• Ajackson12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Essentially all edits by Ajackson12 (talk · contribs) are POV-pushing in areas of discretionary sanctions, either Israel & Palestine [1] or American politics [2][3] or both [4][5][6]. They've been warned plenty on their talk page; you can see their engagement in this edit. Basically, I defy anyone to find any signs that this editor is anything but a WP:NOTHERE POV-warrior. Some administrative attention (more serious than locking their preferred version into place) would be good. I will notify after posting this message. --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user Ajackson12 should obviously be kicked off Wikipedia. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The decision to lock Ajackson12's version of an article was unfortunate, as the article currently features poorly supported smears in the lede. The smears are sourced to non-RS or misrepresent what RS say. This is content that Ajackson12 has tried to force into the article before, and it was pointed out to be the user and everyone reading the page that the sources were either non-RS or misrepresented. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned them about the Arab-Israeli DS, and noted that they do not yet meet the 30-500 requirement. If Ajackson12 is unwilling to engage with the community and makes edits that have a clear POV to them, they are likely to be blocked in the very near future. They should certainly have a chance to respond before any admin takes action, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy ping Ajackson12. There have been allegations made of a pattern of unconstructive editing on your part. Please read the above and respond. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The pattern of edits speak for themselves; there is no way to explain that behavior away. That is one continuous set of WP:SOAP edits. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, the user's relatively short edit history reveals a pattern of taking breaks of several days, particularly when their edits are challenged, so it seems unlikely to me that they will respond here. (Maybe this suggests a sock-puppet? I don't have any solid reason to believe so, though.) I think administrators should act based on the already-available information. Also, FWIW, here is a ARBPIA 30/500 violation from them that has not been reverted yet. --2601:142:3:F83A:A53F:3EA1:283:8C27 (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that I agree with all of Ajackson12's edits, but I don't see most of them as bad faith. This is a classic case of WP:DONTBITE. I would suggest a boomerang on the reporter for not assuming good faith, but we don't even know who that is. How does an IP address with virtually no edits come here and file this report and have enough knowledge of wikipedia to provide diffs etc?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of the edits, a Boomerang is a bit ridiculous, and given how well we enforce WP:DONTBITE, I'd recommend starting elsewhere with proper enforcement of this policy. This user has rather carelessly edited a number of areas under discretionary sanctions; the alarm of the proposer is more than understandable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying given this edit history, we clearly dealing with someone who's hiding their identity. They should disclose who they are.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering they've responded in this conversation with two different IPs, their IP appears to be highly dynamic. Sure, they may very well be a registered user editing while logged out, but they could also be a long-term IP contributor on a dynamic IP—there's a fair few of those, including some who are quite active in the project namespace. AddWittyNameHere 00:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. (And this comment is the same person, on vacation.) --129.170.195.145 (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hahaha, Rusf10 is this person? Yah I'm sure that was an open-minded and thoughtful analysis of Ajackson12's edits. Oy vey. --129.170.195.145 (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear case of WP:Boomerang. Looking at 2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34's contribution history, his only purpose on Wikipedia is to whitewash articles of anti-Semites. And his location of Maryland is disturbingly close Washington, D.C. Paid lobbyist for a congressional candidate perhaps? 46.201.252.32 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know that congressional candidates don't get offices in DC until after they win, right? --129.170.195.145 (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do rather like that someone has carefully used an IP with no edit history to make this accusation, though! Very chic in this post-truth era. --129.170.195.145 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user insists on pushing for his contested edits despite opposition of three other users. He's been warned to reach consensus before reverting his changes but he doesn't comply. In this edit I stated that this section must be integrated into other sections of the article because the article is chronologically ordered among other reasons. He soon restored the section by a fallacious reasoning along the line that it is not the subject history that gives the context to this section but rather it is this particular section that gives context to some half a century length of history! Taking it to the talk, I asked the opinion of another involved editor. Stefka however came back restoring the disputed content. Other involved users agreed that this section called "suppression ..." must be eliminated because it also represents a content fork. The section along with other disputed content is neutralized by the other involved editor, yet Stefka comes back restoring everything again including the section on suppression pretending that it was only the location of the section that was disputed not itself! By the time he is warned both in the edit description and in the talk not to do more revert wars against consensus but he comes back and reverts again against consensus by making a fallacious reference to my comment on talk! I must stress that this is only one segment of the article in which he has engaged in edit/revert wars with other users. He stubbornly defies demands on the talk to achieve consensus before pushing his contested edits. Such behavior has completely hampered our efforts to improve this article. To have testimony of other involved editors I also ping @Pahlevun and Mhhossein: --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:AIV, not really here. IWI (chat) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thank you! Does that mean I should take this to WP:AIV myself? --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Expectant of Light: yes and they’ll probably block the person. IWI (chat) 10:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think the user's problem is behavioral hence ANI is a suitable place for his misconducts. Among his disruptive edits and his ignoring the talk page discussions, just see this example: He removed a figure from the lead since he thought one of the sources was not reliable, while the material was cited to three sources! I think he's now hounding the nominator. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, it is users Mhhossein and Expectant of Light who work as a duo to push POV in order to create "consensus" on certain pages, removing reliable sources per previous discussions at WP:RSN. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhhossein Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I told you several times it is not about reliability of sources but context, weight and location of statements from a source. Moreover an otherwise reliable source may make certain claims that border on fringe. Not everything a reliable source says must be included in pages. Finally, this is your consistent disruptive editing which is the problem. You've been warned several times before this ANI but don't listen. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More revert wars and defiance of consensus-building. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two iranian users ganging up on a user who's posting negative things about Iran? Never seen that before! 74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for "posting negative things" about any country but building a neutral encyclopedia through collaboration. But Stefka has been defiantly pushing to make certain POVs stand out in the article against the long-standing version which had been qualified as B class. It is all welcome to improve articles, but not making your favored views somehow stand out through content fork. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most baffling part is that I'm actually quoting directly from the same sources Expectant of Light and Mhhossein are using in other parts of the article, but they keep removing this info (which has already been verified at RSN as reliable) based on the "consensus" of three heavily involved Iranian editors. Expectant of Light actually stated on the article's Talk page that "You don't persecute a vile terrorist cult but you rather repress them into destruction!" (referring to my edits outlining the persecution of the subject of the article by the current Iranian government, which again, were backed by reliable sources per previous discussions). If this isn't POV pushing, I don't know what is. It's making it very difficult to include any sort of neutral information into the article. Gaming the system by ganging up for POV pushing should not be. Need advice here please. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you're the single biggest case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT I have encountered on Wiki! And you are now engaging in personal attacks to justify your ceaseless disruptive editing in the page. Whether us involved editors are Iranians doesn't matter. You have to be able to discuss, make your point, achieve consensus and then post your edits! But when you don't, but instead try to highlight pro-MKO views in the article and make them stand out, it seems clear that it is you POV-pushing not us! As for calling this "a vile terrorist cult" that's not my POV, there have been several credible sources that have described the group as a cult which are mentioned in the page. An honestly how else do you describe an Stalinist organization which brainwashes and mentally manipulates its members, forces its members to avoid any all emotional relations separating the members' children from parents who join them, staged an ideological coup killing its Muslim members in 1976, has been involved in killing spree against innocent people over the streets of Iran, fought against their own country in alliance with Saddam, was involved in brutal repression of minorities in Iraq, have been bribing French and US politicians to turn a blind eye on their dark record and give them political protection in France, gives money to unwitting tourists to attend their highly-touted meetings where they sell them as supporters of the MKO to make themselves look popular, have been engaged in a great deal of fraud and money-laundering and I can go on and on! Note all of these are supported by the page content already. So unless you are a MKO PR agent yourself, I can't otherwise explain your stubborn refusal to have this page represent the mainstream facts about this group or your attempt to put the legitimate Iranian government at par with such a despicable terror group. As for your other claim of selective using of sources, so far I have not used any source in other than adding summaries from a highly authoritative Iranian work on this organization that you kept removing. Other than that I have not added or used any source! And I'm presently focusing on two issues, the lead and the section on repression. However your disruptive conduct have prevented us from moving forward to other sections. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My focus has been in quoting from the same reliable sources the article already has, not bickerin or name-calling, as I've already pointed out to you on the article's Talk page. I've said everything I needed to say on my previous message. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And no longer any comments on "vile terrorist cult"? Your concern is to push your desired version by cherry picking only certain views from the wide range of facts and views covered in this long entry and give them higher weight than they deserve. In the meantime you keep saying that you "only want to quote reliable sources" as if anyone was ever opposed to quoting reliable sources per se! I suggest the arbitrating admin issuing a strong warning or temporary sanctions on your account for your disruptive behavior. --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) * Comment: This report is not regarding content dispute. It's aimed addressing the reported user's misconduct in the article. The article is locked or he would be consistently do his disruptive edits. There are many diffs showing his behavior and I'm not going to mention all of them. However:

- User's major issue is that he doesn't tend to follow the consensus building procedure ignoring his WP:ONUS. See the article talk page.

- Although he was told about COI [7][8], he used to remove well sourced contents on a bogus basis, i.e. source's COI.

- He used to forge self-made materials into the article. See Failed verifications and cherry picking. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Stefka Bulgaria, you are not listening - including about the point that just because a source is generally a reliable source doesn't mean that they are always appropriate - or the entire content from an article is appropriate. My suggestion is that you try and work with other editors, discuss issues civilly on the article talk pages, and realize that just because you want to add something to an article doesn't mean it's appropriate.

Working on an encyclopedia article doesn't mean that one comes in with an idea of what needs to be said and then finds the sources to support that position. That is WP:POV and it sounds like what you are doing. That's a problem.

Is it possible for you to work with other editors in a more collaborative manner, not cherry-pick points that fit your POV, and consider the guidelines more fully?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC) per comment below[reply]

SNUGGUMS Did you accidentally archive off this section? That's the only reason I can think of as to why an active conversation would have been archived without any comment at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added a bit to clarify.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that CaroleHenson; this thread definitely wasn't supposed to be archived. I meant to click something that was already closed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the People's Mujahedin of Iran article is protected and users must submit requests for edits, which sounds wise. And, there is a sockpuppet investigation here of Expectant of Light and Mhhossein, started by Stefka Bulgaria.

So that could be a good cooling off period. I am striking out my comments above. I still think that they are valid, but if this is a sockpuppet scenario to gang up against a user, that's not cool.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet accusations will be certainly disproved and then I believe Stefka should face more severe sanctions for this libel after he's been shown to be a disruptive editor. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you're right and it is disproven. That was my first take when I saw that a sockpuppet investigation was opened. There have been enough circumstances, though, to at least question if it's the case.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson My objective here is to work with other editors, but this is deffenitely a "ganging up" situation where these users are acusing me of the exact same thing they're doing: cherry picking info, and not allowing any other type of historic background into the article that disagrees with their vision of the group as a "vile terrorist cult". If you look at the article's editing history and it's Talk page you'll see what I mean. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it easier, this is the sort of text they're fighting so hard to remove:

According to Ervand Abrahamian, it was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam that “differed sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his disciples.”^[1]

This paragraph oulines why the People's Mujahedin first started to have issues with the Islamic Republic of Iran; it's an important piece of information (which these editors have dismissed as "outdated", which just does not make any sense considering Abrahamian is an expert on this topic and actually lived through the Iranian revolution!). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked through the article talk page and the comments here before I posted my message above. I can see where you'd feel ganged up upon. The article talk page is the place to discuss content issues. It seems to me that you are not getting some of their points, and that of other editors, and just want to push information that you deem important to the article.

But, it will be good to sort out the SPI, and if that's not the case, which is possible - perhaps they could not gang up on you as much. If one person makes a salient point, maybe the other doesn't have to come along and add to it. They could just say that they agree. And, they could consider whether they are being too closed off in their definition of "fringe theories", for instance. It does seem, though, that they have a better grasp on the guidelines - and their nuances. And, have you read WP:BRD? If the consensus is that something should - or should not - be added, then that's it. If something doesn't get added to the article, it's not the end of the world, the world will still go on turning.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, will do my best to make it work through your suggestions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It baffles me that he is still beating the dead horse by repeats same points and accusations over! That shows that once the page ban is expired he would be back to revert wars! --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this is primarily a content issue, you could ask for a WP:Third opinion, which would require to summarize what content is being disputed (hopefully in a civil tone).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is primarily a content issue, yes. The sources I'm using received support at WP:RSN, but there are 3 editors that are heavily involved in this page that won't allow these quotes into the page, even though these sources are being used to support other statements in the article. I will explore the third opinion option; hopefully that will help. Again, thank you for your advice :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a reliable source was not the only issue that came up, as I hope you remember, Stefka Bulgaria. Whoever looks this issue over would be looking at more than whether it was a reliable source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, should have mentioned that at RSN there was also a debate about the content itself as well as the source. Will explore these options further beyond the reliability of the sources. Thank you as always. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, After long talks and proper sourcing one editor agreed and did the changes about the cast in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neerali. please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neerali .One editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Let_There_Be_Sunshine keep fighting for his version. without any proper source. I doubt this user. I am new in wikipedia and learning new things in wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neerali page is blocked for new editors. so I think some admins take this issue seriously and look in to the matter.

Thank you --Sameershan (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S/he hadn't edited the article since consensus was reached on the talk page. But no one reverted to the more accurate version of the article, so I handled that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 14:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...AAAAAAND s/he kept it up, so another user reverted and then warned him/her. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let There Be Sunshine is still doing it, apparently until his consensus is reached. In addition, after he was warned (by another user), he tried to use WP:DTR as an excuse. Would an admin step in, please? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Says the one who triggered the edit war at the first place without participating in discussion, which is still being discussed. I reverted my own changes (which Erpert deemed still doing it) - restoring the Cast to the old form before the disputed versions, which DBigXray reverted back again to his version. Thus, the same user who templated me of edit warring is technically edit warring on the page. I could have templated him back for the same. Reverting each time when you make a comment on talk page is not how consensus is reached. Indeed, it's high time an admin should step in.--Let There Be Sunshine 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I triggered an edit war? That's literally the only edit I made on the entire article. Anyway, keep in mind that an uninvolved admin isn't going to automatically take the stance that you like. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When a discussion takes place, if you have an opinion you participate in it, not revert (especially when the discussion is hot). That's the way how consensus process works in Wikipedia. --Let There Be Sunshine 20:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drowningseagull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this user was deliberately gaming the WP:ECP rules. This is because of this ridiculous edit to their userpage (with an edit summary "my confirmation is now E X T E N T E D E D") as edit #500, and many 1-byte edits to their userpage before that. Their adding "main article" tags to the top of articles such as 2018 FIFA World Cup Group H were generally reverted. Please investigate and remove ECP if necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is claiming to be the Zodiac Killer, and is a new user as of April 2018. Whether he is/is not who he claims to be, this isn't a threat, but shouldn't be overlooked. What do we do? — Maile (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also ask him where Tupac is? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we already about Tupac? His ashes were scattered in Georgia (the US state). Maybe we ought to ask the Zodiac Killer if he's seen any news in the last 20 years ... what with being on the run and everything, he probably missed a lot. — Maile (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:RS the Zodiac Killer died of Heart attack. And the killings stopped as well. I saw it all in the film.--DBigXray 21:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look to me that gamey, for which a normal administrative action would be to remove the ECP flag until they make 500 worthwhile edits (manual readdition). It's not like they had an ECP article they wanted to edit, it looks to me more like HATSHOP activity. The number of edits to their user page is over 150 and less than 200. The majority of their edits have been minor, but constructive edits, in article space (adding templates to FIFA World Cup pages). I wouldn't want to dishearten them and lose the constructive editing, although a gentle note about hats is probably in order. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Redflag I find it more concerning that they have made edits to their user and talk pages (self-reverted) wherein they claim to be a sock of someone banned 11 years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has a spi been filed. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really rather amazed, some of you (above), are joking about someone claiming to be a serial killer. AnonNep (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that’s because the user is quite clearly a troll and is obviously joking. Do you really think they could actually be a serial killer when they also claim to have every mental illness/disorder known to man, are confined to a wheelchair, has survived cancer for over 248 years, has diabetes, is a nudist, is near, far, and long sighted, supports the extermination of socialists and is also a socialist (maybe that’s their depression, which they also claim to have), and supports Trump, despite also believing he is going to destroy the world? Like I said, they clearly aren’t serious, so we should not be obliged to take them seriously, either (ie they deserve a not here indef)💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hhkohh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See User talk:Hhkohh#Delsort: You’re doing it wrong.

In all my years editing here I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an issue come here over deletion sorting. It’s usually fairly routine and any issues are easily corrected, but I can’t seem to get the message across here. This user is apparently scanning through articles and looking not just for the primary topic or topics, but for any mention of anything that might possibly have its own delsort list, and spamming each and every one of them. This led to this discussion being added to 27 delsort lists, which is just obviously wrong to my eye.

I don’t believe I have a policy to point to other than WP:CANVASS. I don’t think that is actually their intent but the effect is the same, posting to many tangential or irelevant pages, and their replies to my comments on this have left me unable to determine if they simply don’t understand my concern or are engaging in WP:IDHT. So here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be uninvolved, as I previously commented about this user posting four RfPP backlog threads in one week. To focus on the current issue, they have been previously reminded by Doomsdayer520 to do deletion sorting "sparingly" on July 6 ([9]), in which they acknowledged before going on to do this less than a week later ([10]), as noted by Beeblebrox. So yes, despite of editing in good faith, there is WP:IDHT going on here. I think it is partially related to the way they communicate in English, and I think it would be helpful to hear input from experienced users like Northamerica1000 in this topic area. Alex Shih (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I must concur with the matter of User:Hhkohh not getting the point. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians for many examples of overactive deletion sorting by this user. I am active at both of those pages and have observed that Hhkohh is putting album AfD's in the Bands delsort, band AfD's in the Albums delsort, and all kinds of other odd delsort decisions. My previous comment that was noticed by User:Alex Shih above came from the presence of AfDs for fictional musicians on TV shows being placed in the Bands delsort. The delsort process is useful in attracting editors to discussions on topics in which they have expertise, but Hhkohh is making it unnecessarily messy for who-knows-what reason. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • @Doomsdayer520: I am sorry to do so. Hhkohh (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Support a months delsort topic ban - Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular websites they were correct with the first 2 delsorts but that's where it should've stopped, Anyway if after the topicban they continue then they should be blocked for a week but at present I feel blocking would be OTT, A months topic ban would allow them to reread WP:DELSORT and to watch various AFDs so that they can see how it should be done. –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Struck in light of the below proposal. –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am increasingly concerned that they don’t want to understand the issue. Witness this edit, from this morning (now reverted) in which once again they put something not really related to California in the California delsort. Seeing as this is precisely what drew my attention in the first place, and they at least acted like they accepted that it was wrong, I think there may be a deeper problem than just not being fully aware of norms for deletion sorting. (Also, is it normal to be creating RFD logs four or five days in advance?) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why would you not want to understand something ? I don't get that but then again I guess that could fall into the WP:IDHT territory but I just don't get why one wouldn't want to understand something, Anyway yeah those creations are problematic they don't need to be created that early' ..... Perhaps a CIR block might be best ? ... Dunno ROPE & all that. –Davey2010^Talk 19:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interpret "they don't want to understand" as "they simply don't care". ansh666 20:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh right thanks Ansh666, I took it as they didn't want to I guess learn ?, AH well thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely there that "Carolina" was misread as "California". There are others that are probably not sorted as intended - Mr. Criminal and James P Honey AFDs added to the authors list for example, presumably because they are songwriters, which are categorised as writers, and the authors category redirects to Category:Writers although in deletion sorting there is "authors" but no "writers". Peter James (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at their talk page and other discussions at WT:DELSORT, I'm not sure that Hhkohh has enough proficiency in English to be doing this kind of stuff. They seem to frequently misunderstand suggestions and questions that aren't in simple language. ansh666 21:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I agree with Ansh666. Beeblebrox I just request for other people comment because I cannot understand your saying at that time. I will remove some delsort per Davey2010 suggestion. If I sort into wrong pages next time, please let me know so that we can discuss, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I just misunderstood other people saying, sorry Hhkohh (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox Since bot is down, I just help create RfD log page Hhkohh (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let’s go down these responses point by point:

• You say you agree with with Ansh666. What they have said is that you don’t seem to understand English very well, and/or that you don’t really care. If you can’t understand English and can’t follow a conversation in English, that’s a serious problem so far as contributing to the English Wikipedia.
• That you couldn’t or wouldn’t understand what I was trying to tell you is exactly the point. If you aren’t able to understand even after my explaining it several times, you shouldn’t be doing the work you are doing.
• So, it follows from that that just saying “let me know when I do it next time” is not an acceptable response as you apparently aren’t able to understand the issue in the least. You still give no indication that you have the slightest comprehension of the nature of the problem, which would allow you to avoid making the same mistakes again yourself.
• It seems increasingly apparent that at last part of the issue is a lack of proficiency in English. This is the English language Wikipedia. You have to be able to communicate and understand English to contribute effectively here.

I hate to ever say this to anyone, but you may not be able to contribute effectively here unless and until your English abilities are drastically improved from the current state. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Ok, I will not do delsort unless I am sure Hhkohh (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hhkohh, this is not about whether or not you are "sure" or not. Have you not read any of the concerns? I will repeat what Beeblebrox said, "You still give no indication that you have the slightest comprehension of the nature of the problem, which would allow you to avoid making the same mistakes again yourself". Alex Shih (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. I will not violate WP:CANVASS
2. I will only catch primary topic in WP:DELSORT
3. I will improve my English
4. I will try to understand other people saying

Hhkohh (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal:Six month topic ban

Yesterday, while this discussion was under way, Hhkohh added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump baby balloon to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Context simply escapes this person. This is political satire, not a story about a Trump baby. I cannot take the above promises at face value because Hhkohh’s replies here and actions during this discussion show no comprehension of the situation. The promises look like they are just parroting the criticisms and show no depth of understanding. I therefore propose a six month ban from adding any deletion discussion to any deletion sorting list in order to give them time to study and understand the issues with their previous understanding of how deletion sorting is done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Concur. I can't tell if the behavior is willful or simply competence related. At this point it doesn't matter. Tiderolls 17:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. On review of the evidence, I think this is warranted. Hhkohh clearly needs to step away from this activity because it's simply not helping. I see it as more competence-related rather than intentional. Mz7 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for now. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:CIR. Paul August ☎ 18:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As a fellow DSer, I must confess some of his sortings eluded me. Reading through, I was really hoping this could be resolved sans any formal topic bans, as DelSorting is a broad and imprecise activity, with much subject to whomever is doing it (see the DelSort talk page for discussions), but now I think a formal TB is the only way. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per everyone above - Unfortunately right now they're being more of a hinderance than of help to the AFD process. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support myself Hhkohh (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like all this needs is a close form an uninvolved user... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At User talk:Jezyl Galarpe, you can see ten messages from different editors, over the last year, including some from me, about adding information without citing a source, especially creating unreferenced new articles. Some of these articles have later acquired references, but not from this editor. Jezyl Galarpe has not responded to any of these. Jezyl Galarpe has been editing for a year but has never responded to a talk page message. I have pointed out the policies on sourcing and communication, explained where they can find help etc., but nothing. I'm hoping they will communicate here. Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Texbook WP:RADAR user. They just keep plodding on, repeating the same errors and never communicating with anyone. If no reply is forthcoming from thema block is an appropriate response. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Wikipedia:Communication is required. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I’ve issued a short block as they returned to editing and ignored this discussion, as well as yet another question on their talk page. If they continue in this manner after the block expires an indef block would be in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Julio Puentes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JP has been creating unreferenced articles or articles with no clear references or just imdb. They have been creating articles for 9 years, most of which (from those I've seen) are tagged as unref, refimprove or notability concerns. After 18 messages I have got nowhere. I have offered help, directed to advice, explained the policies on sourcing and communication etc. but after eight months of this I've run out of other options. Their previous block in 2016 appears to be for edit warring. Some had imdb listed as their source and removed, there have also needed to be re-writing of some of the articles because they were copyvios of imdb. I think imdb has been their only source for most of their articles, but they won't clarify.

For full details of the discussion, please see User talk:Julio Puentes#Warning. They have replied twice but neither message has been reassuring:

• Hello, sorry for being a bit lazy, it's just that the whole bureaucracy of Wikipedia can honestly be too much of a hassle at times.
• Excuse me, but what is it exactly that you want? I've put the necessary references and tried to include as much information as possible on the articles. I really don't know what else to do.

The second message indicated they were unsure with referencing, despite my explanations and almost a decade of creating articles, so I tried to explain further. 5 more messages later, I don't think they're reading them. Hopefully they'll engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed the username spelling in section title and OP's complaint. Will leave it to other admins to rveiew the evidence itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This user is clearly not wanting to learn the ropes regarding use of reliable sources. There are also some WP:POV issues in their editing history. I am confused why there is no attempt, after many repeated warnings, to try to use reliable sources. They are not listening or perhaps this is a CIR issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've commented on their talk page, linking WP:Communication is required, and explaining their options: either stop, communicate, or get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem with articles, they go through the process of proposed deletion. A block is unnecessary. Another alternative suggestion is to move these articles back into the user's draft space for improvement. A block is the last resort. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this sure looks like last resort territory if they don't try to communicate effectively about the issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2600:100A:B00C:DB60:B875:5F16:5150:75D2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The Supersonic transport vandal is at it again. He edited Airbus A310 and Airbus A300. This IP should be blocked and the pages protected. Funplussmart (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And he vandalized Boeing 737 as well. Funplussmart (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this particular IP was blocked, but chances are the vandal will show up again. This person has made so many disruptive edits over the past year that resulted in many articles about aircraft being protected. This has been discussed on the noticeboard before. Any suggestions? Funplussmart (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging MusikAnimal who was going to create an edit filter, FWIW I was about to close this thread only so I have no opinion/comment on this. –Davey2010^Talk 17:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this user has been banned or not. I think he should at the very least be topic-banned from editing aircraft-related articles. Funplussmart (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Rhoades was deleted following an extensively discussed AFD last July and redirected to a list article. The deletion was resoundingly upheld following a deletion review. There have been multiple attempts to recreate the article, including an effort to reverse he redirect and substitute a thoroughly unsourced, heavily promotional text, and very recently the creation of a draft article including a major BLP violation and an absence of reliable sourcing. (The BLP violation was also reflected in an edit summary). There's been an outbreak of nastiness regarding this porn performer on reddit and other message boards in the recent past, and I see no reason to allow platforms to be created here which might provide additional outlets for it, given the repeated consensus that this performer is not notable.

I therefore ask that Draft:Lana Rhoades be promptly deleted and protected against recreation for at least ninety days; and that the recent history of Lana Rhoades be suppressed and the redirect protected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic: Jeez, how many times I have mentioned I think Hannah Fry is cute now? Stop it Ritchie, stop it.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the cake is a lie ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC) ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD outcome was deletion, and that was endorsed at deletion review, there's no consensus for a redirect, which hides search results. Peter James (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the draft because of the BLP concerns discussed here. Would welcome a review from other admins, especially ones more familiar with the sourcing and BLP practices followed in the WP:PORN-area. Abecedare (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the redirect ECP and move protection for 3 months. Feel free to undo or modify.Guess I'll protect the draft next.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Boki221b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is already indef blocked on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedias, vandalizes articles about medieval Bosnia. Check CentralAuth, this user does the same thing on dewiki, bswiki, hrwiki and enwiki (here). --Munja (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)Yes, I see that out of their 12 edits since they created the account in April, their edits have not been helpful. There hasn't been one post to their user talk page, though, until this ANI notice.

• Tvrtko I of Bosnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pavlović noble family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ‎
• Pavle Radenović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ‎
• Borač (fortress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And, I see a total of 25 edits across four languages here. This all seems to have become an issue with the upload of 2 files to commons on July 13, which the user tried to add to the articles.

There should at least have been a warning about disruptive editing. They are blocked indefinitely on the bs and hr language wikis.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please take a look at this, this and this and offer me some advice. I'm disappointed by the complete lack of cross-wiki coordination.

I've also posted the above at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Advice? nagualdesign 04:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as cross wiki coordination nagualdesign. Each language wiki is an entirely separate organization. The restrictions enacted (agreed to, whatever) on en.wiki only apply on en.wiki. No comment on the advisability or utility of this, just stating the facts. John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in my original report, I realize that WP:ANI may have no jurisdiction over on Commons, or no interest in some of those links/diffs, in which case I would counter that Winkelvi is gaming the system. Well, there you have it. Guanaco has kindly offered to have a word with him over on Commons. You can follow the ensuing discussion here. His response so far exemplifies his attitude to a tee.

Hint: He's playing the nice, fun guy at en.wp now because he thinks he "won". = "I've been following his contributions on en.wp."

Although simply following my contributions doesn't equate to hounding per se I think it demonstrates his continuing fixation on me as well as his warped perception. His voluntary IBan was disingenuous and he's simply changed tack. More to the point, there's nothing to lose by issuing a permanent interaction ban both here and on the Commons, and enforcing them if necessary. (I say that here because this section is linked to from Commons.)

In short, I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. If my hands weren't tied I'd just shrug my shoulders and tell him to eff-off, but if I'm expected to play nicely then I expect him to be held to account. He's deliberately antagonizing me, and transparently so. nagualdesign 06:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to stay off commons for a month or two, and stop mentioning him. Every time you mention things like "warped perception" and "disingenuous" over here, he's going to react over there (because there's an interaction ban here). While the interaction ban is very correctly one-way only, stuff like this is only going to exacerbate the issue. Fish+Karate 09:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised that Winkelvi is continuing to make an asshat out of himself. One would think he'd learn to just leave well enough alone. I'm sorry you're dealing with this. --Tarage (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My account got compromised. I do not know who did it. Could have been anyone. A hacker, a classmate, who knows? The compromiser made two edits. First, he or she created my talk page and spammed it with some random message. Next, he or she stated that hacking was fun on my user page. Fortunately, the compromiser did not edit any actual pages, otherwise I could have been blocked or something. Since I am new here, I do not know what to do. Should I start a new account? Help me please. ShangKing (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The talk page was spammed again, this time logged out, most likely by the same compromiser. I reverted it again. The unregistered IP address (Special:Contributions/120.36.194.35) that performed the spam is mine, but it apparently got compromised. ShangKing (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your account is compromised, it should be blocked. Change your password immediately, otherwise I will have to block if any further vandalism occurs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Sh2ngKing (talk · contribs) as a vandalism only account. Regardless of whether the opening post is genuine (account compromised) or just a troll having a laugh (not here to write an encyclopedia), the next step has to be an indefinite block of ShangKing, which I have now done. Zzuuzz has taken care of the IP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I've informed them that they can try again with a new account, when any problems have been resolved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I request the admins to have a look at some of the following pages. Cricket246 (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...what pages? Natureium (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2018 IPL match 58
• Template:2018 IPL match 59
• 2018 Indian Premier League
• 2017 Indian Premier League
• 2016 Indian Premier League
• 2015 Indian Premier League

The user had already made disrupting edits to the pages as an IP, that's why the templates are semi-protected.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: Extremely sorry for an incomplete message, that was due to disturbances in internet connectivity at that moment. Anaxagoras13 has listed all those concerned pages and the edit history how User Mayerroute5 is disrupting those pages even after being warned and blocked once. Messages were also left on his talkpage but in page. He is causing disruption and the management of it is becoming very difficult. I request a permanent block on him or some other very strong action as his contribution history will show only disruption in a variety of pages and absolutely nothing that is beneficial for Wikipedia. Cricket246 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I de-archived this because the user continues his behaviour now as IP:[40].--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An SPA account named Ctmv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in what appears to be a campaign of disruption at this article.

In the last week or so, they've added almost 25,000 characters to the talk page in the form of numerous walls of text, one atop the other (see for yourself), all in order to push that we refer to the concept as the "Holy Trinity" in the lede, despite an existing and remaining consensus not to. So far, they've started 8 sections on that page, including such bizarre threads as Who is C.S. Lewis ? and Why is he being spoken of in third person in the article lede?.

As of today, they're edit warring, with 3 reverts as I type this: 1 2 3. Also note that the original edit they're edit warring over is, itself, a manual revert of materials previously added by this editor (here, with a highly deceptive edit summary) and removed (here). Most of the responses they're made at talk to anyone else engaging with them have been insulting and focused on belittling the knowledge of other editors, without any basis whatsoever. This has included questioning my competence without reason and accusing me of "despising" the subject, again without reason.

When I warned them about their edit warring, they "warned me right back" and then edit warred it back onto my talk page.

I'm about at my wit's end with this editor and ready to tell them what I really think of their single-minded focus and utter inability to grasp even the most basic tenets of this project, objectivity or collaboration. So here I am asking an admin to intervene. I think this editor could benefit from an indef block, as their ability to communicate seems to be below the level required of editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean SPI or SPA? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity [41] Issue with an "also referred to as" phrase in an article. July 17, 2018 ONLY edits

the article Trinity is an article about a Christian theology, therefore it is an article about religion. the term Trinity is also officially referred to as Holy Trinity, therefore the line "also referred to as the Holy Trinity^[1][2][3]" was added. Not before a lengthy discussion in the section Talk:Trinity#Rename_to_Holy_Trinity saw the establishment of the terms "Blessed Trinity" "Holy Trinity" "Trinity" as of equal meaning but different form, therefore a concensus on something had already been established as per the references.

the line "also referred to as the Holy Trinity^[1][2][3]" was introduced with a corresponding (and already used) talk page entry (Talk:Trinity#The_various_terms_used_to_reference_Doctrine/Mystery_the_article_focuses_on) with the revision [42]. The users O3000 and User_talk:MjolnirPants have reverted the edit without making use of proper arguments in the aforementioned talk page section. What's more I was received with blatant profanity in the talk section of one of the users [43]. Before, a similar edit had been introduced with several "also referred to as" it was discouraged because they were deemed too many, also the references were pointing to a same religious congregation when the article is multi-confessional, therefore a shrinked to one "also referred to as" statement and rferenced the needed phrase with references from several religious movements so I'm compliant with neutral point of view. The users mentioned seem to be of areligious (namely atheism) as exposed in one of the user's talk page. The article does not contain an atheism view on the subject, and even if it did, the: "Trinity" "also referred to as the Holy Trinity" phrase would be needed as it is the term favored by religious congregations as noted by references in the Talk Page. Please weigh in as the user User_talk:MjolnirPants insists in not using the talk page but the revert button. Thanks. Ctmv (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also had previously added an entry in the informal request for help board [44] that Board I think should be the preferred one since it is only about a "also referred to as" phrase, but since it is content related I also posted the request here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmv (talk • contribs)

This is not the place for content discussion. Also, an editor’s religion or lack thereof is not relevant and I would suggest you avoid mentioning such again, anywhere. O3000 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Looks like you added material, then when multiple other users Reverted, you did three reverts within an hour, then you tagged someone else with fewer reverts there than you for editing warring, and then when they removed the notice from their own talk page - which is their right - you reverted his removal, with a little lecture on respect as your comment? And then you come here to report them? I gotta say that the impolite comment you're complaining about does not come across (to these non-admin eyes) as undue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd missed that MP had already weighed in with complaint above. So it shan't count as an Australian throwing-stick. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I agree with the two editors above: this noticeboard does not settle content disputes, it deals only with behaviorial problems, and the behaviorial problem here is that you appear to be trying to force your own preferred version of the article into place against the wishes of a number of other editors. It does not appear that you have a WP:consensus on the talk page for your edits, and you are edit warring.

I would advise you to stop edit warring immediately, and go back to the talk page and try to convince the other editors of the article that your version is to be preferred. If they agree, then you have a consensus and you can add the material. If they don't, they you cannot. It's fairly cut-and-dried. If you continue to edit war, there's every probability that you'll be reported on the edit warring noticeboard and will be blocked from editing for a time. I'm certain you would prefer that not to happen, so please return to the talk page and discuss, preferably without posting extremely long blocks of text which are difficult to read and comprehend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page was used(Talk:Trinity#The_various_terms_used_to_reference_Doctrine/Mystery_the_article_focuses_on). the other editors refuse to use it, in favor of the revert button. no arguments used by the other users. check for yourself, as you undid over something that was referenced on the talk page prior to its introduction on the article page, and not challenged there but with a revert button, that's behavioral. Ctmv (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted seven comments on that page directed at you: six of which you have responded directly to. Every editor here is able to look at the history and current state of that page and see that you are lying through your teeth about me "refusing" to use it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ctmv, this is simply not true. Other editors did engage in discussion. You failed to attain consensus and attempted, repeatedly, to force your additions. O3000 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ctmv After 7 years [45]] it’s probably time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page entry [46] introduced prior to the article edit [47] has not been adressed thus far. but the revert button was used. As per the other discussions it was agreed that several terms exist with the same meaning, and that references have to come from different religious movements, which was the case with the phrase: "also referred to as the Holy Trinity^[1][2][3]" which is complaint with previous discussion and with WP policies. there's a talk page to challenge that with arguments, if arguments is what you decide to use for discussion. My request here is for the edit of the July 17, 2018 ONLY, do not merge my request with yours, you are complaining about talk pages carried out other days, I'm requesting weighin in about the reversions carried out on edits performed on July 17, 2018 with new relevant talk having been added. Ctmv (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MPants came here with a behavioral problem, you want comments about a content dispute. Once more this board does not adjudicate content disputes, it only deals with behavioral problems, so please focus on explaining why you should not be sanctioned for your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess we can add this and this to the list of diffs evincing a lack of competence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to agree with Ctmv on the content dispute, but their comments here are problematic to the point of WP:CIR. The Holy Trinity is not to be confused with my beloved trinity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to their assertions, if you check the talk page, their arguments have been addressed. There's even an html comment on the article, right in the first sentence that reads <!-- DO ''NOT'' ADD THE WORD "HOLY" --> that's been there since at least 2013. I'm not going to argue content here, so I'll leave it at that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power-tilde, loved the Keats quote. All I care about here is process, not content. Process is more important than “truth”. Toward that end, thanks to Theroadislong’s comment about seven years as an SPA, and the comments by the editor here, WP:CIR is an obvious concern. In any case, this is disruptive. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not at all surprised that Power~enwiki would play devils advocate here... again... for no reason... --Tarage (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a plausible argument that Holy Trinity is an alternate title for the article Trinity, which should be mentioned in the lead. Simply because a contributor has competence issues doesn't mean they can't be correct on the merits of some of their complaints. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a plausible argument that you had no business injecting here. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: There is, indeed an argument to be made, and it may even be a compelling one. That being said, the argument starts with the presumption that the existing consensus should be discarded. Also, Tarage raises a good point: This is not the place to discuss content. I would be happy to discuss the naming issue with you at the talk page. I would ask, however, that you wait until this issue is resolved before we start that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal regarding Ctmv as a POV SPA

Ctmv is, quite clearly, a Single Purpose Account. When I checked a few hours ago, they had 124 edits over 7 years, and 50% (exactly 62) of those were to Trinity and Talk:Trinity, while an additional 23% (29 edits) were to Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit in Christianity and Talk:Holy Spirit in Christianity. Add an edit to Jesus here and another to Yahweh there, and we have the clear picture of a tightly-focused SPA.

Being a SPA is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be if the SPA is one with a specific point of view, and that is the case with Ctmv. They are here to make sure that the articles they're focused on strictly adhere to the doctrines of specific religions. This is abundantly clear from their discussions on Talk:Trinity, where everything is measured against Ctmv's understanding of what those doctrines say on that subject. The fact that other editors persist in pointing out to Ctmv that our articles are not vehicles for the dissemination of any particular religion's doctrine, but must instead present information about the totality of their subject matter clearly means nothing to Ctmv, because it is the doctrine, and the doctrine alone that they care about.

This is when being a SPA editor is bad for Wikipedia, when the SPA is not only tightly focused on a single subject, but they also hold to a strict POV about it, and will fight incessantly to make sure that the article reflects that point of view. POV SPA's are a danger to the encyclopedia, because they look like they're contributing in a worthwhile way, but, in fact, they are skewing our articles away from neutrality.

It is my opinion that, since Ctmv has not changed their behavior in 7 (intermittent) years of editing, and their editing is inconsistent with the needs and purposes of our encyclopedia, that Ctmv should not be allowed to edit here any more. Therefore I propose... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Ctmv should be indefinitely blocked from editing

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Editor very clearly does not understand what Wikipedia is for, and seems incapable of getting it. --Tarage (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative A topic ban on Christianity, broadly construed. I do not object to an indefinite block if that is the consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Beyond My Ken and Tarage. (Non-administrator comment)–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) It may look like it, but this wasn't a quick vote where I just agreed. I read the comments here, on the talk page, and the user's edits on other pages. I just don't have anything new to add to what has been said... and don't want to pile on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comments above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - note although I haven't participated much, I've read through the various discussions more or less as they were taking place. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a pile on. Editor’s passion is good for Wikipedia. They should be given another chance to work a bit more collaboratively. An indefinite block shouldn’t be the first step. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor’s passion is good for Wikipedia. I just want to highlight this comment. I just want to point out that someone on ANI actually suggested with a straight face that an editor who's obsessive to the point of disruption, who can't be bothered to conform to WP norms and practices, who posts walls of text and then declares that they have the consensus to do whatever they want because no-one responded within an hour, is "good" for this project. Think about that, folks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where I have suggested any of this. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two entries up !!! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: I literally just quoted you, less than an inch away from where you said it on most monitors, and you're suggesting I'm lying (or possibly mistaken?) about what you said? You know that's not going to work, right? Literally everyone here can see right through that. It's less effective than hiding behind a flag pole and loudly yelling "I'm not here!"

Or maybe you can start arguing that this editor hasn't been at all disruptive, is clearly not an SPA, has never posted a wall of text, and hasn't declared that they get consensus if no-one responds... Please do that, instead. I could use a good laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure let me be a bit more direct. You are absolutely lying if you claim I suggested any of what you wrote, with the exception of the quote regarding the editor’s passion. I certainly agree that the behavior you mention is not ideal, but I do not believe an indefinite block is the first step for this editor. This is a classic ANI pile on, with an indef block looking likely. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Clearly not here to collaboratively build a neutral encyclopedia. The edit warring, IDHT, POV-push, trying to disqualify editors on the basis of religion... none of this is conducive to our goals. If not blocked, a topic ban seems in order. None of these need to be permanent, of course -- sometimes new users misunderstand how this place works. If they show they understand sufficiently, then some leeway/rope could be in order. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I understand being passionate about a subject. I understand you want to make the project better on that subject. However you get to the point that you begin to exclude other editors, and push ONLY your viewpoint, that's when it becomes disruptive. The editor does not want to work collaboratively, and as such a block is justified. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As per Rhododendrites, et al. Editor apparently knows the “truth” and can’t be bothered with attaining consensus. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• TBAN There are three behavioral issues which I see here. 1) Comments about fellow editors which arguably cross the line to personal attacks; 2) A complete failure to drop-the-stick and understand that their view is not the only view; 3) Edit warring. All of these seems to be limited in scope to Trinity and in time to the events which brought us here. I do not think these are bad enough to jump straight to an indef -- we seem to be jumping straight to indefs more and more often.
  In this case I would support a narrowly focused topic ban on the Trinity which, because of how seldome they edit, should be indefinite. Since they are an SPA this may end up being a de facto ban on editing but it leaves open the door to contribute in other areas where, hopefully, their evident strong beliefs may motivate constructive contribution rather than continued disruption. In short, a single episode of disruption on a topic of one's strongly held and central/defining beliefs does not necessarily mean it is not possible to be constructive in less personally sensitive areas. If, when given the chance, they can not find an area of interest where they can subordinate dogma to Wikipedia's content and behavioral requirements then an indefinite block can be made. Jbh ^Talk 18:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to get some discussion on this. A user going by User:Redalert3fan which was created yesterday undid one of my comments on a talk page, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAIS_Airlines&type=revision&diff=850760424&oldid=850364621 . It seems to me that this account was only made to discredit my points on Talk:AIS Airlines or made it seem that I retracted my statements. The change they made also seems rather more on the "promotional" side so this might be someone working for AIS. Any comments on this? Redalert2fan (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked that account as an obvious attempt to impersonate you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, It seems that the talk page keeps getting vandalized by other possible sock accounts and IP's. Not sure if its the place for discussion here but I also filled a request at WP:RFP. If not consider this mater closed :) Redalert2fan (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay for Llywelyn2000 to accuse wikipedia, and hence wikipedia editors, of ethnic cleansing. At present, the style guidelines are ethnically cleansing both nationalities out of history, accusing us of ethnically cleansing Basque and Catalan people. Seems to me to be an unacceptable breach of WP:AGF against users who disagree with them. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see at the top of this page where it says This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems? EEng 08:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to agree with EEng on this one. Accusing other users if not Wikipedia itself of ethnic cleansing (Pretty serious accusation) is by no means acceptable in my opinion and thus makes it urgent. AryaTargaryen (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen[reply]

Urgent because if it's not dealt with right away the consequences will be ... what? The most severe possible result here is a template warning – the OP could have done that himself. Imagine if every such offense was brought to this board! Mountain out of a molehill. Let it go. EEng 09:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain - molehill. From context its obvious they are not accusing editors of ethnic cleansing in say, the way the Bosnian Serbs did, he is stating his opinion that the MOS is being wielded as a bludgeon which is having the effect of removing an ethnic group's identity from ENWP. And I think every long-term editor who reads this board has seen that actually happen by POV-driven editors on articles related to ethnic groups. Its not even an uncommon occurance! And there is only an extent to which I am willing to AGF when it comes to the Catalan issue given the recent editing by some pro-Spanish unity editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last week I brought an apparent sock of ZH8000 to NeilN's attention following an unrelated problem. That account was SW1998, but NeilN determined that it was in fact Architect 134 who apparently has taken to pretending to be socks of other users to cause disruption.

Enter another new user, FL9499 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), just three days after SW1998 was blocked with a very similarly formatted user name. Now, some of the early edits were not particularly problematic apart from creation of unsourced draft articles but if it genuinely is a new user, they have to start somewhere.

However, the vast majority of more recent edits are simply the addition or removal of spaces from various Swiss related articles with no other content change or very minor rewords. It strikes me that whoever is behind this account is simply attempting to become autoconfirmed as rapidly as possible. There has been 120 such edits in the last 24 hours so maybe extended autoconfirmed?. It is the Swiss connection that makes this stand out. Any ideas as to what is occurring?

If this is the wrong place to post this, I apologise, but I am fairly new around here myself. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely they may be related to TZ master/Tobias Conradi based on the near identical recreations. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message which I have just received. And I have come here to read it. I don't even know what autoconfirmed is and have not (yet) looked up what it means. Do I need to? The ZH8000 account is not mine. TZ master/Tobias Conradi is not my account either. The removal of spaces is because I have spotted double, sometimes even triple spaces in quite a few articles, not exclusively Swiss-related. I don't recall there being any addition of spaces, unless I came across a full stop immediately followed by another letter which started off the next sentence. I found several missing full stops and may have added those. FL9499 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]