Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Article: Malta convoys[edit]

After this and this, & perfect willingness to discuss both times, I've effectively been told by User:Keith-264 there's nothing to discuss, because he's right. I expect another false accusation of vandalism any minute now from an editor who seems to believe he owns the page (judging by his numerous edits every day & refusal to acknowledge he even has to defend any of them). I also expect another Admin to look at my edits, & this notice, claim I'm just gaming the system, & do fuck all, just like last time. So this is probably a complete waste of time & effort, if not an open opportunity (yet another!) to block me for "incivility", which so many seem to be looking for. Funny, the edits I made from around 20 Sept (& which I can't find again in the history, as usual...) were perfectly okay when made by somebody else (take a look at the page now & day before yesterday, & compare). AGF? That's getting harder to do, when I keep seeing other people managing to do what I just attract rv & complaints of vandalism & indifference & accusations of "gaming the system" for. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If two of you are discussing and can't come to a consensus you should use some form of WP:Dispute resolution and not ANI to resolve the dispute. That said, I'm highly concerned about the false accusations for vandalism by Keith-264. If they continue, they IMO should be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll allow I've broken 3RR. So has he. And Nil, you've seen two more false claims in the space of 2 minutes. (I am pleased to see somebody cares about that.) He's also not responded here, tho notified. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(EC) Incidentally, because of their false accusation, Keith-264 has just broken 3RR. (Since they aren't reverting vandalism the exemption doesn't apply.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I only broke it after he effectively said he had no intention of discussing. It appears to me the vandalism claims are an attempt to circumvent 3RR. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be a resumption of the previous edit war from September 2017. Insofar as there was a consensus then, it supported Keith-264, though the closing comment of a relevant RfC specifically noted "no prejudice against further discussion about what else specifically could be removed." Discussion is the operative word here; Trekphiler, you should discuss the removals on the talk page, and try to establish consensus for all or some of them, instead of attempting to edit-war them in. If Keith-264 isn't willing to discuss your changes anymore, clearly that means he's a no on them and any support for them needs to come from other directions.
Keith-264, please refrain from edit warring and from false accusations of vandalism. While you are right that the context is relevant, in no way does it make Trekphiler's edits vandalism; vandalism means deliberately disruptive edits made in bad faith. Sideways713 (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Trek made an unwarranted inference and yet again made a capricious mass removal of material, which broke consensus and is what I reverted ages ago becuase he was the one who stopped talking. Trek's edits in the context of earlier discussions and the long silence since, were clearly vandalism if not sabotage. If you take the trouble to look at the talk page you will see that I refused to accept Trek's framing and his tactics, not the principle of consensus seeking. I am willing to discuss the material he wants out but not from the position that he removes the material and requires persuasion to put it back in since this won't be forthcoming. My next suggestion was to be an exploration of the use of the note as a way of moving contentious material rather than removing it according to one editor's demands; trouble is, I've got Manflu so it will have to wait. Keith-264 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

PS what happened to my comment here earlier today?Keith-264 (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Guys, get a room. This is a content dispute and is best solved by discussing on the Talk page with references to reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
"Discuss & get consensus"? With somebody who refused to even answer any of my remarks the first time & called it vandalism, & this time said he had no position he had to defend & wasn't "beholden to me", effectively refusing to discuss this time, too. Discuss what? And I see false accusations of vandalism are perfectly okay, provided I'm the one being accused. And I see somebody else making the very same edits I did is perfectly okay. Did I start over with the same edit as a year ago? I must certainly did. I believed it warranted then, & I do now. I also knew this was going to be a wsste of time. Go ahead, block me for being "incivil", again. At this point, I just don't give a damn. Trying to improve anything here is like trying to hold back the tide. Canute I can see Shannon! 16:03 23:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Two editors at loggerheads do not a consensus make. If the discussions here and on the article talk page aren't enough to make additional editors weigh in, you can try pinging the users involved in the previous discussion on this topic (given that they generally took Keith-264's side last time, no one could possibly consider it canvassing); or you could post a neutrally worded note somewhere like the talk page of the Military history WikiProject, requesting the input and views of uninvolved users interested in the subject.
If you can't establish that the consensus now supports your edits, don't push the matter too far, and remember that there are many other articles for you to improve. Sideways713 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── That seems fair enough. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Speedy Question Mark[edit]

User:Speedy Question Mark has repeatedly edited the All Elite Wrestling logo to change the background color from black to white. He claims this is to make it look better or fit into the page better or something, but regardless, the logo is black and it's unclear why he thinks he can just decide to make it a different color. After he finally dropped this and accepted using the proper logo, he then created a duplicate logo, with the apparent intent of hiding his edit/revert history. I reverted this change and marked the duplicate for speedy deletion, but he quickly undid both edits, apparently because he thinks we need to have a "discussion." He refuses to listen to other editors and this is all just horribly unproductive, I was hoping the admins could set him straight. Thanks! Wicka wicka (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If it helps anything, it appears the extra revisions are soon to be deleted. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I feel a lot of the users on here are quite rude, aggressive and possessive when it comes to certain articles and it's a real turn off when trying to help out and edit articles, all I did was upload a version of the logo without a background which is usually done with many brand logo's on Wikipedia (the one I uploaded had the letters outlined so it could stand out from the white background) but for some reason on this very article It's being treated as if I'm vandalising it which isn't the case, the other users keeping making up this story that I'm apparently trying to hide something which I honestly don't even know what they think I'm trying to hide because there is nothing to hide. I have huge OCD so the reason I wanted to upload a new version is because the old image was full of reverts and it looked irritating. I've explained my side of the story many times but I honestly feel like I'm being ignored and pushed into a corner. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Behavioral issue, you kept reverting the image despite several people making comments. Piece of advice, if an edit is reverted do the folowing: Stop, understand the reasoning behind the revert, discuss a difference of oppinion instead of just reverting again. (And yes I admit I don't always do that myself) MPJ-DK (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
a little late for Xmas, but a gift of the Magi for EEng-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
Many brand logos have the background removed because it is not part of the logo. That is not the case here. The logo is black, it is not white. You were not removing the background, you were changing the color of a company's logo. You need to understand that. Wicka wicka (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, pro wrestling. The gift that keeps on giving. EEng 18:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I know, ain't it great? Considering how much time you have spent on a DYK related to a wrestling hall of famer I know you are a true fan. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
And believe it or not we're on the verge of wrapping up. You might want to drop in and opine. EEng 02:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cena Augustus... --Shirt58 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Many media sites have used the AEW logo without the background so it gave off the impression that is wasn't part of the logo. Sorry my mistake. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── (Non-administrator comment) Based on the revision history, both side seem break 3RR by upload their own version 4 times, within a day. So, before the wrestling, would it better to use the talk page, dispute resolution chamber and/or page protection first? However, if both side willing to discuss the matter, then it is not that urgent to discuss in ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I could delete the one's after the last stable version. Pretty sure the current version is missing its license.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe I restored the last good version of the file and the appropriate page history leading up to it.--v/r - TP 19:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what's happened here, it looks like you've reverted it back to the original high-res, uncropped version. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't think you wanted to cropped version, but I can restore that instead.--v/r - TP 20:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better. I'd have restored the uncropped version too.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

nationalist azeri editor changes armenian name Yerevan[edit]

Not something for ANI. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

why you guys allow a [redacted] edits wikipedia articles? User:Aykhan Zayedzadeh tries to insert azeri propaganda in this article: changeing Yerevan to Erivan: [1][2][3][4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.158.105.139 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • What was the city known as in 1650? The article suggests it was Erivan. Regardless, Erivan and Erevan both redirect to Yerevan, so the point is minor, and also a content dispute, so not something that needs to be here. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:D.Lazard reverting continuously my edits without proper discussion in the talk page[edit]

This user is continually reverting my edits to Function (mathematics). I have also had to revert some of his edits and reverts. I have added corresponding sections one and two in the talk page of the article explaining what are the error that his edits/reverts would introduce/reinstate. Note, the lack of participation in the discussions. Only reverts after reverts. Cactus0192837465 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • You have 5 reverts in the last 24 hours [6][7][8][9][10] and a history of revert warring on the article [11][12][13]. I strongly advise you to revert yourself and commit to use the talk page instead of the undo button before the next sysop gets here. Otherwise you have a WP:3RR or WP:EW block.--v/r - TP 20:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Have notified D.Lazard (talk · contribs) of this thread. Neither has edited since this thread began. Both have 3RR warned the other.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) What is the procedure when edits introduce errors, I revert and add corresponding sections in the talk page explaining why the edits introduce errors, but the editors simply revert or re-add the erroneous information without visiting the discussion in the talk page? Cactus0192837465 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a content dispute. Stop reverting, attempt discussion, failing that, seek dispute resolution. At the heart of each and every content dispute are at least two editors convinced they are right and the other editor is wrong. Each of you has 3RR warned the other. Time to discuss. If an edit changes the status quo, the onus is on the person making said edit to justify the change. TParis gave you an ultimatum. I'd hate to be the one to execute it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, you can start a request for comment on the article talk page and request feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
To Dlohcierekim: I am not really been 3RR warned on my talk page by Cactus0192837465. What looks as a user warning is a copy on my talk page, made by Cactus, of the user warning that I did on his talk page, copy that includes the paragraph that I have added to the template, my signature and the time stamp [14] D.Lazard (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is the recent history of this edit war: the three first reverts by Cactus0192837465 have been reverted by three different editors, including myself. More properly, they were not reverted, but edited, as these editors and two others proposed improvements of the disputed sentence. In each case, Cactus reverted to his preferred formulation without any tentative toward a consensus. Thus, after his fourth revert, I have warned him to his talk page, with the {{uw-3rr}} template [15], to which I have added On January 10, you did four times the same revert. It is possible that, before this warning, you ignored the WP:3RR rule of Wikipedia. Now this rule has been notified to you. So, the next time you will break it, I'll report your behavior to WP:ANI for an edit block. Then I have edited the disputed sentence [16], by changing a single word. The reaction of cactus was almost immediate: he answered first first on his talk page [17], with personal attacks ("your lack of understanding of proper grammar"). Then he made his fifth revert, and posted a long comment in the article talk page [18] (this diff contains also the answer by another editor, which is better than any answer that I could write). He also opened this discussion.
These are the yesterday evening events. I have discovered Cactus's reaction this morning, just when I was for opening a thread here. IMHO, this is a typical case for WP:BOOMERANG. D.Lazard (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I am just noticing that this is not WP:ANI/3RR. As it is WP:ANI/I, I should mention that Cactus uses to attack personally people who disagree with him by treating them of incompetent (see above quote), and by qualifying as wrong everything to which he disagrees. This is a problem of disruptive editing, which is not yet blatant enough for opening a thread here. In fact, this disruptive editing is mixed with technical matters, and is, therefore, difficult, for non-specialists, to distinguish from normal dispute content. This is the reason for which I have not yet opened a thread here. But administrators must be informed that this is a problem that can be, later, the object of a notice here. D.Lazard (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Nainanike[edit]

Nainanike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I've let this go on long enough, but it's clear in my mind that this user is WP:HOUNDing me. To the point of I now expect them to follow me around. They make only a few edits a day, but the numbers that follow an edit I make is increasing. In September I asked them to stop this, which was reverted. At the time, I asked NinjaRobotPirate for some help/advice on this, and he posted this on their talkpage. It was reverted. He then started to post constantly on my talkpage, which I asked him to stop. The stalking continued, and again I asked them to stop. I've pointed out to them multiple times that there are tens of thousands of articles relating to cricket to edit/improve, but it's amazing at the high percentage of edits that follow me around.

I started a log of "highlights" here. The other problem is that this user logs out and edits as an IP from multiple ranges. These are listed via same link, and can be seen below the hounding info. Note how many blocks and rangeblocks have been applied. Any further help with this would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support one-way interaction ban to prevent Nainanike from editing an article or participating in a talk page discussion where Lugnuts has been active. Actually, if someone cares to do a bit more checking, I would also support an indefinite block because the creepiness has been ongoing for months—the NinjaRobotPirate warning was 26 September 2018. I checked Nainanike's most recent nine edits and they clearly are following Lugnuts. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure a traditional one-way IBAN is going to be effective here. The number of talk-page interactions are minimal and the chunk of edits I looked through in the interaction analyzer didn't contain many (any?) reverts - it is substantially more common for Lugnuts to revert Nainanike than vice versa.
    Looking through the results of the editor interaction timeline since September, there are a very uncomfortable number of Nainanike's edits where Lugnuts made the previous edit. And the old interaction tool's results are rather worrying (though I seem to have overloaded the tool and broken it for the moment) - out of the top 24 articles where they have both edited, I think I'm right to say there is only one where Nainanike edited first (and that in the past few days - the tool itself seems to get this wrong sometimes, though, and you have to go look at the timeline to see who was first). By my calculation, 1999 of Nainanike's 2,543 edits are to pages also edited by Lugnuts, nearly 80%.
    It seems pretty clear that Nainanike is following Lugnuts around; it is less clear to me what the intent is. As noted, there has been very minimal interaction on talk pages or through reverts; it's clear that Lugnuts is finding the attention uncomfortable and unnerving. It seems on a glance that Naianike's edits are generally useful (ie they are not a vandal-only or harassment-only account) though I haven't looked at this aspect in great detail.
    So what to do? A block seems over-the-top for an editor whose edits are generally useful (if I've got that right, of course); can we ban someone from editing pages that have been edited by another user in the last X days? Is that likely to improve the situation? GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe there's zero interaction via talkpages (I'm happy to be proved wrong on that, of course). The issue that this has been going on for months and shows no signs of stopping, and has been told on multiple occasions, including once by an admin, to stop doing this. A block can always be lifted if they acknowledge this issue in their unblock request, and promise not to continue. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I was including the 'User talk' namespace under 'talk pages'. GoldenRing (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Today's first edit. Sigh. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
On top of what seems to be WP:HOUNDING, I'd like to point out that the user is also violating WP:TALKO by deleting other's comments on his talk page. here [19] and here [20] Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That is not a talk-page violation. With certain exceptions that are not relevant, there is no problem from removing comments posted on your own talk page. The issue should be simple: I think two admins have semi-warned Nainanike and all that is needed is a block when unexplained stalking recurs. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Ontop of this, this editor also has a bad habit of updating things way before they actually happen, such as this. For thos of you not familar with the world of cricket, this edit shows that the ground in New Zealand had hosted a match on 11th Jan, with the edit made on the 10th Jan, some 7 hours+ before the game actually started. This isn't just a one-off and happens across similar articles. There's always a chance a game might not take place due to rain, and at worst, this is adding incorrect information into WP. I see it in the same light as an IP vandal who changes a DOB by one day, for example. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Nainanike has ignored requests to participate here and has instead carried on editing cricket-related articles also edited by Lugnuts. I have therefore blocked for three days in the hope it will encourage them to participate here. Any admin who feels the situation has been resolved to their satisfaction is welcome to unblock without checking with me, especially as I won't be around a lot over the weekend. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you GoldenRing. As I suspected, they've just gone back to editing as an IP. Note how that edit just adds the ref for the team but doesn't add the squad, similar to this edit by Nainanike. And it's from the 103.116 range in Gujart, India, which they've used before (amongst other ranges) to edit. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

email edit request[edit]

I received an email from User:Woyun (just created, no edits) that said

Article "Gerard Mourou" // Awards and honors Please add hyperlink "Nobel Prize in Physics".

I have never edited this article to my knowledge and find this request quite strange. Perhaps a sock? MB 15:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, and it is weird, but given the edit is both appropriate and uncontroversial, I've just done it. Fish+Karate 15:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that if you answer enough edit requests, people may sometimes start to consider you a semi-official point of contact for more requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
No indications that the article is a regular sock target, maybe it's just someone who couldn't figure out the editor. My personal practice is to not do edits for editors who are not technically restricted from making the edit themselves, but to help them make the edit on their own. YMMV. Maybe that's why I don't get as many requests any more. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It just seemed so unusual for someone to create an account, then email a seemingly random editor to make a minor change that they could have just done. I see from their user page that they also contacted another editor by email to make a change to a different article. MB 23:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MetricSupporter89[edit]

(non-admin closure) User warned, puns commencing, time to close Kleuske (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MetricSupporter89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly made edits to articles, particularly those relating to entities/locations/infrastructure shared between multiple North American countries, in order to push their POV surrounding instruments of measure (particularly, changing the prominence of the metric system). One example is Colorado River, whose imperial measures were changed to listing metric first because it partially lies in Mexico, and is thus subject to metric primacy as an "international" topic (thus trying to overrule MOS:TIES).

After I reverted one of their edits (which, despite nominally being based in the United States, changed the ESRB to be an "North American" organization in the lead because it is predominantly used in North American countries), they also threatened me and claimed that my username was a violation of policy because references to snakes can "frighten young people". I'm pretty sure that's not what the spirit of the policy meant. (Oddly enough this is only the second time my username has been called out like that by such a user. for the record it was mainly about the Dodge Viper.)

Their username is also a pretty blatant proof of their POV. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I have given this editor a final warning about their pattern of tendentious editing. Please inform me if the behavior resumes, and I will block them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If Mr. MetricSupporter89 was as bright as he seems to think he is, he'd know that US articles use US Customary units, not Imperial. EEng 02:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    @EEng: Indeed, that seems to be quite imperialist of them. I don't know by what metric would this user's behavior be considered acceptable. SemiHypercube 03:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. EEng 03:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    And every inch 2.54 cm a king. (of course, that's more like your user page, talk page – the whole nine yards) SemiHypercube 04:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Londonergezzer replacing nationalities[edit]

RESOLVED
Londonergezzer and all socks have been handled by a checkuser. --Jayron32 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In edits like this, Londonergezzer has been systematically replacing the country of someone's birth (e.g. English) with the region of their birth (e.g. Yorkshireman). I raised the issue on their talk page, specifically replacing nationalities with 'Norman', but they deleted my message without reply. I am concerned that they are not discussing their proposed changes, and causing other editors the extra work of reverting their controversial edits. See also Pinkbeast's concerns. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

He has not since the diff you list above, returned to the problematic behavior. I went through his diffs since January 7, and for the past week, he has not done it since. It looks like your comment worked and he's stopped on his own. Can you explain what led you to come here to raise this concern a week after he had ceased with the problematic behavior? If there is something else I am missing, please provide some more diffs and an explanation, because I don't see anything much since then. --Jayron32 14:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I didn't bring this to AN/I because it's a bit illformed, but I still think something smells here. As discussed at Curb Safe Charmer's talk page, there also seems to be at least one IP (Special:Contributions/185.49.74.145) making very similar edits (which could of course just be Londonergezzer quite legitimately editing while logged out), and I'm aware of other accounts and IPs (Hopeful2014 the most obvious) who seem to keep turning up in the same places. I haven't gone to SPI for the same reason I haven't brought it here - I'm not sure what's going on, it just seems a bit dubious - but I think since it is here, it could be instructive to see how often those two accounts and that IP edit the same pages. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, on my way to drop an ANI notice on their talk page, I see Hopeful2014 was doing the same thing with nationalities in December - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHopeful2014&type=revision&diff=873034023&oldid=871942600. Hopeful2014's last edit was on the 23rd December, being warned that a block was possible on the 24th December; Londonergezzer started to make their rather similar edits on the 29th December. I wonder if this does warrant investigation? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
As a side note, I think none of these three editors has ever used an edit summary or talk page, although sadly that hardly proves they are the same person... Pinkbeast (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: my message to them was on 30 December, and the diff I provided showed that they deleted the message from their talk page without replying to it on 6 January. They then continued to make edits regarding countries, nationalities and regions on 7 January. @Pinkbeast: - the editor interaction analyser does show an unusual pattern [21] and as I type this, I can see that a checkuser has just blocked the accounts. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information guys. Yes, it does smell fishy; though now that a checkuser has taken care of it, this looks wrapped up. In the future, if this person returns, try WP:SPI to report them; that will get the attention of a checkuser as well. Thanks! --Jayron32 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LittleRoman15[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LittleRoman15 (talk · contribs) - This user has been making minor, useless edits to their user page in order to gain the extendedconfirmed flag [22]. Is this considered as gaming the system? It also seems to be a WP:NOTHERE case since they are probably focusing on gaining rights. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 14:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's gaming the system and an obvious sign of not being here to contribute constructively. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mozart834428196[edit]

Blocked indef. SQLQuery me! 22:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mozart834428196 (Contributions) - Resumed genre warring and addition of unsourced content since numerous warnings going back to September of last year, including "final" warnings. Dan56 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

December 2018

And so on. Dan56 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have given that editor an indefinite block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by DBigXray[edit]

Closing per Ivanvector's analysis.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DBigXray has performed as many as 2 set of 3 reverts today[37][38][39] and also on 8 January[40][41][42] to smear Khalistan Commando Force as a "terrorist" group in violation of WP:TERRORIST and he also edit warred to claim that the group is "radical" without providing any source whatsoever. In order to stop this edit war and POV pushing by DBigXray, I initiated discussion and adhered to the policies[43] while DBigXray posted over 11000 bytes of a reply lousy with unreliable sources such as "Lulu.com" to make his policy violation right.[44] I have already made enough replies to make him aware of WP:TERRORIST and how his edits are improper[45] but he is not hearing and when I detailed his use of self-published sources,[46] he deceptively removed mention of "Lulu.com" when the message was already replied.[47]

Unfortunately, he is still exhibiting that he can't understand the policy on WP:TERRORIST or he just don't want to accept it, which seems more like the case according to his last response on the talk page.[48]

This same type of disruption and smear campaign is also evident on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale where in place of addressing the issues I raised and waiting for consensus,[49] he restored the content of 26,000 bytes[50] that he himself wrote by using unreliable sources, plagiarizing content, and misrepresenting sources. Because it is becoming tiresome to repeat same thing and DBigXray continues to be obtuse, I am reporting him here so that others can evaluate this disruptive behavior. DBigXray is editing with a clear agenda. He can't even understand these simple policies, let alone understanding the sources and interpretation which require thorough analysis before bringing them to main page, yet he wants to write about the subjects about which he doesn't know. What is worst is that he doesn't want to hear whatever you tell him. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • There is a complete lack of WP:AGF from Harmanprtjhj as evident in his talk page comments.
  • I have noted that Harmanprtjhj has been making WP:TENDENTIOUS edits to whitewash pages related to Sikh Terrorism and remove all mentions of the word "terrorism" (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) and add freedom fighter (diff, diff), by misquoting WP:TERRORIST even if the subject is widely covered in the reliable media as a terrorist organisation.
  • [51] As evident by his talk page, Harmanprtjhj was reverted and warned by many other editors including an admin User:C.Fred, who had also placed DS template and suggested to take this to ANI if it continues.
  • On Talk:Khalistan Commando Force page enough evidence was provided[52] that the subject (a banned terrorist organisation) is widely represented as a Terrorist organisation in reliable media and also independent third party sources such as books, scholarly sources, New York Times, Chicago Tribune etc (listed on the talk page) but he is refusing to acknowledge the same[53].
  • The word Lulu.com was autofilled by the citation bot during autofill and I did not notice it at first, I had corrected the publisher's name to Crossbow Books, Washington as mentioned in the book in this edit
  • On the page Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale same type of tendentious editing was shown by Harmanprtjhj when he tried to add [54] POV content from biased source such as this one by AISSF, a group that is Pro-Khalistani and actually participated in the violence, and was banned in India. The "language used in this book is often emotional and entire religious groups type cast in a negative manner often embellished with words such as "Evil, Treacherous, Wicked without any factual evidence", of course as is expected from a propaganda book.
  • Added [55] a bunch of youtube videos as references and removed [56] reliable scholarly sources that did not support his opinion
  • On the same page Harmanprtjhj tried to misrepresent another source [57] related to terrorism, when the source [58] did not actually say anything that Harmanprtjhj was trying to claim, the source only said the "information will be available at another location ( with the state government)". When Harmanprtjhj was asked [59] to cite the actual line that supported his position, He started attacking me on the talk page about my other edits [60], [61].
  • Based on the talk page discussion, I have added more references that were asked along with copy editing where ever was necessary.
  • I have already responded to this user on the talk page and I am willing to continue the discussion for any content related issue on the talk page. --DBigXray 20:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC) [updated on 21:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)]
Complying with WP:TERRORIST is not whitewashing. Fact that you still can't conceive this rather enforces the original complaint. Do you really claim that there was nothing wrong with making 3 reverts in every couple of days over what seems like blatant POV pushing? I am not too surprised since you were doing same thing when you were violating BLP on Jaggi Vasudev, whitewashing on 1984 anti-Sikh riots, adding POV on Rafale deal controversy, and more. These examples are from less than 2 months and these pages had to end up getting full protection because of your unnecessary edit warring over the edits that were never accepted. You were similarly gaming 3RR there and bludgeoning on talk pages while harassing the editors on their own talk page. At this stage it appears that a topic ban from the area is warranted. Qualitist (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it appears the first use of the word "terrorist" in the article was by an IP editor here: [62]. The edit was reverted several times until it appeared to stick by a number of different editors. Appears to me to be a pure content dispute. SportingFlyer talk 03:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • User:SportingFlyer How this is a content dispute when the next person is on a smear campaign and cant understand simple policies? He is also misrepresenting sources, plagiarizing content from unreliable sources (copyright violation), making 3 reverts everyday to evade 3RR for restoring completely nonsensical edits and asking others to block me[63] and now canvassing others to participate in this report.[64] This looks like a pure competence issue since same thing appears to have already happened on a number of other articles cited by Qualitist. This could be due to bad command in English as well as POV pushing mentality and in place of wasting any more time there should be a solution to this recurring problem. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Harmanprtjhj: The user that was "canvassed" was an administrator who had recently posted on your talk page and who had reverted similar edits as the ones reverted by DBigXRay. They are not the only user who has warned you in the past week, and you've been warned on multiple articles. I don't see any evidence of a smear campaign here, just an edit war, and based on a review of your contributions since you registered on December 29th, maybe some possible competency issues and/or socking. SportingFlyer talk 05:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: I think you mean an involved admin (per own admission) who was involved in same dispute as DBigXray but stopped warning Harmanprtjhj and also stopped helping DBigXray after he was introduced to deceptive editing of DBigXray.[65] People do take the word of an experienced editor when reverting new editors by assuming good faith towards more experienced editor. They don't verify their edits and DBigXray is trying to exploit that AGF. You should better know that selectively leaving notes user talk pages is a violation of canvassing. DBigXray already pinged C.Fred here, but still, DBigXray left a talk page note on C.Fred's talk page and pinged him there as well.[66] It is a smear campaign and textbook of disruptive editing when you are making 6 reverts to label a group as "terrorist" and labeling a person as "terrorist", which is not allowed by Wikipedia policies to use these words in Wiki voice. DBigXray is also using terms like "radical" without giving sources. If this report concerned a new editor then he would be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. DBigXray likes to spam warnings on talk pages of editors, just like he was spamming on my talk page yesterday (while he was edit warring and disrupting the pages) but these "warnings" should be considered as forms of harassment by DBigXray. 103.255.5.96 (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC) (I pasted this message by IP user here because this messages sums it up nicely. Harmanprtjhj (talk) )
  • Just noting that the amount of WP:ABF and deceptive tricks used by these "brand new accounts" and the [Banned user using] IP above is too damn high. Since the content disputes didn't seem to work so far, now there are bickerings about a "ping" in an apparent attempt to lobby for sanctions, FYI, in case you were not aware, just know that the WP:Ping to C.Fred [67] never went because it was not in a new line or had my sign at the end, hence I had left a note. May be you should let C.Fred answer how many pings he received from this ANI thread. --DBigXray 09:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC) [updated 13:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)]
  • Badgering by a ban evading IP aside, I still believe that this is a content dispute which should be resolved at the appropriate talk page. Regards. << FR 15:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Ban evasion
  • @SportingFlyer: I think you mean an involved admin (per own admission) who was involved in same dispute as DBigXray but stopped warning Harmanprtjhj and also stopped helping DBigXray after he was introduced to deceptive editing of DBigXray.[68] People do take the word of an experienced editor when reverting new editors by assuming good faith towards more experienced editor. They don't verify their edits and DBigXray is trying to exploit that AGF. You should better know that selectively leaving notes user talk pages is a violation of canvassing. DBigXray already pinged C.Fred here, but still, DBigXray left a talk page note on C.Fred's talk page and pinged him there as well.[69] It is a smear campaign and textbook of disruptive editing when you are making 6 reverts to label a group as "terrorist" and labeling a person as "terrorist", which is not allowed by Wikipedia policies to use these words in Wiki voice. DBigXray is also using terms like "radical" without giving sources. If this report concerned a new editor then he would be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. DBigXray likes to spam warnings on talk pages of editors, just like he was spamming on my talk page yesterday (while he was edit warring and disrupting the pages) but these "warnings" should be considered as forms of harassment by DBigXray. 103.255.5.96 (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @103.225.4.8: The warning was posted after your second revert on January 11th, inviting you to the talk page, and the disruptive editing warning after your third revert per the page history. Perhaps leaving you a message instead of a template warning would have helped de-escalate the situation, but these warnings were technically warranted and are far from harassment. SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: Misleading warnings constitute harassment. This 3RR warning for reverting 2 disruptive edits came after I had already discussed sufficiently discussed the matter on talk page.[70] Where as this warning came when I never made any disruptive edits. The irony is that DBigxray was himself edit warring and making disruptive edits when he was leaving these warnings. Also take a glance at his misleading RFPP request[71] which he made only for disabling me from editing the article. When DBigXray is incapable to understand the valid use of these warning templates then why he should be trusted with editing these sensitive articles? 103.255.4.4 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noting that the amount of WP:ABF and deceptive tricks used by these "brand new accounts" and the IP above is too damn high. Since the content disputes didn't seem to work so far, now there are bickerings about a "ping" in an apparent attempt to lobby for sanctions, FYI, in case you were not aware, just know that the WP:Ping to C.Fred [72] never went because it was not in a new line or had my sign at the end, hence I had left a note. May be you should let C.Fred answer how many pings he received from this ANI thread. --DBigXray 09:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • According to you, it is fine when you are seeking block against your opponent[73] and requesting semi protection when I am reverting your disruptive edits.[74] But it is not fine when your wilful disruption is being reported? 103.255.4.4 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This incident looks primarily like a content dispute centered around the reliability of the sources provided. I believe this would be better handled at the appropriate t/p. Regards. << FR 09:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You are misrepresenting the dispute. This report concerns wilful misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, agenda driven editing, battleground mentality and failure to understand what is being told. 103.255.4.4 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There have been a couple additional problems here. First, Harmanprtjhj moved the response from the block-evading IP out of the hat and used it as their own response. I was pinged again just now to see the user had re-added the response verbatim here: [75] I checked to see why and how it got deleted and saw that DBigXRay had removed the post here: [76]. I'm astounded any user would be so bold to remove text from an ANI thread in which they are directly implicated, especially because this is a page which is well watched, and the response could easily have been considered by any admin who closed this thread. SportingFlyer T·C 00:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • After this comment, DBigXray went to ask an admin to remove the criticism about his editing above.[77] Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be a content dispute if both sides are presenting a meaningful version, however in this incident we are only seeing one user (OP) complying with the Wikipedia policies where as other one (DBigXray) is edit warring to reinstate POV edits that would be never allowed in Wikipedia. Harmanprtjhj has respected WP:LABEL and WP:NPOV, where as DBigXray has made 6 reverts to violate these policies. These things have been already told to DBigXray more than enough times on the talk page, but DBigXray still appears to be holding an odd view that discovering a few passing mentions of the term "terrorist" would justify the labelling groups or people as "terrorist". Edit warring was also done to include the mention of "radical" but sources are missing for this yet another "word to avoid" in spite concerns raised on talk page. The talk page conversation was never needed at first place but now that it exists, it does reads like WP:BLUDGEON on DBig's part.[78] DBigXray's attempts to falsify publisher's name after one user highlighted the self-published source would discourage any editor to hope for a sensible dialogue.[79] DBigXray describes this falsification in his above replies that he "corrected the publisher's name to Crossbow Books, Washington", when the publisher is indeed Lulu.com not Crossbow Books.[80][81]
As for the other article, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, DBigXray is excessively relying on a downright unreliable source after copy pasting content directly from the unreliable source and he is failing to accept that the source is unreliable.[82] Anybody can agree that it is an unreliable source only after reading the first paragraph of the source,[83] let alone reading the name of the author who has deep COI with the subject. Responses here don't show anything but confirms the views of OP that DBig is being obtuse and editing with an agenda. The recent response on the talk page that "Claiming that these sources does not exist is a demonstration of WP:IDHT. Kindly stop this whitewashing before you are blocked for repeated WP:Tendentious editing"[84] is extremely hostile and the editor indeed does not understand what the argument is exactly about. No one has said that such "sources does not exist" but their edits don't comply with the policy. I think supporting a topic ban on DBigXray from anything related to India and Pakistan is warranted at this point, which should be appealed after six months of positive contributions elsewhere to Wikipedia or something like that. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You are misrepresenting sources and edit warring to continue editing with an agenda while you don't even understand what these simple policies say. You make personal attacks and bludgeon discussion whenever your poor edits are dismissed. No one will argue about obviously unreliable sources nor anyone will accept your poor edits since you are also misrepresenting sources. Your own link in your edit cited "lulu.com" as publisher, which is also verified as lulu.com by sources outside Google Books. You warn people even when they merely discuss your edits,[86] yet you are making these personal attacks and false allegations like "outright lying", "deception and lies", "clearly malicious attempt", etc. and by doing this you are proving that your issues are wider than disruption in India and Pakistan subjects. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • response inline.
  • "You are misrepresenting sources". Care to explain which source did I misrepresent ? Throwing allegations is not going to help you in any way.
  • "no one will argue about obviously unreliable sources" A source does not become unreliable, if you dont like what it says.
  • "Your own link in your edit cited "lulu.com" as publisher, which is also verified as lulu.com by sources outside Google Books." The book clearly says the name of the Publisher: Washington, DC, Crossbow Books Google books even has the publisher's name right on top of the cover, plus here is another citation noting the name of the publisher. [87]
  • "You warn people even when they merely discuss your edits,[88] " The comment linked clearly states the reason why you were warned. You are supposed to read the message and not to repeat the same behavior again.
  • "yet you are making these personal attacks and false allegations like "outright lying", "deception and lies", "clearly malicious attempt", etc." The evidence that shows the deception and lies have been provided in my comment above. You have made claims and allegations and I have responded to them, now let an admin, read and handle the case, if it has any merit. --DBigXray 00:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So you still believe that this "I didn't hear that" mentality will help you? Each of these points have been already proven. Just read the comment of Wikiman5676 as well as my original complaint. Being obtuse is not going to be any helpful for you. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • DBigXray's interaction with others strikes me as bullying and harassment for which they have been warned following an extensive ANI.[89]. More interestingly, this is cumulative behavior is just as apparent even after this ANI report was filed. For example, Soman made a comment on an AfD concerning their article, where they pointed out that DBigXray is seeking deletion on "weak grounds".[90] DBigXray replied Soman by writing an aggressive response,[91] and also warned Soman on their talk page by falsely accusing them of throwing "ad hominem".[92] On other AfD they have made more false accusations against Soman that the user is using Wikipedia as a source and also that they are using "fake refs",[93] which was pointed out by other user.[94] DBigXray appears to be trying to drive this editor out by disparaging them and falsely accusing them of misbehavior. This type of toxic presence together apparent IDHT behavior sinks others time. I am seeing similar behavior in this dispute where DBigXray unnecessarily attacked Harmanprtjhj just now with the comment that they should "stop this tendentious editing and join the discussion in the thread above"[95] despite significant participation of the user in the said discussion. Kraose (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Kraose, It is interesting to see the nefarious way you are trying to spin up my AfD comments by showing half side of the picture. I first thought of ignoring your comment, but on second thoughts I felt it is better to address it.
  • This comment at AfD by Soman [96] that says" Noted that User:DBigXray keeps initiating deletion processes on weak ground" on the AfD nom is clearly an ad hominem, without basis. I noted this and reminded [97] the editor about relevant policies that expects editors to avoid Arguments_to_the_person in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Which is a perfectly reasonable response for such ad hominem. And you have tried to spin this incident as "DBigXray replied Soman by writing an aggressive response,[142] and also warned Soman on their talk page by 'falsely' accusing them of throwing "ad hominem". This response from me was neither aggressive, nor my "reminder" to avoid ad hominem a " false accusation".
  • Regarding the accusation, "On other AfD they have made more false accusations against Soman that the user is using Wikipedia as a source and also that they are using 'fake refs',", Soman had made the AfD comment without providing any ref at the AfD to support his argument. Initially the article was entirely unsourced [98] and marked as unsourced. When I had checked the 2 sources, I could not find the mention of the subject and accordingly I had noted this in my comment [99]. When it was pointed[100] that 1 out of 2 sources did mention the subject in passing, I immediately struck off my old comment and noted this change [101]. And then I posted on PMC's talk page [102] who agreed that the second source doesn't mention the AfD subject, "even in passing". PMC then updated his AfD comment to note this [103]. But I see that you have conveniently left the entire picture because clarifying it interferes with the deceptive story that you are trying to build up here.
  • " DBigXray appears to be trying to drive this editor out by disparaging them and falsely accusing them of misbehavior. ", Noting that these 2 are my only interactions with this editor, this line of yours actually gives more credibility to my assertion that you here, are trying to spin up a story using deception.
  • On the Talk:Khalistan Commando Force Harmanprtjhj has so far not responded to my specific questions on the talk page thread and is trying ANI litigation here, as a way out of this content dispute. He is even using [104] ANI thread as some sort of approval for his actions on that page.
  • In the end, I would note that your turning up on this thread looks highly suspicious to me, especially with the manner and the deceptive tone of your comments. I note that you were also invited to comment in a recent ANI thread against me where you tried similar tricks, diff, diff in support of a group of editors, who are carrying out a sustained campaign against me with multiple ANI threads, every now and then, to exaggerate and crank up, content disputes in an attempt to make it appear something gravely serious and then use to as a way out of ongoing content disputes by calling for bans/sanctions. I also note that this is not the first time you have been seen commenting/voting "in support", and 'along' with this "group of editors" some recent diffs are [105] diff, diff diff [106]--DBigXray 13:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Together with edit warring, POV pushing and righting great wrong mentality, you frequently throw personal attacks while you also leave ill-considered warnings on other editors's talk pages only for discussing your edits.
  • Your on-going pattern of disruptive editing is evidenced by many recent examples, which includes your 7 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 you made a few botched page moves to retain this misuse of article space. You also made 5 reverts on 1984 anti-Sikh riots by misrepresenting sources and using BLPCRIME as exemption[107][[108] 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 your lame edit war. What is even more interesting that your edits received no support from any other editor in spite of your massive bludgeoning on each of the concerning talk pages[109][110][111][112]. Your disruption on talk pages has been beyond disruptive because you attack opponents[113][114], modify others comments[115], remove others comments[116] and engage in typical IDHT.[117][118] I note that how all of these articles attracted no controversy before you started disrupting them. It is clear that you can't edit without righting great wrong or harassing other editors. What about your creation of Pakistan administered Kashmir against consensus (December 2018) and your 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. It took you less than 2 months to produce all these examples.
  • You are moving into indef territory with your unhelpful bludgeoning. Qualitist (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I've been asked, as Harmanprtjhj observed above but didn't bother to notify me as they deployed my talk page as a weapon, to review this situation. Regular observers of this board probably know that DBigXray and I are not exactly kindred spirits, but I honestly don't see any merit to this one-sided presentation by a two-week-old account of a content dispute. Here is my very general review:
    • Harmanprtjhj is the aggressor here. I'm not a fan of describing organizations so prominently as "a terrorist organization" no matter what reliable sources say because it's an inherently political label (one man's Jesus is another man's Hebrew terrorist) but a brand-new account immediately going on a mission of replacing "terrorist" with "freedom fighter" and then taking out vendettas against users who get in their way is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, they're here to push a point of view. As DBigXray described, they've been doing this exclusively on organizations reliably and prominently described as Sikh terrorist groups.
    • Harmanprtjhj is obviously somebody's sockpuppet. There are just so many sockmasters editing in this topic area that it's difficult to pin down which this is, but I'll get there.
    • At a glance, it seems that DBigXray has responded suboptimally, but digging in beyond this thread it's reasonable to describe their actions as assertive but reasonable responses to an aggressive, tendentious editor (see my first bullet). DBigXray has been trying to discuss the content matter and has been met with only stonewalling which is well exemplified in this thread. If you look at any of the other discussions you find only users agreeing that Harmanprtjhj's edits are inappropriate, making this thread a good example of asking the other parent.
    • The other users coming here to dredge up old disputes are typical retrospective "twisting the facts" commentary that's just so typical of editors treating topics covered by WP:ARBIPA as a battleground. It's childish. It's this behaviour that's the time-sink. Go do something else.
In summary I don't see anything for admins to really do here, and I suggest that some neutral observer close this thread before we have another ANI ARBIPA blowup. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP Vandal needs to be re-blocked asap[edit]

IP re-blocked. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

24.34.85.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Is blanking and copy-editing pages, please give them a longer ban this time, thank you. Cards84664 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Whoa whoa. I am NOT a vandal. Nothing that I’m doing is deliberately harming Wikipedia. All of my edits are perfectly legitimate and are being reverted for no reason. I left a message to the reporter, who appears to have had problems with mass unexplained reverts before (per the talk message right above mine). 24.34.85.169 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
And now the reporter has removed my talk message with no explanation whatsoever. I believe that they are allowed to do this, but them doing so suggests that they have no intention to communicate or be polite. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The block of 24.34.85.169 previously was a checkuser block due to LTA activity. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 18:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Those are some confusing terms you just used, but I honestly don’t care what the previous block on the IP was for, I’m a different person who is confused and getting frustrated by mass unexplained reverts. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
And you both edit the same Interstate Highway articles. I'm not buying it. Cards84664 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Whoa. They're not actually vandalising anything, this is a content dispute (and so I've removed the AIV report). However the fact that this IP was checkuser-blocked previously, and looking at the previous contributions, suggests that it is a blocked editor, so I've blocked them. Let's get the terminology right, people. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don’t know what to do, but...[edit]

This is a content dispute rather than an intractable behavioral issue. Please instead use one or more of the venues that has been recommended in this thread: WP:ANEW or WP:RSN. Or try one of the suggestions at WP:DR. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dan the Plumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

broke 3RR on Angela Nagle, and he is trying to prove some point using primary references, one of which is a blog and another a satire news (?). When I reverted and told him that it was primary, he pointed me to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD (which is not a policy), as you can see in this diff. I only know that he edit warred and broke 3RR, but I don’t know about the content or his POV that he wants to push (?). Anyone willing to help and figure out? If I was wrong about the content part, I only know that he used a primary source, broke 3RR and NPOV, and edit warred. Need more input. Thanks. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably better at WP:AN/EW. IWI (chat) 09:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Or, less confrontationally, get third party input into the sourcing issue at WP:RS/N --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but I wouldn’t want to piss him off by giving him another notice. Could we just do it here because it gains more traction? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
He has at least now opened a discussion on the talkpage, which is a step in the right direction. I also reverted the content, mostly because it's disputed (and so he should argue for its inclusion rather than just reinserting it), but also because it's so poorly written that it's pretty difficult to make out what he's trying to say. Grandpallama (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
o.k parsing , : Libcom, ( an anarchist site) countered [argued against her article ], saying that, 'Contrary to Nagle’s opinion, very, very few elites support open-borders. [-] The militarised borders that exist in Europe, the United States and Australia fulfil a defensive function, insulating wealthy states from the blowback of their actions – the imperial wars, the climate destruction, the corporate robbery.' That is pretty clear I should have thought. It was removed because two editors, a SPA, and Oshawatt, took exception. The SPA because they just knee jerk sought to remove all criticism of Nagle. Oshawatt seems to think opinions expressed on an anarchist site are not worthy of inclusion. Has no problem with a link to A Youtube video of the Fox News hack Tucker Carlson. Thats o.k. FFS. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
At issue here is the question of whether the article you shared from Libcom counts as an RS - it's pretty clearly labeled as a blog. And I say that as someone who is politically sympathetic to the far left. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Dan, I’m sorry, but I had no idea what you wete talking about in that big chunk of text. I was looking for vandalism, so I made my own decision. Your source is clearly a primary one, as it being a blog. Also, you spelt my name wrong. Twice. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 16:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that blogs are always considered unusable. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This should be discussed at WP:RS/N. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV pushing behaviour[edit]

This user Mountain157 is repeatedly involved in pov pushing behaviour. Mountain157 does not adhere to the rules of WP:RS. Majority of Mountain157 edits are revolving around labelling Pakistan as ally of terrorist groups and provide non-credible sources to back his/her claims. So could someone take a look into his/her behaviour?

Examples of his behaviour:

On ISIS-K page Mountain157 added Pakistan as ally even though ISIS-K declare Pakistan as enemy [[119]]. Clearly Mountain157 is trying to push his own point of view on this page with a non-credible source.

The fact that the sock claims my sources are "non-credible" itself shows his bias. In the Tolo News sources it references different people from the Afghan Government and Military that have said that Pakistan supports ISIS both indirectly and directly.[[120]] [[121]] [[122]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain157 (talkcontribs) 14:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Similarly on Haqqani network page, Mountain157 was stopped from pov pushing by some other editors and was told to take it to the talk page. On the talk page there was no consensus on what do, and yet after some time he was back to his usual habit. [[123]]

For Haqqani Network I put "alleged;but denied" after Pakistan.[[124]]Both sides are talked about so how is that "POV" as the sock claims?-Mountain157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Again on United states invasion of Afghanistan, Mountain157 again resorted to the same behaviour [[125]] And what is more, the source Mountain157 cited does not support anything which he wrote.37.111.128.202 (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This user is simply a sockpuppet of Abhishek9779. That is why he was reverted for his disruptive edits which the blocked evader has a history of.See [[126]] [[127]].-Mountain157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Mountain157 please don't making such false allegation against me without any proof. Also please stop evading the question of blatant POV pushing on your end. Much of your edits are one sided and are supported by non-credible sources.

This block evader likes to claim that I do "POV pushing", when this user through their sockpuppet accounts has done this repetitively on the article Open Defecation when it comes to India.[[128]]-Mountain157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

On Haqqani network page, you didn't reach any consensus and yet you made this edit [129]. You are clearly trying to push your point of view.37.111.128.202 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The block evader has yet again set up another sockpuppet account for the purpose of making disruptive edits on the article Open Defecation.[[130]]-Mountain157 (talk)

Backlog at WP:AIV[edit]

IP vandal blocked. Backlog notices should be posted at WP:AN rather than ANI. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

a priceless Steinway -- Dlohcierekim (talk)
What's in a name?-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

... including 194.72.147.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), a school IP that was blocked a few days ago, but is back at it again today, and needs a block until the end of term. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

In the words of the immortal Peter Sellers: Not any more. GoldenRing (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Who? EEng 17:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: [131] GoldenRing (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Huh. Strange I never heard of this Peter Sellers person before. Apparently some obscure actor. EEng 19:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Seriously? Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Asking EEng seriously? Seriously? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 ;-P EEng 18:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I hear his real name is Schmerzeslieben.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Merkwürdigliebe. Jeesh. Strangelove, not Painedlove. EEng 22:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nick Kroll vandal, targeting User:JesseRafe[edit]

Article protected, IPs rangeblocked. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, this is a weird request, but I want to cast as widely an ABP as I can about an IP vandal who is not strictly sockpuppeting, but is obsessed with three things: Nick Kroll, ABC's Cavemen television show, and me (who undoes vandalism on the Nick Kroll page). They recently used three IPs to add nonsense to "random" pages -- except almost everyone of these pages was either created by me or is listed on my user page or was recently edited by me. Some of them are very esoteric and get almost no traffic:

If this wasn't bizarre enough, it's also not the first time. I forget if there was ANI or SPI about this at the time, but using IPs one user was just undoing every edit I was making for a week or two in 2016. Again, stemming from Nick Kroll vandalism-undoing:

Please feel free to let me know where this would be better shared if not here, so if any more strange WLs to Nick Kroll (lately under piping so the average user won't see them) show up, that user should be blocked immediately rather than given some number of warnings. Or if the 2604:6000:130D:202B range is quiet enough to block it if they keep using it? Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably best to protect the most commonly-vandalised articles. I've put a three-month protection on Nick Kroll (never heard of him before today!) so anons can't edit it. If anyone thinks that's excessive, please feel free to say so. Deb (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I did a couple range blocks, which should stop the vandalism for now. In the future, though, it'd be best not to open multiple threads about the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible legal threat by USER User:WesleyFricks[edit]

(non-admin closure) Indeffed. DarkKnight2149 22:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WesleyFricks (talk · contribs) This editor at his talk page concerning a dispute over Ty Cobb, wrote[132]- "I need the owners of this site to contact me without delay at wesfricks@gmail.com to communicate a direct phone discussion to avoid a more aggressive resolution". TY COBB'S NAME A LEGACY WILL NOT CONTINUED TO BE SLANDERED!"

I am just reporting and let others determine if that constitutes a legal threat or note. Also worth noting, this editor appears to have a COI