad light. That is also highlighted by the incomprehensible point by him that I would be editing "Wikipedia full-time". All my edits are reasonably explained, if needed sourced and adequate to WP standards and criterias. Any minor disputes, that naturally occur on Wikipedia are absolutely common and without any consequence so far since my unblock. Actually -

it looks like the same is tried to be done here once again as already it was some time ago when another user violated WP guidelines. It came to a dispute also at the ANI- and me and other users explained our ratio behind the reverts we did — finally it was being ruled in favor for me/us and against the other user, who in a similar nasty way tried to link aspects together and claim of POV etc. without any ground, simply as an automatic anthipathy occured due to content disagreements. Mathmensch has apparently an issue with me, and now wants an "admin become active in this case?" in order to "... react properly". This is everything but acceptable WP:Civil behavior.

It rather looks that Mathmensch, by reading his user page entry, has some very strong personal beliefs, and in any case something goes against that he is acting just like he does here. I hereby urge for an adequate solution to this absolute inappropriate behavior of Mathmensch as well as a review of the situation on the concerned page of Frauke Petry as the now by Kleuske reintroduced phrase of "false" is wrong and violates BLP rights, as the statement by Petry technically never can be labeled as "right" nor "false". --Joobo (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: I put an ANI notice on the user's talk page, but it has been

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=6 October 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

shortly after it was placed there. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, after I was noticed and I myself recognized the request here I removed it, so what now?--Joobo (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Discuss it on the appropriate talk-page? Just a suggestion... Kleuske (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes... The statement in question was sourced to an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is, for all intents and purposes, a reliable source, as required by WP:BLP. Hence the revert. Kleuske (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As I already pointed out repeatedly, it is not that the taken source it not "realiable". What was written in it was meant like that. It is simply a classic case of Non sequitur. You technically cannot call this statement as ultimately "wrong", but also not as ultimately "right". However, such a definite application was done — this is inaccurate and violates BLP.--Joobo (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a clear false claim. Quote Petry, as cited in the FAZ article: "So steht es im Gesetz." (So the law says.) - Factually wrong, hence a false claim. Current phrasing seems correct. (I did chuck out a doubled "falsely" though, that seemed a bit clumsy). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Wrong. Classic case of non sequitur as already pointed out. What she said is neither right or wrong. It all comes down to the actual situation. I gave the example on the talk with the police officer. If you say " A police officer can kill a person, that is what the law says" - This statement can be right and wrong at the same time. It depends on the actual circumstance, hence simply saying the statement would be "false" or "correct" is inaccurate. The mentioned FAZ article is merely evaluating her statement but has no legal analytical position to determine an ultimate "false" or "right" to it. That is why "possbly" is the correct term used there - and not "false" (or "right"). --Joobo (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Her statement was "The law mandates this." This is not the case, no matter how much you wiggle. And it's quite beside the point; the only people frantically scrambling for a "possibly technically correct if you squint just so" interpretation are her party and assorted heavily invested individuals, while the independent press and independent experts were pretty much unanimous in their assessment. It is not Wikipedia's conclusion to draw. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong again. You cannot say this is "not the case" - as a law is existing and stating for certain action. Simply stick to the perfect analogy of the example of the "police officer". Then you see that saying it is ulimately "right" or "false" is wrong itself. You simply personally put yourself on the same side of argumentation as how it was done in the news article, yet that does not change the fact that the statement technically never can be labeled as right or false. In particular in contnental european law systems with its Civil law those statements in most cases always have to be referred to actual situations which was not done here but a general statement was given. Bottom line is still the same. The statement only "possibly" is against the law as no actual case is given - hence saying it is in general "false" is merely one particular reading but has no universal validity.--Joobo (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There are also problematic edits regarding Immigration to Germany, such as

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=6 October 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

, where a completely unsourced statement was included into the article; Joobo claimed that in 2014, there were 8 million foreigners in Germany, whereas the source only gives numbers for the year 2011. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That's two years ago and stale. Digging up dirt is not productive nor conducive to any resolution. Discuss the issue at hand instead. Kleuske (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, the edit cited above supports the viewpoint that the given user displays the long-term behaviour of editing in a non-neutral manner, which seems to be of direct relevance. --Mathmensch (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It is, to put it mildly, unbelievable in what an inconsiderate manner and how recklessly it is pointed out to edits I did 2 years ago — and you Mathmensch blatantly lie about it. You write "where a completely unsourced statement was included into the article; Joobo claimed that in 2014, there were 8 million foreigners in Germany, whereas the source only gives numbers for the year 2011." The source I included was from 2015 and published by a German major newspaper ([74]). The newsarticle stated the number of migrants in the Federal Republic of Germany for the year 2014 according to official numbers of the federal register; it was not as you fallaciously claim from 2011 and the number used was also correct. This blatant lying is qualified as a Personal attack under Wiki policy as it states Personal attacks are but not limited to: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." --Joobo (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I mixed up the difflinks. I meant

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=6 October 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

. --Mathmensch (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly it is also adequate to look at a

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=6 October 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

. --Mathmensch (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Joobo now

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=6 October 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

despite

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=6 October 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You ever heard about something called giving a named reference? Apparently not. If you check the diff you gave here you would see that I included the source "< ref name="SZ" / >". So, I supplied the source for the number I included. The other source was referring to the distribution. You are either completely oblivious to Wikipedia editing, or once again blatantly lying about my actions. Regarding your last sentence of you - the admin referred to the situation between me and another user, not between you and me. The admin was right that my mentioning of Wikihounding was incorrect in the case between me an the other user. Yet, in this case you are without a doubt hounding, as you follow my talk page, edit there, follow my edit history and engage in the actions of those concerned articles. I give you one advice, stop doing what you do here as it just pulls you down more and more.--Joobo (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=6 October 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

seems inappropriate to me. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This ANI is still in ongoing. Unless no admin has taken action I advise you to stop engaging in any articles I am involved in, same as I am not engaging in any article you are involved in other than the BLP of initial concern. Do not make this a bigger quarrel than it already is.--Joobo (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Content dispute. Just because someone can be reliably sourced does not mean it is required to have it in an article. Seek consensus on the talkpage. If someone has a credible allegation that Joobo has systematically been whitewashing this, more evidence will be required than one diff from a couple of years ago. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I mentioned this before and am repeating here.

Joobo was blocked indefinitely back in January 2016 for harassing other people and personal attacks concerning List of Islamist terrorist attacks and Immigration to Germany, per this ANI thread.

They went from here to de-wiki, where they were blocked 7 times during 2016 and early 2017 per their block log there for disrupting topics related to politics. Block #7 was in Feb 2017 for 5 days per this report there, related to pro-Trump (including Melania), anti-Obama (including Michelle) POV_pushing, if I am reading the translation correctly. Block #6 was for 3 days for edit warring against 3 other users on the Alternative for Germany article there, per this report - Joobo was trying to remove sourced content about the party being anti-feminist (e.g diff). You get the point.

They gave up on de-WP and came back here to request an unblock in March 2017, and were unblocked on a WP:ROPE basis by User:PhilKnight per this thread on their Talk page. It does not appear that PhilKnight looked at their behavior in other projects during the time they were indeffed here (which is an easy thing to omit, and Joobo did not mention it either)

Where I got frustrated with them was their efforts to whitewash the Alternative for Germany and German nationalism article:

• Talk:Alternative for Germany-- (contribs there) where you will see that Joobo argued in lockstep with Hayek/Wormwood making the bizarre, strawman argument that German nationalism is the same thing as Pan-Germanism and so of course the party cannot be German nationalist, because the AfD does not advocate for taking new territories of german speaking areas in Europe. (oy). See diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, etc This is just repeating an unsupported distortion, and providing no sources to support that bizarre definition.
• [75] to the German nationalism article, which was all edit warring removal in support of the now-vanished Hayek/Wormwood, which somehow stopped when Wormwood vanished a month ago and then restarted when Hayek/Wormwood briefly re-emerged as you can see in the history. Lockstep with Hayek/Wormwood.
• contribs at German natioanlism talk page where you will find nothing meaningful from them justifying their removal of content - the individual diffs:
  • diff It is fairly questionable if "german nationalism" is viewed as taboo as put in the introduction.... (oy. just oy)
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff series -- nothing about content

And the ongoing effort by Joobo to completely remove mention of the Alt-right as a faction in the republican party per the history? This is beyond a content dispute, and right down the middle of the ongoing problem with their behavior. Just raw POV pushing with no basis in policy, but rather just making up reasons.

In my view, the lifting of the indef was unwise, as Joobo just carried their disruption to our German sister project, and came back to continue the bad behavior here in the topics in which they are disruptive - just adding noise and personal attack, and not helping build quality content in those areas. I still suggest minimally topic banning them from anything related to contemporary populism, immigration, or terrorism at minimum, or just re-placing the indef at maximum. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not even read all your ranting here Jytdog as just by browsing your text it appears to be the exact same type of nasty defamation you did couple of weeks ago in the other ANI - when eventually you were the one being told to be wrong with receiving a harsh warning. Well, at least you had one "achievement" going for you — one other editor gave up on this project partly due to your months long going incredible behavior. Now you have even the attitude to give examples of the edits I made in the article of "German Nationalism" albeit(!) you were the one editing there to your favour in order to influence an ongoing RfC. This is incredible once again - but it would have been too nice to see you change in this way or you having at least some kind of insight or reflection. You pull the (really exact) same kinds of points here as you did back in the former ANI - pointing out to the completely unrelated "sister"-project and giving edit diffs not showing anything - even when put in context - showing that you behaved wrong (either you believe the admins are stupid or you are oblivious to what you write here). One can see obvious parallels in how and what you write here and what Mathmensch wrote. Both of you have very strong subjective views on certain issues. In case you get the slightest feeling someone is against that view or would edit against that you start to do everything to obstruct the other editor - getting involved in my (possibly also other editors) various WP edits - ranting on the talkpage - threatening with ANIs - immediately claiming POV in everything and everywhere without even trying to understand the other persons viewpoint - using terms as "advocating" or "whitewashing" - and when finally an ANI is ongoing even contintuing with that and simply lying in the ANI with giving flawed edit diffs that show absolutely nothing. Not much more needs to be added on all of that.--Joobo (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sioux City related issue

Please look at Sioux City Iowa page. User with IP added content consistently reversed by another user. IP got blocked. Can you please unlock IP so that she can continue to participate in what may be a valid discussion. The issue is that the page may be professionally managed -- dissenters have been either driven away or blocked from this page before. 24.217.216.63 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely a mess. Material was moved from the talk page to an archive and then un-archived by an IP. I'm re-vetting the archiving and keeping anything in the archive that wasn't active in the last 30 days. Then I'll look at the active discussions and article history. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked at many of the talk page contributions by 2600:6c40:1800:1f39:ec49:9398:4f0a:ef7f (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The last several could easily be viewed as harassment. The very last one before their block was so severe that an oversighter removed it entirely from history. Based on that, the block should stand. Talk page discussions must remain civil and without baseless allegations against other users. —C.Fred (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Harassment might be an overstatement. It is if one applies WP:AGF. Either way though, shouldn't there at least have been a mention on their talk page before a block? What was the last "severe" comment? It's difficult to opine, with out any info. Other comments seem pretty mild. And the IP's case does seem to have substance. There does seem to be a consistent attempt to remove any negative content about Sioux City - which seems ironic given how dreadful the place sounds in the lede, with that stuff never mentioned again. Also, why is the page locked to all editing, if the issue is solely IP-related? Though clearly the page needs work, there are most lists than text. Half the page is a list of notable people from Sioux City - gosh, there seem to be more notable people per capita (non of which I've heard of) from Sioux City than New York City! I'm surprised there isn't a list of parking lots. There's a note in the photo caption that the downtown is Indigenous, but not other relevant mention of First Nations in the article. Nfitz (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm the harassed party here, although I would term it extremely bad faith editing. I've been repeatedly accused of paid editing by the blocked IP and the block was completely in order. The editor immediately above is so far off base (in multiple threads I might add) that his comments can be safely discounted. The OP in this thread seems to be calling for a block review of User:Ks0stm's block and he should be notified. I'm not convinced that all the IPs involved here are not either meat or sock puppets, but there is obviously no way to show that. There's been no substantive discussion since my initial post at the talk page, and none of the named editors have weighed in. Hopefully, this thread will bring more participants to the thread. I'd say the latest comment there from the editor in the 2600 IPv6 range is most likely block evasion, but I'll gladly leave that for those with the right skill set to decide. I cannot blame the other editors there for running to the hills. If the range blocked IPv6 editor comes back with the same attitude, I'll be joining them. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The good news I suppose, is that as far as I recall, the hills around Sioux City are loess, and quite close to town. Quite different geology than I'm used to. But if they are in the hills, it's not far to return from. :) Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Having run for the hills myself (all the way back to Calnevari, south of Idegon), to put this in perspective for newcomers, a major element of the dispute arose from the IP(s)'s insistence on adding non-WP:RS/potential WP:OR, certainly WP:UNDUE, ultimately unencyclopedic content to the article regarding... wait for it... a speed trap on the interstate highway. The IP(s) seemed to believe this information demonstrated that Sioux City was deriving a significant percentage of city revenue unfairly off the backs of out-of-staters cited for speeding through town, that Wikipedia was bound to mention same in coverage of Sioux City, and anyone who removed the expose must be a paid shill for the city. I salute User:John from Idegon's resilience in the face of exactly the kind of irrational minutiae-fixated abuse that I dread stirring up every time I hit the "revert" button. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The IPv4 address above and the blocked IPv6 range both belong to the same ISP in the same city, so with this request, it's abundantly clear that they're the same person. I've blocked the IPv4 for evading the existing block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually live in Sioux City. Notable people from Sioux City does not mean much when they have to leave the city to be anything. SL93 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers

I modified the section heading to "User:JJBers" from "Request intervention! Comment" per WP:TPO. Generic section headings that could describe 99% of the discussions that cross this page are useless. If I could discern exactly what behavior policy is alleged to be violated, I would include that too, but I don't want to presume anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Despite my efforts to be civil and courteous to the same editor as before, it appears rather clear that JJbers has no intention of ceasing deliberate targeting of my edits and reverting them. Although the 3RR rule has yet to be violated I realize it is inevitable. At issue now is the article Westport, Connecticut. In view of the past and in order to protect myself and to show good faith I voluntarily promise not to engage that editor further nor will I continue any further edits of that article until after this matter is resolved. I had hoped to peacefully resume my editing and contribute to Wikipedia, but it will wait. That JJbers is unrelenting in disrespectful behavior towards me makes no sense. I do not want another editing war!!!

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790698999
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790694008
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790686776

— Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTS42 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - given that both parties are currently topic banned from editing another city in the same state, this seems to be a "Connecticut" issue. Maybe an extension of the tban to involve any Connecticut location? Primefac (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

What... I have no clue why I'm even here. I got reverted saying I didn't explain my edits, and while one of my edits was breif, he did revert that. He reverted the individual edits that I fully explained what I did. I even said that reverting him. The second and third edits isn't even from me, it's you reverting me. Here is my edit summaries where I removed the content that was reverted:

• From this edit: "infobox corrections" I removed the push-pin map (Which he reverted back, and I'm not even going to bother reverting back), and changed the title from New England Town, to Town, creating a pipe link.
• From this edit: "article cleanup" I removed a bunch of spam panoramas to save time to load the article, plus one was enough, plus I removed a copy and pasted section from another article. The part he reverted was me literally moving a image slightly lower in the text, to match the image's context. That was it.
• From this edit: "no, villages aren't synonymous of the town" I believe this is adequately explained. Villages aren't what the town is known for, unless it's a very large attraction. They have their own section.

I sincerely don't know why this is a issue. What I believe this is, is a over-blown reaction to something minor at best. —JJB^ers 16:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's possible this is just an overreaction, which started with the tban and/or personal animosity. I'm not necessarily advocating changing the current restrictions, just followed the edits. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict issue

Deiced to separate this, because I feel it's a unrelated issue to the original point of the discussion. —JJB^ers 21:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that StephenTS42 is apparently unable to sign their comments, and has twice posted here today in a way that removed other's comments, I'm starting to think that it may be a CIR issue. TimothyJosephWood 16:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

To: User:Timothyjosephwood Why did you remove my comment? I did not remove anyone's comments! What are you trying to instigate here? Yes, I forgot to sign one comment, but jeez I made a mistake and a few moments later I did sign it; then someone else removed it... but that is not grounds for CIR. Can't you focus on the subject at hand? JJbers just admitted to reverting 3 of my edits! What does that make me? The bad guy? ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's the other way around, you reverted three of my edits. Then I reverted you back. —JJB^ers 17:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Timothy, if this is the edit you are referring to, it could have easily been an edit conflict. It happens. WP:AGF? Also, he only posted once here (minus the filing of the ANI thread). Plus, CIR is not a reason to remove comments. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: He's been here much longer. Maybe 15 or 20 edits here. —JJB^ers 17:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant on this ANI, not in general. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I did AGF, the first half dozen or so times this happened and was addressed, and explained. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

For those unaware: [76] [77] [78] [79], and that's just in 15 posts at ANI. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, easily could have been an edit conflict. The user even says so with this edit back in June. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thus CIR. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

How does an edit conflict lead to CIR? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

He has moved on to reverting my edits of West Haven, Connecticut. It doesn't matter what subject I edit this thing user above stalks my work, my contributions, then edits and reverts them all! Doesn't anyone else see what is going on here?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Do not call another editor a thing. --Tarage (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - please do not refer to other editors as "things" as you did above. It's uncivil, doesn't benefit nor positively add to this discussion in any way, and it makes a personal attack towards another editor. That's not OK. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for the use of the word thing.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what subject I edit this thing stalks my work, my contributions, then edits and reverts them all!
If you're going to call me a thing, then there's becoming a very good reason to block you for 6-12 months, or even indefinitely. Even though I'm technically involved, clearly you're still acting the same since we're TBANed from Norwalk. I took a cool-down after multiple issues back in June, and I think you should take a month long cooldown after this is over. —JJB^ers 18:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment: The user who has been stalking my work, my contributions to Wikipedia has, and is, conducting a campaign to revert every edit I have made. Within the context of what is defined in the article Wikipedia:Harassment this behavior is clearly Wikihounding and has been going on for quite some time. When confronted with this the above user goes to no end trying to discredit me with any kind of irrelevant accusation with threats of blocking as though he, or she, has such ability. All of which has proceeded unchecked, unrestrained and overlooked in such a manner that may very well be regarded as some kind of tacit approval. I want to know; without any irrelevant, unrelated and inappropriate arguments or accusations why this continues in an environment that ought to disapprove and discourage such behavior. Has that user been granted some kind of privilege, some sort of immunity from the clearly spelled out policies of Wikipedia that renders that user above such policies?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@StephenTS42: You realize you're editing towns nearby Norwalk, it's kinda of easy to predict that without checking your contribs. I actually was looking at West Haven when I had found you had edited it (not so greatly), but I looked at it, but never bothered to fix it. This was a weekish ago. Then 2 days ago, I was patrolling some southern CT articles (after West Haven), when I found you had edited Westport. I fixed everything that was wrong with the article, and moved on to other things. See my own contribs for proof: link, I start editing on July 7, and don't edit a single article even related to the area until July 14. Also, really, harassment? If I did WikiStalk you, that would be the large pot calling the small kettle black. —JJB^ers 03:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment: If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Wikipedia:Solutions looking for a problem——→StephenTS42 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

What? What solutions are looking for problems? I have no clue by what you meant. —JJB^ers 06:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block for StephenTS42

Clearly since Stephen as now tried to forum shop (a light form of canvassing) at WP:AN3 (link); at this point Stephen is just trying to harass me, and get me blocked for no legitimate reason. So for competency issues and harassment, I'm requesting that Stephen get a boomerang block of 4-6 months for this incident (see his block log for why it's so long). I hope this resolves this issue. —JJB^ers 15:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, add spamming to that, Talk:Westport, Talk:Fairfield, Talk:Milford, and Talk:West Haven. —JJB^ers 16:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. —JJB^ers 15:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: with regards to the "spam" issue you listed: while his comments there are unnecessary, I don't think you needed to reply "stop" on 3 different pages plus his talk page telling him to stop. And considering the history between you two, it probably would be best for you to let others handle that kind of issue in the future, not take it upon yourself. only (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Only. I am less inclined to support since the nominator is involved. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• There's still other issues that aren't related to the spamming, which the WP:CIR is completely unrelated to me. —JJB^ers 2:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)

• It doesn't really matter. The report was meant for your conduct. You are plenty of involved. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - procedural oppose. I generally oppose sanctions proposed by an involved party, unless there is a damned good and sound reason for such. And not a reason that sounds good. Blackmane (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User commting disruptive editing on Jurassic World: Fallen

This user name Aaimran has removed a sourced material of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom twice, once under the IP address 47.185.217.3. This is what the user said to me on my talk page.

"First of all, I was not vandalizing Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I was just doing what I thought was necessary. No need to tell everybody what the actors were doing in the ocean. No need to spoil the news."

But there is no rule for spoilers and the one he kept removing is source material. Someone might want to do something about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I linked the guidelines and gave a medium duty warning. For now, I think that is enough. They are new, they need to learn these things. Linking to the policy on their talk page is often a good way to do it. Then, they can be held responsible for knowing (or they should have known) and they can't claim ignorance because you've politely linked the relevant guideline or policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis Brown and his handling of the situation. Given that this has only occurred twice (1, 2), we need to understand that this user is new and doesn't yet know or understand the many rules, policies, and guidelines that Wikipedia has. Given this fact, the edits appear to be good faith attempts more than it does blatant vandalism. As Dennis Brown said above, this is a situation where we should try to help and educate the user - not chase them away with administrative action ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. That was a good way to handle the situation and that user may have not known the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. But we had many users who came to Wikipedia to vandalize, not to contribute the encyclopedia of it and I've seen too many of that. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

HA! Trust me, I know what you mean... seriously :-P. We just need to remember to assume good faith. If the edits could be considered good faith attempts to make changes and by a new user whose just not familiar with our policies and guidelines - we need to default to this assumption and attempt to help users. If things turn sour from there, then we at least tried, and we did the right thing by offering to help ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But you guys might want to look what Aaimran said to me on my talk page from the user's contributions and diffs 1 and 2. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Nuke all pages created by 16pedia2

Hello can you please delete all hoaxes on User:16pedia2 subpages for this can you help me to delete all hoaxes on 16pedia2 subpages for now because it is possible to speedy delete all hoaxes for now? --66.87.68.167 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I'm going to need more than just a request. Can I have some background information? I see a list of subpages here - I'm happy to help once I understand what the situation is :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

97.98.86.66 reinserting same content in multiple article, editwarring

• 97.98.86.66 (talk · contribs)
• Readds content multiple times [80][81][82][83][84][[85][86][[87][88][89]
• Brags about evasion of ip blocks [90]

Darmokand (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Would suggest an IP block.Casprings (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Would also suggest protecting the related articles: Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat_Akhmetshin. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• If it came to a IP block, temp PP might be needed on Rinat Akhmetshin,Natalia Veselnitskaya and Trump campaign–Russian meeting depending on if there is follow through on the block evasion threat. Although with the trump meeting article, it was only early on that they were editing it today. Diffs on that one are [91] [92] [93]. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Why are we shutting down the article when there is one editor that is pushing content without discussion? Casprings (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The reported IP has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and engaging in battleground conduct toward other editors. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the full protection that was added needed on the two pages? Would semi-protection be enough? WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I do see that Ks0stm applied full protection to both Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin. I personally would have semi-protected these articles; I don't think full protection was necessary. I of course may be missing something that Ks0stm saw or don't have information that Ks0stm did; I'll ping Ks0stm and allow him to explain his rationale or perhaps lower the block if he agrees that it can be. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be an over-reaction to me. You can always remove it and watch the page. No harm in doing that.Casprings (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I just shot Ks0stm a message letting him know that I'm changing the protection on these articles and stepping it down to semi-protection. I don't think he'll care ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The deed is done ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. When I see a content dispute/edit warring between an IP and an established editor I tend to full protect so as to not unfairly advantage the established user in the content dispute. If it turns out that the IP was being disruptive more so than engaged in a content dispute, I'm always happy for it to be lowered to semi. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly offensive remarks by 101.167.39.149

User:101.167.39.149 has been leaving a fair number of comments on talk pages and edits in articles that have an air of anti-semitism. There is a fair amount of anti-semitic activity coming from this account between the conversation over at Talk:Chris Cornell and that at Talk:List of Italian-American entertainers this user seems to have a fascination with Judaism as some sort of denigrating mark. Here are links to some of the incidents: Old revision of Talk:List of Italian-American entertainers, Old revision of Talk:List of Italian-American entertainers, Old revision of Talk:Chris Cornell, and Old revision of Talk:Christiana Capotondi. Snood1205 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems pretty much WP:NOTHERE, but I don't know how helpful ip blocks are at stopping this kind of thing Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely on-going uncivil behavior and the engagement in personal attacks toward other users (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), as well as disruptive editing on articles involving people's Jewish heritage. The IP has repeatedly engaged in removing referenced content (1, 2) and replacing it with unreferenced or poorly referenced content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). I've blocked the IP address for two weeks due to the history, length, severity, and rate of the disruption, as well as the repeated warnings that were ignored. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

JohnThorne - years of copyvio, plagiarism, OR, etc

JohnThorne (talk · contribs) is a hard-working editor who I'm sure is trying to improve our coverage of biblical subjects, in particular articles covering chapters of the Bible, creating about 375 articles.[94] He is a sysop on the Indonesian wikipedia.[95]

I first encountered him in October 2011 when I found him adding copyright from an unreliable source.[96] My latest was this week at Fiery flying serpent[97] where I reverted him with an edit summary saying "Copied from obsolete sources, some copy/paste without attribution." Unfortunately almost six years later he continues to have problems with original research, copyright and plagiarism and at times NPOV. He has had a number of warnings/discussions about the issues and he always answers politely but then seems to carry on without taking account of them. An example of a typical discussion is here.

Some examples of warnings: [98][99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] from myself, User:Lucas559, User:DGG, User:Diannaa, User:Crow and User:Alephb Also see Various issues] from User:Jeffro77 endorsed by User:Fayenatic london.

A pov edit that User:Editor2020 reverted in May[108] and that he restored the next day.[109] I reverted it 2 days ago. It said "Tower of Babel Stele (604–562 BCE, time of Nebuchadnezzar II) depicting the "Tower of Babel" (Genesis 11) But the linked article just says that the stele is a representation of the ziggurat Etemenanki which might be the inspiration, even the actual, Tower of Babel, but not that it is definitely the Tower. Doug Weller talk 05:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said to him some years ago: "That it's PD doesn't mean it's reliable. What the article should have in short quotes, and they are permitted by fair use. You know the major commentaries better than I do. I'd guess you have a number of them to hand, for you cite some in other articles. " For the ones that are in fact PD, and just need attribution, the attribution should be added, but someone who knows the literature needs to add appropriate modern sources. Biblical studies is drastically different than it was one or two centuries ago, and any earlier source is of primarily historical interest, or--for the major theologians--of interest for its own sake. Even with the last century years, the interpretations have changed radically more than once, and will presumably keep changing- partly due to differing theological assumptions, historical methods, additional texts, and archeological data. (More generally, everything in WP based upon the old EB and Catholic Encyclopedia and the even earlier PD sources, needs to rewritten. _ DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

JohnThorne has been on a long project of creating articles about individual chapters of the Bible. He does these by copy-pasting material, sometimes with attribution, and sometimes without. He repeatedly relies on unreliable sources of various kinds. A look at his user contributions shows that this ongoing project of his takes up almost all of his editing contributions to English Wikipedia. Six years in, he is the kind of user who should, be, as his Userpage says, be "old enough to know better."

People have tried to discuss this kind of thing with him on various occasions, and while he occasionally will clean up a specific issue on a specific article, he has unceasingly kept up all the problematic practices right up to the present.

First, here's diffs of different people trying to talk to him about his problematic editing practices:

[110]

[111] [112][113][114][115][116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121].

The other editors who have tried to speak to him on his talk page about various aspects of his editorial process include myself, User:Fayenatic london, User:Jeffro77, User:Doug Weller, User:Graeme Bartlett, User:Crow, User:Diannaa, User:Sir Joseph, User:Antinoos69, User:DGG, and User:Lucas559. Of course, their interactions with him very from very mild to somewhat more serious, so their own assessment of the situation might vary from mine. But I think looking at his Talk Page and his archives will show a pretty consistent pattern of how he concerns other editors.

I am certain that this will not include all the people who have interacted at him on various talk pages, because he is very prolific and has used his copy-paste methods to produce an enormous number of articles. Those discussions I have only encountered on an occasional basis, such as a discussion about plagiarism — not really a discussion because it doesn't look like JohnThorne responded, at least not on the talk page with User:FeatherPluma at Talk:James 3.

For a sampling of what the issues look like, see for example the page Talk:Ezekiel 1, where myself and User:PiCo discuss the use of sources. It's also another good example of the way attempts at constructive criticism go in one ear and out the other with JohnThorne. A similar conversation could each just as easily occur at almost every article he has produced, but for the most part people just haven't been following his work because he creates new articles on single chapters which aren't linked to much. I've only become aware of how extensive the problem is fairly recently, although I'd been aware of the issue in general for some time. See also his discussion with User:Antinoos69 on Talk:Romans 1 and Talk:1 Timothy 1.

The following list is very long (but not exhaustive, believe it or not!), and I would not expect anyone to read it all, but clicking a couple articles at random in it, and looking at their page history and contents, will give you an idea of what we're dealing with. These are biblical articles he started, and they mount up more quickly than other editors can reasonably be expected to keep up with. In chronological order, starting with more recent ones: Jeremiah 34, Jeremiah 31, Jeremiah 30, Jeremiah 29, Jeremiah 28, Jeremiah 27, Jeremiah 26, Jeremiah 25, Jeremiah 24, Jeremiah 21, Jeremiah 20, Jeremiah 19, Jeremiah 18, Jeremiah 17, Jeremiah 16, Jeremiah 15, Jeremiah 14, Jeremiah 13, Jeremiah 12, Jeremiah 11, Jeremiah 10, Jeremiah 9, Jeremiah 8, Ezekiel 47, Ezekiel 46, Ezekiel 45, Ezekiel 44, Ezekiel 43, Ezekiel 42, Ezekiel 41, Ezekiel 40, Ezekiel 39, Ezekiel 38, Ezekiel 36, Ezekiel 35, Ezekiel 34, Ezekiel 33, Ezekiel 32, Ezekiel 31, Ezekiel 30, Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel 28, Ezekiel 27, Ezekiel 25, Ezekiel 24, Ezekiel 23, [[Ezekiel 22], Ezekiel 21, Ezekiel 20, Ezekiel 19, Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel 17, Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 15, Ezekiel 13, Ezekiel 12, Ezekiel 11, Ezekiel 10, Ezekiel 8, Ezekiel 6, Ezekiel 5, Ezekiel 2, Ezekiel 4, Ezekiel 3, Ezekiel 7, Jeremiah 7, Jeremiah 6, Jeremiah 5, Jeremiah 4, Jeremiah 3, Jeremiah 2, Ruth 4, Ruth 3, Ruth 1, Lamentations 5, Lamentations 4, Lamentations 3, Lamentations 2, Lamentations 1, Hosea 14, Hosea 13, Hosea 12, Hosea 11, Hosea 10, Hosea 9, Hosea 8, Hosea 7, Hosea 6, Hosea 5, Hosea 4, Hosea 3, Hosea 2, Amos 9, Amos 8, Amos 7, Amos 6, Amos 4, Amos 3, Amos 2, Zechariah 13, Zechariah 11, Zechariah 10, Zechariah 9, Zechariah 8, Zechariah 7, Zechariah 6, Zechariah 5, Zechariah 1, Zechariah 2, Zechariah 3, Zechariah 4, Malachi 3, Malachi 1, Micah 6, Micah 5, Micah 4, Micah 3, Micah 2, Jonah 4, Jonah 3, Jonah 2, Isaiah 66, Isaiah 65, Isaiah 64, Isaiah 63, Isaiah 62, Isaiah 61, Isaiah 59, Isaiah 58, Isaiah 57, Isaiah 56, Isaiah 55, Isaiah 54, Isaiah 48, Isaiah 45, Isaiah 44, Isaiah 43, Isaiah 38, Isaiah 37, Isaiah 36, Isaiah 35, Isaiah 34, Isaiah 33, Isaiah 32, Isaiah 31, Isaiah 30, Isaiah 29, Isaiah 28, Isaiah 27, Isaiah 26, Isaiah 25, Isaiah 24, Isaiah 23, Isaiah 22, Isaiah 21, Isaiah 20, Isaiah 19, Isaiah 18, Isaiah 17, Isaiah 16, Isaiah 15, Isaiah 14, Isaiah 13, Isaiah 12, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 10, Isaiah 60, Joel 3, Joel 2, Joel 1, Zephaniah 3, Zephaniah 2, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 8, Haggai 2, Haggai 1, Isaiah 3, Isaiah 4, Isaiah 5, Isaiah 6, Isaiah 7, Isaiah 41, Isaiah 40, Isaiah 2, Isaiah 51, Isaiah 42, Isaiah 49, Isaiah 50, Nahum 2, Habakkuk 3, Habakkuk 2, Habakkuk 1.

Just looking over the contents and page history of a few of these many entries at random should be enough to demonstrate that there is an ongoing pattern here. That pattern does not constitute "creating articles" or building encyclopedic content in the Wikipedia sense of the term. Instead, we have the production of "articles" that consist of material from a variety of sources, thrown together in a manner that is often haphazard, and without a sense of coherence that summarizes the whole chapters in terms of reliable scholarship.

It's a mess.

To go into more specific examples, one of his ongoing practices is to produce "Structure" sections for his "articles", which simply plagiarize section headings from the New King James Version of the Bible. Compare this [122] to this [123]. The same thing (I can draw up the diffs if that helps) can be found for Habakkuk 2, Habakkuk 3, etc. It's pervasive.

Another example is his repeated plagiarism of Matthew Poole's commentary. Compare this [124] to this [125]. I could easily get you a bunch more of those too, if you need them.

There are also extensive citations to unreliable sources, including John Gill's commentary, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary, the Nelson Study Bible, Matthew Poole's commentary, the J. D. Davis Bible Dictionary, Holman's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Albert Barnes' commentary, Ellicott's Commentary, Halley's Bible Handbook, and a website called The Way to Yahuweh, etc., etc., etc. If you want explanations as to why these are unreliable, or where he has used them, I'd be happy to oblige.

If you want to know about unreliable sources, my recommendation would be this: pick three articles at random out of the giant list above (say, maybe Hosea 5, Jeremiah 12, and Zechariah 10, —or literally any other three you like, so that I don't get to hand-pick them — and I'll walk you through the various unreliable citations in each of the three to a level of detail that I think should be enough to substantiate the overall problem. I've become very familiar with his favorite unreliable sources lately — there's about a dozen or so that he goes back to over and over mostly because they exist in convenient form on a handful of religious websites. The problem is sustained enough that I'm highly confident you won't be able to pick three articles at random that aren't filled with unreliable sources.

To generalize, the sources tend to prioritize a particular sort of Protestant conservatism, even at the cost of contradicting well-founded conclusions of mainstream biblical scholarship. Of course, I fully support the right of anyone to believe whatever version of things they want. But Wikipedia sourcing is another matter.

To summarize, the user is prolific, shows no signs of adapting to Wikipedia norms about sourcing, and shows no signs of effectively listening to the repeated concerns of other editors about the subject. Given his known tendency to plagiarize from sources that can easily be found online, I am concerned about the amount of plagiarism which could potentially be occurring with books he cites which cannot be found online. We cannot all spend our lives at the library working to double-check his edits, after all.Alephb (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Joining Wikipedia is an honor based on the encouragement to contribute to make is significant in the world. As I am aware of my own lackings, I rely on good faith of all users to contribute to the articles I started. I do take the criticisms seriously, but I also uphold neutral point of view, not to lean heavily on one side of opinions (e.g. different sides of Biblical criticisms) and maintain the middle ground as much as I can. Please check the timeline of the articles to see that I immediately adapt to many good advice from various users (as much as I could) in my subsequent articles. Nonetheless, admittedly I could not keep up when certain editors keep adding the "limits" of what must or must not use as references. In most cases, I would wait until certain editors completed the edits before I improved them for neutrality, instead of doing multiple revertable edits that hampers the eagerness to move forward with adding more contents to make Wikipedia more complete. Contrary to the allegations, I respect the authorship highly and never intend to take credits on others' works, therefore each citation is carefully noted and, in my opinion, kept as close as possible to the authors' intent as far as permitted. I am willing to keep learning to contribute, by adjusting my writings according to good instructions, and correcting any mistakes, without being condescending to the narrow views of some editors nor feeling already good enough, so I keep studying resources that could be acceptable to most users, and improving the articles to be informative, useful and easy to read. However, I also plea to be assisted in dealing with some pressures to sway the neutrality of the articles. Let's make Wikipedia fun, educational and social place to contribute as it should be. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you do not realize that the sources you use are almost every one of them based on one general line of interpretation--the 18th and 18th century orthodox Protestant viewpoint,which essentially regarded the Bible as a trustworthy document that had to be explained, but not analyzed--that difficulties and contradictions should be explained away by interpretation, rather than seen as indications of the complexity of the documents. This viewpoint needs to be included among others, but it is not in line with the current informed consensus to make it the basis of an article. Using a variety of such sources is not including all views or NPOV (though there are differences between them thought significant at the time); it is if one were to write an article on a current political proposal using many sources, but all supporting it (however much they disagreed in detail.) I know some of the criticism you have received objects to using such sources at all, but I think including the traditional Protest and Catholic interpretations is essential, because of the cultural and historical influence. But it needs to be indicated (the simplest indication is to give the date in the text, not doonly in the footnotes). And equivalent modern commentaries must be included, representing not just the current view but the most significant views through time. I am not even altogther sure that you understand the diferences over the centuries, or today.

and another point , there do not seem to have ben any Jewish sources used for the OT books. The prophetic books in particular are understood very differently by Jews and Christians, and there seems to be a recent emphasis on those books. J (And Islam also regards both the OT an NT as inspired scripture, and has its range of interpretations as well.)

Additionally, it is not sufficient to just use a range of miscellaneous sources without grouping them or indicating in some manner their nature., As an analogy, "Most Republican commentators say ... " DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a very serious problem, which needs to be addressed. It might be best if JohnThorne were prohibited from editing in mainspace, until such time as he can convince the community that he understands, and is willing to adhere to, Wikipedia policies. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at his response I agree. His response doesn't seem, well, responsive. It's more or less what he's been saying for a long time and that's not good enough. I'm not convinced he's capable of the sort of change in his editing required, or that he understands the issues. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Although this editor responds politely, I have not seen him taking notice in practice of the advice given and requests made to him. Moreover, his poor level of written English (as shown above) does not qualify him to contribute usefully in English Wikipedia, except perhaps on topics where local knowledge might be helpful. He would not be able to rewrite his sources to a good standard, and does not make a practice of giving attribution where he should.

(I do not accept the suggestion that his sources are necessarily unreliable. They are not up to date, but nor is Easton's dictionary on which many of Wikipedia's Biblical articles are based. However, I agree that a broader and more representative variety of sources should be quoted.)

I suggest a topic ban for a period of time on Bible-related articles. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not every source he uses is unreliable, almost all the sources I listed as unreliable I listed not because they are old, but because they push various fringe positions. They would be in a different category from, say, the Encyclopaedia Biblica, which is old and sometimes outdated but does not devote itself to the fringe in the same way. And some of the bad sources he uses are from the 1960's-1990's. Anyhow, we're in agreement that there's a problem here, regardless of exactly how we'd frame some of the sourcing issues. I would also support a topic ban. I just wanted to make it clear, at least speaking for myself, I wasn't judges the sources strictly on age. As for any source I've mentioned, I'd stand willing and ready to show anyone the specific places where it teaches [WP:FRINGE]] positions. Alephb (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Requiring a user to cover a theology topic from Muslim, Jewish, Catholic and various Protestant viewpoints is far beyond resonable. Only very accomplished scholars would be able to do that single handedly. In an ideal world articles on every chapter of the Old Testament would reflect all major view points but Wikipedia is a work in progress and someone needs to start the page with something. I disagree that 18th/19th century Protestent commentary is all junk to be ignored. Many people still believe the Bible to be a reliable document that is internally consistent if understood properly. In addition to the 'I don't like his theology' tone, some of the specific charges here ring false. Section headings are not copyright protected generally for example. Legacypac (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether 'Many people still believe the Bible to be a reliable document that is internally consistent if understood properly' or not is true, it seems unlikely that those with such beliefs are writing from a NPOV. Nor would I think most Christians be writing about these Hebrew fables from a NPOV. But you have to start somewhere (assuming that we actually need articles for each section of each chapter). Presuming the answer isn't to simply merge a lot of this, perhaps simply tagging the article that it isn't NPOV, or some kind of tag noting that the POV is from a particular Christian sect, and other POVs must be added is the answer. Nfitz (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the conventional 19th century view can and should be used--either it or the tradition Catholic view could be used effectively as a starting point (or the traditional Jewish view for the OT), with other views then presented in an organized manner. Obviously not all of any article like this should be done by one person. In organizing the view, I'm not sure that the verse-by verse technique is the best, because it make presentation much more clumsy that a discussion that covers the while chapter--I think this would help clarify the presentation (of course thereare some individual verses that do need special attention). DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, Legacypac, taking just the section headings issue, the section-heading problem illustrates an issue with this editor's approach even if we grant for the sake of argument that there is no copyright problem. For all I know you may be right, and perhaps there's a special exception in copyright law for section headers.

For the article Habakkuk 1, you can see that the article has a "structure" section, which splits the topic up into parts. There is no citation to any scholarly work whatsoever on the structure of Habakkuk and where this chapter fits into it — although any reasonably comprehensive commentary would have that. Instead, the user opens up his New King James Bible, pulls out the section headings that are there as a convenience for readers, and copies them without attribution into the article. He also types something about "cross-references" into the the Structure section that doesn't quite make sense.

Then he copy-pastes that section from the Habakkuk 1 article into other articles, changing the section headings to copy the appropriate ones from his NKJV each time, each time doing so without any indication to the reader that he's doing so. He does this for Habakkuk 2, Habakkuk 3, Nahum 2, Haggai 1, Haggai 2, Jonah 1, Jonah 2, Micah 1, Micah 2, etc. etc. etc.

And that's just the structure sections. Similar techniques, with varying degrees of copy-pasting, attribution, misattribution, or plagiarism are used to build the entire article, for hundreds of articles in a row, no matter what people keep telling him.

Speaking just for myself, Legacypac, I feel some sympathy for your claim that 18th/19th century Protestant commentary isn't all junk. Biblical studies owes a lot to some very astute 18th and 19th century Protestant scholars who helped found it as an academic discipline. My objection to the improper large-scale copy-pasting from some particular 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st-century sources does not reflect an opposition to all early Protestant work.Alephb (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"18th/19th century Protestant commentary isn't all junk" -well, I guess not, but there is no reason on WP to use 100 or 200 year old sources, one of the best things about WP is that it is easily updated to summarise recent scholarship. Accepting the advice to randomly click on one of the articles listed above, I chose Zechariah 13 and find this exegesis on vs 7, copied (with attribution in a footnote) from a book written in 1884- "The envy and hatred of Satan, the blind fury of the chief priests, the contempt of Herod, the guilty cowardice of Pilate, freely accomplished that Death, which God had before decreed for the salvation of the world. The meaning then is, (Ribera), "the sword shall be aroused against My Shepherd, that is, I will allow Him to be smitten by the Jews." You would not find Christian scholars today blaming "the Jews" for Jesus' death, or taking it as a given that a verse in a Jewish scripture is referring to an event in Jesus' life. Both blaming "the Jews" for Jesus'death,and reading Jewish holy texts solely as "prophecies" of Christianity could be taken today as extremely anti-Semitic. I think it is wrong for these antiquated, and possibly damaging, attitudes to be perpetuated here on WP. On the other hand, looking at the page view statistics, that article has an average of one view a day, so it could be felt that it is not very important. My feeling is that if these articles are going to exist at all they should not be based on such out of date sources, Biblical scholarship, even by committed Christian scholars, has utterly altered over the last hundred or two hundred years.Smeat75 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to take the Zechariah 13 case, let's run through the elements of this post, which with little variations here and there resembles the bulk of this editor's output. First, we have an obvious statement, like, "Zechariah 13 is the 13th chapter of Zechariah," which is then cited to two thoroughly fringe sources, dated 1962 and 2012. Next is another generic sentence, cited to the Intrepreter's [sic] Bible and a fringe source dated to 1960. The lead in no way summarizes the contents of Zechariah 13, nor does any part of the article. The "Text" section simply tells us that the chapter is in Hebrew and tells us how many verses are in the chapter -- other than the verse number the whole section is copy-pasted. The "Translations" section is likewise a copy-paste job. The "Structure" section is created by unattributed copy-paste from the NKJV Bible. The rest of the article, the only part which discusses the actual contents of the chapter at all, is all about a single verse, verse 7. This final section opens with a quotation from the KJV Bible, but the name of the translation is nowhere given to the reader, who must simply guess where the quote is taken from. After the quote, it consists of four bullet points, each one discussing a phrase in the verse. The first is copied from the commentary by Albert Barnes, who argued against the academic mainstream's ideas about the authorship of Genesis and believed that Moses had written it. Without quote marks around Barnes' quotation, the article would appear to the casual reader to be presenting the "Zechariah is about Jesus" viewpoint as a simple fact, rather than as one theological viewpoint. The second bullet point copies and pastes from a similar source (the Pulpit Commentary) from a similar period, with a similar viewpoint likewise present as if it were simple fact. The third bullet point copy-pastes from John Gill (circa 1750), who is problematic for the same reasons, and whose views are simply presented as fact without quote marks. The fourth-bullet point does the same thing with yet another nineteenth-century source. So there's not even really an article about Zechariah 13 here -- just a series of quotes, presented as fact, telling us that one particular verse in Zechariah 13 is definitely all about Jesus. Rinse and repeat, 375 times. Alephb (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I think that is very very bad. Thanks to Doug Weller, DGG and you for bringing this to wider attention. WP is not here to promote outdated Christian theology from hundreds of years ago that even Christian scholars do not believe anymore. Presenting Jewish scriptures as being "all about Jesus" is considered extremely anti-Semitic and offensive today, even by committed Christians. Obviously I have not looked at all those articles, but you seem to have done, and my feeling is that they should all be deleted and the editor who created them topic banned.Smeat75 (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seem them all, but I've looked pretty closely at about one hundred of them, and I haven't seem one yet that doesn't have the same problems. As for the other three hundred or so, given that I picked a lot of the articles pretty much at random from the 375-ish that the editor has written, I'm confident there is a low chance of there being a large number of decently-written articles hiding in there somewhere. Alephb (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I see the original poster and soem writings above are expressing a non-neutral point of view. Just because an editor write with a point of view is not a reason to ban or block. What you will see here is a stronger point of view from conservative Protestant from previous centuries because they are the ones who have published and have material available under public domain on the web. Modern critical scholarship should be reported as well, but not as the only sources. And we cannot expect JohnThorne to have access to this material or to be forced to include it in articles. My earlier complaints to JohnThorne were about the lack of depth in the articles, certainly nothing to complain to here about. The articles mostly were not useful because of minimal specific content about the topic, but are OK as starting point stubs. JohnThorne is "creating articles", and I think much of the original poster's complaint can be ignored. Legally Matthew Poole does not have to be credited, but under our policy must be credited with material copied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I'm puzzled by your response. NPOV of course doesn't apply to anything but "encyclopedic content", and certainly not here. As an Admin you must know that. You also suggest much of my complaint can be ignored, but most of it was about " problems with original research, copyright and plagiarism" carrying on for almost six years despite warnings, which I don't think are things that should be ignored. I will however say that I've received a reasonable explanation as to why he reinserted a post related to the Tower of Babel that had been reverted, so I'm not particularly concerned about that although his edit still I think failed NPOV. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Writing an article about a political or religious dispute and including only one POV is advocacy. One doesn't have to give everything in full, but one must write the article to make it clear that there isn't just one position. As a minimum an encyclopedia article must indicate that something is controversial. Using references only from biased sources representing one position similarly is advocacy. I am not sure the ed. recognizes to what degree these interpretations are disputed. Obviously one cannot include all views, but the idea of writing about the OT using only Christian sources of any vintage is appalling. I do agree that we do not privilege in matters like this the current general POV, but consider others equally, and the suggestion we omit the orthodox POV was biased also. But this is not really a ANI problem, since the contributor does seem to show some understanding by now. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My main concern with the editor has never been POV. While I'm concerned about the copy-pasting from fringe sources, I would also be concerned if he started making his articles by copy-pasting without proper attribution from a balanced variety of pre-critical religious and academic religious and secular sources. As far as the issue of attribution goes, I'm not encouraged to see in his response, "Please check the timeline of the articles to see that I immediately adapt to many good advice from various users (as much as I could) in my subsequent articles. . . . Contrary to the allegations, I respect the authorship highly and never intend to take credits on others' works, therefore each citation is carefully noted and, in my opinion, kept as close as possible to the authors' intent as far as permitted." That strikes me as evidencing denial, and a continuation of a long copy-paste problem which he hasn't acknowledged. If it was made clear to a reader when, say, an 18th century source is being quoted, then we might have an occasion but very fixable issue with undue weight or something like that here and there. His talk page, and it archives, show people repeatedly trying to explain attribution. He says something like, "thank you for your positive contribution. I always attribute correctly, and will try to take your good advice into account." and then cranks out another ten articles by copy-paste. It's not just a POV thing -- it's several problems all mixed together in a virtual cut-and-paste assembly-line article factory. The impression he gives that he "does seem to show some understanding by now," is, I think, part of why he's managed to continue to be able to crank these articles out this way for years despite people repeatedly talking to him. Alephb (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Some clarifications:

1. Timeline: Many articles listed here labeled as "bad" have been made a while ago, and since then a number of them underwent improvements. The most recently created articles already incorporated various inputs from other users. I think this should be taken into consideration as how far the contributions have evolved to improve throughout the years and will still be enhanced further for sure! Objectionable sources have not used anymore (for the sake of civility), because there are more other sources available (from many POVs). Nonetheless I wish to stay clear from controversies that distract the attention from the common goal to make a good article in Wikipedia. Throughout the years, I have consulted Wikipedia readers (not limited from certain thoughts, but also not of wide range of denominations) about their opinions, and the choice of contents is basically based on the gathered information, forming a decent start for other users (who would be as eager, naively I thought) to modify and improve. Now as the articles gain more attention, obviously more materials could be integrated. This reflects the expansion and evolution of the sources I used to start new articles, cognizant of many more shortcomings to overcome.
2. Process: In the past few months there has been a pattern of working together (in "good faith", not to count unnecessary rants and ever growing list of "questionable sources") as follows:
   1. an article was created by a user
   2. the article was edited by a second user (at the moment, mostly by deleting parts that don't suit the personal POV of the particular user)
   3. the first user added more information from other sources to improve the article
   4. all users to add more information, corrections, comments to the article

The steps could be polished and oiled to work well in an amicable environment of Wikipedia, while allowing every user to develop the necessary editing skills, with mutual respect despite the diversity of educational backgrounds. This is what I hope to enliven in contributing to Wikipedia. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you perhaps point to some examples of articles that you think you have raised to a satisfactory standard? I looked at some of your recent edits; some were at least heading in the right direction, but they did not achieve anything like a worthwhile article. The most generous outcome that I might support would be to ban you from creating new articles, to be reviewed after 12 months, so that you should concentrate on improving the many existing poor-quality pages that you have started. – Fayenatic London 19:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am going to suggest an indefinite block from en-WP with a standard 6 month offer, the reason being years of not listening to people telling him that his editing violates COPYVIO and NPOV and him responding politely and not changing a whit. I cannot know if it is a CIR or a IDHT issue, but this person is systematically harming WP. If, when they appeal, they can show evidence that they have added non-COPYVIO, well sourced, NPOV content that completes a thought, at some other WMF project, well that would be great. But the section header says it all and their responses show no real lights coming on. The OP did a solid job of legwork, in showing there is a problem, and doing nothing is not a good option. This is not a happy thing, but it is what should happen, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Enamul Hasan Ferdous

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

---

I have recently noticed that the user Enamul Hasan Ferdous has been vandalizing the pages of various universities such as University of Oxford, University of Cambridge. I tried reverting some edits but it's going out of control. Therefore I suggest action be taken against him. Darius robin (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The best place to report clear vandalism/spam is WP:AIV; I've filed a report there and an admin should be around sometime soon to drop the hammer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Since you are a rollbacker, could you please help revert his edits. Darius robin (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I got them all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Darius robin (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Hateful Vandalism

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

---

It is just disgusting that this editor said that transgender people should be gassed. They should be blocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Underground&oldid=790808634 --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Concerns about admin ProhibitOnions

. I agree that ProhibitOnions's edits to Wikipedia admin User:ProhibitOnions created the article JT Foxx on 29 June. It appeared to exist only to label Foxx as a swindler. Among other things, ProhibitOnions sourced Foxx's real name to a copy of a court document. After new editors with an apparent conflict of interest appeared, ProhibitOnions protected the article. I noticed it because it was discussed at the COI noticeboard. I asked ProhibitOnions to unprotect it so that I could propose deletion. I was going to leave it at that, but today ProhibitOnions added more information sourced to Meetup (website) and Instagram postings. I feel this is unacceptable from an admin. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "unacceptable from an admin," it's just more or less not allowed; BLP policy relating to primary sources specifically prohibits the use of primary sources such as public records in articles about living people, except as an adjunct to reliable sources which discuss the topic. Clearly, Meetup, high school reunion websites, Instagram posts and YouTube videos are not the kind of reliable secondary sources we want for articles about living people, so I've removed those sources... I think the PROD will probably go through because this is pretty clearly a non-notable person. I don't think this requires administrative action, but ProhibitOnions might want to brush up on their understanding of sourcing policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

How and when did that guy get to be an admin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thirteen years ago the only requirement for adminship was asking. Contrast that with the hell-week that's currently required, yet these admins from the nascent days of the project have the exact same lifetime infallibility. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's mildly concerning. Thirteen years an admin and showing no understanding of one of our most basic, and most fundamental, policies? Just... wow. — fortunavelut luna 16:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

2006 was a simpler time, and a lot has changed since then. SkyWarrior 16:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis, eh? Or not, as the case might be. — fortunavelut luna 17:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You do realize most of us don't read Martian, right? What a snob! EEng 18:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Get off my 2006 adminship lawn! only (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Woah, easy there, Grandpa! If you want to walk to the mainspace, let me hold your hand and help you cross the street so you don't get hurt :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, the prod says "The article seems to be overtly promotional." but here you say "It appeared to exist only to label Foxx as a swindler". Make your mind up! I don't like misleading prods. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The article changed between creation and the point that I proposed deletion. You can go through the history and see who added what, but due in part to ProhibitOnions poor sourcing, several of the references were Foxx's own promotional material. If what I wrote on the prod template is what bothers you about this, you may be missing the point. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Bit unfair that - the original article as created by ProhibitOnions contained two sentences, one of which suggested Foxx was a swindler ... and the later versions ladled in Foxx promotional material. Whilst I don't think there's any administrative action required here, it bothers me a lot that we still have admins that don't understand basic policy. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DESYOP EVERYONE! —JJB^ers 22:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"As an administrator, we generally trust him to do what it takes to correct these potential issues" seems like a very misplaced sentiment. He has demonstrated that he has not beeen doing what we trusted him to do, namely following the rules and guidelines that apply to any editor. I'm all for giving someone a chance to correct their ways, but I don't think this discussion should be closed until ProhibitOnions has had a chance to comment. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we can assume good faith that it was an honest mistake by someone unfortunately unfamiliar with sourcing policies and who doesn't appear to have much experience editing articles about living people. If ProhibitOnions takes this opportunity to review their mistakes, take a good hard look at WP:RS and WP:BLP, they'll move forward with a better understanding of our sourcing requirements and hopefully not make this kind of error again. If they don't take the hint, I'd agree that stronger responses would be required. But let's try education before enforcement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

True, but I don't think they have acknowledged that they have read this discussion. WP:ADMINACCOUNT and all that. --Rschen7754 03:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Does that mean you finally read WP:ADMINACCOUNT? Guess not if you're still wielding the bit.Joefromrandb (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That's true. I think we should at expect a response here acknowledging their mistakes and affirming that they'll review relevant policies and comply in the future. I took the time to leave them a talk page message breaking down a couple of their edits and explaining why they violated policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The very first line of ADMINACCOUNT is "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools" - so its irrelevant unless Admin tools were actually used. While all *editors* are expected to explain their edits - if we dragged every editor to ANI and forced them to kowtow anytime they did anything wrong, we would be here until the sun dies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. However, I will state that administrators generally should be able and willing to explain all of their actions if they come into question by anyone and regardless of whether or not they involved the use of administrator tools. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree to some extent, but I don't think that a response is required from him here; we can generally expect that the user will read this ANI discussion once he becomes aware of it from the notice left on his talk page, take note of the things that he needs to fix, and improve on these issues without having to tell us that he'll do so. Let me be clear about something for the record: I am not trying to give him such an easy time because he's an administrator; I'd do the same thing for pretty much anybody if they were in this exact situation. What I'm saying is that, because he's an administrator, we can expect that he'll read this discussion and do what he needs to do in order to fix and improve upon the concerns expressed here. If, say, he fails to do so and we observe repeated issues, I feel that it would uncover wider concerns and also feel that he can still be held accountable given that we expect him, as an administrator, to have the knowledge and ability to read and take steps to address potential problems. If anyone has any further questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (emphasis added) --Rschen7754 18:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, didn't ProhibitOnions 1) edit war to re-introduce content that another editor was removing based on WP:BLP concerns and then 2) semi-protect the article to get the upper hand against the IP in that edit war? How is this not a misuse of admin rights as a violation of WP:INVOLVED, in addition to a violation of WP:BLP? Deli nk (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's more subtle than that. ProhibitOnions was edit warring with obvious promotional accounts. He called the efforts to remove Foxx's birth name (which he had sourced to a court record) "[vandalism" and used it to justify protecting the page. He cited WP:BLP in that same comment. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Due to the ongoing discussion that has been occurring "post-close" as well as the additional concerns raised about possible edit warring and possible inappropriate application of page protection, I have removed my closure of this discussion and re-opened it to allow further discussion to continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, ProhibitOnions did reply and I'm satisfied with the response. --Rschen7754 04:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with ProhibitOnions' response as well - they've indicated a thoughtful consideration of the issues involved, and I think we can close this now with a trouting and get back to building an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ban meant for another user applied to my account

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

---

My account, User:Moltenflesh, was just banned for being a sockpuppet and all of its edits undone. No one said anything beforehand, no investigation was done, and I have no connection to the account they give...I think a detection system may have misfired for some reason. Is there a way that ban could get reviewed or at least someone explain the reasoning behind it? MoltenFlesh2 (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MoltenFlesh2 - Please see the message I've left on your talk page on this account. I've provided you instructions on how to properly ask questions and appeal your block without violating policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Not so inactive user

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

---

Inactive_user_20171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Account was renamed citing security concerns but the editor is currently blocked and under a topic ban broadly related to the Iberian Peninsula. They are evading both the block and topic ban by continuing to edit as an IP. They linked the account to IP addresses by editing to remove their former name. I can provide a diff but wanted to avoid any accusations of outing.

Active IP:

2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:C945:CBF4:F41B:487F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:3527:a8e2:4390:c682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:2102:352c:2e22:760e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:955c:f325:272e:22a2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:f5c2:5530:2ef:16c2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:3d97:7b79:21cd:9d0c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:3427:8cb:2607:dc70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:b168:ab62:d1be:af8a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:9c58:4361:578a:3df4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think this list is complete, I'm aware of at least one of the IP accounts being blocked for vandalism. This personal attack [126] against Gaditano23 is typical of this editor. I'm wondering if a range block is required? WCM_email 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

PS I am prohibited by this user to post on their talk page, so if someone would do the ANI notice I would appreciate it. WCM_email 16:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: which talk page? In any case, WP:NOBAN does not apply to notices , etc., that are necessary for WP processes, like mandatory ANI reports. — fortunavelut luna 16:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. By the way, prohibition of posting on user's talk pages does not apply to required notices such as these, so you could've posted the notification yourself regardless. SkyWarrior 16:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I know I can post a message like this but if I were to do so the editor concerned will react in an extreme manner. I appreciate you doing that for me. WCM_email 17:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This is probably best handled at WP:SPI. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Compromised accounts

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

---

I have reasons to believe (off-wiki evidence, WP:BEANS) that these accounts are compromised:

• Zindhagee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• rre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Trololol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• pubserv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• editor900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please contact me via email if details are required. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: You've got mail - I think something similar was reported on IRC, but if you could confirm via email I will act on it immediately -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding that rre is not registered, and pubserv is not registered (redirect) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Email received and replied. - ☆ Bri (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by IP now at 4 reverts

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

---

• 82.32.154.144 (talk · contribs)

This IP is editing disruptively by continuing to reinsert unsourced material regarding the cast at Red Sparrow. I made a bold edit of removing the material, but the IP keeps adding it again ([127] [128] [129] [130]). They are now at 4 reverts and edit warring. They've been blocked for disruptive editing in the past. I ask that an admin please block. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I just blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit warring on the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, Callmemirela - Do be careful with edit warring and 3RR as well. I know it's easy to get sucked into reverting problematic edits in situations such as this, but definitely be careful ;-). Just remember that we're not supposed to engage in edit warring - it doesn't matter how "correct" your edits are. If it's over content and isn't an action that's listed as an exemption, it's considered a revert. No worries though; you're fine - just wanted to mention it to you as a friendly reminder to keep a look out for yourself is all. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

24.180.168.42 back at it

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

---

User:24.180.168.42, who on July 12 was blocked for 36 hours for persistent additions of unverified birth-date claims, almost immediately began again after the block ended. He has no interest in discussion, and his only comments to anyone have been this barrage of talk-page insults. I've reverted two such uncited birth- and death-date claims today —[131], [132] — but because he also goes into Wikipedia year articles to make the same unverified personal-life claims, his disruption, as his edit-history shows, is on dozens of pages. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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

69.47.136.111

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

---

• 69.47.136.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please block. Continued disruptive editing following expiration of block: [133] [134] Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It seemed like an WP:DISPUTE. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 Checking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Block has been re-applied and for one month. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

User harassment

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

I want that user Aaimran and his IP address 47.185.217.3 banned. That user has been harassing me from those accounts ever since I reverted his edits on Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and I don't want even say to him because he's trying to provoke me. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide evidence for your claims. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I had a quick look through the reported party's contributions and found this. The reported party might want to read WP:SPOILER. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you at ANI, Amauri ;P Anyways... I have put the article on my watchlist. I'll be on the look out for more violations about spoilers. As for the supposed harrasment, I wouldn't call 4 edits on a user's talk page (unless reverting in an edit war) harrasment. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown gave that user a warning and posted WP:SPOILER on his talk page, which he is clearly ignoring and is being hostel towards me for reverting his edits & harassing me. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, their "Lord" messages are odd, but I don't see the harrasment. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

He used his IP address 47.185.217.3 at me too. I must advise that he should not harass me from both his account and the IP address. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I also don't see what would constitute harassment by the reported user and the IP above. The talk page edits made by the user (other than this one) appear to be attempts to explain their rationale, albeit the rationale isn't a sufficient one. I believe that Dennis Brown did the proper thing already; he left a message on the user's talk page and provided the relevant guidelines so that they'll learn and understand. Sure, the talk page messages seem like this person was defending a person opinion or belief, but we should try and educate them regardless. If disruption continues, we'll at least know that we attempted to be cordial and message the user and such attempts were ignored. I think we should leave things at that for now, and keep an eye out. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur, although I'm always a bit concerned when editors justify their actions with the deity of their choice [135]. A lot of problems in the world are based on that same excuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but if we could figure out which edits God prefers, it would take a big load off Arbcom. EEng 13:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have the hierarchy slightly wrong there, EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC) ,

Well, maybe God is on ArbCom? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I recall deliberately not voting for him after that three day blocking in a tomb business. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was the same. I was concerned about the unconventional penalties he wanted to introduce for policy violations.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

His attitude at me and how he justifies his actions is not excusable in my opinion. I don't think he even read WP:SPOILERS clearly. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This does not exactly constitute harassment. I am not an admin, so my knowledge is pretty basic with stuff like this. As Oshwah and Dennis Brown have indicated, it's not what you claim. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A page hacked or what -- History of the Russian Orthodox Church

Dealt with. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 19:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church

First line in text: The Kievan Orthodox Church (Russian: pussian Православная Церковь)... Who wrote "pussian"?

Later in text: ...areas known as Kievan Rus that are now the states of Ukraine, Belarus, and mordor. Who wrote "mordor" for Russia?

And more: ...While Magog (pussia) lay under Mongol rule from the 13th (Genghis Khan's army entered Magog (pussia) in 1220s) through the 15th century, the Mordorian church enjoyed a favoured position...

(Magog are the race of man-eating beasts from SF TV-show Andromeda, here obviously used for Russians?)

The page should be revised, and better guarded against these attacks in future. Thanks in advance ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaPJ (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This is just some straightforward vandalism. Reverted. Nothing actionable yet, but I'll keep my eye on it. SkyWarrior 19:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

It just bothers me is all considering some of your past comments towards IPs and the like. Here is a recent example: [136]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't directed at an IP user, and the incident with another IP user was a long time ago, and it has already been resolved. Anyway, the focus isn't me, but User:AnimeDisneylover95. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

When you bring a report here the focus is on both parties involved. The closing admin is going to look at the conduct of both sides. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• No action - Sk8erPrince should be admonished for the pre-mature close of a discussion. Going forward this should be worked out via other venues such as Mediation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• No action per Knowledgekid97. —JJB^ers 01:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• No action per Knowledgekid87. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Imposing interaction ban with Sk8erPrince and User:AnimeDisneylover95

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Threat

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

---

User:Matthewtsweetman has made legal threats asking for publicly referenced material to be removed, see Talk:Jerome Lyle Rappaport NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 04:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely a legal threat, block clearly needed. EEng 04:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing by IP

• 68.234.100.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I have already tried to inform this user that original research is not acceptable in general, let alone when it is blatantly incorrect, after I noticed this unsourced, opiniated addition and this comment not directly related to improving the article. Today, they proceeded to add an even more ill-informed addition that was also unsourced. When I warned them again, they proceeded to make this obviously WP:POINTy edit. This has been going on for a while. I am requesting at least a formal warning by an admin, and ideally a block, since they clearly are not willing or able to follow our verifiability policy. At the least, I'm requesting help, as I am aware that discretionary sanctions are authorized for the subject of climate change.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The user is just blanking their talk page and not responding, and is apparently not here to collaboratively build an Internet encyclopedia. At a certain point it's just vandalism and should be reported accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Nikkypassa

This user it's vandaliser He created article: Nitin gupta [History] And he vandalise his article [Incident] And I deleted his bad things and [him] and [[137]] And I pretty sure he want start a Wikipedia:edit war He got 3 warnings he don't stop,please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Builder8360 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)