Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sashko1999 (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 16 February 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Iranian opposition articles

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

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

    POV pushing by Saff_V

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

    This is wikipedia and users can edit on any subject by observing rules. I just ask user:Ladsgroup more RS but he accused me to support Iranian politic.Interesting reason! I nominated Radio Farda as a disputed source and here it was proven I am right because of propagandistic mission.Saff V. (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see anyone agree with you that Radio Farda is a disputed source and as such should not be used, quite the opposite. How did the link you provide "prove" any of your points? MPJ-DK (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there is not any exact confirmation to using it because of propagandistic mission. Any way I did not remove any material sourced by Radio Farda in mentioned articles (Ali Nejati, Esmail Bakhshi and Sepideh Gholian) unless the radio Farda news did not cover the material. Saff V. (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In your own words not any exact confirmation - How does that lead to the conclusion it was proven I am right? If you mis-represent something that badly it's hard to have any faith in your interpretation of the other events. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to be a lot more critical of the way certain WP:RS/N users treat leftist state sources vs. American funded sources WRT propaganda vs news than most people on the board, but even I wouldn't suggest that brief discussion proved anything beyond that Radio Farda has been connected to propaganda in the past. Whether they can be a reliable source in context doesn't appear to have been exhaustively discussed in that thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I remove the AfD labels he has put on Sepideh Gholian and Ali Nejati articles yet? How much longer are you humoring this guy? Fredrick eagles (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No the AfD's should run their courses. If the nominations are baseless, the community will pint that out. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Both closed as "keep" User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

    * Neutral Yes, the POV is difficult to work through, but at least there has been a Talk page discussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note:This is the first edit by Nikoo.Amini in ANI. Just like, Alex-h and Poya-P. All of them are Fa wiki users and I have never dealt with them or talked to them. I had no conflicts with them in any of the articles.Saff V. (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Saff_V nominated some of my article about Iranian political prisoners like Ali Nejati for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoo.Amini (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blanket removals by user:Pahlevun

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

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

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

    Yeah it's starting to ridiculous now. Even when this user is "expanding" articles, he stealthily removes/changes information that clashes with his POV. There has generally been a lot of political pov-pushing going on in articles of peoples/groups/protests that criticize/oppose the clerical rule in Iran, a country with poor human rights, where people aren't allowed to criticize the regime cough cough. See a pattern here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia should not be used in this way. This seems to be a coordinated POV effort by these users against political oppositions to the Iranian clerical rule. This needs admin attention.Poya-P (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; At best, I can say that Pahlevun is a bit too solistic. At worst, Pahlevun is transforming articles into attack-pages, which is frustrating to see. Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Response by Pahlevun

    Sometimes everything is not what it seems. I want Drmies and others making decisions on this, to kindly take the time to read the following thorouly:

    It really hurts to read something like "disruptive editing" about your work, when you are here to build an encyclopedia. Contributed to Wikipedia since 2012, I made more than 21,000 edits and created more than 600 articles during these years. I am fully aware of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines, and I pledge that I am complying and here to uphold Wikipedia's values, however, that does not mean that I make no mistakes. So, I encourage everyone to assume good faith about my edits.

    Explaining my edits on the article 'People's Mujahedin of Iran'

    I was sort of bold to restore the content, but now that User:Stefka Bulgaria has reverted all my edits, it would be more evident that which content I was exactly restoring in the article People's Mujahedin of Iran. I want you to precisely look at the edits, for example:

    • In the |ideology= parameter of Infobox political party, all the content was removed, while it was supported by these reliable sources:
    • Mehrzad Boroujerdi (1996). Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-0433-4.
    • Fred Reinhard Dallmayr (1999). Border Crossings: Toward a Comparative Political Theory. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-0043-1.
    • Bashiriyeh, Hossein. The State and Revolution in Iran (RLE Iran D). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-136-82089-2.

    Is it disruptive to restore these well-sourced content removed from the article?

    • In the Infobox war faction, in front of |leaders= parameter, a strange typographical error occurs that creates a malfunction leading to hiding sourced content, without removing it (See how this minor correction makes a difference on the content sown). Is it a coincidence? Considering the fact that confirmed sockpuppets were determined to remove the same content, makes me suspicious. (See Saleh Hamedi, Carpe765 and NickRovinsky for example). Note that Iran hostage crisis is also being removed from the list while it was also supported by reliable sources (Mark Edmond Clark (2016), "An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujaheddin-e-Khalid", in David Gold (ed.), Microeconomics, Routledge, pp. 66–67, ISBN 1317045904, Following the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, the MEEK participated physically at the site by assisting in defending it from attack. The MEK also offered strong political support for the hostage-taking action.) Is it a coincidence that confirmed sockpuppets also wanted to remove this (links are available in case requested)? I restored the content and I'm sure it was constructive.
    • A whole table sourced by a book published by an academic press (Masoud Banisadr (2016). "The Metamorphosis of MEK (Mujahedin e Khalq)". In Eileen Barker (ed.). Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements. Routledge. ISBN 1-317-06361-9.) is totally removed and I restored it. I do consider it a constructive edit.
    • The fact that the government of Japan designated the MEK as a terrorist organization and froze its assets was removed from the article and I restored it (Japanese foreign ministry). Is it disruptive?
    • The sentence discussing that the MEK tried to assassinate US President Richard Nixon in his trip to Iran was completely removed while it was backed by a a book published by an academic press (Gibson, Bryan R. (2016), Sold Out? US Foreign Policy, Iraq, the Kurds, and the Cold War, Facts on File Crime Library, Springer, p. 136, ISBN 9781137517159). I restored it, do you consider it disruptive?
    • Just take a look at the names of the following sections and the changes that was made:
    Original name Altered name Notes
    Anti-American campaign Totally removed The section is supported by multiple reliable sources and plays an important role in the group's history. Maybe it was removed to blend into irrelevant content?
    Fraud and money laundering Alleged fund raising Is really being prosecuted for these two financial crimes in at least five Western countries an "Alleged fund raising"? What about those huge amount of reliable sources saying so?
    Armed conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988) Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988) The word "Armed" was removed. Why?
    1998 FIFA World sabotage plan 1998 FIFA World political banner plan → Totally removed It is one of the most famous operations that the MEK has planned and documentaries have been made on the event. Why it was removed and was blend with irrelevant text?
    Forgery Totally removed The section was supported by multiple reliable sources and is now removed. Look at the first sentence that is not in the article now:

    An annual report by California Department of Justice in 2004, asserts that "[m]embers of the MEK were arrested for operating a Los Angeles-based immigration and visa fraud ring, which enabled members of the group to enter the United States illegally... By using forged documents and fictitious stories of political persecution, the ring was able to assist hundreds of individuals entering the United States." (Source: Patrick N. Lunney, Rick Oules, Wilfredo Cid, Ed Manavian, Allen Benitez (2004), Bill Lockyer (ed.), "Organized Crime in California: Annual Report to the California Legislature" (PDF), California Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement, Criminal Intelligence Bureau, pp. 23–24{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link))

    Scholarly views Allegations of Indoctrination The section was modeled after Hezbollah#Scholarly_views (an article rated good). Why it was wholly removed, while it contained a list of scholars that worked on the subject and it was supported by reliable sources?

    Was restoring back these sections disruptive?

    • Whole section entitled "Propaganda campaign" is now reduced to a paragraph. Look at some of the sources removed:

    I restored the well-sourced content removed from the section and I think it was constructive. What is very interesting, is the fact that technically-proved sockpuppets were also very sensitive to the section and determined to remove it from the beginning. For example: Citieslife, NickRovinsky, London Hall.

    Last words

    For my contributions on the article discussed above, I have been blatantly attacked and harassed by users who are proved to be coordinated sockpuppets/meatpuppets here to purge this article (links available in case required). One of the reasons that I became interested in the subject and improving this article was the sense that I am safeguarding Wikipedia from those who want to manipulate it and use it as a means to advocate an organization.

    I believe that block, topic ban, or any other restriction on my account would be unfair. If if you maintain that my edits were "disruptive", I think that would be unnecessary to enforce any restrictions on me, I'll tell you why. I saw some user has argued that I should punished because I made edits after I "returned from a short wiki-break". It is not clear, even to myself, that how much I can continue my contributions because of the hardships that I'm facing since a few months ago. So, there's possibly nothing to prevent.

    Best Regards, Pahlevun (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed, 26 Sep 2018 removed the Japanese alleged terrorist designation since": "Primary source - freezing of assets of "terrorists and the like" from 2002. Unlcear this was a terrorist designation in 2002 - and even less clear this is in force today. Notably, the Japanese wiki doesn't seem to think they've been designated by Japan."). We discussed formatting on the talk page afterwards, though not the removal which hsd a rather clear reason. And yes - I consider resotration of rather dubious info (also for 2002, moreso for present day) without discussion or even an edit summary - highly disruptive - I am not sure of the 2002 status (seems to be a financial designation) - but saying Japan currently (2019) designates MEK as terrorist seems to be in WP:HOAX turf.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewhiz, I'm not seeing hoax in that edit. I mean, it's true that citation doesn't support the statement that MEK was currently designated as a terrorist organization by Japan, but the citation does support the statement that it was so designated in 2002. I would have copyedited rather than reverted, but either way, I don't see how that edit is violation of policy or otherwise suggests the editor should be TBANed? Leviv ich 14:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: Is Japan 1 of 3 countries (Iran, Iraq, Japan) currently designating MEK as terrorist? If not it is a HOAX - very simple. Prior to removing it I tried looking for any reasonable non-wikiclone saying this - did not find any (MEK was delisted by most countries since 2003). I also failed to find a secondary source discussing this - and it is unclear to me if the mofa announcement is just for money laundering (financial transactions) or a stronger domestic designation. Pahlevun above justifying reinserting what looks to be a hoax - only has me more convinced of the problem here. The MEK article has been edited and heavily discussed (including a few RFCs) since September - it appears Pahlevun took some old version (pre September) and reinstated text that was changed and discussed (e.g. removed for failing WP:V) - removed with a clear rationale - reinstated willy-nilly without even a reason. Pahlevun is not even acknowledging inserting what appears to be a hoax is a problem - he is justifying it above! WP:IDHT.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Propaganda - WP:BLP vio and editing against previous discussion - Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 5#Hamilton and Rendell. Pahlevun restored a rather bad BLP violation (stating in our voice American BLPs were paid by MEK to support MEK - a possibly criminal charge (designated terror organization at the time) - and not quite what the sources say). This was discussed on the talk page at length. Introducing a libelous BLP vio is disruptive - doing so after a prior discussion on the issue - is disruptive. Justifying it here (and not saying - "sorry, I was wrong") - means such disruptive behavior is likely to continue.Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be specific in this diff which names several BLPs, Pahlevun restored libel unsupported by the cited source (and the specific langauge here is important - paid to give a speech by an Iranian-American group vs. paid by MEK to support MEK (a designated terrorist org at the time) - and previously removed and discussed in the article talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page consensus you linked to you is you and one other editor working out an issue about one passage four months ago. Easy for an editor to miss that. I agree with you completely that this one passage is complicated, and it needs very precise wording to maintain accuracy to the source and neutrality. But to me this means it's the kind of passage that any of us could draft or edit in a less-than-ideal way; it's not clear black-and-white what is neutral and what is not neutral when talking about those payments and who made them, so AGF leads me to believe it's an innocent mistake. A "hoax" is a deliberate attempt to introduce completely false information; a POV error isn't the same thing as a hoax in my mind. Please see my further comment on this below to Stefka's analysis. Leviv ich 20:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Overview of Pahlevun's blanket edits

    Trying not to overwhelm this report, so I'll focus on a single blanket edit (of several brought to this report) done by Pahlevun. With this edit alone, Pahlevun removed all of the following information without discussion from the People's Mujahedin of Iran article:

    • In May 11, 1976, the Washington Post reported that in January of that year, “nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh stated that he personally killed col. Lewis Lee Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner.” (p.A9) In November 16, 1976, a UPI story reported that the Tehran police had killed Bahram Aram, the person responsible for the killings of three Americans working for Rockwell International.[1] Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK.[2] Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK.[3]
    • In 1982, the Islamic Republic cracked down MEK operations within Iran. This pre-emptive measure on the part of the regime provoked the MEK into escalating its paramilitary programs as a form of opposition.[4] By June 1982, Iraqi forces had ceased military occupation of Iranian territories. Massoud Rajavi stated that "there was no longer any reason to continue the war and called for an immediate truce, launching a campaign for peace inside and outside of Iran."[5]
    • According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih."[6][7]>
    • In January 1983, then Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz and Massoud Rajavi signed a peace communique that co-outlined a peace plan "based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Agreement." According to James Piazza, this peace initiative became the NCRI´s first diplomatic act as a "true government in exile."[8][9] During the meeting, Rajavi claimed that the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had been "the only person calling for the continuation of the [Iran-Iraq] war."[10]
    • The foundation of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and the MEK´s participation in it allowed Rajavi to assume the position of chairman of the resistance to the Islamic Republic. Because other opposition groups were banned from legal political process and forced underground, the MEK´s coalition build among these movements allowed for the construction of a legitimate opposition to the Islamic Republic.[11]
    • A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa. Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views. On July 28, Iran’s Supreme Leader Rouhollah Khomeini, “used the armed incursion as a pretext to issue a secret fatwa” ordering the execution of all prisoners that were supportive of the MEK. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition. The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants. [12][13] The Amnesty report has itself been criticized for whitewashing the MEK's violent past and its alliance with Saddam Hussein. It also failed to mention that thousands of MEK members were killed during Operation Mersad and not in prison. [14]
    • In 2016, an audio recording was posted online of a high-level official meeting that took place in August 1988 between Hossein Ali Montazeri and the officials responsible for the mass killings in Tehran. In the recording, Hossein Ali Montazeri is heard saying that the ministry of intelligence used the MEK’s armed incursion as a pretext to carry out the mass killings, which “had been under consideration for several years.” Iranian authorities have dismissed the incident as “nothing but propaganda”, presenting the executions as a lawful response to a small group of incarcerated individuals who had colluded with the MEK to support its July 25 1988 incursion. According to Amnesty International, this narrative fails to “explain how thousands of prisoners from across the country could have communicated and co-ordinated from inside Iran’s high-security prisons with an armed group outside the country.”[12][15]
    • SAVAK had severely shattered MeK’s organizational structure, and the surviving leadership and key members of the organization were kept in prisons until three weeks before the revolution, at which time political prisoners were released.[16]
    • Some surviving members restructured the group by replacing the central cadre with a three-man central committee. Each of the three central committee members led a separate branch of the organization with their cells independently storing their own weapons and recruiting new members.[17] Two of the original central committee members were replaced in 1972 and 1973, and the replacing members were in charge of leading the organization until the internal purge of 1975.[18]
    • By August 1971, the MEK’s Central Committee included Reza Rezai, Kazem Zolanvar, and Brahram Aram. Up until the death of the then leader of the MEK in June 1973, Reza Rezai, there was no doubt about the group’s Islamic identity.[19]
    • Although the Muslim MEK had rejected recruiting Marxists, the death and imprisonment of its leaders from 1971 to 1973 led to the inclusion of Marxist members to its Central Committee. In 1972, Zolanvar’s arrest led to the inclusion of Majid Sharif Vaquefi; and in 1973, Taqi Sahram replaced Rezai after his death. Reforms within the group started at this time, with Taghi Shahram, Hossein Rohani, and Torab Haqshenas playing key roles in creating the Marxist-Leninist MEK that would later become Peykar. By early 1972, Shah security forces had shattered the MEK, with most members being executed, killed, or imprisoned. The organization’s leader, Massoud Rajavi, was also held in prison until January 1979.[20]
    • By 1973, the members of the Marxist-Leninist MEK launched an “internal ideological struggle”. Members that did not convert to Marxism were expelled or reported to SAVAK.[21] This new group adopted a Marxist, more secular and extremist identity. These members appropriated the MEK name, and in a book entitled Manifesto on Ideological Issues, the central leadership declared "that after ten years of secret existence, four years of armed struggle, and two years of intense ideological rethinking, they had reached the conclusion that Marxism, not Islam, was the true revolutionary philosophy."[22]
    • This led to two rival Mujahedin, each with its own publication, its own organization, and its own activities.[23] The new group was known initially as the Mujahedin M.L. (Marxist-Lenninist). A few months before the Iranian Revolution the majority of the Marxist Mujahedin renamed themselves "Peykar" (Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class) on 7 December 1978 (16 Azar, 1357). This name derived from the "League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class", which was a left-wing group in Saint Petersburg, founded by Vladimir Lenin in the autumn of 1895.[24] Later during the Iranian revolution, Peykar merged with some Maoist groups[which?].[25] From 1973 to 1979, the Muslim MEK survived partly in the provinces but mainly in prisons, particularly Qasr Prison where Massoud Rajavi was held.[26]
    • In 2005, the Department of State also attributed the assasinations of Americans in Iran to Peykar. The Country Reports issued on April 2006 stated that "A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah´s US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution". According to Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., Massoud Rajavi and the MEK under his leadership "had no involvement in the killings of Americans in Iran."[27] Other analysts support this, including director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Patrick Clawson, claiming that "Rajavi, upon release from prison during the revolution, had to rebuild the organization, which had been badly battered by the Peykar experience."[28][29]
    • The MEK also blames a Marxist splinter Peykar for these Americans killed in Iran. While in prison, after learning of these events, Massoud Rajavi wrote a book referring to Peykar as "pseudo-leftists opportunists" whose military operations had killed US citizens in a bid to "challenge" and outmaneuver the "genuine" MEK.[30]
    • In 1981, a mass execution of political prisoners was carried out by the Islamic Republic, and the MEK fled splitting into four groups. One of the groups went underground remaining in Iran, the second group left to Kurdistan, the third group left to other countries abroad, and the remaining member were arrested, imprisoned or executed. Thereafter, the MEK took armed opposition against Khomeini's Islamic Republic.[31]
    • Khomeini's government identified secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and active member of the Mujahedin, Massoud Keshmiri, as the perpetrator.[32] although there has been much speculation among academics and observers that the bombings may have been carried out by IRP leaders to rid themselves of political rivals.[33]
    • In 1981, Massoud Rajavi issued a statement shortly after it went into exile. This statement, according to James Piazza, identified the MEK not as a rival for power but rather a vanguard of popular struggle:[8] "Our struggle against Khomeini is not the conflict between two vengeful tribes. It is the struggle of a revolutionary organisation against a totalitarian regime... This struggle, as I said, is the conflict for liberating a people; for informing and mobilizing a people in order to overthrow the usurping reaction and to build its own glorious future with its own hands".

    Make of it what you will. To me, the removal of this text alone without any discussion constitutes disruptive editing. Considering that there is an ongoing misinformation campaign by the Iran clerical rule against the MEK, I find this level of POV pushing to be an issue. Pahlevun was also warned to stop their blanket removal of text, but they continued. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Then you did the same disruptive editing here where, despite what you claimed to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, you mass removed some sections without discussing them with others. You did this, despite the objections and warnings. --Mhhossein talk 18:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: I guess you missed Alex-h's reply to you about this in the discussion below? In case you did, here it is: "Yes, about that one, I repeat, there was an ongoing discussion here and here, where myself, Saff V., Stefka, and Icewhiz were participating and contributing. You blanket reverted all of these contributions saying the edits were not being discussed, but they were." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    References

    References

    1. ^ Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 17. ISBN 978-0615783840.
    2. ^ The Shah of Iran, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Lebanese Shia. Palgrave Macmillan. 2018. p. 8. ASIN B07FBB6L8Y. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
    3. ^ "Chapter 6 -- Terrorist Organizations". www.state.gov. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
    4. ^ Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 9–43. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
    5. ^ Manshour Varasteh (2013). Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine. Troubador Publishers. p. 88. ISBN 978-1780885575.
    6. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 208. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3.
    7. ^ Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 14. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
    8. ^ a b Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 9–43. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
    9. ^ Varasteh, Manshour (2013-06-01). Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine. ISBN 9781780885575.
    10. ^ Times, Special to the New York (1983-01-10). "IRAQI VISITS IRANIAN LEFTIST IN PARIS". The New York Times.
    11. ^ Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 13–14. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
    12. ^ a b "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Retrieved December 14, 2018.
    13. ^ "Iran: Top government officials distorted the truth about 1988 prison massacres". Retrieved December 14, 2018.
    14. ^ Amnesty Int's lies about mass executions in Iran in 1988, UK: Scribd
    15. ^ "Iran: Top government officials distorted the truth about 1988 prison massacres". Retrieved December 14, 2018.
    16. ^ The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan. 2008. p. 8. ISBN 978-0230601284. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
    17. ^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 136.
    18. ^ Ḥaqšenās, Torāb (27 October 2011) [15 December 1992]. "COMMUNISM iii. In Persia after 1953". In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.). Encyclopædia Iranica. Fasc. 1. Vol. VI. New York City: Bibliotheca Persica Press. pp. 105–112. Retrieved 12 September 2016.
    19. ^ Vahabzadeh, Peyman (2010). Guerrilla Odyssey: Modernization, Secularism, Democracy, and the Fadai Period of National Liberation In Iran, 1971–1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 167–169.
    20. ^ Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. pp. 15–16. ISBN 978-0615783840.
    21. ^ Vahabzadeh, Peyman (2010). Guerrilla Odyssey: Modernization, Secularism, Democracy, and the Fadai Period of National Liberation In Iran, 1971–1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 167–169.
    22. ^ Abrahamian 1982, p. 493.
    23. ^ Abrahamian 1982, pp. 493–4.
    24. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions, University of California Press (1999), p. 151
    25. ^ Abrahamian 1989, p. 144-145. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFAbrahamian1989 (help)
    26. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 152. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3.
    27. ^ Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 19. ISBN 978-0615783840.
    28. ^ Pike, John. "Mujahedin-e Khalq". CFR. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
    29. ^ The Mystery of Contemporary Iran. Transaction Publishers. 2014. ISBN 9781351479134. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
    30. ^ Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 18–9. ISBN 978-0615783840.
    31. ^ Bernard, Cheryl (2015). Breaking the Stalemate: The Case for Engaging the Iranian Opposition. Basic Books. p. 109. ISBN 978-0692399378. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
    32. ^ Michael Newton (2014). "Bahonar, Mohammad-Javad (1933–1981)". Famous Assassinations in World History: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-61069-286-1. Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished. Various mujahedin were arrested and executed in reprisal, but Kashmiri apparently slipped through the dragnet.
    33. ^ Kenneth Katzman (2001). "Iran: The organization of Iran". In Albert V. Benliot (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova Science Publishers. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-56072-954-9.
    This is the second time you're canvassing Jeff5102. Be careful about it. --Mhhossein talk 14:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, though would limit to geopolitics (or some more limited scope than all of Iranian topics sans football). I have opposed all other proposed sanctions against other users in this section (three of four) - as while they have their faults (as all humans do), they have been trying to edit collaboratively. The situation with Pahlevun is different. Pahlevun, it seems, returned from a short wiki-break and went a bit of a blanket-revert spree. No edit summaries. No discussion. And this on articles, in which there have been ongoing discussions on part of these disputes for months (and in some cases - in which consensus was reached after a rather rough and long consensus forming process). To add insult to injury, his answer (or rather non-answer followed by no-answer) to @Drmies: indicates that Pahlevun doesn't realize that they don't understand that this behavior is disruptive - and suggests that they will continue with this disruption. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per Icewhiz Ladsgroupoverleg 15:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I know Pahlevun for about 2 years and I sometimes had conflict with him (for example: 1, 2 and 3); but he is one of the best users in articles refers to Iran. I wondered about Pahlevun's TBAN Proposal for editing articles about Iran!! Benyamin-ln (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If TopicBan is true for Pahlevun who have tried to edit a vast number of articles by using RS and representing logical reason, respecting to discussing , also it should be done for Stefka Bulgaria, consider that most of his edits are related to MEK or it's member, between 10 top articles and main edits, 6 of 10 is awesome!After getting the report his strategy changed.Saff V. (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support For blanket reverting spree without discussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, I'm opposing though Pahlevun had reverted some of my edits. I think the user is accurate and open to discussion. I don't think there should be a ban, or something like this. --Mhhossein talk 05:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding Mhhossein (talk · contribs) to this discussion

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

    • Er, no. 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot seems the best name for this article - out of the two that are being edit-warred over - as whilst it is undisputable that it was an assassination plot, the article uses the word "allegedly" throughout on whether the Iranian leadership were involved. There's an "Alleged responsibility" section. Nowhere does the article state as a fact that the plot was orchestrated by Iran, because as the US Govt admitted, they can't prove that it was. It probably does need to go to RM, but mainly because both of the titles that are being edit-warred over are unsatisfactory. Why is it not simply called Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot, and then both of those could redirect to it? Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: Yes, “alleged” may be a better way of describing it considering the points made. I don’t think all edits made by these editors are questionable, but they do seem to have an agenda that makes it very difficult to aim for neutrality on these articles concerning political oppositions to the Iran clerical rule.
    For instance, Mhhossein has pushed to have the following inserted on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article (one of the main opposition groups to the Iran clerical rule):
    1. "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)
    2. "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by this group)
    3. "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government."[1] (no RS found confirming that this group is involved in the Syria conflict)
    On the same article, Pahlevun has recently blanket reverted month's of TP discussions, ignoring consensus and RfCs:
    Is it just me, or is this disruptive to say the least? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Putting this here as well, this is defo worth mentioning; Mhhossein, didn't you support [23] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [24]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - yes, there is POV pushing. Yes, some of the behavior is concerning. And yes - some of the past complaints by Mhhossein to AN/I were baseless. However, Mhhossein has also been attempting to discuss and his behavior has not risen to the level we should impose a harsh ban for. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) Organization fights in Syria, 19 August 2013, retrieved 15 September 2016


    What's happening here is similar to what happened on the DBigXray below: "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". If Mhhossein can't discuss controversial topics in a civil way, then he should stay away from controversial articles instead of casting aspersions or reporting those that don't agree with him.Alex-h (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support For the way he has handled himself in this ANI report, including making baseless libelous accusations and constant "I don't want to hear it". I don't know if a Tban has formerly been proposed here, but this is what I would support based on his disruptive POV (evident in this report alone). Alex-h (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to see WP:ASPERSION because this is what you are doing here.Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria

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

    • Despite my warnings, He's been by hounding me and trying to confront me (see this one for example). Notably, he even hounded me to my RFA in Wikimedia Commons!!! and tried to inhibit my admin nomination. The admins questioned Stefka Bulgaria's act, since it was really questionable/dubious (see [25], [26] and [27]).
    • He's been harassing me by the repeated mentioning ([28], [29], [30]) of my ANI participations, regardless of the outcome of those ANI reports.
    @Mhhossein:, I didn't propose the TBAN above, someone else did, I just reported what's been happening.
    Your Boomerang proposal, however, is hardly a surprise to me; both you and the other reported user:Saff V. have been falsely reporting me for a while now ([36][37],[38], [39], etc. ), a collaborative effort that also used to involve user:Expectant of Light, who was blocked last year for being a sockpuppet and "Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East." Also, worth noting that both you and Saff V. have edited over 300 pages together, see a pattern?
    Beyond the already mentioned, your POV edits have also included claims that Black people in a picture were "MEK Rent a Crowd", a claim based on your own conclusions, which some would argue is trying to turn Wiki articles into attack articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#%22Non-Iranian_rent-a-crowd%22_image
    You have also made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[40] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[41] for my inclusion of a quote from RS, which, unless I'm mistaken, is not how we should handle ourselves on Wikipedia per WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.
    I believe your POV pushing is disruptive, the way you deal with controversial topics has been uncivil, and think this is also evident by your numerous previous ANI incidents: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]) Having said that, I'll stop monitoring your edits now that I've reported this here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your global hounding is never acceptable. Btw, You're using "POV pushing" against me although you're warned/advised not to attack others. I suggest you stop digging your self deeper by bludgeoning the process. Wait for the admins comments, instead. --Mhhossein talk 10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: This is definitely not the whole picture that is being painted. Stefka is a good user that tries to do his best in articles that are constantly being ruined due to POV-pushing. Also, Mhhossein, didn't you support [57] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [58]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Stefka Bulgaria's edits speak for themselves. If you have issues regarding Commons, take them to my Commons talk page or, as you did, talk to other admins. Here, we're talking about Stefka Bulgaria's misconducts including personal attacks, hounding and harassment. --Mhhossein talk 17:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they do indeed, which is why I'm opposing. Also dodging my comment is not gonna work. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, a good editor is the one who hounds you globally and ...? come on! --Mhhossein talk 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: What is it proven by this contribution as well as it have been seen some anti Iran subject in contribution of Icewhiz and Stefka Bulgaria, while Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written ‘’collaboratively’’ by the people who use it. Consider People's Mujahedin of Iran and review TP (as an instance) , most of discussion were began by me or Mhhosein or all of our edit (affixing facts) were supported by RS. Which of them is the sign of POV? Do you believe in pov issue if users follow exact subject?Saff V. (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Saff supporting this, who would have thought. Also, you might wanna ping @Icewhiz: when you make such accusations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Much of this complaint is meritless rehashing of old complaints to AN/I that closed as no action. Stefka has been discussing the content disputes in a clear and level headed manner (most of the time) on the relevant talk pages.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewhiz: So you endorse his global hounding and repeated personal attacks? Also, the problem is exactly Stefka Bulgaria's mentioning of those "old complaints to AN/I that closed as no action". Up to when should this harassment continue? --Mhhossein talk 05:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do not endorse behavior on either side - note my oppose above to Stefka's proposal. How about we focus on reaching agreement on content (something there has been some progress on) - as opposed to an ANI discussìon?Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is not a content dispute and I'm talking about a repeated behavioral issue which need to stop somewhere. That said, I'll address content disputes on the article talk pages, but not here. --Mhhossein talk 08:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing, you opposed because you believed "Stefka has been discussing the content disputes in a clear and level headed manner". What does it have to do with my Boomerang proposal focusing on Stefka Bulgaria's hounding, harassment and personal attacks? I suggest you disambiguate your defending comment or others get the impression that you were endorsing his repeated use of "POV pushing" against others and his harassment. --Mhhossein talk 08:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of the enwiki stuff seems to be mutual interest in Iranian articles. The comments at the commons RFA, on the other hand, I agree were ill-advised. However (at least on enwiki) - RfA is an open process for comment - and often partisan rivals will show up (and, as happend here, are often shouted down as partisan commentary).Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did provide diffs for my claims of POV pushing. If I may add CaroleHenson's reply to Expectant of Light during their report (and block) for disruptive editing concerning certain political topics: "We have been trying to move through the dispute resolution process, but you and Mhhoissen have been fighting it each step of the way without providing evidence to support your personal opinions... and you both have tried to discount the view or votes of others." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is nothing in this diffs that support any kind of sanction --Shrike (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Wikihounding around Wikipedia and even on Commons speaks a lot. Removing content by adding a misleading edit summary on People's Mujahedin of Iran further shows that the editor is editing with a WP:BATTLE ground mentality. Kraose (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Stefka's edit summary is fairly accurate - he reverted Pahlevun's edit chain (which AFAICT contained many edits that were against talk page consensus).Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I've pointed to some of those, let's say, misleading edit summaries on the article talk page. However, this one is a clear and fresh example, where, despite what he claims to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, he's mass removing some sections without discussing them with others. I can provide more examples at the request of the admins. That said, Stefka Bulgaria's behavioral issues should be considered along with his editing pattern. --Mhhossein talk 18:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhhossein, I suppose you mean this and this discussion, and this undiscussed blanket revert by you which ignored my, Saff V.'s, and Stefka's contributions, before you requesting the page to be protected and accusing me of being involved even though I had only edited the article once. The edits were being discussed, and you blanked reverted them. If anything, your edit summary was misleading, and Stefka restored the article to the point of Talk page disucussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mean this one where, despite what he claims to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, he's mass removing some sections without discussing them with others. No, there was no consensus over the mass removals by Stefka Bulgaria he needs to get warnings for blanket removals. You were/are truly involved. Let's not dig it deeper. --Mhhossein talk 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, about that one, I repeat, there was an ongoing discussion here and here, where myself, Saff V., Stefka, and Icewhiz were participating and contributing. You blanket reverted all of these contributions saying the edits were not being discussed, but they were. You keep accusing me of being "truly involved" (whatever that means), please do "dig it deeper", otherwise you're casting aspersions.Alex-h (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No content dispute but actionable behavioral issues. He already promised not monitor me and you say no violation! If you say no violation, it does not mean there was no violation, since those hounding and harassment diffs I provided are clear enough. --Mhhossein talk 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What's clear enough is that you have a POV and seem to report those who disagree with it, and seem to be fine with disruption as long as it supports your POV.Alex-h (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that "interesting!!!"? Unlike what you have proposed, I have been active on English WP for a while now. Is this the reason you've accused me of being "truly involved" here? For a year or so I worked in Fa wiki as eliminator . In the course of these activities I have often referred to Wikipedia English including Administrators’ Noticeboard. Poya-P (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Admns: This is a clear example that Mhhossein tries to Open a deviant subject to escape answering for his POV and to make the above less important. What is so interesting with working in two wikis? My main activities are in WP- English and I don’t see anything wrong with working in fa wiki as well. Could you please make sure Mhhossein stops harassing me and stops WP:Libel?It’s the second time. Alex-h (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's dubious that your first edit in ANI was editing against me in a topic which had nothing to do with you! It's dubious that you're doing your best to transform my report against Stefka Bulgaria's well documented behavioral issues into a completely different scenario. You may want to tell us how you appeared here. You've already opened a topic against me, as your first edits in ANI, and saw the result. So, this is you who is Harassing me by hounding me. You can have this message as warning against harassing and hounding me. --Mhhossein talk 18:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With all the baseless libellous accusations you've made here, I think it's time someone placed a Boomerang on your Boomerang. Alex-h (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a response to Mhhossein's admin note (which Saff V. removed, while leaving Mhhossein's note)Alex-h (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex-h ,This is the first time you're editing ANI, where you are not called, pinged and is not related to you. You're making too many comments in a discussion which is not related to you. To be frank, it raised questions for me, too. Every one with some years of editing in WP will have such a question? What you're seeking here? Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Too much evidence to ignore. I don't understand why there was a need to wikihound at commons. Shashank5988 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Icewhiz and others. This seems like a largely retaliatory proposal here by an editor who's upset their own behavior has suddenly been put under scrutiny. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: There are evidences of harassment. Links show that Stefka Bulgaria has used the administrator's noticeboard links against the user many times to discredit him and hounded him even to commons. I think it is not good and constructive to accuse others of 'POV pushing' such many times. Going after the user and harassing him is even worse. The user should stop this behavior.M1nhm (talk)
    • Support Wikihounding+improper edits are evident enough for me to say that this behavior is not constructive. desmay (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sashko1999

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

    Summary

    Report by Argean

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

    Report by DIYeditor

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

    Sanction history

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

    Diffs

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

    Submitted

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

    Sanction proposals

    Some possibilities:

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

    Survey

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

    @Sashko1999: No explanation of ignoring MINOR, INDENT and ANI notices for so long, without saying anything or asking for clarification? In addition to ignoring those, is I call and the rest who didn't join until now, to join, to discuss and to vote your justification for WP:CANVASSing people you thought would agree with you and asking them to support your position, rather than explain that you understand you are not allowed to do what you did? (I repeat the same below because I have grown accustomed to having to repeat myself many times with this user.) —DIYeditor (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe i made some mistakes, but in the case of the informing other people, I just wanted to join more of them in the discussion, and I texted to those because I saw them discussing about it on the page about one article and I saw that they pretty much understand these things. Btw, I didn't knew that isn't allowed. Here I already invited to join all who didn't until now, doesn't matter did they agree or not with me, it matter to discuss and to resolve the problem. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

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

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

    Hi DIYeditor. Sorry that I didn't make it very clear. I noticed it when I checked the user's global contributions. I have no idea if the user speaks all these languages, but all the edits are in articles related to Bulgarians and by checking quickly some of the edits it seems that the user is changing some of the terms (I have no idea why). Clearly looks like the user is involved in a mission or something in wikipedia and this involves Bulgarians and especially their relation to Macedonians. Argean (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Was not aware of the malice intent of the editor.....though we were just dealing with someone that needed some guidance. Clear that this editor has lost any credibility with the community.--Moxy (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I would support banning this user "just" for being here three and a half years and still refusing to indent their talk page contributions, but it's clear that the issues here go much, much deeper than that. Snow let's rap 09:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    • Editor's recent contribs show they have stopped marking all their edits minor and have started to indent. Progress. The PA diffs don't seem very serious to me. A lot of the diffs posted in the report are 1–2 years old. Any recent diffs of problems? Leviv ich 02:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This clown has wasted enough of my time already personally. If you find it acceptable that they ignored like 20 directions (with link) to indent (without even saying anything about it?) and aren't coming here to explain why that was, after 3 (at least) links to ANI indicating that there is a discussion about them, then I hope you are the one who has to deal with this person in the future. And no they are still marking non-minor edits to articles as minor. This (etc) is not listed on WP:MINOR as a minor edit. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        True, that is not a minor edit. But it is a correct edit. Leviv ich 03:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        What's going to stop them from continuing to obstinately ignore policy links and other advice, and continuing to make sweeping potentially contentious changes to whole classes of articles in fits of conviction that everyone else is wrong? Being BOLD is one thing but the user had already been instructed by an admin to use the talk page if ever reverted (among other warnings), and their first response to the changes being reverted was to change it right back. If this is a good faith editor who just happens to have an interest in some nationalist-related issues, it is a very difficult one who does not seem to want to play by the rules without teeth being pulled. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I think this ANI report made a difference, judging by their recent contribs. And judging by the ongoing discussions here and here, the editor isn't alone in their view on the underlying content disputes. There was a serious problem leading up to this report, but it may have subsided, and I'm always in favor of alternatives to indef'ing opponents in a content dispute. Leviv ich 05:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue with the discussions is great, if he is no longer beating the horse, though the couple i checked yesterday seemed to be rehashing the same arguments. I am more concerned with his mainspace edits, which are still questionable or outright wrong. Though i lent my support to an indef above, that is a strong and potentially heavy-handed response; the best outcome would be if he responds to community concerns, and i'm not certain yet that is happening. I hope to be proven incorrect. Happy days, LindsayHello 07:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly, arguing on the talk pages is one thing, although the user hasn't improved their communication skills and is merely repeating over and over the same thing rather than engaging in discussion [103], [104], but disrupting the main articles to make a point and failing to see what is the problem with that is very concerning for me. The slowly disruptive edits at Danes (most still marked as WP:MINOR), just in the last couple of days [105], seem as an effort to separate the meaning of "nation" and "ethnicity", so the user can prove their claim that the propose is the people to read about the ethnic groups(sic) ([106]), and eventually try to justify their claims on delinking the demonyms, that in turn is being used as a means to make a WP:POINT at Talk:North Macedonia. That particular manipulative train of actions is for me a strong indication that the user is WP:NOTHERE to contribute, but rather to make a statement on their own POV, and they will keep disrupting wikipedia in order to do so. Anyway, the user has now been notified 5 (!) times about this ANI ([107],[108],[109], [110], [111]), so if they continue to ignore it, probably means that they don't really care about it. --Argean (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sashko, I think I should make you aware that it does not matter what the result of that discussion ultimately is, because you hosted it in the wrong place: please see WP:advice pages. Groups of editors working on a WikiProject are expressly disallowed from creating their own idiosyncratic rules about a chunk of articles they believe to be within their special purview/authority. So basically, even if the discussion had gone your way, you still would not have prevailed and been able to reverse the result of any earlier failures to gain consensus on various article talk pages, because those discussions were appropriate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussions whereas your discussion at WP:WPC was not a permissible way to establish a valid consensus to change policy. In order to make a change to our guidelines, such that you create a new default rule for all articles of a type, you need to host such discussion on the talk page for a relevant policy, guideline, or MoS page which will itself be changed to introduce the rule.
    Sometimes in the alternative, one can host a discussion in WP:VPP or other central community space and then transport the language into a policy, but what one definitely cannot do is get together with a group of editors interested in a given topic at a WikiProject, decide for themselves that their particularly keen interest gives them special authority to ignore the WP:PROPOSAL process and decide by fiat how all articles of a given sort are to be treated, with regard to this or that issues. There is long-standing community consensus against that, as it is recognized as unwieldy--what if another WikiProject (or two, or five) creates their own idiosyncratic rules and there are hundreds of articles both (or all) could claim "ownership" of--disruptive, and against our normal consensus procedures, and this broad community consensus has been codified by ArbCom in numerous high profile cases over the years.
    All of that said, I wouldn't be embarrassed about not understanding this as a newer editor. Indeed, as you can see, no one else !voting in that discussion realized any result would be void, and these discussions constantly pop up her at ANI where someone has to point out to involved editors that they discussion they are arguing over has no effect anyway; it's one of our less well-promoted rules of consensus, and we've needed to move it into a more high profile policy page (or give it it's own page) for a while--it just has never gotten done. Anyway, that's just a note for all parties here to walk away with, not criticism of you in particular. I do have additional misgivings about how you have approached things, but now that you are here discussing matters, I hope those can be resolved without the need for sanction, and I'll try to stop back by to comment as to such matters (and hopefully be able change my !vote above) as discussion progresses. Snow let's rap 17:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sashko: Wait, you still think you did nothing wrong? Ignoring WP:INDENT, WP:MINOR and WP:ANI notices for so long was not wrong? You are still going to insist WP:CANVASSing wasn't wrong? I didn't do nothing out of the rules and I call and the rest who didn't join until now, to join, to discuss and to vote to me is just more evidence action should be taken here. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @Sashko1999: As I already posted at your talk page, I do acknowledge the fact that you are paying more attention to your edits, but it's not really helpful that you deny making serious mistakes. The WP:CANVAS that you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries is a serious breach of guidelines and I'm worried by the fact that you still claim that are people supporting you there, even if they were [[WP:CANVAS]ed in the RfC. I'm also worried by the fact that all your previous bans and warnings were due to edits that you did in articles related to ethnic groups in general or to [[Macedonians (ethnic group}]] ([112], [113], [114] and your recent history of edits show that you are once more involved in disputes in the same area of topics. How can we expect that you will stop this pattern if you still claim that you did nothing wrong? --Argean (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, ok, that probably was a mistake, and I apology here now, but I explained why I changed the links of the demonyms and I had just good intention. Also, after we opened a discussion about it, I think most of us saw that they is a problem with the current linking of the demonyms, so, let's talk and resolve that. As for the my previous ban about the Macedonians (ethnic group), that was in 2017 and I had 1 year ban about it, but after that I didn't do nothing wrong which is so much serious to be banned again. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Leviv ich said he has changed his behavior. Can we give him more chance? Maybe a warning is enough if he promises.M1nhm (talk)
    The editor has expressed a willingness to do better and has said they regret that they violated procedural requirements that they did not understand. It may very well be that the WP:CIR issues ill prove too substantial in the long run (especially through the language barrier they are clearly dealing with), but given their engagement here now and what I perceive to be a genuine effort to to come to terms with policy, I agree an immediate indef may now be excessive. I think the discussion should be left open a bit longer for the purposes allowing some thing to be explained to Sashko, and I still have concerns that they could be brought back here before too long, but I'd endorse WP:ROPE at this point. Snow let's rap 02:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What I was hoping for from Sashko1999 was something like "I ignored the links because [reason], and in the future I will pay attention to links." —DIYeditor (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Update (16 February): Can somebody please now topic-ban this editor, for lack of competence if nothing else? They are now meddling in all the rewriting of Macedonia-related articles following the recent "North Macedonia" renaming, and edits like this [115] are really beyond the pale (e.g. changing "Macedonia" to "North Macedonia" in a sentence that is explicitly about what the name of the country was prior to the recent renaming, or in another sentence that is clearly about the geographical region in an historical context much prior to even the foundation of the state). We already have more than enough less-than-clueful editing from over-eager and inexperienced people in these articles; we really don't need this level of WP:CIR mixed in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Change number 1: In 1014, the Byzantine Emperor Basil II defeated the armies of Tsar Samuil of Bulgaria, and within four years the Byzantines restored control over the Balkans (including North Macedonia) for the first time since the 7th century. Changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia because the article is about North Macedonia and here we are talking about something happened in the country which name today is this, and not Macedonia.
    Change number 2: Over the centuries Rumelia Eyalet was reduced in size through administrative reforms, until by the nineteenth century it consisted of a region of central Albania and north-western North Macedonia with its capital at Manastir or present-day Bitola. Changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia because here we are talking about today's countries Albania and North Macedonia, and not about Albania and non-existent Macedonia. Also, Monastir or present-day Bitola is in today's North Macedonia.
    Change number 3: To aid the implementation of this policy, some 50,000 Serbian army and gendermerie were stationed in North Macedonia. Changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia because here we are talking about an event happened in today's North Macedonia.
    Change number 4: By 1940 about 280 Serbian colonies (comprising 4,200 families) were established as part of the government's internal colonisation program (initial plans envisaged 50,000 families settling in North Macedonia). Changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia, the explanation is the same as in the change number 3.
    To say and that where we are talking about the Roman Province of Macedonia or the region of Macedonia, nothing is changed, here are two examples.
    The Romans established the Province of Macedonia in 146 BC. By the time of Diocletian, the province had been subdivided between Macedonia Prima ("first Macedonia") on the south, encompassing most of the kingdom of Macedon, and Macedonia Salutaris (known also as Macedonia Secunda, "second Macedonia") on the north, encompassing partially Dardania and the whole of Paeonia; most of the country's modern boundaries fell within the latter, with the city of Stobi as its capital.[49] Roman expansion brought the Scupi area under Roman rule in the time of Domitian (81–96 AD), and it fell within the Province of Moesia.[50] Whilst Greek remained the dominant language in the eastern part of the Roman empire, Latin spread to some extent in Macedonia.
    Slavic tribes settled in the Balkan region including North Macedonia by the late 6th century AD. During the 580s, Byzantine literature attests to the Slavs raiding Byzantine territories in the region of Macedonia, later aided by Bulgars. Historical records document that in c. 680 a group of Bulgars, Slavs and Byzantines led by a Bulgar called Kuber settled in the region of the Keramisian plain, centred on the city of Bitola, forming a second route for the Bulgar definitive settlement on the Balkan Peninsula at the end of the 7th century. Presian's reign apparently coincides with the extension of Bulgarian control over the Slavic tribes in and around Macedonia. The Slavic tribes that settled in the region of Macedonia converted to Christianity around the 9th century during the reign of Tsar Boris I of Bulgaria. Sashko1999 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not seeing any problem with that edit. Happy to see that Sashko responded so quickly with an explanation. Not happy to see an editor's editing referred to as "meddling", since we're the encyclopedia that anyone can edit... Leviv ich 20:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    DBigXray

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

    • On Human rights abuses in Kashmir  he has been whitewashing human rights abuses by Indian army[116] while hyping the abuses from militants and Pakistani army. He misrepresents sources and frequently removes long standing content which he don't like by making a false claim that the content was violating copyrights or  NFCC,[117] Since last few days he is removing more content by providing the same fallacious reasoning,[118] and making threats on edit summaries.[119] despite being told otherwise on talk page.[120]
    • He has been misrepresenting sources and showing his inability to understand English by not getting the fact that "counterterrorists" means excess carried out with an intention to counter terrorists. Not that it means excess carried out during "counter terrorism operations". It is ironic that he has been harassing other editor on talk page by saying "it appears to me as an English language related WP:CIR."[121] Though anyone can tell that DBigXray is the one with CIR.
    • After getting reporting for gaming WP:1RR rule by removing the same content without getting consensus, he made a personal attack on me that I belong to a "{{tq|sock/meat farm",[122] see WP:ASPERSIONS.
    • Has been told by 2 editors and an admin[123] that there is no violation of copyvio or NFCC, still he was not agreeing.
    • I reverted him again,[124] and he quickly reverted me but this time he reverted claiming "no consensus for adding these either, first complete the talk page discussion",[125] despite he never gained consensus to remove the longstanding content at first place. He also left a 3RR warning on talk page of mine when I am nowhere near 3RR. His recent talk page comments can be best described as WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALL.[126][127]
    • I commented on a DYK[128] where the concerning article is created by a different editor. DBigXray interpreted my comments as "battle grounds to attack editors".[129] His incivility and aspersions include "unfortunately i am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts... Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article)"[130] He also falsely claimed that I "already confessed above that you are going through" his contributions, when I haven't and "consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article"[131] when multiple editors on talk page are discussing the name change.[132][133]

    He has restored to mass bludgeon the talk page where the consensus was being developed to change the name of the article.[134]

    Other recent examples
    • Makes 4 reverts in 3 days to label Zabiuddin Ansari as a "Islamic fundamentalist" and a terrorist, in violation of WP:TERRORIST[135] then engages in IDHT on talk page.[136] Extreme labels like "Islamic fundamentalist" are not even supported by any of the sources he is using.[137]
    • Labels Ajmal Kasab as a terrorist  by reverting other user then bludgeons on talk page.[138]
    • After one editor brought two above articles to WP:BLPN,[139] and other uninvolved editor replied[140] DBigXray WP:BLUDGEONed the section to the degree that now no one would touch the section even with 100 feet pole.[141]

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

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

    • I would note here that this user above has been editing with an extreme anti-India bias at Human rights abuses in Kashmir diff and Kunan Poshpora incident [142], on Human rights abuses in Kashmir instead of joining the talk page discussions or WP:DR for content disputes, he has tried tag teaming with an IP (who is clearly someones sock) at WP:AN3 [143] and when AN3 did not work out he tried to disrupt a DYK I had submitted and is now trying out ANI here.
    • The IP had joined Mehrajmir13 and filed an AN3 case against me with false claims about EdJohnston, within a short period of time without any invitation Mehrajmir13 reached AN3 to argue (diff) against me and to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) It did not work out as expected [144] after which they tried other ways [145] to get sanctions on me.
    • Regarding the massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA act [146], I had raised my objections on the talk page [147] since I had felt that it was both COPYVIO and undue. It was later clarified that it may not be considered COPYVIO which I accepted. On the talk page I had stated that [148] this copying of entire AFSPA act is still undue and an article on Human rights should discuss the implications of the AFSAP Act and not just copy paste the entire act in the Human rights article instead of giving a link to the act itself [149]. After staying away for a week, and instead of joining the discussion Mehrajmir13 again restored the disputed content [150] into the article.
    • Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support (diff) an Edit warring report on an article with 1RR restriction, but at the same time he is outraged for getting [151] the standard Edit-warring template for his continued edit-warring (diff, diff, diff) on the same article.
    • After having a content dispute and trying an AN3 complaint against me, Mehrajmir13 hounded me (diff) to a recent DYK, that I had submitted. The DYK had already been approved by a reviewer [152] and yet Mehrajmir13 tried stalling an already approved DYK, on entirely frivolous grounds and asking for rename or merge. Mehrajmir13 was also warned [153] by another editor WBG on Mehrajmir13's frivolous thread (diff) on the article's talk page.
    • The discussion at Talk:Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir among several editors that included User:Hamster Sandwich, User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Kautilya3, MarkZusab showed that the consensus was against any renaming or merging of the article since the current article was a consensus title, that had been decided after long discussion on the talk page as well as WP:TEAHOUSE [154][155][156] [157] [158].
    • On the DYK page, When I noted that he has hounded me [159], He responded [160] stating " I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you." To this claim about my edit counts I had responded stating [161] "Congrats to you that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. you have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that You have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this."
    • After this reply from me, Mehrajmir13 filed this ANI thread filled with Lies, hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement and most important of all, "including his proposal for topic ban", which shows his clear intentions to snipe the opponent and to get his way in a content dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    The proposal has been open for nearly 10 days now, and I read a clear consensus opposing a topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • I would note here that this user above has been editing with an extreme anti-India bias at Human rights abuses in Kashmir diff and Kunan Poshpora incident [162], on Human rights abuses in Kashmir instead of joining the talk page discussions or WP:DR for content disputes, he has tried tag teaming with an IP (who is clearly someones sock) at WP:AN3 [163] and when AN3 did not work out he tried to disrupt a DYK I had submitted and is now trying out ANI here.
    • The IP had joined Mehrajmir13 and filed an AN3 case against me with false claims about EdJohnston, within a short period of time without any invitation Mehrajmir13 reached AN3 to argue (diff) against me and to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) It did not work out as expected [164] after which they tried other ways [165] to get sanctions on me.
    • Regarding the massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA act [166], I had raised my objections on the talk page [167] since I had felt that it was both COPYVIO and undue. It was later clarified that it may not be considered COPYVIO which I accepted. On the talk page I had stated that [168] this copying of entire AFSPA act is still undue and an article on Human rights should discuss the implications of the AFSAP Act and not just copy paste the entire act in the Human rights article instead of giving a link to the act itself [169]. After staying away for a week, and instead of joining the discussion Mehrajmir13 again restored the disputed content [170] into the article.
    • Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support (diff) an Edit warring report on an article with 1RR restriction, but at the same time he is outraged for getting [171] the standard Edit-warring template for his continued edit-warring (diff, diff, diff) on the same article.
    • After having a content dispute and trying an AN3 complaint against me, Mehrajmir13 hounded me (diff) to a recent DYK, that I had submitted. The DYK had already been approved by a reviewer [172] and yet Mehrajmir13 tried stalling an already approved DYK, on entirely frivolous grounds and asking for rename or merge. Mehrajmir13 was also warned [173] by another editor WBG on Mehrajmir13's frivolous thread (diff) on the article's talk page.
    • The discussion at Talk:Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir among several editors that included User:Hamster Sandwich, User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Kautilya3, MarkZusab showed that the consensus was against any renaming or merging of the article since the current article was a consensus title, that had been decided after long discussion on the talk page as well as WP:TEAHOUSE [174][175][176] [177] [178].
    • On the DYK page, When I noted that he has hounded me [179], He responded [180] stating " I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you." To this claim about my edit counts I had responded stating [181] "Congrats to you that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. you have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that You have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this."
    • After this reply from me, Mehrajmir13 filed this ANI thread filled with Lies, hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement and most important of all, "including his proposal for topic ban", which shows his clear intentions to snipe the opponent and to get his way in a content dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this is requesting a sanction because the editor dared to actually discuss an editorial issue, which is what you're supposed to do, and which long before this request was opened was already posted at the appropriate noticeboards. It's another in an unsettling recent string of seemingly independent proposals to sanction DBigXray specifically which have all amounted to nothing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider justifying his nationalist POV pushing, bludgeoning, harassment edit warring, misrepresentation of sources and probably tons of other issues raised here in a proper manner. I don't see any of that except canvassing and further bludgeoning by the disruptive editor in question who is thoroughly unfit to edit this subject given his inability to even represent the sources or policies.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ivanvector: The most egregious line in the frivolous filing, that also gives you an insight into the level of deception and coordinated offline planning, by this group is the line when they say (diff) "I am proposing a complete topic ban WP:ARBIPA, because he has been reported enough times on ANI and has only retrogressed further.". So quite clearly, the plan here was to keep on filing an ANI report every week, and now the time has come when, they can claim "Enough number of (frivolous) reports have been filed against DBigXray, lets block/ban him." This is exactly what has been happening in the past couple of months. Perfect example of "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". --DBigXrayᗙ 10:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a threat I received from Qualitist on 23 January (diff) along the same lines that said, "you (DBigXray) will get the time for it one day since it is very usual to see 'some' editor dragging you to ANI because of your CIR". This threat gives interesting insights about how this harassment campaign against me is being carried out.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment one thing is correct clear here, there is WP:NATIONALIST POV bickering going on. If the editors are having trouble collaborating and reaching consensus maybe they would be happier editing entirely different topics. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as an interested and somewhat involved party. When I see terms like "bludgeoning" "thoroughly unfit to edit" "deliberately misrepresents sources" etc. with no proof of those particular things, I tend to believe the complaint is less about merit, and more about leveling a measure of opprobrium. Not to dismiss their complaint entirely... User:DBigXray used some "tangy" language with the complainant, but saying you're not interested in a "Dick measuring contest" is different from saying "I have a bigger dick than you" or even "You are a dick." Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without this becoming too much of a "timesink" on my resources, I followed up on the claims concerning your issue with the Zabiuddin Ansari article. Am I correct in assuming you take issue with this individual being identified as an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist? He has been identified as belonging to a named group of organized terrorists; whom the cited source describes as being philosophically inclined to violence based on their agenda of violence for payment couched in their religious affiliations. This is more widely known as "terrorism" for those people afflicted by sectarian violence. It certainly is IMO. Now, I have seen enough of this, and been involved enough in this to have made a determination to have no more of it. If we need to agree to disagree, so be it. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before we fork another content discussion onto ANI, note that this exact issue is already being discussed at WP:BLPN. DBigXray did make a lengthy series of arguments there but all were on-topic and addressing the issue at hand. There's a lot to unpack, but it's a complicated issue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The crux of the dispute seems to be whether to include text from the AFSPA (an Act giving special powers to armed forces in dealing with the insurgency) in this article on human rights. The straight answer is no. The Act is not an abuse, but it is possible that it has led to abuse. If so, the abuse should be documented, sourced to reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, not the act itself. I admit that this tricky territory, and advise the editors to take it to WP:DRN. The filer exhibits WP:IDHT tendencies and is difficult to deal with. I recommend closing with no action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, not faulting the commenter, but if this is about a content dispute and not (as stated) a behavioural issue with one editor, the form response ought to be "take it to WP:DRN". ANI is not for content disputes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But DBigXray was removing content by mislabeling it as "blatant WP:NFCC violation(s)"[182] and now removes it by claiming that there is no consensus when he is the only one to remove it. "reliable WP:SECONDARY sources" have been already provided to DBigXray which discuss the act as relevant in the context of human rights abuses.[183] DBigXray is absolutely engaging in nationalist POV editing. I also don't see any consensus for this edit as claimed by DBigXray. This is not the only one article where he is being a problem. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harmanprtjhj, there are many reasons why we discourage excessive quotations in articles. See WP:QUOTEFARM. People explain it in many ways, ranging from "it is unencyclopaedic", "affects readability", "excessive quotations", "COPYVIO" etc. etc. Not everybody has a good understanding of the applicable policy, but their instincts are right. In this particular case, I agree with you that NFCC is the wrong thing to cite, because a Government Act is essentially public property, free for everybody to quote and use. But that does not make it appropriate for use in this article. If Mehrajmir13 couldn't agree with DBigXray, there are any number of places he could have gone for getting a third opinion, where people would have told him exactly what I am saying. But he seems to have convinced himself that DBigXray was acting in bad faith. That is not conducive to collaborative atmosphere we would like to see. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content is long-standing, no one has problem with it other than DBigXray by deceptively claiming the content to be a violation of NFCC and then misrepresenting sources. How can anyone expect such an incompetent editor to deal with a sensitive subject? We already had "third opinion" on talk page. Fact that you are not aware of it simply sbows that you are not even checking the diffs.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As shown in this edit from 2014 it was User:Mehrajmir13 who added this disputed content.
    • User:Mehrajmir13 is again clearly lying here when he says "Content is long-standing, no one has problem with it other than DBigXray" because one can see in this diff [184] and [185] that Admin RegentsPark had removed most of the content added by User:Mehrajmir13 there.
    • His content was further challenged [186] by me on the talk page and instead of discussing the validity and veracity of the said content on the talk page, he is is continuously trying to get the objecting editor blocked/banned first in a totally frivolous AN3 report (diff) and now here at ANI.
    • If User:Mehrajmir13 is unable to tolerate or discuss objections to his controversial edits then he should rather stay away from controversial articles, instead of kicking up a shit storm with lies and Drama at admin boards.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support You can't expect constructive discussion from DBigXray as he always engages in harassment and battleground mentality. For example, he fails to agree that he is using a primary source when the source is written by an involved police officer. I started a thread on WP:RSN where DBigXray started his response by making personal attacks on me,[188] and continued to claim the source is non-primary and completely reliable even after more than 7 editors told him otherwise.[189] He has been wikihounding my contributions by appearing on pages that he never edited earlier,[190] and reporting admins over trivial issues.[191] He has violated copyrights on articles related to Punjab insurgency and his violation of WP:TERRORIST can be also seen on Khalistan Commando Force, where he made 6 reverts to claim the militant group as "terrorist" and their supporters a "radical" (without providing any sources).[192][193] Not surprised that this disruption has now moved into Muslim-related articles. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, I have seen unbridled hostility emanate from your from the beginning: 20:29, 7 January 2019 ("it needs no rebuttal but large chunk of removal to restore sanity of the article"), 20:54, 7 January 2019 (" Have you carefully checked the article on Osama Bin Laden? Even that is more grammatical and neutral than this article written by you"), 21:37, 7 January 2019 ("you are going to do yourself a favor only if you fix the article. Anyone who knows A and B of this subject would know that article is in a very bad shape.") etc., where the last of these sounds more like a threat, not even hostility. Many people watch the pages that you are dealing with. If you discuss things in a calm and polite manner, people will come forward to help sort out issues. But if you shout at the top of voice all the time, people will walk away.
    • If you want to accuse him as having made 6 reverts (I don't know over what period), then you need to provide 6 diffs. The diff you have provided 09:23, 11 January 2019 shows him adding sources. Since the sources exist and he wasn't simply making it up, it was verifiable. So I don't see what the problem is that you are alluding to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Quotations of posts added for immediate evidence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diffs cited by you don't show any hostility. You are just being too sensitive over DBigXray who was totally engaging in IDHT and battleground mentality against this user.
    • Anyone who has edited Wikipedia for a little time can count those 6 reverts, they don't "need to provide 6 diffs", especially when those edits are that recent.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are again similar lies and deception that Harmanprtjhj had tried to use in his last "Snipe the opponent at ANI" thread against me, to get a way out of his content disputes. They over exaggerate content disputes with hyperbolic language and add lies and deception hoping that gullible folks will fall for their old tricks. To give an example, Harmanprtjhj's talk page is on my watchlist since 5 January and Ad Orientem had blocked and warned[194] Harmanprtjhj on his talk page, regarding what Ad Orientem then believed as "disruptive edit" on Yusuf Soalih Ajura, after which I made this edit on [195] and also noted this on the same thread [196]. But one can see that these facts never stopped Harmanprtjhj from cooking up a false and deceptive narrative, because "why let facts spoil a good story". --DBigXrayᗙ 03:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reading shows that it was a mistaken block as acknowledged by Ad Orientem. If anyone is engaging in "lies and deception", that is only you. Not to mention that none of this justifies your harassment of other editor.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are misrepresenting entire thing and distracting. Ad Orientem never "warned" me and made a block in error only after after reading an automated report.[197] Having a user's talk page in your watchlist doesn't means you can wikihound their edits. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per above. Perhaps it is time to consider a topic ban or some other solution for the OP. Dlohcierekim talk 15:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Comment no opinion on the topic ban, but it appears both Mehrajmir13 and DBigXRay are replying to any posts opposing their side with content seemingly intended to discourage !voting from that side. It's not quite as bad with both sides doing it as only one side (for that encourages nonrepresentative conclusions), but it may be adversely affecting participation, and thus, a balanced result. Surely any reasonably experienced editor would have formed a definitive opinion before commenting, and a reply from the editor whom they have opposed accusing them of "lies and deception" or the like isn't going to sway their vote; if anything, it will cement them further into their current position. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on-going pattern of disruptive editing is evidenced by many other recent examples, which includes his 10 reverts on Rafale deal controversy by engaging in POV pushing and creating Rafale deal controversy/Sandbox by abusing autopatrolled user-right to evade full protection. History of this sub-article shows DBigXray made a few botched page moves to retain this misuse of article space. Making 5 reverts on 1984 anti-Sikh riots by misrepresenting sources and superficially using BLPCRIME as exemption[198][[199] to edit war when no BLP was concerned (December 2018). 4 reverts on Jaggi Vasudev for violating BLP (November 2018). 6 reverts on Khalistan Commando Force (January 2019) and all these pages resulted in full protection because of DBigXray's lame edit war. What is even more interesting that his edits received no support from any other editor in spite of his bludgeoning on each of the concerning talk pages[200][201][202][203]. His disruption on talk pages has been beyond disruptive because he attack opponents[204][205], modify others comments[206], remove others comments[207] and engages in typical IDHT.[208][209] I note that how all of these articles attracted no controversy before DBigXray started disrupting them. It is clear that he can't edit without righting great wrong or harassing other editors. Note his creation of Pakistan administered Kashmir against consensus (December 2018) and his DRV against deletion of this CFORK with no one supporting your demand to overturn the result. Further disruption was also seen on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears where he was alone arguing for deletion because the article concerned a documentary on human rights abuses by Indian military, the same issue over which he is now edit warring on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It took him less than 2.5 months to produce all these examples. A topic ban is a no-brainer. Qualitist (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. DBigXRay could afford to make fewer reverts when he edits contentious topics, but his edits generally tend to be based in policy. The extent of mudslinging here suggests a couple of a boomerangs are in order. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Absolutely sanctionable behavior given the final warning on one of the previous ANI and aspersions and bludgeoning in this thread. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @शिव साहिल: Which diff do you think is the violation of the warning the reported user was given here? --Mhhossein talk 13:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: Wikihounding,[210] exclusively attacking contributors[211]][212], and accusing them of sock puppetry[213] does show violation of that warning. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This seems to be an evergreen ANI thread. The user in question has a target on their back and has had some questionable editing habits in the past. But I don't see anything here which isn't a content dispute at this point which could be resolved through discussion or RfCs. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A overblown content dispute which the OP has with misplaced zeal brought to an inappropriate forum. There doesn't seem to be anything remotely actionable. In fact, looking at the content under dispute, I am inclined to support the removal of the excessively long quotations. The other changes made also seem reasonable. No harassment of the OP is visible. The elephant in the room are the supporters of the topic ban who seem to be hell bent on getting a net positive editor topic-banned from Wikipedia and have resorted to digging up unrelated mud from a month or two back in the hope of getting some of it to stick to the wall. It is this sort of behavior that I (as a spectator who has seen all these incidents play out in front of me) find utterly disgusting. << FR (mobileUndo) 13:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - As Dlohcierekim says, it may be time for a boomerang against the OP, whose wall of text doesn't make a case. It is true that DBigXray sometimes becomes stubborn; so do a lot of editors. Maybe they should be warned, but the OP should be warned first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robert McClenon: OP has reported evidence that DBigXray is falsely attributing content as a NFCC violation, misrepresenting sources on multiple articles, making baseless accusations of socking, bludgeoning and edit warring. This is a established pattern of DBigXray's editing. Even in this same thread, DBigXray is accusing OP of evading scrutiny as an IP. I don't see why a user should not be sanctioned for it. What are we waiting for? Qualitist (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: per Ivanvector. Simply discussing an issue on a talk page instead of warring it out in the mainspace isn't grounds for a topic ban. God forbid someone wants to actually discuss something first. Has DBigXray been stubborn? Sure. Does that warrant a topic ban? Absolutely not. SITH (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as minimum per the evident repeat problems shown. That said, although no personal attacks here, canvassing and clear attempts to bludgeon the thread shows there are broader issues and we will be back here again. I really do think some type of sanction is necessary for this to be solved as complaints about BigDRay's behavior is fairly frequent and the OP has indeed shown some misrepresentation of sources and baseless accusations that don't seem like they are ever going to stop without at least some action. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition the warning शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil pointed out [214] with the conclusion being "admin should block if behavior continues" warrants at least some action to correct this if we are ever gonna have an end to these notices. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is another example of WP:BLUDGEONING. I have no personal qualms with DBigXRay. I've supported action against him on exactly two other threads simply because i thought the action was warranted in those cases, and the first case i thought was definitely an injustice because he basically baited a noob and got him banned. All he did was post my edits to the same posts I made and then posted the edit i made on this thread to make it seem like i have an extensive feud with him when i dont. If he wasn't always appearing on ANI i wouldnt be posting those comments I'd be posting on other posts in ANI. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was inclined to comment after seeing the final warning issued by User:cyberpower678, which शिव साहिल brought to our eyes. Falsely accusing others of Sockpuppetry, after getting warnings against making harassment, calls for action. I'm interpreting "Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support" as accusing Mehrajmir13 to have a IP sock (am I right?). The case was filed by an IP, in fact not Mehrajmir13. I may be wrong, but in this diff, also coming after the last warning, he's harassing another user by comparing him with a banned editor. --Mhhossein talk 17:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The admins who are familiar with the WP:ARBIPA topic area, (some of whom have also commented in this thread), know very well about the massive sock and meat puppetry going on in the India Pakistan topic area. So much that there is an ongoing proposal for Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict at WP:AN. You see, Mehrajmir13 has still not clarified this and I am still very interested to know how Mehrajmir13 reached WP:AN3 (diff) within minutes of the IP filing a frivolous AN3 case involving me. And Mehrajmir13 then attempts damage control by trying to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) --DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the India-Pakistan articles are hot topics, but, hmm...I think you're again harassing the user by making these comments. Though, I would not blame you if you had opened a SPI report accompanied by clues. Did you get the point? Needless to mention that you did the same for Dilpa kaur. --Mhhossein talk 05:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't totally disagree with this, if he does correct his behavior its of course fine. The problem is, given his extensive edit history and frequent appearances on ANI [215], [216], [217] I don't see how his behavior is ever gonna change without some kind of action. This doesn't mean we need to permaban him of course, but unless there's some type of action I expect this behavior will persist. At the very least, admins can give another final warning or something and see if this actually helps correct his behavior. I doubt it will unless we implement even a small temporary sanction, which is why i think some kind of action is necessary. But who knows. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiman5676: See this comment repeating socking accusations coming after the apology request! --Mhhossein talk 05:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. I do not believe he will alter his behavior unless action is taken. What i describe above was a proposed bare minimum action. Basically give him one last chance to correct his behavior before sanctions. I think this is taking a very lenient approach but I just wanted to put the idea in the air. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

    Have we tried reaching out to the user directly to warn them about the controversial moves, show them the policy page so they can review it, and ask them to stop? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the talk page it does seem like the editor was notified, although not "warned" per se. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Six bold moves in two years = ANI thread? Levivich 06:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't caught him for his recent (January) bold RM right away despite having 10,000 entire in watch list (may be football articles is decreasing in composition, or my watch list just contain popular footballers). But given his recent 50 edits span for more than 6 months , which already contain 3 bold move, in which Baba Rahman last bold move (carried by other user in 2015) to other title was reverted and have a thread in the talk page to discuss it, i doubt he does not know it is controversial, and he was told by an admin GiantSnowman and other user what WP:RM process for controversial move.
    To sum up, either he is a SPA or not, he keep to ignore the message in his talk page about move and he did started a RM for Serdar Tasci after his bold move was reverted, so he can't possibly doesn't know how to tag.
    So, can i propose topic ban for him for making any bold and uncontroversial move by himself, which the former he must use WP:RM to start a thread and the latter he must post it in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests? Matthew hk (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban? Why? No, the problem is the insufficient communication here. You gave them the link to ANI yet they don't come here and try to sort this out(and instead make an edit somewhere else). All their contributions to talk pages are either requested move templates and corrections of those(with no further comments in the discussion), removal of everything on their own talk page, or talk page moves. The correct answer to this problem is an indefinite block(indefinite because of the long time between some of their edits) to make the user communicate properly.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you feel you looks another SPA (or WP:HAND) that most of your recent edit are in WP:ANI and WP:AN only ? Also active in 2016, not active for a long time until a burst of edit in November 2018, and resurface only in this week ? Matthew hk (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This account is no WP:HAND nor is the usage of an account(at least, if it is the only account) for a single purpose a problem. These bursts of activity(or rather, the long time of inactivities) have different reasons. If you look at my recent contributions you will see that I am not trying to escalate problems but the opposite - something that is consistent with the goals of Wikipedia.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Except the RM, 0716pyhao did not reply to any message in his talk page. It is predicable they did not response to ANI either. Matthew hk (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, the only edit by them in user talk namespace, is blanking the page . While in talk page namespace, most of them involve RM or bold move. Only comment not related to move is this one Talk:Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone#Track maps of Zorbas and Adrian needed. Matthew hk (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd editing history

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

    They seem to be correcting whitespace errors (if they can be called errors). I don't think there's any point to doing it but it's not harmful, per se. IPs can't game extended-confirmed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there a sockmaster whose MO is screwing around with whitespace? I seem to remember some issue with a whitespace vandal, there's an edit filter for it. Someone who knows should take a look at this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there is, I can't remember who it is. At this point all of the IP's edits have been constructive edits to whitespace, at least to the extent that editing a page only to play with whitespace can be considered constructive (it's not destructive, I guess, they're not removing all whitespace or adding huge gaps and breaking things). I don't remember if that matches the sockmaster's behaviour or not, but as long as they continue not breaking things I think we can leave them alone. Of course I'm open to other opinions, if someone has a good reason why this is disruptive, there could be something I haven't considered. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see any harm. It just looked weird so I wanted to ask. Perhaps he is writing a secret program using the Whitespace programming language... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Alex 21

    Lots of good advice for Alex 21 here, such as "don't be rude", "assume good faith", "use sarcasm with more care", and generally to be more civil. Thanks to everyone who has commented. There is no admin action required at this time, and no need to keep this open longer. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Hi, my first advice is rather than just make a great big pile of assertions, aspersions, and assumptions, all without context, please provide diffs, or this will not be going anywhere. Fish+Karate 12:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I too would be interested in seeing any diffs provided, so that I can reply and defend my actions accordingly. -- /Alex/21 13:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see I'm not the only one who's had to deal with this User. After being threatened about being blocked, I became agreeable to his change, though he still feels a need to be sarcastic and rude. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (GMT)
    @MichaelCorleone7: You were edit-warring. However, looking at your talk page, this isn't the first time an editor has had to warn you... -- /Alex/21 23:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and likewise, others are tired of your rude nature, that was the difference between other users on my Talk Page and yours, where you had to add a sarcastic remark. Instead of attacking and threatening other Users, try and be more polite and provide constructive criticism. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (GMT)
    Tried that, but to no avail. -- /Alex/21 01:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel that you were being polite - then you need to re-assess your vocabulary. Your behaviour was similar to that of an internet troll. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2019
    • Comment: No diffs have been provided. I would like to remind both U-Mos and Alex 21 that discussion of content and edits should be confined to article talk, and should never be posted on usertalk. I'd also like to remind U-Mos that the correct way to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved in normal discussion threads is to use some form of WP:DR, such as an WP:RFC or posting a neutral request for participation at a WikiProject talkpage, rather than bringing the issue(s) to ANI. Beyond that, I think this ANI thread can be closed for lack of evidence, unless diffs are provided. Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Regarding Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials: Uncivil reply & groundless accusation [218];refers to a user's work as "horrendous" [219] & restates this when challenged by Bilorv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [220]; deliberate manipulation of Bilorv's following comment [221]; repeatedly diverts discussion to derail [222] [223]; groundless WP:CANVAS accusation on my talk page [224].
    Regarding templates for discussion: Highly uncivil responses to Zackmann08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [225] [226] [227]; deletes my comment [228]; further spurious accusation, made uncivilly [229] (see also self-contradictions below).
    Regarding episode list module/MOS:ACCESS: Refuses to recognise accessibility guidelines and states direct intention to contradict them in reply to Gonnym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [230], continues when WP:POINT violation noted by RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [231]; uncivil comment to Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [232]; attempts at WP:GAMING [233] [234]; describes accessibility improvements as "unreadable" [235]; WP:WIKILAWYERING [236]; accuses Gonnym of WP:CANVAS [237]; shifts goalposts in discussion to suit non-neutral viewpoint & uncivil comment to me ("What a mess!") [238], latter denied [239]; further major incivility against Redrose64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [240], Gonnym [241] and me [242]; misrepresents the comments of Redrose64 [243] and Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [244]; finally resorts to denying an issue was ever raised and repeats incivility towards me [245] [246].
    Other infractions: sarcastic uncivil response to my RfC request [247], repeated in response to proffered olive branch [248] & spurious accusation of poor faith [249]; shows no concern for Wikipedia community as long as he's "happy" [250].
    Self-contradictions, suggesting WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:GAMING: Inferences from guidelines should stand in articles while discussed [251], unless the inference is made by someone else [252]; single-use or little-used templates are acceptable [253], except when they're not [254] [255]. On the latter, after contradiction was pointed out Alex claimed he was now neutral on the earlier discussion [256], refused to acknowledge that on the still-live TfD because "I don't care" [257], then denied any change of mind when I noted it in the TfD [258], and further refuted evidence of WP:GAMING (and misrepresented the entire discussion, clearly listed as a merge proposal) [259]. U-Mos (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then, diffs have now been provided. Leviv ich 07:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank for you providing these diffs; I will be taking time to reply to them. -- /Alex/21 07:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No such "groundless accusation" was madeDiff 243; at that point, a reply had been made to every opposing comment, so I asked if you planned to continue to do that. How you interpreted that it up to you. Yes, I called the work "horrendous"[260]; perhaps a beter word could have been used, but I am allowed to express my opinions of a suggestion, especially when it did not seem to improve Wikipedia whatsoever. Given that that discussion closed with no consensus, it was clear that there was no widespread agreement to support the changes either. Continuing onto "deliberate manipulation"[261], I asked for a source that supported their statement. Nothing less, nothing more. They stated that the specials could include, "in four years time, perhaps Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year" episodes. I asked "Can you back up the fact that there will be a Boxing Day special?". I find this to be a baseless accusation. "Derailing" the conversation[262], you yourself said "this isn't the place to discuss that." I asked "If it's not the place to discuss that, then why bring it up here?" If you do not wish to discuss an item in a discussion, then do not raise it in the discussion and then assume that it will pass without dispute. In fact, raising an item in a discussion, when unrelated to the main discussion at hand, and then trying to divert away from it so that it can be included in the result of the main discussion, that could very easily be considered derailing itself. For the second diff[263], the changes to the article were going to have a widespread affect across a multitude of other articles, so that needed to be addressed. For example, the Stranger Things article was recently split, and thus when discussing the split, the matter of the main article changing with the update also had to be address. Same case here: Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials was possibly going to be changed, as well as a number of season and series articles, and thus the statuses of List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) were a major concern. The CANVAS questionDiff 248, it was not an accusation, but a question. You posted on the talk pages of two separate editorsDiff 249Diff 250, with posts that stated "This page is of interest to this WikiProject", a statement which clearly does not relate to a specific editor. I asked if there was a reason for it that did not violate CANVAS. That's not saying that you were CANVAS'ing. Turns out, there was a reason, and I was happy with your response, after you updated the incorrect statements in the posts on the user talk page to say "As a participant in an earlier related discussion, you may wish to participate" instead.Diff 251
    Templates for discussion.[264][265][266] The comments were less uncivil, more requesting why the editor was requesting the mass deletion of a number of related templates, without proposing any sort of substitution. Another editor proposed a merge, and I was happy with that; something that was not done in the original post.[267] If Zackmann08 had an issue with that, he would have brought the issue to ANI himself. I had extremely good grounds to revert (not delete) your editDiff 256: you do not edit other editor's comments. If you had wanted to post your own, then you should have done so without editing any others. I warned you about this on your talk page[268]. Per WP:TPO, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Editing my comment was seen as an act of bad faith, especially in the face of such a guideline. If any further spurious accusation were made,[269] it was because you were attempting to connect two unrelated discussions solely from our previous (current at the time) interactions at the time. The discussion of the module had zero place at the discussion for the unrelated template deletion.
    Episode list module/MOS:ACCESS. Throughout this entire discussion, I was told that it was against policy and guideline to include rowspans in the midst of a table. Every time I requested proof of this, proof that it was part of a policy or guideline, I was never given a straight answer. I have not yet been linked to policy or guideline that states that we cannot include rowspans in the midst of a table. Yes, at the time, I did declare my decision to revert such changes,[270] as I had not been provided with anything that support bold changes; if I remember correctly, bold changes that are undiscussed in templates and/or modules that are high-use are against policy. I'll see if I can find that one later. RexxS stated that I was [271] "wiki-lawyering"; barely a supportable accusation when all I stated was that the guideline provided banned only the use of <br> tags, and nothing else. DTAB makes no mention of <hr>. Hence, they are similar, but you cannot state the guideline that bars one thing and then state yourself that it encompasses all. And a threat for ANI because of it; I actually missed that bit. I made no edits to "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", the entire interaction was through discussion. The reply to Pigsonthewing,[272] an editor who I've had interactions with in the past, and who attempts to bring my personal life and statements into the discussion, and debating if I'm an editor that is "worth their salt". Yes, the comment was irrelevant. Gaming?Diff 262Diff 263 I think not. I quoted exactly what the guidelines state. Is this to say that I cannot quote guidelines? I find no reason behind this; what do you mean by it? "improvements"[273], again, after no policy or guideline was supplied when I asked for it. You want to make a statement against rowspans, or anything else, you back it up. Just as I had/have through quoting guidelines and policies. Another Wikilawyering accusation?Diff 265 I must ask how. I related episode titles and serial titles to be titles in general. If you mean "As the editor who's talk page you went to stated, there is no guideline or policy that dictates that rowspans cannot be used", this[274] was their reply: "My $0.02 on this is that it is clear that WP:ACCESS needs to be updated to make the problems with 'rowspan' (and 'colspan') in tables spelled out explicitly (currently the issues are just "implied") – it's just that somebody has to take the first step and either do it and make the changes to WP:ACCESS". This supports the fact that there is no such supporting evidence. Yes, it may need to be added, but at the time, it was not. That's not Wikilawyering. That's not not going by what an editor personally says about a guideline, when the guideline itself does not say that. Gonnym's WP:CANVAS[275], they posted on the talk pages of two specifc editors[276][277]. As far as I know, the posts did not conform to WP:APPNOTE. Simply stating CANVAS is not automatically an accusation, please do understand that. It was a request. And yes, I said "What a mess".[278] Because I believed that the current example was a complete mess and would not improve the Wikipedia whatsoever. Further examples were proposed, primarily by RexxS,[279] that I coded into the module via sandbox, opting to then discuss them rather than implement them. I did not deny that I said it[280]. I was clear and up front about it. "latter denied"? Do you mean that I denied that I made the comment, or that it was uncivil? If it was the latter, then again, I am allowed an opinion. Strong language is not necessarily uncivil, it is my opinion on the matter. Incivility claims[281]Diff 274[282]: First one, all I said was that "already accepted the advice given, proposed a coded solution based off of the example given in this very section". I was told that that was wrong. That's not incivility. That's summarizing what happened. Second: Another opinion. If you believe that everyone's opinions can only conform to your views, then I recommend that you learn that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and that not everyone will agree with you. I stated "creates more hassle, given that another module will need modifying to support one series". Is this incorrect? Changing the module as proposed would require the modification of more than one high-used module. If this is incorrect, please do inform me. Third: you did indeed jump in halfway through the discussion.Diff 276 May I request how so? Were you following the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility page? In the comment before mine, you summarized all screen readers to be the same, when you were told that all screen readers are different. You went in the face of the recommendations of supporting editors in the same discussion. No misrepresentation occurred[283]; I believed that Redrose64's comments were further backing (not necessarily on their part, but this is my opinion of their comments) for my position. I never said they support it. I stated that their comment was further backing for my support. Notice, however, that Redrose64 did not mention you either. Assuming that it was misrepresentation indicates that you believed their comment was for support for your position; this too could be viewed as misrepresentation on your part. Best not to make accusations when nobody other than the posting editor knows what they meant. And yet again, quoting an editor is not misrepresentationDiff 278: as I've already stated: "you summarized all screen readers to be the same, when you were told that all screen readers are different". That's exactly what I quoted back at you, the other editor's comments. They stated "Unless your reader comprises more than 80% of all readers used, it should offer information for us to improve layout but should not become a standard for us to follow." You made it a standard. I most certainly did not deny that an issue was ever raised. I stated that titles was not the primary concern, it was the rowspans in the middle of the table.Diff 279 In the comment before mine,[284] you stated "let's use our information to improve the layout as best we can then. Separating the serial and episode titles into different columns seems like a good place to start". This seemed to me a very bad faith comment after we'd just had an entire disagreement over the content. And then you wanted to start it over again? How was that constructive? It was not.
    Response to your RfC request[285]; is sarcasm against policy now? I wasn't aware of that, my apologies. (/s) You showed no willingness to actually have a discusson with editors. You went straight to RFC. That indicates that you hold no respect for your fellow editors and you would rather ignore them then discuss it. That's why I said that your edits were in "poor faith", as you said.[286] As I said: "I recommend that you learn that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort". Pages only go where they are through discussion. Discuss. My talk page[287], my decision on how I respond. If you don't like it, I would recommend not posting to my talk page. I'm a sarcastic person. Have been for the four (almost five) years I've been editing here. I'm not changing it for one person, apologies. You stated "shows no concern for Wikipedia community as long as he's "happy""?Diff 284 Wow, that's the biggest misinterpration I've heard. I said that I'm happy. I said nothing about the Wikipedia community and my happiness's position in that. You stated, about my editing, "It's a real shame". I could take offense to that, just as you have about my comments of suggestions being a "mess", etc., but I'm happy (yes, happy) to ignore them and continue on. You accused me of three reverts. You were incorrect. Please acknowledge that.
    "Inferences from guidelines should stand in articles while discussed"Diff 285; correct. Your edits to the article were reverted, and you continued to force themDiff 286Diff 287Diff 288; that is the definition of edit-warring per WP:EW. I recommend that you actually read those guidelines that I presented you; everyone else abides by them, so why don't you have to? Maintaining that your edits had to stay in the article while being discussed is certainly "suggesting WP:OWNERSHIP", but on your part. "unless the inference is made by someone else"[288] - I don't get this bit. Inference is made by who? What inference? The guideline did not support your statement, a discussion that closed with consensus against you. Are you listing this because I opposed your edits? I'm confused. "single-use or little-used templates are acceptable"[289][290][291]. Interesting how you list this, given that you support that single-use or little-used templates/edits are acceptable except when they're not (Diff 293 not acceptable, acceptable when an editor proposed itDiff 294 and you continue to support it). I recommend a firm WP:BOOMERANG there. I did not say that I was neutral on the discussionDiff 295, I said that "I don't care which way that discussion goes.", so yes, I continue to denyDiff 296 being "neutral". First sarcasm isn't allowed, now I can't say "I don't care"? Wow. You further stated that I "misrepresented the entire discussion, clearly listed as a merge proposal"[292]. It most certainly was not. As I clearly stated: there was "no merge !votes in this discussion, and only one comment mentioning the word "merge"." The proposal was to merge, yes. I never said that a merge would not happen. If the merge continues, sure. It can be merged. Nothing was said about not allowing an alternate proposal.
    I truly do apologize for the walls of text, but I felt the strong need to defend myself here. To summarize, it seems that a vast majority of this is a misinterpretation of my often-present sarcasm and responses where I disagree with a solution; "What a mess", "I don't care", "horrendous", being "happy". I've met far stronger oppositions in my almost-five years here, and I continue on. I apologize if this has upset or hurt the OP; I'll be sure to take their feelings into consideration. -- /Alex/21 08:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mentioned above, so I have clarified the comment under discussion. Please also respect WP:INDENTGAP, which also concerns accessibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pinged so I'll just quickly comment regarding the CANVASSING accusation. I deliberately did not respond to the accusation when Alex raised it, as I've found that some editors tend to derail the conversation so no solution can be found. Regarding my post at IJBall's talk page: during the discussion at Module:Episode list I said "There were a few discussions in the past which, if I remember correctly, said that using a rowspan is ok as long as it is continuous, but shouldn't be used in the middle of a table.", Alex replied with "I would be interested in seeing such discussions". My post to IJBall was not asking him to join the discussion, which he did not do until Alex posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television here, but to ask him for links to the discussion (as I knew he had a few of those) so I can provide them for Alex. What did Alex expect me to do? Search manually all of Wikipedia in the hopes that I'll find those discussions? Regarding my post at Izno's page: Since I knew Izno had technical experience in this field in the past, I asked him to join the discussion and give his opinion. As this is a technical issue and not a personal preference one, I would have thought that having an editor with experience in this topic, would be a good addition to the discussion. To me personally, that accusation seem very bad faith and seemed with the intent to derail the discussion, which is why I ignored it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was also pinged so I'll reply: the description of a user's work as "horrendous" is shockingly rude. Alex digged himself deeper when I asked him to remove this. I note he also gives a non-apology here: "Yes, I called the work "horrendous"; perhaps a beter word could have been used, but I am allowed to express my opinions of a suggestion". Very much missing the point. Indeed Alex is allowed to do this, as his comment was not a personal attack. It was merely an uncivil remark and I don't think his behaviour in the rest of the discussion violated any policy, much as I disagree with his position. The problem with this "horrendous" comment is not that it's blockworthy, but that it's going to make the subject feel hurt and discouraged from future editing (at least, that's how I would feel). I don't believe Alex's actions warrant an ANI thread but I would encourage him to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground even when it's a topic he clearly has very strong feelings on. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a very fair summary. I thought very carefully about starting this ANI, only chose to do so because it's a sustained pattern that I have witnessed for over a month, and despite it being pointed out on several occasions Alex has shown no recognition of how detrimental it can be to the collaborative community.
    Mostly, I think it is best for me to step back and allow other users to comment here, but I'll respond to the questions Alex asks me and make a couple of brief points for context.
    Diff 243 above: There were just two comments to my proposal at this point. The first, true, I probably didn't need to reply to; the second was yours, where you asked direct questions that I was in a position to clarify. On the receiving end, it seemed very soon to be charging in with a WP:BLUDGEON accusation, and certainly didn't feel like good faith was assumed. Subsequent diffs included to demonstrate the combative stance taken throughout, which was highly detrimental to that discussion.
    Diffs 248-51: In the context of our opposing positions in the discussion, this felt like an accusation and an attempt to discredit. And, as you never responded to my reply, I was never aware that you recognised I had acted appropriately. Glad to see that now; it would have been very beneficial at the time.
    Diff 256: I found it very hard to know what to do in this situation, as your altered position was clearly relevant to the TfD and you declined to mention it there. I stand by the comment, but recognise that striking out your vote was the wrong call. You had every right to revert that. That does not, however, justify you removing my comment at the same time, which violates the very guidelines you drew my attention to. I did not bring up the module discussion at the TfD, only your comments regarding the template.
    Diffs 262-3: Rolling out the 'it's only a guideline so I can ignore it' and WP:IAR in the face of guidelines disagreeing with your inclination seems pretty game-y to me, especially in the middle of a discussion where consensus is starting to form against your position.
    Diff 265: Yes, I believe you were "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express", by insisting repeatedly that accessibility matters could be ignored because they aren't explicitly discussed in WP:ACCESS.
    Diff 274: Your comment opens "Terrible. A mess." That is your opinion, yes, but is expressed uncivilly. Per WP:IUC, this is regular behaviour that has been drawn to your attention before.
    Diff 276: I'm really not sure why you keep bringing up my time of entry into that discussion. I came to Module talk:Episode list from your WikiProject notification, and missed the switch to another talk page for a little while, that's all. To use that minor circumstance as a stick to beat me with when I fail to guess correctly which previous "alternate suggestion" you comment referred to was rather unpleasant.
    Diff 278: I did not generalise all screen readers, other than in one stray aside that I readily corrected. And neither did I at any point suggest setting a precedent from the individual case being discussed, so the deployment of another user's words was inappropriate ("misusing" more accurate than "misrepresenting", on second thoughts).
    Diff 279: We were in the middle of a long discussion over the titles column and accessibility, as part of the wider discussion, when you directly stated that No accessibility issues have been raised concerning the titles column for the suggested options, essentially telling me that my contribution to the discussion was worthless to the point of non-existence. You then further told me that I didn't understand the full issue regarding rowspans, which I had already commented on multiple times.
    Diff 284: Yes, you said nothing about the Wikipedia community. Exactly. I told you how unpleasant your attitude had made contributing to the project, and your only concern was for your own happiness.
    Diffs 285-8: Les Misérables (2018 miniseries) is a strange one. Sorry to say I got sucked in, as a matter of days after you censured me for literal interpretation of guidelines [293] you were practising the exact opposite position when the roles were reversed. What's strange is you could have informed me of the precedents (over applying guidelines that I still think read far too vaguely to the uninitiated) you later revealed when I raised the matter at the guidelines talk page, or you could have let me know that Derek Jacobi wasn't in fact in the second episode (or any other) and thus we weren't actually in dispute over the article content, but the unnecessary situation was exasperated for no good reason.
    Diffs 293-4: Those are not my edits.
    Diffs 295-6: You cannot both not care about a matter, and oppose it. And if you meant something else, then my original reason for raising that contradiction stands, i.e. why a little-used template is fine by you in one instance, but a primary reason to stand against proposed changes in another?
    I will now take a break and allow others to state their thoughts. U-Mos (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @U-Mos: The link numering you refer to will change when earlier sections of this page are archived. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Exactly. And with that being said I think this topic should be closed. So unless this place has suddenly become the place for people to vent about people who hurt their feelings, there's nothing substantial here worth keeping the topic open for. Perhaps the closing admin can just remark that certain users should play nice in the future and this can be left there. Esuka (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hmains

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

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

    • Thanks to @Ritchie333 for opening this discussion.
    I'll try write a longer post later today, but for now I just want to note that Hmains is a prolific editor whose good intent to me to be seems beyond question. He's always civil, and I have seen no sign of any intentional disruption.
    The problem I see is long-term patterns of Hmains introducing plentiful errors which other have to clean up, and Hmains showing little sign of learning from these issues. It's the lack of learning which concerns me. Every editor has a non-zero error rate, but most editors learn how to avoid particular types of errors, or at least to check their own work and clean up after themselves. That doesn't seem to happen with Hmains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Given both the number of bots and editors which do nothing but change the sort of thing discussed here, it seems that there isn’t actually a problem for the reader. If some wikiteur is incensed because someone made a long dash by putting two short dashes together, even though the content associated is good, it may not be the writer who is the problem. Qwirkle (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak to active errors at all, not having reviewed Hmains' edit history to see what's going on — but what I do want to point out is that AWB automatically applies its own "general fixes" (inserting missing whitespace where it's needed, deleting extraneous whitespace where it isn't, converting template links from redirect-title to direct-title, etc.) independently of the job that the user actually coded for. For instance, if I use AWB to do a tagging run on articles in a maintenance queue, AWB will also apply all of those same fixes at the same time as it's making the changes I actually planned for. Not because I coded for that, but because AWB is preprogrammed to automatically apply those changes separately from what I coded for. So it's not fair to criticize Hmains for that, because AWB simply does that automatically as a side dish to the job the user is actually trying to do.
      If Hmains is making active errors that are breaking stuff, then that's a different matter — but please keep the discussion on focus, because criticizing Hmains for AWB's automatic genfixes isn't productive or helpful. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      If Hmains is making active errors that are breaking stuff – Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. Those in a hurry might start at [294] and read forward as necessary, and backwards according to taste. I want to echo BHG's sentiment that there's no question Hmains is sincerely trying to help. EEng 15:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be more impressed by seeing examples of him breaking stuff, not being told he is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read through the relevant threads on Hmains' talk page and also the diffs contained therein, and I agree there appears to be some kind of competency issue, I think some diffs would help here. Hmains seem like a very nice person, which is probably why they still somehow have managed to retain their AWB privileges (and please note if this changes that both Hmains and Hmainsbot are on the checklist). All that being said, doing this gnoming work is a thankless task, Hmains' intentions are 100% good, and we need to be kind, please. Fish+Karate 16:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to be honest and say that I don't personally understand what the issue is with Hmains, probably because I don't go anywhere the MOS or AWB so these edits never turn up on my watchlist (or if they do, they don't trigger sufficient interest for me to notice). However, while EEng can be .... an "acquired taste" to some, I find it very uncharacteristic that he would ask me to drop Hmains' AWB rights for no reason whatsoever - so there must be something going on here that I don't get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to mention that I'm offering free tastings all this week and next. EEng 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a gentle reminder to folks - spit, don't swallow. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that they're applying custom fixes, which work 90% of the time, but don't review their edits and they break stuff 10% of the time. An example is changing ... to _..._ (where _ is a space). That may be fine in prose in most situations, but it will break things like Bibcode:2018A&A...616A...1G. There are other example, but the point is repeated WP:AWBRULES violations and they edit in a broken-WP:MEATBOT-like fashion. Revoke AWB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Even after requests, I see no DIFFS being offered, just opinionns. 2600:100F:B125:1224:D075:21D1:EB81:E6AD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you know, you could just have followed up on many of the several links that were offered here. Like User talk:Hmains#For the last time. Or User talk:Hmains#Bibcodes, again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Revoke AWB rights

    It is clear that Hmains's use of AWB does not meet the community's standards and is prone to error. Per the consensus in this discussion, Hmains AWB access is indefinitely revoked. After a period of no less than six months Hmains may request access at WP:PERM/AWB. There are additional concerns about Hmains's systematic/repetitious stylistic and formatting edits, which may continue to be discussed if editors believe that an editing restriction is needed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Support indefinite revocation of AWB rights. Hmains can go back to regular, careful editing, of things he understands. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per User_talk:Hmains#Request_that_AWB_access_be_revoked seems like a good idea for a while. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support plus... the problem's broader than just AWB use. Per BHG's suggestion at User_talk:Hmains, in addition to no AWB we really need something along the lines of a topic ban from systematic/repetitious stylistic and formattimg edits. EEng 07:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support we can revisit the situation in a few months. Don't see the need to remove access to other tools however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, 6-month AWB ban This user is here in good heart but misused AWB, so I think a brief break from it is good enough. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 10:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: the discussion on Hmains' talkpage—linked to by EEng—raises sufficient concerns which, combined with the disruption (low level, but still) evidenced here, indicates that this particular use of AWB is...over excited, perhaps. A break is called for. It's merely a break; nothing punitive, and no-one is being sat on—it's just a (six month) pause for breath in which Hmains recalibrates their approach. ——SerialNumber54129 10:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • support as per EEng's outline and clear approach to this situation, well supported by similar comments. I doubt the user is benefiting from this method of contribution either, although it is not my business to speculate on compulsion to act and aversion to scrutiny (which describes virtually everyone, in some way), and they may also reflect on this as a good outcome. cygnis insignis 13:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, plus a ban on systematic/repetitious stylistic and formatting edits as I suggested at User_talk:Hmains, and as noted above by EEng. The problem is that Hmains doesn't take sufficient care over what they do, and while this is exacerbated by tools such as AWB, it is not limited to AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS Note that back in January, in a discussion at User_talk:Hmains, I opposed @EEng & @EEng's proposed revocation of AWB rights and proposed instead a 6-month suspension.[295] Since then, I have changed my mind on that.
    In hindsight, I think I was reacting to Hmains's undoubted niceness and goodwill, and trying to be gentle. However, having reviewed the long history I don't think there is any reason to assume that the problems of working outside their skill zone will be resolved in 6 months. So it seems to me that a 6-month suspension is unhelpful to everyone, because promising Hmains reinstatement without any test of whether the competence issues have been resolved just invites a re-run of this discussion shortly after the 6 month ban expires. So now I think it's better for everyone to make the revocation indefinite, and leave Hmains free to reapply at any time if and when they can demonstrate that they have gained a better understanding of the problems which have arisen, and demonstrate that they now have ability to avoid them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support temporary revocation - Hmain has contributed very well to Wikipedia for a very long time, but his AWB use is very concerning. Plus, the lack of response to the ANI threat and the user's talk page (as of 2/14/19) sends a red-flag to me. However, I think the user can learn from his/her mistakes. I think a temporary revocation is necessary, perhaps around three to six months. A permanent revocation is a bit too much for a punishment. INeedSupport :3 15:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      threat ==> thread? Not permanent, but indefinite in the way a block can be indefinite. He can ask for it back when he can explain why things will go better than they have. In the meantime there're plenty of other ways to contribute. EEng 16:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support revoking AWB rights indefinitely. This user has consistently failed to comply with both WP:AWBRULES and WP:COSMETICBOT, despite multiple warnings [296][297][298]. What is perhaps even more concerning is that they refuse to take proper care in checking every edit before they save, often leading to broken categories and MOS violations, with these edits going back as far as May 2017 [299][300][301][302]. While I don't doubt that these changes are made in good faith, until Hmains can learn to be more careful in using semi-automated tools, a removal of rights is in order. Omni Flames (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RightTruthTeller

    May well be an Sock of a banned account, they are however (as this edit summery makes clear [[303]]), not here to build an encyclopedia but are here to fight the good fight (and a clear SPA).Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Slatersteven: If you think the user is a sockpuppet, I'd recommend filing at WP:SPI. Edit: But upon review the user's edits, it does seem they are NOTHERE and WP:RGW. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are a sock, they got blocked early into their original account's activity, or else they are are attempting a bluff, as they dispaly zero familiarity with our WP:OR and sourcing standards: [304], [305]. I do think this is looking likely to end in a WP:NOTHERE block based on their TP comments thus far, to say nothing of the sandbox comments (apparently now revdelled) which could not be a more explicit statement of ideological agenda. I wouldn't argue against a prophylactic block under the circumstances, but heavy warnings, some coaching on basic policies and, and a bit of WP:ROPE (with very clear indications that they are already on the cusp of sanctions despite their just having arrived here) would be my preference. Unless Steven can put a finer point on the sock issue, that is. Snow let's rap 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The name and tone seems familiar, but mainly the name. It might just be the same kind of person is going to pick the same kind of name.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, please don't forget, you are obliged to leave a notification on the user page of any party whose behaviour you raise as the topic of a thread here. Snow let's rap 02:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified RightTruthTeller. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry thought i had, Guess I got it mixed up wit the many posts I made there before.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    RightTruthTeller has not edited in the past couple of days. If disruption resumes, we can evaluate and take appropriate action at that time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello people, It is I. I would like to assure you that this in in fact my first WikiPedia account, not a 'sock'. I simply created the account when I saw a piece of information on the site that wasn't quite true. I appreciate your concerns, I am most certainly not a second-account troll, everything I do is out of pure goodwill and a feeling of responsibility to the truth. Yours, RightTruthTeller (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)RightTruthTeller[reply]
    Welcome to the project, RightTruthTeller. I think, given the lack of more particular evidence of socking, we can WP:assume good faith with regard to this being your first activity on Wikipedia. However, that being the case, you are going to want to take a good long look at a number of our guiding editorial policies, including especially: WP:verification, WP:reliable sources, WP:No original research, and WP:neutral point of view. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but we actually tend to focus less on whether we, as individuals, credit a statement in an article as "true" and more on whether it is "verifiable" (meaning that a given assertion or other piece of article content can be supported with a cite to a reliable source--see policy linked above for definition). This helps keep our articles free of the idiosyncratic bias of individual editors and cuts down on what would otherwise be unending debates about the "truth" of a matter which would otherwise grip every article and talk page. Understanding these policies is key to productive and smooth contribution to the encyclopedia in any area, but it is particularly essential for those who wish to contribute (especially early into their time here) in controversial areas. Again, welcome to the project, and don't be afraid to reach out if you have questions--most community members (myself included) will be more than happy to share the benefit of their experience with regard to a direct inquiry, and there is is also the WP:Teahouse if you don't wish to go hunting for someone. Snow let's rap 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    182.30.190.211 (Suspected to be EurovisionNim)

    Recently I done a edit on a semi-small article. The IP been making unnecessary edits such as removing invisible sections of a car article. [306][307]. I have already created a sockpuppet investigation of this suspected IP and I think this should require attention. --Vauxford (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Vauxford - Have your updated your SPI report and added these diffs to the evidence statement? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah Yes, I updated the recent diffs on the sockpuppet page. --Vauxford (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Vauxford - Great, just making sure. ;-) I know that this SPI has been open for some time. The number of SPI reports filed lately have been more than we typically see on average (I dunno, I guess the moon must be out or something... lol); we're working to get caught up, respond, investigate, handle, and close SPI reports in as timely of a manner as possible. Just understand that it may take a bit more time than what's expected before it starts seeing comments and attention. One way or another, it'll be handled and matters investigated. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MetricSupporter89

    Basically all of this user's edits have been edit warring over variations of American versus British spelling or edit warring over which unit (imperial vs. metric) comes first in an article. As hinted by their username, I think that this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 04:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a very young editor who needs to gain a little more maturity before they can be a productive editor. Their personal goals are a bit at odds with the encyclopedia's. That said, I'm not prepared to say they're not here to help the project, but, having interacted with them a little bit, there is a certain absence of cluefulness. Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) And now it seems that they are logging out to edit: [308] I will be blocking both for 24 hours in the meantime. --Rschen7754 04:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal: MetricSupporter89 is topic banned from directly changing any unit of measure or any English variant spelling. They may propose changes on an article's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Seems reasonable and might give them a chance to learn our ways. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. As linked above, the editor has been warned multiple times. The username makes this sound like it's going to end poorly, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above. --Rschen7754 07:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. The alternative is to waste time trying to persuade them to change their ways, but I've never seen that work yet with such a single-minded young person and it almost always ends in an indef block. Hopefully they can direct their energy in more productive directions, while maturing a little. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN. Although I worry that leaving the door open for talk page discussion is just inviting disruption of another sort. I have to say, with such a strongly evident WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW/WP:SPA focus. I'm doubtful there is a general purpose editor to be salvaged from this, and fear this approach will only allow gamesmanship, but if they become disruptive in their talk page interactions in advocating for particular spelling or metric idiosyncrasies, I suppose they can always be brought back here then--and in the meantime it is possible this approach will restrain their edit warring while allowing some useful changes relating to their fixation to filter through. It's worth a shot in any event. Snow let's rap 11:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing restrictions

    You have an unblock request at your talk page, which is the correct venue. Block evasion here will not help. If you have any further comments to make or points you wish to be considered, log in and post them at your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Morning Wikipedia community. I am here because I want my issue to be resolved going foreward. Last night, admin NinjaRobotPirate blocked me based on the assumption that i "may be similar to another editor". I am editing and posting here with as an IP because he revoked my editing rights and blocked me as Loved150 based on the assumption of quote "two editors seem to share editing tweaks". I have left a message on my talk here [309] so he can unblock me because it is unjust to liken me to a user i don't know & then going as far as blocking me based on his assumption. A brief background is that sometime back, a checkuser Berean Hunter looked into me but could not block me after finding that i am clearly not affliated to anyone here [310]. To my surprise, Ninja robot blocked me because he assumed I "may be another editor". I dont know and i am sorry if i am overstepping my jurisdiction since i am fairly younger but i view the actions of Ninja as an administrator using his full throttle power on a helpless & vulnerable non-administrator & would wish someone in here to unblock me 102.146.224.45 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Iban violations: read what I actually wrote

    I have just blocked Godsy due to a series of very recent violations of their interaction ban with Legacypac (logged at WP:EDR). This is the latest in a series of actions between the two editors which resulted in the interaction ban (discussed here) and due to Godsy repeatedly testing the edges of the original restriction it was refined here. Legacypac posted an admin request for review on his talk page, and after reviewing both editors' recent contribs I found that Godsy has been repeatedly editing drafts on which Legacypac is the next-to-most-recent contributor, and not much else (not just incidental while commenting on many drafts, for example). It's pretty clear to me Godsy has specifically targeted Legacypac's contribs, so this is a clear Iban violation.

    Since this has been an intermittently active issue for two years and Godsy seems to be testing the limits of the refined restriction this week, I have blocked indefinitely expecting that the block will not be lifted without some kind of assurance that this will be the last time we need to discuss it here.

    To that end, and owing to the scope of the hounding, I propose that Godsy is indefinitely banned from drafts including any page in Draft: or Draft talk: namespace, userspace drafts outside his own userspace, from miscellany for discussion, and from any project discussion regarding drafts, all broadly construed.

    If there is consensus here in any direction, any admin is free to modify Godsy's block as I may be unavailable for some time today. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block. Godsy was clearly—albeit subtly—continuing their feud with LP with draftspace the theatre, presumably as being further off the radar than mainspace. If this was a recent "thing" then it could probably be resolved, as there's usually the potential for self-education: but after two years, self-education would appear to be lacking. I daresay an appeal might succeed in the future; I wouldn't advocate one for much less than six months, though. ——SerialNumber54129 12:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a topic ban from MfD, if unblocked. MfD is a high profile forum not amenable to subtle harassment. No sign of problems there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not exactly sure editing after him is a violation. In fact, the I-ban page says "the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other." I haven't seen any direct interactions. The specific terms of the I-ban also don't seem to have been violated. That aside, I'm really having a hard time understanding why Godsy feels the need to edit these minor drafts, and can't stay as far as possible away from Legacypac. While this seems to circumvent the interaction ban, this is definitely continuing the feud. I also have another minor issue with admins dropping indef blocks and then coming to the community for reinforcement. This in effect community bans the editor and makes a successful appeal much more difficult. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Remember this isn't simply a normal interaction ban. The wording was modified as part of this discussion Special:PermanentLink/800239899#So unhappy to post this as a result of community concerns. While the issues highlight above aren't direct violations of XfC limitation, they reflect the communities concerns about the two editing the same pages. Editors expressed concern about their fringe interaction in other places e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#IBAN violation?. I think there have been more but I admit I couldn't find them. Either way the editors should have understood the greater need to take care surrounding any edits which seem to relate to the other editor. Anyway more importantly, the whole point of interaction bans whatever their wording is to cut out interactions between editors when they aren't seen as productive. Editors are supposed to understand they need to stay away from each other as much as possible, not follow them around. If Godsy is mysteriously appearing on each page edited by LegacyPac, and often does not appear on other pages, this is a very strong indication they aren't obeying the iban. I haven't looked at the evidence, but if Ivanvector's assessment is true, it seems a very likely iban violation and would demand some sort of block for violation unless they can offer some reasonable explanation which doesn't involve them following the ibanned editor's contribs and then editing just after. (The only time I can see it justified looking the the contribs of someone your ibanned with would be when you're looking into filing a complain about a violation. And when you do so, you should never edit any page you saw in your investigation, even if you think you would have discovered it independently. Likewise, if you see the editor's name your watch list, you should likely ignore the page. I mean if it's had multiple edits it may occasionally be justified to check it out, but this should be done with great care.) Frankly the history means it's unlikely that Godsy has any reasonable explanation, and also means an indef is IMO justified. (And of course any block can be appealed, so if Godsy really does have a good explanation, they can still offer it.) Remember also this could easily be considered WP:Hounding even without an iban. This doesn't mean an editor just happening to edit a page not long after an editor they are ibanned with would always be a violation, since it's reasonable that may happen by accident especially if there is a good reason why both editors would have independently been interested in that page (e.g. it concerns something in the news, by which I don't mean ITN recently, it's TFA, it was listed on some noticeboard etc) but too many 'coincidences' give reasonable cause for concern. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Indefinite /= permanent. I see problematic behaviour and my two options are: do nothing, or block entirely. A more refined sanction is definitely apporopriate here but admins don't have the authority to unilaterally dole out limited bans in situations like this. So what should we do?
    As for not violating "the specific terms" of the ban, that's kind of a side point here: the history of this dispute has several examples of Godsy clearly following Legacypac but not quite violating the specific terms of the ban, which is how I read the conclusion of the second discussion I linked to. As Legacypac pointed out in today's talk page request, the drafts which Godsy edited after Legacypac this week were all obscure pages in idle userspaces which Legacypac moved to the draft namespace, which Godsy then commented on less than a day later, during a time when Godsy was not doing anything else. All 14 of the drafts that Godsy edited today (15 Feb, UTC) were recently edited by Legacypac, all but one of those on 13 Feb. The last time before that that Godsy edited a draft was on 3 Feb, which was also the next edit after one by Legacypac a few days earlier. I am open to there being an innocent explanation for that pattern, but with Godsy being known to have some kind of grudge against Legacypac it seems doubtful. To me it suggests that Godsy was specifically going to pages appearing in Legacypac's recent contributions, not just going around flagging new promising drafts as part of their regular activity and incidentally overlapping with drafts Legacypac had edited. And that is a continuation of the hounding behaviour referred to in the second discussion, so additional action is warranted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My view on this is that if you think a block you have just made needs to be reviewed on AN/ANI, you should probably bring the matter to AN/ANI for discussion before a block is placed, not afterwards. I don't think Godsy necessarily needs to be restricted from all draft space, just from editing drafts that Legacypac has edited, as that appears to be the issue. Fish+Karate 15:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for the block to be reviewed. I'm very comfortable with this block. If there's not consensus to do something else here I'm quite happy to just leave Godsy blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: If you are not asking for the block to be reviewed, then what are you asking for? Note the title of this section is "Iban violations: request review". Paul August ☎ 18:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose that Godsy is indefinitely banned from drafts including any page in Draft: or Draft talk: namespace, userspace drafts outside his own userspace, from miscellany for discussion, and from any project discussion regarding drafts, all broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For editors to review Godsy's I-ban violations, I assume? ——SerialNumber54129 19:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is clearly an IBAN violation; I don't think it justifies an infinite block (a week may be enough IMO), but indef != infinite. The reason for the interaction is clear; Legacypac has been moving a lot of {{Userspace draft}} tagged draft-like pages from user space to draft space recently (where they would be eligible for WP:G13 deletion). Draft:Marin_Kristo_Frasheri-Gjoca, for example, was created in 2011 by an editor with 3 edits and has been ignored since then. I'd support in principle a restriction along the lines of "Godsy may only edit articles in draft-space by adding referenced content to them to improve them so they may be moved to mainspace", but from experience that will result in at least two more ANI threads. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the description, it sounds to me like an IBAN violation. Maybe a week or two for reflection. Their unblock request is most unpromising. It is a shame that this goes on. Such a waste. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think the TBAN is not good. I agree with GoldenRing that cautioning Godsy (which I did on his talk page earlier) to check more carefully about avoiding the appearance of violating the IBAN. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • An iban is an iban, I guess. However, it is not possible for someone who cares about drafts (whether in draftspace or userspace) to engage with that area without interacting with Legacypac. An iban with legacypac goes a long way towards a de facto tban on drafts. I don't think it's controversial to say that legacypac's approach to drafts can be, well, controversial. He is the one (in my perhaps limited experience, anyway) far and away most likely to push the envelope with regard to deletion of drafts, with apparent willingness to take actions or !vote in ways that test the procedural gray area or subvert deletion-related PAGs/conventions. As consistent as he is with this, it makes sense to me that someone who cares about what happens in draftspace/userspace may likely take issue with Legacypac's methods. In other words, if one is looking for particular issues or actions that come up regarding drafts, it's not unlikely that legacypac will be the one that pops up as responsible. The reality is that if one person is best known for a pattern of controversial actions in an area, there will be corresponding patterns of people addressing those actions, and that could be framed as hounding rather than more straightforward maintenance/editing. I'm not trying to turn this into a case against legacypac here, to be clear (I also don't want to give the impression that I don't think legacypac doesn't do some good work around here), but rather trying to frame the nature of such an iban/tban in such a space. We'll see if I'm putting my foot in my mouth, I guess, though. I don't think I know anything about their history, hadn't seen the past threads, and haven't read gone through them with any real thoroughness, so there might be more to the story than I realize. Ultimately, an iban is an iban, I suppose, and so a block seems merited. Indef + tban definitely seems like overkill for this situation though. Without knowledge of the past, I wouldn't formally weigh in on the block, but Oppose tban. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a little uncomfortable with this block. Editing pages that have been edited by the other user is not a violation of the letter of an interaction ban (so long as the edit is not a revert). And while Godsy's contributions could be explained by him following Legacypac's edits, the explanation he has offered also seems very plausible to me, when combined with the insight from Rhododendrites above. I'm not saying Ivanvector acted wrongly - I would almost certainly have done the same - but I think, given the explanation, that Godsy ought to be unblocked with a ticking-off for not checking which user has moved pages to draft space. GoldenRing (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GoldenRing are you aware he flooded my watchlist to let me know he is watching me twice before? Once it was a series of meaningless edits to random pages and another time a series of opposes to a bunch of MfDs I started.
    His current unblock request is an attack on my editing that violates the IBAN.
    While I work to delete a lot of junk User:Legacypac/CSD_log I also regularly move AfC pages and old userpages into mainspace that meet our N and V criteria. I operate well within policy and practice. I've even helped write some of the policy and guidelines such as the current G13 wording. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JasperKlomp02's sandbox

    Sandbox deleted. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The other day, this user's sandbox was deleted. It has many revisions (~400) with the editor having three mainspace edits. It was nominated for deletion through MfD. I opined that the user was misusing Wikipedia as a webhost. Now, the sandbox has been recreated with similar webhost-y like contents. There was no response from the editor when the sandbox was nominated for deletion. So, my question is: can his sandbox be protected against creation? I also think that this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case as well. Thanks!

    Here is a link to the page in question: User:JasperKlomp02/sandbox. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support deletion (whether through this ANI thread, another MfD, or G4) and create protection. I previously expressed a view to keep in the MfD, but now its obvious this editor isn't going to contribute to the encyclopedia, which is why I'd also support a NOTHERE block. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To me that looks like various articles I've created in userspace where I collect mentions while trying to determine whether (or waiting until) a subject is notable. Except of course he's writing about his own work, but if he declared a COI, he could do that and submit to AfC once he could prove notability. valereee (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Henry Box Brown and George Pell

    Semiprotection
    and range blocks free editors
    from whacking more moles. Leviv ich 18:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    I've tried both AiV and page protection boards. Can we get some help please? 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Haiku-style closes
    At Incidents Noticeboard
    Odd innovation!

    EEng

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

    Baseless Hindu-centric edits made by User:Fylindfotberserk on Gurdas Maan

    IP blocked for a week by Bbb23. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    I would like to bring out the baseless edits made by User:Fylindfotberserk on Jat Sikh musical legend Gurdas Maan.

    Specifically, Fylind took it upon themselves, and their fabled (and scientifically proven as BASELESS) "Indo-Aryan" heritage, to remove Gurdas Maan's birth town.

    I then provided a reasonable source that stated Gurdas Maan is from Muktsar, to which this Hindu did not take too kindly and promptly reverted+threatened me with punishment (seems this is all they have learned, the esteemed James Mill [author of The History of British India said as much ]).

    I have added additional sources, but I think this user will continue to revert. The carnage they have caused on Gurdas' page (and likely other legitimate Sikh individuals) is unspeakable, but very reflective of the anti-Sikh sentiment that Wikipedia has fostered.

    When will our concerns be heard? Or are the combined ratio of the Hindu and Muslims to Sikhs (100+++ : 1) continue to fall upon deaf ears? We are having our very own stolen from us, because some uneducated editors from India want to spin a story that falls in their favour.

    It must stop. 24.65.154.39 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please make sure if you report you inform them on their user talk page, I have already done so for you. TheMesquitobuzz 04:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Fylindfotberserk has started a conversation on the article talk page. Have you tried talking about your differences? It often helps defuse tense editing situations. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attempted to do some formatting and content fixes. Hope that helps. --Ebyabe (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what's with this IP editor from Canada. All I wanted was not to have any WP:OR in the article. A person's might be a native of village A but be born in Town B while in transit or otherwise. Why can't we have explicit mention of his birth place like a lot of other BLP articles.
    Instead all this user does is to harass me and fellow editors he differs from. I've also issued a level 4 warning here but he still harassed me See here, here. And also note the ridiculousness of his edit summaries and ref names. And how is being born or not being born in a certain place equals to Anti-Sikh propaganda? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by IP editor 24.65.154.39

    IP 24.65.154.39 editor has repeatedly harassed me.

    • Initially here. After that I issued a issued a level 4 warning in his talk page here
    • But again harassed me here and here.
    • He also used slang words in my talk page here

    This IP was recently blocked. Clearly he is not here to edit articles assuming good faith and act as per civility. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    LTA causing rapid disruption, needs immediate block

    Handled capably by Rschen7754. Aspening, thank you for reporting. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    807CB720A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has created a vandalism-only category and is adding pages to it extremely rapidly. I'm rolling them back as I see them, but this user needs a block ASAP. Reported to AIV but no one has responded. Based on the target pages, this is either BMX on WheeIs or Cruizir. Aspening (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Yurikanger

    Hi. Some strange edits going on with this user. They have been warned by several users about making null edits, or adding un-needed spaces in the category section on articles (example). However, despite this, they are continuing with this (one, two). Maybe it's linked to the countless declined drafts listed on their talkpage. I don't know if this crap-flooding of watchlists is disruptive, but they don't appear to be communicating about this issue. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    They don't seem to notice toned down messages about their behaviour and the need to stop it. I've given them a warning that should be more effective in getting their attention.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkDice Off site canvasing

    MarkDice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    I make a habit of occasionally reading article listed in Wikipedia:Press coverage as I find it useful to keep an eye on what others think of Wikipedia as my experiance is that it can affect both content and policy pages and also create storms in a teacup.

    At the time of reading (an writing this) the most recent article listed is:

    As I have never heard of the person (I'm a Brit) I had a look at the talk page of the article Mark Dice and saw that the first, entry on the talk page is a section titled "YouTube subscriber count" started by User:Jimbo Wales on 30 January 2019.

    The first reply is by a new user user:MarkDice who claims to be the subject of the biography. No one has questioned this so I assume that the account is being used by the subject of the artilce. I started to read the very long page (currently 206,461 bytes long and all written since 30-01-2019). I may add a comment to that talk page, but as yet I am totally uninvolved. I noticed that the last comment made by user:MarkDice was 7 Feb 2019 (diff) and that user:MarkDice has only edited that talk page (contributions).

    On User talk:MarkDice the most recent section states:

    == Off wiki canvasing ==

    Is unacceptable and really against out best practice, this [[[311] has lost you any sympathy I may have had for all, all it has done is caused a raft of childish vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It is also why I've blocked this account and block anyone who shows up because of the video. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious what Jimmy Wales has to say about this development after getting involved in the BLP talk page in the first place...? - wolf 08:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    While I appreciate that Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Notifying the blocked user can be read to mean that "It is also why I've blocked this account and block anyone who shows up because of the video" (posted within the same minute as the block with no follow up on the blocked user's talk page) fulfils the policy I personally would never be as terse. Where is the usual Template:Uw-block or similar with an explanation of how to appeal the block?

    I was going to post a message to User talk:Ian.thomson to disuss the block (per WP:RAAA) and saw the section User talk:Ian.thomson#Mark Dice. There were comments in that section that that made me decide that such a converstaion would be fruitless:

    Extended content
    == Mark Dice ==

    Background: I have sided with Dice exactly 0 times in that discussion and I am explicitly mocked at the 2:20 mark in that video. Not that I get a say in such things but I think blocking someone because they post off-site criticism of Wikipedia is not great. While it was meat puppetry I think this is a case where discretion would have been the better part of valor. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Barkeep49: If it was just criticism, I wouldn't have blocked. He knows he has a following and he's using it in bad faith to get what he wants without regard to our policies. I recommend reporting the video (and his comment linking to the talk page) for harassment. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in my case it might have started, should be fun times.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: If I'm on and I see further incidents (on your page and a few other), I'll semi-protect. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No need, it does not overly worry me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then. It looks like it's just a few folks going to random pages because they don't know what they're doing (...I mean, if they did, they'd be taking a different approach). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those accountants (being very generous) have just posted rants about how unfair Wikipedia is, and snide comments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And all of them were unaware of WP:TALK. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Were they, all the blocked accounts, even the ones who have been here for years? Even after I posted this [[312]], which tells any one who read it the talk page is for discussing the article, not a soapbox?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If Dice was a far-left conspiracy theorist, would you be complaining about me blocking accounts who posted stuff that had to be revdelled? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, completely ignoring politics, we're dealing with fans of a professional troll. Calling his fans here on Twitter was a cry for attention. Calling Jimbo on Twitter was a cry for attention. Coming on here was just gathering material for yet another cry for attention. Calling his fans here on Youtube was just a cry for attention. The best that can be done is to avoid giving them another platform and showing them that rallying the base is useless. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) None of you asked but the recent batch of accounts are Red X Unrelated to User:MarkDice and  Unlikely to each other. But, as someone who had to look up just who Mark Dice is (and also an accountant fwiw) I endorse these blocks per WP:MEAT and per Arbcom direction on what to do with obvious meatpuppets (which, in my opinion, includes long-idle accounts waking up in response to a blatant canvass). Please copy this comment if anyone feels the need to escalate the issue to one of the admin noticeboards. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I figured they were unrelated, which is why I didn't bother filing an SPI, tagging, and opening a category page of suspected sockpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole "reactivating old accounts" thing is a big red flag for me, and I'm not saying I saw nothing, but nothing that suggests any more useful action at this time. I will likely check again later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand user:Ian.thomson's concerns when (s)he writes "Also, completely ignoring politics, we're dealing with fans of a professional troll.", but if this was part of the reason for imposing the indefinate block then the inference is that perhapse user:Ian.thomson would have acted differently if the video had been posted by a none "professional troll", that was seen by few people.

    I pondered on this and re-read WP:WHEEL and decided to reverse the block because we usually do not bite newbees and there is no reason why this new editor should have been aware that such a prohibition existed, when he made and published the YT video. Assuming good faith as an alternative a warning could have been given not to do it again, as blocks are not supposed to be impose as a punisment.

    I have ended the indefinate block because while I think that the publication of the video is a clear case of off site canvasing, it should be discussed here and a consensus formed over what to do at WP:ANI. My ending of the indefinate block should not be read as my approving of the actions of MarkDice/Mark Dice, and I will take no further part in discussion of the initial block or other possible actions that may be discussed here. I will however reserve the right of reply if anyone questions my actions in ending the block, or makes a personal attack.

    I hope that a clear consensus will emerge from this discussion and perhapse the place to start would be if other editors can add links to similar discussions in the ANI archives about off site canvasing so that we can be informed about those previous discussions and decisions about what to do in such situations.

    -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironically, the re-blocking would be wheel-warring I think, but I totally agree that PBS shold be reminded that unilaterally overturning a community consensus has surely got to be mainline to arbcom... ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a terrible cowboy unblock, against community consensus (there's already been an AN thread about this) and without contacting the blocking admin, which should result in a swift trip to ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My ending of the indefinate [sic] block should not be read as my approving of the actions of MarkDice/Mark Dice, and I will take no further part in discussion of the initial block or other possible actions that may be discussed here. So you reversed an admin action without consulting the admin involved, didn't research the background, created a mess, and now you're simply going to walk away? And by the way, yeah, unblocking Mark Dice is a de facto approval for his canvassing. --Calton | Talk 13:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm disappointed PBS felt the need to reread WP:WHEEL on the assumption that they'd be reversed - and especially to say so above as a chilling effect - but not WP:Blocking policy#Unblocking, the policy that would cover their own action. —Cryptic 13:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reblocking

    Since having a single admin reversing this action would count as wheel-warring, I propose that the block be reimposed by immediate consent. If PBS wants it reversed, he can argue for it first. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would suggest PBS reverse it or consensus here is obtained within 24 hours (or whatever the customary time period is these days). Don't let any technicalities get in the way of this one. spryde | talk 13:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There already exists a community consensus to block at AN. Although this hasn't ran 24 hours, there is consensus here that PBS's actions were improper. IMO, the only way this doesn't end up with a desysop action at Arbcom is for PBS to reverse himself sooner rather than later. John from Idegon (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the unblock, support a reblock, but let's calm down a bit here. I wish everyone on all sides would take on board the suggestion that MarkDice be treated like any other editor (that goes for Jimbo, PBS, and everyone else). The community has faced these sorts of issues before and there are existing practices and procedures and policies that should be followed. It's not proper for an admin to reverse another admin's action without discussion first; nor to take action directly against community consensus (e.g., the AN thread on this subject). If the consensus to block is reaffirmed here, it seems proper for an uninvolved admin to re-block. But that doesn't mean we should adopt a "block on sight" policy for suspected canvassed accounts, and talk of ArbCom seems over the top to me. I could do that thing and provide a shitload of diffs of admins undoing other admins' blocks without discussion, against consensus, and nobody taking them to ArbCom over it, or ArbCom denying a case request. Y'all know there've been some recent well-known examples of this. I say reaffirm consensus, reblock the account, and follow our usual procedures. This is a trout not a de-bit situation. Us getting hysterical about Mark Dice is what Mark Dice wants. Leviv ich 14:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ^+1 ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you ask me, Talk:Mark Dice contains a bunch of hysteria about Dice, from top to bottom. Leviv ich 15:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions on user pages are ususally reactive to the user themselves, and MD's page is neither exception nor exaggeration. The discussions BK was referring to that haven't' involved MD, however—here and at AN—have been qoutecompletely under controlunquote. The environment of a discussion moulds the discussion, you see. ——SerialNumber54129 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129, it would have been better if any of the following happened: 1) Jimbo hadn't brought attention to it in the first place; 2) editors ignored Jimbo instead of rushing to the article; 3) other editors ignored the whole thing instead of rushing to police the article; 4) Dice's canvassing was ignored instead of him being blocked; 5) Dice's followers were ignored instead of being blocked; and, 6) Dice wasn't unblocked without him making an unblock request, leaving good enough alone. Just my opinion. Leviv ich 15:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly consensus is against you on that. And why, may I ask, did you reply to me when it was Black Kite who responded to your remark about "hysteria" to which you were then responding? ——SerialNumber54129 15:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What does ^+1 mean? I intended to reply to both of you, but I must have misunderstood your comment. Please accept my apologies. Leviv ich 17:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful about using words like hysteria, Levivich. It was using hysterical that caused me to be banned from Jimbo's talk page. Gendered overtones, apparently, although I thought that was ancient Greek usage. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I did miss that on the talk page, care to link to it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed something you replied to? I know you more often than not seem to get it wrong but ... Here's example. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no mention here of canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:CIR. I am getting very fed up of it: numerous examples of your incompetence/slapdashery at that one article talk page alone and your speciousness beggars belief. Re-read the entire talk page if you must. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can see is something about his ranting about his article, that is not canvasing (any more then this is). What I need to see is clear evidence he has done this sort of thing (saying "go over" to my page and edit it) before. Because if it is a lot of users who discuss articles off Wikipedia are canvasing, is that the criteria we have?Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's [313] ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm I would point out this is part of the same incident, just on another platform, that does not really go far to establish he has done this "before", or that he will do so again. Blocks are not punetive. I supported the block for this current round of canvasing, but all users deserve to show they have learned their lesson.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus already exists that it was a bad unblock. Any passing admin can reblock based on that consensus without this subthread, and should do so and close this entire section immediately. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reblock. It'll mean more if someone besides me blocks at this point. Dice continued to canvass after being blocked for it. He clearly doesn't care about what the article says, he's just wants another platform to rally his fans around. WP:RBI is the standard procedure for dealing with trolls. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The editor has been reblocked. [314] Leviv ich 17:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reblock What the ever loving fuck good does anyone in their right mind expect to come from inviting that guy to edit this site? Seriously! If you want to argue this point, you need to present a coherent case that unblocking was a good idea, not a vague case that the original block was not perfect. WE ARE NOT A BUREAUCRACY. Claiming that this block was wrong due to some technicality is essentially the same as admitting this was a good block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose reblock for much the same reasons as the !vote above, though in rather more civil language. WP:MEAT gives grounds for blocking meatpuppets, not the meat-puppet master, and certainly not indefinitely. And what good, exactly, does blocking this account achieve? What does it prevent? On the contrary, it gives Mark considerably more latitude to cause trouble. On a side note, I am having real difficulty seeing how Drmies reblock is not wheel-warring; linking to one involved editor's opinion that consensus exists is rather different to consensus actually existing, especially when a section on reblocking has one !vote in favour and another !vote against. GoldenRing (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEAT gives grounds for blocking meatpuppets, not the meat-puppet master, and certainly not indefinitely. What part of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy did you find difficult to comprehend, and why did you think my comments mentioned if, as you have just implied, my reasoning had nothing to do with it?
    And what good, exactly, does blocking this account achieve? What does it prevent? On the contrary, it gives Mark considerably more latitude to cause trouble. That is the single most ignorant statement I've read on this site in at least a week. Congrats, I guess. To answer the silly questions in it; it prevents Dice from disrupting the project himself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to your question is Arbcom. Unless you think another consensus is going to emerge, overturning the previous one (yeah, right), then there is nothing more you or anyone can do here. If there are issues with it, then that is the next venue. And moaning about the result doesn't get the guys back on the pitch. But, you go ahead, feed the drama, I'm sure there isn't enough of it! ——SerialNumber54129 19:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:MarkDice is WP:NOTHERE to develop the project, he is using Wikipedia to create controversy and gove him material to rant about. He knows full well he should not be canvassing his viewers to edit the page, but he did it to create controversy which gets him more views. It's working because I'd never heard of him but now I've watched his view. Keep him blocked and block any acct that crosses the line into trolling. Be sure the option to file an appeal of his block is available. Then ignore him to the extent possible for attention is what he seeks Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I was about to reblock the account given the opinions expressed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mark_Dice_related_blocks, but I see that user:Drmies has breached policy and already done so. Before I took the decision to unblock, I had searched for a block discussion both here and at WP:AN, however I searched for MarkDice as that is the user name under discussion, and as no one mentioned the account name in the AN section or posted a heads up to the account's talk page that a discussion was taking place or the outcome of the discussion I failed to see that section. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understood it (and it is the basis of my vote) that AN thread was about the blocks of other accounts (for meat puppetry), not Mr Dice for canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I also thought we were discussing meatpuppets as Dice himself was already blocked and no one was seeking to review that. The path to an unblock is usually admission of wrong in an appeal (or tweet Jimbo) Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies didn't wheel war. It's not necessary to refer to the AN discussion; at the time Drmies reblocked, there was a strong consensus above that PBS's unblock was bad. There was no need to start a new section "Reblocking", still less to wait for that section to gain yet another consensus for the block — how many consensuses do we need? I agree with Tony Ballioni here, and I obviously disagree with Golden Ring. I'll quote WP:WHEEL: When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus. I've bolded the references to consensus in there. Drmies reblocked after a "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision". Bishonen | talk 20:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

    User:182.68.56.106

    Both IPs blocked by
    a ninja/robot/pirate
    for 31 hours. Leviv ich 20:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    182.68.56.106 (talk · contribs) is the sock of 117.97.142.249 (talk · contribs). Please see Talk:The Voice India Kids, and Ponting @Ian.thomson: as the blocking admin. --B dash (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Shaheer Zohaib

    Please proceed to c:COM:AN

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

    This user continuous to upload copyright images despite 30+ warnings, the latest being this. Recommend a block or sanction. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure. All the warnings were on his en talk page. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: I doubt his current uploads are own work. Just tagged another one. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:IDHT at Talk:The Voice India Kids

    A few IPs blocked,
    talk page semi-protected
    for 24 hours. Leviv ich 20:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Various IPs have been disrupting things at Talk:The Voice India Kids for the last few days. The article is not protected, but an edit request keeps getting placed for some reason. At least four different editors have responded to the edit request, all noting that the article is not protected and that the user should be able to make the edit. After each response, the IP removes the response and reopens the request, with escalating threats. Yesterday User:B dash and I were taken to WP:AN3, which was boomeranged back at the IP who reported it. Based on the "final warning" in the latest request, it's quite likely that I'm being reported there again now. The IPs have not responded to requests for further details as to why they can't edit, so I have no idea how to respond to this at this point. Can someone take a look? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - with the bouncing IPs it didn't seem feasible to place notice on the user talk page, so I placed a notice at the article talk page, where it was also reverted. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked a few IP addresses and semi-protected the talk page for 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=883667349"