Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:1017:b002:16fb:4ecb:2a49:85cd:2f31 (talk) at 21:59, 15 April 2017 (→Legal threat: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    "I just want to write the truth. And I also donate to wiki."

    Could someone please do something about 14.193.192.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? They're repeatedly ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) adding material that is out of scope to List of oldest universities in continuous operation, don't know enough English to understand what the list is about, or understand messages on their talk page. And I have really tried to explain what the problem is, both in edit summaries (and yes, they're obviously Wiki-savvy enough to both use edit summaries themself and see what others write in summaries, they just don't know enough English to make themselves understood, or understand others) and on their talk page, including strongly suggesting they should edit the Japanese Wiki insetad of the English language Wiki, but they just continue. Obviously feeling they're entitled to add whatever they want wherever they want since they "donate to wiki". But I give up... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned about edit warring so they'll have to make coherent arguments on the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds very familiar but I can't remember the exact incident, can others? Possibly a return of a blocked user. Andrewa (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds familiar because it's every single banned POV-pusher ever. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely... the phrase I donate to wiki (rather than to Wikipedia) indicates a particular linguistic background, and it has been used before. If they are a repeat offender they may well read this and change it next time, of course. Andrewa (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The only places I can find that phrase used are here, and here (in the form of a question: "Would I donate to wiki? ABSOLUTELY NOT..."} Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one of those diffs is wrong, should be this one, but close. But it's interesting on another level too... it does not appear on my Google search and should. The User talk:Onorem/Archive 9 definitely contains the string. So perhaps there are others I am missing, too. Andrewa (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nesnad posted on the COI noticeboard about a user or users with a possible COI at Monica Youn. Nesnad mentioned "she threatened me with some lawyer-talk." Is this a legal threat? I've notified both Nesnad and the IP editor of this discussion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned. El_C 05:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally a person's request to remove a photo should be taken seriously, but there isn't much wrong with File:Witter Bynner Fellows Poetry Reading 2008 - Monica Youn (cropped).jpg on Commons. It has complied with the relevant Commons guidelines and was taken at a public event. Legal threats aren't the way to go here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see why she would not like it, aesthetically - it is not of portrait quality, by a long way. But the issue here is philosophical: it's a legally permissible image, but that does not necessarily make it a good idea to include it. Mugshots are permissible, but including them as the headshot for an article is kind of problematic. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's a separate issue (plus Commons can be complete asshats about this kind of thing, they have never shown any inkling of understanding that just because you can doe something, that doesn't mean you should). This is an enWP problem. A subject has only one available Commons image, the subject does not like the image. Whether to include it or not is a purely editorial judgment. The best solution is always to negotiate release of a photo the subject prefers, and approaching it in full-on angry mastodon mode doesn't make that any more likely to happen. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Thanks. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, I respect your efforts to be diplomatic. That's great. Buuuuut. This is an encyclopedia not a publicity machine. It doesn't matter if the subject "likes" the photo or not. We aren't here for her publicity, we are here to depict the subject. That's all. Cheers. Nesnad (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Removing the image was the wrong move. El_C 12:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well hey, I thought that photo looked awfully familiar. Agree with the above. We have no obligation to comply with the subject's personal preferences in minor areas of aesthetics. We do however have an assumed obligation to present the best article we can, which includes using the best images available. If the subject has a strong opinion about it, then it should serve as impetus for them to take and upload a better version or follow the steps to release one for use. TimothyJosephWood 12:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look around and it isn't difficult to find images or videos of Monica Youn appearing at public events. If the disputed image was the only image available it might be a problem, but there would need to be an explanation of why it was causing a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because a photograph was taken at a public event doesn't make it acceptable for upload here or to Commons. Here, it has to fulfill WP:NFCC, which, unless it was a free or a compatibly licensed image, it won't be. A non-free image won't be accepted for a subject that is alive and for whom there are free images available. For upload to Commons, it also has to be free or compatibly licensed, and no non-free images are accepted unless they are released by the copyright holder. Being taken at a public event is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Being taken at a public event by the Library of Congress is relevant. At any rate, I am in apparent contact with the subject and we can probably close this. TimothyJosephWood 18:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not relevant to whether it can be used on Wikipedia or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no? It's actually centrally relevant since original creative works by US Federal Government employees created in the course of their duties are de facto in the public domain if non-sensitive and unclassified. TimothyJosephWood 21:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which has nothing whatsoever to so with whether the photo was taken at a public event, and everything to do with whether it was taken by a US government employee in the course of their duties, wherever it was taken. It could have been shot in the Oval Office bathroom, the 15th sub-basement of the CIA building, or on Mars, for that matter. 22:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    Incidentally, no one mentioned the Library of Congress or government-employee-produced-image in this conversation until quite late. All that was said originally was "at a public event", which is what I responded to, and which is, to repeat, not relevant to an image's status as usable here. Some images taken at public events will be usable, some will not be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't help feeling that an important point is being missed here. Yes, the image is perfectly legal. Nobody disputes that. The issue is that the usbject apparently seriously dislikes it. It's not a particularly fine photo, so I can kind of see why. Enforcing use of a photo - a decorative element, not really core information - against the clearly expressed preferences of the subject, is a bit of a dick move. There are better ways of handling this than "no, fuck off, we're allowed to use it". Guy (Help!) 07:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oath2order

    Oath2order has been constantly refusing to leave the table on the article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) alone regardless of an ongoing discussion [6] regarding the issue. Through my time as an editor on Wikipedia I have learnt from various editors and discussions that the article should remain as it is prior to changes until the discussion is complete, something which this user is refusing to do. They also go against policy on the use of HIGH's and LOW's, in which they have ignored the hidden note added by an editor to the table as seen here [7]. In the same edit they also sneakily change the table before the discussion has closed. They have acknowledged previously that the use of HIGH and LOW is (in their own words} " technically against policy " in this discussion here [8]. They have also said specifically to myself on the talk page of article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) that " I hope you have fun spending what will probably be a long time reverting edits here. :) "which seems to indicate that they are editing on purpose specifically to be disruptive. I have informed the user multiple times to leave the table until discussion is complete multiple times across many of the other season articles as seen here [9] [10] [11] [12] yet they continue to change it. Brocicle (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What you're doing is unpopular. I said "enjoy constantly reverting" because anonymous people will continue to do it. Not me. And stop editing S9E1. That's blatantly not OR. Oath2order (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also amusing that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the anonymous editors but you know. Oath2order (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about "popularity", it's about the fact that the discussion is ongoing. You changed it well after you stated that which can clearly be seen in the diffs. Never said it was OR but as other editors, including yourself have said high/low is against policy. Also you, as a registered editor should know to take note of edit summaries and respect policy and standards, which you continue to ignore due to personal preferences. Brocicle (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it's about popularity. I said that it's the anonymous editors that are going to keep reverting back to the highs and lows. Sure, the discussion is ongoing, but that is not going to stop the anonymous editors from doing what they do. You took my quote out of context. Before that I said "there'll be quite some outrage", strongly implying that'll be from the other people. As you've been one of the people reverting, you should know full well that I'm not the only person who's been doing that. You come here to complain about me, but looking at your contributions, you have not done anything to attempt to mitigate what the anonymous editors are doing.
    You mention that I agreed that HIGH and LOW is against policy. You do understand that things change in discussion, right? That's what happened. I discussed it with other users and we came to an agreement on how the tables should be formatted until you decided to intervene.
    Finally, I would like to mention that the examples of reversions that I've done that you've posted were on April 5. One of them was not even something I've done (link 75) so I don't know why you shared that. But. April 5th. That's when you first joined the discussion on Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9). You'll note that with the except of one edit on season 9, I have not reverted anything. I listened to what you said in the edit summary. Oath2order (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done anything? Reverting with an explaination, and pointing them in the way of the discussion seems like doing something to me. Yes, things can change in discussion but that doesn't change the fact that you acknowledged it is against policy yet went against it and discussing it with ONE user hardly holds merit. There are multiple diffs included of you reverting without reason on more than just the season 9 page, after I explained to keep it as it was originally until the discussion is complete, along with sneakily adding in the high/low to each episode under the pretense of your edit summary discussing the first episode alone on April 8th. I said exactly what I said in the episode summary multiple times on the talk page and in the reverts before you decided to pay attention to it, which a quick look at the edit history shows. Also when I joined the discussion has no relevance, an editor may choose to join a discussion at any time if they choose. Brocicle (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brocicle: Except that the anonymous editors and other users have done far more than I have. Why aren't you reporting them here?
    You joined the discussion on April 5th, and your first edits telling me to stop reverting and go to the discussion were on April 4th and April 5th. So, let's look at the edits.
    Let's look at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1). You edited on April 4th, which I admit I reverted, and you edited once more directly after, reverting my revert. The edit on the 4th of April was your first time in the last 500 edits where you told anybody to stop reverting and go to the discussion page. These 500 edits go back through January of 2014. The next time I edited this page was on April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Let's look at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2). You edited on April 4th, which I again admit I reverted, and you edited once more directly after, reverting my revert. As with Season 1, the edit on the 4th of April was your first time in the last 500 edits, where you told anybody to stop reverting and go to the discussion page. These 500 edits go back through April of 2016. The next time I edited this page was on April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Season 3, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert my revert, first edit of yours in the last 500 edits, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through July 2015. Next time I edited was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Season 4, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back to July 2016. Next time I edit was never, actually.
    Season 5, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through May 2016. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Season 6, same thing. Edit on April 3rd, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through February 2016. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Season 7, same thing. Edit on April 4th, and I did not revert anything. This is the first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through July 2015. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Season 8, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through April 2016. Next time I edit was never.
    Season 9, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, this is first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion.
    RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 1) is different as you have never told anybody to go to a discussion page, or edited within the past 1000 edits, for that matter.
    RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 2) is different as you have never told anybody to go to a discussion page.
    So, with that evidence here, let's look at your argument. Quotes of yours are in bold/italics, my responses are not.
    Quote A: Oath2order has been constantly refusing to leave the table on the article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) alone regardless of an ongoing discussion regarding the issue. This has been proven false. The word constantly implies that I've been ignoring what you've been saying; it implies that there's been an edit war over the status of the table. This is wrong. Throughout each season, I have shown that you have directly told me once to go to the discussion on the season 9 talk page. It is not a "constant" refusal. It's been nearly a week since you first told me to go to the discussion page, where I have only edited the pages in a method that would be compliant with WP:MOS, not even touching the HIGH and LOW that we have been discussing. If you did have an issue with the white "win" text, I apologize, as as far as I'm aware, you've said absolutely nothing on the matter.
    Quote B: They also go against policy on the use of HIGHs and LOWs And you're wrong here. I have not been adding HIGHs and LOWs. I've added different coloring, which the users on the talk page came to a consensus about before you joined the discussion. Now, as you mention, yes, I know that editors can join a discussion at any time. However, at the time, that was the consensus. Consensus is ever-changing, I understand that. But you have to remember that that was what it was at the time.
    Quote C: They have acknowledged previously that the use of HIGH and LOW is (in their own words} " technically against policy " in this discussion here And that's why we, the editors on the talk page, came to the agreement about the coloring. See comments in Quote B about consensus at the time and how it changes.
    Quote D: which seems to indicate that they are editing on purpose specifically to be disruptive This is wrong. See comments in Quote B about consensus at the time and how it changes.
    Quote E: I have informed the user multiple times to leave the table until discussion is complete multiple times across many of the other season articles as seen here You know, adding this in is extremely disingenuous. You're implying that I've been constantly reverting. I haven't. As I've said in Quote A, you warned me about the talk page and then I stopped reverting.
    Quote F: discussing it with ONE user hardly holds merit. Given that that's all who was talking at the time, and that's all who had been in that discussion since it started on March 28th, you can't really claim that it "hardly holds merit". Nobody else was joining; you can't blame me for nobody else joining the discussion.
    Quote G: in which they have ignored the hidden note added by an editor You do understand that I was the one who added the hidden note, right?
    Quote H: There are multiple diffs included of you reverting without reason on more than just the season 9 page. I reverted without reason once, and gave the second reason here.
    Final Notes: You come off disingenuous here. Your tone and wording acts as if I'm edit warring, and ignoring a long extended period of notes and warnings to stop reverting and go to the talk page. As proven above, this is just downright false. Oath2order (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're interpreting tone to your own will. Also yes, you did add high and low in this edit here [13] which you can clearly see in the diff. Why ignore the note if you added it yourself? You're more than welcome to ask other editors for their opinion on something, especially since only one other person was in the discussion and was about a mass change to all seasons. Two people having a discussion for a day hardly constitutes a consensus. Rather than follow protocol you deliberately went through each season to revert without reason. You're also mentioning the anonymous editors, question is why aren't YOU doing something about it? Trying to shift the responsibility to me when you acknowledge what they're doing is rather poor. And if you know high /low is against policy why in your recent edits have you not removed them? Pot kettle situation but whatever. Brocicle (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brocicle: I ignored the note because as I have repeated numerous times, the consensus at the time was to remove them. The discussion about high and low started on March 28th, it was not "just a day". The anonymous editors and reverting of pages quite simply is not my job. I'm sorry but you can't try and make something my responsibility. I use Wikipedia in a different way than you do. Oath2order (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your discussion specifically with User:Seanmurpha lasted a day. You ignored the note on April 8th which was long after the discussion about the "consensus" had begun. Utterly ridiculous that you sit there and try and make something my responsibility and when it is turned around back on you backtrack. Very ironic. Brocicle (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brocicle: Yes, and if you read the rest of the talk page, you would see that HIGHs and LOWs were discussed with User:Realitytvshow in the section titled "HIGHs and LOWs" which started on March 28th. You can't look at one single part of a discussion and say Okay, yes, I ignored one note post-warning. One. Throughout all seasons. You're trying to make this into a far bigger deal than it actually is. I'm not making anything your responsibility; you've seemed to take that upon yourself by just starting to warn numerous editors, both registered and anonymous. It's not ironic because what you don't seem to understand is that I use this site differently than you. It's not my responsibility, nor is it my obligation to police other users on their edits. It's not my responsibility, nor is it my obligation to revert the other users edits. I'm sorry if you don't like the way I edit.
    You have absolutely no right to get mad at me for adding the lightblue/pink colors to the table. There was a discussion among three registered users, with anonymous editors popping in and out every so often. We achieved a consensus on how the pages should be laid out. Following the simple diagram under WP:EDITCONSENSUS, we had a previous consensus for cornsilk SAFE. The page was edited to reflect that consensus. The article was edited further. I did not agree. We followed the "seek a compromise". I have done absolutely nothing to warrant you opening up this discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Oath2order (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a content dispute. Guys, ANI does not handle content disputes. Please take it to the article(s)'s talk page(s) and gain clear WP:CONSENSUS there. If you can't gain consensus, look into and utilize some form of dispute resolution. I also advise posting a neutral request for input on the talkpage of the parent article, RuPaul's Drag Race. If there is edit-warring, then warn the other user about edit-warring on thier talk page, and report at WP:ANEW if they persist. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behavior especially falsely accusing others by User:Rævhuld

    Complaint

    Sorry if this is too long but I request you to read it carefully. Hello User:Rævhuld, has recently been involved in disruptive behavior especially falsely accusing others. The incident started after his sourceless edits at 2017 Stockholm attack were removed. After that he comments on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack stating that it should be mentioned as Islamic terrorism. But instead of giving any reliable sources which state that this attack was done so out of such motives, as reliable sources are required, he makes false claims that "the attacker has accepted he did it for ISIS" even though no source made or reported such a claim and there were only suspects and no definite identity of the attacker. He also made insinuations and indirect accusations questioning that "knowledge is not allowed" and "Is Wikipedia a safe space"? His claims seem to be based on local media reports that the suspect arrested in the case had posted pro-ISIS propaganda online. However as that isn't anything itself about the nature of the attack and still unconfirmed information at this point. There have been reports about ISIS links but these were reported after some of Rævhuld's edits regarding Islamic terrorism and comments. Regardless, there has been nothing about the attack itself and as such unsourced edits or text not present in the sources cannot be added. He later made another claim on the talk page that ISIS claimed responsibility even though it didn't. His sourceless edits have been removed by multiple users with all of them over the reason that there isn't any source or the source isn't saying what he added: [14], [15], [16], [17]

    I tried telling him several times that the sources made no such reports as he has been claiming and his claims amount to OR and self-interpretation: [18], [19], [20]. However, instead of listening to it, he threatened me with edit-warring block, even though I had made only one revert that too by assimilation with other edits and sources. I didn't make any further reverts in any sense whether it be simple undoing or editing it back along with new content. I explained this in the edit summary while removing his warning. I again stated to him that the sources did not say what he claimed. I further lengthened the comment, asking him not to issue threats and notified him that he himself had reverted at atleast once. Seeing as we both had made the same number of reverts and the user should keep to the standars which he is setting, I warned him about his reverts as well. He however again issued the notice despite being notified about his own behavior and I had already read his warning. I removed it again and told him in the edit summary not to comment again or edit-war on my talk page.

    However he commented again and falsely accused me of "harassing" him even though I only commented once, warning him about his reverts. He also claimed that "But you were blocked because of edit war on the exact same article". However I was blocked for edits on 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing, not 2017 Stockholm attack. Notice the difference please, as you have been misreading a lot. And the reason I was blocked for were reverts trying to follow BPL, but I already apologized for that and even another administrator thought it was wrong for me to be straight away blocked instead. Regardless, it is completely another incident now in the past. Rævhuld had himself reverted at least once. I told Rævhuld about all of this and also warned him to stop falsely accusing others including me of harassment. However he removed it, falsely accusing me again of harassment even though I did no such thing nor meant any harassment, I only told him about his comment and warned him to desist from his disruptuve behavior.

    He actually made 2 reverts in 24 hours: [21], [22] though I desisted from telling him even though his reverts at the article were more this as at the topic was about using sources and not misrepresenting them. There are several other disruptive behavior which he did including claiming my warning him about his reverts as "Ridiculous". He also was agressive to User:AusLondonder, claiming his comment was "Ridiculous" even though all AusLondoner told him was to stick to one variety of English as required per guidelines. Also while I was writing this complaint, he has complained about me, wrongly accusing me of "harassing" him and claiming I was blocked over the article (I wasn't, as already said it was a past incident at another article 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing and I already apologized for it). He also goes against another rule, not to accuse others falsely of disruption and he also didn't provide any diffs. I request that he be warned not to falsely accuse others and engage in disruptive behavior. Thank you.

    Also I forgot to mention earlier, I never reverted Rævhuld. I was friendly to him and added some sourced material which he had earlier misrepresented. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Please note that a section started by Rævhuld about MonsterHunter32 was removed by User:Vujjayani. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Why was it deleted? And that by a sock puppet, which was banned short time after? Could we please set it back in again?--Rævhuld (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I have reported him for harassing me on this website. Someone (Monster?) has removed my plead for help. This user is harassing me, could someone please stop him? It's unbearable! I reported him because of edit war and he was blocked. Then he harassed my talk page. I asked him to stop his abusive behaviour and he harassed me again on my talk page. Then I asked you admins to stop him and someone - as far as I can see it, it's Monster - removed my post about him being abusive.
    Honestly, can you please stop him?
    PS! Could someone please check if User:Vujjayani is one of his sock puppets? Which other reason should this user have to delete an entry here (vandalism)?--Rævhuld (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rævhuld: Vujjayani was a sockpuppet of Nsmutte, a long-term abuser and troll, who vandalises for no reason other than to harass other users. --bonadea contributions talk 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS! Just read his talk page! A lot of people agree with me on his aggressive behaviour. Someone said he should step back and drink a tea! Please, someone, could you please stop him from harassing me? And why was my post about him deleted by a blocked user? Could you please set my plead of blocking him on my talk page back in?--Rævhuld (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Rævhuld, do not baselessly accuse me of being a sockpuppet of User:Vujjayani or him being mine. Just because someone removed your comment doesn't mean you can hint at me or baselessly accuse me of it, the comments of many other people were deleted, not just you. I was the one to complain him. When I originally made this comment, I cited the article name of ANI as well as the section of your complaint as that time your comment was there. After some time I noticed your complaint was gone, which i exactly why I changed the link to the section of the article to the diff of when your complaint was made. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am accusing you of bein a bully. I am not accusing you of being a sock puppet. I only ASKED if someone could check if the new user who "accidentally" deleted my post could be a sock puppet of yours. That is at least a possibility. That is not an accusation, I only asked the admins to control it. Since it's very suspicious that someone deletes me trying to get help getting rid of harassment and suddenly the post is gone and the harasser is posting about me.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And now what harrasment and edit-war are you talking about? I only commented once on your talk page, that too to notify and warn you anout your reverts, before you falsely started accusing me of harassment. Also what block are you talking about. My 24-hr block was made for 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing 5 days ago. That is over and I apologised for it. On 2017 Stockholm attack where you reverted twice, I reverted once. And I am providing undoubtable proof for everything I say. Please do not falsely accuse me, it is you whose behavior is becoming a harassment to me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you undid more than once. The only difference is, that you did it manually. Not to mention that I got an edit war warning on my talk page - and I decided not to edit again on the article. Some hours later you put an edit war warning on my talk page, clearly because I did in on yours because of your edit warring. I asked you in a polite way to stop harassing me. But you know what? You continued. Then I asked the admins to just block my talk page so you can't reach it. Funny how this was deleted.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rævhuld, I undid only once and you did it twice. But I didn't start accusing you of edit-warring automatically. Your claims clearly seem to be not put of any good intent. I warned you because of your reverts, you should apply the ideals to your own self as well, please do not complain of "harassment" that too when one warns you simply for your mutiple reverts. Just after one warnng for your reverts, you started accusing me of "harassment". I wouldn't even have commented on your talk page again if you hadn't falsely accused me of harassing you. Your talk page cannot be blocked, the user has to stay away. I told you not to falsely accuse others, when you still kept being disruptive I warned you. But you don't listen. You also made negative comments against others. You have broken mutiple rules. That's why I have complained against you. I was making my complaint before yours got published. So please do not blame me with excuses or false accusations when your behavior is the reason behind it all. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also while you say are requesting admins to "block" your talk page, I was the only one who asked you to stay off my talk page and not come again with warnings. Of course you came back to falsely accuse me of "harassment" even though I had only commneted once on your article when you first accused me of "harassment" and that comment too you removed. These are complete double-standards in your behavior. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you lie. You harassed my and I asked you to stay away from me. Then you harassed me again. I wrote to the admins. And then you wrote to the admins. And everyone who reads your talk page is clear about who is the bully here.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I want is to not being bullied here. If someone just can block you from editing ever again on my talk page, I would be happy with that outcome.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rævhuld I "lie". I go the pains of a hour of collecting all the evidence, I avoid making needless disputes with you, yet I "lie". Do I? You never asked me to stay away from my talk page, but after me warning you for edit-warring, I didn't come again except to warn you to not make any false accusations against anyone. All you asked me was to stop harassing. Even though I never harrased you nor made many comments at your talk page except when warning you for when your behavior was against rules. I didn't bully you, but you sound like I am some sort of "evil sadistic person". In good spirt, I asked you to desist from any attacks and accusations on others. You didn't desist, what else will I do but complain you? I asked you to stay away from my talk page, you didn't. Don't comment about what others are seeing, contemplate on your own behavior. No one can block anyone from editing on anyone's talk page, but I haven't commented on your talk page except to provide you warning for your behavior. The only other comment was to notify you of this ANI complain as a notification is mandated by the rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also per you User:Rævhuld, me notifying you about the ANI complaint against you is "Harassment" even though it is required by the rules to inform the one who you complained of. Also I forgot to mention. You say you did not accuse me of being a sockpuppet. But you made it clear in your own comment that you think Vujjayani can be the sockpuppet of no one but me: PS! Could someone please check if User:Vujjayani is one of his sock puppets? Which other reason should this user have to delete an entry here (vandalism)? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Rævhuld why did you feel it necessary to add material that has not been verified yet (if ever)? You can't simply say someone is harassing you just because you do not like what they write, especially if their side goes with consensus. Also, just wondering, is this your first account? On your userpage, you awarded yourself a barnstar and in the description it states you have been editing for several months. However, that is not possible because that was self-received during your first month here. Could you elaborate?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Which not verified material did I add where? I used source on all my work. And yes, this is my first account. I had an account many years ago, but that was just one week and I forgot my log in data. When I created my page, I just took another users talk page as inspiration. And I actually provided evidence for the harassment. Just view the post that was illegally deleted here. He harassed me. I asked him kindly if he could stop. And he just continued. End of story. --Rævhuld (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And? What do you want? If you could some Danish you would know that my name means "fox hole" and not asshole. There is something called Danish English. You removed it and claimed it did not exist. I saw my mistake and did not put it back. Are you happy now? This has nothing to do with the topic. I am being harassed by a user.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Rævhuld Oh, but I do know Danish, and a fox burrow is "rævegrav" in Danish, not "rævhuld" (check this article about the red fox on da-WP: "ungerne fødes i en såkaldt rævegrav, en gang udgravet f.eks. i en bakkeskråning", and a search on "rævhuld" on Google yields nothing but a username on a number of websites, including WP. So who do you think you're fooling?. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas.W thanks for the read. I am more convinced this is not a new user and even if he/she is they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Why was Rævhuld not blocked during that discussion?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't seem to consider to wait for information to come in and sources to say anything. He kept claiming the sources said "The attacker has admitted he did it for ISIS" and "ISIS has claimed responsibility" which is a misrepresentation of sources. This seems to be based on local media reports that the suspect arrested in the case had posted pro-ISIS propaganda on social media. However, what he added was completely something which the sources never claimed and these reports about pro-ISIS propaganda too are just reports, and any link with the group is not confirmed. Either he isn't properly reading the sources or is violating rules wilfully. Oh and Rævhuld, nobody is stating your names means "asshole" even if they thought so in the past. If they think your user profile reflects that you aren't a new user, then that they can investigate. So yes, it is entirely relevant unlike your repeated baseless claims of anyone harassing you or insinuation of others being a sockpuppet just because your complaint was deleted. Nor many of your edits were actually based on what the sources said. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As for unverified content, some of it is here:[23], [24], [25], [26]. Also I doubt one week amounts to months. Even if you did, you should mention it on your user page. From your user page, it is clear you aren't correctly claiming you edited for past many months. If you only copied the other as inspiration, it seems odds for you defending it. You are harrasing others yourself Rævhuld, such disruptive behavior cannot be tolerated. You must stay within the rules. Falsely accusing others is completely against them. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I earlier thought he was misinterpreting and didn't have much knowledge about him violating the rules through his behaviour, but based on this it seems he is behaving in this way deliberately and wilfully. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand that statement, Thomas.W L3X1 (distant write) 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been days since the complaint was made but no action has been taken. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The above user is now threatening myself with a legal threat after I removed an image he uploaded to West Midlands mayoral election, 2017 as it was a copyvio, with no written permission on OTRS. Could someone block them please, per WP:NLT and WP:NOTHERE. They also fail WP:COI as is related/connected woth Beverley Nielsen, whom they are promoting. Thanks. Also reported through AIV. Nördic Nightfury 14:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked His Illustrious Highness, the Count Adam Nicholas Schemanoff, BSc (Hons), FdSc. --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched both here and on the Commons, but I couldn't find a place where the user was specifically told to contact OTRS to verify the permissions. I've now done so on their talk page. Mz7 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to lie, I don't believe a word that has come out of TecSatans mouth here. My greatest problem here is the failure to issue the threat with basic English proficiency. Fair not fare; copyright not copy right; obverse outrages behaviour means, literally, opposite to outrageous behavior; outrageous behavior not outrages behaviour; disproved or proved to be false is a tautology, they mean the same thing; and finally, a supporter of one ..., not, a support of one .... Serious question to people with legal knowledge; Sadly, the law and electoral commission guidelines supersedes any terms and conditions that may be held by Wikipedia - does UK law have even the slightest jurisdiction on Wikipedia's affairs? to my knowledge, the encyclopaedia is under US jurisdiction. Under what circumstances could the encyclopaedia be affected by external judicial affairs? I get that for copyright we employ both US and origin country copyright laws, but, is this to protect the encyclopaedia from being sued or censored? If there is a policy or page I can read for this kind of information I'd greatly appreciate it. Recently I've gained an interest in how legal structures operate in different countries and the interplay between nations. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I understand it, British law allows for libel cases to be filed regardless of whether there is any British jurisdiction, and I would presume that extends to other civil suits as well. But I don't think a person could be charged with any sort of criminal offense based on an edit to WP, even if that person is a British national residing in the UK, given what (admittedly little) I know about international jurisdiction. In truth, I'd be a little disappointed if a person were able to be charged with a crime over an edit to WP in any jurisdiction, though I wouldn't be particularly surprised. Note that I'm an American, and am, therefore, by definition ignorant about all things that can't be deep fried or have a bald eagle silk-screened onto them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't supposed to deep fry the eagle? No one ever told me L3X1 (distant write) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    Deep fried eagle? That's just blindly harmful over enthusiasm; destroying the very thing you wish to honor. It doesn't get any more 'Murikan than that!!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd point out that the legal threat the user was making was to go to the police and have an editor charged with electoral fraud because he removed the editor's preferred candidates's picture from Wikipedia. This is so comical that either the user is trolling us or they haven't got a clue about the laws on electoral fraud, which is ironic if he is interested in promoting a candidate in an election. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You wouldn't expect kings to know the finer points of electoral law, tho'. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He has now claimed that not only have complaints been made, but a cease and desist order has been issued. However, if he is indeed the person that he claims to be, a swift Google will probably explain the reality of the situtation... Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a rapid response. I wish my local constabulary would react with such alacrity. The last (and hopefully, only) time I had to take out a restraining order against someone, it took about 5 months to go through. To be fair, a temporary one was issued after a mere 2 weeks (and the subject getting arrested on related charges). But still, it begs the question: to whom, exactly, was the court order issued? I humbly suggest that even if the threat were to be retracted, there would remain another obstacle to an unblock. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And the source of His Highness's nobility: [27]. (Don't beat me for spamming, I couldn't resist.) — kashmiri TALK 22:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's worse: His Excellency President for Life, Ruler over all Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Lord of the beasts and fishes, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE for example. Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1 (addressed as His Worshipfulness Lordy Lord) 23:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's more impressive than Norton the First, by the grace of God Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico. Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN and Black Kite: Has this editor claimed to be nobility somewhere? I haven't seen it and I feel lost now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MjolnirPants: It was on his userpage, but has since been removed. Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MjolnirPants/MPants at work:- Can this be reopened please? The user has just posted on his talkpage saying he is capable of (in theory) hacking and is now blaming other users for his issues. Courtesy ping: Mz7; NeilN Nördic Nightfury 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-opened. I have removed talk page access and email access (based on a note on my talk page) from the editor. They seem to have reproduced an email complete with addresses on their talk page - another admin may want to remove and possibly revdel. Note my only interaction with the editor was to block them. --NeilN talk to me 15:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The deed has been done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'll forward the email I got from this editor to any uninvolved admin who might need to see it. There's nothing really shocking in it though, just more of the same crap from his talk page and the rather unusual assumption that I'm in charge of the admins. Don't get me wrong, I definitely should be in charge, but I think we all know I'm not. Yet. I'll leave the next close for someone else this time, because I get the feeling I'll say something really snarky in the result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my God, Pinky and the brain.... best TV show ever! ...NARF! ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It really is at the top of any recommended watching for anyone plotting world domination. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I just noticed that I was referenced in Tec's talk page comments, though attributed to NeilN. Presumably, if Tec is being honest, due to their dyslexia. I'd like to be clear that I was not aware of Tec's dyslexia and was, I had thought, making fun of the immaturity of their behaviour. Tec in the interest of full disclosure; I am not an admin. Now with regards to harrassment and electoral fraud, I'd like to put these to bed. Permanently. Having an image deleted off Wikipedia is not harrassment. Period. There is no futher discussion to be had about that. Now, I have not stepped foot in the UK in my life, so take my interpretation of your electoral fraud laws with a bushel of salt, but, nobody has committed any of the following; bribery, treating, undue influence, personation, made false statements (propaganda and libel), breached the secrecy of the ballot, committed racial hatred, or any of the false registration/multi-vote offences listed here. But seriously, if you actually reported this to the police... facepalm. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User Epulum

    Could someone please have a look at User talk:Epulum#Reinstatement of merged article?

    I have been concerned for some time about this user's approach to the issues raised at Talk:Cozido#Requested move 4 March 2017. In fairness this RM, which they raised, was messy through no fault of theirs. The proposal was to move the article then at Cozido to a more specific title, Cozido à portuguesa. The initial close was move, which was disputed (by me and others) and reverted by the closer. The eventual close was not to move, and to merge the content that had meantime been created at draft:Cozido with the more specific content already at Cozido.

    A key issue was, do we want one article, covering both the general topic Cozido and the specific Cozido à portuguesa? Epulum was strongly of the opinion that there should be two articles, but the eventual close found consensus on having only one, hence the merge. Reverting the initial move therefore left Cozido à portuguesa redirected to Cozido.

    I became concerned when Epulum then proposed to merge Cozido with the existing article at Cocido, on the related Spanish dishes. (Cozido is Portuguese.) It seemed possible that this was a back-door way of reversing the merge decision, and so IMO it has proved to be. But many users would not realise that this is frowned upon, so it was not a big issue. Cocido links to three articles on more specific, Spanish dishes, and merging all of these is probably not a good idea, so the eventual result of this merge would probably be to split out Cozido à portuguesa again, as Epulum wishes.

    To complicate things further, I suspect this is actually the correct course of action. It is the process that concerns me. But how do we best get it back on track? I have suggested that the discussion should focus on the eventual article structure. Epulum seems resistant to this, for reasons I do not understand.

    The reason I have finally brought this to ANI is that Epulum has restored the merged article at Cozido à portuguesa, in defiance it seems to me of the RM result, and maintains that this was a correct course of action. I think at this stage I need to seek an uninvolved admin. Andrewa (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: Draft:Cozido covered more general content, as the Cozido article was originally written on a more specific type of cozido dish, namely cozido à portuguesa. --Epulum (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, except it's not a correction, it's quite consistent with the synopsis above. And as far as I can see, irrelevant anyway. And such a reply is typical of the discussion to date.
    Is it the only dispute you have with my synopsis above? Andrewa (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (I was involved in the RM) I don't think I follow here; what is wrong with his split of the article? The current state seems like a great outcome to me, with Cozido serving as a WP:DABCONCEPT and more specific dishes being listed at their full names. You say on Epulum's talk page that the result of the RM was "merge", but how can a Requested Move be closed as merge?! This seems like a content dispute anyway, what admin action are you asking for here? Laurdecl talk 06:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just asking for another admin to look at it. No specific action requested. To me the RM outcome was exactly that, consensus was achieved and assessed by closer. But no problem found is a legitimate outcome, and I will of course respect it, and will have learned something. Andrewa (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by Fabartus

    Fabartus posts this on my talk page about seomthing that happened 5 days ago. I don't appreciate it and if someone could just take a look and do something that would be great. [28].SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi SparklingPessimist - This looks like only one occurrence. Am I missing something? Is this a repeated behavior? What dispute is this originating from, and where? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He has also attacked other users as well Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes on a TFD please SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Fabartus (talk · contribs) appears to have a long history of persistent incivility and general hostility. See the half dozen NPA blocks between 2008 and 2011, as well as continued personal attacks and bizarre, militant comments just within the past few days (not including the diff linked by the OP). Fabartus's interactions with other contributors seem to fall short of the decorum we expect. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see his reply to my ANI notice for the thread above [29]. I didn't even think to check his block log when I made that report... – Train2104 (t • c) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Juliancolton - I agree. This is problematic behavior, and clear evidence shows that this is a repeated and long-term issue.
    Fabartus - I don't think I need to go into in-depth details regarding Wikipedia's civility policy nor Wikipedia's policies against making personal attacks towards others. Your history clearly demonstrates that you've been shown these policies numerous times and that you should be reasonably aware of their existence. This is the only warning I'm going to give you. You need to either engage in civil discussion over the specific disputes and concerns you have and appropriately, or drop whatever stick it is that you're carrying and move on. Your last block was for one month due to incivility; please please don't make me have to be the guy that blocks you for yet another instance of this issue... :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't have that much patience. Indef blocked, any admin can undo it if you feel he's reformed and will stop attacking and harassing other editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In context, that seems ridiculously disproportionate. Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the very considerable history before acting. Please confirm you have, and let me know why you think it's disproportionate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)This was in response to someone claiming mere mention of a one of the more benign Trumpism was "hate speech." Obviously the response was that of a seventy, eighty-ish (I'm guessing) curmudgeon, written in Curmudgeon-ese. Reads like the know-it-all wiseass inhabiting the end stool at a thousand bars, but it isn't the sort of thing that deserves blocking, any more than the piece responded to, written in Snowflakian is, although, truth be told, her bit was more insulting, in some ways. Anmccaff (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anmccaff:That's pretty insulting, I just gave my honest opinion on something and I didn't insult anyone or curse at anyone. I think it's funny you think I'm an old curmudgeon, though considering the fact that I'm a college student, I'll take it as a compiment. Don't you have some redditing to attend to? Thanks.SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Yes. Your honest opinion was roughly "Trump EqUaLS HITLER!!!!!! That's what "hate speech" kinda implies, connection to some real underlying nastiness, although if you think the Godwinning is premature, substitute David Duke, or something. And please don't promote yourself; Frank's the Curmudgeon, you're the Snowflake.
    What, exactly, if anything, do you mean by the reditting crack, BTW? As I see it, you have once again substituted thought with personal insult. People who seeks bans might want to look behind them, 'cause when you throw some stuff, it tends to return. Anmccaff (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignored.SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to take your bickering elsewhere, both of you? It's not adding anything to this discussion at all. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect this is the right place; while Frank has a long history of low-grade assholery; the person bringing the complaint is gaining on him pretty fast. Were it not for the old stuff, and the (justified, I think) fear that it'll continue like this, this should have a boomerang, or perhaps a double trouting. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look; one and only one person in this debate called one editor a "Girly Girl" on their way to other offenses and outright said that all IP editors are using subterfuge, said the particular one was an idiot, generalized that all hiding behind IPs are (caps original) "NOT WORTHY OF RESPECT", and deliberately furtive, and that they're deliberately betraying trust and that "Drawing and quartering would be too good for them.". As far as I can tell the IP merely disagreed with him on a sensitive (to him) point. I can believe this is a user who's older and used to being the old curmudgeon on the bar, but if that curmudgeon starts suggesting the death of other users like that in the middle of otherwise insulting tirades, most bars are going to ask them to leave. This behavior is not OK on Wikipedia. It would not be OK in most diners, in libraries, in internet cafes, at home. That (presumably) he felt ok to do it here was a mistake, and he should not have the opportunity to continue it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Three points. First, Frank ain't here. You blocked him, indefinitely; continuing to comment on things he can't respond to seems a little tacky, unless it is required for other reasons. Next, if we take as a given the prematurely crusty persona (he appears to be a decade younger than I'd guessed), "girly girl" is mostly an ageist crack, not a sexist one, as the remainder of the post reinforces. Those are both peripheral, and, as mentioned, overcome by events; the guy was blocked without even a chance to respond, followed by the usual stream of admins suggesting that perhaps it should have been different, but, now that it's done....
    The big deal is that two people traded snark, and one of them continued it onto the board here...and that's the one walking away. Anmccaff (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand, user was given a final warning by Oshwah above—on the other, it's clear that this has been a repeated issue. But it has been over half a decade since the last block. I think 3 months block is sufficient in this case. El_C 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse block An indef seems perfectly appropriate, there's no reason to change it to a timed block as there is no reason to expect a miraculous change in this user's personality exactly three months from now. Block appeals are a thing if they do suddenly learn to act like an adult. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    re to El C: Half a decade, but significant recent behavior. In any case, any bold enough admin can roll it back to 3 mo if you want, or I will if I see a consensus here that it was excessive. Waiting for more consensus input (thanks, Beeblebrox & El C) may help. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough, I haven't familiarised myself with the recent history, so you two might be right. Waiting for a sensible block appeal sounds... sensible. El_C 22:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably would not have gone for an indef block, especially before the user had a chance to acknowledge Oshwah's final warning, but now that it's done I see no pressing need to intervene. Fabartus is just chronically nasty to his peers and that's something we shouldn't tolerate. Digging a little deeper, I came across more instances of blatant personal attacks from the past several months, among them: "I really find you and this bothering event to be outrageously silly"; "OK jerk, the articles are all yours"; "suggesting this kind of change because you're ignorant, also says you are too lazy to research the topic". This is to say nothing of his having addressed a female editor as "Girlly Girl". Until Fabartus learns to comment on content and not contributors, I think the block is perfectly justified. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved commenter here: I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but the personal attack in the first diff pretends to 'refute' the OP by citing (easily) demonstrably wrong "facts" in response to her claims during a very brief exchange. I can understand (if not entirely sympathize) with someone who gets upset at an editor who displays some fundamental ignorance over a long period of time, but to attack someone over such a short exchange with an argument that is, itself fundamentally ignorant is something we just don't need here. I'm endorsing the indef. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should probably add this for the record - I am completely fine with Georgewilliamherbert's block. After five previous blocks for the exact same issue, I consider the notion that "we're past warnings at this point" as a completely valid argument. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sad to see Frank blocked. I have worked with him one before with no problem, but agree with the block. I hope he will learn his lesson and come back in 6 months. L3X1 (distant write) 03:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block, indifferent on the length of time. When a user starts yelling at everyone about a template they created, it's time to put on the brakes. While nothing in that gigantic wall of blue text was brazenly insulting, there's enough sarcasm and passive aggressive language to make me raise an eyebrow. I do realize, however, that there will always be a curmudgeon or two on the project, but at some point we need to stop ignoring our racist grandparents and start holding them accountable (and no, I'm not saying Fabartus is racist, it's a metaphor for not saying "oh, that's just the way they are"). Primefac (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduce block - An indef is overblown, I recommend a reduction to 3 months. I have to agree with Anmccaff on the general gist of what happened. A crusty old curmudgeon (Fabartus) got angry at an ill informed college student (ThatGirlTayler/SparklingPessimist) for spewing tired old talking points and calling people names. It is what it is. I mean for crying out loud she called at least 60 million people bigots; Donald Trump barred Muslims from entering the U.S. supporting him is supporting hate speech and bigotry - please don't give me that shite excuse of, well "saying someone is supporting bigotry doesn't necessarily mean that you're calling them a bigot". Don't you think Fabartus, potentially a Trumpian, might be insulted by that crude generalization. Let me weigh this up; girly girl vs. supporter of hate speech and bigotry. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked for one week. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I came across the disruption caused GiannisKaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while editing Athens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I noticed that this editor was involved in a longterm edit-war changing temperatures, without using sources, in the climate table for Athens. I left them an edit-warring warning on their talkpage a few days ago, explicitly telling them to stop it. In response, he started the same edit-war again at Athens today, changing the same two temperatures, and adding more unsourced climate-related text to boot. Checking further the edits of this user, I have reverted his changes to several more articles, as completely unsourced. In addition, this user is completely uncommunicative. A block of this SPA is needed asap. Thank you. Dr. K. 15:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe this user is being malicious, so I've issued a week-long block with the warning that any further disruption of this sort will result in an indef block. Hopefully this gets their attention. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine with me. Thank you Julian. Dr. K. 03:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Maleidys Perez

    Indeffed by NeilN. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I'd already requested a block today at AIV, and was counseled to come here instead. Persistent vandalism and addition of unsourced content, including the most recent [30]. Apparently China may soon get Youtube. Possibly. 2601:188:1:AEA0:DD8E:74CD:FBC3:49C8 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The unsourced content by itself might be enough, but as you note, there's persistent vandalism to Tony the Tiger, e.g. switching all appearances of "Tony" and "Tiger" (Anthiger "Tiger" the Tony...) and dumping three extra copies of the article into what was already there. Blocked for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for renewed topic-ban

    I'd like to ask for a renewed topic-ban for User:Robertwalker User:Robertinventor on Four Noble Truths. He has been flooding the talkpage with his comments since 5 december 2014 (Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 2#Request for comment on reliable secondary sources for articles on Buddhism + Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 3 + Talk:Four Noble Truths + Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism#Have you ever seen this before?). See [31] [32], [33] for previous (eventually granted) requests for a topic-ban. Pinging Ms Sarah Welch and JimRenge for their opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It does look like this is a problematic disruptive recurrence of the same activity described in the prior ANI posts. I should note however that the user in question is Robertinventor and not User:Robertwalker (which is unregistered). -- Dane talk 04:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The account in question is User:Robert C. Walker, which is a declared alternative account of User:Robertinventor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. He signs with "Robert Walker." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks. The topic ban was for six months and expired 27 November 2016. After the expiration, Robertinventor did post extensively on Talk:Four Noble Truths from mid-to-late December 2016, whereupon he stopped for three months: [34]. He made one post a few days ago, which was a concise summary of his perceived problems with the article: [35]. Since that was not a disruptive or over-lengthy post, I do not at all see any cause for a topic ban. In fact, it was your WP:TPO-violating deletion of that post [36] which caused the consequent brouhaha on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. I recommend that this thread be closed with no action. Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's right... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, everything here is confusing. Instead of User:Robertwalker, the OP appears to have meant User:Robertinventor. And instead of Talk:Four Noble Truths, the OP appears to have meant Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he did not mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism; he did indeed mean Talk:Four Noble Truths. He's trying to dredge up an old feud and defunct ANI discussions as justification for his violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, I lack psychic skills at remotely reading the IP's mind, and would rather wait and see what the OP declares he meant. Talk:Four Noble Truths seems to have been the location of the earlier topic ban, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism seems to be the location of the current dispute. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't need to. He mentioned Four Noble Truths and Talk:Four Noble Truths several times in his OP and made it clear that is where he wants a topic ban enacted. The username mixup was quickly resolved as caused by the way the user signs their posts. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well he has posted but hasn't addressed the matter, so you are right. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic-ban would naturally include any discussion of the topic on the article talkpage itself, and other pages.
    I have above referred to Robert's previous extensive commentaries at the talkpage of the "Four Noble Truths" article; he resumed his comments in december 2016 (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Three things wrong with this article, and continued in april 2017 at the same talkpage, repeating his arguments (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Short summary of the issues with this article). I reverted this latest addition, beacuse it got fed-up with the repetition of his previous posts, including his december-post. There-after he also posted a thread on the the same topic at the Buddhism Project page.
    I'm not "trying to dredge up an old feud and defunct ANI discussions as justification for his violation of WP:TPO"; I'm trying to show that Robert has brought up the same topic again and again, without gaining concencus. I got fed-up with the extensive posting when Robert added this summary of his previous post which was a repetition of his posts from 2015 and 2016. I found it disruptive; from the absence of any comments he might have concluded that there is still no support for his view or suggestions, just as before. Instead, he again brought up his complaints. Anyway, I apologize; I reacted on impulse, as I just had enough of it.
    After that, I thought, again, "Ignore, ignore!" Yet, the triggering point for asking for a renewal of the topic-ban, is the fact that Robert again mentioned a discussion I and several others had with User:ScientificQuest at the Anatta talkpage. Robert writes "@Joshua Jonathan: reverted every single edit that @ScientificQuest made to the Anatta article. He eventually just gave up editing wikipedia." See Talk:Anatta/Archive 3#Again, Talk:Anatta/Archive 3#About Reliable Sources for Articles on Religion, and Talk:Anatta/Archive 3#Constructive comments, in which I and several others explained what the problem with his edits was. In "Constructive comments," I gave an extensive explanation of my revert, to which SQ responded:
    "Hi Joshua, Chris, Victoria, and Robert. Please don't mind my personal note - since I made some bad personal remarks here earlier, I figure it is only right for me to write a personal apology. And again, instead of writing on your individual talk pages, I decided to own it up in public.
    Joshua, thanks a lot for your very constructive feedback. I really appreciate this line-by-line feedback of exactly what went wrong in my post. It keeps it to facts, and states exactly what the problem is with the style. Coming from a background of writing for academic Journals, I can see my tendency to write original research - because arguably that's what academics do (unless perhaps they're editing Wikipedia pages). So I acknowledge your criticism and I stand corrected."
    So, it's not only the overflow of comments by Robert, it's also this kind of tendentious editing which is too much. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Softlavender: Please do not falsely accuse me of "deleting", when I didn't. I only collapsed the text. I did add an explanatory title, informing the interested reader to also consider the discussion in Archive 3. Fair title, I say, for a wall of post that is linked to more walls of text about the same thing. The TPG guidelines state "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts". Let us request Robertinventor to avoid repeating himself in his walls of post (evidence below), per TPG. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought my post was clear, but for complete accuracy I've now changed the word "and" to "or". The post you collapsed was not a repetition (I've checked the archive you referred to). Nor did you sign and date your collapse. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Softlavender: - thanks so much for reverting[40] Sarah Welch's non consensus collapse of the talk page discussions for Four Noble Truths! I know that I tend to be verbose. I think you have pretty much all worked out what happened now, glad to see it. In case it helps, here is a short summary as I see it. I did one post on Talk:Four Noble Truths after four months of silence there. @Joshua Jonathan: reverted that post deleting my comment from the talk page[41]. @Farang Rak Tham: reverted his edit. @Ms Sarah Welch: then collapsed nearly all my posts on the talk page. I posted to @Joshua Jonathan:'s talk page asking him not to delete my posts and in that comment I also reminded him of my previous request to warn me about any problematical behaviour first and attempt amicable settlement before taking me to WP:ANI [42] but explained this did not extend to asking him to delete my posts, which I can do myself. He did not warn me of this current action or ask me to modify my behaviour before taking it out. Meanwhile I also posted to the Buddhism Project talk page about the reverted and collapsed comments. The conversation is here: [43]. Later in that conversation I declared my intention to add a POV tag to the article to say that its neutrality has been questioned and asked Joshua Jonathan if he would take me to WP:ANI for adding the tag. @Joshua Jonathan: responded saying that he wouldn't take me to WP:ANI if I add the tag but there is a "consensus" that the article is unbiased and that mine is just a "personal opinion". @Ms Sarah Welch: said that if I do add the tag, she will immediately revert it because she says I am repeating a past concern rather than voicing a new one[44]. The discussion then turned to what counts as a WP:RS in the topic area of Buddhism which has been a matter of much heated debate in this project. I wrote a very long reply to that - but it was my only comment for the day.

      Then - to explain why I am using a different name just now - at that point, realizing that I had written rather a lot in that conversation, I logged out of my main account and logged into User:Robert C. Walker. It is an account that I have linked to my main account in both directions as a legitimate alternative account. It's purpose is as a way to log into wikipedia for non controversial editing as a "wikibreak" when I get caught up in any controversies that may lead me to be over verbose in my replies. It means that I don't get those red notification messages when I am pinged which I find helps me to take a real wikibreak from the conversation while I can still edit wikipedia in areas other than the controversy, whatever it is. I have just seen a message on my alternative account by Joshua Jonathan saying that he has taken out this action. So that is the whole of the story as I see it. Any questions do say. I have logged back into my main account for this comment to avoid confusion. Robert Walker (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please add @Robertinventor's walls of post on WikiProject:Buddhism talk page as evidence here. Nevertheless, I hesitate in supporting the topic ban proposal for what has happened so far, and need more time to reflect on this. FWIW, @Robertinventor is repeating the post-April 2016 discussion (he acknowledged his habit of repeating himself). Would @Softlavender be willing to volunteer, read the walls of text and discussions since April 2016, the sources cited in those discussions, and mediate an outcome that helps improve the article further per wikipedia content guidelines? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That WikiProject Buddhism thread came about because Joshua Jonathan summarily deleted Robertinventor's recent (after a three-month absence from the page/article) concise and neutral post three hours after Robertinventor posted it [45] -- an action which was a direct policy violation. As I've stated above, if anyone merits any kind of sanction here, it is Joshua Jonathan. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender, You evaded my suggestion: I take it you don't want to mediate yourself. Would you want to deal with Robertinventor's walls of texts, self-confessed repetition etc? Robertinventor behavior has been disruptive, as past admin reviews have found, and which led to a block. I find your concerns with @Joshua Jonathan unpersuasive and one that ignores the full context. You mention this delete that included in its edit comment "You've summarized enough". Which is true! Even Robertinventor admits, "I thought I'd just briefly state the main points again [= repeat], perhaps I went into too much detail". Clearly, TPG states, "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts". Yes, indeed WikiProject:Buddhism discussion thread came about because Joshua Jonathan deleted something, but that delete came about because Robertinventor did something. Almost all human beings react when they are repeatedly provoked. Perhaps not the way we may like in our better moments. There is a chain of events relevant here. You can help stop this chain and wreck-in-the-making, if you would be willing to mediate by reading the scholarly sources, Robertinventor's and Joshua Jonathan's take on them, and suggesting ways to improve the article. Would you mediate? Would someone else want to go over the walls of text in Archive 2, 3, 4 and the current Talk:Four Noble Truths, then mediate? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been reading Robert's latest post again (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Short summary of the issues with this article, and this sentence sums it all up:
    "So, given that, then the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream."
    That's what he has been hammering on since two and a half years, despite any lack of concencus for reverting to his preferred version. The problems with that preferred version have been pointed out again and again and again and again and ad infinitum: WP:OR and a lack of WP:RS.
    I've also read part of Talk:Four Noble Truths#Three things wrong with this article again; it's a long overview of his personal understanding of Buddhism, and his lack of knowledge of the relevant literature. Which has also been explained over and over again.
    Content issue
    Take the quote from Walpola Rahula at the section Talk:Four Noble Truths#According to the Pali Canon Buddha realized cessation as a young man of 35. Rahula views Nirvana as some sort of metaphysical entity, which can be realized/known ("gnosis"). In a Buddhist context, this is a highly disputed notion. According to Rahula, the reality of this entity is proven by the fact that it can be experienced. Gombrich himself, a student of Rahula, expressed his astonishment on Rahula's views on this; he found it to be a naive kind of epistemology. A quote like this needs context, on the history of Buddhism, religious/mystical views on metaphysical reality and the highest principle or reality, the interplay between Asian spirituality and western spiritualiy (Rahula's view reminds of Neo-Patonism and the One; the Theosophical Society, which had a very strong influence on Sri Lankese Buddhism, was deeply influnced by Neo-Platonism, which was en vogue in the 1800s; was Rahula influenced by western thought, and if so, by which, an to what extent?) et cetera. It takes hard work do give this context, and a lot of WP:RS. Robert seems to be unaware of this. Instead, Robert writes:
    "The four truths are understood in this way in all the main sutra traditions, Zen [46], Tibetan [47], Therevadhan [48], etc."
    Websites, of teachers. Who don't even support what Robert states:
    • Rahula: "It is incorrect to think that Nirvana is the natural result of the extinction of craving. Nirvana is not the result of anything."
    • Dalai Lama: "When we eliminate the disturbing negative minds, the cause of all suffering, we eliminate the sufferings as well."
    The Dalai Lama also says
    "Thus, the texts on Middle Way [Madhyamaka] philosophy state that the root of all the disturbing negative minds is grasping at true existence."
    For Madhyamaka, this includes Nirvana; Nirvana is not a metaphysical reality or "true existence." Those two primary sources show fundamentally different Buddhist teachings on the essentials of Buddhism. Therefor, primary sources like these are not the basis for Wikipedia-articles; we rely on secondary sources, which interpret those primary sources. We don't do that ourselves, otherwise we get the kind of misunderstanding we see at work here. That's why I get fed up with the endless repetition: it's personal opinion, based on a personal understanding of primary sources.
    Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joshua Jonathan: For the wikipedia guidelines on Relgious sources, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources. Thanks! I had the idea today to write a short essay on WP:RS in the Buddhism topic area in particular for the project, for comment, which may help. But this is obviously not the time given that I am being taken here to be topic banned for writing too much :). I'm taking a wikibreak for a few days to calm down, and most of the time I am logged into my linked alternative account which I use for this purpose. But because of this action against me I am checking it occasionally for a few minutes at a time in case a brief reply from me is needed such as this one. Robert Walker (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that what we're dealing with here is a basic misunderstanding with the way Wikipedia works. Presenting detailed arguments why an entire article is on the wrong track is not going to work when you have active and well respected editors disagreeing with you. Robertinventor, a better tack for you to take is to propose very short changes to the article, suitably backed up by references, and do this one change at a time. For example, you say the solution is not to rewrite the article so that it only presents the views of Gombrich and Anderson. I know next to nothing about this topic but, as an independent observer, I'd like to see a couple of things: the exact text that incorporates these other views and a clear sense of how much weight they carry in the scholarly literature. Suitability referenced, of course. It is then possible to discuss whether those views are relevant and whether or not the text accurately reflects the scholarly weight of those views. Your current approach is not going to work and is going to come across as disruptive, particularly when I look through the talk page history and see long polemical posts on things that are, in your opinion, wrong with the article.--regentspark (comment) 18:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the suggestion. First when you look at the archives please remember they originate from before anyone told me I was being too verbose on this talk page. Dorje108 and I did try focused RfCs. They were inconclusive. We couldn't edit the article itself as our edits would be reverted and we don't edit war. After he gave up editing wikipedia I tried one more focused RfC, the most focused one ever, on whether the word "redeath" is a Buddhist word, and whether it is used appropriately in the article and cited correctly. I was topic banned when that RfC was still in progress on the charge of writing too much in its discussion area. It was just like the current situation, no warning, no attempt at amicable settlement, no suggestion that I change my behaviour, just a note on my talk page when we were mid discussion in the RfC, saying that he had taken me to WP:ANI for verboseness, which he posted soon after the first vote in the RfC in favour of my recommendation on the topic (this was a vote by an uninvolved editor). For this reason I have not attempted an RfC since then. On the basis of that and earlier experiences, I don't think it will work. On the views of Gombrich, Anderson, Bhikkhu Sujato, Prayudh Payutto on the authenticity of the Pali Canon, then so far nobody has found a secondary source discussing them all in detail. But the range of views can be described, and is done so just fine in Pali Canon##Origins. I will not say any more at this point as this is not the appropriate place to discuss these matters. I hope you understand. I thought I should do a brief reply. If you are interested we can follow this up further either on the article or Buddhism project talk pages after this action is over. Robert Walker (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really sorry to say, but Robert simply drives other editors mad. See also User talk:Robertinventor#Ultramicroscope, for example diff and diff. See also trolling. Sorry for these harsh examples; but I'm really not the only one who is getting insane by his endless "dicussions." And, to add a friendly note: I'm really convinced there is no bad intention whatsoever from Robert; I'm sure his intentions are good. But he really, really doesn't get it. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Joshua Jonathan, you are still not making your case. That usertalk discussion is not even remotely on the same topic or even subject. The only thing Robertinventor has done recently (in the last three months) on Four Noble Truths is post on its talkpage a concise 3,731-byte summary of his perceived issues with the article, which you immediately deleted, and a third party then reverted your deletion. 8 days later you posted a 12,500-byte reply to it: [49]. I don't see any problem here. I still recommend closure of this thread with no action. Alternatively, I recommend a boomerang for Joshua Jonathan, for deleting Robertinventor's concise good-faith post and for trumping up a non-issue here at ANI when there is clearly no current problem except that one created by Joshua Jonathan's WP:TPO-violating deletion. Softlavender (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this case is not suitable for ANI. And that JJ should not have removed the talk page post and that this ANI complaint is hasty. But we do need to explain to Robertinventor that their approach is not going to work. The problem is that broad "Here's what's wrong with this article" statements are not actionable, particularly when you have well referenced articles such as the one in question. Since they are not actionable, repeatedly posting the same statement, even if in concise or restated form, is unhelpful and can head toward being disruptive. At a minimum, it is a frustrating for other content editors. And, while that frustration may lead to hasty posts on ANI, they definitely don't deserve a boomerang. My suggestion is that Robertinventor is advised to make more specific suggestions and informed that WP:DR exists as an option if those suggestions don't get traction. That that's how this thread should be closed otherwise we're just going to see more frustration on that talk page. --regentspark (comment) 16:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Softlavender, I have been making my case very clearly: Robert keeps repeating his same points of discontent regarding the article on the "Four Noble Truths," despite the fact that his complaints have been discussed over and over again, and despite the fact that there is a strong concencus on the present state of the article. See WP:NOTGETTINGIT:

    "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. (Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.)
    Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed."

    WP:TPO says:

    "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."

    But, indeed, WP:TPO says:

    "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

    I reverted a summary of a repetition of his previous posts on the same topic, which has been dragging on now for more than two years. I understand that I shouldn't have reverted Robert's summary of his lengthy repetition, but I did it because I found it highly disruptive, as explained before. When my revert was reverted, I took the issue to this notice-board, which is one of the proper ways to deal with issues.
    It's not a time-span of three months; it's a time-span of more than two years. Robert keeps repeating himself, despite the concencus on this article, and despite a previous topic-ban for the same repetition. A sanction because I get totally fed-up with this disruptive editing, while I understand and acknowledge that I shouldn't have acted on impulse, is disproportional, and would ignore the real problem here, namely this disrutive editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To repeat: The only thing Robertinventor has done on this article or its talk page in the past three months is post a concise 3,731-byte post. That is not actionable and not topic-bannable. Please stop this nonsense and proceed with normal editing. I do not know how much clearer I can get. If you persist in insisting that it is sanctionable, I am going to request a boomerang. Softlavender (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Zukas block evasion

    Regarding Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tim Zukas, the guy has been ramping back up into the same old behavior since December 2016, with a couple of disruptive edits in the last few days. Here are the recent IPs he has used:

    Perhaps we can block these IPs individually for a good long time, rather than attempting a rangeblock, as there are neighboring IPs which are heavily used by library patrons. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    These are all definitely addresses used by LTA Tim Zukas as they all geolocate to Cal State University (Office of the Chancellor), University of California - Berkeley (Office of the President), the Berkeley Public Library, and a Comcast Commercial account in Walnut Creek, CA. These IPs all belong to registered owners that he used in his many earlier spates of disruptive editing and block evasion, and mirror the same pattern of mass unexplained deletions of content made to transportation related articles (aviation, airports, railroads, etc) is exactly the same disruptive behavior Zukas was permanently blocked for on January 25, 2016. Centpacrr (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Need some admin attention here

    This thread seems to have been lost in the shuffle. It concerns an LTA -- could an admin look at it and figure out a course of action? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant advertising on wikipedia - Violation of T&C

    This page on Wikipedia is a company profile, something that is violating the policies of Wikipedia. BookMyForex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanvirbuyforex (talk • contribs) 07:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it is, rather. Going by your username, are we to assume that's your competition?! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, I have adjusted the content of the article slightly, so it is now less spammy. Thanks for bringing it to our attention 👍 and, mind, note well what happens to Forex ads on Wikipedia. And any others, for that matter! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be deleted immediately as a financial scam. We're not here to allow scammers to rip off our readers. How do I know this is a scam? The version before FIM edited it contain the claim that they deal currencies with "zero margin", and specifically at the interbank market's mid-quote rate. This means that they can't possibly make any money. Indeed, if they have expenses, it means that they lose money on every trade. So it is just a "loss leader" right? Well, they don't say that they have any other product or business. And besides, loss leaders don't work when you are selling money - anybody want to buy a dollar for 99 cents? How much would you like? It should be deleted immediately per WP:IAR. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smallbones: That'll still be worth more than sterling in a few months  ;) Man, but that's a damning analysis of their so-called business model. You are the most righteous dude. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Play Magnus

    Hi, editor User:Codename Lisa is chronically edit warring and now attempting to delete the article Play Magnus. The editor should not be editing the article after they have placed a deletion +tag. Please get involved and stop this nonsense. Thank you. IQ125 (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You're both edit warring, and should go to the talk page to discuss the infobox parameters and where that image should be. There is nothing wrong with an editor editing an article after placing a deletion tag. I've even started a talk page section for you. Sam Walton (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And per the giant notice at the top of this page and when you edit this page, I have notified Codename Lisa of this post. Sam Walton (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I am going to do something that I am sure everyone agrees I am perfectly allowed to: I am going to edit something well outside the area of dispute. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this edit war. I've seen a lot of them. User:A thinks the subject of the article is a fraud. User:B thinks it is not so. User:A brings a source. User:B says it is unreliable. Then, forth and back revert. Something like that.
    But Codename Lisa's changes looks like the kind that any sane Wikipedian does every day. Hell, if I had come to that article first, I might have done it. And IQ125's revert looks like some vandal doing random reverts. IQ125 is giving contradictory messages. On one hand, he comes to CL's article and says why doesn't she improve the article. On the other hand, he reverts the improvements. Also, there is shouting, juvenile vilification in AfD. "DO NOT CHANGE ARTICLE WHILE IT IS UNDER A DELETION +TAG." I had never heard such nonsense. How do you suppose the article rescue squad works then?
    I don't like this at all. Something is very wrong here. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a regular editor of chess-related articles I have frequently noticed this editor's behavioral problems, including edit warring, article OWNership issues, original research, overlinking, wholesale reverts rather than discussions, lack of understanding of wikipedia policies, bad faith accusations of "vandalism" etc. Perhaps WP:MENTORing would help but frankly this editor has been around long enough to know better. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User Goodness222222

    Userpage (attack page) deleted; TP access revoked.
    (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Goodness222222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) could use his user page deleted (attack page) and talk page access changed. It's getting rather abusive. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Done - thanks Jim1138 (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    D'SuperHero and Shimlaites

    Shimlaites has been CU-blocked. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I've copied this from WP:AIV:

    When each of you is reporting the other, it's clearly not a matter of obvious vandalism. Could someone check into this situation and take appropriate actions? I would do it, but it's time to leave for work. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to have been a simple content dispute in which neither editor was guilty of vandalism (and both editors should have discussed the disputed content at Talk:Airlift (film) instead of reporting the other at AIV); but Shimlaites has now been checkuser-blocked by Bbb23 as a sock of Barthateslisa. D'SuperHero, you should refrain from calling an edit "vandalism" if it's possible to assume good faith (this and this weren't vandalism either); also, note that any editor (even a real vandal) is allowed to remove a warning from their own talk page like Shimlaites did. (Shimlaites was perfectly right about this revert being inappropriate.) But no admin action beyond Shimlaites's sock block should be needed here. Sideways713 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:SevenGear23

    User:SevenGear23 consistently adds unreferenced controversial information [50], [51] and removes my warnings from his talk page [52]. Please, help me with the issue. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Corvus tristis: users are permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages, it is to be taken as a sign that they have read them. They've only had one recent warning about unreferenced edits, it seems you might get somewhere by better explaining that Instagram is generally not reliable as a source. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, he removed, but he had two warnings about reliable sources. If you look through his editing history, he never adds any source at all. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an older one from December, other than that it looks like you posted the warning, then posted the same warning again after they removed it, which to my mind is just one warning. As for sources they mentioned Instagram in an edit summary. That's not really how it works but at least they tried. If the Instagram had been reliable you could have added it as an inline citation for them and/or shown them how to do it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here he adds without any sources the team that few weeks after confirmed their exit from the series. I have understand about removal of the warnings, but I think it will be better if someone tell him that we can't add speculations like the Arden's case. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize it is frustrating, but I don't think we've risen to the level of, say, blocking him yet. If he persists, and fails to heed your warnings, and continues to add unsourced information, then bring him back here down the line (and at that point, if he has been totally unresponsive, I myself will recommend an attention-getting block -- and you can ping me). But as yet I don't think this merits sanctions so far. Someone else here may disagree. Softlavender (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Trilateral Commission edits

    User indeffed by RickinBaltimore. (non-admin closure) L3X1 (distant write) 17:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Could I draw your attention to the activities of CarolSeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Trilateral Commission article. They have been inserting, initially, totally unsourced edits mentioning a person called Carol Binkley These edits have been reversed by users X4n6, Grayfell and myself over the last two days as non-notable and unsourced. There have been various conversations on both the Trilateral Commission Talk page and the CarolSeer Talk page in which editors have been accused of being "part of a global conspiracy". In her last contribution she admits, after many enquiries, to being Carol Binkley. I personally have issued a warning to stop edit warring, but Carol Seer(?) has now reverted to her edits over ten times in the last two days. I am not reverting again, as I have no intention of edit warring. This editors actions appear to be a violation of WP:COI,WP:V,WP:DUE, as well as edit warring. Could admins please look into this and take appropriate action. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading the comments on their talk page, and the edits to the article, it's clear they are WP:NOTHERE to work on the encyclopedia, and they have been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rick, I agree with you. Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm part of this whole global conspiracy don't you know (still waiting for my check mind you). RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny you should say that, I'm still waiting for my check!! David J Johnson (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Trilateral Commission should be placed under the Arbcom American politics ruling? John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The article says it's a "...non-partisan discussion group founded... to foster closer cooperation among North America, Western Europe, and Japan." It's true that the commission is controversial to some American conspiracy-theorists, so I get it why we might like to afford the article the protection of discretionary sanctions, but I think that would be taking "broadly construed" right up to its outer limits, if not beyond. David in DC (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SEMIs are cheap. it's better than PCR, and stamping ARBCOM on it won't prevent anything.L3X1 (distant write) 21:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Martinnorheim - Persistent unsourced additions

    User blocked by NielN for 48 hours. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Despite repeated attempts to engage with this user by various other editors, Martinnorheim continues to add unsourced edits (apparently WP:OR) to terrorism-related articles. Myself, Kristijh, st170em, and skycycle have all tried to engage with and warn the user via their talk page, but to no avail. Please see the history of the above-linked article for example edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption continues: [53] EvergreenFir (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A 48 hour block might get their attention. --NeilN talk to me 17:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit war on Raid on Dartmouth (1749)

    Article protection measures have been instituted. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    There appears to be a rather sizable edit war over a section of Raid on Dartmouth (1749) between several IPs. Francinum (Talk) (Contrib) 20:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And zero talk page posts. Semied three days, PC a month as this reverting has been going on for a while. --NeilN talk to me 20:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Re: POV Forks

    Related Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#POV_forks_being_created_as_school_project

    Hi...I am the instructor for the class at Berkeley. Thanks for this conversation. We are very glad that WikiEdu provides the additional support needed to make university students great contributors to Wikipedia. It resources the students to be able to bring their considerable research skills to bear on creating great, neutral content.

    The topic of environmental justice is particularly tricky right now. President Trump is on the record as having said a number of pretty inflammatory things about race and the environment and also having done some. These strike the eye and appear incredible to some members of the Wikipedia community. In one case, a Wikipedian accused our students of manufacturing the claim that Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax, going so far as to correct them by saying that Hillary Clinton accused him of having said that. He had tweeted it personally.

    It has been suggested that the students are committing the error of going into too much depth in their articles. Environmental problems don't occur in isolation from human systems and are in fact caused by social and economic factors. I think the underlying challenges the community faces with these articles have quite a bit to do with [systemic biases.] I'd suggest a read of this article to help understand some of the reactions the students' work is eliciting, and a focus particularly on [to do about it]

    Finally, a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct.

    And thanks again to WikiEdu and Ian in particular for creating a vehicle for rigorously trained students to improve Wikipedia and create vital resources for people affected by pollution and injustice, despite their novice-level skills at negotiating this particular technology. --EJustice (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have replaced what EJustice was trying to post without the breaking of the page. --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon reading the above post, I am trying... very hard to continue to assume good faith, but there appears to be a serious disconnect between what this educator wishes to achieve and the goals of Wikipedia. Hopefully someone more eloquent than I can set EJustice on a better path than they are right now. Messing up ANI is not a good first step when assuming Wikipedia competency. --Tarage (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's nothing to do with "good faith", though. I'm sure the fella means exactly what he says, and that he's doing it for our own good. Whether we need it or like or not. I'm from the University & I'm here to save help you! Anmccaff (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) At this point I feel obliged to point out that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. From the above, I do get the distinct impression that this bit of knowledge hasn't yet arrived in Berkeley. Kleuske (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This class is also being discussed at WP:ENI, where the issue of a possible shared account, violating WP:NOSHARING, has arisen. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is so awkward. User:EJustice you and your class are attempting to use WP as a WP:SOAPBOX (which is part of WP:NOT - which defines the mission of Wikipedia and says what WP is, and what it is not) as well as WP:NPOV. Your class is adding loads of very bad-by-WP-standards in a topic that is so controversial that it has been to our "Supreme Court" (WP:ARBCOM) on multiple occasions and has what we call discretionary sanctions" on it, namely contemporary US politics. We generally warn people not to make their first edits on topics that are so hard to work in. You have led a whole class of new editors into it, in a very foot-stomping way.
    The problems go far beyond "going into too much depth in their articles" (part of what we call WP:UNDUE). Almost all the content is pure advocacy with explicit POV language and sourcing. The same content and ideas have been added to many articles and new articles, with no effort to integrate or deal with WP:WEIGHT. There has been a lot of WP:CRYSTALBALL content with negative projections about the future. There have been WP:BLP violations.
    Your post is not promising in that you show no openness to understanding the problems here, as does this AfD !vote, this partial (?) removal of a PROD, this response to someone trying to point out relevant policies and guidelines... oy.
    Please be aware that we do indefinitely block editors (and students and their instructors are editors like everybody else) who refuse to listen when people try to explain community norms (the policies and guidelines by which the editing community governs itself) and press on. The discretionary sanctions allow that blocking to happen swiftly when the problems are clear and there is no sign of them abating but only continuing. That would be ... awkward and I for one hope you can start hearing what people are saying to you in the several places across Wikipedia where people are responding to the class and to specific articles. I understand that your WP liaison is trying very hard to communicate with you, your TAs, and your students (diff) off-WP. I hope that bears fruit and this does not turn into more of a train wreck than it already is. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input. I disagree with your characterization of our students' work (soapbox, not, npov, undue, crystalball). I've read those policies and don't find that the pages in question generically violate them. Could you perhaps show statements that do so? It would help us understand what you're speaking of. Your references to the few edits I've directly engaged in highlight the same problem. Sections and pages were deleted without any real evidence while the sections themselves were well supported by scientific journal and popular literature citations. No need to do this yourself, but if you could find a soapbox-y statement that would be great. There's a lot of contentious stuff going on right now in the US and it does feel like a lot of soapboxing is going on. But that doesn't mean that, for example, mountain-top removal coal mining isn't actually affecting poor people in Appalachia. How is it a violation to document that?
    Thanks! --EJustice (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Unfortunately, a response with WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:ARBCOM, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc. is a not uncommon intimidation tactic. The work of your students is far better on the whole than typical newby editors. Their work certainly should not evoke this knee-jerk response. I hope some admins with cooler heads step in and help resolve this.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I highlighted a few examples in my AfD comments, but I'm not sure ANI is the right place for this discussion. For example there is WP:CRYSTAL about Trump in Financial Accessibility of National Parks in the United States, I reviewed several of the the articles and I don't think the policies are being cited maliciously in this case Seraphim System (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your AfD comments cited this as POV, not CRYSTALBALL, but I agree that at this point this entry is CRYSTALBALL "Accessibility to national parks can decrease during this administration because President Trump has threatened to defund the National Parks Service. This would cause the National Parks to become more expensive to visit, through increase in entrance or yearly fees, or in some cases even shutting down National Parks. Our national parks are becoming increasingly vulnerable to destruction as climate change will negatively impact the ecosystems of many of our National Parks."
    Note however that my talk page feedback to this page a few weeks ago specifically suggested to them how to remedy this. Very easy to show how proposed cuts in Trump's budget will impact park accessibility as the subject of accessibility is a widely researched one. We know, from rigorous peer-reviewed research, how fees affect park attendance by various groups. The editors of that page need to bring those citations to bear or modify the page. I do not think this warrants the TNT you suggest.
    Overall grateful for a good example so editors can remedy. Most of the AfD comments have been unsupported by actual analysis and, again, does the need for better citation warrant an AfD? Wiki's systemic biases do make it harder for certain groups' issues to be addressed and I'd urge those reacting so strongly to think about that.
    --EJustice (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    note, fixed indenting Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH carefully. If the secondary source does not explicitly say "Trump's budget cuts have effected park accessibility..." etc. I don't think it will pass scrutiny from our editors. As for better citation, Indigenous rights to land along rivers cites to Wikipedia itself. The errors are such flagrant policy violations that I don't think there is much to debate at this stage in terms of application and systemic bias. They demonstrate a clear and persistent misunderstanding of the most basic Wikipedia policies. I think it your responsibility to better familiarize yourself and your students with Wikipedia's policies and their applications, before accusing us of making unsupported accusations. Seraphim System (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree entirely with I am One of Many's comment. There is no need to threaten the instructor and the students with blocks. What an embarrassment to the Project. What happened to WP:AGF and WP:BITE?
      That said, I agree with Seraphim System that students are writing things that do not follow our rules, especially rules against original research, synthesis and citing to primary sources, all of which would be acceptable in academic writing. The solution is not to WP:BITE the newcomers but to teach them respectfully how to follow our rules and write good content using proper sourcing that will stick. Deleting all their new articles rather than improve them is incredibly insulting. Just imagine if you were in a class and your instructor did that with all of your work.
    I have offered to help the instructor and the outreach has already begun. Why are the rest of the dedicated Wikipedians not doing more of the same? Why are we instead slinging mud, as the instructor correctly pointed out here? I think the students and instructor are learning quite a lot from this experience, especially about Wikipedia itself, and about how we treat new editors who come in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia and provide well sourced content, and in particular how we treat the work of students from one of the U.S.'s top universities. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Without involvement, i observe there are new editors confronted with a wall of violations by Jytdog. Above I AM One of Many summed it up, intimidation tactic. Jytdog might as well be not even aware how he comes across to new editors. Wikipedia lacks new editors because of such harsh responses. Yet, editors with a history of conflicts are allowed to getting involved, over and over again. prokaryotes (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is why my suggestion would be to stay out of ArbCom subject areas (like Trump) as much as possible, at least until you are comfortable with the basics of WP:OR, because ArbCom is where editors will encounter truly esoteric applications of policy. It doesn't seem fair to allow pages to POV-fork out of ArbCom just because they are part of a school project. Seraphim System (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking just for myself, I don't regard our placing the entire area of American politics under discretionary sanctions, as a particular strange thing to do, especially in time. And we arbitrators do not make the decisions about enforcement for individual violations of discretionary sanctions--this is done by other administrators. The process is deliberately divided. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update, over at ENI the Education folks have said that they had a video conference with EJustice and that they have moved some articles back into sandboxes, will allow AfDs to continue, noted that some articles are probably OK and will continue to be improved, and clarified that students are not going to be graded on final product but on their drafts. And User:Train2104 is keeping track of the articles at a userpage, here.Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP vandal (14 April 2017)

    IP not currently active. If vandalism resumes, consider reporting at WP:AIV as a WP:VOA. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I have just given a fourth-level vandalism warning to 64.19.143.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (after the vandalism of two articles following a lighter warning), since this user had previously received up to {{uw-v3}}. Please take any appropriate action. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the report. The person has not edited since 15:08, April 13, 2017 (eleven hours ago), so there's no need to block at the moment. Please let us know if the vandalism resumes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted here with the hope that someone else would monitor this user’s activity, since I’m not particularly active here as of late. But I’ll shout if I see something. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please note that all four of the recent edits were clearly deliberate vandalism, with deliberately misleading edit summaries. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing.

    Chazlepley (talk · contribs) has constantly reverted my edits on the Big Brother Canada articles without including an explanation as to doing so, I have tried to explain to them the reason for my edits, but they keep reverting them. ([54], [55], [56], [57]) VietPride10 (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi VietPride10, these look like very minor formatting issues about where the line breaks in the chart. Have you tried discussing the issue on Talk:Big Brother Canada (season 5)? That's what you should do. Also, if the user is edit-warring instead of discussing his unexplained changes, you should give him an edit-warring warning on his usertalk page, and then report him at WP:ANEW if he persists after that. Just remember however that if you are also edit-warring you could get blocked as well. Softlavender (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack - threat of outing by PastieFace

    User blocked for 2 weeks by Stwalkerster. User also warned about outing by Barek. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I am reporting this edit by PastieFace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a personal attack, per WP:OUTING: "Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Jeh (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    TP editing rights can go. L3X1 (distant write) 02:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User reported has been blocked. I also blocked the IP because obvious block evasion is obvious. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Threats have continued. Jeh (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a clear and unambiguous warning about the threats on the user's talk page. If they do it again, the block should be extended and talk page access revoked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cleanup on aisle Ponyo?

    Handled by NielN and Barely. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Take a look, some kinda odd moves there. Anmccaff (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Already fixed, by the look of it. Anmccaff (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted the page moves and blocked the user; also NeilN has adjusted the page protection for page-moves. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks to both of you. That looked like someone had privileges he should not have, somehow. Anmccaff (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Soapboxing and other stuff

    User indeffed by Acroterion. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vitamindaughter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote extensively, but not very neutrally about University of Missouri School of Medicine, in such a way I concluded she was using the article as a WP:SOAPBOX in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I reverted that, since the balance of the article was definitely out of whack. The user in question then proceeded to demand I "Reinstate [her[ edits", accused me of being German and hence being biased. She retracted the accusation of being German later, but kept the 'biased' bit. I Informed her of WP:BRD and told her to take it to the talkpage,1, 2 which she didn't, but started an edit war instead, both in the article and my talk-page. This has now devolved into baseless accusations on my TP. At this point, I was utterly convinced Vitamindaughter is WP:NOTHERE to help improve the encyclopedia, but instead WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Can an admin please intervene? Kleuske (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is in good faith. User accused me of lack of citations when everything seems to be sourced unless I misunderstand something. Since my neutrality was questioned my only add to the page remained the ongoing accreditation controversy which I think should be discussed on the page, and is discussed on other medical school's pages. See George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences. User @Kleuske edits mainly about feminism, genocide, and seems to be biased toward in censorship on subjects of discrimination. Happy to make good edits to improve the reporting but don't think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop accusing other editors of bias or censorship. You are confusing disagreement with conflict, and you are edit-warring. Please use the talkpage to politely discuss your proposed edits and to develop a consensus among editors for changes to the article. Acroterion (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds great, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition: if you do this [58] again you may face sanctions. That really is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry do what? I think she asked me to talk to her on her talk page. How is it ok to remove an addition for lack of sources when it is all sourced? Also I was not aware accusations of bias were not ok because my post was edited due to questions of neutrality. In fact, nobody is neutral, so I decided to report on just the one main event of the LCME accreditation history at the school which is reported on at another school's wikipedia page. The user wants to remove information about Armenian genocide I think it's kind of pertinent, similar to holocaust denial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? How did the Armenian Genocide get here? I can't remember ever being involved in that issue. WP:Aspersions? Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are assuming bad faith and attempting to disqualify other editors from editing (or even disagreeing with you) through your perception of their nationality.You may not do that, nor may you claim "you may not remove them." Sourcing does not automatically immunize an edit from removal, modification or disagreement. And FYI, Kleuske is Dutch. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Armenian genocide? What possible relevance does that have to your preferred edits? Acroterion (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    She's interested in German history judging from the photos of Germany on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter, just like it doesn't matter whether she is a man or a woman, or German or Dutch, Jewish or Armenian, or editing only on Feminism or Genocide, I'd just appreciate if she made constructive edits to the article rather than removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment I'm white hot in rage because of your accusations and innuendo. This, the accusation of not being constructive, is the final straw, and I formally request a block. Kleuske (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not angry at all and very open minded. There was no ill intended and no inuendo intended. I meant quite sincerely that your gender, religion, and national origin or interest in German/Latin is not relevant to me when we discuss editing the article. We clearly have common interests and interest in improving the article, and I just wish we could stay on topic. The reason I mentioned sourcing is because the edits were removed on the grounds of lack of source. If there is some other problem I am happy to look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You accused me, in this thread, of wanting "to remove information about Armenian genocide [...] similar to holocaust denial", being biased and not constructive and then go on a tangent about Germany, after which you bluntly state there's no innuendo and "no ill intended"? WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS. Read them. They're as pertinent as WP:NPOV and WP:RGW. Kleuske (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not accusing you of anything. I think you are doing great service and would love if you had additional comments on improvement of the article at hand. I simply looked at the history of discussions you had on your talk page. One of them was about removing an article from Armenian Genocide Recognition that was proposed to have lack of sources. Well in my article I had sources through the whole thing, it is about discrimination history, and you said it was not sourced when it clearly has sources. Another article was removal of German translation of information about second wave German feminism. There is no accusation. Not sure what it has to do with my article that you are also editing. I was just reading your talk page looking at what else you are removing. But let's keep discussion to my article. If you would like to edit the article to make it better I am happy to work together to do it on a different page, but though I cannot demand it I prefer if there is not removal without good reason and first trying to work on it together to make improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you accuse me of "wanting to remove information about the Armenian Genocide, akin to holocaust denial". That's pretty serious. My family put their lives on the line, helping a Jewish girl survive and you wonder why I'm angry? Kleuske (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apropos "on topic" and "working together": Your text in the article in question seriously misrepresents the sources you cite. Someone should remove that. Kleuske (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why you would like to discuss with me your personal family history as if it is relevant to the discussion. I was simply restating information from your talk page about other articles I noticed you removing information from. Would you like to be friends with me or work on the article together? Was not planning on making a new friend right now, but I try to be open-minded. If you do not need someone to talk to about your family, do you have more information about the article edits? I was hoping to work on the article together. If so let's continue. If not, I think this discussion could be closed. Feel free to add more information from the articles or new articles to the wikipedia page to provide more information to the article about the school on this issue or other issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I referenced some personal history to illustrate why that remark made me very angry. You did not "restate information" you made unfounded accusations, based on some halfassed reading of various comments and jumping to conclusions. No I do not want to work together, since I do not believe you are here to help build an encyclopedia. If you were, you would not be misrepresenting sources, abusing Wikipedia as a soapbox and making personal attacks. Kleuske (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note I've filed a Request for Page Protection for this article, and I'd advise Vitamindaughter to do what editors are supposed to do here: discuss their proposed additions on the Talk page of the article. This discussion isn't going to end well otherwise. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't touched the article since it stopped getting removed for no reason and I have things to do today rather than validate the person bothering me for the Jewish girl her family saved in the holocaust but also maintains she isn't biased regarding discrimination issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, so why don't we just leave the discussion there? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you removed the edit without reason. It doesn't qualify as righting great wrong, because it is a publically documented history, the school has been found guilty of multiple times by a governing body that is nationally recognized. This is a piece of history that has been widely documented and is well-known, so it doesn't make sense to remove it. I am not personally attacking anyone at all. I don't understand why this person continues to mention her personal history or whether she is male or female or where she is from it doesn't matter to me, I don't have a problem with her, it's good faith, I am not attacking anyone. In fact, I said I would be her friend. It doesn't make sense why you are removing the article.
    If you take a step back from whatever agenda you're trying to push here, you'd see that the standart procedure is WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss. You're way past the "revert" stage so you should be discussing it on the talk page of the article. Cut out the swipes you keep taking at Kleuske and just focus on improving Wikipedia - at the moment all you're doing is creating work for others. Enough's enough now - move on to editing another article. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not trying to push any agenda. I just think the LCME accreditation issue should be documented on the Wikipedia. I don't have other articles to edit this is the only article I wanted to edit - because it is lacking information. Please provide actual basis for removal of the information. I can't continue to edit it because I have other jobs, and I have to work over and over to try to reinsert sources which I was told was the problem. That's why I kept putting it back because it had sources. I don't know all the procedures because I am new. But I think I did a great job with the article. Nobody wants to fix it they just want to remove it even though it's important info that has been in the news for a decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I have to keep repeating the phrase "discuss this on the talk page of the article" over and over again? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added it to the page, does someone want to meet me there to work on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What Exemplo said. By the way, the burden is on the editor proposing the change to the status quo to justify the edit, not so much on the person contesting the change. Start using the article talkpage now, and stop casting aspersions on other editors. Any more of that and you will face a block for assumption of bad faith. And please remember that you too have an agenda which may look less important to others than to you. It is up to you to justify the content, emphasis and space in the article that is devoted to that matter. Acroterion (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good about noticing everyone has bias including me. I have absolutely good faith so please don't block me because I think everyone I have talked to so far here is helpful. I added to the talk page but I don't notice anyone responding. I hope that since I discussed on the talk page we can work to improve it, but I didn't see a response yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You won't get an instant response at the talk page, and I'd strongly advise you not to make any changes to the article - particularly because by my count, you broke the Three Revert Rule three times. Make a proper case for your additions on the talk page, and then you'll just have to wait. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    K @Exemplo347 Talking with @Velella who originally deleted those due to lack of source accidentally which is why I reverted multiple times when it was sourced. Did not mean to break the rule just didn't get through all the docs yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all that remains to be done here is to ask you for an apology for the remarks you made to Kleuske - who is an excellent editor and who didn't deserve to be the target of your various barbs. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ok I have nothing to apologize for. I am still more interested in improving and properly citing articles I have researched thoroughly than censorship of topics I don't know much about. Note: that is not a barb toward anyone. I have good faith and I assume everyone else does as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You definitely DO have things to say sorry for, or I wouldn't have suggested it. If you expect people to work with you, you need to show that you know when you've made mistakes. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake was not toward user you mentioned but that I didn't learn all things about editing via Talk page with users interested in working on the article at hand with me or other people before trying to write about LCME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well, I was just trying to help you. Give me a shout when you've made your apology and I'll be willing to work with you. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exemplo347I apologized for not discussing with Vellela via talk page with Vitamindaughter (talk) when he thought my addition wasn't cited. Also I didn't realize you shouldn't delete from Talk page bc Kleuske deleted things from hers that I wrote. But now that I know it's not ok I wouldn't delete. —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    What about your remarks to Kleuske? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No apologies I said nothing meant to be harmful in any way. Since everyone is biased she too is biased. It is not incorrect to respond to her accusation of bias on my end to remark that everyone is. I also improved my contribution following the suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you can't see what you've done wrong, I'll support Kleuske's call for you to face a ban for your conduct. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Banning me would be wrong and violate Wikipedia terms because I am not making personal attacks on anyone. I can't control a perception that I have made an attack when there is no evidence. I described facts only. Just like if someone wants to delete my additions for lack of sources when they are sourced on most lines, I can't do anything about it, but it's still wrong. Vitamindaughter (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    All that but still nobody wanted to work on the article to get the article edited and published. That's why I was there by the way. Not one suggestion was made on improving the article content. No I did not want to act as therapist while someone talked to me in Latin, or about Mozart, or about their family Makes sense I guess. All I wanted was to add info to the article. Can't make it happen even though there is no problem with the content. Vitamindaughter (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    None of you seem to be interested in actually working on the article but just want to cause drama or try to get me to continue personal discussion on my talk page. Nobody wants to edit the article. Yes I am working on just one article but this is one I have researched quite a lot. Clearly I can only conclude none of you want to edit the article. Anymore comments to me I will not respond to UNLESS THEY ARE ABOUT THE ARTICLE. I will respond if you discuss the article with me. Do not block me because no attacks are being made. Thanks. Vitamindaughter (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 20:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah I've basically given up that this article is never going to be published. Obviously nobody actually wanted to work on it. I find it hilarious that this person can talk to me about the sacrifice her family made to save a Jewish girl just to defend a claim against being German. "I'm Dutch, so therefore I have nothing to do with Nazis." Give me a break. What someone's family did in the past has nothing to do with their current behavior. What my sister and brother do don't even have anything to do with me. Also a person can stand in the Netherlands and Germany at the same time. So maybe you want to believe your family was so not Germany but you live in a place you can have a food on either side. Me being in the US in Missouri it's close enough that I was pretty much right on the money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    GODVERDOMME! How many personal attacks like this does it take to get someone blocked? Kleuske (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Vitamindaughter, you are the one bludgeoning this thread to death. And attacking other editors, to boot. @NeilN, Bishonen, Ponyo, and Acroterion: we really do need an admin to set this editor straight (apologies for all the pings: I'm not sure who's still online to handle this, so I pinged all the admins who seemed to me to be active in the last few hours). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's because I realize what I worked to write, which was totally relevant information about the school I have been following for two and half years in the newspaper articles, Facebook, and in real life, is never going to be published and I gave up. Vitamindaughter (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Plus like what I was hinting at, which was that the author's family had involvement in the holocaust that led her to bias on issues of racial discrimination and genocide because her personal emotions were impacted by it, genocide articles which she didn't even remember editing or removing information from, turned out to be 100% accurate, so I don't see what the problem was. Vitamindaughter (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef - no indication that they understand the offensiveness of their behavior. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Beatley and SvG articles salvation effort

    As many of you know, Sander v. Ginkel created a lot of articles about sportspeople. The quality of these articles was substandard, and they were moved to the draft space, so that users can work on them and after cleaning this up move them back. A dedicated effort was set up; in particular, very clear guidelines were set, detailing what are typical problems with the articles and how they should be addressed. Unfortunately User:Beatley misused the effort by moving a large amount of articles back to the main space without fully addressing the issues. As a result, we have a lot of articles which are likely unnotable (example: Muna Muneer, fails WP:NSPORT and likely WP:GNG, at least the user did not make an effort to demonstrate WP:GNG), and article with unsourced statements (see this or this. We are talking about dozens, possibly hundreds articles. The user's attention was drawn to this fact at their talk page, see User talk:Beatley#SvG drafts and User talk:Beatley#SvG drafts (again) to which they responded [59] expressing the willingness to continue in the same manner. I believe that at the very least, the user must be topic-banned from SvG articles, and whatever they moved to the main space must be moved back to draft. Which is a pity, since it was massive waste of time for new page reviewers including myself, as well as for other users cleaning up after them. Note that all of these are BLP articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh dear lord no - If I had more time I'd formally propose a Community Ban to prevent Beatley from "helping" with the SvG cleanup, as they are clearly not interested in the reasons behind it, they just want to fish all of those turds out of the toilet bowl for reasons best known to themselves. The comment on their talk page, words to the effect of "take them all to AfD if you don't like what I'm doing," should be taken at face value - we're going to be forced to sit through god knows how many AfDs just because this editor wants to prove some ridiculous point. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the user's reaction at their talk page is dismissive and not really helpful. In addition, they likely do not understand our BLP and notability policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they're still going at it - Shibi Joseph. GoldenRing (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and the terrible way they're doing it - for example, not even making the adjustments that experienced editors make to the categories before moving a draft to article space - suggests they have no idea what the hell they're doing. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked them indef; they will be unblocked after we decide here what to do with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call - it was already getting slightly out of hand, and it's going to take quite a bit of fiddly work to undo the mess they've already made. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Right, so...

    Proposal Community ban, preventing Beatley from moving any of SvG's drafts to Article space. All moves of these articles that Beatley has already performed should be reverted. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Admittedly the signs are not good. GoldenRing (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be disruptive if I started AfDing the ones I think are unnotable? L3X1 (distant write) 20:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am concerned this will not be disruptive but try not to overload AfD please, either group many articles in one AfD with absolutely identical problems, or nominate several per day.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huang Szu-chi I'm going to be adding other female volleyball player SvG articles throughout the day. L3X1 (distant write) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And L3X1, I think that answers your question about AFDing them ;) Primefac (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac so yes AfD them all? If the bot is resurrected, there will be 4000 junk articles that need to be sorted through, only they will be in the draft space. Or am I just confused by what Aymatth2 stated below? L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not clear. We will bulk delete all draft articles and all mainspace articles restored by Beadley and other rogue editors. AfD is not needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't panic!. See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. When we started the clean-up we anticipated rogue editors blindly moving SvG stubs back to mainspace without checking or fixing them. As of 24 April 2017 the clean-up period will end, all remaining drafts will be deleted, and then an audit will check for rogue editors. All articles restored by rogue editors will be deleted. My guess is that of the 4,000+ articles restored at least 3,000 will be deleted. Don't rush to plug up the AfD queues. Most of the garbage will be cleared away en masse during the audit period. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • !vote change Reviewing Primefac's link has filled me with righteous anger, no just disbelief and that feeling when you see a mountain of work ahead of you. For the amount of disruption done, I think our friend the moving man should bestay blocked till every last S.v.G article is taken care of, either through AfD, or being moved back to draft space. This can be done per the difference between indefinite and infinite. And has anyone with CU powers ran SvG and Beatley? Just to make sure? Not casting aspersions, but I would think this would be SOP for the course. L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone for your help with this. I've looked at a sample of the moves, and they all seem to be low-value articles with dubious notability, mainly volleyball players. If any of them fall into the scope of the cycling clean-up lists, let me know, and I'll take a closer look. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lugnuts: A reminder that if the audit finds that Beatley has been restoring articles without checking and fixing them, all articles he restored will be deleted regardless of improvements made later by other editors. If you want to salvage one you should userfy it, then wait a few weeks for the dust to settle before restoring it. It might be easier to just let the mass deletion happen, then start a new article from scratch. Most of the SvG stubs are trivial. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple unsourced edits spanning several years

    Mostly changes to or addition of release dates. I can't find reliable sources to support these edits, and this may go back years. Mass reversions may be necessary, but I'd like to hear someone else's take. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am afraid we are talking about an indef block and a mass revert, see the talk page of the user. Any objections?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick look suggests genre-warring at least since 2013. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly when they registered their account.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes--experience has taught me to leave that observation open-ended, in case an admin should turn up evidence of multiple accounts. It happens so often in genre-warring and date changing. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Small Admin action needed

    (non-admin closure) Handled, so all that remains to be done, is apply a big, fat close. Kleuske (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Presently, we have the following redirs:

    Jordanian rule of the West Bank →‎ Jordanian occupation of the West Bank →‎ Jordanian annexation of the West Bank

    The name of the article is Jordanian annexation of the West Bank.

    I want to change the Jordanian rule of the West Bank so that it is a direct redir to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, however, Jordanian rule of the West Bank is protected, so that only admins can edit it.

    Could some admin change that redir, please? Huldra (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Would a Skinny Admin action suffice? Done. --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure if I know what a Skinny Admin action is;) but thanks for fixing it! Huldra (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Heightist! Anmccaff (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! Sorry, finally got it! (English is not my mother tongue, play with words is typically things that I miss...) Huldra (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Huldra, this is what you asked me about the other day, no? NeilN, thanks for taking care of it. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, yepp, that is correct. And a Skinny Admin action took care of it, Huldra (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLP applies to non-whites also

    This is a content dispute, as has been pointed out repeatedly. If it belongs at a noticeboard, it belongs at BLPN. Since it's a comparatively simple problem to explain, it is a good candidate for an RfC, and all involved are reminded that in cases where BLP is even questionably an issue, the safe approach is to maintain the more conservative version of the article in the meantime. TimothyJosephWood 01:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Page protected for a few days while this issue is figured out on the talk page. Courtesy note from RFPP. El_C 03:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal is an article about a terrible series of crimes, where 1400 children were abused in a sex trafficking ring. The criminals were mostly British-Pakistani, as the current version states in its opening paragraph, second sentence, prominently linked. I consider this a violation of NPOV and really of the BLP, since, I contend, placing this ethnic origin so early on in the lead basically makes their ethnicity essential to the crime. Obviously some editors disagree with this, most prominently The Rambling Man, who reverted me twice and accused me of edit warring: note that I invoked the BLP in my second removal. Also involved to one extent or another: MPS1992, Mr rnddude. The BLP applies here not just because of those perpetrators (for whom I have little sympathy) but more particularly because for the local British-Pakistani community this was a most serious matter, which they condemned, of course.

    Note that I never removed the ethnic origin: rather, I removed it from the opening paragraph and moved the wikilink lower down in the lead, where it has the context of a later investigation into widespread alleged abuse by British-Pakistani men. The case boils down to this: is their ethnic origin essential to the crime, and does it thus deserve such prominent mention? I do not think our article should suggest this: I believe this is racist. They committed these crimes because they were, well, I can't really say what, but not because somehow this is what British-Pakistani men do. We do not normally mark these things in the opening sentences, and we shouldn't; we certainly don't seem to have it for one prominent recent case where it was clear that a person's ethnicity actually had everything to do with their crime. We can't have different measures for different races, where whiteness is somehow transparent, and everything else needs to be marked as soon as possible. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Drmies has already been pointed to masses of evidence that the ethnicity of the perpertrators is absolutely fundamental to the case. Drmies engaged in edit warring despite BRD, hence my warning. There's plenty of ongoing discussion at the talkpage of the article in question to cover this issue. It's a shame now we have this dramaboard distraction which will no doubt achieve little in this specific case. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment please note the Drmies knew about BRD and was reminded in my edit summary "leave the original in place until the ongoing talkpage discussion has concluded, I thought you would know that?" to restore the status quo until the ongoing discussions on the talkpage had concluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • BRD is an essay. BLP is a policy. I thought you as a former admin would know that. And how you feel, well, I know that because you indicated it clearly enough on the talk page: their ethnicity is an essential part of the crime, you indicate. That is, they didn't just do it because they were powerhungry male child abusers, they did it because of their ethnicity. If their ethnicity is not an intricate part of the crime, it should not be in here. Pardon me for taking this note more seriously than some other editors do. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That I'm a former admin has no bearing here. Why would you bring that up? You're a current admin who has just accused me of being a racist. That's WP:NPA. Go figure. If you really wanted to make the lead of that article work to your personal preference, you could have added a sentence about the British-Pakistani community strongly condemning it, but you didn't, you just chose a different path which most of us disagreed with. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • What "most of us disagreed with" was removing the ethnicity of the perpetrators from the lede. Drmies' preferred version did not remove the ethnicity of the perpetrators from the lede, which is why the current talk page discussion -- last time I looked at it -- is about a different thing from what you all are edit-warring about. Drmies did mention this in his original post in this thread, but perhaps it is still being overlooked in the heat of the moment. MPS1992 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • edit conflict x2 IMO the doc is right, ethinicty should be down below. Wouldn't an RfC be best here? I doubt we're going to see any action from the Hammer part of the sickle. L3X1 (distant write) 22:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reopened this thread. At the moment, the article needs to be locked by an uninvolved administrator (not me) as the edit-warring is shameless. That administrator will have to decide, though, whether it matters which version is locked based on WP:BLP, one of the few policies that permit an administrator to lock a particular version.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Obviously the pre-dispute version should be locked, although things have moved on. Yes, the reverting was disgraceful, as was the accusation of racism from an admin, that should be checked. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's obvious at all, since the pre-dispute version could well contain a BLP violation. The locking admin should err on the side of BLP and lock it in the version preferred by those who see a BLP problem with it. After all, the lock is not permanent, as soon as a consensus can be reached, the article can be unlocked, and if the consensus is that the pre-dispute formulation is preferred, and is not a BLP violation, the article can be returned to that. In the meantime, WMF policy clearly prefers that potential BLP violations not be displayed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPREMOVE Only applies to unsourced or poorly sourced material. Do you think this is unsourced or poorly sourced, or is there some other policy provision that you believe should trump the normal WP:BRD cycle.-Obsidi (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like a content dispute, albeit a heated one. It should be resolved on the talk page, possibly via an RfC. I suggest this discussion be closed in deference to the one that should be taking place at the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does seem like a content dispute and I find the BLP claims to be rather weak. Much like the multiple articles about the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals (many which list religion in the title). In these cases where the scandal is made notably worse through the community ties, whether it's race, religion, ethnicity, etc, etc; it's appropriate to highlight prominent factors in reliable sources that make the scandal encyclopedic. I don't think anyone would propose removing the mentioning of the Catholic Church in the title and opening paragraph of the various articles we have on related sex abuse cases. No one would make the leap that highlighting the church impugns the character of Catholics or Catholic priests at large to the extent that religion is left out for BLP concerns. --DHeyward (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a thought-provoking comparison, but I don't think any of the five convicted mentioned in the part of the Rotherham article at issue, were imams or in similar positions of responsibility comparable to the Catholic priests you mention. As I've already said above, everyone is in agreement that it should be mentioned in the lede -- just not in the first couple of sentences of a necessarily lengthy and detailed lede. MPS1992 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appears to me to just be a content dispute without the need of admin involvement at this time. I don't think this impacts BLP at all and so it should just be reverted to the prior status quo (without considering BLP policy to keep it off the page). WP:BLPREMOVE ONLY applies to unsourced or poorly sourced content. If it is verifiable enough to be in the page anywhere, then where in the page is not a BLP issue that demands immediate removal (or should give any group of editors an advantage in keeping their preferred version while discussion in ongoing). It becomes just a question of WP:DUE WEIGHT consistent with WP:LEAD. I don't like the statement that saying the ethnicity is an important part of the story must mean "they did it because they were Paki." That just isn't true, nor does arguing to include that in the lead should imply someone believes that. Drmies should be hit with a good WP:TROUT for saying that and this thread should be closed. -Obsidi (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh for goodness sake, I didn't reopen this to discuss the dispute. Nor for TRM to take another swipe at Drmies. I just felt that the article should be locked because of the edit-warring. That's it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Gee, I didn't know that. Snarkiness aside, I thought this would get quicker attention. It did but not the kind of attention I requested. As I'm sure you must know, there are many times editors come to ANI for issues that ostensibly belong elsewhere, e.g., vandalism, edit-warring, sock puppetry. Sometimes, there's a good reason for it. Sometimes, there's not. IMHO, in this particular case I thought this was a good use of ANI. So far, I've been proven wrong, although I don't know that RFPP would have fared any better.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right that isn't a very WP:AGF kind of statement. There are a few people that have made statements about that bad in failing to WP:AGF on this page. Are we going to examine them all? If so, this might take a while, but it shouldn't be done selectively. -Obsidi (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please go ahead. MPS1992 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin attention please

    Hoax article deleted, might need salting, especially if it pops up again, especially if it's a 4chan meme. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello all - can an Admin please cast their eye over this train wreck of an AfD? The associated article is currently tagged as a WP:G3 hoax. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kevinthomas1864 Exemplo347 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey! I filed first LOL. Yours looks better, so mine can be closed L3X1 (distant write) 22:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well, not to worry - it just proves that we are both very thorough & extremely amazing editors. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Zzuuzz deleted it a few minutes ago. I'm sure he'll get around to closing the discussion, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's closed (twice!) now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPIs are in progress (it's a 4chan meme so don't get too excited). Not much to do here now except delete with fire if it appears again. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It just did appear again. There is also a draft. Burninate? --bonadea contributions talk 23:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Article gone. Sam Walton (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we get Urshankov TPA-blocked? Once we get into "Rhodesia forever" nonsense it's probably time to take away the keys to the playpen. Nate • (chatter) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayup. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done-Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Meta-question (which I realize ANI has a good deal of already, maybe more than is useful)

    Conversation moved to: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Troll-chasing_question. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    (I'd accidently posted this elsewhere before)

    Non-admin question: Has Wiki done any research on which spelling variants are more likely to slip under the reader's radar? I know there is a lot done on this elsewhere for spell checkers, but I suspect deliberate evasion might have some different twists. Anmccaff (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (PS: I realize this is tangential, and might better belong elsewhere, and there's maybe been too much meta-discussion on this board lately, so I'll take no offense if this disappears.)

    To flesh this out a little, most fake "Bonadea" names with some spellings jumped out at me, while one initially slipped by, it took a double-take to catch it. (I'm not going into details, in case the bastards are taking notes.) I've seen this with other trollery, here at Wiki and elsewhere, and I've noticed, among other things, that which fakes are more prominent varies a good deal with the usual English variant of the reader, for one instance. Anmccaff (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anmccaff: All fake "Bonadea" names I have seen here were socks of very proliferous sockmaster Nsmutte, an Indian quack who got so upset after having had his autobiography, and the false claims about having a number of world records he added to multiple articles here, deleted that he for the past two years seems to have spent most of his time on Wikipedia, harassing Bonadea (and to a, in comparison to what Bonadea has had to endure, very minor degree me and a few others here) and trolling noticeboards. Socks that should be blocked on sight. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I watched a lot of that happening. What I was asking about above was more to do with perception, and how certain misspellings are more transparent than others, harder to notice, and how that varies from reader to reader. Nsmutte, as annoying as one might find him, is a man with a focused personal grievance, who only attacks those he thinks have wronged him, or those supporting them. Not to say that I approve of what he's doing, "block on sight" is quite correct, but he does seem to have standards. You know who he's going to hit.
    On the other hand, we have some persons who, often for wider personal, commercial, or political reasons, like to create socks and throw-aways for later use, often trying to mimic other user names for camouflage or maybe a little false flagging. Some of these jump out as faked, some don't. I suspect that finding out why that is, why "Bonadeia" might look realer than "Bonadae", would lead for useful tools for grepping out (in the wider, non-literal sense) some of the problem children automatically, and I'm curious if anything's been done with that here. Anmccaff (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued harassment by unregistered editor

    208.25.211.33 has been blocked for one week. ElKevbo, if further disruption occurs, you can probably ask one of those two admins directly, or even have them semi-protect your talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Five days ago, I asked if someone here could block the unregistered or logged out editor using 2600:8801:a409:fb00:9575:48c7:f56:65b8 and 208.25.211.33 as he or she has been persistently harassing me on my Talk page. Ivanvector was kind enough to block the IPv6 for 72 hours and withheld from blocking the IPv4 since it was stale. This editor has returned, using the same IPv4, and is again harassing me. A longer block this time, perhaps? ElKevbo (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. El_C 04:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Winkelvi block appeal

    DECLINED
    I'm closing this early because, re the unblock request, we are entering wintery territory, and it is of no benefit to anybody to rake Winkelvi over the coals again. He requested an unblock—perhaps inadvisedly, but that's not relevant—and it has been roundly denied. I will note to the participants of this discussion that NeilN's "poking the bear" clause applies just as much to other editors in terms of their behaviour towards Winkelvi. In closing this, I hope Winkelvi will sit out the rest of the block calmly. On our part, gravedancing is wrong and in that spirit I am also closing the TPA section. TPA can be removed if Winkelvi abuses his talk page after this closure, but tempers have so far been high on all sides. Respectfully, BethNaught (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin note: Winkelvi is blocked for three months pursuant to a community-imposed editing restriction. (Consensus) He has requested an unblock on his talk page. His unblock request has been copied here for community consideration. Swarm ♠ 05:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nearly one month into my three month block, I am respectfully requesting an early unblock so that I can return to constructive editing. Obviously, when looking at the discussions I participated in above, I understand why I was blocked. Regardless of the fact that I made a severe error in judgement regarding the number of reverts I had committed, I should have known better than to go past two reverts, and likely should have stopped at one. With the decision based on community input that I be on an indefinite 0RR (found here [60]), it would seem to me that the block truly is no longer necessary. Not just because I understand why the block occurred, but because I will be likely indeffed if I revert. I would be a fool to put myself in a position for that to happen, let alone edit war again. I'm not a fool nor am I interested in reducing my Wikipedia editing career and five years here to big fat zero by getting indeffed. I'm also not interested in further devolving the community's trust in me and giving administrators more headaches than they already have. I would really like to get back to constructive editing and would appreciate serious consideration of this request. To whomever reviews this, thank you for your time and consideration. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose for several reasons: (1) The previous block (September 2016) was for two months: [61]. (2) The block appeal fails to address talkpage bludgeoning, which was a major concern in the block-review discussions and also part of the sanction. (3) This block appeal after less than one-third of the block's duration seems to bespeak a Wikipedia addiction, which is a bad sign and a further reason that the length of the block should stand -- the time away allows the user to attend to other things and maintain or develop other interests besides Wikipedia. (4) In the long and contentious and drama-filled block review of the three-month block, 13 people !voted for an indef block for Winkelvi: [62]. It was hard enough for the community as a whole to agree on limiting that indef block proposal to the three-month block which was already imposed. I would have hoped that Winkevli could have peacefully lived out that hard-won compromise solution without the added drama of an early unblock request, and I'm sad to see that that is not the case. (5) This unblock request comes at the exact time that the blocking admin is blocked. Coincidence? I think not. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It's been less than a month. If he understood what he was doing wrong, than nearly any of the previous blocks would have gotten through to him. Unblocking him now will reward this bad behavior. He needs to understand that his actions have consequences, autism or no. My only advice to him is to quickly withdraw this proposal and wait out the block. Doing anything but will only add more fuel to the fire for indef when/if he messes up again. --Tarage (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The gall is confounding. I still feel an indef block is called for. We have wasted enough time on this case, and now this. Appalling. Softlavender makes a number of potent observations above. Jusdafax 05:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Not surprising, but stunning all the same that Winklevi would ask for an unblock so soon, especially after making assurances to more than one admin that he would quietly sit out his block and learn his lesson. His words in the unblock request have the crackle of Confederate money. I don't believe a word he says, and history backs me up. Moreover, my oppose is strengthened by the comments of all three editors above, particularly by point #2 made by Softlavender. Sorry, no dice. He sits it out. --Drmargi (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - A very bad sign to say the least. I want to believe this has nothing to do with the timing of the blocking admin's own block but with this editor it seems like this was a calculated unblock attempt. Winkelvi made assurances they would wait out this block without causing a stir. For an editor who needs to regain the trust of the community, this was a poor decision.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Here we go again. Absolutely not. He has done this before, promising to go back to "constructive editing" but nothing ever changes. It looks like he waited a few weeks hoping people forgot the huge discussion we just had so people go soft on him and give him an early unblock. I'm pretty sure he did not expect his appeal to go to the noticeboard in this case. To have the gall to ask for an unblock this early after agreeing to wait out the three months, [63] seems to be "poking the bear" which was warned about. TL565 (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You guys, I had a discussion with Winkelvi, letting him know the outcome of this appeal. Hopefully, WV can withdraw soon before things could get worse for him. We can allow him to collect his thoughts and reconsider this. George Ho (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And they proceed to completely ignore it. That's enough reason to reject this entirely. --Tarage (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact they removed George Ho's post asking him to consider withdrawing his appeal.[64] That may have been unintentional, but his remarks show a continued lack of clue. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Tarage and Coretheapple, WV moved it to a separate section. That's nice of him. --George Ho (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - there still appears to be a willingness to debate the definition of a revert and/or the number of reverts which an editor should be "allowed" between the lines of this unblock request. As such it seems that the block is still preventing disruption and not merely punitive. This should probably have been posted at AN and not here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, since this was a community-imposed sanction imposed at ANI, ANI is the correct place for the block appeal to be addressed, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't belabor the point, but appeals of community-based blocks and bans are generally posted on AN, no matter where the block or ban originated. Threads on AN stay active longer, and therefore afford more time for opinions to be expressed. It also avoids the chaos which sometimes reigns on AN/I. I'm not saying this should be moved - it's here now and should probably stay here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page access

    • Comment - Has anyone considered revoking Winkelvi's talk page access for the duration of his block? What good has come of him having it? If it is revoked he would need to come to terms he has to follow the block in its entirety (without this added drama) and he can finally start a well-needed wiki-break.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    TGS, I boldly moved this to a separate section to keep two potential discussions from crossing over one another. I agree with your suggestion, if only to cut down on the drama, and the persistent "poking the bear" personal attacks being made on Winklevi's talk page. And frankly, it would save him from himself. Sadly, Winklevi remains unable to see his own role in his problems, and as noted by NeilN, shouldn't be surprised by the tenor of the responses here. He should stop blaming others for where he finds himself, and use the remainder of his block to begin reflecting on his own actions. Removal of his talk page access might encourage that. --Drmargi (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "Dickling, you are deluded and we've marked you"

    IP blocked. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    • IP has been blocked for 48 hrs by Euryalus for PA's and harrassment. I'm less concerned with the offensive language as much as the threat, potentially, of bodily harm. That said, we're on the internet, there's a less than 1% chance they're serious. Still, if they keep it up on return bring it straight back here. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Avoiding warnings

    No administrator action necessary.

    Per WP:OWNTALK:

    "[U]sers may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. ... The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user."

    (non-admin closure)
    Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    MohammedMohammed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received multiple warnings for blanking, not adhering to WP:NPOV, and generally disruptive editing, but they have blanked their talk page each time, so it's unclear to those posting warnings exactly how far to go. I believe that there have been enough incidents to constitute a block, but I'm new at this. --Mooeena (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (They also blanked a section on homophobic abuse on Kathleen Wynne, but I am assuming good faith editing unless they prove otherwise on its talk page.

    @Mooeena: You missed, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I've done so for you. Also, posting diffs of warnings is not really helpful. You need to post diffs of their disruptive editing. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops! I got a phone call right after and had to step away. I'll post the links in a sec. --Mooeena (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly didn't ignore a warning. Someone asked me to provide a source on my talk page for the Patrick Brown article, and I provided a source. If I ignored the warning, I wouldn't have provided a source. MohammedMohammedمحمد 16:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed poorly sourced speculation on the Kathleen Wynne page, and I absolutely discussed the issue on the talk page. There was a section assuming that since Wynne is female, that must mean she has been abused. No specifics were given, nor mentioned in the sources. There is no evidence to suggest she has been the victim of sexual or physical abuse of any kind. MohammedMohammedمحمد 16:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I believe I am allowed to blank my own talk page after I read the message. MohammedMohammedمحمد 16:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is generally accepted as better to archive than to blank warnings, which, if unresponded to, may be taken as denial. L3X1 (distant write) 16:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be "generally accepted as better" but it is not in any way required, and per WP:BLANKING it should be taken as evidence that the user has seen the message. At this point I do not see a case for any sort of administrative action here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Beeblebrox. Moooeena, I really wish you had at least tried to discuss either the Brown or the Wynne articls on their talk pages BEFORE slapping a warning on me. I believe this is unnecessarily hostile. If there is a content dispute, isn't this the first logical step? You didn't even post on my talk page about this incident report. Why avoid discussion on the article talk pages (which I am actively engaged in), and accuse me or avoiding discussion? This seems very hypocritical to me. MohammedMohammedمحمد 17:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Note that MohammedMohammed has been checkuser blocked as a sock of Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. --NeilN talk to me 18:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NepaliHelper

    Indeffed for persistent copyright violations (even though there are a myriad other issues as well). (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    NepaliHelper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Any objections to indef blocking this user per WP:CIR? See their talkpage to get an impression of their activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just indef them and get it over with. But it would be better to specify the recidivism, copyright, promotionalism etc. issues as block reasons rather than the more vague "competence". BethNaught (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some good contributions by the user, although I agree there the lack of competence is concerning. I would suggest, in a very passive tone, speaking to the user to try and explain them about copyright and notability, which seem to be the primary issues here, and encourage them to contribute in other, less controversial ways. If the user still continues this behavior, a block may be appropriate. RoCo(talk) 16:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarity with User:Nepali Writer, which was a sock of User:Ajeya Raj Sumargi...? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed for copyright violations (they've been warned before). Competence issues can be addressed based on their potential unblock request. --NeilN talk to me 17:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Quantummechanic

    Could someone look at this new editor, who appears to be on an edit rampage of null information edits. 198.168.106.200 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP, you need to notify the user that you have opened a thread about him here. You may use the template in red at the top of this page. I have also linked the username in your thread title for easy reference. Softlavender (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also warned the editor about adding unsourced content, and I've reverted his edits thus far. Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Country block?

    We have an ip who appears to be a Filipino living here in Auckland, New Zealand. He enthusiastically edits articles about the Auckland train network and the city's malls. His English is very poor and he is not as familiar with the Auckland train network as he thinks he is. More than 50 percent of his Auckland edits need to be reverted or modified, and he is creating a lot of work. He has been asked to stop editing NZ articles, but never replies. Is it possible to block this ip from editing New Zealand articles? His ip address geo-locates to a New Zealand address. Akld guy (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We're not very good at mind reading. Who are you talking about? Softlavender (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To keep it brief, I didn't think I needed to state that. My question is whether it's possible to block him from editing the articles of NZ. He also edits Philippine articles, and I and the other NZ editors have no way of knowing whether he's doing a good job on those. So a country-specific block (NZ) would allow him to continue editing Philippine articles. Akld guy (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't geo-block IP addresses. We can only block IPs by their range, or sometimes by the topic, or a combination, but we require examples. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Thank you. I'm going to take no further action because it will cost me several hours to assemble all the diffs and present my case. In a few days, he will have changed ip address again and the problem will restart. I have reported this ip's behavior to an admin, but he is reluctant to impose a block because the ip does some worthwhile edits and we have no way of knowing whether his Philippine edits are good. So I'm fighting uphill to get the admin to block him. I thought that the admin might be more willing if the ip could be blocked on an NZ-specific basis, but you've answered that. Thank you again. Akld guy (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the question is whether we can block an editor from editing articles concerning specific countries, and the answer is no. We can ban editors from specific topic areas, which is simply a prohibition and nothing technical. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And even if we could, we are not going to dish out a topic ban on "all articles relating to New Zealand" to an editor who is in New Zealand. Since this would be a de facto siteban, either they're problematic enough to be kicked off Wikipedia altogether, or they should be helped to understand what they're doing wrong. ‑ Iridescent 20:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP states that the user edits Filipino articles, so it wouldn't be a de facto site ban. If the user has competence issues regarding Auckland trains and malls, and over 50% of those edits have to be reverted, that is an actionable issue. Of course the OP would have to tell us who he is talking about for it to be effectively addressed. Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Boing and Iridescent. It's impossible to help an ip who cannot speak proper English and never leaves an edit summary and never replies when messaged. We (a couple of other editors and myself) will just soldier on with our reverts and rewording, caring not a jot about the extra traffic on WP's servers and wear and tear on their machinery, and just laughing when WP asks for donations to pay for server costs. Bonus: this ip's actions boost my edit count :)) Akld guy (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Softlavender: The ip's contribs are here, where he removed a template from Onehunga Branch. He has removed it dozens of times under different ip addresses since July 2016 despite being told why it's there. See his previous contribs here. He switches ip about every 10 days, but his modus operandi is always the same and I and User:Ajf773 and User:Pcuser42 recognize him because of that. For a summary of his actions, see the complaint I made at admin Schwede66's Talk page under the title "The nuisance ip". Akld guy (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why you should have told us upfront who you were talking about. If you list as many of the IP addresses as you can here, admins can do a WP:RANGEBLOCK if merited. But you would first have to prove that you have warned at least one of his IP addresses on its talk page. Softlavender (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) Since the only IP user talk page that Akld guy has posted on in the last two months is that of 27.252.177.126, and since they posted there at least a half dozen times, it would seem that this is the editor they were referring to. However, I've looked through a selection of their edits (not all by any means), and I can't find an example of where their command of English is less than what is necessary for the type of edits they were making. Not being familiar with Auckland's train system, I do not know if the IP's knowledge of that system is less than he thinks it is, but I'm rather disturbed by Akld guy's willingness to come here and make accusations without revealing about whom they're being made, and being unwilling to show evidence supporting their contentions. There may well be evidence, but it hasn't been shown yet, so unless Akld guy is willing to gather the necessary diffs, I think an apology may be owed to the IP, and this thread withdrawn. In the meantime, I have notified the IP involved of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Having read the additional information above, this is clearly a content dispute, and the behaviorial problems so far revealed have been the IP not being willing to talk about it (the IP-hopping could be outside of the IP's control, so it's not necessarily a behavioral issue) and Akld guy not coming clean at the very beginning about what was going on and, apparently, padding the complaint to make it appear worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the IP-hopper edit-warring (vandalizing) for months on end on this one article (since August 2016 [72]): [73]. I don't know how many articles the IP-hopper is edit-warring on, but if it's just a few, semi-protection of the article(s) can be requested at WP:RFPP (just explain that there is edit-warring and vandalizing by an IP-hopper), which will prevent IPs from editing it/them. Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know if I'd call it "vandalizing", but most certainly edit-warring. I also agree that the template that the IP was removing with those edits seems as if is proper for that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are the IPs involved in the above incident, in case anyone wants to calculate a range block:
    • 27.252.172.70
    • 27.252.139.194
    • 27.252.165.30
    • 27.252.185.189
    • 27.252.170.116
    • 27.252.184.49
    • 27.252.142.124
    • 27.252.145.37
    • 27.252.185.223
    • 27.252.153.1
    • 27.252.180.119
    Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) To the admins above: Listen up people. I did NOT come here to make accusations against an unnamed ip. I asked a general question as to whether an ip could be blocked on a country-specific basis. Read my original question, FFS. I was then asked for the ip's address by Softlavender and I endeavoured to be helpful by giving it because she seemed to think I was not serious. I see now that she lured me into a trap, where my query was turned into a formal complaint. FFS people, don't shoot the messenger. The problem is not content dispute but disruptive editing consisting of persistent removal of content by the ip. This situation is known to admin Schwede66, who has blocked the ip on one occasion. Jesus Christ, you fellows need your head read for turning nasty on a genuine editor who asked a simple query. As for apologizing to the ip, you must be joking. This is the last time I will ever come to WP:ANI. Akld guy (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to "ask general questions", this is the place to report incidents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by IP: 188.39.71.98

    Requesting temporary block for this IP user. This user is removing sourced content from the Momentum (organisation) article and making false claims in their edit summaries. Philip Cross (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This COI user made a logged out legal threat here. 2600:1017:B002:16FB:4ECB:2A49:85CD:2F31 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=775592087"