Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive924

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Personal attacks and other poor behavior by Thisiashan[edit]

Indef blocked by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 20 May 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.

User has been making personal attacks and casting aspersions on their talk page ([1], [2], [3], [4]), in screeds on Doug Weller's talk page ([5], [6]). All of this revolves around a huge post on Talk:Antifeminism where the user opines about user motives, gender, Wikipedia, the gender gap, etc. (best seen in this revert here: [7]). I gave a final warning regarding the personal attacks after Acroterion gave them a 3RR template warning (see [8]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This report follows directly after EvergreenFir being reported for harassment, and is a retaliatory action. If you check the timestamps this report directly follows EvergreenFir finding out she has been reported for said harassment. If you actually read these posts, there is absolutely no attempt of defamation, or otherwise personal attacks. Which is precisely why EvergreenFir is making blanket posts of pages in the stead of pointing out the quotes where accused personal attacks take place. EvergreenFir is a Gender Studies major whose personal opinion is getting in the way of maintaining a neutral point of view, and my post on Talk:Antifeminism was topical to the subject, anti-feminism. Gender and gender gap are topical, and the statements were in direct response to unsourced statements which EvergreenFir has chosen are okay simply on the basis of personal appeal. After said 'final warning', no edits have been made, which shows that this is a deliberate attempt to use the Wikipedia system to bully me. Please do not be a tool of harassment for this young lady who is obviously attempting to remove antifeminists who are attempting to discuss the antifeminism page, prior to editing it. If I was feckless, I would be editing the page itself and not attempting to open dialog. This has all been recorded, and this is EvergreenFir's second formally announced warning. Please do not harass me, thanks.Thisisashan (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You did not "report" me anywhere. And your edit here and here were after my final warning (and after Ian.thomson's discretionary sanction notifications). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, my posting an ANI notification is not "harassment" as you proclaim here. It's required that I notify you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You have been now given several chances to desist your harassment of me. You have continually committed to Libel, stalking, and contacting me against my expressed issues with said interaction. For the fifth time now, I ask that you please desist in interacting with me, it is in fact harassment. All this harassment because the facts I stated go against your bias. I'm new, but at least I understand NPOV, and the fact when someone asks you to stop approaching them, it is harassment to do so. Again, stop harassing me.Thisisashan (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You accuse me of libel. I insist you show me where. Accusations of a crime like that are unacceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
So is lying, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thisisashan&diff=721164108&oldid=721156967 is clearly timestamped 2:36. Which is my last edit. Your time-stamp for your final warning? 2:48. So no, my edits were not after your final warning. This is a blatant lie, and written out, it is libel.
FURTHERMORE according to WP:Legal threats, "[...]A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat.[...]".
Lastly, claiming that I have made personal attacks, when i have not is libel. You seem to be on a roll regards to libel, keep it up.Thisisashan (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
My warning - [9] - 02:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Your first post-warning comment - [10] - 02:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Your second post-warning comment - [11] - 02:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Try again? Also go read WP:NPA? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You specifically stated, "[...]were after my final warning[...]". Not your first warning, which is irrelevant due to it being the first warning I have ever received on wikipedia. Not your second warning, which again is irrelevant as it is not the warning in question. Your final warning. You are attempting to shift goalposts, as if your statement was about your original two warnings, which it never was. This is a fallacious move, and dishonest. Furthermore, just because the information provided is disputed, does not mean you are automatically correct. I have halted my actions until dispute resolution works out.
Meanwhile you should try reading WP:NPA, as obviously, it is about attacks directed at someone personally. Thus the term, personal attacks. I have made no such attacks against anyone on the Antifeminism talk page, which is exactly why you cannot quote a personal attack from that excerpt.Thisisashan (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what part of "final warning" in [12] was unclear. Notifications of ANI postings are not warnings... they're notifications? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what part of 1:06 you have difficulty understanding that it came before your last warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifeminism&diff=721144323&oldid=721120167 My last edit, 1:06. We can all see the time, written out clearly. 1:06. Your buddy Acroterions warning? 01:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Your warning? 02:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC).
Please desist with the attempted defamation, we all make mistakes, but it is clear that you are attempting to snuff out anyone that opposes your viewpoints in the anti-feminism Entry. You are using this as a means to claim ownership. And you are being dishonest to do so.Thisisashan (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Acroterion is my buddy? 先輩が大好き! Joking aside, NPA and all policies of wikipedia apply to all pages, including your talk page. Which is why the two diffs I linked above are ones you made after my final warning... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • This user is rather glaringly WP:NOTHERE and probably needs to be shown the door I think. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Have to politely disagree with this, I am here specifically to work on mens rights issues. Feminists rallying against an antifeminist for posting information in the antifeminist discussion page is anti-intellectual at best. What is being shown here is in fact WP:NOTHERE, but not by my accord. Silencing opposition is never a valid approach to academic works.Thisisashan (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
A soapbox is a raised platform, for which I have made no attempts at. However, the attempts of feminists to silence an antifeminist who is discussing antifeminism, is exactly that. You are attempting to give feminists a soapbox to stand upon, from where they can denounce all non-feminists, even when talking about their own issues. You should remove your own soapbox before looking down at me and denouncing my attempts to have a polite discussion.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • This much drama after 31 edits [13]??!! Yeah, just cut to the chase and indef for NOTHERE. JbhTalk 04:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, which was something I was unaware about. Is this what Wikipedia is all about? Bullying people who are unfamiliar with rules which attempt to stagnate harassment laws? All for what, to shut out the opinions of a professor who is attempting to have a polite discussions.Thisisashan (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Funny how that reply is also a legal threat: "rules which attempt to stagnate harassment laws". Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Pointing out policies which go against laws (unsuccessfully, private businesses cannot subvert laws, that takes a legal waiver), is not a threat of legal action. It is simply pointing out that a policy attempts to undermine the standard actions in the justice system.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You went onto a public website and acted outside of its policies. When those policies were explained for you, you screamed "harassment! libel!" and tried to play the victim card. Your "polite" discussion consisted of accusing the website of being run by a cabal bent on hiding some supposed truth that you failed to provide adequate sources for (something a professor should know how to do and would understand the importance of). You are not the victim of harassment here, you are just refusing to own up to your own mistakes. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
No, my polite discussion consisted of several facts that feminists don't want to see on the antifeminist page, which are directly in line with antifeminist viewpoints. You are attempt to shift the scope of my polite discussion away from the discussion itself, and to this dispute. This dispute is not my contribution, my post on antifeminism was. The bullying here is obvious and blatant.Thisisashan (talk) 04:49, 20 May 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.

Questionable editing?[edit]

The editor Robsinden appears to be removing relevant content from navboxes and articles. From navboxes, text that is pertinent, but not in redlink form is being removed. For examples, please see:

I've notified user that redlinks are permissible as stated in Wikipedia:EXISTING. That policy states, "Red links can be retained in navigation templates". Would like opinions of admins. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you show us the discussions you've had with the user in question regarding this issue? Can you also show us prior attempts at dispute resolution such as an RFC or other method of bringing in outside voices? --Jayron32 17:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jayron32: I've left posts at two article talk pages. However, in reviewing other edits by the user I wasn't sure if they warrant attention by an administrator. The two talk pages are:
In regards to using RFC or other voices, I posted this for a cursory review of edits of user on several or more articles or templates. Not one or two particular articles or templates. Thanks for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Robsinden is a longtime inveterate navbox warrior, so I'm not surprised he is now doing this. He definitely needs to stop or be forcibly stopped, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Right, first of all, I wasn't notified about this discussion. I'm not sure how anyone could miss the instructions regarding this, but there you go. It seems the op is unaware of many of our policies and guidelines. Secondly, I'm not sure how tidying up wayward navboxes in line with navbox conventions, guidelines and prior consensus earns me the title of "Navbox Warrior". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Wish there was a way your edits did not cause so many problems and so much distress.--Moxy (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Single purpose, disruptive account related to Bill Cosby[edit]

User talk:66.235.36.153 seems to be a Single-purpose account that has been making disruptive edits and large, undiscussed deletions in the articles related to the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. I think this editor should be blocked.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have diffs? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Diffs? What do you mean?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
See Help:Diff, basically you need to show the edits you are saying are disruptive. You can view page history and then get the diffs from there. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=718953858&oldid=718530856

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=720648062&oldid=720202654

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=703033453&oldid=703004913

--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. Those edits are not all from the same time, and IP is commenting in summary. I would like talk page discussions, from all, but this could be solved using proper dispute resolution processes, not AN/I. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister's AFD issues[edit]

There is little to no likelihood of this proposal gaining consensus. Given the clear consensus against the idea so far I don't see the value in keeping this open. HighInBC 15:51, 20 May 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.

SwisterTwister's track record on AfD is terrible. As shown by the counter (here), over 95% of his votes are delete. Therefore, I propose a ban from AfD for SwisterTwister. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC) (external link formatted)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: however their accuracy (green) is 100% 94% - admittedly the majority of voted AfDs are yet to be closed -- samtar talk or stalk 15:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Above percentage edited from 100% edited per RickinBaltimore's comment -- samtar talk or stalk 15:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

see https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/ ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, while they have had a large percentage of delete votes, the more important thing to look at is how many of their votes were against consensus. Of their recent 500 AfD votes ([14]), it looks like they match consensus 94% of the time, which honestly is pretty good. That's not even close to being disruptive. Just voting delete isn't a bad thing, if that's the case I should be banned from AFD too. ([15]) RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Samtar and RickinBaltimore: percentage of votes to delete is not a good measure of quality. ST's AfD behavior may be problematic, but sufficient evidence of that has not been presented here. —swpbT 15:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Propose close this as irrelevant. An editor having a certain view as to whether to generally keep / delete articles does not, thanks to the requirement for consensus, do any major damage to WP (unlike the issues above, which undoubtedly could). Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Expanding to 500 !votes [16] shows an accuracy still approaching 100%, with one Keep !vote on an article that was deleted and only a handful of Deletes on articles that were Keep. SwisterTwister is a deletionist, but that is a very very long way from having a "terrible" track record - most of these articles were Deletes by consensus, and !voting with the consensus can hardly be represented as a problem whether you like the consensus or not. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Can I be absolutely honest - I've noticed more than once ST !vote delete in something where for instance the discussion's going towards redirect .... I've had the impression he doesn't review the article nor the AFD !votes ..... He just blindly !votes whatever...., However if somehow he does have a good record then I guess it's not much of an issue... –Davey2010Talk 15:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Close speedily The issue at AfD is not the stats but the quality of the !votes. However, this is not a major problem because the closing admin will weigh them appropriately. I would suggest closing this speedily as it's a distraction from the report above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious Oppose. The count of 95% of !votes cast as delete is utterly irrelevant if a) the editor tends to !vote on AFDs they think should result in delete and doesn't !vote much on AFDs they think should result in keep, and b) their record in agreeing with the eventual outcome is strong, which it is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a question of nomenclatura, but when editors are !voting oppose are they also !voting to speedy-close this thread? Or not? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close: SwisterTwister's AfD contributions are notoriously lackluster, and I assume any closer worth her salt disregards them completely. He has a high accuracy rate because he typically waits to vote until there's an obvious consensus and then repeats it in boilerplate language. (He explained in the previous ANI discussion that he "[has] to vote at all AfDs to simply get a clear consensus.") That said, I don't believe poorly-researched yet voting made in good faith is sanctionable, and, even if it were, a topic ban would be far too soon.

    I support speedy close of this section.  Rebbing  15:48, 20 May 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.

Edit-Warrior at Jim Morrison[edit]

WP:SPA Poofdragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is edit-warring to insert odd, in some cases WP:BLP-dicey content at Jim Morrison. Diff:[17] . The user is claiming it's "sourced" as they are inserting bare urls of blogs, fanzines, google search results and interviews with human-interest reporters at small town newspapers in place of stable content sourced to books on major publishing houses, which they are deleting. I have attempted to explain WP:RS and WP:IRS and have now warned them three times, but they refuse to engage on either their talk page or the article talk page, insisting in edit summaries every time that they hit "undo" that they are "sourcing." This is the diff they are reverting to:[18]. I could revert again and take them to 3RR, but I'd prefer an uninvolved admin intervene. They seem obsessed with defaming living people mentioned in that article, while pushing the interests of a living person who seems nn to me. There may well be a COI issue here as well, as there often is with SPAs who behave this way. Thanks. - CorbieV 22:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Making this real easy for you @Poofdragon: and adding a ping. - CorbieV 23:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of the Jim Morrison page is not sourced properly based on your criteria. Mary Werbelow is undisputedly Jim Morrison's girlfriend in Florida recognized by his bandmate Ray Manzarek in the quote "He was crazy about her" and Bryan Gates called Mary "The love of his life" referring to Jim. [1] Poofdragon (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The place to discuss the relative notability, or lack thereof, of one of Jim Morrison's High School girlfriends was on the talk page of the article, where you refused to engage. Now this is about your refusal to follow Wikipedia policies. Butler is not a credible source, fwiw, but that's not the issue here, your edit-warring is. You've also been reported for violating WP:3RR at that noticeboard now. - CorbieV 23:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to block this WP:SPA. The disruptive editing has veered into personal attacks on WP:BLP subjects in connected articles:[19], along with the 3RR violations and continuing to remove sourced content to dump in google books search results that don't source the content the disruptive SPA is adding. - CorbieV 23:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Heck no, what he's posting , for example | this link you pointed to in your post above is referenced to a reliable newspaper, and he's accurately paraphrasing what's in that article, as he did in the Jim MOrrison article. I think a boomerang is due. KoshVorlon 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

IP Hopper on Social work[edit]

Does this constitute a legal threat? Regardless, user is part of a range of IP that have been disruptive on the talk for quite a while. For example, I have warned them previously against editing others comments, which they have continued to do, after a long hiatus and pinky promising not to. They seem intent on wasting the time of all involved, in addition to general disruption and vandalism.

Previous posts here have accomplished nothing ([20], [21], [22]). So...if something could be done that would be super. TimothyJosephWood 10:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • On the surface, there certainly is a problem but I'm out the door. I don't know that range blocks would work, it covers a few ranges. It may require protection on the talk pages and affected articles. It is an inconvenience to other IPs, but before doing it, someone would need to look at it how much of an inconvenience and maybe a subpage for IPs, plus a month worth of semiprotection. Dennis Brown - 10:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Aaaand the ip is continuing to vandalize the talk page in a "I wish I had rollback" kindof way. Can someone at least semi? TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Judging from the protection log, this problem has continued for a long time. I've applied two months of semiprotection. If another admin believes that any meaningful negotiation is possible with the IP, they can modify or remove the semi. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: @Dennis Brown: Kindly check:[23] this [24], [25] was an attempt to solve issues following Timothyjosephwood example:[26] base on this info:Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed. To see the other side of this others have to look into:[27] and see:[28], [29]...etc. Above all I am not very wiki-savvy so only found this now. The previous ANI is also a conspire using similar deceptive tactics by other editors and most probable this is an off wiki tag team attack (judging by similarity in actions). Other requests of privileges are for misuse of similar nature. Deletion of disruptive content that intents to attack others or shows characteristics of manipulative and maladaptive practice could be deleted this was confirmed by administrators. So this actions were taken:[30], [31]. Instituting a range block is an attack to certain region specific editors, these sort of requests should be seen as hostility rather than in good faith plus there is no pinky promise with disruptive and mal-intent editors or the editor has to show this statement. This is a wasting of time of all involved when editor who contested for this block is not open for discussions and chooses other means. Calling any editor a vandal is strictly prohibited in the article talk page still Timothyjosephwood intends to claim WP:IDHT when details are explicit in the article: [32] about the changes made and reasoning. I request all the editors involved in this ANI Notice to check whether there are any disruptions on the basis of the information seen on this comment and links provided or a through investigation (if time allows). I hope everyone included in this will consider the ip and the registered editor in equal weight and judgement will only be based on the actions of these editors.59.89.239.32 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So yeah, this is pretty much the MO of the user. Long winded diatribes that don't really boil down to much. Perfectly able to cite multiple diffs as well as WP policy, but "oh please don't bite I'm new". Refusing to register an account while advancing an argument that any IP edit, no matter how obviously related, was someone else. They at one point got Diannaa to unprotected the page arguing that the disruptive edits were from a conference they were at (a conference of people in Kerala editing a single WP page?).
But the page for the past few months has just been a series of protections. Not sure what a more permanent solution is given the ranges of the IPs, but I have good confidence that a month semi is just going to see us back here in June. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay dear, let others please read the statement and reply they don't need your interpretations, do they now. They are also able to think and see for what it is. citing multiple diffs is a recent skill i found. But your claim that all ips are one is a bit obtuse. Dont attack users like Diannaa for your ends and yes the page social work was edited when irregularities where cited in a conference with the lead section and further viewing the talk page only confirmed those actions, I was there. Above all you are the one who has initiated this block using manipulated evidence any blind can see this fact.

  • Attempt to resolve certain issues based on Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed:[33], this was done when redaction was not possible.
  • Attempt to resolve rv game by following your example: [34]
  • Two time rv attempt by you, one:[35]
  • Talk initiated to solve the issue if your actions where based on policy: [36]
  • Deceptive move by you to ascertain authority or your position: [37] and [38] and this done while we were talking and you didn't inform for giving a say when i was active:[39].
  • Resultant block from misunderstanding and your abuse of good faith by trying to glory hog and seek favors of privileges: [40]

If checked every other blocks might also have certain history of deceptive tacts and this might be the MO used for the protections. Answer your actions and abuse of privileges, then we can talk about wonders of the world. I am certain if this sort of malpractice isn't stopped we will be seeing back here, if notified in the talk page. Either me(most probably) or others will be there to reduce disruptions.59.89.239.32 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have made significant investments in the rope industry, and stand to gain financially from this thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, what is rope industry (https://www.google.be/#q=rope+industry%2Bwikipedia%2Bpolicy), I don't see anything if it is related to the policy. But may i note one thing if Timothyjosephwood is implying from gain and from this thread for winning the consensus of other editors involved: If the actions are not of an responsible editor then warning to not disrupt and notification on the user's page of the editor's actions for the see of other editors before handing privileges is enough. Thank you.
Note:This is not forum shopping, this is just empathy for the other editor.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
It is a tongue-in-cheek reference to WP:ROPE. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Good-one, :D 117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@59.89.239.32: You need to back off. You are working yourself into a position that could end up in a block. Take your next step very carefully. --TJH2018talk 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Well thank you for the threatening your actions are clear as the sky is blue. Others see FIMs talk page and [41]
For anyone in any doubt as to the extent of WP:SHOPPING going on here, please see my talk page (not countining the repeated attempts to take Timothy Joseph to AN3. This is getting mildly surreal. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Imperatrix Mundi, we were talking about your actions in removal of AN3 I added and it is similar to that of Timothy Joseph added and you were clear you don't want to talk about it:[42] so which is surreal. After Floquenbeam statement:[43] I am not going to involve with you same courtesy would be followed by you I hope.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@59.89.239.32 Refactoring other's comments again, I see. Perhaps a minor move, but you have been through this repeatedly, so why won't you leave other's comments alone? Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Our Kerala friend has been asked not to comment on several user's talk pages, sometimes does so anyway Diannaa example. wp:Editor integrity is applicable on many points. The IP has alienated a number of editors and seems convinced that it is their fault and not his.
Is there a way to do a range block combined with a set of articles? i.e. IPs geolocating to Kerala, India and articles relating to social work?
Barring this, can this Kerala, India IP be declared WP:NOTHERE and edits rolled back per WP:DENY without comment? All of this has been a great waste of time and frustration. Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Accusation of racism Friendly Talk Jim1138 (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Kerala is way, way too broad - it's a city of more than 33 million people. That'd be like range-blocking Canada. AusLondonder (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Now there's an idea 😉 Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I do recall a recent suggestion to range block Australia. TimothyJosephWood 10:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree that Kerala is too large, and Kerala *AND* social work related articles is probably not implemented. Perhaps range blocking Pathanamthitta, Kerala, India. Population 37,538. As the IP's edits often geolocate (~75%) to Pathanamthitta, blocking that range might alleviate some of the problem. Jim1138 (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
THIS COMMENT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE RAISED AGAINST TIMOTHY.It is an reply to Jim's non-relevant ANI comment. Jim1138 actions are like a wolf in sheep's clothing their intent is very clear, I normally wp:deny his case. Maybe for some its easy to look through this edit and identify which is which, i am not so-it becomes a bit confusing when answering; the comments are only given spaces to answer them clearly so where does refactoring comes in or is it an excuse to somehow pin down the ip editor. Reading Diannaa's comment states "I should have read your post more closely." from the editor itself and the conversation seems to end with civility and integrity.- so what is this soul trying to pin is unclear. There is an another ANI going on to topic ban this editor who seem to have unreal convictions about social work and engage in subsequent disruptive actions which clearly indicates WP:NOTHERE. I don't know why racism is mentioned in this[44] Racism:Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person's social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. and the actions seems to show clearly when the editor asks to initiate a wiki-ban for Kerala is from a sense of superiority and considering others as inferior and the definition might extend to the rest of the part only jim1138 and the other editor knows what transpired there. But the definition seems to fit in some places very well and this is an antisocial behavior. I myself ask others insight when i am not sure - this is to learn, understand and collaborate if possible, and it is a positive learning behavior. This doesn't warrant for wp:deny, it warrants when edits have reached to a level of absurdity as the editor have displayed in the social work article.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
This is also a thing: making inappropriate comments and then disparaging their own inappropriate comments as being from someone else. Doesn't pass the duck test...i.e. another random IP from a different person engaging in discussion on user talks related to disruption on Social work.
I wasn't a part of this when it originally started, so I can't speak to that, but for my part I put a bit of effort into assuming good faith. If you are being blamed for others' disruption, register an account and clear up the whole issue, voila. This has been suggested a dozen or more times. Their persistent refusal to do something so easy says to me either 1) they are avoiding registration purposefully to sew confusion, and/or 2) they are a previously blocked user and expect their account would be quickly blocked as evasionary. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
May I say that I partially concur with the Jim's nature to that of a racist and I guess it would might be right and why I too feel is explained in that comment. I am seeing blocks initiated in admin action page along with your request most of them were right like for deleting entire pages and adding silly words. injecting names in between the articles...etc. Most of this is done in a second. Mostly this also seems by having good faith with the editor who requests them, this is the loop hole you used. When such practice is present how can someone who witness' this register. But if you ask directly your question about the edits i would say it is mine or it is not. But is this the problem over social work page.-No. What is your comment on recent irrelevant shrine upgrading in the talk page. See my edit:[45] would have stopped this childish play. If your intentions were to solve the issue and not to express your dislike to ip editors work, this wouldn't have happened. Good luck and please don't drag the real talk to something-else to distract other editors.61.0.77.81 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Well timothy's abusive actions seems to flyover with co-conspiring editors discussion for block.(probably a witch hunt) I hope the work here is clearly seen by other skilled editors. If timothy's actions are considered as a good practice those in the higher ranks please inform and with a patient valid reasoning, so that i may move on with understanding to other issues. If not, move with what should be done. By looking at the protection blocks don't be misguided those were initiated by abuse of good faith with the blocking editors.-But they did solve the indifference and hostility of all the other involved registered editors. Going through the both sides the issue is clearly seen. Even you can see the new player FIM who doesnt have anything to do with this page injects themselves to avenge because earlier my ip wasnt blocked and this made the editor possibly uncomfortable and there seems similar sort of history with others claims, the problem is not with edits or the actions but origin of edits and wiki-status as an ip-editor- this is what the registered editors are communicating in one way or other. In my viewpoint this is clear violation to what wikipedia stands for and for the same I try to fend-off this disruptive editors.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
One may think the abuse ends here see the history and unobstructed griefer behaviors:[46] now you know the intention behind the block.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Excuse me. Are we meant to believe that these two tag teaming IPs (User:117.248.62.212 and User:61.0.77.81) are actually different people?! Unbelievable. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty funny. It seems like these two may have previous WP experience...I wonder...TJH2018talk 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Spoiler, we've found the first documented case of Dissociative identity disorder Wikipedia editing. They are the same person, but they aren't. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Well nobody said this two ip's are two, is there a claim as such, if so provide where the ______ are you(@ FIM and TJH2018) getting these ideas. Not from this section I am sure or is this continuation of your unchecked pranks. Plus Timothoy we might have a dispute on your actions but grow up before joining with those two disruptors...I am this kind of person (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:22), but not upto 70, keep pushing the buttons to make your actions more clear. Above all a social worker should know how to behave, especially a disciplined(army brat you say) social worker otherwise you are showing lack of basic knowledge in the practice. If your lying-its o.k.-its your deal. If you really are a social worker go back to the books....so that it wouldn't hurt your clients. If the spoiler thing was projection do dial down otherwise which school taught you PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, ASSESSMENT and above all ETHICS. I should have picked it with the roping reference. 61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Note: Let me give you an advice any social worker requires to be fair, stick to values and truthful this is just a piece of the bigger picture and I think if you can follow these you can be a good wikipedian too. Values in the wikipedian sense means good practice and policies. Good luck.61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Let us stop this silly bickering too, if the raised issue is not looked or taken action by any admins there is a good chance that this will slip through so everyone negatively involved shouldn't worry about it. If any actions taken challenge it or ask the reasoning and move on. Plus, there seems nothing to explain about the issue everything is out here-who is who and what they did and do. I hope this ANI will be included in the social work talk page for the see of other Admins and editors.61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's been fun folks. Looks like this thread too is not going to result in any permanent solution. I suppose we'll see you all back here in two months when the semi expires. TimothyJosephWood 19:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment This is the fourth ANI on this matter. This is a repost of previous ANI tickets listed above.
  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#IP-hopping, edit-warring, trolling, and_vandalism filed 3 March 2016
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Disruptive_editing, edit-warring, and_vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India filed 2 April 2016
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920#IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution. filed13 April 2016
Jim1138 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Timothy Leary[edit]

I regret bringing this matter here, but it appears I have little alternative. The article Timothy Leary has been subjected to disruptive editing from editors using IP addresses for some time, leading to its being semi-protected on several occasions, most recently here, by Lectonar. The IP user who was disrupting the article now appears to be frustrated, and is disrupting the talk page instead, making a series of comments that have no relationship whatsoever to improving the article and appear to be aimed mainly at abusing me. This comment, for instance, is simply griping about Wikipedia in general. I let it stand, and warned the IP about using the talk page as a forum. The IP responded with this piece of personal abuse, which I removed as an egregious violation of WP:TALK, considering that it was 100% pure trolling and again had no relation at all to the article the talk page is actually about. The IP restored the abuse. I propose that the IP be given a lengthy block; and if truly necessary, that the talk page be protected from IP editing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to note in addition that the IP is very likely AcidRock67 editing while logged out. AcidRock67 modified a comment made by the IP here, which along with the similarity of general behavior strongly suggests it is the same person. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
That is pretty telling. Also, it's abuse of multiple accounts. Needs a block(s). Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
FKC has turned both Timothy Leary and Aldous Huxley into WP:BATTLEGROUNDS over the question of whether these individuals where philosophers. In the last couple months, he's made more trips to drama boards than most of us make in a decade. Yes, AcidRock67 is a newbie, a fact FKC likes to take advantage of by edit-warring (e.g., just the latest, [47], [48]) with him until he makes a mistake that can be reported, by repeatedly requesting the articles be protected, locking AC67 out of the article, and by intransigently asserting arguments that amount to little more than personal opinion, e.g., his opinion that an individual can only be a philosopher by occupation if one is employed as a philosopher. (It seems to me it should enough to occupy your time as such.) Realistically, FKC is very difficult to get along with and his behavior, turning everything into a battle and then tattle-taling constantly at one drama board after another, is a huge part of the problem. FKC knows the rules and he's using them as a weapon to eliminate a new editor with an opposing view. What he should do is seek common ground, compromise or genuine consensus. Yes, AcidRock67 is making mistakes, lots of them. But he's a newbie and he's being provoked into making those mistakes. This is a case where it takes and has ALWAYS taken two for a fight. Personally, what I recommend is that FKC take a time out from both these articles for a few months and I bet every problem with AcidRock67 will simply end. Msnicki (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment from completely uninvolved editor: That may be so, but it seems like a separate issue. If AcidRock67 is still socking/block-evading with IPs, after he was recently blocked for doing so and now knows better, then he should be very strictly sanctioned. Socking is a very serious violation and must be sanctioned. If there are unrelated IPs disrupting the talk page, those need to be somehow dealt with too. Anyone who really wants to edit Wikipedia can register an account if need be. In terms of FKC's disruptions, if they are really problematical perhaps a completely separate thread is in order, and perhaps an at-least temporary topic ban could be proposed. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
No, Msnicki, I have not. In the case of Timothy Leary, an Rfc is still in process (so far as I know), and I have not made any edits related to the issue of Leary being a philosopher or not in quite a long time now. The issue at Aldous Huxley is not over whether Huxley was a philosopher but whether "philosopher" was his occupation, as I've patiently pointed out several times. It ought to be a simple distinction. None of this actually has anything to do with AcidRock67's apparent use of IP addresses to disrupt Talk:Timothy Leary and make insulting comments about me that have no relationship whatsoever to improving the article. It would be a good idea to not make excuses for disruptive users who do not care about Wikipedia's rules and have no intent of following them: and "FKC made me do it", is a pretty poor excuse for any form of bad behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Msnicki's complaints about me essentially boil down to "I don't like you." My response is that whether editors like each other or not is neither here nor there. Editors do not have to like each other per se; they do have to make an effort to follow the site's rules, however. Again, despite what Msnicki claimed, there is no edit warring over Leary being a philosopher or not going on at Timothy Leary; rather, there is an ongoing RfC. There is, again, a somewhat exasperated ongoing discussion at the Aldous Huxley talk page, rather than continued reverts at the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The account and the IP 2605:A000:1200:E013:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B have been blocked for two weeks. Please let me know if you should see a related-looking IP continuing the same disruption, because the range can be blocked if required. (Perhaps surprisingly, it's actually easier with IPv6.) Bishonen | talk 09:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC).
  • I don't see any evidence of socking or block evasin on AcidRock67/IP2605's part. AcidRock67 was blocked for 24h on May 15 but that block had expired at the time of this incident, so there was no block evasion. The person then returned to editing without logging in, but with no attempt at deception or using multiple accounts afaict. I haven't looked more deeply than that but if AcidRock67 is an actual newbie then we should remember WP:BITE. Wikipedia's customs are quite different from other places on the internet and we're supposed to allow some room for acclimation when someone arrives here. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • AcidRock67 might not have been guilty of block evasion, but if he is the same user as the IP, then he appears to be guilty of logging out so that he could make disruptive edits without having them linked to his account. The IP might not have claimed to be a different person, but it did not admit to being AcidRock67 either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible AfC review scam?[edit]

An editor has recently posted at the Teahouse to say that the subject of an article they have been drafting was contacted with an offer to approve the draft in exchange for money. Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Need assist for reviewing Draft:Karen Civil for full details. I just thought I'd flag this up, as I know there have been paid-editing scams like this in the past, but the AfC aspect is new to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

At AfC we intermittently hear about scams targeting editors whose drafts have been declined. They have been less frequent since June 2015, when we added to several places the notice, "Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page." There was another incident a few weeks ago, however. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cordless Larry. I suspect this is the latest strategy used by the Orangemoody clan who have previously operated through AfC, although in a slightly different way (for more details on their past modus operandi see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody). I also wonder how many more times this is occurring and never mentioned. Many editors never get as far as the AFC Help Desk where the instance noted by Worldbruce occurred. There is a special OTRS address for editors who have been approached with these "offers" to get help or report the offer: info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org. There are notices warning editors about the scam at the top Wikipedia:Articles for creation and the Articles for Creation Help Desk, but the warning needs to be more widely disseminated. I personally think it should also appear as a prominent edit notice whenever anyone creates a draft and on the first page of the Article wizard and at the top of Wikipedia:Your first article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks both. I had read about that scam, including in the Guardian, but not in much detail so was unaware that there was an AfC connection. I have suggested that our Teahouse guest forward the e-mail to that address. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

People actually fall for this? HalfShadow 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If some people are already willing to pay for articles to be written, then that they'd pay for positive AfC review doesn't seem such a surprise to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing[edit]

This thread has devolved into nothing but pointless back and forth bickering ever since it started. As the OP has been blocked (for canvassing), and several admins have declined their unblock requests (one going so far as to say three days is probably not enough), enough is enough. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 01:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User "The Quixotic Potato" engaged in an inappropriate, off-topic discussion in a reference desk thread..I asked about how to collapse it in the reference desk talk page...He then filled that thread with disruptive editing. I then collapsed the discussion after learning how, whereby he reverted it in bad faith multiple times...I then asked for help in dealing with him in the reference desk talk page...he then filled that thread up with even more disruptive editing...the collapse isn't itself that big of a deal but his apparent belief that he can do whatever he wants is more important in regards to the Wikipedia project...thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=history68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:STICK & WP:BOOMERANG. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
not relevant..the admins can look at the record...and it's all right there for them to see..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
What you're trying to collapse is NOT "off-topic". The original poster in that section made some statements about what he thinks "God" is. That opens the discussion to anything about what "God" might be. If anything should be collapsed, it's the entire section. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
that's simply untrue..the section I'm collapsing is no way directly related to the original question and is insulting back and forth about individual religious beliefs...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The original question is also insulting to religious beliefs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The Refdesks should handle philosophy, and while normally this sort of question would fall under the category of Humanities, the OP thought it was a scientific question because he didn't really think through the hypothesis he/she was making and whether the proposed experiment was a suitable test of it. I don't think we should put topics out of bounds just because people disagree on them. Quixotic Potato has some odd ways of editing, but I haven't noticed anything requiring administrator intervention. Any issue about hatting the thread can be handled by local talk page consensus if necessary. Eventually everyone will either calm down or someone will go over a bright line, but for now there's no need for admins to get involved. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The OP here originally brought it up on the ref desk talk page and was told to bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I wasn't planning on commenting here again but Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked 151.226.217.27 because it is LTA User:Vote (X) for Change, which confirms my suspicions. 68.48.241.158 will be blocked again soon, probably for being disruptive and exhausting everyone's patience. I don't know if they are the same person. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

nope, not same person, obviously..but that's who you engaged inappropriately with in that thread (and which I properly tried to collapse) whereby you again and again and again in bad faith uncollapsed...68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:INDENT. It doesn't really matter if you are the same person as 151.226.217.27 or not, the end result is the same. If you continue behaving like this you will keep getting blocked. It is 6 AM right now in the place your IP geolocates to. Are you in Michigan? Are you using a proxy? 151.226.217.27 is from the UK, and the people in the UK are awake already. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as the thread itself, an admin went in and removed one half of the inappropriate back and forth...so now just "quixotic potato's" inappropriate words remain, as though he's talking to himelf...but, again, this is about "quixotic potato's" continued disruptive editing when I originally tried to deal with the problem..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't so boring I would check when you are active, and look at the time in the location your IP geolocates to. The Rambling Man already pointed out to you that my name is "The Quixotic Potato". Just like A Tribe Called Quest and A Pimp Named Slickback. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be using the correct ENGVAR and you've claimed you went to the university of Michigan so you probably woke up really early. You've pissed quite a few people off in your short wikicareer. 5.150.93.133 has been blocked as well btw. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand you're grasping at straws and trying really, really hard to change the subject to try to distract away from what this is about, which is your inappropriate behavior (so in that sense it's just more inappropriate behavior and continued evidence of a bad Wikipedia attitude)..If you go reinstate the collapse and post a quick "my bad" in the talk then this thread can be ended..this will suggest you understand the inappropriateness of some of your "odd ways of editing" (which was another editor's generous way of referring to your inappropriate editing behavior)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hahahaha. That is the second time you made me laugh out loud. Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments states ...these templates [collapsing discussion] should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. If this applies to the Science refdesk, then IMHO the IP and TQP are as guilty as each other. Having said this, such behaviour does not require admin action - but perhaps a case of "toss 'em a trout". DrChrissy (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

note: I wasn't an involved party to the inappropriate/off-topic tangent the two editors went on..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Your claim of it being "off-topic" is false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
that's just a ridiculous claim..not only was it off-topic (as Wnt basically agreed in the talk page) but it was INAPPROPRIATE too (ad hominem attacks/tanuts etc etc)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It is your claim that is ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
is there any logic to rationale to your belief? do you simply think ad hominem attacks/taunts are appropriate?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Woah, you are great at making friends. Wnt is (obviously) not on your side, no one is. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
note: the quote posted by DrChrissy doesn't mention anything about being involved in tangents (off- or ontopic). You were involved in that thread. I don't think trouting you would be useful, and I don't care if you get blocked now, because your behavior clearly shows a pattern that will get you blocked over and over again unless you drastically change your behavior. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
repeating again and again that you hope I be blocked one day in the future is off-topic in itself and is disruptive to this discussion..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you know what the word disruptive means? Maybe you do not want to hear my advice, but I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE: the only remedy I really desire is that a good-faith admin caution "Quixotic Potato" on his talk page to try to stay on topic in reference desk discussions, to avoid ad hominem attacks/taunts etc in reference desk discussions, and to not disruptively revert edits in bad faith ways by other editors who are trying to mitigate the damage (ie collapsing the inappropriate discussion)..thank you for your time.68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, for the third time, it's "The Quixotic Potato". Do you have a problem with my username? Administrators are unlikely to do what you tell them to do; they are experienced Wikipedia users and they are working to protect people like me against people like Vote (X) for Change and yourself. Remember when you posted on clpo13's talkpage and clpo13 ignored you? We are trying to make an encyclopedia, and your disruptive behavior and your refusal to drop your stick is not helpful. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
yes, he believed this was worthy of being in ANI and apparently stuck to that belief..again, this is about specific behavior of yours (which is in the record to be looked at)..your repeated nervous attempts to change the subject are not relevant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
"Nervous". Hahahaha. That is the third time you made me laugh out loud. Thanks again. Clpo13 is also not on your side, no one is, but it is true that this deserves to be on ANI because that makes it easier to demonstrate the pattern in your behavior in the future. Everything is accessible in the page history, even the removed posts by that banned user, that is the reason why no one is on your side. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
yes, everything is in the record to be looked at...my hope is a good-faith admin or two will be along to do just that..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I predict that you will claim that any admin who disagrees with you is not a "good-faith admin". In reality everyone who has disagreed with you on Wikipedia is good-faithed afaik, but people simply get sick and tired of your behavior, and I can't blame 'em. That is why your talkpage is full of complaints, block notifications and declined unblock requests. Like I said many times before, I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. Drop your stick, stop harassing people, stop insulting people, stop wasting peoples time and stop being disruptive. If you can't do that then you are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I see another attempt to change the topic of this discussion (don't worry, I'll keep seeing them if you want to keep repeating yourself, as I'm watching this of course)...interestingly, you haven't once yet addressed what this is about, which makes sense as it's indefensible...an Admin will hopefully be along..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I did link to WP:BOOMERANG, so you can't say you haven't been warned. Quote: "There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report." I don't think you will be blocked based on this ANI discussion, but I am pretty sure that your history will be brought up the next time you behave like this, and it is quite easy to see the pattern. You keep making new enemies, and at some point people will have had enough. BTW, The Rambling Man is an admin, and The Rambling Man told you that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
boomerang just not relevant here..all of this was entirely necessitated by you simply not allowing the proper collapse in the first place...and then another editor ending the discussion on the relevant talk page due to believing it belonged here...I don't particularly make "friends" or "enemies" here as I don't view it as a social networking site...I do insist policy be consistently implemented..which, unfortunately, has caused some bother for certain people..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Whoohoooo! You learned how to indent correctly. Thank you. You don't particularly make friends here, that is true. You obviously do not understand the policies and guidelines and unwritten rules here, I cannot blame you for that because that would take you a very long time, but luckily people like you are unable to pass an RFA so you don't have to understand many of them. Here are some quotes from stuff I wrote earlier: Go do something useful, write an article. You can see my todo-list here: User:The_Quixotic_Potato/todo. If you write a decent article about Thierry Legault I will give you a barnstar. The French Wikipedia has an article about Thierry Legault. If you want me to I can give you some sources you can base the article on. If you do not want to write an article then maybe you can help me fix some typos? Click here for a list of possible typos. Write an article about Thierry Legault, or fix some typos, or do something else that is useful. I have already sent you a link to WP:STICK. My offer still stands, if you write a decent article about Thierry Legault then I will give you a barnstar. He is a very interesting guy, he is notable, and this could be your first barnstar ever. Are you going to write an article? Are you going to improve existing articles? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the person who keeps putting irrelevant content into this thread (and having it reverted) the same person "Quixotic Potato" engaged with inappropriately (and which I properly attempted to collapse but was disrupted in my attempt by the continued inappropriate behavior of "Quixotic Potato"??).68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You know that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". According to WP:DUCK you are a troll, just like your banned "friend". I am going to stop interacting with you (except maybe to mock you), because that is what Professor Elemental told me to do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
my friend? the person who was one half of the inappropriate conversation I tried to collapse (the other half being you)..excellent logic..notice his half has been properly removed whereas your against policy and silly posts remain for all to see...(anyway, it's clear to me you get the message...there may not be enough admins with enough time to deal with you right now)68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Boomerang/Indef Ban IP editor clearly is not here to contribute to Wikipedia, only waste time, of which they have already accomplished that goal. --Tarage (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

my hundreds upon hundreds of beneficial contributions can be looked at...my collapsing of the off-topic and totally inappropriate discussion between two editors in the reference desk thread was one of these beneficial contributions..."Quixotic Potato's" disruptive behavior after I did this (which eventually necessitated this thread here) on the other hand..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The fact that you keep using quotes around his name and keep getting his name wrong is proof positive that you are not here to be civil or contribute, you are simply here to waste time. Go away before you are forced to go away. --Tarage (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
the fact that he insists again and again in a silly manner that I include "The" is more demonstration of his childish/inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia...what's wrong with using quotes when referring to a username? I'm still awaiting an Admin...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Admins have talked to you already if you cared to pay attention. This will not end well for you. That you lack even the proper respect to call someone the way they want to be called is proof of your own childishness, but you refuse to see that. I'm sure your attacks will soon turn my direction, but that's fine. You've been given enough rope. --Tarage (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
never once have I ever attacked anyone on Wikipedia...who is an admin that has addressed this? (Have you bothered to look into what this thread is actually about or have you only read the mostly irrelevant content contained within this thread?)68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
68.48.241.158 did attack (at least) one person, and administrator Coffee addressed this (by blocking 68.48.241.158).
21:36, 1 March 2016 Coffee (talk | contribs) blocked 68.48.241.158 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment)
68.48.241.158 will probably claim that Coffee is not a "good-faith admin". Tarage has been a Wikipedia user for over a decade and has a clean blocklog. It seems to be really difficult for 68.48.241.158 to find a "good-faith admin" (despite the fact that someone sent him this link which lists hundreds of them) so it is not clear how Tarage managed to avoid getting blocked all this time.</sarcasm>
The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
the reasoning for that improper block was supposed "failure to get the point" in a talk page content discussion...ad admin then incorrectly listed it as "personal attack"...I immediately objected to the block and the incorrect stated reason (as can be seen) but it was not addressed...but, again, this hasabsolutely nothing to do with what this thread is about...this thread is about your specific conduct (which actually included personally attacking another user...which can all objectively be seen right in the record)..you haven't once addressed what this is about (which is understandable, as you have no defense) but disruptively changed the subject again and again (which is also inappropriate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Everyone you have interacted with on Wikipedia is wrong and you are right. The fact that the vast majority of your interactions with other people are less than pleasant is our fault. All admins are acting in bad faith. We should all be blocked, except you of course, so that you can edit Wikipedia in peace. We are all crazy, and we are simply not smart enough to understand you. Are you aware that MediaWiki is totally free? You can install it on your own webserver, that way you won't have to deal with idiots like me. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please Note: I was originally seeking some real-time help in dealing with inappropriate content in a reference desk thread (and a user's inappropriate interference with my dealing with it); so this has become moot as that thread is receding into the history in the reference desk...that same user has now filled this thread up with a wall of content that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread (and not once addressed the matter), which is also totally inappropriate...the only thing to potentially do is have an admin admonish this user about his general inappropriate behavior, as described in the OP and seen in this thread...If an admin doesn't find the time for this particular matter then suppose it can be wrapped up sometime soon, as becoming moot..thank you for your time..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you become nervous now that you've finally realized that this ANI report has backfired in a rather spectacular way? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
there are not enough police officers to deal with every crime and there are not enough admins to deal with every infraction, simple as that (it's backfired only in how you've filled it inappropriately...be nice to see you admonished for that in itself, which would be appropriate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you know what the word appropriate means? You seem to be using your own definition of the word disruptive. Tarage wrote: "Go away before you are forced to go away". That is an appropriate response to someone who behaves like you do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
no, I'd say his input, including that kind of statement is also entirely inappropriate..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
And your recent block for editing disruptively, was that block also inappropriate? Was that admin also not a "good-faith admin"? And is the fact that you are editing disruptively again, only 2 weeks after your most recent block for the same offense ended, appropriate or inappropriate? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
see my talk page for what I think about that block; it's all right there, clearly explained (I'm going to stop engaging with you along irrelevant lines..so I'll allow you to put in one more irrelevant post, but I won't respond, no matter what's contained in it)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Note Allow me to advise collegiality and a willingness to actually listen with open ear from all parties. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
a problem is that 90% of this thread can literally be deleted as being totally irrelevant to the OP/original issue..what admin wants to read through all that? I think there are just not enough admins to have attention at everything...as ideally this would have been looked at immediately and solved thereby avoiding "The Quixotic Potato's" repetitive disruption of this thread...but at this point it's largely a lost cause..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a classic "takes two to tango" situation. If people had visited this and found 20 posts from TQP and nothing else besides the first comment from you starting it, then maybe people would be concerned enough to take action. But when people visit this and find 20 back and forths between you and TQP nothing is thay likely to happen as in most similar cases at ANI. In other words, don't complain about most of this thread being totally irrelevant or disruptive when you contributed half of it. Note also that at AN//I behaviour from all editor involved in a dispute will normally be looked at. Discussion is not limited to the behaviour an OP wants us to look at. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Please don't feed the troll. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
68.48.241.158 has been blocked. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:13, 22 May 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.

Suspected stealth canvassing / meatpuppetry[edit]

This one is going nowhere. There's an editing dispute, that's all. AGF, take issues to article talk pages, and don't edit-war. (non-admin closure) Montanabw(talk) 03:08, 22 May 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.

My recent request as follows to User:Hchc2009 made to his talk page on 21:27 13 May 2016 [49] ("Editing patterns") has not received an answer as I requested:

"Your recent edits on Kirkham House (15:23, 8 May 2016‎), The Grange, Broadhembury (06:46, 10 May 2016‎ ), Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury (06:46, 10 May 2016); John Wadham (died 1578) (06:28, 12 May 2016‎); Manor of Orleigh (11:17, 13 May 2016‎) display signs and edit patterns which might reasonably be interpreted as contravening certain of Wikipedia's policies. This message is not an accusation of any contravention, but merely a request for clarification of the position".

I should be grateful to have some admin oversight to this matter, which also concerns User:Smalljim. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC))

As a disinterested party- in that (I'd like to think) I get on with both Lobs and Hchc- I've got to say, I think this is a really bad idea. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As someone uninvolved in the above-mentioned issues, and having looked them over, I must say that this request is preposterous. There are WP editors who are here to do good, encyclopedic work. And there are WP editors who are here to follow their every whim, and then generate time-wasting drama when their editing is checked. I think it's clear who's who. Eric talk 13:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you can now address the specific matter I have raised? If you think the editing patterns I have raised are pure coincidence, say so. Otherwise let's at least make it appear that WP rules are there to be followed and sanctions applied where appropriate.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC))
(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, I wouldn't have responded to your accusations if they'd been posted on my talk page. Despite the wording it does come off as quite stand-offish. You just threw out a bunch of accusations at the two users who seem to have been here a while. Even with the edits you are referencing I'm not seeing anything that is glaringly out of policy. If anything I'm seeing some WP:OWN issues from the OP. And I don't think this quite meets the standard for Stealth Canvasing. But thats just me. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, it's so impertinent of me to raise a matter concerning two users who "seem to have been here a while", and one of whom is an admin. - who by the way has form in stealth canvassing. He has just brought to my attention an egregious stealth canvass he made on 9 November 2013 to a fellow admin who had closed a AN/I report not to his liking. [50] He immediately afterwards made a WP:STEALTH WP:CANVASS approach to him (here), unknown to me until now, in which he asked him (Kim Dent-Brown): "Any chance you could reword the AN/I closure to balance things up a bit?", as he has now revealed in Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury (20:14, 10 May 2016), which he characterised as "a brief conversation". Is it OK for an Admin who has been ruled against in an AN/I to surreptitiously approach the AN/I closure admin and ask for a more favourable conclusion? This he did without informing me, which seems to be stealth canvassing. But, hey, I'm just a mere junior around here. I should have got the message when one of Hchc's mates posted on his talk page "You did like check out his background before slapping this message down, right? Hchc's got 54,000 edits - including bringing Henry I of England, Stephen I of England, and John of England to FA status. He's not a sockpuppet. He started editing in 2009 for the sake of the gods." I was under the impression that all are equal here and nobody is above WP policies. If I'm wrong on that, let's shut down this request and just put it down to the naivite of a greenhorn. I've cited 5 instances of prima facie evidence for a reasonable person to suspect that something is amiss, but that's just dismissed here as "throwing out a bunch of accusations". The two parties concerned (User:Hchc2009 and User:Smalljim) seem immune from coming here and giving their explanation, so it seems? They have been notified in the proper way.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC))
I have no idea what Lobsterthemidor is talking about; if you're going accuse someone of something a) say what it is, and b) post WP:DIFFs. In any event, I have no idea where this idea "all are equal here" got started, but it's patently ridiculous. It's the Encyclopedia anyone can edit not an everyone is equal utopian fantasy. While no one is above policies, policies are gray, and long term contributors get a little more slack. Oh, and yes, WP:Backdoor canvass is a common tactic, and per policy, administrators are encouraged to consult with one another; e.g. "if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action" NE Ent 22:18, 21 May 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.

2.25.129.11's disruptive editing[edit]

2.25.129.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive editing for quite some time now. They go back to late April. This IP has been constantly adding the episode order a cast appears in a show per season most notably on Criminal Minds and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit's season pages, which disregards WP:TVCAST. They are most active on Criminal Minds (season 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). They've been warned about their editing; and they have been reverted by other users besides me. They have not engaged in any conversation to build consensus. They only edit war by adding their edit on and on. If any diffs are required, please let me know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 00:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:AN3 may be a better place to address these concerns. 172.56.42.13 (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP has continued with their disruptive editing, such as here. Can someone please block them? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 16:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal refspam[edit]

I meant this to be added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Reference spam (I actually did add it, and had to revert myself after I realized it was an archive). @Doug Weller, Liz, SpacemanSpiff, Deli nk, DMacks, and David Eppstein: notifying those who took part in that discussion.

The original ANI complaint was about 39.37.116.188 (talk · contribs) and 119.158.13.23 (talk · contribs), but many more IPs have been involved—all, I believe, used by one editor.

Several of these IPs were reported at SPI, but I think it's clear that he's not any kind of sock; he's just editing Wikipedia anonymously, with each session a different IP. He may be hopping IPs to stay below the radar, but I have no way to know that.

I put together a table of his history, as far as I've found it. I was going take it to WP:Spam, but here seems more appropriate, and might get more eyes and skills into deciding what to do.

I've been checking every edit, meaning to hit them all eventually, working forward in time. I've been able to work through the first four IPs, but I have spot-checked all of the rest. During the hours and days I've spent looking at his edits, this is what I've found:

  • Each IP has Most IPs have edits for one date, sometimes two some have more.
  • EVERY SINGLE EDIT The vast majority of his edits have to do with citations to references by Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal; usually adding it, sometimes reformatting slightly, or updating a doi, or replacing his thesis with a published article.
  • Except for one account, There is very, very little else (text or whatever) added to the articles edited. That one account is the oldest and has the longest history, though there's no way of knowing if it's the same person. Likely not.
  • I have found ONE four edits that were not his that cited his work.
  • Each editing session gives the appearance of looking for articles that might have anything to do with one of his subjects of "expertise" and planting citations in any spot that looks even slightly likely. (I'm aware this view is definitely not AGF.)
  • Many of the citations are to articles he's written in encyclopedias while he was still in graduate school.
  • The books are mostly(?) sometimes published by Mellen Press, which apparently has a reputation of being an academic vanity press.
  • He is very patient and persistent, often re-adding a ref a few days or weeks after it's been reverted or removed.
  • He has been spamming like this since at least March 2013.
  • The total count of these edits is 627 705.
updated by — Gorthian (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think all his refs should be deleted; he should not be rewarded in any way for this behavior. I have no idea what else could be done to stop him. He hasn't replied to the few times he's been warned. — Gorthian (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TParis you were asking at WT:COI the other day about WP:SELFCITE. Here at ANI there is this case, and there is one above that was just closed with a community site-ban. Academics refspam pretty regularly, cause disruption doing it, and folks find it... upsetting. I am not sure what to do with the kind of dedicated longterm spamming described here. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't just simple refspam, e.g. the grad student / now post doc is a contributor to this book but they have used it and added their name as a reference here where the problem is that the person is NOT a contributing author to that referred section. I came to this a second time courtesy of RegentsPark who started this discussion on my talk page, and it was then that I found out that DVdm, Oshwah, and Ogress among others were already spending their time cleaning up this mess. This has happened for over three years, longer than the average lifecycle of a Wikipedia editor and it's wasting the time of many. Owing to the single minded devotion of the IPs, an edit filter is probably required to prevent further disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a good candidate for an edit filter. — Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, preferably a smart one, as there's 4276 ways to come up with variations of the name. - DVdm (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This sounds similar (although different subject matter) to the persistent efforts of Krantmlverma (talk · contribs), who was eventually indef'd or some such across multiple projects. Dvdm is correct re: the spelling issue - Indic articles are routinely manipulated by persistent abusers who adopt alternate spellings to continue pushing their agenda. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Is it definitely te case that an edit filter won't help? Doug Weller talk 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Something needs to be done. This stuff will end up flowing back into Wikipedia indirectly. For example this book on Azerbaijan uses Mughal as a reference but that's because they've lifted it from our Azerbaijan article. Someone else will cite Mughal indirectly through this book and, before you know it, we're going to be indirectly citing him as well. He's using Wikipedia to get his citation count up. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Until the capable folk who write edit filters do something I can block the IPs as they show up (which itself seems to be difficult to track). Or maybe someone could train Cluebot to revert this stuff as it shows up. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@DVdm: I doubt very much whether this guy would ever deliberately misspell, or even shorten, his name. If I understand edit filters correctly, it seems a good filter would be an effective solution. — Gorthian (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A good filter, yes, probably. - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm still finding more, and updating the table here (the edit count is now 734 705). Feel free to edit it for any more IPs you find, or to mark a set of edits checked. At least one editor has been using it to track down articles to clean out. I'm really grateful to all of you who have been helping! — Gorthian (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

for now. All the cites we could find have been cleaned out, except for the four articles where other editors cited his work (well, one was cleared out, and the creating editor hasn't objected yet). I gathered some numbers as I went: A total of 711 edits done on 43 different dates over a period of 3 years and 2 months using 50 different IPs. I will be requesting an edit filter so we can at least track him when he gets in a "citing" mood again. I created a subpage in my user space to record what's been done: Mughal empire. — Gorthian (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gorthian and everyone else working on it! DMacks (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, nationalist pov-warring, and source misrepresentations[edit]

Ferakp (talk · contribs) has repeatedely violated the 1RR restriction on WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR articles.

Other problems of this user are that he continues to insert blatant source misrepresentations in wikipedia articles, which damages wikipedia reputation, through his editorializing of anything that doesn't confirm to a nationalist pov, like anything related to women's rights or minority rights of Christians. @GGT: @Attar-Aram syria:@LouisAragon:@GGT:@Shmayo: @عمرو بن كلثوم: Some previous discussions regarding this user: [58] *[59] [60]--80.254.69.43 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC) 80.254.69.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I see user Ferakp is cited in an edit-warring case above. I would kindly ask the Admins to look at the contributions of Ferakp (talk · contribs) closely. They are removing sourced material because it simply does not conform with his/her political agenda and definition of reliable sources. Please see the Talk page for Rojava for example. Another example for their negative behavior can be witnessed in their reverts of contributions by user @Beshogur:. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
As I told admins many times before, Kurdish articles are 24/7 under attack of Arab, Turkish and Assyrian nationalists. I have had to clean almost from same users. Users Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, عمرو بن كلثوم and two other users which use random IP are clearly black washing Kurdish articles. I have used talk page in all my edits and called users to dsicuss. I have told them about unreliable sources, WP:NPOV violations, cherry picking and WP:ORIGINAL violations. They still don't use talk pages and continuously involve in POV pushing and edit war and violate WP:FAKE, WP:REALIBLE and WP:ORIGINAL. You can talk pages of all articles I have edited and neutralized, I have mentioned and explained my edits word by word, unlike those Arab users here who are not willing to even discuss. Talk pages, [61], [62], [63], [64] and all other edits are mentioned in the talk page of articles. I would like to remind that the users who reported me are clearly violated all those WP:rules I have listed above. Ferakp (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
One more thing I would like to add, the user User:عمرو بن كلثوم has clearly involved in black washing, violating 6 times WP:NPOV and WP:REALIABLE despite warnings. The users is copy pasting some statements randomly to different sections. His edits: [65], [66].Ferakp (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Admins, in the absence of any sanctions against him/her, user Ferakp is edit warring again reverting edits in sevral pages. Please look into this. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This edit clearly shows the purpose and racist agenda of this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain whic part of my message was a racist? Ferakp (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
In that edit you are implying that certain editors you disagree with have a certain nationality or ethnicity, and that this nationality or ethnicity is the only reason they are making the edits and wanting to include or exclude certain content. Even if it were true (which you have no way of knowing for certain) it is not a legitimate argument to make for or against article content. You could possible make a case for that argument being used, with care, when concerning sources, but you were not doing that in the cited example. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I said that "There are at least 21 users in Wikipedia who are cooperating and black washing Kurdish articles. They are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians." I just said that those users are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians. I didn't say anything against their ethnicity or nationality, I said users had those nationalities. I have checked their IP addresses and edits and they really are. Read a little bit what is a racism and then what to here comment. 86.50.110.79 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually find this report quite ironic. There may be reasons to report Ferakp, so far I didn't look very exactly at his edits. But all User:عمرو بن كلثوم is accusing him he is doing himself too. He is a clear POV-pusher against Kurds and the YPG.

Examples:

This is not a defense for Ferakp but rather a hint to the double moral standards of User:عمرو بن كلثوم. His arab nationalism is quite obvious and I actually don't know why he hates the Kurds that much, but his POV-pushing is inacceptable in my eyes.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you proving here? Every day you annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan. Is Azaz part of Syrian Kurdistan? Is there any neutral source that backs this? By neutral, of course I don't mean Kurdish blogs or "news agencies". The name Rojava itself is a big scam. No self-respecting news agency or international organization uses it. They all refer to the area as Kurdish-controlled area or Kurdish enclaves, or a similar form. It seems there is a pro-Kurdish Canvassing in Kurdish related articles here. Users Ferkp and emranrich continue their edit warring here and are removing sourced information, simply because it goes agains their POV. Here is one example, and I am ready to name several more . Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
If someone here will be blocked, it will be you . Reporter User:عمرو بن كلثوم is clearly an Arab nationalist. He is vandalize Kurdish articles since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerfulman11 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@عمرو بن كلثوم::First of all, I'd be really interested, where I took part in an edit-war in your eyes and where I "annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan" every day.
What I'm proving here is for example that you claim that the Kurds displaced all Arabs from Tell Rifaat with a source that doesn't even nearly mention such a thing. You can't argue seriously that any kurdish news agency (like Rudaw or ANF) is unreliable only because they are Kurdish. Of course, Azaz is not part of the Rojava administration. But in Germany, to take another example, the Sorbs also don't have any federal state (even if