Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Talk:James Comey[edit]

(non-admin closure) OP has withdrawn the complaint against Objective3000, and continued discussion is about other things. Unless I'm mistaken, ANI is not the place to discuss the general question, "What's wrong with Talk:James Comey?", let alone "What's wrong with editing of U.S. politics?" The page is designed to address specific, diff-supported claims of actionable bad behavior on the part of specific editors, and we generally don't segue a thread from one editor to another (aside from boomerangs, anyway). The other issues are not unimportant (as underlying issues they are probably more important), but I encourage experienced editors to raise them in the proper venues where there is some chance of positive change. In heated areas like this, it may be that refraining from actionable bad behavior is the best we can do. ―Mandruss  19:04, 26 July 2017 (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.

Objective3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - This boils out of an editing dispute on James Comey discussed on that talk page and WP:NPOV/N]. He is clearly disruptive on Talk:James Comey, a page to which DS apply. I note his un-productive edits continue, and he is making wild accusations against me [1], while refusing to make any comments specific to any content on Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Diffs, please. You included only one, claiming wild accusations against you, but in that diff I see only you are threatening me, which you did,[2] and you are hiding my comments, which you did.[3] In short, you are making wild acccusations of wild accusations, not an auspicious start to an ANI complaint. Arm-waving-to-evidence ratio exceeds my limit by a mile. Have you considered a short wikibreak? ―Mandruss  03:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
My complaint is that he is engaged in non-productive behavior on a page with Discretionary Sanctions; you can look at Talk:James Comey yourself if you want further diffs. As far as I can tell, not a single comment of his in our discussion had any relation to the James Comey page or my comments, he was purely engaged in point-winning debate behavior, which I found incredibly frustrating because I did not know what debate I was supposedly participating in. I aimed to discuss this on the existing DRN forum regarding James Comey, but that type of complaint isn't allowed there, so I brought it here. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
After looking at the crap that is both the bizzare NPOV/N non-RFC and the Comey talk page Objective3000 seems like one of the few people there that are actually abiding by sourcing policies while Power and, moreso Hidden Tempo, are pushing a clearly Republican POV by making ridiculous arguments to try to discount RS. That whole NPOV/N discussion is a clusterfuck but it certainly isn't Objective3000's fault. It doesn't help that Masem, an admin, can't seem to differentiate between a Trump memo being primary, and useless for anything other than saying it exists, and actual journalism that constitutes an RS. Capeo (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the personal attack. All my point on the NPOV/N board is that the lede should be a much more impartial tone, everything else of discussion is fine in the body, but we shouldn't be trying to pick sides here (either way). --MASEM (t) 04:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC) −
Just to have it on the record, neither I nor Power are "pushing" any kind of agenda. In fact, Power has disagreed with me on most of my proposed edits.[4][5][6] And this complaint isn't about me, but I consistently argued for focusing on the source material in the aforementioned "clusterfuck," while Objective3000 instead preferred to engage in ad hominem attacks, uncivil remarks, and disruptive forum-type offhanded remarks again and again and again and again and again and again. So while all parties may not have clean hands, this is not an individual who is abiding by policies and abstaining from disruption while repeatedly demanding that a NPOV noticeboard collaborative discussion be shut down. If my name is mentioned here again, I will thank editors not to make attacks upon my editing (or anyone else's) without providing any diffs whatsoever. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
"Just to have it on the record, neither I nor Power are "pushing" any kind of agenda." - I don't know about Power~enwiki, but when it comes to Hidden Tempo there is most definitely agenda-driven editing going on. Hell, look at his user page [7]. He first proclaims so that all can hear about how he is against "activist editing" and has no agenda and then proceeds to... well, lay out his agenda. More seriously, HiddenTempo edits have been a serious problem on Trump related articles ever since they came back from their topic ban.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Your false claims without evidence aren't appreciated, Volunteer, and you are way out of line. If you have a problem with my editing, you know the proper channels to go through. Disrupting somebody else's AN/I report with passive aggressive attacks and crying about my user page isn't the way to go. Besides, while you're busy violating 1RR over at Rachel Maddow, I wouldn't be surprised to see you back here defending your own AN/I report, for the nth time. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the diffs aren't necessary because the relevant talk page, where everyone can read how much you love to waste other people's time is already linked (indeed it's the subject of this report). There's also the NPOV board discussion. And a bunch of others. Nice threat there btw, with the comment about "my own AN/I report, for the nth time". Yet... I'm not the one who got topic banned from these articles. Strange, huh? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Nope. If you attack another editor on AN/I. You are required to produce diffs (see Mandruss's edit below). And the subject of the report is Objective3000, not me - reading the section header will help with your confusion. Nobody's threatening you, but considering you've just violated DS with double-tap reverts[8][9] and don't seem to have any intention to self-revert, that's why you keep getting dragged to the drama boards over and over and over again for the same exact violations. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
And there you go making stuff up again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I provided diffs of your 1RR violation right here, VM. There's no point in going back to your "oh your just makin shit up" excuse. Pretending you didn't see something doesn't mean it never happened. If you think the violation was within the rules, then you have nothing to worry about. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh ffs, the article is not under a 1RR restriction and regardless these would qualify as legit reverts under WP:BLP. See, this is what you do. Like every freakin' statement and claim you make is in part or wholly untrue. Like when you claim that "so and so supports me" (only to be repeatedly told that is not the case [10] [11] (and others). Or when you accuse me of "making reverts every 24 hrs without discussion" which is not only blatantly false (neither "every 24 hrs" nor "without discussion") but it has been pointed out to you repeatedly by others that it's blatantly false. Etc. etc. etc. etc. The discussion on the Comey talk page is like textbook illustration of WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and general "discussing in bad faith".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
You are required to produce diffs, that's how it works here for better or worse. Nevertheless I have now browsed that talk page. What I see is a heated ongoing debate between two or three users, one of whom (Objective3000) I have some experience working with and have never known to be disruptive in article talk. Sorry, but I don't have that experience with you, and I can only go with what I know.
You appear to be trying to dictate the nature of their responses to your comments, and you don't get to do that. They, in contrast, appear to be practically begging you to calm down and communicate with them. Whether I have that exactly right or not, I certainly see no actionable behavior on their part, so your best move is to (1) withdraw this ASAP and (2) pursue courses of action described at WP:DR.
If necessary, back away and let other experienced editors handle whatever content issue is in dispute. As hard as it may be to accept, the article would survive without you. ―Mandruss  03:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Before this discussion spirals further out of control: if Objective3000 agrees, I am happy to withdraw this with no action taken. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to resolve this before both parties return to the aforementioned "clusterfuck" and come back here anyways? You should probably step away from the article for a lengthy period of time and I for one prefer to discuss that on this current thread instead of another one a week or so from now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd still love to understand how "Sounds like OR. We state what RS state." is a constructive response to a request for new suggestions, or what Objective3000's views on that section of the lede are, or, if my intentions were unclear, which sentence of mine he thought "sounds like OR". From constructive discussion with other participants, it appears I agree with him on the editing change. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Power~enwiki - the comment, however brusque it may seem, clearly references content. It's perfectly fine, I think you're reading too much into it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not saying that specific comment was inappropriate, I'm saying I still don't understand it. And I repeat: if Objective3000 agrees, I am happy to withdraw this with no action taken. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Power~enwiki, I believe you've misunderstood or misremembered the interaction. You didn't request for new suggestions, you made an explicit suggestion: "Some reference to the fact that most major US newspapers/TV channels spent most of the week before the 2016 election talking about Comey's statement regarding Anthony Weiner and "emails" is necessary." [12] It's pretty clear that this is what Objective3000 was referring to. Hatting the conversation was inflammatory, leading a mild misunderstanding into this. Cjhard (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Aha! That was supposed to simply mean that the section of the lede in question shouldn't be removed from the article. His comment is still confusing; the newspapers themselves are obviously reliable sources as to their content. (primary sources, but reliable sources) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Right, so shake hands, get your trout slaps (plural, for both of youse), and go back to the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course I’m OK with the filer withdrawing. Objective3000 (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Masem, I've struck the unnecessarily inflammatory comment of mine above, though I still don't think you're entirely helping on the situation there. I stand by the rest though. Hidden Tempo is clearly pushing a POV, while drowning the discussion with superfluous assertions about bias in respected RS, and Power~enwiki is mostly supporting them. I'm not seeing personal attacks in the difs supplied by Hidden Tempo above. Just Objective3000 trying to keep the discussion on point in the face of a bunch of off-topic meandering. While staying quite calm I should add. Capeo (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; the larger issue really though is that we are seeing more and more cases of discrete ideological groups of editors that have lost sight of a middle ground of how to view these topics in light of a lot of complicated issues related to WP's goal, policies, and the state of the media today, which starts with this type of bitey behavior seen in this ANI but can (and likely will) get worse. Trying to get editors to work towards a middle ground in neutrality and tone amid what's being thrown around in sources outside WP is a necessary step to get compromise between these positions.

--MASEM (t) 14:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, Capeo, if you have a problem with me, address me directly (with diffs), rather than just tangentially attacking me from the sidelines. The discussion was taken place on the NPOV noticeboard, designed to eliminate POV. So while you may really think that someone is pushing a POV, and it's "clear" to you, the facts don't support your false claim and I'll again kindly ask to cease complaining about me on someone else's AN/I report without evidence. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2017 (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.

Some rev-del might be needed[edit]

NEEDFUL WAS DONE
Edits revision deleted -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:18, 27 July 2017 (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.

...at Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Disruptive edits by the IP were rev-deled on the talk page, but they should probably also be rev-deled on the page itself. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Taken care of. Neutralitytalk 21:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks on me[edit]

★Trekker warned, and has acknowledged warning. That's all that's necessary for now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 26 July 2017 (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.

★Trekker has been using personal insult because they disagree with my edits. This started when I separated Marvel Music the record label company and Marvel Music the imprint as separate articles. Here are some notable quotes from him.

If they are indeed notable they should both be included on the template, not one removed like this incessant editor keeps doing for some moronic stupid reason.★Trekker (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Contacting people who have been previously involved in an issue is common courtesy on wikipedia. Stop being an annoying tool who thinks they know more than they do.★Trekker (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Why did you change the header to a warning to someone else, what is your problem? Also, I have already pointe doubt why your edits are dumb as hell several times.★Trekker (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I feel that this sort of attitude is not warranted. I can understand disagreements with the interpretation of information, but this user is clearly trying to take my edits personally. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, those comments definitely move into personal attack territory. I'll give them a warning to stop. A warning is probably sufficient for now, but if they don't stop, it could be escalated to blocking. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
That being said, Iftekharahmed96, you need to notify any editor you discuss at ANI like this with a talk page message. You'll likely find yourself in hot water yourself if you forget to do this in the future. Please keep it in mind. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for handling this Sergecross. So in the future, I should notify said person who is being reported that I may report them before actually reporting them, right? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. You can either write a message on their talk page, or just add a "{{ani}} ~~~~" which gives a template and your signature on their talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Iftekharahmed96: You don't need to warn them that you may report them, but you do need to inform them once you report them. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying 331dot, I'll keep that in mind next time. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I misread what you said. No, you don't need to warn them that you may report them, you just need to write something on their talk page as soon as you have reported them here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
You really should use proper linking to these edits, right now it looks like I wrote these things here, which isn't the case.★Trekker (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2017 (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.

Self-reporting to avoid further escalation into multiple venues[edit]

First and foremost, this is a closure with no prejudice; it means an editor in good standing is more than welcome to revert with a good reason. Samsara voluntarily lifted the protection two days ahead of its expiry. And there has been no new input in this thread for a while. (non-admin closure)Codename Lisa (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2017 (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 just want to make the community aware that FleetCommand has ventured to Mr. Stradivarius's talk page, apparently dissatisfied with advice I gave concerning an instance in which I temporarily full protected two articles to help solve a dispute. Codename Lisa has suggested ANI as a venue, so perhaps it's wise to cut matters short and come straight here before further admins are privately canvassed for intervention. Also pinging AussieLegend who is another involved party, and RecentEdits, a new user, also involved.

To give only the briefest summary of what the two disputes are about, in one case it was suggested that something should be written regarding Petya (malware) for the Windows XP article (and WannaCry, although this was already mentioned), and such a paragraph inserted into the article, and in Microsoft Office 2010, a source was challenged as being out of date by four years. At least some of the same editors are involved at both venues.

Relevant talk is at:

Samsara 02:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, everyone
I have told administrator Samsara that I am willing to wait the protection out and that I am unwilling to file any complaint against harassment or otherwise. The sentence "Codename Lisa has suggested ANI as a venue" is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
As you can see from the diffs, I tried to close this discussion or remove it because I felt Samsara is trying to forcibly become my attorney by filling a complaint on my behalf. A couple of reverts by my fellow admins (Oshwah‎‎ and Zzuuzz) proved that nobody thinks so. Good! As long as whatever happens under thing thread is not construed as unnecessary hostile action initiated by Codename Lisa in response to a trifle in article space, I am fine: Take all the undue hostile action you want. Everyone is being unnecessarily blunt in this case... ironically, that includes me.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This report isn't really clear - what is the dispute actually about? We'll need some diffs explaining the issue, and what administrator action is being requested. It's not optimal to ask admins to go digging through a number of talk pages to figure out the problem when it's obviously clear to you and others. Black Kite (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure either. I just noticed back-and-fourth reverting here and put a stop to it. I'm talking to Codename Lisa on my talk page; I'm just trying to figure out the situation here... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Samsara - I'm being told that you've been asked by Codename Lisa not to file this ANI. She feels that you're doing so entirely on her behalf, and that she has declined and asked you not to file it. She's upset because she feels that you did so anyway and without her approval. I'm still trying to figure out what this is all about... can you help me out here? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As a named party to this I must admit to being somewhat confused myself. Windows XP is on my watchlist so when I saw an IP edit with the summary "Undid revision 791434022 by User:Codename Lisa (talk) Undo obvious COI by an editor with a long history of acting in Microsoft's interest" I checked it out. The IP had restored an edit that had been reverted by Codename Lisa, an editor of good standing with a long history of constructive editing at that, and other articles. I was aware that she had started a discussion on the talk page,[13] so I reverted the IP with the summary "Edit has been opposed - take it to the talk page",[14] seeing the IP's edit as, at best, an unwarranted personal attack. I was later surprised to see a post by Samsara on my talk page accusing me of engaging in a dispute at the article and directing me to discuss it.[15] There was no dispute, what I reverted was at best disruptive editing. Now that I am aware of the history, I see it as pure vandalism. --AussieLegend () 11:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You did participate in the dispute - you made a revert. There is no ambiguity about this. Samsara 11:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't a dispute per se, it was vandalism. We don't normally refer to vandalism, or reversion of vandalism, as a dispute. --AussieLegend () 13:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Samsara, your report is vague at best. Are you asking for a review of your actions? Then I would say protection was a little hasty, even if it was within discretion. I don't think it would be wise to revert the protection as it isn't abusive or out of policy, it just isn't the best solution, imho. I wouldn't have opened the discussion here, but you may not be aware of the full picture. There is a history of the IP stalking and bugging CL, which may be why she didn't want this report open, as it makes the problem worse. AussieLegend, those edits were not WP:VANDALism. They may have been against consensus, but vandalism is defined only as those edits which seek to undermine the encyclopedia, and that doesn't qualify. Personally, I recommend removing full protection and letting the editing process work itself out, and if needed, simply block anyone that edit wars. At this stage, I don't see a couple of reverts to be that problematic, at least not enough to force all other editors to stop editing. I almost just closed this thread, but felt adding this would be better. I wouldn't blame anyone if they did close this now. Dennis Brown - 13:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "vandalism is defined only as those edits which seek to undermine the encyclopedia". Then they are definitely vandalism, because if my memory serves me well, this person's account was originally blocked on Wikipedia for maliciously introducing inaccuracies into the articles. Materialscientist knows better though. I was not in the ArbCom case. But make no mistake, this stalker is here to undermine. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody notified Materialscientist about being mentioned here and below, so I've taken the liberty of doing so. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Geez...I didn't know that 16 year old software can cause something like this. —JJBers 19:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A clean start[edit]

Hey, fellas. This is the involved party FleetCommand (Speak your mind!).

As Black Kite and Dennis Brown said, the opening post isn't very clear. And, it appears Codename Lisa has become the first victim of this lack of clarity and has diluted the discussion with a drama that is best avoided. So, let's have a clean start with a proper report, solve the problem and make peace with it. Shall we?

Summary: Requesting an admin to lower the protection of the Microsoft Office 2010 article. Justification: This isn't a content dispute; it is vandalism and harassment.

Details: On 20 July 2017, Codename Lisa reverted a poor contribution to the Microsoft Office 2010 article: [16]. It is my personal belief that this revert is justifiable on the basis of WP:V and WP:NOR. It is also the belief of another editor, AussieLegend, that the reverted edit was "clearly inappropriate".

There is, however, a malicious stalker who seeks to harasses Codename Lisa by chasing her around Wikipedia (WP:HOUND). We refer to this entity with the codename "Flyboy". Administrators Mr. Stradivarius, JamesBWatson, Bongwarrior, Zzuuzz and Materialscientist are familiar with this stalker. See their countermeasures here and here. 12 hours after the aforementioned, Flyboy, from the 2601:5c2:200:31ae:f15b:f5c2:8a8c:9212 IPv6 address, counter-reverted Codename Lisa.

How do I know this IP address indeed belongs to Flyboy? Two ways:

  1. Geolocation data shows both IPs are contributing from the same location ("United States, Virginia, Charlottesville") and the same ISP ("Comcast Cable") which we have on record. (See below) This is one pattern.
  2. The behavior: Quick accusation of edit warring (Microsoft Office 2010) and writing a plausible lie (both Microsoft Office 2010 and Windows XP) are characteristics of him.

As I said, Codename Lisa has a full record of all IPs from which this person has contributed, along with their geolocation data. I have already furnished Mr. Stradivarius with this information. (Other admins may have received it at other times from Codename Lisa.) Any admin here may request a copy. (Materialscientist has warned that making this information public is against Wikipedia policies.)

8 minutes later, administrator Samsara locked the Microsoft Office 2010 article with full protection, citing "content dispute" as a reason. He hastily accused both Codename Lisa and AussieLegend as uncooperative editors and asked them to take the issue to the talk page. It goes without saying that I was baffled with such a heavy-handed response; it is unusual to lock a page after so few reverts. I tried to communicate with Samsara at User talk:Samsara § Microsoft Office 2010 protection and convince him that he is dealing with harassment, not content dispute. But he summarily refused to look at the evidence by saying he is not a CU! (Apparently, he is not aware that admins also have access to geolocation tools.) Furthermore, he refused to comment on the Microsoft Office 2010 article (which was my topic) as well, and instead wrote paragraphs about another article, Windows XP. (See below.)

Extended content

Flyboy didn't stop at the Microsoft Office 2010 article: He committed mischief in the Windows XP article ([17]: disruptive reversion) and the Windows Server 2012 article ([18]: pure vandalism). These have been addressed with the vigilance of AussieLegend and Codename Lisa. The geolocation data for the IP vandalizing the Windows Server 2012 article also tallies with our record. The Windows XP article also got locked. Please see AussieLegend's comment before this thread.

I argue that because this a case of harassment, not content dispute, the full protection is unjustified. As such, I turned to another admin for appeal: Mr. Stradivarius. The discussion can be found at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius § Protection on the Microsoft Office 2010 article. He responded that "I do remember this editor, and my initial reaction is that they should probably be blocked". But of course, there are rules governing an admin reverting another admin's tool use. So, here we are.

I request the protection to be lowered and the disruptive revision by the malicious editor reverted.

Thank you.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Putting myself in Codename Lisa's or AussieLegend's shoes: If someone were making reverts and edits to hound and harass me, or if I'm trying to revert such edits - I'd feel pretty frustrated to see the articles suddenly full protected followed by a message on my talk page telling me to "take the content dispute to the talk page". I that think the full protection was placed on Microsoft Office 2010 and Windows XP a bit too early, but it's somewhat explainable if Samsura genuinely thought that he was stopping a content dispute or war. Mistakes happen; shoot, I make plenty of them :-).
The issue with the article protection isn't what I'm most concerned about honestly; that can be easily sorted out and resolved - no big deal. My main concern is the fact that Codename Lisa appears to have been (and still is) the subject of long-term ongoing harassment and hounding by an anonymous user. That's a big drain on a user, especially over time. It's absolutely not acceptable, isn't something anyone should have to tolerate, and needs to be dealt with and monitored so that it stops. Codename Lisa, I'll make sure to keep eyes out for you in this regard. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Concur, it's a horrible situation and if we can't stop it, we need to do our best to mitigate any effects on CL.

One thing I don't understand is why MaterialScientist says it's a violation of policies to post the list. If all that's in the list is IPs which have edited wikipedia, what they edited and geolocation and other such data on the IPs, this isn't outing. Actually it's a regular part of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse reports and WP:SPI reports. (Although when posting the data will generally be aggregated e.g. a list of IPs from a certain ISP and geolocation and another list if there are other ISPs or geolocation, as there's no need for a list with duplicate info for all the IPs.) Is there some other data that is in this list? Or is it a WP:Deny issue?

Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nil Einne - Can you provide me the diff where Materialscientist said this? I'm not trying to take any sides or say that anyone was right or wrong; I'd like to read the discussion where this was explained so that I can understand the full context and what he was trying to explain. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm going by what was said above "(Materialscientist has warned that making this information public is against Wikipedia policies.)" I have no personal knowledge of this dispute other than what I read here.Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, I didn't keep the diff. It might even have been on IRC. Still, Oshwah is an admin. If he asks, I must give a copy. He then can publish, with his own responsibility. Is that okay?
Also, CL has received a similar warning. (I don't know from whom.) Maybe she can give a diff. In fact, it was she who made me swear not to disclose. But her wording made me realize I had received a similar warning a long time ago! (To be honest, last time an admin asked me why I don't publish it, I had no recollection of the warning and just cited CL's disagreement.) FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The dispute and the harrassment are only tangentially related - the original proponent of the edit at Windows XP has not, to my knowledge, been suggested to be part of the harrassment case. Samsara 16:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Because he probably is not! Like millions of others who edited these articles and other articles. Please, for the love of God, focus on the subject at hand. And as far as I am concerned, per WP:SILENCE, there is no dispute in the Windows XP article; just an attempted harassment, which was suppressed, no thanks to you. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes I agree with FleetCommand here. AFAICT no one is accusing User:RecentEdits of being involved in the harassment. They were probably fully entitled to make the WP:BOLD edit. But the point is CL was also fully entitled to remove the edit as part of the typical WP:BRD cycle, and CL did initiate the discussion so it's on RecentEdit or anyone else to continue the editing. I don't see anything wrong with those sequences of edits, they seem to be normal editing which doesn't raise any real WP:Edit warring concerns and don't require page protection. The problem is the IP then came along. If this was just a normal IP then yes edit warring would be a concern and all parties involved should take care and perhaps the page protection would be justified since we all know that the BRD cycle is ideal but there's no simple solution when the reverts continue after the typical BR. (I.E. Perhaps the IP shouldn't have reverted, but it's also not clear if the solution is to revert the IP.) But the issue here is that from it's claimed this isn't a normal IP but a persistent harassing sock. I don't personally see the point getting into arguments over whether or not it's vandalism, WP:DENY and WP:SOCK would fully support reverting the IP's edits without question. We don't allow de-facto? banned serially harassing socks to edit just because they're editing from dynamic IPs. This suggests page protection wasn't necessary and there isn't any real legitimate edit war. There may or may not be a legitimate dispute over the content, that's awaiting RecentEdit or someone else who isn't a serial harassing sock participating in the discussion/disagreement. AussieLegend had a point that their edits weren't necessary taking a side in the dispute, they may have simply be reverting as an uninvolved party, similar to the way an admin doesn't become involved when acting in a purely administrative capacity. I can say if I had seen the edits and was aware of the history I would probably have reverted without even considering much about the merits of the edits. Heck I may have done so and also gone to the talk page to support the actual change. Let me just repeat what I said before, serial harassing socks aren't entitled to edit. Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Heck I may have done so and also gone to the talk page to support the actual change. Based on that comment, I question your ability to impartially comment on this motion. Samsara 07:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, my! An admin resorting to personal attack! That's a new low.
And this is the same admin to whose talk page I went to talk about the Microsoft Office 2010 article; instead he rambled on about the Windows XP article. I question your ability to understand plain English.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments from banned editor removed
″I question your ability to understand plain English.″ This, as well as a general poor grasp of Wikipedia policy, appears to be the core problem of Samsara's actions here and continued hesitance to accept that they've misread the situation and made a mistake. Honestly, it demonstrates an extraordinary lack of competence. Cjhard (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I haven't studied this particular IP, but if an IP is blocked, and another IP continues the same work, blocks and summary reverts are in order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Except that, as a quick Google search just demonstrated to me, by continuing to blindly revert without regard to content, you are creating an inaccurate encyclopedia - Windows 10 is stated by Microsoft to be a supported system for Office 2010. Whatever other motives may be attached, the IP was correct to point out that the source was not up to date and should be replaced/updated, and the "powers that be" were wrong to continue to revert. I have said before that we cannot allow abusive IPs to suppress facts. We need to be sure of our reverts instead of finding reasons to dismiss IPs. I say this not with particular regard to just this case, but to other similar cases. "Oh, he's just evil so everything he posts can be safely assumed to be wrong." just doesn't cut it as a logical argument. In fact, it's a potential vector for attacking the integrity of our material. Samsara 02:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
It is good to see that you are finally commenting the correct content, as opposed to commenting on the wrong content and on contributors.
Thanks for finding this source, by the way, even though it is an ex postfacto action. I propose that I will add it to the article if you lower the protection now.
However, the burden of verification is on the person who adds or reinstates a statement. In this case, the malicious person with an IPv6. In addition, from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise. Yes, not only it is not illogical, it is part of the world's legal system. As long as the IP stalker is here to stalk, harass and vandalize, he is entitled to nothing.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Samsara: "I say this not with particular regard to just this case".
That's the core of our problem with you: You don't pay any particular regard to this case. You are analogous to a judge who treats a premeditated double murder like a land border dispute and then prides himself on being impartial whereas he is just being indiscriminate. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why it's not impartial to say you will revert an edit from a defacto banned serial harassing sock even if you support the merits of the edit? As I already said BRD generally means the edit should stay out after it's been reverted once while the discussion is ongoing. Still as I also said, edit warring on keeping the edit out if someone does decide to reinstate it is not always the solution. Even if you support the edit, it's not always the right solution for you to revert the edit while discussion is ongoing (although this is often less problematic). But when the edit clearly should not have happened under any policy or guideline because the IP is a serial harrasing troll, then reverting when that edit is perfectly justified under policy. Generally it's better if you don't have an opinion on the edit. (And frankly if I was actually involved in reverting this edit, that's what most likely would have happened as I really couldn't give a damn about the dispute.) However even if you do have an opinion, it's still perfectly justified. In any case, if you actually support the edit, there's no reason supported by any policy or even common sense to complain that you reverted the edit despite supporting it because it came from a serial harassing troll but continue the existing discussion and come out in support of the edit. Yes you're not a neutral party but you're reverting something you support and for a perfectly policy compliant reason so supporters of the edit have no good reason to complain, it's not like you're reverting in support of your POV but opposed to it, and opponents of the edit are obviously going to be glad you didn't let a serial harassing sock interfere when they shouldn't have. In the end maybe your view and that of anyone allowed to edit participating in the dicussion will win out and the edit will later be reinstated. Maybe it won't be. The point is that we don't allow serially harassing socks to get involved in editing and that was precisely my point. Even if I supported the edit, I would actually have reverted the edit while coming out in support of the edit because it's what any good wikipedian should do. (Note in case there was any confusion, I'll repeat for a second time that I don't actually care about the precise edit involved here.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. You are actually opposed to the edit, nominally you're justified in reverting it if it's from a serial harassing sock. Still to reduce controversy it is sometimes wiser to leave it for someone else who is either neutral or supportive of the edit to revert it if you think this is likely to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You "would have reverted the edit while coming out in support of the edit"? Holy shit is this place fucked! Joefromrandb (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2017 (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.

Uncivil editing: user:LittleJerry vs. User:Roy Bateman[edit]

EW BLOCK
Both parties blocked for 48 hours per an edit warring report by EdJohnston. Editors are reminded to deal with disputes in a civil manner and to use the dispute resolution procedures. When in doubt, BRD will out -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In June, Roy started this topic stating his concerns about grasshoppers and Caelifera. Chiswack Chap relied and addressed his concerns. Rather than continue the conversion and gain a consensus, Roy continued to split the two articles. I reverted and told him to get a consensus first and not edit war. However, he continued to revert. He eventually went back to the talkpage but I reverted his changes since the discussion was still going and he did not establish consensus. Others were asked to give their opinion and it was decided that grasshopper and Caelifera should be the same article.

Now a month later, Roy went against the consensus and split the articles again. I reverted and left a message informing him that he should ask for more opinions from Wikiproject Insects before making changes and warned him that he will be reported. He continued to revert again and again. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

LittleJerry has now made 3 deletions of my work in 24 hours (3RR - again!), so I suggest that it is he who is being uncivil (also see this). The word "consensus" has been much used, but seems to me that the scientific consensus is very clear - (i) the term Caelifera is a valid taxon and internationally recognised as such and (ii) the term "grasshopper" is not synonymous with Caelifera and therefore it is inappropriate to turn the latter into a redirect page. This creates a situation that is both taxonomically and logically false: effectively turning 'pygmy mole crickets' into 'grasshoppers'. I suggest that two editors, both working under pseudonyms, "deciding" that it should be otherwise are promoting half-truths that is potentially damaging to WP.
The first paragraph above is also misleading: you will note that I have continued the conversation (more than is sensible perhaps) and at least one other editor, Cwmhiraeth thought that the separate Caelifera page was appropriate and kindly made an edit - before LJ deleted it! I also noted that the page Acrididea existed and provides a satisfactory resolution of this issue - effectively being the taxonomic equivalent to 'grasshoppers' and inserted this into the grasshopper article (with reference). However, this was also deleted by LittleJerry - who appears to be the self-appointed censor for both this and the Caelifera pages - I object. Roy Bateman (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Roy Bateman, scientific consensus is not what we use here at Wikipedia. We use reliable sources and consensus among editors. If you are running counter to either of those, you are wrong. There have been many users who edit here who fail to understand that distinction. If you cannot abide by Wikipedia's rules, then you shouldn't be editing. "Your work" is not yours, but Wikipedia's. The one damaging Wikipedia is you. --Tarage (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Uh, what? Scientific consensus is all that we use here. To say anything contrary to that is the antithesis of WP. That said, Roy seems to be trying to make an unnecessary differentiation. Caelifera are pretty much universally called grasshoppers in English. Acrididea is already listed as a superfamily of Caelifera in the article. Which are often called grasshoppers anyway so I'm not understanding Roy's attempts to split the article. Capeo (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I am suggesting that "Caelifera are pretty much universally called grasshoppers" may have become self-fulfilling because of Wikipedia - the truth is actually rather more interesting, partly because it contains pygmy mole-crickets which are no relation to mole crickets. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is marvelous because it includes Criticism of Wikipedia - but read the second paragraph. Roy Bateman (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not considered to be a "reliable source" even within Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I never said that. However, editing against consensus is not okay, wouldn't you agree? --Tarage (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
You didn't say it. Bateman referred to it. As to user concensus, has Bateman provided any good sourcing for his contentions about what the international scientific community supposedly believes, or are you supposed to take his word for it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes - it is in the article Caelifera - if LittleJerry doesn't censor my input again. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap has provided reliable, authoritative sources which treat Caelifera and grasshoppers as synonymous. Roy Batemen has not provided evidence for his "consensus". He has also provided no sources that state only Acridoidea are grasshoppers, only those which simply support the validity of the clade. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
LittleJerry is not even quoting what I wrote correctly - at least three reliable sources are quoted that have infra-order Acrididea (not Acridoidea) as the group of subfamilies that are grasshoppers or grasshopper-like. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Regardess, I checked the sources you used and they do not state what you say that do. LittleJerry (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made changes to Caelifera which may resolve the content issue. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Power~enwiki, but they do not resolve the issue. I should point out that Power~enwiki's proposal, that the taxonomy and phylogeny section in grasshopper be moved to Caelifera, was tried by Roy without consensus and rejected by the other users. I should also point out that Roy was split the articles again despite the fact that this conversation has not been resolved. LittleJerry (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I was called to this discussion by a note on my talk page after filing this report on WP:AN3 about this fiasco. Edit warring and 3RR violations all over the place by several editors. Multiple blocks are in order. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree not to make any more changes to Caelifera until the conversation at the noticeboard is done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you - but that was after having deleted the content (to at redirect) for the seventh time (now restored). Not only is this attempted censorship, but makes it difficult to get to the talk page there. You have also used Threats and intimidation (e.g. on my talk page). I hope you appreciate that you are removing inputs from other editors when make these (now >6 kB) deletions. Roy Bateman (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
After checking the edit history I determined that Roy Bateman and LittleJerry are the main edit warriors at Caelifera. They have been constantly reverting the article back and forth since June 19 (a 6000-byte edit that changes it from a redirect to Grasshopper to a freestanding article). So I blocked both parties 48 hours per the edit warring complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2017 (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.

Spam / "hack" (loosest sense) edit needs followup[edit]

Blocked indefinitely by Admin Geni. (non-admin closure)JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

this edit by Matt mathis (talk · contribs) introduced a fixed position div covering the top part of your browser's viewport, and linked to an offsite page, such that any attempt to use normal Mediawiki controls (including stuff like rollback buttons, undo, etc.) will send you to the offsite link. I would suggest indef the account and revdel the edits containing the offending code (that includes their user page). Oh, and the template in the diff above should probably have an increased protection level (isn't there a "template editors" group?). --Xover (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind the block. Geni is on the case it seems. :) (but revdel + protection is still needed imo). --Xover (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is there no editfilter that disallows "position:fixed"? Maybe with an exception for autoconfirmed people with 500+ edits. It seems unlikely to produce many false positives. Of course there can be infinite spaces before and after the colon. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent thought. Also, perhaps one of the project's most visible pages isn't the best place for this whole "How-to" discussion? Just a thought... -- Begoon 11:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there already is one, which has been active for years now. Writ Keeper  13:31, 26 July 2017 (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.

Puppet Disruptive editing[edit]

PAGE PURRRTECTED
Related page was semi-protected -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:22, 27 July 2017 (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: 68.112.105.202 and 2600:1008:B156:BB82:180F:87BE:7CC1:9AB4 keeps vandalizing Ink Master (season 9) and continues to spread numerous lies. I believe its the same puppet from Wisconsin. 107.77.221.126 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the problem with their edit? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
2600:1008:b100::/41 is definitely Starbucks6789 (talk · contribs). 68.112.105.202 could be, too. 107.77.221.126 is probably Leviathan648 (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I just applied semi-protection on the article for one week. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Just looked at the ip address location and I can confirm that me nor 107.77.221.126 are puppets of Leviathan648.107.77.221.158 (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
So let me get this right, NRP: we're dealing with multiple different IP socks of two different indeffed editors who are continuing to spar on that article? Good golly. Snow let's rap 20:53, 26 July 2017 (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.

Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles[edit]

There is no consensus for a topic ban or other administrative actions; see also comments by User:Vanamonde93 at the bottom of this thread, which needs closing. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2017 (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.

Despite the fact that User:NadirAli was warned not to edit war by User:GoldenRing just four days ago at Arbcom [19], this man has continued to do so, ignoring consensus established by at least three to four users. The issue started when NadirAli blanked a large chunk of material from the Kalash people article [20]. He was reverted by other users, including myself, but then proceeded to continue edit warring and tagging the article [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. On the talk page of the article, he justified his inclusions by using story books and alt-right sources such as "raceandhistory.com". It seems that this individual suffers a major WP:COMPETENCE issue, which has been noted by other users before, like User:FlightTime [26]. Other users disagreed with the troublesome behavior, including User:Capitals00 and User:Anupam noted that two different held by scholars should be represented in the article and this was agreed upon. Nonetheless, NadirAli defied consensus in the talk page and gave more weight to his preferred view [27]. Countless users regularly waste their time telling this man not to edit tentenditiously on India-Pakistan articles, such as User:Joshua Jonathan [28] or User:Kautilya3 [29]. This man was banned for several years from India-Pakistan topics and doesn't follow consensus on other topics either, including articles about Star Wars, as noted by User:EEMIV [30]. Is it time for us to consider whether the project is wasting their time having to constantly block and coach this stubborn man? I'm mostly a WikiGnome but I can spot trouble when I see it. Two options - site ban or topic ban? Knox490 (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not an "edit war" across multiple pages. I have opened discussions on those two pages. The Kalash article is disputed, and as user:Mar4d pointed out, the vast majority of sources support for Animism. So mentioning most in the article, a basic fact you seem to ignore and openly reject in the article is going to be a problem for many users. The dispute is still on and I will point administrators to talk:Kalash and talk:Hindu at discussions I myself started for verification before simply believing Knox490's attack accusations. I have been on Pakistan topics for a year and a half.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I did not start any edit war with you. Check the article history. I pointed you to user:Mar4d's comments on the talk page and you left this comment in your edit summary. As such I placed the disputed tag. After that you suddenly opened an ANI. I request administrators to review the talk pages first and article history.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In my opinion, this is a content dispute and should be treated as such. The talk page is the best venue to solve any inconsistencies, and I have already left my input there. I would not say the current article is perfect, but it is nevertheless somewhere on a middle road. Having studied the various WP:RS produced on the subject, the majority of the scholarly view suggests the Kalash religion is animistic. There are some sources which construct a link to pre-Vedic Hindu beliefs, but the connection remains vague and not as extensively discussed by sources. They are still incorporated in the text though, as they are theories. I have already indicated that the most reasonable rewrite would be one which primarily focuses on their animistic practices, and combines input from those sources which suggest a Hindu origin. The majority of the sources favour the former, so in terms of WP:WEIGHT, we should write it according to what the sources imply. I suggest that all involved users use the talk page to discuss this further. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been discussing the disputes, which you have ignored [31][32][33]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that this is a content dispute at this stage. I don't think the description "blanked a large chunk of material" is entirely fair - that diff contains a lot of changes and the movement of a large slab of material to another place in the article. I would advise NadirAli to edit carefully; I'm rather concerned when an editor claims that the "vast majority of sources" supports their view, but what they've actually done is replaced text sourced to Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia with their own text sourced to [34]. If the vast majority of sources support your view, then back your text up with your best sources, not this. If this is actually the best source you have for your position, then I think it's time to back down a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
To GoldenRing:, thank you for your comment, but that is not what I was referring to. Please see the links on the talk page which I posted as well as Mar4d posts. (talk:Kalash people). Those were the ones I was referring to. The other issue I had was the disputed tag removal in the article as in the case of Zia Ul-Haq's Islamitisation (that dispute was been now long resolved). Other issues were edits like these. I have been wanting to have this article to be receive arbitrary sanctions because it has been targeted by various nationalists from Greek to Macedonian to Indian. Your help in nominating it would be useful.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
To GoldenRing: These were the sources I was referring to, in addition to the ones presented by user:Mar4d (some of them may overlap) [35] [36] [37] [38][39][40][41][42]. There's many more, but I think is is good enough. Regards.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion except that I looked at some of the edits, and the editors are warring with each other, making personal comments, within the Edit summaries. This is not the best practice for anybody and could be grounds for action. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
NadirAli, you just requested article protection because you said "Greek nationalists" and "Indian nationalists" have "targeted" it. This is exactly the reason I came here - your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality should not be tolerated here and I say this as someone of Anglo-Saxon heritage. This is what got you banned from Wikipedia for years and from India-Pakistan articles. I don't think you can edit constructively here and think that sysops here should consider re-implementing that ban.Knox490 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Topic Ban on all India-Pakistan articles. I have not interacted with this editor to my knowledge, but a thorough look at NadirAli's edits seems to show a battleground mentality -- he gets into arguments with people accross numerous different articles. The discussion above also seems to show that NadirAli is willing to delete information backed by reliable sources to push his own POV, rather than accept the best efforts of other users who are willing to compromise with him. This hasn't happened once, but numerous times. Looking at his block log, NadirAli has been blocked over 20 times and I think other constructive users are annoyed in having to deal with his editing behavior. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question - What're your thoughts about much of that same problematic behavior -- e.g. battleground mentality, non-NPOV, non-AGF -- outside the India-Pakistan topic? --EEMIV (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to admins Please take notice of these comments and several other instances past disruptive behavior as noted by others [43].--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I requested arbitrary sanctions (something I accidentally myself got blocked for), not page protection. Big difference. It's already been semi-protected for months. Also look at this comment by user:Dbachmann, an administrator. WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? He's stating pretty much the same thing as I am. It's been edit warred over for years before I touched the page, even if my actions can be seen as "edit warring".--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As someone who has written the history section of the FA INDIA as well as the History of Pakistan page, I can say with some confidence that as far as the content dispute is concerned, it is not all Nadir Ali's fault. The Kalash people article is one of the many articles in which India-POV editors typically find some "academic sources" and stuff the lead of the article with Indo-Aryan, "Hindu", "Vedic," etc. I've seen this for over ten years. Contrast the lead of the Kalash article on Wikipedia (which begins with: "The Kalasha are an Indo-Aryan Dardic indigenous people residing in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. They speak the Kalasha language, from the Dardic family of the Indo-Aryan branch. They are considered unique among the peoples of Pakistan.[9] They are also considered to be Pakistan's smallest ethnoreligious community,[10] practicing a religion which some scholars characterize as a animism,[2][3][4] and other academicians as "a form of ancient Hinduism".) with the the New World Encyclopedia article, which is based on the Wikipedia article, and which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Although quite numerous before the twentieth century, this non-Muslim group has been partially assimilated by the larger Muslim majority of Pakistan and seen its numbers dwindle over the past century. Today, sheikhs, or converts to Islam, make up more than half of the total Kalasha-speaking population.The culture of Kalash people is unique and differs drastically from the various ethnic groups surrounding them. They are polytheists and nature plays a highly significant and spiritual role in their daily life." (See here) Do you see the difference, the subtle POV pushing in the Wikipedia article in the service of WP:Lead fixation? Nadir Ali, should no doubt not engage in edit wars, but his opponents are not innocent, just because they are paying lip-service to Wikipedia etiquette and have access to academic sources, which they are no doubt misusing. Every one should be given a warning, a stern one. No blocks or topic bans required at this stage.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

To Fowler&fowler:, would you and others not agree that the WikiProject Hindu needs to be taken off that talk page? It's an article about an ethnic group, not a religious group. If I were to attempt to remove it, I would be libeled once again. As examples talk:Tajik people, Talk:Pashtun people, Talk:Uzbek people, Talk:Sindhi people, Talk:Tartar people. Despite these people being primarily Muslims, I do not see them tagged with WikiProject Islam. I see this as a move of deliberate appropriation, but again would refrain from removing it for the same reasons have been astonishingly accused of (WP:BATTLEGROUND?).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed WikiProject Hinduism banner, and I suggest no one add it again without substantial discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
To Fowler&fowler:, even if there was consensus that these people were followers of so-called "Hinduism", don't you and others agree that the article is about the ethnic group and not their religion? Tags go in topics about religious groups (ie. Muslims, Jews, Christians etc.) and as I pointed out, no article on Muslim-majority ethnic groups have WikiProject Islam tagged on them for the reason I explained.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Tban. I realize that people can and do change. On the other hand, people are very often creatures of habit. User: NadirAli has been blocked a great number of times and as recently as this month he was blocked. So he is stubbornly and persistently a problem editor. I realize that people have strong feelings about religion/country and often try to impose what they wish was true rather than base matters on scholarship and the use of reliable sources. But we have to keep up our standards and not lower them. A topic ban is appropriate at this point. We can't allow people to aggressively push the use of dubious sources such as the alt-right source and the other poor source that User: NadirAli tried to use. Knox490 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban After reviewing the case and evidence, it is clear that NadirAli continues to be disruptive. NadirAli hasn't demonstrated improvement even after blocks by numerous admins, including five in 2016 and 2017, some for repeat violations after coming out of a block. The extenuating arguments made above are unpersuasive. To say some or many "academic sources" are "allegedly somehow" bad does not make sense. That is asking for a license for POV-pushing and encouragement to abandon wikipedia's content policies such as verifiability, reliable sources and NPOV. We can't pick a side if and when there is a dispute in academic sources, we summarize the sides. If some sources are to be banned from wikipedia, don't selectively delete them in some articles and keep them in others; instead, nominate that source with evidence of wiki-plagiarism, then add them to WP:PUS like admin Utcursch has done with Gyan Publishing etc. If you can't provide evidence, please don't defame living scholars and please don't disrupt. NadirAli, as mentioned above by GoldenRing, removes tertiary source such as "Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia" by James Minahan (whose publications have been favorably reviewed), and adds questionable website sources such as kaleshwelfare.org. Again shows NadirAli hasn't cared to understand content policies after past blocks, continued disruption and WP:NOTHERE. An indef block, or one where NadirAli can appeal for an admin review after 1 year of constructive editing elsewhere, seems appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
In Nadir Ali's defense, I would like to suggest that the problem of misusing what are putatively high quality academic sources in Wikipedia articles to further a POV is a much more noxious one than one of just edit warring, for which we can all facilely quote WP policy. If Wikipedia has evolved in the last ten years, so has the ability of Wikipedia's editors to access academic sources. With the sheer amount of published academic material available, it is quite easy to find academic citations for assertions that, in sequence, shift the slant of the article. As I stated above I have seen this in a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan related article, in which editors with access to academic sources introduce subtle ideological shifts involving "India," "Hinduism," and so forth, . Consider, for example, the WP article on the Hindu Kush mountain range, situated not far from where the Kalash people live. What do articles on mountain ranges typically have? It is not hard to see, by examining Himalayas, Andes, that they have sections on geography, geology, hydrology, climate, ecology, and then brief sections, if any, on local culture, economy. Indeed the extensive Britannica article on Hindu Kush has precisely such sections: physiography, geology, drainage, climate, .... In early November, 2016, the Hindu Kush, article (total word count 1600) was not quite the model, but proportionally had as much about the mountain system as it did about historical topics (by which I mean; political history, religious history, social history, etc in which the name of the mountain range occurs). Fast forward to the Hindu Kush article in mid-December 2016 (total word count 2800). What has been added? It is the history section, especially a subsection on "slavery," which expands on an old notion that the mountain name got its name "Hindu Kush" because tens of thousands of Hindu slaves from India died in its forbidding defiles, all abducted by Islamic invaders, and so forth. I haven't checked but I'm reasonably sure that what was added was impeccably sourced and prefaced with "according to Professor So-and-so, ...". But you can imagine that when editors from Afghanistan or Pakistan see such changes, they get irritated. There is often not too much they can do because the edits are sourced to scholarly sources, and WP discussion on UNDUE etc are often inconclusive. (It is much easier to add UNDUE assertions sourced to impeccable sources, than it is to show that such assertions constitute a minority opinion in the larger literature on the topic.) This is the sort of thing that editors such as Nadir Ali, admittedly in their characteristic way, are battling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
F&f: Edit warring about "undue assertions sourced to impeccable sources", without a shred of evidence that it is "undue" per reliable source(s), is disruption! If someone has a feeling / prejudice / personal wisdom that "a view may constitute a minority opinion", that is just a feeling/prejudice/personal wisdom unless that someone can provide a reliable source that states "view X is a minority opinion and here is the majority opinion". That is particularly true, in cases where the sources are stating that X is the majority view and the wikipedia article is already summarizing the majority view X. Your opinion and colorful language/assertion does not matter, nor does someone's OR with no source, nor source misrepresentations and nor 'citation pending request' which you seem to miss in this. Sockpuppets and persistently disruptive editors adding unsourced, unverified OR with gross source misrepresentations or pushing a particular POV do not "balance an article", they disrupt and push a POV. Nothing you state actually evidences any extenuating circumstances for NadirAli, since your edit diffs have nothing to do with NadirAli (which raises the question why are doing that). The evidence is that NadirAli keeps disrupting despite blocks by numerous admins, NadirAli keeps deleting reliable sources and edit warring with non-RS blog/website based content. GoldenRing, Knox490 and others are right about NadirAli's disruption, diagnosis and Tban proposal. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Sarah Welch: I already stated, and let me state again: Contrast the lead of the Kalash article on Wikipedia (which begins with: "The Kalasha are an Indo-Aryan Dardic indigenous people residing in the Chitral District of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. They speak the Kalasha language, from the Dardic family of the Indo-Aryan branch. They are considered unique among the peoples of Pakistan.[9] They are also considered to be Pakistan's smallest ethnoreligious community,[10] practicing a religion which some scholars characterize as a animism,[2][3][4] and other academicians as "a form of ancient Hinduism".) with the the New World Encyclopedia article, which is based on the Wikipedia article, and which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Although quite numerous before the twentieth century, this non-Muslim group has been partially assimilated by the larger Muslim majority of Pakistan and seen its numbers dwindle over the past century. Today, sheikhs, or converts to Islam, make up more than half of the total Kalasha-speaking population.The culture of Kalash people is unique and differs drastically from the various ethnic groups surrounding them. They are polytheists and nature plays a highly significant and spiritual role in their daily life." (See here) Do you see the difference? All the words Indo-Aryan, Hinduism, are absent in the latter article, which was written by cleaning up the Wikipedia article. Contrast the article Hindu kush that you've rewritten in large part—thereby conferring on it the honor of being the only Wikipedia article on a major mountain range whose history section (with notable slavery section) is bigger than its geology, physiography, palaeogeography, drainage, climate, and ecology put together— with Britannica's Hindu Kush. Do you see the difference? You, on Hindu kush, and other editors on Kalash people, are violating all sorts of Wikipedia guidelines, in spirit if not in the letter. Nadir Ali might be doing it more in the letter (of the law). But so what? Damage to these articles is being done by everyone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • F&f: You are mistaken about the history of the Hindu Kush article (the unsourced text on Soviet tanks there, cold war, Taliban was there in the November 2016 version; all that was neither added by NadirAli, nor I, nor you). This is not the talk page of Hindu Kush article, this is ANI. Nor has that article anything to do with NadirAli, nor this case! Please avoid irrelevant stuff. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sarah Welch, so you call this and this "blogs"? At least it's more straight forward than the vague statements of "a form of 'Hinduism'" (an undefined term for a century and a half). It's the same as the joker who started this thread, persistently accusing me of using "a storybook" as a source, when Empires of the Indus is clearly a non-fiction book. That combined with the other sources I and user:Mar4d posted, along with most academic sources not referring to the Kalash religion as so-called "Hinduism". Using lies or misleading statements and false accusations to report a dispute on ANI should be given the strictest penalties--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • NadirAli: Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Please do provide edit diffs when you cast aspersions on what you label as "the joker who started this thread". GoldenRing and Knox490 have provided evidence, and they do have a valid concern just like the numerous admins who have blocked you in the past. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Rather than this man acknowledging his blunders and promising to stop doing them, he starts namecalling, using the word "joker", thereby committing one more violation against WP:CIVIL.69.204.2.184 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Indefinite Topic Ban across all Indian, Hinduism related articles Disruptive editing going on since 2006. There is no chance that this editor will not create any further disruption. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and comment Having seen ANI threads go down the drain as, essentially, mud throwing contests in the past, I'm dispirited to learn that this is going in the same direction. As Fowler&fowler noted, "subtle" ideological viewpoints and editing have characterized South Asian articles since forever. I see it wrong to squarely single out NadirAli, as that would imply he alone is responsible. Because that is simply not true, at least from how I have seen him edit constructively on several Pakistan articles. I cannot help but notice that everyone in favour of a topic ban here are mainly those who seem to have had a history with the user. This thread was started with a proposal to "site ban or topic ban" NadirAli. And this is not to cast aspersions, but what is to say that those same users are foolproof clean from personal POVs, leanings and positions on certain issues, editing viewpoints (we all have one after all) and all else Nadir here is being accused of? I at least wouldn't place the odds very high, knowing this topic area and as Fowler&fowler eloquently put out. I think we'll defer the rest to an admin's judgement, but I must say I'm quite disappointed to see things go down this route escalating from what was originally a content dispute (and where I would still back my horses on Nadir's argument; the theory that Kalash have Hindu origins remains vague, and certainly not scholarly favored any higher than their animist origins; and the compromise version thus worked better than the previous revision). Mar4d (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose TBan and comment – It is true that NadirAli appears as a compulsive edit-warrior. I face his edit-warring quite regularly, e.g., [44], [45] at Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization (April 2017), [46], [47] at Hindu (this month, even while the Kalash people dispute was ongoing). I have also seen him move war [48], [49], [50] at Iron Age in India even after RegentsPark told him to file a Request for Move. I have had to spell it out to him that any deviation from WP:BRD constitutes edit-warring, which shouldn't have been necessary for an editor with such a long history. But on the positive side, he does discuss on the talk pages, even if a bit late and even if his argumentation is rarely consensus-seeking, ignores RS, and keeps repeating points in a self-assured way. But beneath all his bravado, there is often a germ of a valid concern somewhere, which might need to be taken into account. Fowler&fowler tried to explicate that above in the present instance, even though I don't accept that the New World Encyclopedia is a better standard to follow. So, all said and done, his presence on the project might be beneficial in the long run for rebalancing articles, even if we have to put up with the annoyance of his aggressive editing occasionally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Kautilya3: would a limited Tban or 1RR restriction or some other approach on NadirAli be helpful to the project in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India space articles? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sarah Walech, I have provided diffs and links, including the links to user:Dbachmann's comment (I hope you & Knox are not going to propose a topic ban against him for this), the book sources I shared as well as the link to Empires of the Indus which says it's a non-fiction book, while he repeatedly claims it's a "storybook" (already provided in the edit summary diff) and removed the disputed tag on that basis. Accusing somebody on an administrators noticeboard of using a "storybook" as a source is lying to administrators and should not come without consequences. GoldenRing already noticed some of the lies posted here. As for the admins who have blocked me, about half of them are gone (including one who was de-sysopped for blocking users who edit warred with him) or semi-active (as will be the case for all of us eventually).--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • NadirAli: You write, "Accusing somebody on an administrators noticeboard of using a "storybook" as a source is lying to administrators and should not come without consequences." I searched your edit history and ANI page, Knox490 questions "raceandhistory.com" as a source. Why and how is that lying? Edit diff please! You did add raceandhistory.com here, Knox490 does have a valid concern with your editing here and here and etc (something admin GoldenRing notes above). Did one out of 12+ admins who blocked you get de-sysoped for blocking you? Did half of them become semi-active because of you? If so, please provide some evidence, some edit diffs. Otherwise, please see WP:NOTTHEM, avoid mentioning what happened to admins who blocked you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sarah Welch, I never used it as a "source", just to present an argument. I don't ever remember claiming it to be a source, so to accuse me of using it as one is indeed a lie. I presented three links, two of them WP:RS and one for general arguments, but only one was linked here in order to deceive others and discredit me. Regarding the other admins, well you brought it up so I replied. If posted diffs to other admins retiring/semi-retiring because of me, I would just be advocating that I'm the problem in these disputes, rather than pushing for content to comply with the majority and more direct sources, which I am. Now if you'll please excuse me, there are pages I need to work on.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose any ban for Nadir Ali and Comment: I will stake my reputation on Wikipedia (including that of the editor with the most number of edits on the FA India, the author of its history, geography, and biodiversity sections), when I say that India- and Hinduism-related UNDUE edits are being made on on a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages. These are what Nadir Ali has to put up with. Sometimes it involves inserting "India," "Hinduism," needlessly, sometimes it is much more UNDUE. I have already mentioned the Kalash people article. The article quotes Harvard Sanskritist Michael Witzel to imply that the Kalash religion is a form of ancient Hinduism. But Witzel in his latest book is very careful to use only "pagan" for the Kalash religion. See here. He uses that word half a dozen times, once explicitly with "pre-Hindu." (See here.) In the Hindu Kush article, on a mountain range, on the borders of which the Kalash live: between 10 December, 2016, (total word count 1600) and 16 December 2016 (total word count 2800) extraneous material on history and slavery was added and the geology section was changed in a manifestly unencylopedic fashion. No amount of last-minute tinkering with rearrangement, done a few hours ago, in response to this thread, can hide the UNDUE edits, especially the spectacular insertion of "Greater India" ("Geologically, the Indian subcontinent was first a part of so-called "Greater India",[22] a region of Gondwana that drifted away from East Africa about 160 million years ago, around the Middle Jurassic period") in the opening sentence of the geology section in this edit with edit summary, "no youtube/personal videos/blogs please; replace with content from scholarly sources". Recondite geophysics journals are cited, (actually taken from the Indian subcontinent page), but the cited articles say that what drifted away was Greater India (including Madagascar and Seychelles), and Australia and Antarctica. (Parenthetically: "Greater India" is a highly specialized geophysics term that has gained currency in the last 40-odd years. It refers to the reconstructions of the Indian continental crust plus hypothesized northern extension of the oceanic crust which subducted under Tibet at the time of the India-Eurasia collision. Sometimes it is used to refer only to the northern extension. In fact, that is what the first cited authors say. They say, "We apply the common term Greater India to refer to the part of the Indian plate that has been subducted underneath Tibet since the onset of Cenozoic continental collision.") I wrote the article on Greater India on Wikipedia some ten years ago, before it was hijacked, and know what the specialist usage means. I wrote the geography section of the FA India. Do we mention "greater India" there? We don't. Is it mentioned in the Himalayas page? It is not (see Himalayas#Geography_and_key_features). Is it mentioned in the Karakoram page? It is not. See Karakoram#Geology_and_glaciers. Presiding admin: please take note. This is the kind of "cited to high quality RS" UNDUE content that people like Nadir Ali have to put up with. It takes someone like me, with vast experience in academics, someone who knows a thing or two about the geological formation of India, to dig out from under the UNDUE avalanche. Nadir Ali, very likely does not have the tools to access all these obscure articles. And, the editors who added the UNDUE content, please don't Wikilawyer facilely and tell me this is not the right venue for my post. It very much is, if I have to give examples of what Nadir Ali has to face. Granted he his not innocent, but neither are the others he has to encounter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

PS It is not lost on me that the Wikipedia article Greater India today has no mention of geology in its lead. It says, "The term Greater India is most commonly used to encompass the historical and geographic extent of all political entities of the Indian subcontinent and beyond, that had to varying degrees been transformed by the acceptance and induction of cultural and institutional elements of pre-Islamic India." How great does that look when referred to on Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages even when "Greater India" is not wiki-linked. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@NadirAli: Fowler&flower, with his usual WP:TEXTWALL, seems to be falsely implying that you edited Hindu Kush article and gives it as an example "what NadirAli has to face", along with "Granted he [NadirAli] is not innocent" but an excuse for you to disrupt that article, etc!! I do not see you ever editing the Hindu Kush article since 2013? Did you have an alternate account that we are unaware of? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
You can't win any silly brownie points with that literal interpretation. You don't think I already checked whether or not Nadir Ali had made edits on Hindu Kush when I examined the history of all edits on that so assiduously. I gave that as an example of the more general point about what Pakistani and other editors have to put up with. I gave that as an example of the sheer scale of the sourced UNDUE that is being added to these articles, not to mention, in the passing, the UNDUE antecedents of the very people who are crying so piously for Nadir Ali's blood. Kalash people (not edited by you); Hindu Kush (not edited by Nadir Ali) and Indian subcontinent (edited by you and Mar4d, who has made a post above) were just three examples. I said, "This is the kind of 'cited to high quality RS' UNDUE content that people like Nadir Ali have to put up with. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In other words, now you stating "NadirAli never tried to edit Hindu Kush since 2013, but you know that NadirAli somehow got upset with "having to put up with" the "reliably sourced, but allegedly undue content" in Hindu Kush article; that you allege somehow justifies disruptive behavior by NadirAli in other articles." This "he can't put up with the content in our Mickey Mouse article, so he disrupts that other article" is unpersuasive for any ANI case. Strange but thanks for clarifying, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
In my very first post, I offered in comparison, the New World Encyclopedia article on Kalash, which begins with, "The Kalash or Kalasha, are an ethnic group found in the Hindu Kush mountain range in the Chitral district of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan." I then clicked on Wikipedia's Hindu Kush and the UNDUE edits were manifest. I then wrote in my oppose, "India- and Hinduism-related UNDUE edits are being made on on a number of Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related pages." ANI threads are not just about the people whose name appears in the section title; they are also about the people who are pointing fingers, crying for blood, but themselves making edits in the same topic area that violate WP guidelines. If you think you haven't violated DUE at Hindu Kush take me to the WP forum of your choosing and I will offer proof. But before that you might want to consider how you managed to add to an article on the great mountain range of Central Asia the sentences, "Al Biruni found it difficult to get access to Indian literature locally in the Hindu Kush area, and to explain this he wrote, 'Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed wonderful exploits by which the Hindus became the atoms scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. (...) This is the reason, too, why Hindu sciences have retired far from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to Kashmir, Benares and other places'" (See here with edit summary, "add sources.") What is this if not a flagrant example of an "India- and Hinduism related UNDUE edit on a Pakistan- or Afghanistan related page?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Topic Ban on all India-Pakistan articles This editor has not learned from his previous mistakes, despite the multiple chances given to him, as shown in his extensive block log. Many of his contributions demonstrate aggressive POV pushing, such as those listed by User:Ms Sarah Welch above. --EngiZe (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose any topic ban as direct party involved and also note the one proposing the topic ban also voted in favor of the same thing he proposed, an attempt to add more votes. @EngiZe, is this your first ANI post? It seems like it for a user only here a year and a half (how did you happen to find this board and specific topic?). Prior to that what disputes were you involved in before your "clean start"? You seem to have edited in this topic area too.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I also wonder if all the blocks in my log are ever cross examined in a review board or a review case, not that such a system exists yet on Wikipedia to my knowledge. Many blocks would turn out to be unjustified, especially Rama's Arrow, who kept blocking other users besides me that also opposed his aggressive edit warring and putting in falsified reasons in block logs. Some of them included User:Szhaider, a former Urdu Wikipedia administrator. Even now, as back then, while many users were opposed to me (many of which turned out to be sockpuppets/masters in the past month and others who had their own previous squabbles with various other users as user:Mar4d questioned and I pointed out, including the user posting above who went by another username before their "clean start"), there are many good standing editors with good reputations including administrators who agree with me on these topics, not to mention my valuable contributions to Wikipedia, including this area. Szhaider voluntarily left because he had no hope in the system as do I.[51] And I never really intended to stay here that long. But seeing Wikipedia is already on the decline, I thought I might as well fix it up as much as I can before my presence on the site goes away with the website itself.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Although I opposed desysopping of Rama's Arrow back in Feb 2007, I did mention some issue he had, that in my current view, made it all too easy for NadirAli and two other Pakistan editors to receive blocks. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There was more discussion on that on WP:RFA/Hkelkar-2, where RA was revealed to be using his rollback tools to dodge 3RR and team tag edit warring and then blocking the same user he edit warred with for edit warring. In my block log and other Pakistani users block log he put some strange reasons without providing any evidence for it or posting it on ANI, so I'm arguing to cite my block log without cross examination of each case is a deception. At least evidence should be provided to back it up. Another was Blguyans block of my in 2009 to indefinite despite me having been gone a full year and based on a decision where most of the "evidence" was twisted statements from the one side and the ability for the other side to break the very principle rules of Wikipedia and get away with it without even a warning. So how can half the blocks in my log even be taken seriously. But to add to Fowler and Mar4d's statements on WP:UNDUE, I think these are strings of cases of WP:Systematic bias, where some vague statements are being inserted in the lead and infoboxes to change public perception on the whole subject, when the majority of sources make clear cut statements for animism as in the case of the Kalash article, yet they're both being treated equally. Even the sources I posted in the discussion were never addressed and instead I was accused of "removing 'reliable sourced' content" when under the current compromise, I just made the factual edit that majority of scholars refer to the religion as a form of animism. But in the end, I am repeating that it matters less. Given the inevitable decline of Wikipedia -now from second website to tenth most viewed website plus the loss of over a third of contributors because of unjust treatment and favoritism, my repeated question is what will it matter what happened ten years ago or last month? Imagine looking back at these disputes in the next few years when Wikipedia will end up somewhere much further below.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment:When making decisions about various matters , one should first do the requisite research via such methods as looking at reliable sources of information. Yet, some people make a decision what they want to believe and then use whatever source/method they can find to attempt to justify their belief along with suppressing scholarship, reliable sources, etc.

NadirAli used an alt-right website to support an edit of his and then deleted contrary information supported by a reliable source (decent book source). He then engaged in edit warring on top of this. This is not an isolated incident. He has repeatedly been banned from Wikipedia. This leopard is not going to change his spots. His whole mindset is backwards. He did sloppy research and then engaged in the disharmonious behavior of edit warring to make matters even worse.

At this point, I am starting to think that perhaps NadirAli should be banned from Wikipedia. He has shown little to no remorse relative to his bad behavior. At the very least, he should be topic banned. Knox490 (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Continuous repeat of previous lies. Just as that "storybook" accusation that you made. I posted numerous reliable sources, including one from Oxford University and attempted to remove what was WP:UNDUE and not properly sourced statements as pointed out by other users. You also accused me of WP:BATTLEGROUND for requesting arbitrary sanctions on the article because it was targeted by various nationalists when User:Dbachmann made the same comment on talk:Hunza. Again, I do not believe posting untrue statements on an administrators board should come without consequences.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
NadirAli, on the talk page of the Kalash people article, did you use the alt-right source "raceandhistory.com" in order to try to support a position of yours? If so, why did you do this? Also, do you consider the source raceandhistory.com to be a reliable source or an unreliable source? If you consider it to be a reliable source, please explain why you feel it is a reliable source.
If you agree that raceandhistory.com is an unreliable source, was my questioning of your competency a legitimate concern? If not, please explain why my concern was unwarranted.Knox490 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope to dig into this in greater detail, but at the moment it seems to be a slight over-reaction. I do not think a topic ban should be applied where a lesser remedy will suffice. In this case, plenty of evidence has been provided demonstrating that Nadir Ali is a prolific edit-warrior; in which case, the logical step would be to place him under a 1RR restriction. To justify a topic ban I would need to see more evidence that their edits are unconstructive in and of themselves. The claim about raceandhistory.com is concerning, but very little substantive evidence has been provided that there is a recurring problem of competence or inappropriate sourcing. Vanamonde (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2017 (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 - Pahlevun[edit]

NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
OP was blocked yesterday as a sockpuppet. A Traintalk 21:12, 27 July 2017 (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 is an issue with user Pahlevun and their disruptive editing on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. Their disruptiveness and asserting ownership makes it impossible for other editors to contribute to the project. I suggest a topic ban be imposed. Below is a list of examples of poor editing behavior:

DirectAttrition (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC) ───────────────────────── OP has been indeffed as just one of at least 11 confirmed sockpuppets that have been making a sustained effort to purge People's Mujahedin of Iran of negative material about the group. (It's likely that there are even more socks out there, or will be soon.) Pahlevun has in fact been a saint trying to contain the ensuing disruption; I suggest a speedy close. For more on the socking, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have never tried to engage in "disruptive editing", nor felt ownership on any article. The complaint is now proven to be a WP:SPA and not here to build an encyclopedia. I don't know if it is necessary to explain myself. Pahlevun (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved admin here. I think that, given the complainant is a sock it's probably all moot now. I went through the provided diffs, and there is very clearly no personal attacks or incivility as far as I could see. That said Pahlevun, it probably is a good idea to ensure that edits to controversial articles always have edit summaries. If there's no objections, I'll cinch this section up for posterity. A Traintalk 21:08, 27 July 2017 (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.

Request: Check whether the article creations are made by someone close to the channel[edit]

This is not something we can or should be doing, certainly not without evidence. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2017 (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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.194.46 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2017‎ (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done so for you. The best way to determine if that account is used by someone close to the channel is to simply ask them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2017 (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.

Potential socks[edit]

This is premature. They probably are the same person, but thus far they've done nothing disruptive to merit any action. Each made a single edit to their userpage. If something changes, take it to WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2017 (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.

Just saw User:Jd forlife2k16 and User:JD-LIFE2k17 on the userpage patrol log. I actually patrolled one before I saw the other. It could be that they accidentally created two accounts or wanted to change their username and weren't sure how, but I thought it'd be best for somebody else to take a look in case they are socking. As of now I am not notifying either account per WP:BITE. If they're innocent, I don't want to drive them off. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


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

Personal Attacks by Bulldog4[edit]

INDEF BLOCK
Indefinitely blocked for the vague legal threat and the above behaviour, but primarily because they are clearly here to push an agenda and not to contribute to the encyclopedia -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:50, 27 July 2017 (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 threatened and falsley accused of vandalism and personally attacked by Bulldog4. I feel that this is a violation of the principles of the wikipedia community:

  • False and unfounded accusations of a personal vendetta. (link)

• False and unfounded accusations of Vandalism. (link)

  • False accusations of using a sock puppet account as well as the ridiculous accusations of placing a "device" on Bulldog4. (link)

This is really not making wikipedia a safe place to be for me, his multiple allusions to legal action and attempts at trying to defame my account and edit reputation is frustrating. I would like to see some intervention.Moist towelett (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to better link diffs, but this one in particular strikes me as a legal threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moist_towelett&diff=prev&oldid=792497819 Suggest blocking. --Tarage (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Also it appears that Bulldog4 may be editing with a COI. --Tarage (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I will state that Bulldog4 has alluded multiple times to the fact that they are the subject of the article they are editing.Moist towelett (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. They do seem to have a COI, but that is irrelivant considering they have issued a very clear legal threat, on top of their increased incivility. Thankfully their edit history is not very long... --Tarage (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The subject was also previously editing under user:Strathisla1.Moist towelett (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Even if their comments only skirt the lines of a legal threat, it is nonetheless chilling any attempts at discussion and is almost certainly meant to intimidate. Agree with a block, we don't need people like here. Blackmane (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Given the above, a CU might be worth running as well. Both editors probably need to be dealt with, considering they both appear to have a COI. --Tarage (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked for the vague legal threat and the above behaviour, but primarily because they are clearly here to push an agenda and not to contribute to the encyclopedia -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect There'sNoTime, what about the other user who is probably related? Why did you close this without the CU? --Tarage (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
That other account stopped editing two years ago. There is nothing that CU can do since such information is not accessible after three months. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the swift action by everyone in this thread. If the username appears again and makes another Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest claim where should I report them, back to here?Moist towelett (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2017 (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.

Inappropriate non-admin closure of an AfD[edit]

Old AfD reopened. Newer duplicate AfD deleted. Closing editor gently cautioned on WP:INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2017 (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'm raising a concern I had about the recent non-admin AfD closure for Aturaparijnana by User:Anoptimistix. There were only two comments made: the nominator's and my "Delete" comment. Anoptimistix attempted to improve the article (which as I understand is totally fine). But then rather than make a "Keep" comment and maybe notify the other commenters that there was new information to consider and/or ask for a relisting, they instead closed the AfD as a "Keep", even though there was certainly no consensus to do so. Moreover, I feel that the attempted improvements didn't really address the main issues raised in the AfD in the first place (so I have since renominated it for deletion; I hope that's not a problem). --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a complete misreading of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures. That wasn't a Keep by any stretch with just one comment in the way of deletion and no keep comments, and if anything the AfD needed to be relisted, not closed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First I agree that this was a problematic close. Almost certainly done in good faith but definitely running afoul of WP:INVOLVED. However the correct course of action here would have been to first contact the closing editor with your concerns and suggest they re-open the AfD. If that failed the next step would have been WP:DELREV. I am inclined to revert the close and delete the current AfD. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that's the right way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok. There being no immediate objections, and given this doesn't look like an especially complicated case, I'm going to move on that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
(non admin comment) Yeah I feel this is the best course of action for the time being --Kostas20142 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done Close of original AfD reverted. New AfD deleted per CSD G6. Article reverted to last pre-close form. Seafood for Anoptimistix tonight. -20:49, 27 July 2017 (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.

Repeated misuse of minor edit box[edit]

The "behaviour" appears to have ceased. Nothing to do here. -- Begoon 18:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. <