Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Revision deletion—A quick favor...[edit]

(non-admin closure) Both accounts blocked indefinitely. FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 04:38, 6 March 2016 (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.

Hi.

Can an admin do me a quick favor and perform a revision deletion on the following two edits to my userpage.

Thanks.

FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 23:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Done...only one revdeletion necessary, user has been blocked. Lectonar (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Lectonar: They have returned. Can you have a quick look at my userpage again? Thanks! FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 00:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@FA9295:  Done SQLQuery me! 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@SQL: Thanks! Can you also remove the first accounts' user name ("FukTrump") on the page history, as Lectonar never did that... FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 00:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@FA9295:  Done SQLQuery me! 00:53, 6 March 2016 (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.

Non-constructive edits and reverts of multiple editors by IP editors[edit]

Jupiter's Legacy and List of Jupiter's Legacy story arcs justifiably protected against IP vandalism for one month. (non-admin closure) Atsme📞📧 13:41, March 7, 2016
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.

Nightscream notified me of a situation involving multiple articles edited by one or more users using multiple IP addresses to make repeated non-constructive edits, reverting the edits of Nightscream and Tenebrae. I protected the articles Jupiter's Legacy, List of Jupiter's Legacy story arcs, and List of Saga story arcs for one week on February 8 in response to encourage talk page discussion rather than edit-warring, but there was no discussion on any of the article talk pages and it appears the editor has returned to the disruptive edits. Since the user appears to have no problem switching IPs, it may not help to block the addresses, and I am not sure whether we want to keep the articles protected for a lengthy time. What is the best solution here? BOZ (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason why the articles can't be protected for longer periods. I am the creator and primary contributor/editor of both articles, so no significant amount of information would be excluded. To the extent that information is added by other editors, they can continue to contribute with username accounts. Protection would simply exclude our IP policy violator, until he gets tired and leaves, at which point the protection can be lifted. Nightscream (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The three articles can be protected for increasing periods, if that the best solution. BOZ (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
With no input to the contrary, I protected Jupiter's Legacy and List of Jupiter's Legacy story arcs for one month. The third article has had little activity since the protection expired. BOZ (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2016 (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.

Redirect vandalism[edit]

I've noticed a bunch of vandalism on pages where people are adding vandalism to articles by putting in redirects to inappropriate pages, such as this, this, and this. Is there a way to prevent this (such as an edit filter), or should we just keep reverting them as they appear? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Those diffs are all one troll it seems. Were there others? I looked on the usually sites that organize trolling campaigns but didn't see much (though /pol/ had a few mentions of wikipedia today). Those edits did set off some filters though ([3]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) User indeffed. Nice catch! Regards,   Aloha27  talk  04:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion: Could one of the current anti-vandal bots be cloned & modified to trap this as follows?
  1. Check recent edits that add redirects,
  2. Extract the name of the "old" (redirected) article [ sans any parenthetical disambiguation like (actress) ]
  3. Do a string search in the "new" (redirect target) article contents to see if it includes the "extracted" name.
In theory the new article should always have the old article's name/topic in its contents somewhere. If not then an automated revert could be executed with an "apology-if-wrong" type notice put on the editor's talk page. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 04:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't even notice that it was the same IP, but I think we could set up a bot to notice if there is a redirect tag on a page, and then there is a certain amount of text below it. I think that might be easier than the other option, but I could be wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
You make a good point, that a redirect should be on a basically empty page. Your approach would be much faster (and have much lower server overhead) to spot, but of course there also is always the risk that vandals would add the redirect and page-wipe the article. And so the battle goes on... Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 06:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Discography vandalism[edit]

Over the past few months, multiple artist's discographies have been vandalized, having content blanked and release dates changed. Some of the IP addresses making the edits include:

Some have been blocked but new ones are popping up on a regular basis. Is it possible to get a range block for 1.136.97? Eric444 (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen this one about on some discography articles. A 1.136.97.0/25 block affects only 128 addresses with little collateral damage so I've blocked for a month. We'll see if that slows them down. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
This LTV is likely Dylan Florida. I've got a few other /24 under multi-month blocks that I keep having to renew (including ranges adjacent to this /25). Will want to keep an eye on the rest of the /24 containing yours, and also check back in a month to reblock it. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, DMacks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

NLT block[edit]

This edit summary is plainly intended to invoke a chilling effect, with an implicit legal threat against any editor who reverts. Regardless of the merits of the edit (and I am a strong supporter of following the subject's wishes in these things), the edit summary seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:NLT, but I think reasonable people may differ so I am bringing it here for review and I will leave it to independent reviewing admins to decide if the block should stand or not. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

As they went straight to a legal threat without any previous dispute and the edit summary is dry and factual, I would say a NLT block is appropriate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not persuaded, and would give some leeway if an unblock request was made. However I would expect the sentence in question to be better supported by references. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I had a laugh at the "no longer legally her parent" to justify for removing mention of her father. But this isn't a legal threat as neither Wikipedia or any editor is being threatened with legal action. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't other problems with the edit. I did do a quick Google check to see if there were any mentions of Katherine McNamara "divorcing" her father, but didn't come up with any legal action regarding her and father. Perhaps someone else's Google-fu will be better. —Farix (t | c) 11:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Not a legal threat at all, nor is it the right way to make changes either. KoshVorlon 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, I can't imagine an actress successful suing to "divorce" her father being completely ingnored by the media. At the very least TMZ would have covered it.--65.94.252.62 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits of User:Gamerprof[edit]

Gamerprof blocked for incivility and edit warring until such time as they can show a willingness to play nice with others. (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gamerprof does these edits [4], [5], [6] at Ryazhenka without any summaries which show a clear edit warring behaviour. They refused to participate at the extensive content dispute at Talk:Ryazhenka about the origin of this product. I opened this topic on Talk in December after their first edits of this kind. They ignored it and also they ignored my comment summaries inviting to participate at the discussion and the warning at they Talk. Previously they attempted to remove the word "Ukrainian" from sourced sentences (a clear vandalism) and to introduce several times highly unreliable sources (one where the authors were unsure about its origin, one blog page and one copy of an old version of Wikipedia itself) to assert its Russian origin (s. history) which were reverted by me and another editor. Recently another editor took part in the dispute at Talk and we discussed it in detail. The outcome of the discussion was that there is some degree of uncertainty due to the scarcity of the sources, but that the Ukrainian origin is the only one supported by the sources (actually old Russian and Soviet primary sources, as until recently this product was virtually uknown in the West). However, User:Gamerprof did not take part in the discussion, but changed lately the behaviour to simply deleting the entry in the infobox on its historical Ukrainian origin. I see no possibility to resolve the issue in a civilized manner, as the user refuses to participate in any discussion. In general, User talk:Gamerprof leaves an impression of a common edit warring behaviour on multiple pages. --Off-shell (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Gamerprof has never made an edit to an article talk page or a Wikipedia space page so I'm not optimistic that he will come here and explain his behavior. This might have to be decided without his participation. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
In the past when I've seen cases like this, the usual outcome is a block for the non-participating editor to prevent further disruption. When the editor agrees to participate in discussion, then the block can be lifted. Not sure if that is the answer here, but it's one I've seen before. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, considering these edits, we might enlist a Russian speaker to try communicating with this editor. (though if Google Translate is even close with the translation of those comments, we might just assume this editor is here to right great wrongs... and summarily block) —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Google Translate is very close to the Russian original, except that he used a reflexive Russian verb for "wipe" meaning "wipe your butt with". --Off-shell (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's just shocking and abusive. I think Gamerprof's comments at that editor's user talk merit an indef, at least until Gamerprof can demonstrate that he or she understands that such abusive language as suggesting that another editor should use the Quran as toilet paper is unacceptable under any circumstances. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • User indef'd for incivility and edit warring. If they show they're willing and capable to engage in civil discussion, I'm not gonna wheel war if someone unblocks, but I'm probably not going to be able to carry that out myself. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2016 (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.

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)[edit]

Page semi protected and AN3 filed. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:50, 6 March 2016 (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.

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

A series of anonymous IPs have been reverting factual additions to this page. The page itself appears to be an autobiography, and the reverts appear to be the work of the author himself. Please see the article's history and judge for yourself.

Also read the following for background on the page's additions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/business/media/questions-raised-over-crosswords-seemingly-copied-from-the-new-york-times.html http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-plagiarism-scandal-is-unfolding-in-the-crossword-world/ Econrad (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I currently have an AN3 report filed regarding this article here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Econrad (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2016 (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.

Strange AfD behavior[edit]

Handled by DGG. New AfD opened. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:52, 6 March 2016 (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.

There seems to be some odd behavior over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Docker's Guild. There are a lot of similar IP users making similar arguments. I'm wondering if there's sockpuppetry or canvassing going on. Some more experienced eyes would be appreciated. clpo13(talk) 05:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

DGG closed it and opened a new one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2016 (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.

AHSApacheStudent[edit]

BLOCKED
User was indefinitely blocked by Tokyogirl79. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:54, 6 March 2016 (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.

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

The aforementioned user continually vandalizes several pages dealing with 'List of programs broadcast by...' by adding false premiere dates and finale dates to various programs. The majority of the vandalism is on articles List of programs broadcast by Boomerang and List of programs broadcast by Discovery Family. He has been warned countless times, but continually ignores them. His regular violations of WP:NOR is getting annoying and a bit too much to handle. What could and should be done? Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • It looks like they were blocked back in August 2015 for disruptive editing/vandalism. A look at their talkpage shows numerous warnings about unhelpful edits and I can't see where they've ever took part in a talk page discussion. By large their edits aren't overwhelmingly helpful. They do seem to have created a page for Viceland a few days before the article was created at the proper article name, but I don't see where it really impacted the article created a little after that. Some of this other edits seem to be attempts to split content off of articles and change titles without (or against) consensus. By large his edits aren't so helpful that we'd really lose anything by permanently blocking him, given that he's been repeatedly getting warnings for what looks like the same actions since he signed up. I figure that I'm going to give him an indef block. If he can make a very, very good case for himself and explain why he added false information and made other unhelpful edits, he may be unblocked. However for the time being he seems like he'd probably do more harm than good if left to his own devices, especially since he's never made an attempt to explain his actions or respond to anyone. You don't have to post on talk pages, but at some point you're expected to if you've been blocked and received as many warnings as this guy has. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I sincerely hope that he/she will finally speak up. Your actions taken are very much appreciated. Carbrera (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2016 (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.

Sitebanned editor email harassment[edit]

Boing! said Zebedee disabled email for Fangusu's account. North America1000 18:24, 6 March 2016 (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.

Site-banned editor Fangusu has had her talk page access revoked and several of her favourite talk pages (including mine) have been semiprotected due to her ongoing IP block evasion and appeals to various users to lift her ban, in spite of very clear instructions left on her talk page regarding the standard offer. She has now taken to emailing me the same unblock requests through the site's email a user function, all of which are copypastes of the same request. It had been one every few days for a couple weeks now that I simply deleted, but she sent me five last night in the span of a few minutes, and one more this morning. I'm told that administrators can turn off a user's ability to email other users through the site, and if that's possible I would like to ask that her access to email be revoked. I can provide copies of the messages if necessary. Of course I haven't responded to her emails and I don't intend to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
You had the right instinct, Ivanvector. If you had responded, the editor would now have your email address (which isn't visible through the Email this user function) and blocking their ability to email you through Wikipedia wouldn't affect their ability to now continue to email you. This is a good reminder to editors to only respond via email to users with whom they expect to have cordial relationships. Liz Read! Talk! 17:04, 6 March 2016 (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.

... or to use a segregated email account for WP interactions. (You can leave your main email on file so initial emails come into it, but respond from the segregated account, so that potential crazies never learn your main address.) EEng 08:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest IP of a troll[edit]

IP blocked for 31 hours by Coffee. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:57, 6 March 2016 (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.

Here it is. I have many many reports to AN/I, ANV and I believe the AN noticeboard about this. Here's the latest AN/I report. Eik Corell (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (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.

Admin refuses to close discussions as no consensus[edit]

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Regardless of the repeated RFCs at WT:MFD rejecting relistings for MFD discussions, an admin completely refuses to follow policy. Can a non-deletionist follow actual policy or can we just go back to reverting his discussions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.100 (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Urgent block needed for sock[edit]

71.174.132.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I am in a dire need of a block for a sockpuppet who is a troll, is currently edit warring and engaging in possible personal attacks (on talk pages) at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism. There has been an ANI complaint about this troll before. I am currently on mobile and diff links are hard to work with, so if it is really necessary please let me know so I do so. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 05:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Note to Administrators This is a self-admitted[7] sockpuppet. I'm still for indefinitely blocking this sock even thought the page was protected. He's only going to cause more trouble when the protect expires. Boomer VialHolla 05:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
IP's are generally never blocked indefinitely, except for open proxies. Admins however can put it on long term semi protection, which is less disruptive to registered editors than full protection. If this IP is a sock of a currently indef blocked registered user, then editors are exempt from the 3RR when dealing with them. Blackmane (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
This person is hopping in the range 71.174.0.0/16. I would do a rangeblock, but http://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib is now restricted so it only outputs the last 30 edits. A /16 range is too large to block without more information. Anyone know of a better tool? EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
At Special:Preferences under gadgets, enable "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions...". That shows contribs links for a range, although I only used it once to see how it works and do not know how far back it goes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Oops, I assumed your link was to xtools but it was for an older tool. Again, I don't have experience with using it, but xtools allows you to enter a start date although it only allows a maximum of 50 contributions. If you preview {{blockcalc|71.174.0.0/16}} in a sandbox, it provides a link (c) to xtools with the start date set to one month ago. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

86.169.72.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)[edit]

The WP:RBI approach taken on socks of this banned user might warrant action on most recent IP sock: 86.169.72.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Recent edit history on any articles involved should help an assessing admin recognise patterns of disruption. Page protect on (at least) AW139 article also likely should be considered. Guliolopez (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Is any admin in a position to review this? Guliolopez (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What to do with this IP?[edit]

212.252.20.216 appears to be a single-purpose account who has been adding questionable material and deleting sourced information. I really don't want to keep reverting their edits. Nevertheless, I tried to have the IP discuss the changes at the TP but it doesn't seem to work. What should be an appropriate measure to take here? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat?[edit]

This IP (80.12.43.175 - ANI notice) just left this on my talk page. I believe that this constitutes a legal threat, but I want to get input in case I am wrong, and administrator action if I'm right. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP also keeps reverting edits made to Carl-Eduard von Bismarck, which removes a reference, adds unreferenced BLP issues, and removes templates such as {{reflist}} from the article. A report has been filed at AIV. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
A new user, Transparencythruth has just been created (presumably by the IP), and is now adding the same BLP issue to the article. Left a 4im warning, and an ANI notice. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
That was my reading of the situation too. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Blocked new one as a sock. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Peacemaker67. I'll keep an eye out and update if I find any more. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Seems the article has been vandalized over the last few days from the same IP range, including Khaoz529k, 80.12.35.99, 80.12.39.28, and 80.12.51.34. I'm tempted to roll the article back to a point prier to these edits.[8]Farix (t | c) 12:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
No objection to that: the only difference from the current version [9] is in the person data. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
This was closed too quickly. I just blocked Khaoz529k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for this and this. A clear legal threat. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather - I've re-opened this thread, as your information is important and is relevant to my initial report. Thank you for catching the legal threat left on my talk page. I went through about half of that message, assumed that it was all nonsense, and went on my merry way without realizing that I missed something. Much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I semiprotected the article. I guess it's whack-a-mole from here on. I note that the rule of thumb that any user with "truth" in the name is here on a mission, has been shown once again to be valid. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Potguru[edit]

I've blocked Potguru for 72 hours based on flagrantly poor conduct and disruptive editing on articles related to Donald Trump. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:54, 7 March 2016 (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.

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

Well, here we are again, and here I am posting on the dramaboard. Anyways, I think its time User:Potguru be shown the door. The user has had some issues on the past, and seems to be here mostly to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - The user recently has been editing Donald J Drumpf and Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)‎ - The user seems to be warring pretty hard, and is nothing but incivil.
The proof is not only in the content, but the edit summaries.

[10] -- [11] -- [12] - The user seems to be throwing thier toys out the pram and now asks that we "please erase every contribution I've ever made to this god forsaken shit hole!" --allthefoxes (Talk) 19:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the user made three consecutive votes on an AFD just to push the point. There is no question that this user is simply being disruptive and un-collaborative like a bull in a china shop. --allthefoxes (Talk) 20:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I've already reported the user at WP:AIV. I agree a time out is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agreed. They've decided that the "Trump supporters" have won and Donald J Drumpf is to be deleted. The AfD isn't over yet, but they've decided to take back all their contributions while blanking their talk page to any warnings. clpo13(talk) 20:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep that was an accurate feeling when written. If there were a magic button that removed all my contributions I'd click it in a nanosecond. I WAS attempting to resolve a problem of multiple articles related to the same topic. But I have been attacked by Muboshgu repeatedly, and other non-well meaning editors who are, frankly, mad that the drumpf topic is getting the amazing press coverage it did. As I said... just erase all my contributions and I'll go back to the rock I live under with people who don't hate and are not afraid to learn. --Potguru (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your solution to fixing an issue like that is throwing a huge fit, attacking other editors, etc? Instead of calmly discussing with other editors and collaborating? Wikipedia has no deadline, things take time. Staying calm and discussing is one of the core foundations of Wikipedia, and you seem to have no regard for it. I think you still have potential to be a great editor, but you may need to take a WP:WALK --allthefoxes (Talk) 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
My solution was this...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Drumpf_(Last_Week_Tonight) please carefully review the edits and my hard work before you judge me --Potguru (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
You were bold, and you made that page. Someone "reverted you" and now its time to discuss. It's the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. --allthefoxes (Talk) 20:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
And only seconds ago you were wanting to show me the door... nice neighborhood, huh? --Potguru (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
dude, you want to fix the problem? Speedy delete donald j drumpf and consider recommending that the page I authored already did all the work. As you know I can't do anything right now because everyone is watching me. Your suggestion is great, now kindly act on it and take me out of this damn box. --Potguru (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
What would help is if you would stop deleting valid content from Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlike your war edits mine are (most often) constructive and they build upon others work. You just revert anything I do because you don't like the subject matter. --Potguru (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Your edits are mostly nonconstructive, which is why we're here. You delete valid material about Google Search results sourced to the New York Times, and created a duplicate article, which you then removed the CSD template from despite several warnings. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, bub, that accusation is way off base and likely the reason you pissed me off to begin with. Your indictment that my edits are mostly non-constructive is, to be blunt, absolutely absurd. Please actually look at the incredibly long list of edits I've made to this and a group of other articles and then come back here and apologize for your baseless attack. --Potguru (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

So is anything going to happen here? Or am I going to continue to wish my AIV report hadn't been taken down because of this. ANI often seems like a waste of time without any action. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What would you like to happen here? Potguru seems to have accepted the way the wind is blowing (albeit ungracefully and with a fair bit of passive aggressive grousing) with regard to the AfD. That content issue is resolved (or ought to be, any time now) with a clear merge finding. Of course their "I'm going to take my ball and go home" attitude is silly, even obnoxious, but it doesn't really rise to the level of personal attacks against specific editors, nor to disruption of a sort warranting a sanction, so why are you not just ignoring them rather than engaging/enabling? Discuss the remaining content issues (such as how much content will be merged in from Donald J Drumpf) on the talk page for Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), and if Potguru violates consensus, then return here or to 3RR. But sanctions are meant to be preventative and not punitive, so we're not going to hand one out for an issue that's already closed--nor for PG being a purveyor of sour grapes.
I will add one caveat though: Potguru, I've noticed that you are repeatedly referring to Muboshgu as "mushu" in your posts and edit summaries, which I feel is suggestive of a patronizing (if not quasi-racist) tone. Please show your fellow contributors proper respect, whatever you feel about their editorial perspectives; WP:NPA/WP:C are non-negotiable stipulations to your involvement on this project. Snow let's rap 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I will try to be more respectful of editors. I was angry at him at that moment in time, I think I did it twice. I will refrain from acting like a child, even when angry. --Potguru (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
PS, perhaps you could warn Muboshgu above of the same, clearly his accusation that my edits are non-constructive is an attacked based on his political beliefs and not actual fact. I'm happy to follow the same rules everyone else does but I will not be singled out. --Potguru (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Potguru: We're not going to attack people purely based on political beliefs, especially if they haven't even stated that it's due to their political beliefs. That's like saying anyone who adds negative information to the Barack Obama article is a racist. I actually support Trump, and I'm still gonna be fine however the AfD goes. Wikipedia is about building a complete encyclopedia, not tailoring it to our individual political beliefs. You're edits were most certainly unconstructive, and he was right to report you in my opinion. Reporting of behavior to the proper noticeboard, as long as the report isn't blatantly false, is not a personal attack. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
If you are ok accepting his indictment that my edits are mostly non-constructive than I challenge you to actually PROVE that point, or demand that he rescind said accusation. His statement that my edits are MOSTLY non-constuctive is, as I said before, absolutely ludicrous and I will add that his accusation is slanderous. Or I can waste all the editors time and make the claim myself. I demand an apology for the FALSE ACCUSATION. The editor is not being civil, why is the set of rules he is held to different? if not different then demand he retract his attack that my edits are MOSTLY NONCONSTUCTIVE. Same rules for all, kids. --Potguru (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Ps note there is a difference between my making some non-constructive edits and the editors attack of me that "Your edits are mostly nonconstructive" -Muboshgu . Rescind that slanderous statement immediately. This is not a kindergarten parking lot. --22:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Please scale back your ire a little here? A) You opened up the "constructive/nonconstructive" can or worms when you told Muboshgu "Unlike your war edits mine are (most often) constructive", B) to the extent he countered that yours were the nonconstructive edits, he seemed to be referring to the exact same narrow context of the articles/content issues in question, not your entire editorial history.
In any event, your response here, in terms of your demands for a recantation and the fact that you've opened another ANI below as a tit-for-tat, is way over-the-top. Muboshgu is allowed to have a poor impression of your editorial contributions and the best way for you to counter those impressions is to calmly present why your actions have been rational and constructive, not too launch into histrionic, bolded, capped "YELLING FITS" demanding an apology. Nor to open up new ANI threads to address a personal dispute between the two of you that could be addressed just as easily here. Frankly you are doing nothing but buttressing his argument that you're discussion methodology is hyperbolic and disruptive. Snow let's rap 00:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

just for fun, here's another editor assuming that (although all my contributions are cited with good sources) I must be a JERK because I put up info the editor didn't like. shouold I "tell on" this editor because he was mean to me too? "To put it simply, please stop behaving like a jerk. The infobox has no place in this article, especially since it is being used to mock the person (calling him a "pimp" and "tax-dodging, brothel-keeping lawless migrant grandpa"). I mean, what is wrong with you? You're not being funny.---MarshalN20 Talk 18:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)" Maybe we should ALL follow the rules and acutually use the policies like not being biased. I didn't say he was a tax-dodging, brothel-keeping lawless migrant grandpa the newspaper did and my comments about pimp are available for all to read. [1]. You guys read the talk page, right? --Potguru (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think the both of them could use a time out. After reading this, I honestly don't care who threw the first rock. HalfShadow 03:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


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

Disruptive Editing and Ownership Behavior[edit]

OP requested close. (non-admin closure) Atsme📞📧 16:30, 7 March 2016 (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 have been having issues with disruptive editing (among multiple other issues) by User:MontanaBW. This behavior began when I started editing the Parelli Natural Horsemanship (a.k.a. PNH) page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parelli_Natural_Horsemanship about two months ago and has continued since.

As a matter of background, I am a student of PNH and have been for about 10 years. I have no other affiliation with the organization, financial or otherwise. I have never been paid to train horses or people on horsemanship.

When I found the page, it was sorely lacking in substance and was filled with anti-PNH material. Some of that material was valid criticism that was reasonably written. However, much of the text significantly overstated negative elements found in the source; some of it was written in a distinctly unencyclopedic tone; some of it was uncited and had been for years; some of it was nonsensical; a fair amount of it was distorted; some of it was outright incorrect and much of it lacked any countervailing view representing the “other side of the story.”

I will leave out the ugly details here but will summarize them by saying: I added material. MontanaBW deleted much of my material. She engaged in repeated "discussions" (which can be viewed in their entirety on the PNH talk page and my talk page) that usually amounted to little more than a conclusory rant about how PNH was a cult and Pat Parelli (the founder) was a “huckster” and a “flimflam artist.” She is certainly entitled to her opinions, but her editing should not reflect them.

More often than anything resembling a substantive discussion, she accused me repeatedly of COI, POV editing, copyright infringement, SPA and probably a few other things I’m forgetting at the moment.

I will give her credit for saying the right things in terms of principles (e.g. repeatedly referring to foundational principles such as NPOV and such). However, as she was saying the right things, she was doing the wrong thing -- deleting much of the material that did not comport with her vehement prejudices against PNH and being quit uncivil in the process.

That was more background than I had meant to put in but, in rereading it, I’m not sure what I should cut out. My apologies for the length so far.

MontanaBW’s latest ugly remark, left on my talk page, included, “Others can try to educate you, at this point, as far as I am concerned, I am done trying to teach a brick wall. You can either edit properly or get reverted.”

In turn, my immediate concern are her latest manual modifications [2] to the page, which she called “Kept some changes, tossed some changes.” Most of the deletions on the page were of my work. Some of her modifications very nearly defy explanation, other than she has manually changed the page back into almost exactly how she had left it before others and I made changes (this is MontanaBW's last version of the page [3]).

In approximate order of their occurrence in the text (and omitting a few), these are the changes MontanaBW made manually to the page:

  • She changed the “co-authored by” section – back verbatim to her earlier version – which gave “co-author” credit to the (non-notable) ghost writer and a photography-by credit (to Pat Parelli’s first wife). These individuals are clearly non-notable. On the talk page where others and I had been discussing it, she simply put, “Parelli's first wife also claims co-founder credit and helped him with his first book” (this is uncited…) and “Clearly, behind the "great man" are several hard-working women.”
  • I fixed a misplaced period (to comport with the American style regarding periods/commas), putting the period where it belonged (inside the quotes):
from “The Four Savvys”.
to “The Four Savvys.”
She changed it back to the incorrect placement
  • I fixed another misplaced period, taking the text
from “7 Games”.
to “7 Games.”
She changed that back, too.
  • The same thing happened with
"Parelli Natural Horsemanship University",
  • To comport with the talk page discussion (and to remove the word “now,” which is inappropriate), I changed the “co-created” sentence. She changed it back, verbatim, to her earlier version. Her version did not comport with the talk page discussion, which she hadn’t participated in (and added that “now” right back in).
  • I had reorganized for flow. The text had read <program availability><program description><program availability>. I reorganized it so that it read <program description><program availability> (i.e., so the topic of “availability” wasn’t split by a different topic for no reason.) She manually changed it to (again, verbatim) her earlier version.
  • A material mistake had been introduced at some point, describing “liberty” work with a horse as involving the horse in a halter and lead rope/flank rope. That is unambiguously wrong. Liberty work is…a horse at liberty. I changed it so it was correct. She manually reintroduced the error (to, verbatim, her earlier version).
  • I fixed grammar. “Horse” is singular, so I changed a “they are” to “it is.” She changed it back to be grammatically incorrect.
  • This is an article about an organization, not individuals. I changed “The Parellis state” to “PNH states.” She changed it back (again, verbatim).
  • Another editor and I had discussed Lauren Barwick. She is a Parelli Professional (a title), so that is what I called her (and provided a citation). The other editor changed it to Parelli Instructor. That was wrong as “Parelli Instructor” isn’t a title; it’s a description. We discussed it and I changed it to “Parelli instructor,” which wasn’t as precise as it could have been but seemed to make both of us more or less satisfied. It was a good exercise is collaborative editing, I suppose. MontanaBW later edited it back to “has been coached by,” which isn’t wrong but it’s only about 10% of the story. (And, unsurprisingly, it is her exact text from beforehand.)
  • I changed a period that appeared in the middle of a sentence into a comma (it had been “that it is "gimmicky and over-commercialized." sells overpriced materials”). She deleted the comma and reinserted the period in the middle of the sentence.

It is very difficult to improve an article when mistakes (grammatical and substantive) are being reintroduced in such a purposeful way. Her ownership behavior is not new. It appears to have existed not just for months but for almost the entirety of the life of this page.

Again, I apologize for the length of this post. Can you offer any assistance with this editor’s behavior?JackieLL007 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Looks like a content dispute. I see nothing disruptive about Montanabw's conduct. You might seek third party input from a variety of places listed at WP:DR. This is just not an ANI matter. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I am, upon additional review, becoming increasingly concerned with JackieLL007's conduct, having looked hard at Jackie's user talk page and complaint here. The insistence above that the article use the Oxford comma, rather than Wikipedia's own manual of style, is the sort of nitpicky complaint we more often see from editors with an axe to grind. I'm not saying that this is the case, but Jackie, you should be aware that your own conduct does not look good here. I'm sorry if this isn't the response you were looking for, but I would respectfully suggest you walk away from articles concerning PNH for now. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. If another editor makes an edit that you feel is incorrect, it can be fixed some other time. For now, though, you should focus on becoming more experienced in the Wikipedia culture in subject areas where disputes are not going to concern topics about which you feel so strongly. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me in reviewing the complaints brought here that JackieLL07 is fixated on the article Parelli Natural Horsemanship. According to her edit stats She has been editing only since Dec 29, 2015 and has made 105 out of her 209 edits on that article and 28 more to its talk page. She has made 7 edits to her next most-edited article. For someone who appears to only have been editing for a couple of months, she has found this notice board quite early: it invites the question of whether she has used another account previously. Nevertheless, this is single-purpose account which seems very keen to right the great wrong done to the Parellis by our article. Frankly, looking at the sources, neither I nor another uninvolved editor, Bishonen who cleaned up some of the article, the sources just don't support the claims JackieLL07 is making out of them. This is a new editor whose only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to impose her POV on the Parelli Natural Horsemanship article, and resents the established editors who are explaining to her the problems she is causing. A certain amount of competence is required, so I'm going to suggest that that JackieLL07 turns her attention to other articles that she is not so invested in. Therefore:

She can edit other articles that she has less strong feelings about while learning how Wikipedia NPOV works. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, I did revert two times over the last 2 months as a result of what, to me, seemed like a very heavy delete hand by MontanaBW. Other than that, I am genuinely uncertain what behavior from my editing would be construed as troubling. Could you provide some diffs, please?JackieLL007 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
If you insist, I'll make a start with your first edits to the article. Over the space of one day, you added 5,000 bytes of text, but only one reference (http://www.jackiechant.co.nz/About/About-Parelli/ - the website of a "Licensed 4-star Parelli Instructor", hardly a reliable, independant source). Your changes made the article read more like an uncritical advert for PNH, including several HOWTO sections. Don't you find that troubling? I certainly do.
The next day, you made this edit, summarised as "Removing bias and uncited material". It seems to be an attempt to recast criticism into Parelli's terms and remove the fact that criticism is levelled by the mainstream equestrian community, including the very high cost of the courses.
Now that's just the first two days and you've made another 100+ edits to the article as your edit stats at https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=JackieLL007&project=en.wikipedia.org show. Anybody with the time to spare can peruse the edits you've made in context by looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parelli_Natural_Horsemanship&offset=20160304&limit=500&action=history - it's not hard to spot how many other editors have felt the need to clean up the article after your edits.
I find it very disappointing that faced with a call for a topic ban from the article, your immediate response is to say that you are uncertain about the problem. It's up to you to examine your edits and make the effort to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to advertise PNH. If anybody else wants to see more problematic diffs, I'll adduce more, but really, nobody can be unaware of your involvement with PNH and the difficulty that must cause in viewing the content from an unbiased POV. You need a break from PNH and to get some practice on something uncontroversial. WP:SUGGESTBOT might be helpful. --RexxS (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not excited about accusations of this kind while an editor clearly cannot defend herself.[13]. Jackie many of these concerns are very simple copy edit/ grammatical changes. I don't think AN/I is the place for complaints made based on these kinds of very simple edits. Work it out on the talk page without accusations, eh?(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
  • Support topic ban, though if Jackie would voluntarily back away from the article, I would withdraw my support. I'm willing to give Jackie the benefit of the doubt that it's just inexperience rather than truly tendentious editing that has led to this mess. But if Jackie doubles down in response to this proposal, I see no other answer. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban unless diffs can be provided showing JackieLL07 editing disruptively in the topic area. Being enthusiastic about one particular topic area and being ignorant, as a newcomer, of specific details of the Manual of Style, do not add up to requiring a formal topic ban enforceable by blocks. MPS1992 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban unless it is imposed unilaterally to both MBW and JackieLL07. MBW has stated outright that she failed to AGF by assuming the "I (she) initially thought you (Jackie) were (was) a paid editor". Had MBW approached the conflict in a more open manner, we wouldn't be here now. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify. I am not upset that someone is putting a comma outside the parenthesis when it should go inside. I can see why you would think that complaint was ridiculous -- it would be. That wasn't my concern, though. This is not a content dispute.

Instead, my point is this: the other editor has made such a point of reverting my work that she has now devolved to reflexively changing back anything I edit. She's an experienced editor and presumably knows relatively simple things like basic punctuation. Why in the world would she go out of her way to manually revert punctuation -- several times -- back to being incorrect? Why would she manually change "horse...is" back to "horse...are"?

(Btw, not to be nitpicky, but the comma/quote placement is American standard. ["Place periods and commas… Inside quotation marks"[1]]. It is different from an Oxford comma, which precedes the "and" in a series. The Oxford comma is indeed optional.) I would also point out that going out of one's way to reinsert a period in the middle of a sentence (where a comma clearly belongs) seems to be almost the definition of tendentious editing.

The same is true for the substance. For example, I fixed substantive errors (including one that could be subject to no reasonable debate -- that "liberty work" involves a horse that is at liberty) and she reintroduced them.

I have tried to have discussions about specific edits with this editor for several months. For the most part, she refuses to discuss specifics and, instead, goes after the editor (i.e., me) and PNH (which doesn't particularly bother me but does demonstrate her vehement POV). The one time she did share her specific concerns, I researched her points and agreed with her. I have told her repeatedly that I am happy to discuss specific edits but she does not seem inclined to have discussions regarding specifics (and, as of her last post on my talk page, flat-out refused).JackieLL007 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Once again, I don't see a specific problem with Montanabw's conduct here that merits intervention. If Montanabw introduced errors by reverting one of your contribs, the proper response would be to fix that specific error in a subsequent edit, and noting it in an edit summary. If Montanabw then went back and reverted that edit consisting solely of a minor, uncontroversial change in grammar, spelling, or punctuation (without a good reason, such as WP:MOS compliance), then you might have a valid argument that Montanabw's conduct is problematic. As it is, I'm just not seeing it. Please, Jackie, heed the advice I gave above and find another topic area on Wikipedia to edit rather than PNH. Perhaps come back to it after you've got the experience and track record under your belt that potential COI problems aren't overshadowing everything else. I say this as someone who came into Wikipedia during my college years trying to edit a topic related to my major and internet culture... both things that were near and dear to my heart at that time. I got very frustrated and almost didn't come back to Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Maybe Montanabw and JackieLL007 could both leave the article alone for a couple of weeks and let other editors work on it? I'm sorry if this is not a good suggestion, but I was up late last night and got up early this morning because of real life issues, so I'm tired and my brain may not be working so well. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I appreciate your feedback. I truly am here to add to Wikipedia (and to address a different comment, no, I am not a returning user). I think MontanaBW's edits have, as you stated, introduced the same errors on a repeated basis. Here, MontanaBW didn't merely revert the page...she manually removed all of my recent changes. All of those changes were directed towards restoring her earlier version of the page, and several of those changes reintroduced her earlier, and unambiguously wrong, material. This was not the first time for several of these errors. For example, on the substantive front, I entered correct information (e.g., regarding liberty work), someone changed it so it was incorrect, I changed it back, Montanabw manually changed it so it was incorrect...again. (As an aside, this is a fact that is not remotely controversial, so it wasn't just a war of opinions/sources. It was plain-old error that was introduced yet again.) Manually changing every last one of my recent entries does not seem directed towards improving WP. This is especially true given that her changes reintroduced multiple and patently obvious errors (e.g., the period in the middle of a sentence). Instead, it seems directed more towards either pushing me towards dispute resolution (which worked) or towards maintaining "her" version of the page.

WAF, I think that is a good idea. I'd be happy to take a break from editing the PNH page if MontanaBW would do the same. Maybe she and I could both restrict ourselves to the talk page...?JackieLL007 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We will have to wait until Montanabw is back online to see. Somebody else posted on her talk page and said that her computer crashed and it may be a day or so before it's fixed. That looks like it will be the cleanest way of resolving the issue. White Arabian Filly Neigh 16:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't see a COI in that JackieLL007 is not a paid advocate but as a student of PNH there is an indirect financial interest since PNH isn't free. We also can't rule out advocacy because of the obvious bias in favor of PNH which may make everything seem much worse than it actually is in this particular content dispute. Mendaliv was on target for suggesting DR first. ANI isn't the place for petty issues like commas, semantics, and syntax. If edit warring is involved, then 3RR is the place to take it, not here. This dispute doesn't warrant a TB but I do think a voluntary break from editing that article would help get things back into perspective. My suggestion to the OP is to request a non-admin closure and move on. Try to find another topic to Wikignome for a while. When things cool off, they can always go back and start a discussion regarding any recommended changes on the article TP. Atsme📞📧 04:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, that's a good idea. This has been a toxic mess and I think I'll go do something else with my spare time. I'd like a non-admin closure.JackieLL007 (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2016 (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:Muboshgu[edit]

(non-admin closure) User:Potguru has been hit by a WP:BOOMERANG and was blocked for 72 hours by I JethroBT --allthefoxes (Talk) 06:28, 7 March 2016 (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 don't know if we've ever been here before. It would surprise me if we have not. I demand the user Muboshgu rescind his slanderous statement that My "edits are mostly nonconstructive".

I am not sure why this user is allowed to personally attack me pointing only to a few occurrences of edits during a heated period separate from a mountain of good submissions. Please demand this user stop making unfounded and slanderous claims against users who create and edit articles that the user apparently disagrees with. Please warn this user that they are required to be civil. The user has been, in my opinion, harassing anyone who added to the discussion who was not a Trump supporter most particularly me as I am the original author of an article about a contentious topic which garnered international media attention. (Yes the press wrote about the article).

I would like the user to rescind his slanderous comment and be warned not to make others. Thank you --Potguru (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits were mostly unconstructive in this particular situation is what was meant by my read of things. To say so is not a personal attack. I'm sure you also have lots of productive edits too, and I'm sure User:Muboshgu wouldn't disagree with that. I think it's time to disengage though, because there's not a lot of value in keeping these demands up. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you speak for Moboshgu? I think you should demand that he respect me... his attack is wholly unwarranted and seemingly politically motivated... unless you've actually reviewed all or a substantial number of (at least the majority) my edits and then came to this conclusion, have you? --Potguru (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Potguru, it would help if you would post diffs/links to the edits that you have an issue with so that they could be examined and evaluated. As it is now, it seems like you expect ANI regulars to comb through Muboshgu's contributions to find where you believe you were insulted. Folks have lots of things they want to spend their editing time on and you need to bring your evidence to your complaint if you want to have editors offer their opinion on the merits of your case. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Liz, thanks for weighing in. Unlike those attacking me I am not yet skilled enough to be able to point you to the specific edit. Editor's slanderous statement is on this very page, up above, in the potguru section. --02:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Starship paint is angry that the article exists, isn't that right starship paint? Interesting you'd take another opportunity to attack me... the original author of the article on Drumpf. Came out of semi-retirement just to tattack the subject matter didn't you? Here's the section where he starts his attack on the topic Talk:Donald_J_Drumpf#Is_this_an_attack_page_on_Trump.3F Right off the bat it is clear that he, and his chronies, are interested only in attacking me... not checking the facts at hand. Almost how I might expect a Drumpf supporter to act. --Potguru (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Potguru, this is absolutely the last time I am going to make an effort to save you from yourself, vis-a-vis a block for blatant WP:personal attacks, WP:ad hominems, general incivility, and a complete inability to WP:assume good faith. You have inappropriately opened a thread here because you felt you were being "slandered" by an assessment that your contributions were non-constructive. So if you think such an innocuous comment can constitute a personal attack, how do you think it's appropriate to ask passive-aggressive, inflammatory questions, call people "cronies" (suggesting improper collusion, another PA if you don't have evidence to support the allegation), and make comments like "exactly as I expect a support of [X; it really doesn't matter what goes here] to act"? If you want to have any chance of avoiding a block here, you need to calm down and radically alter the nature with which you communicate with your fellow editors here. If you can't do that, be ready for the WP:BOOMERANG... Snow let's rap 05:06, 7 March 2016 (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.

who to notify[edit]

(non-admin closure) WP:RFC, no incident to report. --allthefoxes (Talk) 06:32, 7 March 2016 (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.

Who should I notify about the proposal to remove G13 at WT:CSD? It's about time we moved the archaic idea of deleting stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.242 (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You are likely interested in WP:RFC, however it looks like your suggestion has been reviewed by a number of editors already. --allthefoxes (Talk) 06:32, 7 March 2016 (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.

Kohs[edit]

Closed and moved to AIV. Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 7 March 2016 (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.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/StoppingYouAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoppingYouAgain (talkcontribs) 20:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Appears to me to be clear evidence of WP:WIKIHOUNDING by the OP. WP:BOOMERANG? General Ization Talk 21:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

::I don't know what it is. Boomerang against whom? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Against StoppingYouAgain, who seems to have made it their purpose to reverse any edits (even on Talk pages) made by 2001:558:1400:10:7DF8:DF25:8437:D4BA (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and then calls attention to it here. General Ization Talk 21:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that and then struck it out. I was surprised by the reverts even on the talk page. Certainly not a new user. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I've reported to WP:AIV. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2016 (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.

Hunting in pairs by Two Editors[edit]

NO ACTION
Drmies and RegentsPark both find nothing problematic. Banging case shut per RegentsPark. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:35, 9 March 2016 (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.

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Two Editors frequently work in collaboration and specifically work in areas of Eastern Religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism. They frequently engage in one or more of the following actions:

1. Removing content that does not suit their “aim”.
2. Reverting edits done by “opposite group” (two people usually engage in Talk page, a third one is given the duty to revert edits)
3. Defacing Talk pages with unsubstantiated allegations.
4. Using insulting tone and threatening other users.
5. Putting “cleanup” tags on pages
6. Attacking in pairs on talk page (One person will provoke. Other will intervene and be after the opponent for using "insulting" tone).
7. Supporting each other in discussion, thereby creating an illusion of majority.

As soon as any point is made, one of these will come, taking selective actions.

This coterie involves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshua_Jonathan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kautilya3

Examples of supporting each other:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Hindu_philosophy (Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoshua_Jonathan&type=revision&diff=681775089&oldid=681612453

(Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashoka Supporting each other (Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AOut_of_India_theory (Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murty_Classical_Library_of_India#Shortened (Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allama_Prabhu&action=history (JJ engaging in Talk page and Kautilya reverting edits.)

A Talk exchange exemplifies their thought process and Biased Point of View. Then these editors go about promoting NPOV.

"I have been researching into Hindu American Foundation lately, having seen an alarm by Vic. When I googled for "Rajiv Malhotra Hindu American Foundation," guess what pops up? [1] A fight on caste!" - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
While the HAF itself also seems to be positioned at the political right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Not only that. The HAF makes up most of RM's political constituency, and probably continues to do so. The way I look at it, it is the fight between `bourgeois Hinduism' and the `intellectual Hinduism', while the `orthodox Hinduism' stands by to watch. I wonder what will happen when California rewrites its textbooks next time. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Ceasefire in this civil war, and a closing of fronts against modernity? "The invasion of the secular," so to speak. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I doubt it. Bourgeois Hinduism is full of colonial values .RM is nothing if not anti-colonial. No rapprochement is possible. But it would be nice if they fought more intensely! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Recent example. Kautliya posts on Talk Page of JJ:
Murty Classical Library of India ... is under attack. Please take a look. I am tied up this evening. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiagr (talkcontribs) Adiagr (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


This is only a tip of the iceberg. In case a comprehensive investigation is made, my charge of "hunting in pairs" will be substantiated.

I request senior administrators to look into this issue. This has been going on for quite some time now (Almost a year since I have interacted and by that time they were veterans in this strategy).

Adiagr (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 and I edit the same pages, and meet the same, endless barrage of Hindu nationalism driven "contributions" which do not aim to improve Wikipedia, but to use Wikipedia for nationalist aims. See Murty Classical Library of India, where Adiagr popped-up in defense of a non-neutral coverage of the petition against Sheldon Pollock. Adiagr, despite a meager 335 edits, has a history of warnings because of a lack of NPOV; see the history of User talk:Adiagr (warnings are consistently being removed by Adiagr). Typically, he doesn't even know the difference between a userpage and a talkpage, posting the ANI-notification at my userpage. This ANI-thread reminds of tactics we've seen before from Bladesmulti, using the boards to haunt editors who oppose non-NPOV editors, devoting their time to extensive overviews of the edits of other editors, instead of improving Wikipedia, wasting precious time of constructive editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor comment Note that this is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. Blackmane (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There is significant overlap between these two editors. See the interaction checker. I'm not making judgements on that overlap, just noting it. (Non-administrator comment) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── To respond to Adiagr's points made above (and this is what I mean by wasting my precious time; I've been reading papers on genetical research to improve Indo-Aryan migration theory, and I'd like to continue that, instead of wasting my time here):

  • "1. Removing content that does not suit their “aim”." - our aim is to adhere to NPOV and rely on WP:RS. Experienced ediotrs know that I oppose POV-pushing from any direction at India-related articles: Hndus, Jains, Sikhs, Tamils, even Buddhists, "my" group.
  • "2. Reverting edits done by “opposite group” (two people usually engage in Talk page, a third one is given the duty to revert edits)" - so, who's the third one?
  • "3. Defacing Talk pages with unsubstantiated allegations." - augh, that's a nasty one. Examples please. If I make allegations, they are substantiated. Most of them are against socks; see Talkpage:Sikhism.
  • "4. Using insulting tone and threatening other users." - I take great care not to insult other editors since it is totally counter-productive.
  • "5. Putting “cleanup” tags on pages" - there's nothing wrong with using cleanup tags on pages when someting is wrong with the page. Thoufgh I prefer to cure the page, when necessary. I've done quite some work on restructuring pages; see, for example, Advaita Vedanta, which was an unreadable mess before I started editing there.
  • "6. Attacking in pairs on talk page (One person will provoke. Other will intervene and be after the opponent for using "insulting" tone)." - the term "provoke" is totally misplaced here.Usually, I explain my edits t talkpages, when necessay. I've met quite some provocations, though, apparently due to sticking to NPOV and RS.
  • "7. Supporting each other in discussion, thereby creating an illusion of majority." - of course we voice the same stance, when we've gor the same stance. If that constitutes a majority, then apparently there's only one other voice - who does have a problem with talkpage-procedures and establishing concencus.
  • "A Talk exchange exemplifies their thought process and Biased Point of View. Then these editors go about promoting NPOV." - about the HAF and Rajiv Malhotra. There's nothing wrong with an exchange on the HAF and Rajiv Malhotra. See Talk:Rajiv Malhotra#Proposal + discussion; I took extremely great care to include the various POV's, and to adhere to NPOV. Some socks did pop-up there, though. Which is a good example of the kind of POV-pushing we're facing with these topics.
  • "Murty Classical Library India ... is under attack. Please take a look. I am tied up this evening." - yes, that's a nice example. The petition against Sheldon Pollock contains allegations that he is anti-India; yet, it turned out that the petitioners had selectively cited from a talk by Sheldon Pollock, giving the opposite impression of what he stands for. An extended interaction took place at Murty Classical Library of India, where Adiagr and another editor wanted to include a summary of the petition which made the same kind of suggestions, and which was written in incorrect English; see the various threads at Talk:Murty Classical Library of India. Apparently Kautilya3 made a call on me, to have a look, knowing that I adhere to NPOV, and am critical to both sides (see also the recent discussions at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory, where Kautilya3 and I disagree about when the ANI came to India). I've drastically shortened the section on this petition, since it is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK.

Regarding the overlap: we're definitely not the same editor, if that's what you think. Kautilya3 is based n Britain (as far as I know); I'm Dutch. I also overlap with VictoriaGrayson, and a couple of other editors. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I already forgot (Ah! The blessings of a bad memory!): Adiagr has been socking, and wants to conceal that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Joshua's assertion that he collaborates with a few other editors. I would like to add that this collaboration is quite similar to the one he has with Kautilya. I request EvergreenFir to kindly post details of interaction checker of Joshua Jonathan with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ms_Sarah_Welch Adiagr (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, great, Ms Sarah Welch! A very erudite editor, with a massive amount of knowledge. See our interactions at [[Talk:Sikhism]] with another persistent sock, Js82 (Js82 SPI Archive for Js82). NB: Adiagr was socking at Invading the Sacred and Talk:Invading the Sacred, a book by Rajiv Malhotra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that when your "interactions" with Kautliya on multiple pages have been highlighted by EvergreenFir, you post accusations for one page. I request admins to investigate in detail about the edit reverts done by Joshua. There are other users also with whom he collaborates, including some administrators. This group also indulges in tagging various articles that are not created by them as Start Class or C-Class or Low Importance. In case of any re-assessment, they tag article for improvement of content . Due to his sustained reverts and harassment, many part time contributors have left Wikipedia. This time I hope that this coterie would be exposed and fair POV would be allowed. Adiagr (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

regarding some of the diffs Adiagr provided:
"Adiagr When Kautilya3 used "we", s/he meant "editors on Wikipedia". S/He was being polite in not saying "you". S/He was defending an experienced Wikipedia editor whom s/he knows well. If you read both Joshua Jonathan's and Kautilya3's responses to you, above, they are polite throughout. Wikipedia's talk pages are not a forum. They are for discussing ways to improve articles. If you have suggestions, be specific, be polite, and support your opinions whenever possible with references to reliable sources. See WP:RS. Also see WP:AGF and WP:AOBF. Corinne (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)"
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There was good reason for me to alert Joshua Jonathan, because he created the consensus text on Sheldon Pollock after considerable discussion among all the involved editors on Talk:Sheldon Pollock (diff). I copied this text into Murty Classical Library of India (diff). It was immediately hacked to death by Adiagr (diff, diff, diff) violating every Wikipedia policy known to me (violation of NPOV by cherry picking sources and content, source misrepresentation and BLP violation), which I documented on the talk page. In addition, the user tag-teamed with HemaChandra88, whose POV edits he reinstated twice: diff, diff.

Can we have WP:BOOMERANG please? I would have reported him to WP:AE yesterday, but gave him another chance because he opened a talk page discussion. The fracas yesterday was quite ridiculous. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

So, when it's Joshua Jonathan or Kautilya3 posting selective cherry picking, it's neutral POV, but when others' do it, it automatically becomes biased! Very strange, indeed. Also, kindly corroborate with evidence your allegation of 'misrepresentation'. It's only only MICL article where you are tag-teamed. I have a list of occurances when both you guys have reverted/edited each others edits within minutes. I urge mods to kindly look into this serious misuse of admin powers by both administrators so that more openness can reflect in wikipedia. HemaChandra88 (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No, JJ's text is NPOV because it was consensus text arrived at by a number of editors after extensive talk page discussion at Talk:Sheldon Pollock. You have not participated in any of those discussions, either before or after you started making edits on this topic. You have not even responded to my question on the talk page of MCLI. In fact, your talk page participation is only 10% of your edits, and very little of it is on article content. Further, most of your edits )(87%) don't have edit summaries or justifications. Some of this could be due to inexperience, but the fact that you are edit-warring on sourced content means that it is more POV pushing. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm a witness to the POV-pushing to which some pages have been subjected, but the POV-pushing has come from other editors, not from user:Joshua Jonathan or user:Kautilya3. As User:Blackmane rightly noted, it's worrisome that the timing of the canvassing violation would precede this incident reporting. On many occasions, I've witnessed unsourced, POV-pushing edits made by either unregistered users, or else by others, including one of the editors noted by Blackmane. I’ve reverted these edits, or else others, including Joshua or Kautilya3 have. Managing a page’s NPOV requires reverting such edits, and the reversion of such edits shouldn’t be escalated to incident reporting like this, since these are unfortunate but often routine maintenance work and do not rise to anything sinister. Some of these pages have faced endless attacks. Were it not for Joshua or Kautilya3, those pages would have been by now rendered unsourced, inaccurate, sub-standard, and biased. As Kautilya3 duly noted, there’s often no talk page participation in discussions before POV-pushing edits are made. It certainly comes as no surprise to see that the endless efforts to undermine the NPOV of these articles has resulted in this incident reporting, because this incident reporting is precisely in keeping with the endless efforts to undermine the NPOV of those articles. Under the shadow of rules lawyering, this incident reporting would tie up two editors doing critical work to keep Wikipedia sourced and neutral, which is everybody’s most fundamental intent here. If anybody has any questions about what the impact of allowing people to push POV wars to the extreme, look at what’s become of Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. It’s very apropos of this incident reporting to be coming to the fore as the NPOV of other, unrelated pages have been wholly undermined. If it takes more than one editor to defend a page from POV waring, then that is clearly material to the heavy assault that some of