Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive902

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

Noticeboard archives



Starting at the Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Italicization of websites in citations discussion and continuing at the subsequent Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Request for Comments: Italics or Non-Italics in "website" field there is a continuing issue with User:Tenebrae, who has difficulty understanding what other editors try to explain, and whose obduracy on several points amounts to a failure to WP:HEAR. (Examples listed below.)

Tenebrae's continual misunderstanding has also led him to misrepresentation of my statements and views, ad hominem attacks, and imputation of bad motives, all of this being a continuing pattern of uncivility that disrupts productive discussion.

Examples, with diffs and timestamps

From earlier discussion:

  • 20:26, 10 Sep: More persistence, sliding into incivility: "Try and WP:HEAR this ...", followed by "Now stop making false accusations."
  • 23:23, 10 Sep: "Don't you dare accuse me of uncivil behavior, when you were the first to say that anyone who took a different position from yours must, of course, have "faulty" reasoning. And you compound your incivility by falsely claiming I was deliberately misunderstanding in order to obfuscate."

From RfC:

  • 01:30, 10 Sep (after I said his "opposition is faulty"): "No. Just because you disagree with me does not make my position faulty. I am not misunderstanding anything". Also: "... you want a field that italicizes it in footnotes. That's ridiculous."
  • 15:10, 15 Sep: "You were deliberately misrepresenting my stance ... in a false attempt at making me appear contradictory."
  • 22:57, 21 Sep (after I said "your objections are getting tiresome, even tendentious"): "... stop with the name-calling. The only thing tendentious is your suggesting that Rotten Tomatoes is not a website. That's just remarkable."
  • 02:43, 22 Sep: "Your double-talk ...", and "your bringing in irrelevant, extraneous points to create a smokescreen because you like the field to be italicized is just remarkable."
  • 23:20, 23 Sep: "... your baiting me with insults", " the garbled, verbose, unclear nature of your writing", "your deliberate dissembling", "stop your smoke-screening", and "Your ridiculous argument".
  • 22:36, 23 Sep (following my attempt to explain a point to him: ... don't you dare make up false claims and accusations, and dissemble like that."
  • 03:43, 30 Sep: "Only someone who knows he has no valid argument is going to start insulting another person, since that's a form of misdirection, and you've been smokescreening for most of this discussion. You're clearly so angry that rather than read thoroughly and think straight, you evidently only skim what I've been writing here."

Misrepresentations by Tenebrae:

  • 23:23, 10 Sep: "... you were the first to say that anyone who took a different position from yours ..."; "claiming I was deliberately misunderstanding in order to obfuscate". [23:48, 11 Sep]
  • 01:30, 10 Sep: "You are claiming that corporations and government agencies suddenly transmogrify by magic into publications." ("Transmogrification" first introduced by Tenebrae at 19:43, 29 Aug where he imputes it as a premise. SMcCandlish commented that "[n]o one made any such argument of "transmogrification".) [22:47, 10 Sep]

I have repeatedly asked Tenebrae to refrain from and/or apologize for misrepresenting my statements and views (22:47, 10 Sep, 22:11, 24 Sep, 02:47, 30 Sep), which he has ignored, or dismissed as "smokescreening" (02:43, 22 Sep, 23:20, 23 Sep, 03:43, 30 Sep, 18:53, 7 Oct). As he refuses to voluntarily refrain from misrepresentations and general incivility I request that User:Tenebrae be topic banned from Help talk:Citation Style 1 for 30 days, a period comparable to the duration of his intransigence. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm reading the discussion on Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Italicization_of_websites_in_citations. Fascinating material; never heard that many words from Trappist the monk since their RfA. and what I'm reading--but I'm only in early September--confirms quite the opposite: every chance you get you seem to play the man (Tenebrae), not the ball (italics). If I were Tenebrae, I would have been really pissed by 01:13, 10 September 2015. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I mean holy, even at the RfC your very first comment is about Tenebrae's supposed misunderstanding. With italics. And bold. And those fancy green italics so loved by ANI regulars. Now, I wish that Tenebrae hadn't responded to your persistent goading, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you started it. Hell, you even use highlighted italics in the most patronizing manner. Yuk. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
In my initial comment at the RfC I briefly and neutrally noted what I believed to be the basis of his and my different positions, namely, that he misunderstood something. I am a bit surprised that you take objection at such an attempt to clarify and focus, or even the use of italics to emphasize which terms I used. I can't speak for whether "ANI regulars" love "those fancy green italics", but hopefully you have no objection to the common use of the {{Talk quote}} parameter to distinguish words not one's own. As to the use of the yellow highlighting: I am all for any aid to understanding. If Tenebrae had any objection to that then he was free to raise it with me. But in fact my first use of highlighting at the RfC was for the benefit of different editor, who raised no objection. Nor has Tenebrae ever objected, until you suggested it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the other editors here understanding what I've endured with this editor, whose default tone appears to be patronizing and insulting — see exactly such comments to an editor here. Contrary to J. Jonson's assertion above, I understand other editors and they seem to understand me. But with J. Johnson there's clearly something happening beneath the surface, since he will say something I agree with, and then I'll say that I agree with it, and then he suddenly disagrees with it. I gives an example here.
As other editors seem to find, whether they agree or disagree, my suggestion was simple and I believed non-controversial:
1. In the template "cite web", a field's name is "website=". It automatically italicizes whatever is put there.
2. Yet some websites, such as the aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and the Grand Comics Database, by consensus are not italicized,
3. Logically, editors will places websites in a field called, well, "website=".
4. And by doing so, this forces italics on non-italicized websites.
I suggested one thing in the RfC, plus a compromise: Make "website=" non-italicizing, so that editors can easily italicized website that need it; or, a compromise, keep the field italic but just call it something less confusing than "website=". But the obviously angry J. Johnston would even brook the very idea of compromise, instead making off-topic points in green text, yellow highlighters and other distracting gimmicks. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
As you seem to consider my attempts at clarification to be "distracting gimmicks" I will not longer trouble to do so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Before you do — since no other editor here seems to agree with your attacking characterization of me, and indeed finds you to be the one at fault — perhaps you should withdraw this pack of inaccuracies and falsehoods before it may WP:BOOMERANG on you. As other editors note, I haven't misunderstood the situation, and your falsely claiming I have in order for you to back an untenable position is really kind of an irresponsible thing for you to have done. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a frequent contributor to Help talk:Citation Style 1, where we try to keep, and are usually successful at keeping, discussions civil, on-topic, and focused on improving Citation Style 1 templates. The discussions linked above went completely off the rails, to the point where each one became primarily two editors sniping at and talking past each other rather than trying to contribute to the discussion in a constructive way. If you follow the flow of both talk page sections, you will see that each one starts out being a discussion about issues, but by the end, all of the constructive contributors have retreated to the sidelines to let two remaining editors argue. Neither editor comes off looking good at all. I encourage both editors to take a break and work on other stuff for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I also keep a watch on H:CS1 and have to agree with Jonesey's summary. I also might suggest that the entirety of the back-and-forth on the talk page be collapsed given the toxicity, and a trout for both of the contributors. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing restriction on J Johnson to prevent him using highlighted italics on talk pages? That really is annoying. Otherwise people need to go away and have a cup of tea before smacking themselves in the face for arguing about italics. Italics. FFS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that a lot of highlighting can be annoying, but hadn't reckoned it as hanging offense. I had hoped that more emphasis (judiciously applied) might possibly focus attention and reduce ambiguity. (I was obviously wrong there.) As to other approaches please note that I asked twice for comments from other editors, but no one responded. If anyone wants a third chance at advising me please explain how I should respond to Tenebrae's "pack of inaccuracies and falsehoods" and innuendos. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

possible personal attack detected[edit]

after noticing OP edit reverted by knowledgebattle, OP reverted that revert and also posting a message on person's talk page. person removed message from talk then post message on OP talk page in tone that feel attacking/threat. OP maybe paranoid, but feel need to post on adminboard, request oversight.

proof in contrib log, history log, talk page of OP and mentioned person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talkcontribs) 16:19, 10 October 2015‎

Who is OP? Can you provide a link to what you are talking about? HighInBC 16:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe Mahfuzur is talking about himself in third person here, and this is the revert history being brought to discuss at this august forum and this, the removal of the talk page post. —SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought that may be the case, but try as I might I could not find any personal attack. HighInBC 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@HighInBC:, yea, that's because there was no personal attack. I'm guessing that @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: is embarrassed, and is trying to get his way here. On the page, Avijit Roy, Mahfuzur went and removed a reference to The Independent right here, and changed the other reference up. I reverted his edit, especially because he removed the reference to The Independent, the news article about Avijit's death. It's still a working link, and it mentions his book. He responded by giving me a cute "warning", using ALL CAPS as if to yell at me. I removed the "warning", and responded for him to keep his warnings to himself here, then explained to him why his edit was undone. He went back and undid the "warning" removal from my own talk page, and @GiantSnowman: undid his re-add of the warning to my talk page.
As you can see here, he keeps going through and trying to change up the references, and people keep undoing it. He's now also got @MarnetteD: telling him to cut it out with the history revisions.
To clarify, no, I didn't personally attack him. Yes, I told him to keep his warnings to himself. He apparently doesn't know how to convey a message simply and respectfully. Nor does he seem to understand how to justify the reasons for his reference removals. So... we're here. Knowledge Battle 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) (Completely missed that the conversation continued on below, sorry.) Knowledge Battle 02:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── moved from below as OP, article discussed and issue are the same. Blackmane (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC) OP notice misformatted writeup and misplaced ref in Avijit Roy so tries to use cite book refstyle, change works to bibliography and remove misplaced ref. OP gets own edit reverted, accused of disruption and threatened with block. OP post to admin talkpage and then to noticeboard cause OP fear abuse, maybe OP paranoid. OP want all to have good faithMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What you did was incorrect. The Works section of the article refers to the publications by the article subject. What you were trying to do was convert it into a Bibliography, which is generally considered a list of references. You should not be doing this. Also, when you made the edit you removed the reference for the book on the next line, hence the revert by two editors to restore the source. You should not have edit warred with them over it and should have gone to the talk page to discuss it. You are lucky Giant Snowman did not block you for edit warring. Also, I have notified Giant Snowman and Knowledgebattle of this thread. Blackmane (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane:check talk page of them, check time of my posted message. removed ref is NOT a ref of the mentioned book. think "are false refs preferred or no ref"?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting valid references from an article = no no, simple as. You removed (three times!) references including this which does verify what it is meant to verify i.e. that Avijit Roy "wrote several books including his last works Obisshahser Dorshon (The Philosophy of Disbelief) and Biswasher Virus (The Virus of Faith)." Your edits have no justification, and as Blackmane says you are lucky you have not been blocked yet. GiantSnowman 16:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: The ref pointed to an article, where if you read to the bottom, indicates that Avijit Roy is the author of the book in the Works section. The point of the ref was to show this. There is nothing wrong in using this as a source. Blackmane (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
This is also up above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#possible personal attack detected. —SpacemanSpiff 16:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Spaceman:manual readding of ref do better instead of revert, OP think, OP find location posted as haka instead of dhaka and use of cite web instead of cite book syntax more "eye hurting".Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I was going to move this thread up, but got EC'd. Blackmane (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that, with their last post, M-r-s is referring to the fact that there is a big red "cite error" message at the bottom of the references at the moment. Any help in fixing it by those involved will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I have fixed the ref error, something that was not affected at all by the content that Mahfuzur rahman shourov deleted! GiantSnowman 16:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I try fixing only bibliography, had misspellings.cite link 72 is better placed elsewhere, now i put link back and my correction together.Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I have now been reverted again - please can an uninvolved admin block Mahfuzur rahman shourov? BOOMERANG etc. GiantSnowman 16:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks GiantSnowman. Sadly it looks like M-r-s is going to edit war over this. I agree that a curved stick may be needed. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I not remove ref this time, why I get threat now?my new revert has all 72 ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talkcontribs) 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) OP think MarnetteD should have look well into OP latest edit, OP kept all 72 refsMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again you changed the "Works" section into a "bibliography". Please reread Blackmane's post above as to why you should not do that. Also be aware that WP:COMPETENCE is required in editing. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Additionally your edit did not do anything new or different from your previous ones. It only "undid" GiantSnowman's previous one. That is not the way to go with this. MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OP want know why book published by chomsky, hawking, dickens etc are tagged under bibliography but not avijitMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Re-naming the section from 'works' to 'bibliography' is not a problem - what is a concern is a) your removal of valid references and b) your edit warring. GiantSnowman 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OP use small phone, hard typing editing, so revert then small edit to make as admins want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talkcontribs) 17:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC) @MarnetteD:I not remove ref, I keep works as works this time so what clue to get you speak of?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are having trouble editing while using a phone such that each time you save an edit it causes the removal of the source, you should not be editing until you reach a PC. Mobile editing often has glitches that cause unintended edits to occur. As it stands, your phone editing is causing disruption because each time you save your edit, which is still wrong by the way, it removes the source for the next entry in the Works section. Until you get to a terminal, I suggest you stop editing before an administrator blocks you for edit warring and disruption, potentially unintended disruption and edit warring but it is still disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I completely missed the fact that the conversation was continuing on here. Knowledge Battle 02:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
it was a new thread but I combined the two so there wouldn't be 2 simultaneous discussions.Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OP understand problem and correct mistake fifth time but admin revert again, why?i not remove ref now,i keep works as works, what go wrong now?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: Why don't you leave it alone? How about that?
First of all, you keep changing the Ref to be "Cite book". This website isn't the full book. That's an excerpt. If you look at the web URL, it says "Articles". /Articles/avijit/shomokamita1.htm
Also, you keep removing the Location. Avijit was from Ḍhaka, located here.
I'm not sure what your motive for editing this page is, but if you're going to edit, do it correctly. I will try to incorporate your edits. Knowledge Battle 22:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: Okay, check the Avijit Roy Works references now. I've gone through and tried to incorporate your edits into the references, and cleaned them up. Is that what you were trying to do? Knowledge Battle 23:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan disruptive editing on Ramana Maharshi´s article[edit]

No admin action is going to result from this; editors are (again) directed to the content dispute resolution forums. NE Ent 11:38, 15 October 2015 (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.

Use WP:Dispute Resolution for content dispute (non-admin closure) --AmritasyaPutraT 06:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would like to raise my complaint about the conduct of User:Joshua Jonathan regarding the article `Ramana Maharshi´. His actions clearly fall into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

I dealt with User:Joshua Jonathan some time ago (2013), in relation with an old threat on the page `Ramana Maharshi´, please see:

Facing his obstinate opposition to every opinion not in line with his I already complained:

“ didn´t discuss any of the points people made here up, instead you are bringing third people opinions which only distort the debate. You spend so many time criticizing other people´s work and putting down their words saying there are just opinions with no steady information behind them when, indeed, you are the first one bringing here opinions, not facts or reliable data.”

In relation with this conversation other users raised complains about Joshua Jonathan as well.

I gave up then, feeling it was impossible to deal with such attitude, I think user Iddli did stop editing the page about the same time for the same reasons.

I came back recently trying to make some adjustments on the page only to find even fiercer opposition from him.

User:Iddli summarized the situation in a recent conversation in the Talk section of the page:

“I very strongly agree with what Mauna22 has said above about how discouraging it is to attempt to edit the Ramana Maharshi article. I worked on this article for years. I have read dozens of books about Ramana Maharshi and used to very much enjoy collaborating with other editors on this article. However, as soon as Joshua Jonathan began editing it, any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible. After repeated attempts to continue working on the page, I finally gave up. Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him, rules the page with an iron fist, and makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors yet aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors). The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem. I, for one, would very much welcome Joshua Jonathan taking an extended break from editing (controlling) this article so other past (and, I hope, new) editors can freely contribute and collaborate.”

From some time now Ramana Maharshi´s article is being overruled by User:Joshua Jonathan. He is pushing harshly his POV promoting his preconceived assumptions on Hinduism, the colonial era in India, and the relation between religion and politics in that country, adding information not directly related with the article in order to uphold his postulations, changing the very nature of the article, that is a biographical one.

He is constantly putting down every commentary that doesn´t fit his agenda, treating them with disdain and asking constantly for justifications and evidence, demanding editors to defend before him such changes while he himself feels free to make any change without asking. He demands as well any data to be strongly supported by sources while he again feels free to introduce his own changes without any backing whatsoever, bringing third party opinions or information that is not even directly related with the person of Ramana Maharshi or his life for the sole reason that “is useful”. He even goes further than that and when the sources that support a particular position he´s not comfortable with are presented, he questions the sources, stating that they might be biased. He is reacting negatively again and again to each and every change not coincident with his political and religious views.

Since he started editing the article there´s no room for opinions that do not tally with his, making it impossible to edit the page anytime he feels his position endangered. I believe this conduct throughout this years is being discouraging and disheartening and keeps new editors away from the page. Mauna22 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

Regarding WP:DISRUPTSIGNS points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6: you haven't given an explanation or clarification for this allegation, nor any diffs. let's go through them anyway:

  • 1: "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." - please make clear which POV, and where. Show disruptive deletions. Show deletion of reliable sources.
  • 3: "Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified [citation needed] tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." - show diffs lease.
  • 4: "Does not engage in consensus building:
a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits."
I've extensively partcicipated in discussions at the talkpage; please substantiate.
  • 5: "Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." - I've answered and explained extensively at the talkpage
  • 6: "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles." - that's a harsh allegation, which you really have to substantiate. otherwise it's a baseless allegation. Take note of the many Barnstars I've received for diplomacy.

Regarding the 2013-thread:

  • that's a rather long thread you're referring to. The allegation you make, "you didn´t discuss any of the points people made here up, instead you are bringing third people opinions", is not supported by by any diffs or examples.
  • I give my own opinions there: "So, to my opinion, this subsection is well-placed, well-organised, and highly relevant to the article."
  • I also agreed with some suggestions: "I have no problem with the lashram-section. You can re-insert it - in the original section."
  • I've also reaised my concerns with he edits discussed there, cocnerns which apparently were not satifactory answered:
  • "Basically, it comes down to ignoring the discussion, and simply pushing your point of view. Unacceptable for Wikipedia, and very poor behaviour.";
  • "We've discussed this list of qualities before; most of them are unsourced, and were removed for that reason. The present discussion is not a valid reason to bypass WP:VERIFY and reinsert them; they are still unsourced. The subsection that is now in the article is sourced, even without the disputed lines. Replacing sourced info by unsourced info is not an option."

So, I think that you're presnetation of that thread is not really accurate.

Regarding Iddli's complaints, I've answered those at Talk:Ramana Maharshi#User Joshua Jonathan´s conduct regarding Ramana Maharshi´s article. I'll repeat them here:

  • "any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible"
  • "Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him" - I've made over 500 edits to this page; most of them were additions of info, and meticulous work on details such as the publications. I also provided sources for unsourced info provided by Iddli. A good example of collaboration and constructive improvements;
  • "rules the page with an iron fist" - that's a subjective statement, which needs explanation and explication;
  • "makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors" - the normal procedure is to edit the page. When you object, you can start a discussion at the talkpage. If you think I've failed here somehow, you'll have to provide diffs;
  • "aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda" - there's a long series of edits I haven't touched upon, nor objected to. In case I've got objections, I do voice them; that's the normal procedure. Regarding the term "aggressive," it seems an apt qualification of your own tone, as exemplified by your response quoted above, and this thread itself;
  • "his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors)" - if you mean that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of webpages written by devotees, yes, that's an agenda - which fits in with the objctives of Wikipedia. See also Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 3#Neutrality, where this issue was raised before, by another editor;
  • "The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem..." - a talkpage is intended to discuss the article; looking back I see a lot of discussion. If the problem is that I don't agree with some of your edits or POV, no that problem won't be solved if you expect me to simply agree with you. Nevertheless, many discussions have been resolved at the talkpage, as can be seen at the talkpage-threads which I linked to at "problematic."

Apologies for the long response; I prefer to give an accurate response. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Input from Iddli: Everything that Mauna22 has said above tallies with my own experience of attempting to continue editing the Ramana Maharshi article after Joshua Jonathan began editing it. Mauna's description is thorough and accurate. I have no doubt that Joshua Jonathan can and will go to great lengths to try to prove that Mauna22 and I are completely wrong, and he will no doubt endlessly cite wikipedia rules and cherrypick past examples of his generously allowing another editor to insert a line or two in order to back his point of view but the fact remains: attempting to edit the Ramana Maharshi page with Joshua Jonathan is so frustrating and his level of control is so intense that he is driving away good editors who would like to improve and collaborate on the article. His response to Mauna22 is just more of the same. (Iddli (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC))

Input from Dseer: I concur 100% with the complaints by Mauna22 and Iddli about Joshua Jonathan's heavy handed and non-collaborative editing of the Ramana Maharshi article. His reply is cleverly legalistic but in reality it is is just so much smoke screen for his agenda driven and disruptive editing rather than collaboration. He is not really serious about collaboration as a close review of the record shows. As a typical example of the disruptive damage to which this non-collaborative editor Jonathan is willing to do to push his views, see this statement he recently back put in after being challenged: "Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised [sic] in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students. That is of course total opinion not fact that "neo-Advaita" conforms accurately to Ramana's teachings since Ramana even had a problematic relationship with traditional Advaita let alone neo-Advaita, and it is a claim widely disputed as well as conflicting with the rest of the article. A close reading of Ramana's words in context shows little evidence that would support such a claim that neo-Advaita actually popularizes his teaching rather than modifies them at best. Poonja himself dismissed the neo-Advaitan's claims of enlightenment in an interview with David Godman. His personal views should not be the determinating factor on what is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dseer (talkcontribs) 22:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Dseer (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Uninvolved editor:

Joshua Jonathan is the best editor in the Indian religion pages, often taking the role of mediating content disputes. He is frequently attacked by religious single-purpose accounts, which seems to be the case here. A non-admin closure seems appropriate, since this is a content dispute.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: typical responses: no diffs, no examples, only accusations, and rejecting my response as "cleverly legalistic." I have provided "a close review of the record" above which shows multiple examples of "serious collaboration." This comment by Dseer is also typical: ""Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised [sic] in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students.["] That is of course total opinion not fact". This comes from two academic publications from Philip Lucas:

  • Lucas, Phillip Charles (2011), "When a Movement Is Not a Movement. Ramana Maharshi and Neo-Advaita in North America", Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. Vol. 15, No. 2 (November 2011) (pp. 93-114), JSTOR 10.1525/nr.2011.15.2.93
  • Lucas, Phillip Charles (2014), "Non-Traditional Modern Advaita Gurus in the West and Their Traditional Modern Advaita Critics", Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Volume 17, Issue 3, pages 6-37

Lucas nor I do say that neo-Advaita teachings 'conform accurately' to Ramana's teachings. Neo-Advaita is being mentioned in two different sections; the "devotees" section also provides criticism of neo-Advaita. Dseer failed to notice this? Far from being a "typical example of the disruptive damage to which this non-collaborative editor Jonathan is willing to do to push his views," it shows a serious problem in the understanding of plain text, the contents of the article, and the usage and value of academic sources. This sort of misunderstandings may be the causes of the prolonged discussions with these editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss with you JJ; your relative knowledge gap is evident. You have only a small fraction of the knowledge on this subject and of the sources I have and it shows which is why your friend Victoria's endorsement as "the best editor in the Indian religion pages" carries no weight with those who actually have that knowledge. That sources claim Ramana Maharshi's rings teachings have been popularized in the west as neo-Advaita is not in dispute but that is imply their opinion and yours. The objection is not to the source but to the implication that these represent Ramana Maharshi's teaching and your refusal to work with editors more knowledgeable on the subject disputing that. A more accurate way of putting it in the article is that this is a sourced claim that is disputed not written as a fact. Since Poonja is on record in an interview denying any of these neo-Advaitans were even realized although he told them so (probably a test of ego they failed) and the teaching lineage is self-claimed, the so-called popularisation [sic] can be seen as selective distortion instead; a sourced view BTW. As I said to you in the talk pages a month ago, you can find sources for all sorts of claims, that Ramana was deluded, insane, nihilistic, possessed, political, a supporter of Hitler, uninterested in combatting evil, etc. I don't care if you dredge up a list of such sources as long as it is clear these are simply opinions. What the other editors do not appreciate is the way you interpret things out of context without discussion. As I said as well, David Godman is probably the leading expert on Ramana Maharshi alive today. We would appreciate a little more humbleness in your confidence in your own interpretation and more deference on details to such a recognized expert easily accessible in illuminating and weighing the evidence in conflicts. BTW the claim of single purpose religious account is absurd. I have expertise on NRM cults and non-dualism, and various related practices. I confine my editing to where I have special expertise, unlike some others commenting here. And I am only concerned with those who foster misinterpretation that could be avoided; not creating a artificial haliography. (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday I raised my complaints about User:Joshua Jonathan behavior in relation with the Article `Ramana Maharshi´. He had tyrannized that page for several years already, keeping editors away and carrying on his personal agenda. Two others users (whom I don´t know!) supported my claims.
Today I came here and instead of editors investigating the case to the detail I found that right away its me and the the users that support what I said those who are under suspicion: that´s outrageous. “religious single-purpose accounts”. Really? What´s next?
An “uninvolved editor” appears all of a sudden claiming litteraly that “Joshua Jonathan is the best editor in the Indian religion pages”. If that is not WP:PEACOK please tell me what is...
Can please some editor that is not friends or has any relation with User:Joshua Jonathan check this whole thing out. I will really appreciate that.
Thanks, Mauna22 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute it seems, as was already pointed out. Time to use some form of dispute resolution. ANI is not for content disputes.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -Serialjoepsycho-. This is not about the particular contents of the page in this or that point but about one user trying to keep his political agenda no matter what, using disrupting behavior throughout the years.
Please inform me if there´s gonna be a investigation or if you need diffs or something. In this case is difficult to provide diffs because is a procedural that has been on for at least two years now and is difficult to see it references in different places and times.
Thanks again, Mauna22 (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It's possible, I doubt it. There's not alot in the way of diffs and everything makes look like a content dispute. With a content dispute, if you've reached you peak in discussing it on the talk page, you move on to some form of dispute resolution to try to build a consensus. You might consider a WP:RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Appreciate your time and attention.
Please take look at [1] is a good example of Joshua´s behavior. It is from two years ago. Its not like things were ok since that discussion until today, the thing is -and this is my claim here- that he got rid of editors with his disruptive actions during this time, and that is why there has been no much fuss during such period in that article or its talk secction.
In WP:RUNAWAY we can find different tactics disruptive editors use to evade detection as is the case:
  • Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive.
  • Their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.
I would add that he produces protracted commentaries to defend his position (when he can actually use links and diffs), which is another way to discourage debate because few people have the time or the will to engage in so very long disputes, see: [2] [3] [4]
Thanks, Mauna22 (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way I would like to ask someone to investivate User: VictoriaGrayson conduct. User: VictoriaGrayson entered this debate yesterday with a rather awkward commentary [5]:

“Joshua Jonathan is the best editor in the Indian religion pages, often taking the role of mediating content disputes. He is frequently attacked by religious single-purpose accounts, which seems to be the case here. A non-admin closure seems appropriate, since this is a content dispute.”

Which is disrespecful and clearly WP:PEACOCK

S/he also started to edit the talk page or Raman Maharsi´s Article, Saying twice the same thing at different points [6] [7]:

“I agree with Joshua Jonathan”

Period. No explanation, no elaboration; only unswerving support to Joshua Jonathan

Thanks again, Mauna22 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC) For the record: I do not consider my queries answered in the least, in fact I don´t think there has been an investigation. Otherwise, can someone show me the report?

As I pointed out this is a complicate issue, its not gonna be solved in few hours and is definitely not gonna be solved ignoring it. Disruptive conduct keeps going on. In fact I got the impressin that such conducts, when they come from regular editors are indeed encouraged foro the rest of WP crew.

I took note on how useful this Notice Board is Mauna22 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2015 (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.

talk page comment needs addressing[edit]

IP blocked for 60 hours by NawlinWiki. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:18, 15 October 2015 (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.

This comment is pretty much completely unacceptable. Considering it was made by an IP, it might be useful to see if it can clearly be identified as an IP sock of some sort as well. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Blocked and revdel'd, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the edit history of the IP in general here might be seen as maybe indicating that the IP is being used by someone who is involved in other discussions with those editors, particularly the comments here which indicate that the IP with very little history thinks DeskOS has previously edited in a nonproductive manner, here in which s/he seems to me anyway to be calling DeskOS a troll for some reason, and here where s/he insults DeskOS again. I don't know what User:DeskOS may have been editing to earn such a description, but it is hard not to see some sort of hidden agenda here. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It's obviously a sock. GABHello! 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, but I'm a verbose bastard. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
And I just repeat obvious facts to sound intelligent. Sorry about that, too. GABHello! 20:43, 14 October 2015 (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 blocked for one month by NeilN. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:15, 15 October 2015 (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.

Hello. There is an IP who is continuously vandalizing Wikipedia after final warning. He was been given 4 level 4 warnings, and still has not stopped vandalizing and blanking pages. He was reported on the admin inversion against vandalism page, but somebody removed him and he still hasn't stopped. I don't think he's a sock IP. Why is he still not blocked? I am not an administrator, so I am unable to block him. I gave him a level 3 warning for removing info. Spike789 Talk 20:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Has he edited since he received the final warning at 01:01 yesterday? I actually don't see any edits from that IP at all since then. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear John Carter, I believe so. But shouldn't he/she be blocked with vandalism after final warning? Spike789 Talk 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Since it's obviously the same person and since they've been introducing hoaxes for over a month, I've blocked for a month. Incidentally, that IP address does not appear in any AIV revision going back to September 19th. --NeilN talk to me 21:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, thanks for letting me know. Spike789 Talk 21:18, 14 October 2015 (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. at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner[edit]

Remitted to talk:Caitlyn Jenner, where, as Mark Miller rightly points out, wider discussion is underway. Talk page semiprotected due to disruptive editing. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 15 October 2015 (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. (talk · contribs · logs) has been an awfully stark defender of Caitlyn Jenner and the LGBTQ community, though probably a little too stark. Lately, at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner, they've been complaining about the current image of Bruce used in the infobox as "icky Bruce", and any attempts to point out that a photo of Caitlyn cannot be added unless it is free have been shot down by them making accusations about editors being transphobic, and have recently threatened to message Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger about the matter, refusing to assume good faith and communicate, even despite the messages on their talk page. Zappa24Mati 03:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Perusing through the IPs edits, it really doesn't seem like Wikipedia is a suitable place for them. They seem to basically have no capacity to have a civil conversation with someone they disagree with. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The IP has a point, in that the image of Jenner does not match her current assigned gender, and could very well be interpreted as a deliberate snub. It would be better to have no image. Guy (Help!) 03:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That isn't exactly a point. Many biographies have older images. Right now the only image of Caitlyn available to use is the Vanity Fair image. It is Non Free and generally we do use the best free image for the infobox is not strictly prohibited. Its a local consensus. I have no idea why it hasn't been suggested. Perhaps a bold edit will help in this case.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
How many of the older images have the wrong gender? Guy (Help!) 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I wonder? I can think of only one...and we deleted it. Surely there are those we are not aware of. one...maybe two. Images of living people rarely get updated if there are no free images to use.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Guy, that observation is less than pointless in this context, as having a point does not in any way excuse bad behavior. To even bring it up here sends the message that it does. ―Mandruss  04:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't excuse the IP's behaviour. However, I also don't excuse having an image of a living person in their former gender as the primary identifying image. This should not need to be explained, it is ordinary common decency. Guy (Help!) 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand you, but you don't understand me. The point is Wrong Venue, with results detrimental to the project. ―Mandruss  05:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The IP is just trolling (Godwin's Law and all) at this point. Last five edits as of this posting: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Needs an immediate block. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Perhaps but I trust that Guy has raised the validity of the actual point. While it was not done gracefully by the IP, it does have the fact that Bruce is the male ID and Caitlyn the female ID. I just removed the image for now as that make the most sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, Softlander has reverted that. For the moment I have changed the caption for clarity.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There is currently consensus to retain that image. To remove it, there would need to be a consensus to do so. Feel free to start a WP:RfC on the matter. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that the consensus is to retain the Bruce image itself but that there has been no other alternative besides using the Vanity Fair image as was suggested (on the talk page) but no one responded. Clearly this is an issue on the talk page with 4 sections on the page right now trying to get that image replaced...but no one has suggested, removing the image entirely until now.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I still suggest an RfC. You may find therein that there is indeed a consensus to have no image in the infobox rather than a male image. But until there is a valid public RfC of proper duration, it will always be a subject of edit-warring, because the status quo and current consensus is to have that free image of Jenner in 2012 in the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
A valid ANI discussion can do the same thing as can a valid DR/N or other venue, but the talk page is still the place to discuss and form consensus. An RFC could be next, or this ANI could sort things out...or other optional form or DR.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No on both: ANI is for editor behavior that needs intervention; DR/N or 3O is for resolving entrenched disputes between specific warring parties that are completely stuck and going nowhere, and it is not binding for longterm decisions, especially not on such a public article, and one that is on DS. Only a public RfC of 30 days' duration will resolve the situation so that it does not have to be revisited in 5, 10, 20, 30, 50+ days. RfCs are held on the article's talk page, not elsewhere, so the venue is the same. (I'm not going to respond on this further, as I'm repeating myself across two venues.) Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
ANI is not for resolution of content disputes, widespread abuse notwithstanding. If you don't believe me, expand "Are you in the right place?" at the top of this page. The last bullet is: To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution. (Perhaps that could be clarified by inserting "content" before "disputes", since a behavior issue could be considered a dispute. But the meaning is clear enough for our purposes based on the target of the link.) ―Mandruss  05:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE also unambiguously supports this. This is part of WP:DR, a Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss  06:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, uhm...this thread is actually a conduct issue that may need intervention. It is based on content that could be discussed as part of the conduct issues here, but are not the focus of the board. DRN is not for just entrenched battles between specific warring parties. Its for content disputes. Some content disputes have some conduct issues that can be mentioned if need be and the guidelines mention this there. As for whether or not to intervene, perhaps. But as was pointed out, this is attracting a lot of this conduct issues so...maybe the content issue is the source of these conduct issues and maybe there is some logic to the Guy mentioned. Just a thought. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
As that leaves me utterly baffled, I'm unable to respond and I concede defeat. Carry on. ―Mandruss  10:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Since you have indicated that you do not understand my point, let me clarify. This ANI filing was made by User:ZappaOMati (a school) about an IP user they felt needed admin to look at for possible intervention. The article falls under sanctions imposed by Arbcom. It is a controversial article with many content disputes but they all seem to be handled on the talk page. However, the image issue continues to draw unneeded attention due to the lack of an image to illustrate "Caitlyn" and not just the old "Bruce". Guy suggested just leaving the info box empty and that suggestion seems to be aimed at that attention issue. I agree and believed that a bold edit could be done but it was reversed. Intervention has been carried out by others who have removed the post on the Caitlyn Jenner talk page and a content based discussion has begun on the article's talk page. Part of what I was speaking to was the idea that DR/N is for a specific type of dispute mentioned above. It is for content disputes that have had extensive discussion and continue to be unable to come to a consensus on their own. DR/N is a mediated discussion and is different from AN and ANI but it can touch on conduct as an inhernet crossover with some rare cases. We have written the guidelines at DR/N to address this.
My point is, the thread is not really about the content dispute but the continued content disputes this attracts. I suggest closing this now as "community intervention is underway".--Mark Miller (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2015 (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.

Personal threat made on Thor Halvorssen Mendoza against article subject[edit]

HRFDN indefinitey blocked by Someguy1221, WMF notified. Liz Read! Talk! 16:25, 15 October 2015 (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.


I am hoping the administrative community takes note of this rather alarming incident. A User:HRFDN has certainly been making disruptive edits and potentially malicious edits.

Here are the vandalizing edits on Halvorssen's page. They attempted to say Thor Halvorssen had been shot and killed on September 28, 2015 in New York City - which is not true. But this does appear to be a threat. Also considering the next edit stated "Halvorssen is a dead man".

This almost clearly is a threat. Halvorssen is involved with the Human Rights Foundation and has undoubtedly made enemies internationally. Interestingly, they made edits on the Human Rights Foundation page to call it a "corporation" rather than a non-profit, and that it only serves the Americas - hinting that HRW is some American weapon.

They also made several edits to add external links to a site ( which is not the Human Rights Foundation website and appears to be hastily created to deceive viewers.

On the surface this is blatant vandalism that is non-constructive to Wikipedians. On a deeper leverl, a malicious threat such as this against a human rights activists is not to be taken lightly. I hope the administrative community will take the appropriate steps to reverse this damage and ensure that it stays off of Wikipedia. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User is indeffed, and his website blacklisted. I've also informed the Wikimedia Foundation about this. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2015 (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.

extensive vandalism with multiple accounts/IPs[edit]

 Done.Amortias (T)(C) 16:19, 15 October 2015 (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.

Firstly, I'm not really sure how Wikipedia works 100%, so please bear with me on this one...

This article:- has been vandalized extensively, but various accounts/IPs, that I assume are the same person.

Banning these accounts would not really help, as new accounts would be made immediately to continue with their vandalism.

I am very willing to do a little research and restore the article to it's pre-vandalized state, but this seems worthless at the moment, as it would be vandalized by the previous accounts or new accounts.

Is there some way to lock the article, while allowing certain users to restore the article?

If no one can edit it, it will remain vandalized, if it is left as it is, it will be vandalized as soon as decent editors try to remove the vandalism.


Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Spacecowboy, I've protected the page with wp:Pending Changes so from now on edits by IPs and newbies have to be checked before they go live. That should fix this page, if you get other ones like this then WP:RFPP is a page dedicated for requesting protection. ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that was both quick and awesome ! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2015 (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.

found someone use talkpage as file/datahost[edit]

Page deleted. In the future, you can just tag similar pages (see WP:CSD) rather than bringing the issue to ANI. Liz Read! Talk! 16:17, 15 October 2015 (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.

User talk:ShankarSG1 check pleaseMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2015 (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 edit-warring over copyvio material and hurling insults[edit]

Taken back to the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2015 (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.

This wording is very similar to its source: [13]. However, has edit-warred to maintain its presence on the article. I've tried explaining that to him but he instead hurls insults at me. There needs to be serious oversight over this article. Copyvios should not be tolerated. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That small amount of similarity doesn't remotely amount to copyvio, Étienne Dolet. I also notice that you have repeatedly edit-warred to restore ungrammatical English, i.e. "has denies". I've rephrased the sentence, added the exact quote attributed to Perinçek which was that he called it "a great international lie", and referenced the quote. The angry and insulting edit summaries by the IP were uncalled for. However, you are both guilty of not calmly discussing this on the talk page instead of edit-warring. Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Voceditenore for your edits. I thought that this sentence:
Doğu Perinçek is a Turkish political activist who has repeatedly called the Armenian genocide of 1915–1917 a lie on his visits to Switzerland.
Is strikingly similar to this sentence:
Dogu Perinçek, a Turkish politician who repeatedly called the Armenian genocide during the years 1915 to 1917, a lie on his visits to Switzerland [...]
And in my own AGF understanding, I've always thought copyvio's should be removed immediately on sight. But I completely understand why a discussion at the talk page should be a better venue to address the issue. At any rate, if this problem persists, I'll open a discussion at the talk page of the article. But for now, I think your editing has solved the matter, at least temporarily. Thank you, Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2015 (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.


Take it elsewhere, please, and resolve this via discussion with the editor, either on the article talk page, their talk page, or your talk page. (non-admin closure) -- Softlavender (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2015 (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.

I am here to write about someone who has frustrated many WikiPedia editors; Lorindrew. Lorindrew is a very strict editor who claims to correct vandalism, but really just wants to revert everything to the way it was. He constantly reverts correct edits and other efforts made by users who are "improving" the WikiPedia experience. While he is a very decorated WikiPedia member, he is not a fair one. He believes he has supreme authority over other editors and that their edits are inadequate, even though they improve the page quite a bit. He reports people for the smallest things and will not give them the freedom to write.

I wanted to draw your attention to this and I hope that you will see to my accusations.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THGFangirl (talkcontribs) 20:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We have also noted that you did not notify Lorindrew Loriendrew of this thread, as required, and that this complaint is your first edit under this account. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC) modified 21:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :(Non-administrator comment) @THGFangirl: Your account was only created today, have you had any interactions with this editor? LorTalk 20:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - @THGFangirl:, do you have specific examples to support your claim? Remember, editors on Wikipedia are volunteers; without links to specific edits, discussions, or articles to support your claim, it's unlikely that anyone is going to look very closely at the supposed issues you claim to have taken place. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Recommend closing this nonsense. Loriendrew is an excellent editor, and the OP has not bothered to try to discuss whatever the issue is with Loriendrew at all before filing this ANI. So this is either socking, trolling, a new and clueless account that used to be an IP, or some combination of the above. THGFangirl, you need to discuss matters thoroughly with the other editor and try repeatedly to come to a resolution before filing here. Also, if you need help doing that, the proper venue is WP:DR, not here, thank you. Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I recently came across Loriendrew over a minor disagreement over sourcing. We came to an agreement. People don't always agree - but there is absolutely nothing I have seen in interacting with this editor that deserves bringing him here. Four years, 22,000+ edits and a clean block log! Throwing my support behind closing this. ScrpIronIV 21:28, 15 October 2015 (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.

Violation of 1RR on Levant by Debresser[edit]

Here Debresser reverted my edit, re-instating a claim not supported by sources. Here the user removed the {{cn}} tag I placed on the unsupported claim. The two reverts happened within 40 minutes, on an article that clearly falls under WP:ARBPIA.

I pinged the user on the talk page and explained the problem with the content they restored, but got no response so far. WarKosign 10:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but I agree with you, both edits inserted a fact with no sources that's in contention , at the very least between you and DeBresser, and on the first edit, he's basically saying it's common knowledge. Not a great move. KoshVorlon 16:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
It's the Sabbath, so Dovid won't be able to reply until tomorrow evening, even if WarKoSign's complaint is correct.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Not addressing the matter of the real dispute itself, but might this not be better discussed at WP:AE,considering the existing sanctions? John Carter (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: WP:ARBPIA sanctions can be applied by "any uninvolved administrator", and I figured I can find a few of these here. WP:AE form is quite tedious to fill, the process there is quite slow and I do not know the user enough to decide that an AE case is needed. I just want someone to give Debresser an authoritative reminder that WP:RS and WP:1RR should not be ignored. WarKosign 19:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign:, I agree with you, and, actually, have, in past, made comments here on much the same basis. When I did so, I was told that it would be best to take the comments to AE by some of the administrators involved. And, if you look at some of the threads above, it can reasonably be argued that this requests on this page can take longer than requests at AE. I've tended to find that to be the case myself. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Nishidani for pointing out that I couldn't come here any earlier because of the Shabbat.

As to the issue itself: because these were two different edits by WarKoSign, it didn't trigger my attention to 1RR. Also, I thought this was simply one of the many politically motivated edits in the ARBPIA area, so I reverted it as such. We have such editors, mostly IPs, the whole time, and they are nothing more than political vandals.

In any case: 1. if the Palestinian territories are in the Levant, then so is the State of Palestine, and visa versa, since they are in the same geographical location, far and by. 2. Since all countries that surround either of them are in the Levant, so are they, and no source is needed. I mean, if that logic can not be disputed.

However, I now understand the issue under dispute is whether it should be "territories" or "state of". The addition of {{Cn}} didn't explain what the issue was. This template takes a |reason= parameter, which was unused. In any case, I still think this was a pointy edit, and don't think there is any chance that a discussion will come to any conclusion other than reinstate the previous version.

I would self-revert my last edit,to avoid the impression that I take 1RR lightly, but WarKoSign already made a new edit. I recommend WarKoSign to open a discussion about this issue on the talkpage, since I think his edit is in violation of NPOV. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith on my part is not an excuse to violate policies. My edits were not by an IP editor nor can they be considered obvious vandalism (even if you disagree).
Both your arguments (1,2 above) are again relying on the unsupported claim that State of Palestine is in the Palestinian Territories. There is no doubt that Palestinian Territories are in the Levant, but as of this moment State of Palestine has no physical location, it is a de-jure entity without defined borders that claims the Palestinian Territories. It is very likely that it will be there one day, but wikipedia is not the place for speculations. I provided the source for SoP *not* having defined location on the talk page, please prove me wrong there.
You are still able to re-instate the {{cn}} tags (or better yet, provide a source that supports the statement I claim invalid). Failing to do so you are still "enjoying" the results of your violation of WP:1RR.
I did open a discussion on the talk page, one where you did not respond until after I opened this discussion on ANI. So far I provided a source to back up my claims, you did not. WarKosign 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
And after the Shabbat ended, I joint the discussion.
After your edit, I also edited the article. The result of your edit was that there is no point to undo my old edit any more, since we both made more recent edits.
Even if the borders of the State of Palestine are not clear, the above arguments prove irrefutably that in any case the area of the State of Palestine is in the Levant. Your source does not dispute that, just as it doesn't claim other absurd things, like that it would be in the Americas. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - i'm not sure 1RR applies for the article Levant, because it has no direct relevance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is not marked as such with proper page notices.GreyShark (dibra) 09:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Any mention of State of Palestine or Israel on any article, especially in relation to the territory disputed between the two, certainly falls under WP:ARBPIA: "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted". WarKosign 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd Editing[edit]

This is a strange bit of editing. User:Jandown and User:Desklin appear to be the same person. This history of Jandown shows them going through and deleting archived comments of other editors. Likely one of the comments is related to this user. Desklin also changed the name on some of Jandown's edits to be Desklin. Perhaps someone that is more used to handling SPI cases can take a look. Arzel (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The two talk pages have been notified, here and here. Arzel (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:SPI is thataway. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
And ANI is here. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strange indeed. I reverted a few edits where Jandown had messed with an archive. Desklin has been adding questions to an archive that were asked at a refdesk and removed here, by Baseball Bugs. Perhaps BB can shed some light on this matter. Yes, Arzel, odd, and worth another look, though not (just) necessarily from an SPI perspective--but it's a bit late here. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Desklin is a sock of an editor who has been bothering the RD for a while, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2. I think this was obvious to most regulars at the RD. Edit: And I remember now that I left a hint on the the WT:RD then a week or two later someone else brought it up. So I've been removing any of their contribs which haven't had replies on sight. (I've left those with replies given the history of concern over such removals.)

I probably should have filed an SPI, but first I was hoping the reversions with convince them to at least abandon this account (and they did seem to disappear for a while, but they are often irregular), or that one of the admin regulars would block them. Also recently BWH2 semed to have taken to serial sockpuppetry (perhaps with a very odd IP or two) meaning a checkuser didn't do much. Edit2: In fact, I remember now that the hint I left was at a discussion where someone complained about the editor being blocked by an RD regular based on behaviour, without a CU although after an SPI. Which may not have helped encourage such IMO very useful blocks, not that I'm faulting admins for not blocking without an SPI, whatever the case.

I don't think I noticed Jandown, or may be I did but just reverted or ignored the edits on the RD and didn't check the history, can't remember for sure. Edit2: Their Jandown account does suggest CUs may be useful, although it looks like it was only created after they were bugged enough by me and I think others deleting or reverting their contribs. So if the SPI had been filed and CU run early enough it also would have come up fruitless.

Deleting archived comments, normally IIRC replies to their questions which they didn't seem to like for whatever reason is another historic behaviour of BWH2 although I don't think they've shown that for a while, at least AFAIK.

BWH2 also has a history of causing some problems on the encyclopaedia proper, mostly in creating useless redirects, but also sometimes in questionable edits to articles. Although when I checked Desklin's edits to the encyclopaedia proper, many of them didn't seem so bad so I left them, even if I technically could have reverted all. Last time I checked which was over a month ago, I did revert any that seemed inappropriate although IIRC most were minor.

P.S. Just checked the history SPI history which confirmed most of my memory. P.S. 2 Seems they tried to delete this discussion [14]. Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • OK, I've seen enough. They're the same--their way of editing the refdesks is exactly the same--and they're not doing anything useful here. There's a couple of useless redirects and then a bunch of messing around in those archives. Nil Einne, feel free to start reverting those edits. I'm going to block for NOTHERE, and whatever the kids at SPI wanna do is fine with me. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979 and soap articles[edit]

Cebr1979 (talk · contribs) has made a large number of requests for page protection, (eg: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]) all of which are on soap opera characters, and most of which have had barely any edits this month and hence in my view do not meet the semi protection guidelines. The apparent cause of this, according to Cebr1979, is that a single editor has been undertaking slow-moving disruption (their words, not mine) across many articles, as documented here. A look through (talk · contribs)'s contributions though, suggests to me that this is a good-faith editor and if there was any problem, I think it would be WP:COMPETENCE related. Therefore Cebr1979's protection requests are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. What should we do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have anything to do right now. Between your post at 0:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) and your request above, Cebr1979 hasn't resumed the disruption. So, since he hasn't continued the problem, I don't know why you think admins need to step in and use their tools. Give him a chance to actually do the right thing before demanding Admins step in... --Jayron32 14:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting blocking or anything, rather it seems this issue has been going on in various places over the past few weeks, and it's probably a good time to bring it to a central place to get some more views. I realise it's a bit odd to have an ANI thread when I just want a discussion, but there you go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie, there is absolutely no disruption from me. I have been in contact with many admins about this guy (something you know because you linked to one of the conversations yourself) and, you are wrong. This is not a good faith editor, it is a sockpuppet using multiple different IPs to make his nonsense edits. I'm not going to bother explaining the situation to you since you can't be bothered to take two seconds to look it up (even though you claim to have "looked through..." like, I just don't even know). Some of those IPs have been blocked for nonsense edits/vandalism and you definitely knew that before you came here so, common sense should have dictated there is more to this story you are clearly unaware of (especially when you were actually aware of it because this conversation was right there in front of you and there's no way you didn't see it). The next time you have an issue with something, my advice to you would be to ask some questions instead of immediately running around to the nearest place you can to instantly cause some drama. I'm not talking to you anymore.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When I said I wasn't talking to you anymore, Ritchie, I hadn't seen this yet. Don't you EVER come to my talk page and put something back I have removed. EVER. You wanna talk about disruption? Go read talk page policies. I don't wanna see you at my talk page again. I shouldn't need to be schooling administrators on how wikipedia works.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, since you don't want drama, what is your suggestion for dealing with this problem? Given the range of IP addresses you list here, I don't know if a range block would be useful. Let's try to resolve the underlying problem rather than the symptoms of too many page protection requests. Liz Read! Talk! 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Liz, I have already linked to conversations I've had about this guy (there are many more but, now I just don't see the point in even trying). You and I even (indirectly) had a conversation about him on my talk page just days ago. I have already attempted everything under the sun I can think of and it's gotten me nowhere. If you have suggestions, feel free to toss them out.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at a random sample, I see a whole bunch of editors getting angry and upset at IPs on their talk pages, and a random spot-check of them here, here and here reveals a completely clean block log. To pargraphase Willard Duncan Vandiver, "you gotta show me". Where is this disruption? I think if you keep raising frivolous requests to WP:RFPP (all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins) somebody's going to think about ways we can keep the backlog down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins"
You couldn't be more wrong, Ritchie. I had already decided to stop fixing this guy's mistakes. Let him have his free reign. This is just too much of a headache.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the current version of RFPP I can see Ged UK and Ymblanter also declined some of your recent RPP requests and I see KrakatoaKatie had a word with you about this yesterday. So that would seem to justify my view that multiple admins have addressed this. I was really hoping we'd get to the bottom of who the IPs are, possibly someone that an admin reading this would know about, but I guess not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No, you were not! You're just changing your tune now! Re-read your original post right here in this thread. You defended this guy. You were not trying to get to the bottom of anything involving him.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and KrakatoaKatie actually approved every single one she looked at so, again... "all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins???" You just proved you knew what you said was false when you said it. I'm off for the day. Have a god one! Cebr1979 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Cebr1979, since we're having this discussion here, here's my take on this: Yes, the person who is doing this is a disruptive force, and should be reverted. However, given the low-level of disruption (a few edits a month, at what I am looking at), there's nothing we should do to pre-empt this. That is, page protection is used only when the level of disruption is so rapid or high volume that we can't keep up by reverting. This level of disruption can be managed quite easily by simply reverting and blocking if necessary. Simply: this level of disruption does not merit page protection, by our protection policy. Now that you've been informed of this, please do not continue to make protection requests which you have been informed will not be acted on; you've also been explained to why they have not been acted upon, so I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Just keep up the good fight, keep reverting this person, and we're sorry that we can't do more to stop them; except maybe a range-block, if that is feasible. Page protection cannot be done because the potential for collateral damage against good-faith editors outweighs the need to stop this one person. --Jayron32 16:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Jayron32: As you've already pointed out, I've already done all of that and I had already done all of that before Ritchie came here.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Hours and hours before...Cebr1979 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I got you. I'm just trying to be unambiguous. So long as you've stopped, we're good here. --Jayron32 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Jayron32: Read this conversation please (which I have already linked to) and you'll see there is nothing "low-level" about it. This guy's a pro.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • That article in that discussion has been edited (5 times by IP addresses in 2015) is about as low-level as you can get. Now, that doesn't mean this person doesn't need to be stopped, nor does it mean their disruption is to be ignored. It's just that protection is the wrong tool for it. 5 edits in 1 year does not need protection to stop. --Jayron32 16:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
              • Jayron32: The article in that discussion is irrelevant. I asked you to read the discussion itself (which you clearly haven't done).Cebr1979 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
              • Mauna22: Please don't delete comments made by me (or anyone else) as you did here.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
              • Sorry about that. It was an accident. Mauna22 (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                • I had read the discussion already. We're clearly not even discussing the same point here. You're saying the person against whom you're requesting protection is a disruptive problem, and needs to be stopped. I am agreeing with you. You also keep trying to use protection to stop them. I am letting you know that protection is not the correct solution to this problem. That is all. I don't need to be repeated told by you to agree with you when I already have on the points you're demanding that I agree with you on. We're still not going to protect hundreds of articles that get edited once every few months. --Jayron32 17:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • You're right, we are not discussing the same thing here. You said he was a "low-level of disruption" and I was correcting you.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • Yeah, I said there was a low level of disruption to that page. I was discussing the article, you were discussing the person. I think we're good here. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Jayron32 18:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I've found it - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumgrainger200 - that was all I was really asking for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So I looked down this rabbit hole when I stumbled upon these RFPP requests last night (and I think the night before or something), but from what I can tell, it goes deep—so deep, I just went to bed instead of deal with it. Still, it looks like this might be LTA from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumgrainger200 that's spread across numerous IP ranges. They're all soap-opera-related articles, and they're usually mobile-web edits. If you peruse the following categories, you'll likely find instances of characteristic edits from the SPI user (some benign), which seem to have kicked up starting a little under a year ago:
This encompasses thousands of articles, so protecting them all likely isn't feasible. If I were to guess, the user has a true "home" ISP with Comcast but possibly travels frequently and/or largely contributes with an iPad anyway (most frequently with, so AT&T-US, but some appearances in other countries). The edits are disproportionately mobile web and usually revolve around changing template parameters related to sibling/parent/family crap (or trivial name changes), and will long-term edit war over them.
Furthermore, this is a recurring theme with mobile IPs. Given the ubiquity of devices, the relative ease with which they can be used to evade blocks and reassign IPs (even unintentionally), and the lack of responsiveness from abuse departments, it's clear that obsessed users—and make no mistake, this is a case of obsession—can make it difficult to effectively prevent disruption (or even get in contact with them). I'm starting to think AO+ACB blocks for mobile ranges are increasingly in order in cases like this. Even when trying to get in touch with an IP, the chances are exceptionally good that by the time a message is dropped on their talk page, they've already been assigned a new public ip (so they'll never even see it). Alternatively, we could re-evaluate the idea of per-page blocks (a WP:PEREN) but solely in the context of ip-range blocks in cases of severe abuse.
Regardless, not quite sure the best course of action in this instance.
--slakrtalk / 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Also @Cebr1979: I strongly agree with the others that repeatedly adding a bunch of pages on WP:RFPP is a bad idea. This sort of cross-page issue is better to raising here with an explanation and history of what you've experienced (or on WP:SPI). It might end up requiring a unique solution or simply more people watching the range of articles (if there's nothing else that's easily doable and/or willing to be done), so raising the issue here is more likely to provide diversified inputs. RFPP is more for one-off requests where a specific page or two is the problem (e.g., Penis being vandalized or people edit warring on a couple articles)—not dozens of articles or a whole category. :P Broad, sweeping actions, including protecting a large number of pages (if they're needed) are better suited for discussion here. --slakrtalk / 01:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy Islamic State of the Germanic Nation[edit]

Subject indeffed by Bishonen per WP:NOTHERE. (non-admin closure)-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2015 (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.

Thread retitled from "Question re username and userpage".

Could I ask for comments on the username Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (t c) in regards to WP:ISU and WP:IU, please?

Their user page could also need some comments; the two flags are supposedly homemade - rather odd to me is the combination of the Christian flag cross and both Muslin and Jewish symbols. The Star of David on a Rainbow flag is ... hmmm ... perplexing. I have asked for their comment re userpage, but they removed it in this diff with the edit summary "remove bullshit".

I notice that in the article Islam in Scandinavia they created, File:Viking towns of Scandinavia.jpg has been used with the caption "Muslims towns of Scandinavia". The article so far has seen some sourcing challenges giving inflated numbers for Muslim population that don't match those seen in Islam by country. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The user is also edit warring against a bot (reported here) and I'm struggling to get them to understand the concept of verifiability and the importance of reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @Sam Sailor: personally I don't think it violates WP:ISU as it's probably not shared. I definitely think it could be classed as inappropriate given the articles they've been editing and Cordless Larry's comment above. samtar (msg) 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
thanks for the note. it is not a name of an organisation i know about Wikipedia:Username policy i just made it up. the name basically is to show my Contributions willing to Wikipedia. which is about Semitic-Germanic cultural heritage, Jewish, Islamic, Bangladeshi....etc. that explain the Star of David on a Germanic flag--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation - given what you've said, would it be fair to assume you meet many of the single purpose account criteria? You may wish to read the advice given to SPA accounts here. A good piece of advice there would be "If you create a single-purpose account, do not pick a username related to the topic you are editing. Adopting such a username might lead some editors to assume you harbor a conflict of interest, causing unnecessary drama." Thanks samtar (msg) 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
i do have some interest in the Semitic culture Jewish, Islamic, Bangladeshi....etc but i also do have interest in other topics, so it is just a name based on the famous (Holy state of the Germanic Nation) which itself is an inappropriate name given they relate them self's (the Germanic) to an unrelated culture! i know it is funny but in the Wikipedia article it is included.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation: The word "interest" in the above context does not mean interest as in things you like. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

i know.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

are you sure your name is not an WP:IU?--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation: Initially I was able to create my account on the English Wikipedia but not French and German because the username violated the username blacklist on those Wikipedias. However, the blacklist has been deprecated. I'm sure quite a few experienced users have seen my username and don't appear to have any problems with it. Also, it doesn't suggest any affiliation with Wikipedia or the WMF. We are all "Wikipedians". That's the term for someone who edits Wikipedia, and does not suggest official affiliation (especially with the words "The Average" added preceding the word "Wikipedian"). The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
whether or not that username is inherently problematic, the user name combined with that user's edits are a pretty solid sign that they are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation was blocked by Bbb23 last night for breaking the 3RR at Islam in Scandinavia, and then a few hours later an IP started making the same reverts, with edit summaries such as "hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh very funny jokes hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i had a nice laught" and "nigga plz". The article is now protected. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation has now created Judaism in Scandinavia and is displaying exactly the same behaviour there by reverting my removal of unsourced population estimates, addition of maintenance templates and removal of an irrelevant map. Pinging Sam Sailor, Bbb23, The Average Wikipedian and TheRedPenOfDoom. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and has now taken to trolling my user talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

oh really not here to build an encyclopedia, than why i created three 3 articles in less than 3 days?--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

────────── The Arabic name for "Holy Islamic State of the Germanic Nation" is الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية. That is written on the userpage User:Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation and was displayed in both the flags the user uploaded to Commons, now deleted at File:الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية.jpg and File:מדינה אסלאמית קדושה של האומה הגרמנית.jpg. I bounced this off of an Iraqi friend of mine (mainstream Shia Turkman), who said the name could, as indicated by the user above, be a play on the Arabic name for the Holy Roman Empire (الإمبراطورية الرومانية المقدسة), but that it also gives associations to

  1. Greater Germanic Reich of the German Nation, and
  2. Islamic State (الدولة الإسلامية‎ المقدسة, "Holy/Sacred Islamic State"),

and that it in any case leaves the impression of someone who, allow a direct quote, "could be either a radical with an agenda that serves Islam no good, or could be someone trolling to give Islam a bad reputation."

The user has added the acronym ISGN to their talk page. It is possibly a coincidental spoofing of Islamic Society of Greater Nassau, but nevertheless further implies shared use, WP:ISU, and their use of File:الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية.jpg in article space as quote "Muslims Swedish adherents symbol" (Diff of Islam in Sweden and Diff of Islam in Sweden) suggests a breach of WP:GROUPNAME.

Personally I have a hard time seeing why this username would not be considered disruptive and/or misleading, cf. WP:IU. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor concerned has been blocked for a second time after I reported them for edit warring, but shows no sign of acknowledgement that they are in the wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The editor has been engaging in block evasion over at the Commons. See this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Indef Block on the grounds of persistent edit warring, block evasion, abuse of multiple acounts and likely NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree indef block. --Achim (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen has now blocked the user indefinitely. Thanks, all, for helping to deal with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2015 (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:Strivingsoul disruptive editing and soapboxing[edit]

User:Strivingsoul is community banned. Fram (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2015 (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.