Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive951

User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees (again)

In January I opened an ANI thread (archived here), concerning Carliertwo and their editing of articles related to the music group Siouxsie and the Banshees. My intention had been for the community to examine the whole approach of this user, but unfortunately the thread was closed after focusing on one specific incident (Carliertwo not respecting the result of an RfC). My concern is that this user is not interested in Wikipedia being a neutral and balanced source of information, rather they are using Wikipedia as a platform for echoing their own views as a Siouxsie Sioux fan. I write this as someone who owns several records by the group, so I am not a hater of the band seeking to attack them (quite the contrary); I am simply attempting to ensure Wikipedia's coverage of them is neutral. Currently this is not possible, because Carliertwo has a stranglehold over all articles connected with Siouxsie Sioux, and removes all content that does not chime with their own enthusiasm for the band. Comments made about this user at that first thread include the following: "it looks to me like ownership doesn't even begin to describe the contribution count: it is literally all for the band, like some sort of dedicate social media account to ensure that this group is always portrayed in a positive light" (TomStar81), "Carliertwo is not respecting the consensus outcome of the RfC and they are edit warring. The comment on your talk page does have the tone of ownership" (MrX), and "It is pretty damning evidence of being a SPA when all you do is edit on a specific band to achieve your specific POV" (TheGracefulSlick).

Incidents that have made me open this issue again are the following (the third example is the most revealing):

• 1) Although there had just been an RfC (that I opened) that concluded that the phrase "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website" should not be included in the Tinderbox article, Carliertwo immediately opens another RfC, this time asking whether the phrase "In 2011, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations" should be included in the article.[1]
• 2) In the article about the album Kaleidoscope, I adjusted a review quote so that it reflected the overall tone of the review (i.e. qualified praise) [2]. Carliertwo has reverted this three times ([3] [4] [5]), each time replacing the overall summary with cherry-picked praise of 2 particular tracks.
• 3) I found a very critical review, written by Julie Burchill in the NME, of the album The Scream. I found it remarkable that our article didn't have this review in the 'Critical reception' section, though it did contain long positive comments about the album made by other NME journalists, just not the actual official NME review. So I added a quote from the review [6]. Carliertwo reverted this, stating that I must have found the review on a fansite, and hence I couldn't "advance the veracity" of Burchill's article [7]. So, I added a link to a scan of the review in a copy of NME Originals [8]. Carliertwo reverted this and replaced it with an attack on Burchill's review that is almost hysterical in tone [9], at the same time denying readers the possibility of even reading a quote from Burchill's review.

I am very concerned about the actions of this editor and think that, while they continue to treat Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for reflecting their own views, it will be impossible for any Wikipedia article about Siouxsie Sioux (and related subjects) to achieve any kind of neutrality. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Defense: reply of Carliertwo: Introduction

• Definition and difference between a SPA and a Stewardship. A "wp:Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter or an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter. The editor might also be an expert on the subject matter, or otherwise very knowledgeable of the topic, and able to provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. "
• 1) For your information, I almost entirely wrote a wp:GA for Join Hands. I have made a huge research to create section about legacy, finding the right quotes. All the legacy sections on these SATB related articles have been written by me, I let you measure the good work at Siouxsie Sioux article. [10]]. If you want to get rid of a good contributor who has historical content, you have to have this in mind.
• 2) A 2nd RFC on Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) for including a different sentence while using the same source was discussed a few months ago: my version was accepted with a wp:consensus [[11]]. Palecloudedwhite didn't mention I have a consensus, he wants a revenge apparently.
• 3) For The Scream (album) article, I have added secondary sources as Julie Burchill's review was seen as controversial by many critics. These secondary sources are by legendary John Peel DJ, biographer Brian Jones and I can add another one from Paul Morley who also highly criticized Burchill's review two months later in the NME. Julie Burchill is a journalist known for writing with venom about all the punk and post-punk bands, secondary sources are perfectly valid in this case. So, where is the wp:OR  ? Comment about Pale, Pale had initially used a reference from a fansite where he took the title of the review "Well, what would Edvard Munch have said.", which meant he hadn't checked back then the veracity of the review and didn't own the original (mistakes of sources are common on fansite). Yesterday, he found a reproduction of the article on a NME reissue which doesn't mention the title of the review anymore "well, what would Edvard Munch have said." So that's why he withdrew the title "Well, what would Edvard Munch have said" ffrom the source. I was right but Pale forgot to present you this important fact. Now, it is still said in the article, that in the same paper, Julie Burchill published a scathing review, later judged as this by her peers as I have explained it with sources in the article.
• 4) For Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album), I included a source with quote from the Melody Maker, Pale wanted to change it, I don't consider this idea better. Regarding The Scream (album) and Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album), there are talks to discuss.
• 5) PaleCloudedWhite is not far to be a group hater, I invite you to read the hysterical tone he used here [12] : on 1 February 2017 he wrote: "Boy George writes in his autobiography about meeting Siouxsie Sioux when he was youn of me and the bandger, and says, {{She was haughty, irritated by those attempting to brush with greatness. The new punk stars were every bit as puffed up as the seventies rock dinosaurs they despised", then presumably it's absolutely OK to add this, plus any other quotes I find in primary sources, to the Siouxsie Sioux article}}? ". It is his frame of mind.
• 6) Concerning the review, Pale also wanted to include this pure bashing "the sound of suet pudding" out of the blue which shows Pale's agenda. We never included pure hatred from critics inside quotes for wp:neutrality. Carliertwo (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well I'm thrilled to see nothing has changed. I'm thinking editing restrictions (like topic banned, broadly construed, from anything remotely related to the band). Who be with me? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why ? Pale forgot to tell you he lost the 2nd rfc which ended with a consensus saying the source is valuable. Now, Is there a consensus at the talk of the Scream? The review is still mentioned and there are secondary sources from very famous people who criticized Burchill's work. see below . for TomStar81 You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81's proposal - I faintly remember this discussion in January and share Star's "thrill" that nothing has changed. Readers deserve the full story about the band (and their albums/singles) so it is terribly unfair to censor reviews just because they are contrary to one editor's personal preferences.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why ? Pale forgot to tell you he lost the 2nd rfc which ended with a consensus saying the source is valuable. Now, Is there a consensus at the talk of the Scream? The review is still mentioned and there are secondary sources from very famous people who criticized Burchill's work. see below . for TheGracefulSlick You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The NME thing is blatant evidence they are incapable of editing neutrally in this area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

See below. the review is still mentioned. for Only in death. You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet before your ban. Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I didnt vote support because the review is/is not in the article, I voted support because you thought this edit was an appropriate response to someone criticising your pet band. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I've just had to revert (most of) this editor's large changes to Mogwai, as well. Nothing ridiculous, but they'd merged sections in the article into one without any reason whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - As someone who also listens to this group, I can say without a doubt that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and most (if not all) claims should be backed with reliable sources. The same goes for all articles. However, what I can also say is that editing a specific set of articles does not automatically make the user an SPA. Most editors stick to articles about their interests to begin with. DarkKnight2149 23:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So by not replying by an oppose, you let them ban me, and let these peoplewho are not aware of the agenda of this group hater, and don't care at all of all the massive work with sources that I have made on wikipedia, win de facto. Darkknight2149 Carliertwo (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me put it this way - If they're goal is to make the group look bad, they should not be editing Siouxsie articles. At the same time, if your goal is promote them, neither should you.

Also, sources are absolutely necessary, but it is possible to use them and not be neutral. I'm not going to "pick a side" (for lack of a better term) here since I don't have a history with anyone involved and don't know what is characteristic of their or your behaviour. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I have added secondary sources from John Peel and a biographer but apparently you haven't seen them at The Scream (album). Do you mind clicking on this link or is it too much to ask [13] ? He doesn't have anything to prove that I am not neutral whereas I have one against him as he included the non neutrality quote "The sound of a suet pudding". Darkknight2149 Carliertwo (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Editor is wasting all of our time here with this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As Tarage has never contributed to any historical content on wikipedia apart discussing banning on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and writing on talks, their voice is more than measured. Carliertwo (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Adorable. I'll look forward to seeing your block log then. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is rich, you wrote that my contributions are nonsense whereas I wrote a GA and the valuable content/good sources of these articles were written by me. Judging people without knowing their work is a speciality from you. Thanks for confirming that your pleasure is seeing good contributors being banned. Carliertwo (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You can stop the personal attacks and digging your hole any time now buddy. --Tarage (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Important CommentSurprisingly, three users had already given a ban without even reading the defense, without even seeing I have added secondary sources and the Julie Burchill's NME review is still mentioned in article. Carliertwo (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• as this ANI is canvassed, could well known users of the SATB articles write their point of view about my work and the umerous volume I have added on wikipedia ? Gentlecollapse6, Greg Fasolino, Woovee, J Milburn, LessHeard vanU, SilkTork, If you want to get rid of a good contributor because of a witch hunt begun by a group hater who is against my person and refuses to swallow that he lost a 2nd rfc against me by a consensus, it is your choice. Carliertwo (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Carliertwo this ANI was not canvassed. He was quoting us so it is appropriate to ping us when our edits are mentioned. You, on the other hand, did just canvass a group of editors. You also keep called PaleWhite a "group hater" just because he added a review from a somewhat controversial, but notable, critic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you explain us why people who know all my good work, could not write here whereas Pale's first RFC was cancelled by a 2nd rfc with a consensus for my version which means that his first ANI was retrospectively abusive and was just a witch hunt. He thought to include bashing from Boy George about this group (see the quote in green above) and now in the article about The Scream, he wants to include bashing such as "the sound of a suet pudding" where is the neutrality? Have you read my secondary sources from legendary John Peel and biographer of the group? No you didn't obviously. All the Burchill's quote he added was a manoeuvre to include this derogatory term about the album "the sound of a suet pudding", no neutrality. TheGracefulSlick --- Carliertwo (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick failed to address anything about the following points: the fact that there are secondary sources for Burchill's review and the fact that Burchill's review is still mentioned in the article. Carliertwo (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Carlietwo I'd be happy to as soon as you address the multiple non-neutral ANI notices you sent to friendly users calling PaleWhite a "hater". Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

TheGraceFulSlick doesn't even know what a wp:stewardship means. I note the refusal to discuss'and reply about why the reason of banning is justified whereas Burchill's review is still included in the article and widely commented by secondary sources with experts such as John Peel. TheGraceFulSlick also supports the idea of including a bashing of Boy George towards this group by Pale, which is trivial content and she also supports the inclusion of a non neutral quote by Burchill such as "the sound of suet pudding". Carliertwo (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Carliertwo please do not put words in my mouth or question my competence. I have edited much more music articles than I can count so I think I know a thing or two. I said I'd be happy to discuss when you address why you think it is okay to canvass editors.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You accused me to be a SPA and you don't even know that the rfc for which the previous ANI was created against me, was later cancelled by a new consensus. Are you sure you are of good faith ? without mentioning that you hadn't even waited to get my defense before voting for a ban. Read my wp:GA about Join Hands, and read the first comment of Darkknight2149 above and ponder. Then when you'll have thought about this, I will be happy to discuss. TheGracefulSlick. don't worry people have a brain and the users that post on SATB related articles will not take for granted my subjective comment. They will judge facts and the content of articlesCarliertwo (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have got a lot of difficulties to believe that contacting you, an user who accused me of being a SPA in an ANI opened for a RFC which has been cancelled, is not canvassing. Knowing that you don't know anything of my edits of the SATB related articles. But you said, that contacting people who do contribute on articles about music and who didn't take part to the previous ANI concerning me, is canvassing. This is rich. TheGracefullSlick. Carliertwo (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I really enjoy when an editor accuses me of competency issues, lack of good faith, and insinuates I do not have a brain: all without a single diff! I'm just going to wait for other editors to jump in (hopefully some you didn't canvas) because this is no longer very productive.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No I said that the people I contacted on their page won't take for granted that I consider Pale close to be a band hater and wanting to take a revenge for losing a 2nd rfc against me. People will take a look at the edits, they are users of music related articles. However you can't denied accusing me being a SPA, the quote is above, and you can't denied voting for my ban far before I posted someting here today. Whatever I post, you don't mind. All the things I have said are wrong according to you apparently. I was just asking which point of my defense reply you agree with and which one you disagree.Carliertwo (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick I have just read what canvassing was really about, and withdrew all my edits at the talks of people who edit at music related articles and replaced the message by another short neutral notice. I'm new at ANI. Anyway, you're gonna win and could feast your victory with a cup of champagne in a few days. Congratulations. Thanks for your kind messages and at least admitting well accepting to admit a bit that Burchill's review was "controversial". I guess it is a satisfaction for me. I presume you're gonna let Pale erase all this part and let him doing what did he say earlier "denying readers the possibility of even reading a quote from Burchill's review", well in this case "denying readers the possibility of even reading from Burchill's" peers who were skeptical of her work. Carliertwo (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. You are mistaken, I'm not here to "win" anything. You're continued attitude at article talk pages [14] and your sarcasm with me suggests why you need a topic ban. By the way, your comment in the diff I provided mischaracterized PaleWhite for no reason whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"Which diff you provided" are you talking about ? I disagree with your attitude. If banning a good contributor without any warning is normal, I don't think this is measured. Carliertwo (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ugh...the diff in my last comment. And here is what I was pointing to specifically: "Pale's will to include a derogatory term such as 'The Sound of suet pudding' shows how his frame of mind. Be ready to see him post plenty of negative, things on SATB articles shortly and in the forthcoming years". I guess I also need to ask you to stop "thanking" me for my edits which you know pings me like an actual ping.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ban+block NPOV, edit warring, bludgeon, and attacking other editors for their lack of brainpower. This editor clearly has a boen to pick with others over anything. That attack on Tarage was pretty poor. A few weeks perhaps? L3X1 (distant write) 03:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ban from what, do you want me to never edit again on SATB related articles knowing that I have been adding all the good quotes, content and sources from 10 years, and seeing that I entirely wrote a GA ? In a limited time or endlessly and is being a stewardship allowed ? When there is war editing on an article The steps are usually, request demand for a third opinion, discussion, rfc and then if a rfc is not respected an ANI. Canvassing is when you contact people to get support. Pale contacted people from the previous ANI to support him, so I asked neutral people to write their point of view. Another question, will the secondary sources be erased whereas they are comments from John Peel who is the number specialist of music in England ? for L3X1. And have you read all my defense reply above the comments Carliertwo (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note The canvassing continues. Blackmane (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• note I just read what is canvassing, I thought it was contacting people. I am a newbie at ANI, never been interested by banning attack judging, people. So I'm gonna erase the messages at pages of people I contact to only post a neutral note. Carliertwo (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• After reading through the examples given, and Carliertwo's general editing, I can see the reason for concern. Sadly, Carliertwo's story is fairly common - we are urged to look out for paid editing, but I find our main weakness is unpaid editing by subject enthusiasts who seek to praise their subject a little too much. Yet the bulk of Wikipedia is built by such enthusiasts. The majority of articles on certain popular subjects, be it video games or pop music, have a positive bias. Putting in the neutral balance is the job of neutral editors who come along after the fans have created the article and provided the bulk of the material. And it is the responsibility of all experienced editors to explain to the fans what is happening and why we need to do this. Mostly this is accepted. In Carliertwo's case it seems it is not. Fighting to put back in a trivial, non-encyclopaedic and undue sentence that Brett Anderson liked Tinderbox is not the sort of behaviour we wish to see. On the other hand, the edit warring in Kaleidoscope is two sided. Carliertwo did not completely revert the adjust - the phrasing "Paulo Hewitt gave the album qualified praise" was left intact. During the edit conflict PaleCloudedWhite did not attempt to discuss the matter on the article talkpage or Carliertwo's talkpage, but continued to edit war. I don't think topic banning Carliertwo is an appropriate solution, because I'm not seeing sufficient reason for that. I do think though that it needs to be stressed to Carliertwo that we are not a fan website, and that what we are trying to do is write neutral, balanced and informative articles on Siouxsie and the Banshees for all readers, which means including the negative and the positive in appropriate amounts; which means that we don't cherry pick reviews for the bits we like best, but we aim to give an accurate summary of what was written' which means that if another editor adds material or questions what you are doing, you engage in a discussion as to the best way forward. But this also applies to other editors as well. As experienced editors it is our role to reach out to and explain things to newer or less experienced or knowledgeable editors. We don't shout at them, ban them, or block them, we assist them to understand the Wikipedia way. That way everyone wins. If any editor continues to misbehave after advice has been given, that's when we come in with the heavy stuff. Looking at Carliertwo's history, he has made mistakes, and been given advice. That happens to all of us. There has been a few comments regarding ownership of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles, but not to the level of a ban or a block. I think what is needed here is to let Carliertwo be aware that the community wants cooperation from all editors, and that articles must be neutral in tone. Any concerns are to be discussed rather than fought over. If Carliertwo can acknowledge that he now understands what the issue is, and promises to be more collegiate going forward, I think this matter can be closed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I concur generally with what SilkTork said and their recommendation. As an additional note, as someone who was worked on the Scream article in question, I would say that simply quoting a sourced review is sufficient. We do not need, and should not, add in an entire additional set of sources commenting on how a particular sourced review is invalid. It's irrelevant, for example, whether John Peel thinks Burchill's review was bad. That does come across like a "defense" of the band/record. If it hasn't already been edited down, it should be.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Carliertwo's bias continues to show on his talk page. He also, again, accuses PaleWhite of bad faith without any proof whatsoever in the same edit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I too am getting sick of this. If the user is only going to use their talk page as a means to attack other editors, I request that it be revoked for the duration of the block. They have provided nothing of substance to the argument since getting blocked. --Tarage (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The crucial sentence in SilkTork's comment above is "If Carliertwo can acknowledge that he now understands what the issue is", because at the moment I see no evidence of this. In their most recent post on their talkpage they state that they do not wish for a certain part of the above-mentioned NME review to be used because it "looks like an useless cherry on the cake used as a weapon by PaleCloudedwhite". A weapon? How is it possible to discuss additions to articles if these additions are regarded by this user as weapons? In the same post this user also advises another to "beware of Paleclouded's attitude and check his edits. I think that he has got tons of edits ready and once I'll be gone, he's going to present a pile of edits in the same vein." Oh, thanks for filling in my Wikipedia diary for me - I had been wondering what my future involved, and now I know. It seems to me that this editor regards editors who challenge them over SATB articles as enemies, and all sorts of nonsense ensues because of this. Just look at how my comment about Boy George became mangled; in the second Tinderbox RfC, I tried to illustrate the undesirable logical consequences of Carliertwo's argument by using a quote Boy George had made about Siouxsie Sioux, [15], but at the top of this thread Carliertwo throws this quote back as an example of my "frame of mind"? What? At the start of this thread I state clearly that I have records by the band and am not a hater of the band. Carliertwo's response? To canvass several editors, informing them I am a "group hater" and that "he wants to let us believe he is not a SATB hater and and doesn't have an agenda on wikipedia, waiting me to be banned and then adding negative critics and erasing good reviews". How is it possible to discuss articles - as SilkTork advises - with an editor who has such a bad-faith attitude? It would be great if blocks and bans can be avoided, but what is the alternative? Unproductive contorted stalemate situations with a user who from the outset regards people such as myself as enemies using 'weapons'? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In an ideal world we would all get on with each other, agree all the time, and meet up for cherry pie and coffee, but sometimes there are awkward incidents, awkward individuals, and disagreements - that is the nature of Wikipedia editing. I understand your frustration, though there isn't a huge history of problems with this user. There have been minor mistakes made, and advice given. Most users have made mistakes. There has been some edit warring, but generally it takes at least two users to make an edit war. I'm not seeing that we have given this user sufficient guidance regarding the concerns with their editing and behaviour, nor am I seeing that their behaviour is sufficiently damaging to warrant a ban. While I agree with you that it was inappropriate to call a second RFC so close after the first one, and while I disagree with the outcome of that RFC, this is not a banning incident as this sort of thing happens all the time. Calling the RFC was not evil, and there were enough who supported not only the premise of the RFC, but also that it was called. Having an editorial disagreement is not evil. This happens all the time. We work through it. Sometimes this is tiresome, sometimes we learn that we were wrong, and most of the time the article is strengthened. I note that through all these problems that Carliertwo has worked toward a compromise. I find that encouraging rather than cause for a ban. We tend to only ban those who consistently refuse to listen to reason, and who make little or no attempt at compromise. Carliertwo is not perfect, but none of us are, and he is working in the right direction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to implement a topic ban

Its been 24 hours since this thread was opened, and there does seem to be consensus that something more needs to be done about this problem since rattling the saber didn't work last time. Therefore, I propose that we move to adopt a measure that stating that Carliertwo is hereby topic banned from all articles on or related to Siouxsie and the Banshees, broadly construed, and that the topic ban shall be in place indefinitely with an option for Carliertwo to appeal the topic ban after a period of one year by petition for a review of the topic ban at ANI. @MrX, TheGracefulSlick, PaleCloudedWhite, Only in death, Black Kite, Darkknight2149, Tarage, L3X1, and Blackmane: You were either pinged here when this opened or have opined above that this is the best course action, so I am recalling you here to get your input on this proposal. Gentlecollapse6, Greg Fasolino, Woovee, J Milburn, LessHeard vanU, and SilkTork you were pinged here at Carliertwo's request. As it would be irresponsible of me to disregard Carliertwo's earlier insistence that you also be involved in this matter, I would like to invite you to weigh in this matter as well, in the spirit of AGF. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Enough already, we need to end this disruptive behavior. If Carliertwo isn't going to change then this option is the next best thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I want to make it clear here that I am not advocating for anything being done while Carliertwo is blocked, that would be unethical. I am merely moving forward with a proposal here to gauge the interest in topic ban. We will of course be patient and wait to hear back from the accused, as AGF necessitates. In the mean time, though, it would be beneficial to here back on the proposal insofar as its points relate to the case. It seemed we were agreed above that a topic ban would be a good idea, but I'm uncertain if an unblock condition would be a good idea. I'm also uncertain if it would be wise to debate the merits of revoking the topic ban at ANI. These points we can discuss without needing to wait for Carliertwo, as they are simply a matter of weighing the needs of the community against the allegations here. If we all agree on the points than the proposal then if the topic ban does turn out to the favored option we will be on the same page. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• I've just looked and note that Carliertwo is under a 48 hour block so is unable to respond here. If Carliertwo is able to reflect on the concerns raised, and give an assurance that he will discuss concerns rather than engaging in edit wars, that he will take on board that Wikipedia by the nature of what we are includes negative comments on subjects, even Siouxsie and the Banshees, and that he will abide by consensus, then a ban is not necessary. We should wait until Carliertwo is able to respond. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with SilkTork and would like to see Carliertwo given a chance to show they understand why their approach was wrong. If they cannot learn to be more neutral and less defensive of this band/articles, and continue to express conspiracy theories about PaleCloudedWhite's motives and editing biases, then yes, a ban is necessary. But perhaps Carliertwo can learn. Yesterday I tried at length to explain these problems to Carliertwo, perhaps it will sink in. I think, considering that this editor has in fact done much good work on the SATB articles, they should be given one more chance to learn how to be a more neutral WIki editor.Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (Neutral) - Whatever the result is, I think we should wait for the user's current 48-hour block to expire before making a decision and closing the discussion. We should see what their response is. Their response and/or defense is important, even in the hypothetical situation where the user shoots themself in the foot (not to outright predict that they will). DarkKnight2149 14:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - If they can explain why their approach was incorrect, tone down the snarky retaliatory comments, and follow-up through with a more neutral mindset, then I would see no reason to implement a topic ban. Let us see what Carliertwo has to say when they are unblocked and we can decide.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm fine waiting till the block expires. Carliertwo is a 10 year veteran here, while not as prolific as other editors with the same tenure, they have nonetheless been a solid contributor and that warrants consideration. Blackmane (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

And given that one of the articles they created currently has Good Article status (in addition to what you just said), I'm inclined to agree. DarkKnight2149 20:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reply of Carliertwo: After reading advices and explanations, I realize that I've made a mistake of judgement. I shouldn't have withdrawn this review (quote + source) and only let her name appear and a simple mention of her review. I had done this because I've read many times she's a controversial writer, and as none of her articles is available on Rock's Backpages, I took it as a sign that maybe her work was not accepted by all of her peers. With the benefit of hindsight, I recognize, I was wrong as the only criteria that matters is the reliability of the source. (Her review was supervised by an editor in chief before publishing). I understand now very well the concerns of NPOV that my revert has raised. The next times, when I disagree with an edit and when one of my edits is reverted, I will use the talk, will try to find a compromise and in the end, abide to the consensus. I will also work to be more civil when I have a criticism to make. Carliertwo (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I really hope you have learned something Carliertwo but I apologize if I'm skeptical. For all we know, you are just saying this because you were faced with a legitimate possibility of being topic banned. During the ANI, you acted terribly hostile toward others (especially with me for some reason), casted aspirations, canvassed, and made excuses for your behavior. None of these factors bring about much confidence. Please note, however, I will agree with the consensus and I expect you to as well. That's even if it's not in your favor because, you must admit, your ability to be neutral is still at question.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging the editors who said they would comment when Carliertwo replied: Blakemane, Darkknight2149, Greg Fasolino, SilkTork, TomStar81. Anyone else of course can also respond.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Carliertwo has been advised and cautioned and has taken on board what has been said so there is no need for a ban. It may be worth stressing to Carliertwo that in situations like this, if there is a repeat of inappropriate attempts to control an article, and another ANI is called, that it is highly likely a topic ban will be the result. The best form of stewardship is seeking consensus when there are causes for concern. No editor should take it upon themselves to be the sole arbiter of what appears in an article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Oppose I would be willing to give Carliertwo rope in the event that they apologize for all of this, and under the understanding that if it happens again, there won't be a second chance. --Tarage (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for his appology... --Tarage (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm going with AGF on this given Carliertwo's statement above. Sanctions are only to prevent ongoing disruption and not for punishment. Blackmane (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I am not going to vote either 'support' or 'oppose', because I brought this issue here for the wider community to assess. If Carliertwo is not topic banned but has learned that editors other than myself view their conduct as unacceptable, I am content with that, and I hope that neither myself nor any other editor has to raise this issue here again, for it is wearisome. I would add for the information of Carliertwo that I really do have records by the band - three SATB vinyl LPs, three SATB CD LPs, three SATB vinyl 45s, and two Creatures vinyl LPs - but it should not be necessary for editors to have to establish a fan status before they are 'allowed' to edit the SATB articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose - I've been neutral so far but, when a user apologises for their behaviour, I take it as a sign that they themselves realise that they did something wrong. I oppose this topic ban, as long as they don't repeat what they specifically apologised for. This does not include accusations that they did not apologise for. DarkKnight2149 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Conduct issues aside, the criticism of Burchill's review is certainly as noteworthy as the review itself. I don't disagree that the review and quote be included, but not without giving the reader a reasonable idea that the reviewer had a overt dislike of punk music, was notably controversial and disparaging in her reviews and her words attracted rebuttal from other noteworthy people, like many of her deliberately provocative reviews did. She's a somewhat 'special case' and it would disingenuous to present her opinion as representative of popular consensus on the subject of the punk movement. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the review is currently included as the sole negative perspective among a mass of overwhelmingly positive comments from other journalists, so in no way could including it be referred to as presenting her opinion as "representative of popular consensus on the subject of the punk movement". Some people don't like punk music; that doesn't make their views any less valid. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

My point is that there is notable pretext and addendum to her conclusion that ought to be included. And some people don't like curry - not sure I'd be asking them for a critique of Indian restaurants in my local area. But if I did, its probably right I know they throw up on cue at the thought of a Jalfrezi. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as others stated above.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

212.250.164.170

User:212.250.164.170 keeps adding "Dr" to this film maker's name which kills the link. I see no mention of that film maker having a "dr." prefix, but I am not sure whether or not I am right or user:212.250.164.170 is right. CLCStudent (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

CLCStudent. You are correct. See MOS:HONORIFIC. TimothyJosephWood 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Also warned. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, this is an inside joke from Hello Internet. Haran did receive an honorary Doctor of Letters, and whether or not it actually grants him the privilege of using the honorific, they use it (jokingly) on the podcast. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

We badly need some backlogs cleared out

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

---

WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. I hate to push my concerns to the front of the line but the first admin who reads this needs to semi-protect Paul Joseph Watson immediately. CityOfSilver 03:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we go back to our secret admin cabal soiree now? The champagne is getting warm. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Had to go get ice. El_C 05:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you use frozen grapes. Won't dilute the champagne that way. Blackmane (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

This Administrator NeilN Has Continuously Abused His Rights

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

---

[here] and also here] shows disruptive editing done by a Wikipedia Administrator, who is supposed to behave with all proper conduct. I edited this article Beyoncé and he reverted my edits stating it was unsourced, (even though he knew it was still under construction) I held my peace and re-edited the page, this time inserting two sources from the onset he still went ahead & reverted it. this time saying it was "undue" please what Wikipedia policy supports that?? "Undue" ?? so technically what he did was because he didn't like my inclusion he just reverted it because he could so. I want other Administrators to please look into this, if I am at a wrong place a re-direction to where best suites this sort of case would be appreciated. A look into the history of NeilN shows this attitude of him/her is not fit to be an Administrator. Why would a person purposely try and suppress information? I'm ready to go any length for this situation at hand Wikipedia permits me to edit and contribute to information as long as I have very good sources to backup my contributions. Wikipedia states that I should be bold. I know I'm on my right, if he NeilN can produce / show me a policy or guideline that empowers him or anyone to edit in a disruptive manner at will I'd apologize & retreat. I also am not perfect, but I would never abuse a right and privileged bestowed upon me in the manner he NeilN has. if required of me I would produce links to him & other junior editors having altercations up to the point of junior editors referring to him as very unfit to be an Administrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestina007 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This editor... Anyways, Talk:Beyoncé#The_Deity_Oshun (posted after my second revert) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what to say to this... I see no problem with NeilN's edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Saint Joseph Preparatory High School

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

---

An editor boldly moved the above page that has a RM ongoing. Not looking for any discipline here, just an undo of the move. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't need an admin for that move. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Censorship by NeilN

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

---

I looked through the edit history of this talk page and found that for several days after these reports on Ms Rice started to appear in the media, User:NeilN was censoring efforts to discuss it on this talk page. How is Wikipedia supposed to work when long-time editors try to control discussions and efforts to add content? This isn't the first time I've seen or heard about this and I understand it's one of the reasons that Wikipedia's editor population has decreased so markedly over the years. By the way, after this statement was originally posted by a different editor, NeilN removed the comment and indef blocked the account. Kekinstein (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI: Anyone who has this user page and this talk page is pretty much WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you want people to take you seriously, you should at least provide some diffs or idea of WTF you're talking about. What reports on Ms Rice? Sure we could hunt around contrib histories but when you force us to do that, many won't bother and even if we do, you've given us good reason to assume you're probably wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Susan Rice. The "censorship" was me enforcing WP:BLPTALK and removing stuff like this and this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, further proving my point that when you come here with no diffs and a confusing random statements "several days after these reports on Ms Rice started to appear in the media" we have no real reason to take your complaint seriously. Even more so when you start to talk about censorship. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Darn it, I missed National Shit on NeilN Day again. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

violation of wp:agf and wp:civil by this user

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

---

[[16]] ABaNDODU (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There must be an erro because the above diff is from 2002. L3X1 (distant write) 14:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

May be a bit more than that, ADaNDODU has two edits, 1 in his user page and 1 here. The page that comes up has a discusssion going on about WP:OVERLINK , but no civility violations there or in edit summaries.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Given that the user created an account, posted this apparently nonsensical thread, and then unredlinked themselves... seems socky. TimothyJosephWood 14:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It is most important :-

First Administrator Re-open the Afd Close : .(.which was previously closed by Bad NAC.)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julio_Sadorra&diff=763684305&oldid=763652690 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julio_Sadorra&diff=763684584&oldid=763684305

Second Administrator user:Favonian Closed the Afd immediately with out permission from first administrator. It is purely vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julio_Sadorra&diff=763695063&oldid=763684584

If the first administrator is correct , user:Favonian is wrong...This user supported the article creator and saved the article

(ABaNDODU (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC))

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

Remarks on nonbinary people

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

---

Could I have some independent eyes on whether the comment made by Chris troutman here on the RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style is within our understanding of WP:Civil, and in the light of his clarifications as to what he meant, after I suggested he consider removing or rewriting his comment at User_talk:Chris_troutman#RfC.

I am not expecting any specific action, but I and probably Chris would benefit from some advice on acceptability of comments like these in a RfC process.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also like some clarification from the aggregate of admins if my comments violate WP:NPA. I think while Fæ has the best intent, I rankle at being treated in this manner. That the matter has been brought to ANI indicates to me that one of us deserves a block. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Chris, you have a history of insensitive remarks on this site (this comment, in which you suggest "people with mental illness" should not be administrators, still weighs heavily on my mind for its ignorance and narrow-mindedness). Many of your remarks seem designed specifically to provoke outrage, and while I'm no great champion of the über-PC movement, I think it's time you recognized that words can hurt people who ask nothing more than a little compassion and understanding. It paints you in a negative light when you dismiss well-intentioned proposals for inclusivity as "nonsense." I don't see any administrative action required here, but why not try to tone it down a little if it saves people some grief? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If you ask for opinions, you shouldn't be surprised if you actually get them. You may consider his opinion narrowminded and insensitive, but being openminded and sensitive are not project requirements. Being civil is, but the remarks in question arent uncivil. Kleuske (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I'm not seeing a personal attack or even incivility here. Chris words his comment somewhat on the blunt side, but not moreso than is commonly seen as acceptable around here. In fact, I often prefer having people disagree with me in a straightforward and blunt manner. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

While I may find it a tad "off" for lack of a better word, it is still civil, and trying to stifle his speech would be worse in my opinion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly I'm keen to ensure all views about the proposal are welcome. I balked at the comment about the "non-conformers", which was made clearer on Chris' talk page. I am prepared to let it pass, but it does make for an RfC that will not itself feel welcoming for nonbinary people; a group who are not the intended subject of the proposal but should feel welcome to have a voice without it being an argument. Perhaps more could be said in the RfC preamble to keep the tone welcoming? --Fæ (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:The Wordsmith, I see nothing civil about that comment, and the only thing that keeps me from blocking is that there is no explicit addressee for the comment, which simply disparages a whole group of editors in what can only be described as pretty revolting and demeaning language. User:Juliancolton, you were going somewhere good and then you throw in a BS comment like "über-PC movement"? Seriously, what gives? Are you being oppressed too? Drmies (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Also, why is this RFC a subpage of RFC, and not part of a wikiproject or village pump/policy? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed in the drafting, and it was pointed out that if just a subpage of the LGBT+ WikiProject, there would be complaints that it was less visible for consultation when it is a project-wide policy change, even if only a minor one to certain phrases. The link to it remains on that WikiProject though. --Fæ (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, so why not put it at village pump? right now, you're not getting traffic except from the LGBT project and now at ANI. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean the policy page on the Village Pump? I'm happy to try and move it to a better location. --Fæ (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, VPP would be the best place for this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Also (x2), the RFC is not written neutrally. It already supposes the right way to do things. It should be closed and rewritten without pushing people to vote support. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  That would mean not actually having a proposal to look at though. It was based on the WikiProject discussion and the policy document that evolved from a Village Pump discussion on Commons, the issues raised are pretty much identical. If people have suggestions for changes, I'm sure they will highlight them, but the basic premise of keeping policies gender neutral or not, is something you either think will make Wikipedia more welcoming or, as per your view, it's "nonsense". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  , no, the RFC should have been, "Based on the discussion above, should Wikipedia adapt gender neutral terms?" That is a neutral RFC. Your RFC isn't.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  I don't know what you mean by "adapt", what is being adapted? --Fæ (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor changing numbers with no explanation or change in sources

I discovered Jan samel (talk · contribs) at Ethiopia[17] changing a population figure and the date (to 2017 despite the source being 2015). He's done this at a number of articles today. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No doubt about it, there has been roughly a high volume of disruptive editing, and I do indeed think that Jan samel (talk · contribs) seems to be on the WP:NOTHERE side. SportsLair (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

All his contributions involve tweaking of numbers, none with any references. I will go through his edits, but the problem is compounded by the fact that most data was already unreferenced. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Jan samel is not logging in anymore, see contributions by 122.54.181.158. Also check contributions by 49.149.67.222 -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

173.230.176.176

Re: Discussions in User talk:173.230.176.176 and Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Steve Munro

173.230.176.176 has expressed very strong personal opinions against a certain source (Steve Munro) used in articles, and seeks to discredit that source by modifying articles mentioning his name.

Two editors recommend that I ask an administrator to block 173.230.176.176; see the last remarks in Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Steve Munro. Thanks.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

IP advances an argument: "deliberate attempt to promote Munro as an authority on transit"—what's there to be worthy an ANI report, to mention an AIV one? El_C 02:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP has a whole two edits to its name—but the holder of the account still deserves to be informed of this ANI report (I have gone ahead and done this), as the directions at the top of the page instruct. I would be concerned with WP:BITE on the part of the three of you. El_C 03:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have also noticed problems with the user attempting to erase Steve Munro's name. He is reputable, notable enough to have his own article, and co-led a campaign to retain streetcars in Toronto. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, 173.230.176.176 does not object to my relying on commentary in a Steve Munro article, but that I am attributing Munro's commentary (including his opinion and analysis) to Munro. 173.230.176.176 insists that the info in the Wikipedia article (including some based on Munro's opinion/analysis) all be attributed to the TTC leaving the reader with the false impression that it comes from some official TTC announcement, which it does not. 173.230.176.176 apparently monitors the Wikipedia article and backs out mods not to 173.230.176.176's liking. Thus, in order to correct the attribution again, I need a resolution of this issue. I do NOT want to engage in an editing war. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Treat by User:Nubailo

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

---

See here.....--Moxy (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

WMF emailed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

...and Neil beat me to the revdel. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

String of bad edits by User:Mohsenaghaloo

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

---

Basically deleted the article of Germi, added unsourced puffery content at Chalak, Ardabil diff, and racked up a load of warnings for COI, personal analysis, and disruptive editing. He either needs to get his act together and make edits which show an understanding of WP, or be blocked for NOTHERE. I believe this editor could be an asset to Wikipedia of they stop the bad editing. L3X1 (distant write) 02:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Notified. I wasn't sure if this was a cut and dried AIV case, so I brought it here. L3X1 (distant write) 02:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

not complaining, but there is a AIV backlog, a racist edit that needs revdelled, and it looks like all the Admins are offline. L3X1 (distant write) 03:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Winged Blades of Godric

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

---

Winged Blades of Godric makes edits to a Rfc that change its structure, refactor my comments against my express wishes, and as a result gives my proposal less chance by splitting it into two parts and moving one part to a subsection he created. He is also edit warring about it. I warned him on his talkpage about all this.[18] Please stop him and revert to the version before he came along. WP:ANI warning in place.[19] I admit to taking offense to this especially since that Rfc was opened after a protracted edit war and the issue is important to me. I worked hard on my counterproposal at the Rfc, and this editor is practically ruining any chances of it succeeding. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Can somebody close this as no admin action required? I've already commented on this. What is occuring on Talk:Jewish diaspora is not (yet) an edit-war; and you should have stayed on the talk page and discussed the formatting of the current RfC under question, instead of losing one's cool over it, instead of threatening ANI as an afterthought. Now User:Winged Blades of Godric could also have handled this better; but this thread is wholy unnecessary at this juncture, IMHO. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 17:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• No body is giving your proposal less chance.It's more about the clarity and ease of RFC to participants.Also, I hardly refactored/changed your comments rather than segregating a part of it into some seperate subsection.Anyway who I am to stroke your feathers(as you said in my talk). Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Vandalism report, since AIV is currently locked

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

---

• 50.225.39.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism, with addition of unsourced content after final warning. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Non-admin comment I can post it to AIV for you, if you'd like. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you, Boomer Vial. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, Coffee should be aware of this issue since he indef semi-protected WP:AIV. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Uh, wut??! That undiscussed indef protection of a key page should be undone immediately or changed to a sane expiry date. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Coffee has done this before at AIV (recently, I think). He says something about e-mailing him. I have no clue what's going on. What's a "sane" expiration date? One that hasn't been institutionalized? --Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, all. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a good idea why he did it and we're not having a debate to indef via private email. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

NA Com, ECx3Before I judge, how easy is it to hit the big red buttons? Does it automatically select indef? Or would an admin have to press and click a bunch of buttons in order to indef soemthing, either in PP or block? L3X1 (distant write) 00:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Can't this conversation be taken else where? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems like the perfect place, given the discussion my request inadvertently triggered. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BEANS I can't discuss this on-wiki too much, suffice it to say I'm working with several admins on IRC to resolve this ASAP. I am fully aware of the issue this presents, but I'm also fully aware of the current disruption level which needs to be mitigated. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

What BEANS? Anyone can see the history and figured out why you protected. You know that admins are split on this issue and there was no need for emergency protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, Boomer, thanks for helping out, but I can't see for the life of me why you've closed this discussion twice. It's clearly not finished. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand why Coffee did what they did. I don't think it's the best way to handle the situation but what is done is done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I get that something really serious happened, so if you tell me to drop it I will, but I check the latest 500 edits to AIV, back into yesterday afternoon, and except for a 55 entry backlog, I didn't see anything coming that look like disruption, not from IPs nor non-confirmed accounts. If I'm just really clueless you can revdel this too. L3X1 (distant write) 01:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Many editors and admins (not all) consider the huge amount of entries the IP regularly posts all at once to be disruptive. The IP is supposedly also a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

First, I'm disappointed that the subject of my report was deemed inactionable; the edit history is transparent. More importantly, if AIV is locked indefinitely, my assumption is that there's no longer an appropriate venue at which I may report vandalism, so long as I prefer to edit as an IP. Is that correct? 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The protection will be short. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN. Not that I'm planning on going on any 'recent changes' binges soon. At least not for the next twenty minutes. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not that short :) You could turn your eagle eye to Category:All articles with peacock terms... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we all say backlog over. El_C 02:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh good lord, NeilN. I didn't know such a category existed, and now I can never unknow it. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the semi-protection seems to have been repealed by Coffee. Hopefully all goes well. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 03:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Gurbaksh Chahal

Apologies if this is the wrong venue, but this article's situation is quite messy and I'm not sure where this belongs. Chisme (talk · contribs) and 96.8.1.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been reverting back and forth on this article. Both users are past 3RR, but I believe that Chisme is acting in good faith whereas the IP is pursuing an agenda of whitewashing negative content. The IP has repeatedly made grandiose accusations of trolling and vandalism and has threatened to report Chisme. Interestingly, Jkmarold55 (talk · contribs) has made a similar threat and I suspect this user is the same person as the IP. So, to sum up, the IP appears to be socking and failing to abide by NPOV as well as edit-warring. Lepricavark (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

In April of 2016, Gurbaksh Chahal was sentenced to three years of probation and 25 hours of community service for domestic violence. User 96.8.1.144, who joined Wikipedia yesterday and has only edited the Gurbaksh Chahal article, has tried to downplay or remove all references to Chahal's domestic violence. My edits are in good faith. Chahal has a history of domestic violence dating to a 2013 incident when he was charged with 47 counts of domestic violence. This information belongs in the article. I disagree with Lepricavark about Jkmarold55 (talk · contribs) -- I think he/she is acting in good faith. I am a long-time contributor to Wikipedia. I regret getting drawn into an editing war with 96.8.1.144, but it's clear to me he/she has an agenda, and frankly, domestic violence has been swept under the rug for far too long in our society. I don't think it should be swept under the rug in this Wikipedia article. Chisme (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Haha guys I'm not the IP. My IP address is 173.95.181.234. I can prove it to you any way you like. Chisme posts a fatal flaw "domestic violence has been swept under the rug for far too long in our society. I don't think it should be swept under the rug in this Wikipedia article.". This shows personal bias and an agenda of his own. I do NOT want to whitewash Gurbaksh's actions but I also do not want it being blown out of proportion by Chisme, who has repeatedly deleted my talk page comments and replaced them just because I said something against him. I have screenshots in case CHisme tries to delete his previous comment. I was merely suggesting ways to reword blunt terms like "domestic violence abuser" and remove them from the top of the article where they do not belong. They belong in the context of it. Domestic violence is NOT an occupation, which is what the first sentence is for. Jkmarold55 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

IP addresses can change... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Whoa! Jkmarold55, you have me confused with someone else. You wrote, "Chisme, who has repeatedly deleted my talk page comments and replaced them just because I said something against him." Look at your Talk page history. I have made two comments there, both postings, not deletions. I would never delete anything on someone else's Talk page. Furthermore, in my post above I wrote, "I disagree with Lepricavark about Jkmarold55 (talk · contribs) -- I think he/she is acting in good faith." I said I think your posts are in good faith. As for me having an agenda, really? In the Gurbaksh Chahal article you learn of all his accolades, but little about his criminal history. That isn't a matter of agenda. That's a matter of covering all the facts, good and bad.Chisme (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have screenshots and history proof. Do you really want me to prove this? Sure, you are covering the facts, good and bad but you are NOT doing them correctly. You do it in a way that puts for th an agenda of anti-domestic violence. You even proved it in your own sentence. You do NOT put "domestic violence abuser" in the first sentence. I tried to fix that issue, but when ever a fellow wikipedian changes something, you revert it back. Warring is not permitted on Wiki pages. Jkmarold55 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we do want you to post your proof. Or, to state it more bluntly, put up or shut up. Lepricavark (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Whilst we're talking about providing proof. I'd also like you to post proof of me supposedly forcing you into an edit war, as you claimed here. ([[20]])

I tend to agree that the domestic violence conviction probably shouldn't be mentioned in the first sentence, but it should be mentioned somewhere in the lede. Perhaps I was mistaken in identifying you as the IP, but your aggressive threat/warning to Chisme, which you posted on the IP's page, sounded similar to what the IP was saying in some of his edit summaries. Also, you expressed agreement with the IP's absurd accusations that Chisme was guilty of trolling and vandalism. This page needs some serious cleanup and the first step is probably to block the IP and heavily scrutinize everything it added to the page. Also, please substantiate or withdraw your claim that Chisme has deleted your talk page edits. Lepricavark (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The lede should state what the person (or thing in the case of an article about a thing) is most known for. Chahal is known for two things -- being a successful entrepreneur and being a domestic violence abuser. A Google search of his name gets, in this order: his website, the Wikipedia article, his Twitter, and three articles about his domestic violence. A Google News search gets articles about his domestic violence. Clearly his domestic violence is one of the things he is chiefly known for, so it should appear in the lede. Chisme (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I was drawn to the article when it kept popping up in Huggle. At first I thought it was two users arguing about whose version of the page should be shown. I then checked the sources that Chisme put in and saw that they had a good amount of sources to back them up. In my honest opinion, I believe that Chisme was reverting in good faith (and is possibly exempt from 3RR sanctions under WP:3RRNO). I also find Jkmarold55's accusations of trolling to be way off the mark, and something that should be struck. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that 2600:387:2:805:0:0:0:75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to have joined in with the exact very similar attacks on Chisme. I'm starting to hear quacking here... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• NA Com Guys, we don't need screenshots n proof. This is wikipedia. Everything done here is logged. Can't move a muscle without it being logged, except for your extraocular muscles(meaning what articles you view are not logged). Unless something was revdel'd, its still there. And even if it is revdel'd, admins can view it, or un delete it. L3X1 (distant write) 15:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Let me clarify in case there are newer users reading this: completed actions are logged. If you click the edit button, but then close the window, that stuff isn't logged. L3X1 (distant write) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yay! No more hunting around for diffs then :P --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has commented on it before, but the OP JKmarold55 complains about an "anti-domestic violence agenda." That's like complaining about an "anti-murder agenda", or an "anti-pedophilia agenda" or an "anti-rape agenda". None of those are bad things, Wikipedia should never espouse murder, pedophilia, rape or domestic violence. That's not what WP:NPOV is meant to be about.

In this particular instance, I agree with the comment that the domestic violence information should be in the lede, although not necessarily in the first sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

BMK you are so right. Perhaps NPOV should be amended, or get a footnote? L3X1 (distant write) 01:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:I'm the OP and I didn't make such a comment. Were you referring to Chisme? Lepricavark (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

JKmarold55 said it twice L3X1 (distant write) 21:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: My sincere apology, it was indeed JKmarold55 I was referring to. I have corrected my comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: re-pinging Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

SPI Investigation

I have opened up an SPI investigation request. I believe that the similar attacks on Chisme, as well as the removal of the same information from the article are all coming from the same person. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Persistent disregard for capitalization guidelines after many requests

DrillWarrior268 (talk · contribs) for several weeks has persisted in changing capitalization of headers from sentence case to title case, including after repeated requests by several editors with explanation of and links to relevant guidelines. Recent examples: [21], [22], [23]. There has also been a problem with adding unsourced information. Based on his/her edits, it seems to be a willful disregard of the guidelines rather than a competence issue. I hope this report can help this editor change this behavior. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's currently true that editing only to replace with capitals is not the way to go. It just may seem that it's a WP:NOTHERE violation to the guidelines. SportsLair (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I see he's been sent many templated warnings. Anyone wantto try with an actual explanation in ordinary language? DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have given it a go. Other than the ping that my note will generate and email if they have it turned on, I don't know how to draw the user's attention to my note, but if they continue then blocking will be an option. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Sundayclose: would you mind explaining why, after starting with a level 3 disruptive editing warning followed two minutes later by a level 4 vandalism warning, you followed up with this nasty note nine minutes later, and then dropped another level 3 vandalism warning? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I struggle to see how what Ivanvector describes as this nasty note could ever be appropriate. I know that dealing with this sort of editor can be frustrating, but the when the frustration spills over into such confrontational language, it becomes counter-productive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Not excusing the note, but when a user continues bad behavior, and is not blocked, there is little to do but to keep dropping UW. As 15 4ims in a row make us look weak, uw3 is the best one to warning bomb with. L3X1 (distant write) 20:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"there is little to do but to keep dropping UW" is utter rubbish! Have you never considered explaining things in a friendly manner? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Starting with uw3 is inappropriate, and so is template-bombing. We have a carefully-worded series of escalating templates for these purposes, and they're meant to be used in order (4im is meant only for very serious cases, you don't follow level 4 with a level 4im). If the user's not getting the point from the proper series of warnings, your next step is to report to administrators, not make up your own nasty notes and keep dropping more templates. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments here about the note I made and will certainly try to keep them in mind in similar situations in the future. My apologies for any difficulties I created. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Y'all misunderstand me. Of course you start with UW1 and then UW2, 3, 4. But when a rweport has been filed, and in the interim the vandal is a vandaling, (sic) waring continue to get placed depending on what patrol software you use. I have heard differing accounts for use of UW around 'Pedia, I even asked int he Teahouse once. 4im is meant only for very serious cases, you don't follow level 4 with a level 4im) If the user has nto commited a 4im worthy deed, you stick with UW4. If the first edit they do is 4im worthy (racism, extremely offensive, and probably revdel-able, then 4im and AIV. your next step is to report to administrators see my statement: "but when a user continues bad behavior, and is not blocked" indicates an AIV report has been filed. L3X1 (distant write) 02:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are unable to communicate in your own words without twinkle spam and false accusations of vandalism, please don't do it. It's mentioned as such in WP:BITE. And WP:HNST Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is HNST not mandatory reading for CVU, PCR, and NPP? It should be. L3X1 (distant write) 19:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it's one editor's opinion and its use of hyperbole makes it less useful than it could be? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't even my own idea - I ripped it straight off a Microsoft user interface design book; the (real) message box on the left said "Cannot write file, make sure the disk is in the drive and it is not in use" (or something like that), the (fake) message box on the right said, "Ding! Thanks for playing!" with a single button "I am not worthy". I've never managed to find a copy of said screenshot online. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I am gilding the lily here (note use of sentence case)

Excerpt from the super-secret Parents and Teachers Playbook.

What adult thinks	What adult says	What child hears
You've done that wrong. Let me show you the right way.	You've done that wrong. Let me show you the right way.	You are a bad person.
You've done that wrong. Let me show you the right way.	That's good, but there's a better way.	That's good, but there's a better way.

Even more super-secret: this works just as well with adults.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What the teenager does, "Eye roll, puts headphones back on, continues to do whatever they've been doing". {joking... mostly) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

And if what the kid did actually was wrong, you're essentially lying to them so as not to hurt their feelings, and given them permission to ignore your "better way" if they decide they don't like it, since their way is -- according to you -- "Good". Don't lie, don't sugar coat it, tell the truth, but be polite about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

He's got no non-mainspace edits, so I think a "stop and read this" block may be warranted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what book that belongs to. The first time there might be room for a bit of a softly, softly approach but after repeatedly doing the same thing, then it's high time to deliver "stop what you're doing now, or else". This is almost the equivalent of giving them a participation award. We're here to build an encyclopedia not coddle people. Blackmane (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account indefinitely, not for capitalization issues, but for refusal-to-talk issues. I see in the last few minutes they restarted these same edits, and have never responded to anyone. Looks like a few people have their talk page on their watchlists, so I think this thread can be closed and people can discuss there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User potentially attempting to game confirmed/extended confirmed

While doing RC patrol, I observed User:Do it quick making hundreds of rapid null-edits to their own sandbox, as can be observed on their contributions page. This behavior would seem consistent with some sort of attempt to game the user rights system. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And yup, it's a sock of User:Catcreekcitycouncil - see this edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention this edit. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sooo, why exactly do edits to userspace count for extended-confirmed status? That seems like a rather gaping loophole in the system. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point, though not sure how you'd code them out. As a statement of the obvious the intent of extended confirmed protection is that an editor has some actual experience with the en-WP editing environment, and a reviewable edit history available for review, before wading into (say) Palestine-Israel articles. 500 trivial sandbox edits don't meet this intent, and there's precedent for removing extended autoconfirmed from accounts that obtained it solely through these means. Doesn't apply in this case as this editor is merely a vandal - just noting that in practice, sandbox editing isn't an especially viable way to get around ECP. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

True, and as per WP:BEANS, they'd probably just find some other, somewhat-harder but less-obvious, way of gaming it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A couple of cases at WP:AE have rejected attempts to game the 500/30 rule. In one case, the editor was indefinitely topic banned from their target. One recent case is archived here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I actually indeffed a user in 2016 for obvious, and I may say triumphant and aggravated, gaming of the 500/30 rule with edits to their own page. I won't mention the name, as I eventually unblocked them after several e-mail appeals. I'm not sorry, though. If there's no doubt about the bad faith, it shows they're WP:NOTHERE, IMO. Bishonen | talk 14:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC).

I would imagine that this is going to be a pretty rare occurrence. Most trolls don't have the patience to sit on an account for such a long period of time, and this one was caught and blocked fairly quickly. Although I tend to agree that at the very least sandbox edits should not count towards EC, that is not policy at this time and before we talk about technical means to change it the policy itself would need to be changed. Beeblebrox (talk)

I don't see why XC farming would be a goal, so few articles have that protection, and any request for perms or somethinf along that like would bring scrutiny into the editor's history. I know above I said that all Trump-related articles should get 30/500, but those articles are being sctrunized by various groups, so again, the deception would fall apart L3X1 (distant write) 23:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In this vein, kindly note [24]. I'll try to put an ANI notice on the user talk page, but under the circumstances I expect to be edit-conflicted out for a while... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

And done, between edits 252 and 253. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the notification. I'm currently running some automated tests. Thanks! 1 million dollars please (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that. Plus they got blocked by Acroterion. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I just reported to AIV, but it looks like somebody got him already... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well before my computer crashed after an edit conflict x6, I was going to write that they appear to be testing a DisruptoBot5thousand. Perhaps they plan to be back with a sock vandal bot army? L3X1 (distant write) 01:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:SimonTrew posting BLP violations at RfD

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

---

SimonTrew (talk · contribs) I believe that the user in question has been told off here many times for making inappropriate comments at RfD, I know him as a contributor at RfD, he has quoted phrases demeaning to a BLP here Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_6#Texas_Gov., which contribute nothing to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with that. The Texas Governor is not a biography of a living person, that is exactly the point we're arguing at RfD. We're arguing about whether Texas Gov. is a reasonable redirect, and not about whether particular people are, or are not, or should be, or shouldn't, the current incumbent and so on. The names I mentioned just happen to be the current incumbents. Or if you are talking about my somewhat blue reply to a joke with another joke, I really fail to see how that could not be taken as a joke, and was there to make a point: that the Governor of Texas is not any particular person but the role. I think you're being rather silly about it. I'm not sure why this is at ANI when I am not an admin, but never mind. I'm carrying on through the nominator's User:Champion/Eubot_list_17, and listing things from there at RfD. I think a little message on my talk page saying "that remark was inappropriate" would maybe have been better than starting an ANI, but so be it. I disagree that the occasional joke does not contribute to the discussion; the joke was between regulars at RfD of which Champ, myself and Tavix are three. I don't see how it could be taken otherwise. If it was not that joke, I have no idea what you are talking about. Merely referencing people that are linked from the various redirects is not any kind of BLP violation. It may be derogatory of the living person, but it was a joke, goddammit, and if that can't be seen that way, I think there are better things to worry about. It is of no relevance that I actually lived in Texas when he was the State Governor, and I can give you much worse jokes than that about him. That is par for the course with someone in the public spotlight. Dubya itself is disparaging of a living person, disparaged his accent and so on: we still have it; would you like me to propose it is retarget to W?

I have not been "told off here many times for making inappropriate comments at RfD", at least, you don't come with any evidence that I have. I don't know if "here" means at RfD or at ANI. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, Champ. Si Trew (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The conversation was thus, in one line each from User:Tavix and myself:

(User:Tavix): Comment: texas.gov is the website for the government of Texas (.gov suffix being short for "government"). I find it humorous that the website for the governor of Texas is gov.texas.gov. The prefix and suffix are both "gov", with the "gov" meaning different things. -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

(User:SimonTrew) Hehehe, yeah. And why did people write "Fuck Dubya" on toilet walls? Because they couldn't be bothered to write "Fuck the Governer of the Government of the State of Texas".

Now, when Tavix has said he "finds it humourous", is that disparaging or in contempt of the State of Texas or the current incumbent? If you can't see that when Tavix said "I find it humourous" and I reply with a bit of my own humour, you may not like the joke, but I don't see anything disparaging about it. I didn't express my views of the former incumbent of the governorship of the State of Texas, it was merely a joke. It was a joke with a point, because nobody ever says "Governor of the Government of the State of Texas", so it was relevant to the discussion. If anything, it is disparaging graffiti artists. It was a one-liner joke. Get over it. Si Trew (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I found a website amusing, and it was related to the discussion at hand because we're discussing the ambiguity of "Texas Gov." It's an 'in the wild' example that plays off of the multiple uses of "gov" in this context. That's in no way disparaging to a living person, unlike your "joke" that's only marginally related. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Please read WP:HUMOR, Humor tends to be very subjective. One should remain aware that what one finds hilarious, another may be offended by. The use of humor does not override such core policies as Civility and No Personal Attacks., and that presumably include BLP, it was relevant to the discussion ,yes, but I still don't agree that it contributes anything useful to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that what Simon Trew. said is close to crossing the line, but not quite there. I do advise Simon, although, to try and get further away from that line, as it is a very dangerous line to cross. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_7#Dubya, c.f. my comments in that discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Huh, it seems that this editor is now being a bit disruptive, especially with his nomination of Aasbuettel (see log linked about), saying "nothing wrong with this as such". I personally advise the editor to stop contributing to RfD for a bit, and I think that if this user cannot act without disruption there, that there should be a ban from him there for about, say 24 or 72 hours. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a completely different thing, User:RileyBugz. The nominator here has several lists of redirects created by User:Eubot and I am slowly trogging through them because a lot of them make no sense (which is why Champion compiled the eighteen lists, currently I am going through User:Champion/Eubot_list_17. Things on that list are to be kept or discussed. When the list was first created, it was suggested that we had a WP:X1 criterion for them, but consensus is that it is manageable at RfD without the need for a special criterion. They "nothing wrong with this as such" was simply shorthand, the tag for "(eubot)" in front of it informs regulars what to expect, and I listed it because of Buettel being created by Eubot, and falls into the same pattern. That is very much a good faith nomination to get consensus from the community about what to do with it. I would have thought it would be apparent that if I am continuing to go through User:Champion's lists of these Eubot redirects, even though he has nominated me at ANI, I have no personal gripe about that, and so will continue to trog through them like I was already doing. Were I not to, that would look suspicious, wouldn't it? Si Trew (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I really do not give a dubya about a ban. I have come back after three months of not editing Wikipedia to find these lists in no better state than when I left, I do appreciate that it causes clutter to the RfD, but the consensus was to take it through RfD rather than have a concession like we did with the Neelix redirects. So you can hardly blame me for then listing things at RfD, because that is the consensus. I try not to flood it and as I have pointed out numerous times including at WT:RFD about 90% are OK, but 10% of around 300,000 is still a lot to get through. Si Trew (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The only person who is being personally attacked here is me. We've had that discussion before. Si Trew (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion at RfD seems to have been archived or deleted, but I remember distinctly posting there that about 90% were fine and 10% were iffy. User:Tavix responded with "That's good to know. Carry on". This was before User:Tavix or User:Champion were made admin, a request I supported and would still support, but I think on this occasion it's a bit trigger-happy. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm not an admin. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Tavix is, and this was raised by you and seemed to me very much to have Tavix' hand in it. J'Accuse, I called your bluff. Still no reason I can see to ban me becond Tavix saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's not prevaricate around the bush. Champ raised it, I suspect that new admin User:Tavix had a hand in it, judging by comments over at WP:RFD. Admin tavix can clear that score immediately by saying "I did not talk to Champion". New admin Tavix could also be reminded of admin's responsibilities, and that because he doesn't like a joke or find it funny after posting his own irrelevant joke is not grounds to bring something to ANI. All that was required was a word in a shell-like at my talk page to say "I think that's a bit off-colour" or whatnot and I would have removed it. I very rarely swear, but without the "fuck" the joke wouldn't have had the point. I can understand people's sense of humour is personal, but admin User:Tavix started it and I just put in a one-liner back. So if you want at ANI to have a go at someone, warn User:Tavix that that kind of behaviour is not what an admin should do. Admins in any case are not the god-and-plenty of this site. This is Wikipedia, the encylopedia that anyone can edit. Who forgot that? Si Trew (talk)

You did. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, including those people who are fed up with your crap. If you dont want to end up at ANI for making stupid comments, dont make stupid comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I checked that link, which is a search link back to WP. Perhaps the Wikipedia engine is being very nice to me, but all I can find on there ia two discussions on ANI and a list of discussions from WP:RFD and WP:PNT. Of course people will disagree with me, that is how we achieve consensus, but that doesn't make it "crap". I think to sau "fed up with your crap" (in my language, crap is very definitely a derogatory swear word) is a personal attack against another editor. But you might have been thnking of someone else. Seems to me that is indeed a personal attack against another editor. Boot, foot, wear on other. Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• SimonTrew's "Fuck Dubya" comment is neither a personal attack directed at an editor nor a violation of the biographies of living persons policy, it was colourful and very possibly slightly off-topic, that's all. Raising an ANI thread because someone uttered a curse word is silly. Bringing up Si's ongoing project to clean up erroneous redirects created in error again is bordering on harassment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up. As usual I packed the maxiumum number of words into the minimum amount of thought. Still no response from admin User:Tavix, who I think should reply here. I n the meantime, neither User:Chamopion nor User:Tavix seem to have any problem with my listings at RfD. I add a bit of "colour" to them because they must be so boring for people to read endlessly "(eubot) not Germanic but Turkish" and things like that. That is becase Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and there are real people behind these screens. Si Trew (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, saying "(Obama? Winning the presidency? LOL you're funny! That guy has NO chance to win! hahaha)!? Checking using {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}." by [[User::MrGuye]] at WP:RFD is not seen as a personal attack against a living, identifiable person, then? Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 7#History of the United States (1991–present). If that is not an attack against a living person, I don't know what is. Si Trew (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Simon Trew is known for making inappropriate, nonsensical, and uninformed comments at RfD. This particular one isn't blockable. In the long run they may add up to being blockable, but since we let go of RfC/U we don't have much else, unless y'all want to escalate to ArbCom. If that's the case, let me know and I'll make a few inappropriate comments so I can recuse. Here's another possibility, though--you can propose a topic ban from RfD, and editors will have to weight Simon Trew's positives vs. their negatives in those discussions. Personally I haven't seen any positives, but I spend a lot less time at RfD than some of you. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Unable to edit because of impersonation accounts

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

---

misidentification with a blocked use Can continue discussion?

Grammatical mistake Difficult to edit...sorry (Charmini (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC))

(Charmini (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC))

• If you're unable to edit, how did you manage to post this? Drmies (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• He can't post anything any more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Threat, personal attack, etc.

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

---

Junaidhasnain (talk · contribs) has made a threat at Talk:Pakistan Air Force. In the same edit, they also violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and they and an IP, 175.107.31.134, are disrupting the talk page by adding duplicate edit requests. User(s) notified. notifications pending. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Added: judging from the username, a second registered account, User:The Hasnain Aslam, may also be involved. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems fairly clear cut. TimothyJosephWood 15:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't much care about the profanity. The threat is something else again, and so is the potential socking. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No, but that's just about the approach I would expect from a super nationalist Pakistani toddler. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Such legal threats alone are unacceptable, and the personal attack is just icing on the cake. The user's sole contributions are on that one Talk Page, indicating a possible SPA. In short, I don’t see any reason not to indefinitely block this user. DarkKnight2149 15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but we are we at ANI for this? Y'all just go with the increasing levels for user warnings, and then report to AIV. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Do we have a template for threats? I can't find it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• A threat is also a personal attack, is also disruptive editing. The two accounts are of course linked and confirmed now via CU, though that was kind of redundant I suppose. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• For clarity's sake, then: are you advising users not to file ANI reports about threats? Because I'm well aware of user warnings and AIV—I've been using them for many years—but I've always drawn a distinction when it comes to threats. (Credible threats, of course, get emailed to the WMF for office action. Been there, done that, too.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I usually take threats here, to tell you the truth. And while I use warnings for personal attacks, I take them here after the final warning. To me, AIV is specifically for obvious vandalism. DarkKnight2149 15:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• This was not a credible threat (Rivertorch, I'm glad you made that stipulation)--it was some ill-mannered child trying to find an insult in English, which they did. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Not to quote policy to the guy who probably helped write it, but Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. The user, toddler as they are, appears to have actually thought the information was incorrect, and wanted it changed. That's not vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Systematic disparagement by User:Eric

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

---

Eric (talk · contribs), whom I do not know, has gone around to troll and disparage me on several talk pages where I posted a request for an A-Class review: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. This is neither deserved, because I put much effort in the things I do, nor reasonable. In fact, it is exactly the kind of destructive attitude that is driving people away from Wikipedia. --Edelseider (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This does indeed seem a quite unnecessary exercise in well poisoning. What purpose does Eric think is served by slopping this onto multiple requests for article review? Their complaint can have no bearing on article assessment and seems purely personal. I suggest they strike these little barbs.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

While I've AFAIK never had any contact with either party before, it's worth pointing out that this incident didn't take place in a vacuum. I'd advise reading the FA review of the article in question (which was one of the triggering incidents for the decision being made to start moderating FAC discussions) for a little context here. ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent:, you are certainly right that there is always an origin story somewhere (and if it can't be reconstructed, it can be speculated). However, here, it is about a new start, about turning a page. The FAC is history and I want to move on with a lower aim, the A-Class. What Eric does is trying to prevent that new beginning. As I said: that is destructive and serves no one. --Edelseider (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as an excuse to go about trying to screw up the next attempt preemptively by setting prospective reviewers against the proposer. Personal dislike != justification for making the next review more acrimonious right from the start. If there's any practical purpose to these comments, I'd like to hear it.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making that point, @Iridescent. @Elmidae: You might find a glance at the edit history of the Palais Rohan article and at the contentious editor's contribution history to be informative. These three links will provide the extent of my "interaction" with the contentious editor:

1. initial contact: a polite encouragement I left on his talkpage in January 2016,
2. his subsequent post on my talkpage (which I deleted without comment),
3. his post on my talkpage today.

I hesitated to post here at first because it adds to the contentious editor's principal accomplishment here on Wikipedia: the wasting of other editors' time. But I thought I had better weigh in. Eric ^talk 14:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that's abrasive-verging-on-douchy behaviour, and it would put me into a resentful mood as well. But do you really think you have to sabotage a proposed article review because of that? To my mind, you are damaging the process and the encyclopedia in an attempt to get even. - However, I'm bowing out here; I don't wish to be caught up in defending one set of non-collegial acting against the other. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I'm sorry to hear that my action might come across as a sabotage attempt--it was not. And it certainly wasn't to get even--I wouldn't engage in such a mismatch, as I would hope one might deduce from the above-linked interactions. I simply wanted to make sure that all concerned took note of what a tedious mountain of clean-up work the contentious editor leaves in his wake. I find the mess and the time-wasting to be far more deleterious to the project than my bringing the problem to others' attention. Eric ^talk 15:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There was also this in January, where someone corrected Edelseider's German and he told them to lick his arse. I withdrew from an FAC review because of the rudeness. Edelseider, you're complaining as though it's all one way. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

...okay that's pretty indefensible (quite inventively malicious in German, actually). I stand by my point that the process shouldn't be made into a battlefield before it's even started, but if I'd been at the receiving end of this, I'd probably have snapped. Sheesh :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It is quite funny to hear from @Eric:'s mouth that I leave this or that in my wake since he has never, ever been in my wake; as a matter of fact, I don't know what articles he edits but it has never been any of mine, ever. He seems to take offence in the fact that I create articles, maybe I should have asked for his permission first? And paid a hefty fee, too? Is that how it works? Because he doesn't know a thing about the content of what I do - he just randomly attacks me. Is that nice? Is that good? I haven't asked for it. As for the German language, I am sorry that I got upset but the "correction" wasn't one. The user assumed that my German is poor (in fact, it is my mother tongue) without regard for the fact that the "poor grammar" in the article was not mine, but History's. As the article itself actually made clear. But he didn't read it because he jumped at me for my supposed incompetence. Which he didn't care to check by asking me if I speak German. I just hate it when people assume, like Eric does, that I am a worthless piece of feces and shouldn't tread on the same Wiki-path than them. It is not only insulting but also entirely gratuitous, because, I repeat, Eric has done absolutely nothing to improve my contributions. I will stop here. Edelseider (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Is anyone else just thinking two-way interaction ban here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  Sounds like a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Iban for at least 62 days. And a refresher couse in NPA, CIVIL, and LETITGO for whoever needs it as pointed out above. L3X1 (distant write) 02:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Re L3X1's edit summary "fighting amongst yourselves is a sign of weakness" and the above "refresher course" suggestions: I would be interested to see any evidence of me "fighting with" the contentious editor, or any evidence of personal attacks, incivility, or obsessiveness on my part. Eric ^talk 03:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What is posting the exact same edit 5 times? And I apologise, the second sentence should have expicitly been noted: if the shoe fits wear it. I fixed it. L3X1 (distant write)

1) Thoroughness. 2) ??

Nice of you to drive by; I think a more attentive look would inform your comments better. Eric ^talk 03:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Eric (talk · contribs) just can't help himself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palais_Rohan,_Strasbourg&action=history. He just has to try and interfere relentlessly. Why can't he just leave me alone? --Edelseider (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eric: @Edelseider: I'm going to ask you both to voluntarily agree to a two way interaction ban, meaning you will both jus stay away from another, not comment on one another, not edit the same pages. We could make this short and sweet if you both just indicate your agreement with it right here, and it would reflect well on both of you to agree to resolve this without any formal action. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I am all for it. In any case, I never approached Eric with anything - it is him who is attracted by me. If he gets off my back, I'd be very happy to forget his very existence again! Edelseider (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm likewise with Beeblebrox on this. I've given further input on my talk page, here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eric: A yes-or-no reply to the above question would really be appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am me

My self-declared foe @Eric: has stepped up his one-sided war against me by digging up my past: [30]. So for everybody who is interested in previous lives of editors, yes, I used to be RCS (talk · contribs) and also Insert coins (talk · contribs). And I do lots of good things! I write and edit articles and sometimes I lose my temper, which is not a good thing. I never systematically stalked another user in order to try and get him banned, though. In all the years that I have been active on Wikipedia, I have done some foolish things sometimes, but the good and constructive prevails: articles. Many articles. And more to come. This is what really matters, not my, our your, or his personal problems. Thank you and good morning or night. --Edelseider (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

meh. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the misinterpretation on my part. Nothing to see here, folks. DarkKnight2149 04:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Self declared foe..." - Please tell me that was a joke. If not, then declaring enemies is a serious display of WP:BATTLEGROUND. DarkKnight2149 01:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Not sure you've got your subject and predicate straight there, I read that as "Eric has self-declared himself as my foe" which doesn't seem far off from the truth. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Oh okay. Thanks for clearing that up. It sounded like Edelseider declared himself as Eric's enemy (because of how it was worded). DarkKnight2149 01:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC) Yes, when I saw that, I also read it as "Eric says he's my foe." "His one-sided war..." cinched it. Understand how one could read it the other way though. I've gotta echo Beeblebrox on what seems nigh the truth. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Question at science reference desk

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

---

A question has just been posted at the science reference desk under the title "Good reasons for hating Jews" - I think this needs either immediate action or to be watched very closely by admins. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears this has now been dealt with by ian.thompson. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

He'll be back. Keep an eye on, and let us know if more comes and we'll take care of. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll watch too (I am not Jewish). I can understand to have Reasons for hating Jews, even, as many are given in RS, and of course we hace articles on antisemitism and so on. It is not the "reaons fo hating Jews" that bugs me, but the "Good". We haven't Bad reasons for hating Jews. It's a fairly clear case of against WP:NPOV. Incidentally, we don't have Good reaons to hate Christians or Bad reasons to hate Muslims, or Tangential reasons to tell Sikhs why they're wrong. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@SimonTrew (and others): there's a particular antisemitic vandal who regularly trolls the reference desks. Revert, block, ignore (and/or revdel as appropriate). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a LTA or other page detailing his habits, ES, and IPs to see if a range block is in order? Or is he/she/it a IP hopper? L3X1 (distant write) 19:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the neo-Nazi ref desk troll is typically associated with Soft skin (talk · contribs). And he's an IP-hopper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That dude is off the charts. 130 socks? Probably could score a gold at sock olympiks, but BEANs. L3X1 (distant write) 19:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Tarage

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

---

Tarage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is very suspicious-looking. I have seen their edit history and, judging from their behavior, I think they might be a sockpuppet of this notorious user. This user has a tendency to revert legitimate edits, and then either alleges vandalism or writes an insulting edit summary. Sometimes this user even reverts legitimate edits without providing an edit summary. Tarage has also made a couple of personal attacks in the edit summary box in recent months. Could someone please look into this account to make sure that I am not mistaken? SpringBeauty (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• No. You don't get to come here and make wild accusations without a. giving any kind of evidence of disruption; b. a specific locus of a dispute; c. having talked the matter over with the editor. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm about to block this user. Yamla, what do you think the odds are that this is SlitherioFan2016? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'll do you one better: it's the child Fangusu. Vanjagenije, will you do me a favor and add this to the SPI, and tag them? Feel free to ask another CU to look at the various IPs. There's a rangeblock in there as well, for an IPv6 address, that they may find interesting. I gotta run. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Adorable. I was going to leave them alone but making an ANI on me has urked me enough that I'm going through their 'contributions' and reverting them. --Tarage (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Have fun... but, FYI, "irked". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Indefblock+Noedittalk for 엠비엔 뉴스특보

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

---

block this user

Currently abusing the edit privileges. I've requested a global lock at m:SRG. Jerrykim306 (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done you appear to grossly misunderstand WP:BLANKING and edit warring. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that global lock either. I did protect the page to stop you and the other editor from continuing your disruptive, pointless edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Hookahlove

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

---

Disruptive editing by User:Hookahlove on Maratha–Mysore War since 4 April 2017. The user removing well-cited content without any proper explanation, no serious effort to engage on the talk page. He deletes already existing material, which is backed by sources and is adding his own POV. Shimlaites (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Shimlaites: Well, this is an edit-war, and an edit-war is like a Tango- it takes two, as you have demonstrated. In any case, it is clearly a content dispute, and your discussion should remain on the article talk page; this venue is for serious behavioural issues that require administrative intervention. Can somebody close this please? — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 10:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Baseball Bugs

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

---

I can't help but notice that this user is not an administrator. What happened? 82.132.239.38 (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Baseball Bugs. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it had previously been an admin, but turns out it decided against being one itself. That explains it, thanks. 82.132.221.214 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:JzG's questionable spam blacklist additions, removals of citations to reliable sources, failures to usefully engage, etc.

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

---

JzG has responded by Vipul's paid editing campaign by blacklisting a large number of sites and removing citations to those sites. As was noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#Vipul.27s_paid_editing_enterprise, Vipul's motives in some cases for adding certain sites remain mysterious. But he seems to have poisoned the well, by provoking JzG to treat those sites as though they were inherently spammy.

Many users have expressed concern that JzG went too far in his anti-refspam efforts because the blacklisted sites have also in many cases been referenced for legitimate reasons by users uninvolved in Vipul's campaign, but JzG's response seems to typically be simply that the sites were being refspammed, which doesn't really address the issue of legitimate citations to those sites. In researching this, I also found that a number of users have been objecting to JzG's removing reliable sources on questionable grounds, and then repeatedly reverting their reinstatement of the citations without waiting for other editors to weigh in on the talk page. Some pertinent links:

1. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2017#Immigration_law_refspam_round_3: Brief convo between JzG and Dark567 about econlib.org. Dark567 says, "I think econlib.org needs to be removed" from the spam blacklist. JzG responds, "It's being spammed by user:Vipul".
2. User_talk:JzG/Archive_143#Nolo_as_legal_source: Brief convo between JzG and Bri on the use of Nolo as a legal source, began 10 March 2017. Bri argues, "Nolo (publisher) is probably a reliable source." JzG responds, "It has been extensively refspammed."
3. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org: Convo among multiple users, including JzG, Jrheller1, and David Gerard, on the merits of blacklisting econlib.org, began 19 March 2017. David Gerard remarks, "This is not appropriate to blacklist in its entirety. Surely dealing with the actual spammers is the first move".
4. User_talk:JzG/Archive_144#FairTax: Convo between JzG and Morphh, concerning [31][32], began 20 March 2017. Morphh objects, "You should discuss these things on the talk page and site examples before tossing up such tags and removing references".
5. User_talk:JzG/Archive_144#Problematic_mass_alleged_REFSPAM_removals: Convo between JzG and jhawkinson, began 23 March 2017. jhawkinson objects, "Marginal Revolution is a reputable economics blog and mruniversity.com has their video segments. They don't qualify as REFSPAM."
6. User_talk:JzG/Archive_145#Removal_of_sources_as_not_complying_with_RS: Convo between JzG and Endercase, began 23 March 2017. Endercase objects, "If you don't have time to leave a slightly larger explanation on why you removed something maybe you don't really have time to be accurately removing cited information."
7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive950#massive_deletions: Convo among multiple users (initially Rjensen), began 26 March 2017. Rjensen objects, "User:JzG has been doing wholesale deletes on any footnote citation to a thinktank. about 50+ in the last hour or so. Most of theese are solid rs -- including two I added after studying an issue on food supply. user Rejects using talk page and gives a very poor explanation"
8. Talk:Avalon#Vanity_press: Convo between JzG and Cagwinn concerning Lulu-published book (see [33][34][35][36]), began 30 March 2017. Cagwinn objects, "Throop qualifies as a reliable source (see the second bullet below), despite this book being self-published, per WP guidelines, which I have already brought to your attention".
9. Talk:Cato_Institute#SPS_citing_of_Cato_data: Convo between JzG and Srich32977, concerning Cato as a reliable source (see [37][38][39][40]), began 1 April 2017. Srich32977 objects that "given that Cato-sourced material meets all 5 factors of WP:SPS policy it is not proper to cite SPS as a rationale for its removal."
10. Talk:Rent-seeking#Tullock_paradox_.2F_marginal-revolution: Convo between JzG and jhawkinson, concerning [41][42], began 1 April 2017. jhawkinson objects, "You are repeatedly making edits that are not justified by your edit summaries, as well as declining to usefulyl engage."

WP policy and guidelines are so complicated and labyrinthine that it's very easy to err when trying to apply them, but there seems to be a pattern of his not listening to users who raise legitimate concerns, and not waiting for a broader consensus to emerge, but rather continuing to reinstate the same edits. So I think that should stop. It would also probably be good, while spam blacklist removals are being discussed, to stop removing those citations, unless he's going to tell us now that he's willing to be the one to add back all those citations once the sites are removed from the blacklist. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

1) You're supposed to let the user that you are discussing know you started this thread.

2) you would do good to also link to the older discussions to give readers a background: e.g. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_113#Vipul.27s_paid_editing_enterprise and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#Riceissa, which in a way resulted in the reason for blacklisting the domains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Line by line

(AgganoorRajani (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)) MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2017#Immigration_law_refspam_round_3: Brief convo between JzG and Dark567 about econlib.org. Dark567 says, "I think econlib.org needs to be removed" from the spam blacklist. JzG responds, "It's being spammed by user:Vipul". And the outcome? It was indeed spammed. The blacklist talk page is exactly the right place for this discussion, and the consensus is currently in favour of retaining the entry but could change, because that's how Wikipedia works. User_talk:JzG/Archive_143#Nolo_as_legal_source: Brief convo between JzG and Bri on the use of Nolo as a legal source, began 10 March 2017. Bri argues, "Nolo (publisher) is probably a reliable source." JzG responds, "It has been extensively refspammed." Which is exactly true, it was one of several dozen sources added by Vipul, whose work includes SEO, to a number of articles. If nolo is removed (and I have not checked, this may already have happened), then it would need to be viewed in the context of about 40 sites Vipul spammed that are still there. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org: Convo among multiple users, including JzG, Jrheller1, and David Gerard, on the merits of blacklisting econlib.org, began 19 March 2017. David Gerard remarks, "This is not appropriate to blacklist in its entirety. Surely dealing with the actual spammers is the first move". I don't disagree with David on much, and we haven't finished this discussion yet. User_talk:JzG/Archive_144#FairTax: Convo between JzG and Morphh, concerning [78][79], began 20 March 2017. Morphh objects, "You should discuss these things on the talk page and site examples before tossing up such tags and removing references". Why? I am not required to bring shrubberies. User_talk:JzG/Archive_144#Problematic_mass_alleged_REFSPAM_removals: Convo between JzG and jhawkinson, began 23 March 2017. jhawkinson objects, "Marginal Revolution is a reputable economics blog and mruniversity.com has their video segments. They don't qualify as REFSPAM." Marginal Revolution is a blog. Marginal Revolution "University" is a vodcast. It's a partisan source, not a neutral commentary, it is not subject to effective peer review due to ideological heterodoxy among the potential reviewers (and yes, that equally applies in several areas of science publishing, but that's not our problem to fix. I would not propose Pod Save The World as a source for commentary on Obama-era international affairs either, for the same reason. And this is in the context of jrhawkinson's comments about trying to retain the "tulloch paradox", see below, so you're double-counting. User_talk:JzG/Archive_145#Removal_of_sources_as_not_complying_with_RS: Convo between JzG and Endercase, began 23 March 2017. Endercase objects, "If you don't have time to leave a slightly larger explanation on why you removed something maybe you don't really have time to be accurately removing cited information." O RLY? I have been told, with equal conviction, several different things I must or must not do when removing spam links. Several of these instructions are mutually contradictory. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive950#massive_deletions: Convo among multiple users (initially Rjensen), began 26 March 2017. Rjensen objects, "User:JzG has been doing wholesale deletes on any footnote citation to a thinktank. about 50+ in the last hour or so. Most of theese are solid rs -- including two I added after studying an issue on food supply. user Rejects using talk page and gives a very poor explanation" That's rjensen's assertion. I disagree, and rjensen definitely did not get the consensus in that discussion. Talk:Avalon#Vanity_press: Convo between JzG and Cagwinn concerning Lulu-published book (see [80][81][82][83]), began 30 March 2017. Cagwinn objects, "Throop qualifies as a reliable source (see the second bullet below), despite this book being self-published, per WP guidelines, which I have already brought to your attention". Lulu is a vanity press. The argument for including this author's self-publsihed work is circular: the author is apparently discussed on several Wikipedia articles. Turns out these were all added by one editor, who did very little else. Imagine that. Talk:Cato_Institute#SPS_citing_of_Cato_data: Convo between JzG and Srich32977, concerning Cato as a reliable source (see [84][85][86][87]), began 1 April 2017. Srich32977 objects that "given that Cato-sourced material meets all 5 factors of WP:SPS policy it is not proper to cite SPS as a rationale for its removal." This is a normal and routine operation of WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY. We absolutely should not be deep-diving the content of a think tank, dredging up the things it says it is proud of, and displaying those as its significant achievements. We should rely on what WP:RS say is significant. And again, this is absolutely routine and applies to any article subjects. Talk:Rent-seeking#Tullock_paradox_.2F_marginal-revolution: Convo between JzG and jhawkinson, concerning [88][89], began 1 April 2017. jhawkinson objects, "You are repeatedly making edits that are not justified by your edit summaries, as well as declining to usefulyl engage." The user is very keen to include discussion of somehting that is simply not covered in weighty sources, so demands instead to be allowed to use crappy ones because those are the only ones that support the content. The standalone article's already gone, so this is now down to how short a para should be in the main article and what sources to use. Answer: not think-tanks, please. Whenever you remove links, there is a chance someone might ocmplain. Above we see a decent cross-section of the reasons. They might find the source ideologically pleasing and therefore unquestionably reliable; they might be supporting a favourite book or author; they might be defending content that has no better source; all kinds of things. This is not evil. However, the amount of dispute is very small here, and the problem quite large. It will not be managed by weeks-long discussion ate every page, and it's not a simple yes/no that can be solved at RSN because some of it is unambiguous (e.g. the deceptive attributions of historical books). I review every link individually, I do not remove all of them. Short of tagging every one I have looked at and saying I have looked and not removed anything, you'll never see that. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm more concerned that a six-day old account is already posting this sort of thing on ANI. Number 57 15:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

And as always, if something is reported by an editor who can be attacked for whatever reason, WP and the admin cabal will see that as a reason to ignore the underlying issue and blame the victim instead.

JzG uses his admin powers, and the blacklist is just one, to strong-arm his POV in content disputes. He has done this for years. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You say. Your case might be stronger if you did not spend so very much of your time complaining about rouge admin abuse.

Every single addition was posted to the blacklist noticeboard, and can be (and in at least two cases has been) challenged and independently reviewed. And this is not about a POV, it's about controlling link abuse. Which is something I have done pretty much since I joined Wikipedia.

And the OP? Clearly at this point either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is an impressive list of challenges to my removals of links. When you consider that I have removed fewer than five thousand links in the last year, it clearly shows... er... something. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No good deed goes unpunished. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I just did a check, admittedly using crappy Excel and working on edit summaries, but around half of my last 5,000 mainspace edits have been removing problematic sources. Of these, fere than one percent have generated any kind of pushback, at a rough count, and a lot of that has been from people who I think subsequently accepted the outcome. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"No good deed goes unpunished" cuts both ways. The content creators rarely get praised either for their good content; they usually just get criticized when they add content that people object to. It's the same way with those who focus on deleting content that shouldn't be there; they're likely to get more criticism for their mistakes, than praise for their justifiable deletions. That's just how it is. Mistakes tend to attract more attention (certainly more public attention; the "thank" log is not viewed by as many people as ANI) than good deeds, because mistakes tread on people's toes. Although I think patrollers, etc. tend to accumulate more barnstars than content creators, so there is that. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

IME, good additions certainly get praise. What's damaging is this kind of weird waste-of-space vendetta post by you. Suggest we close & ban. Alexbrn (talk) 1:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)

"Vendetta, n. a prolonged bitter quarrel with or campaign against someone" I don't have any vendetta. I posted one ANI thread. Big deal. That's neither a prolonged campaign nor a sign of bitterness. ANI just happens to be the go-to forum for concerns about behavior that isn't confined to one topic area. If he erred, he erred; if I erred, I erred. Stuff happens; we know that. I haven't made any accusation of bad faith. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I believe I wrote above about how BOOMERANG has little business at AN/I, but posting this after having been brought to AN/I by the very editor you are reporting looks suspicious. And isn't rogue spelled rogue not rouge? L3X1 (distant write) 16:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitely rouge. See WP:ROUGE. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was going to hold off on taking it to ANI, because I thought, "I hate to escalate it if I don't have to; what's the rush," but then JzG reported me, so I thought, "Whatever, if he's going to do that, then so am I, since apparently escalation is not as big a deal as I thought; plus our interactions are going to be scrutinized anyway, so I may as well get my side of the story out there." Regrettably, the first person to escalate often ends up looking like the whistleblower with good intentions, while the second person ends up looking like he's just retaliating to take the focus off of himself, so this tends to encourage being the first to escalate. (By the way, what's the shrubbery reference, JzG? I tried googling it, but no one has created a KnowYourMeme entry yet.) N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

How does a 6-day-old user know anything about ANI, much less "holding off" on using ANI? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I think the actions taken by JzG were appropriate under the circumstances. Yes I sort of defended one of the websites but didn't feel like it was the time to push it in the midst of the messy and difficult cleanup after Vipul's cohort. - Bri (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Let's not spend a lot of time on this please, it would fly in the face of WP:DNFTT. Guy's actions were proper, and the OP is clearly a sock- or meatpuppet. Would someone please close this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• A user who's been here for 6 days and is a self-styled expert on "patterns"? Definitely not a real newbie. I would NAC this myself except that British IP hopper would probably yelp about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Persistent harassment

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

---

Can someone please block the unregistered or logged out editor using User:2600:8801:a409:fb00:9575:48c7:f56:65b8 and User:208.25.211.33? He or she is persistently harassing me despite being firmly told to not interact with me. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked the IPv6 for harassment, since the IPv4 now seems stale. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Uninvolved administrator input needed regarding Wikipedia:Harassment

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

---

Yesterday I boldly protected the Wikipedia:Harassment policy page with the summary "This is a policy which has significant real-world implications. Changes should only be made with consensus." following some backwards and forwards editing. I left a fuller explanation at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Page protection as I am involved with an ongoing RfC and another ongoing discussion on the talk page, which has not reached a consensus as of this timestamp (additional input welcome independently of the protection issue). On my talk page and at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Regarding WP:V Geogene is strongly objecting to both the reversion of his edits to the policy page by Mkdw and my page protection.

To avoid splitting discussion I would prefer responses to this to be at Wikipedia talk:Harassment and it would be very helpful if people could avoid conflating views on the process (reversion, protection) with views on the policy or changes to it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• A contested and controversial RFC regarding the issue is on-going and also marked with {{Under discussion inline}} on the harassment policy page. Geogene has opposed several other proposals. They've even stated they will continue to "oppose proposals". They unilaterally went ahead and changed the policy ahead of the RFC closing. It was reverted by me citing the need for consensus. Geogene reverted it back. I then reverted it and Thryduulf locked the policy page. I should note at the time I had not participated at the RFC and was uninvolved up until that point in time. It was a good intervention by both of us and this is a borderline case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Mkdw ^talk 00:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how my !votes on other proposals gives Mkdw the right to summarily revert my bold (and likely non-controversial) addition [43] to the harassment policy. In fact they are only trying to personalize things, conduct unbecoming of an Administrator (much less an Arbitrator). This started when I boldly added a footnote to a policy. Mkdw summarily reverted it twice, [44], [45], giving no reason other than "get consensus first". Also, I should point out that contrary to Mkdw's edit summaries, that sentence is not under discussion. Their reverts are a direct violation of WP:PGBOLD, which says: Although most editors find advance discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Thryduulf then escalated further by indefinitely protecting the page, because my edits supposedly don't have consensus [46], which is also a violation of WP:PGBOLD as cited above. Page should be unprotected, and my edit should be restored to the policy, until/unless Mkdw or others give concrete reasons for opposing. Unfortunately, this is becoming an Administrator conduct issue as well. Maybe they should quit digging? Geogene (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you accurately quote my edit summary if you're going to use quotation marks, rather than paraphrase, and secondary quote my full edit summary instead of cherry picking? You left out "and largely opposed at the moment". Literally the sentence in which your addition occurred was marked with the "under discussion" template. Mkdw ^talk 01:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not under discussion, and therefore is not being opposed by anyone except for yourself and apparently Thryduulf, and both of you are supervoting to keep it out. I am sorry if I accidentally misrepresented what you said, and would like for you to quit misrepresenting the underlying facts of this dispute. While you're at it you could try to stop personalizing everything just because you are in the wrong. Geogene (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse protection - if there's a revert war going on on a policy page, protection is warranted. I don't have an opinion on the discussion or the dispute, and I didn't really read anything that was written here after the original post. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)
• Endorse protection per Ivanvector, and suggest that Geogene is instead the one who should stop digging, as they seem to be rapidly heading towards digging a hole which they may find to be rather unpleasant. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

How so? Personally, I'd rather be blocked than bullied, although that isn't completely up to me. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

To each their own. Either way, it was a valid protection, especially considering it's bold, revert, discuss, not bold and revert repeatedly until someome makes you stop. I would recommend that you take a step back and do the "discuss" part instead of complaining that you're prevented from reverting again. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Should page protection be indefinite? Isn't something like 30 days more normal? Policy is that you can generally edit a policy page. Unless a specific problem user is tbanned or something--which might be more fair if consensus is that I'm in the wrong. Geogene (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, indefinite is not necessarily infinite. I'm sure once the policy page stabilizes and doesn't have so many possibly controversial changes being proposed it would be more than reasonable to downgrade or remove it. Until such time as then, though, it's not that onerous to propose changes on the talk page and, if consensus is to make them, have administrators implement them. Doing it that way makes sure changes get the staying power of consensus behind them and helps prevent mini revert wars like this one from taking place. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Edit warring on a policy page is seriously not cool. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse protection - Drmies says it with economical precision. A no-brainer. Jusdafax 05:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse protection We are talking about a policy page with huge impact here, so edit-warring is a no-no. Lectonar (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse protection - Changes to any WP policy must have community consensus, so any unilateral change can and should be reverted by any editor who is able to do so. If there is an active RfC regarding the change that was made, then the change should be reverted even if the RfC is heading that same direction; IMO, RfCs must be allowed to run their full course before any actions are taken based upon those RfCs, since consensus could change before the RfC is closed. These were good reverts and page protection. (Non-administrator comment) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Of course a policy should be protected to avoid even minor edit wars, but WT:Harassment badly needs attention from more editors. It is being argued that WP:HARASS should apply to people who are not editors, apparently in the belief that such people may not be covered by WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Its worse than that, *as written* its currently saying that no 'personal information' (which is defined) of *anyone* can be uploaded to wikipedia unless that person has done so themselves. Editor or non-editor alike. Which would basically mean every biography would have to be heavily redacted, no biographical data, no photos etc. Geogene's issue is with discussion of sources used in articles (it would mean we could not discuss at RSN a source's place of employment for example, a key indicator for some sources) but that is actually a minor issue. Frankly the harrassment policy is being skewed by people (and Thryduulf is amongst them) who have little understanding of the consequences of what they are doing. He has protected a policy page that as written (without any qualifiers) states we cannot have any photographs of people unless that person uploads it themself. This is so far beyond idiotic its just.. gah. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it is has been messed up for a while. Good prompt for remembering that the written policies and guidelines just express the consensus of the community; they aren't rulebooks or laws. There is plenty of time to fix it. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well sort of. Policies are meant to be rules - things that should be followed in all cases unless a *really* good reason to IAR it can be provided. Depending on the policy, the IAR bar can be exceedingly high (or pratically impossible in the case of BLP). Guidelines are best practice guidelines - should be followed because following it results in a better encyclopedia - but not neccessarily in all cases, some areas may routinely ignore guidelines because they are not appropriate for them and the bar to deviate is far lower. The harrassment policy is meant to be followed. It is descriptive of 'do not do X, because X is harrassment'. When a policy of that sort a)says something that is factually incorrect, b)applies it in a way that is completely unenforceable and out of line with the very most basic function of compiling an encyclopedia, it de-values it as a policy. As it stands, that 'policy' is functionally as useful as an essay. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death and Jytog: did you read where I said "it would be very helpful if people could avoid conflating views on the process (reversion, protection) with views on the policy or changes to it."? Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: fixing ping above. My "d" key is temperamental. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I just ignored it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Why? How is posting this here going to help resolve either the issue of process or the issues you have with the policy/policy proposals? Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Endorse protection and hand Geogene the block he's asking for. We cannot have edits acting against consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

In doubt

Sorry to intrude here but I was unable to ascertain if political and/or ideological propaganda are permissible on an user page. If it is not, is this the right place for opening an incident? Thanks Carlotm (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It depends, mostly on whether it is offensive and/or excessive. There's a some guidance on this in the table at WP:UPNOT. Which userpage are you concerned about? -- Euryalus (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

What I was referring to is none that can be found at WP:UPNOT. Therefore allow me not to divulge the specific user page I stumbled upon. Quite often I saw users identifying some traits of their ideological position but never confirmation and promotion of their political standing very configurable as political propaganda. I was naive: after a little search I found plenty of userboxes of a political nature, like these down here, from the right side of the spectrum (I was unable to find any from the left side, but I am sure there are some, somwhere). So I imagine I have to bear this, for me unacceptable, abuse of Wikipedia. Carlotm (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This user is a Republican.

This user supports the presidency of Donald Trump.

T R U M P

---

Make America Great Again!

{{User Hillary Clinton prison}}

This user supports the Libertarian Party of the United States.

CThis user supports the Conservative Party of Canada.

This proud American is a Conservative Republican.

Most of those are ok, and useful (it can be good to know the kind of person you're dealing with). The one advocating prison for Clinton is unacceptable and I'll delete that one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Eh. lots of editors announce their political views on their user pages and they run the spectrum from the far left (we have more than a few Communists) to the other end where rumor has it that there is at least one admin who is a monarchist. Go figure. As long as the pages are not being used for promotion of a given ideology/party, or advertising something grossly offensive like racism it's generally been tolerated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• More eh, the fact that you only posted those on the right and supposedly claim that you are unable to find any from the left doesn't make me think this is done in good faith. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the monarchist admin me? Because as the rumours go I'm also a communist. And an Anglo-Saxon supremacist (specifically, not a white supremacist, the vandal was very clear on that). Jokes aside, what remains here might offend or be upsetting to some users who don't like the current U.S. administration, but they're not like explicitly calling for violence or hatred of specific people or groups, those sort get deleted (like the one that was deleted here). From the left you can find:

This user supports the Green Party of England and Wales.

This user supports the New Democratic Party.

I support the Presidential campaign for Bernie Sanders. #FeelTheBern!

This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms.^†

and so on - possibly varying levels of offense to some people based on personal politics, but not deliberately offensive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Ad is a monarchist, see his user page. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK nobody has complained about these boxes on my page :

This user hates The Sun and thinks anyone who treats it as a reliable source for a biography of a living person is stark raving mad.

This user hates the Daily Mail and thinks any publication that claims "using Facebook causes cancer" is about as trustworthy as Jimmy Savile in the Cheltenham Ladies' College.

User:Ritchie333/Userbox Trump Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Much as I may agree with it, your Trump one is a borderline personal attack and I think not appropriate here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It is cutting, granted, but it's more a dig at the media that goes crazy every time Trump tweets anything. Does anybody else object to it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Are userboxes really a big deal? Lepricavark (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. At least, the ones proclaiming political messages should not be in Template space. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I personally think that userboxen not related to what you do here on Wikipedia shouldn't exist. The community has repeatedly held otherwise. I don't care for it but here we are. Sometimes really extremist ones get deleted, openly racist, etc, but this stuff, probably not. Again, I agree they don't belong here at all but the community in its wisdom has declared that they are ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The tangental reason I have for my userboxes is to warn people (in a humorous way) that I have biases against these three things and I should not be trusted to make a decent editorial or administrative judgement on any articles that relate to them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

To answer Lepricavark's original question: You have not lived through the Great UBX War of 2006™ (see Wikipedia:Userbox migration#Other discussions for a handy list of previous discussions and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war), so you probably don't know this, but yes, they unfortunately are. Had to learn this the hard way at my RfA. Regards SoWhy 11:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Userbox Trump here is pushing BLP, but I think as long as it's in the user's voice and not Wikipedia's, it's fine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Elevatorone and Vijaya Ramanayake

User:Elevatorone recently created an article on Vijaya Ramanayake, as part of a review of the article I added a number of maintenance tags to assist in the improvement of the article. Elevatorone has repeatedly remove the tags stating comments such as "These are common knowledge in several Sri lankan Sinhalese written news papers. really do you need a death certificate to cite the day he died?!!!!!!". When I tried to explain to him that he needed to cite reliable sources as references for the information he made the following comments " These are quite common info. His parents info is not online, do you need me to dig them up on his 71 year birth certifaicte (sic) and place personal info like that online? Musch (sic) of this info is not online, bulk of Sri lanak publications don't go online. I know this person first hand. and to say "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies". This man has contributed so much to Sri Lanka's entertainment. you may not know him, but to say this is a fucking insult! Seriously, get a life." When I then explained that he was probably contrary to WP's conflict of interest provisions he ignored my comments and continued to edit the article removing the maintenance tags again. Rather than get involved in a edit war I have referred the matter here to be resolved. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Elevatorone has put a "db-author" tag on the article, but, in fact, Elevatorone did not create the article, and other editors have contributed to it, so "db-author" is no longer applicable. For this reason I have removed it. The tag appears to be a gesture of sour grapes, with Elevatorone taking his ball and going home instead of following the advice given to them to read and follow basic policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

And he restored it again, despite my explanation on his talk page.[47] A block seems in order here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone involved. I'm new to Wiki and learning. I have restored any of the issues mentioned. Site is as is and how left by other members. Will remain that way and will follow WP guideline going forward on all article. Elevatorone —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420 blanking articles

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

---

Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was reported to ANI in June 2016 for blanking articles. In closing the discussion admin Fences and windows stated that Spacecowboy420 had "taken on board that blanking articles, or large parts of articles, can be disruptive and should not be the first option". Unfortunately Spacecowboy420 has resumed blanking entire articles.

On 21 March he blanked (1, 2) two articles, Ragging in India and Ragging in Sri Lanka, removing more than 40k of content. Much of the removed content was not found in the article he redirected the two articles to, Hazing, but Spacecowboy420 made no effort to add this to the Hazing article. I have twice tried to undo his edit, asking him to discuss before making such radical moves, but on each occasion he has reverted me (1, 2, 3, 4).

It is clear that Spacecowboy420 has not learnt. Could an admin please review his conduct?--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing troubling behavior on both sides. On your side, I do not understand why you immediately went and reverted him on a separate article unrelated to either of these. --Tarage (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I presume you mean this. Ragging in India, Ragging in Sri Lanka and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are on my watchlist and as Spacecowboy420 edited these article in succession on 30 March (1, 2, 3), when I reviewed my watchlist on 1 April they came up one after another. FYI, I have made dozens of edits over many years on Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Spacecowboy420 on the other hand had never edited this article prior to this. His edit on this article was simply a childish attempt to get back at me.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It does seem possibl that he edited it because you did, but his actual edit contained easily sourceable facts already in evidence elsewhere in the article. On the other hand, just wiping out entire properly sourced articles and redirecting them without any attempt at merger, and then not following WP:BRD when you are reverted is most certainly a problem and if Spacecowboy420 doesn't speak up here in a timely fashion I'm prepared to consider administrative action without their input. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Concur. @Spacecowboy420: you need to explain your thinking on these repeat blankings. They appear to be contrary to merge policy etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I redirected the ragging article to hazing on March 21st without complaints/reverts/etc. There is no need for such region specific articles such as Ragging in Sri Lanka when any region specific content could be included on the main hazing article. We don't need details of every single legal code related to hazing in one region, neither do we need every single case detailed on the article. I don't consider much of the content on those articles to be relevant to building an encyclopedia and it benefits Wikipedia to be a little more succinct, so that people can discover about hazing on one article, rather than bore them to death with 100s of different articles about hazing in each different nation. I do have to admit that I wasn't really considering merge policy when I merged the articles though, I was just making a judgement based on what I considered to be common sense. I am still of the opinion that the relevant content from the two articles that I redirected would be far better served if they were included on the hazing article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Obi2canibe has been stretching the boundaries of what is civil in his comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AObi2canibe&type=revision&diff=773693151&oldid=773600129 this comment, is not really acceptable. Remove my comments from the talk page? that's just fine. Hide them with a snarky comment? less fine. Using an edit summary to tell someone to grow up? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam&diff=prev&oldid=773278261 again, not acceptable. Calling my addition of relevant and sourced content "a childish attempt to get back at me" on an ANI report, again not acceptable. BTW - I edited that article because after editing the Ragging in Sri Lanka article, I jumped around a few Sri Lanka articles reading, came across that article and saw the need for an edit. AGF please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course the above should not be considered when admins decide if to sanction me or not for redirecting those two articles - I would like that to be based purely on the my actions, and not consider if the other editor is acting civilly or not. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just an FYI for everyone involved in/interested in this issue; I have started a merge discussion about the two Ragging articles at Talk:Ragging in India#Merge with Hazing?. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• So here's the thing: When you redirected each of those articles, you simply removed large swaths of sourced content. And no, you were not immediately reverted, but later on Obi2canibel did decide to revert you, and in both cases left the entirely proper edit summary Please discuss before making such a move. Up until this point, I don't see either of you doing anything particularly wrong. It is often better to discuss redirecting articles with significant editing history over a prolonged period of time before just deciding for yourself that we don't need them, but it is not required and WP:BOLD editing is encouraged.

So what you did after that is where we see a problem, you were reverted, and asked to discuss on the talk page, and you just reverted back instead. That's not ok, regardless of what mildly snarky comments may have been used in subsequent edit summaries. And I would also point out the previous ANI linked above in which you seem to understand that just wiping out entire articles without a consensus to do so is generally not ok. Whether you are right or wrong about the actual content issue is irelevant, this is just not how things are done, edit warring to "stealth delete" two entire articles is not ok. As you've claimed to understand this before, we're going to need something a little better than "ok I get it now" or "but look at those edit summaries" in order to feel this is really understood.

I would therefore ask that you voluntarily agree that for a period of no less than six months you will not redirect articles without prior discussion, and will follow a WP:1RR restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Prior discussion before redirecting an article when content is removed is of course no problem.

I would like to clarify what exactly which edits you are suggesting being restricted to 1RR - if you are asking me to stick to 1RR regarding redirects then I'm sure that won't be a problem, if you are talking about a 1RR restriction on all edits, and if it is really voluntary then I am less eager to subject myself to that sanction, mainly because the concerns are related to one specific area of my editing, not my edits in general - for example - when I added content to the Tamil Tigers article discussed above, I was reverted - so I re-added the content along with a source - a 1RR restriction on all edits would have prevented me from re-adding that content with the required source.

Also, I would like to clarify if there are any restrictions required on redirects that don't remove content - if I move an article because of naming reasons and I wish to redirect the original article name to the new article name, that seems to be pretty uncontroversial and doesn't seem to benefit from prior discussion.

I'm all for something voluntary that makes me a better editor, that seems so much more productive than the standard blocks that most editors receive, I just don't want to subject myself to something that removes my ability to be an efficient editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, edit warring is a behavioral issue, not a topical issue. The idea here is to get you to follow WP:BRD. The thing with edit warring is that the particpants all too often feel a false sense of urgency to "correct" an article when what is needed is rational discussion. That's rather the point here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

ONUnicorn thanks for starting that discussion - I've given my opinion there regarding merging the articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite the need to revert my redirect and the need to create an ANI report regarding my redirect the editor who reverted/reported me is not contributing towards any discussion on the article talk page regarding my proposed redirect, which leads me to doubt his intentions regarding this whole drama. Either way, I'm attempting to discuss it there and get opinions from whoever wishes to contribute and will do the same the next time I consider redirecting an article, so I guess that's one thing I've gained from this report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging the others who weighed in on the previous ANI case: John Carter, Laura Jamieson, NeilN, Montanabw, Piotrus, Drmies, Rebbing, I JethroBT, TransporterMan, Herostratus, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, S Marshall, Cavarrone, WereSpielChequers, Mr rnddude and Timothyjosephwood. The only ones I didn't ping are Fences and windows and Johnuniq, considering that they have weighed in below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Propose restriction

I'm sorry to see Spacecowboy420 here again. My close last June said "further ill-considered blanking, edit warring over blanking, or incivil edit summaries might warrant another discussion". There doesn't seem to be a civility issue now, but redirecting Ragging in India without a merge or discussion is particularly ill-considered. I'm surprised he would be unaware of the major issue of ragging at Indian universities (which have specific regulations about this) and which is regularly alleged to have resulted in deaths that feature in the Indian press and medical literature.[48][49][50] Restoring a redirect when reverted was also poor judgment. Large-scale removal of content should not a first resort absent serious issues such as BLP, copyvio, but Spacecowboy420 is still going straight to removal. So I propose a formal restriction due to this ongoing issue, i.e. no undiscussed redirects or mergers. Fences&Windows 20:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Discussing proposals about large changes should be the first option. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely. This is a no-brainer. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Seems warranted at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support, but not just a restriction on undiscussed redirects or mergers. He needs to be restricted on blanking, period. And I mean when he blanks unsourced sections, or most of an article, when the content is easily sourceable. The WP:Preserve policy should be taken into account. I've already made my case in the previous ANI case against him in on blanking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Temporarily oppose. WP:V presently says "verifiability is not a reason for inclusion", which is to all practical intents and purposes carte blanche for removing sourceable content from articles. Ridiculous though this is, Spacecowboy420's edits are exactly in accordance with policy as currently written.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

S Marshall's interpretation of the current wording of WP:V arises from an issue at WT:V he is currently embroiled in, and his comment here appears to be with that in mind. His equating "not a reason for inclusion" with "carte blanche for removing sourceable content" is faulty. But I rather doubt you all want to get into that here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

As I've already stated, I have no issue with 1RR for redirects (and if that included 1RR for blanking large amount of content, then I also see no issue with that restriction) - however if the restriction was in place for general content blanking, then I would like to have specific examples of what is and isn't considered blanking - one sentence? one paragraph? 100 words? or just use common sense and err of the side of caution when removing content? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I'm troubled by you asking, after this discussion, about deleting whole paragraphs and swaths of 100 words. I'm not sure you're getting it... as a general thing, this project is about gathering and presenting, not erasing, information. If you would take the approach, when addressing an article, of "how can I add to and increase the usefulness of this article?" rather then "how can I reduce the amount of knowledge we are presenting here"... that might be a better approach.

Okay, sure, sometimes stuff has to go. Sometimes there's dubious info, sometimes there's cruft, sometimes there's too fine a level of detail for a general encyclopedia. What I would suggest is that you consider leaving the clearing out of that to other editors, since you seem not have a talent for using the scalpel rather than the chainsaw in this particular task. There are countless other types of tasks which I'm sure you'd be well employed, and them you won't have to look over your shoulder wondering whether you are getting yourself in trouble. Herostratus (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I asked about paragraphs and 100 words just to clarify what is and isn't considered acceptable. I see no reason why someone trying to clarify what is generally considered to be acceptable would trouble you, surely that's much better than any ambiguity. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes OK. Well I'm not an admin and I can't enforce any sanctions, so let's see if someone who is and can wants to chime in with a more precise definition of what you can and cannot do. I would suppose that "just use common sense and err of the side of caution when removing content" is going to be as precise as we can get. Herostratus (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned your opinion is just as valid as any admin's opinion. If there is no clear line as to what is acceptable and what is not then your advice "just use common sense and err of the side of caution when removing content" seems very sensible and easy to live with. (especially when combined with "discuss major changes first") Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Herostratus (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Fences - I'm willing to accept your proposal of "no undiscussed redirects or mergers" - so as this ANI report has been here for a week now, could you put that into effect. I see this as a way to make me improve as an editor, so I have no issues with your proposal. (and thank you for noticing the improvement in my civility) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

• Note (after close): Regarding my pings above, Kww is missing from the pings and should have pinged as well (even though, so far, he mostly has not edited this year). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

ClueBot NG edited the page on Marlon Brando and stated his political affiliation was to the Republican Party. ClueBot NG outrageously accused me of vandalism when I reverted the edit back to the page stating his true political ideology as a Democratic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfiejldavis01 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

[51] Good ClueBot! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot is actually Democratic? I'm not surprised. No, I see, you're saying Brando is. You've got it the wrong way round, User:Alfiejldavis01. You edited the page stating Brando was Republican,[52] and Cluebot reverted to Democratic.[53] Is it April 1 again? Bishonen | talk 18:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC).

Alfiejldavis01 may also wish to explain this edit to the same article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Rights for bots to express themselves!! L3X1 (distant write) 19:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Marlon Brando, the actor who sent a Native American to accept his Best Actor Oscar for The Godfather, as a protest against the way Native Americans are treated by Hollywood, is a Republican? Who'da thunk it? (In fact, a big negatory to that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

104.163.140.228

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

---

It's clear this is a not new user, but what's else is, it's clear this is one of my past attacks and sockmasters, simply see their contributions which contain the same similar attacks. I'm not sure who this is, whether it's 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR or Winterysteppe-Pyrusca, but this is not a new user, and it's not someone taking us lightly. Similar to the said 2 banned users, they WP:HOUNDED me with different accounts, something that this IP's activity suspiciously shares. With this, there's enough to WP:RBI in similar patterns alone. However, what the 2 users shared, is that they would mass-remove everything, boldly attack me or my edits or also make any edit to anything I edited, and this is the same here. It's one thing for a user to casually make a few similar edits, but it's a whole different thing to pick up the same exact minute-to-minute behavior of past banned users. As such, it's definitely cause for examination. To add, I would Support (1) a block of the IP and (2) a rollbacking of the clear attempts at continuing whichever past-banned user they are, given WP:RBI supports it and we've used it before, and since banned users have no ability to continue any editing, especially in this case. Although PRODs can be removed by anyone, previously banned users, and WP:DUCK being applied here, certainly aren't given that capability. No simple new user comes back and continues editing as if naturally experienced, and This added now especially adds cause to what was similarly placed at the involved accounts such as 1Wiki8. This is all clear violation of WP:GAME. SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You're 100% incorrect with all your assertions above. I removed a few of your prods because they were bad. I believe I also commented on one of them that the PROD was incomprehensible, which to my understanding of the english language, it was. I have been removing PRODS lately where I think there is a chance to save the article, or where the nominator has not done their WP:BEFORE, and in many cases I also do a search and add articles. This is just Wikipedia working the way it is supposed to work: someone nominates an article for PROD, and someone else might remove the prod and perhaps even improve the article. I came here to have a look as I received a notice on my talk page. I don't intend to follow this discussion as it does not have any basis in fact, so have a nice evening. 104.163.140.228 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the same editor. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 02:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister and Boomer Vial: are you two going to provide any diffs as evidence that the IP editor is making the same edits as the blocked editors you've named above? Evidence of this alleged hounding? Of the alleged attacking? Demonstration of this "exact minute-to-minute behavior of past banned users"? If it's so obvious then it should be very easy to come up with evidence. It's evident from the original post that you don't really know which banned user this might be but would like everyone else to guess. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• The majority of them are going to be in 1Wiki8's now deleted contributions but as his still existing contributions show here and here, they highly share the patterns. Because of the unique behavior, it's showing it would in fact be 1Wiki8, especially as he had another account before, User:Eclipsed. This partly shows his comments before the December 2016 ban. Next, if this is also a differently used IP, the IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.27.194.58 also has] one suspicious comment that shares the same behavior, complete with attacks at me and then the sarcasm. It's one thing for a casual IP to comment, even if SPA, but it's a whole different animal to share the same behavior. SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask you for one thing specifically? Can you provide a link for an edit where 1Wiki8 attacked you, and one more link for an edit where this IP made a similar attack? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The link you posted is for a different IP. Is it now your allegation that the two IPs are related? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

They may or may not be related, since they could easily be using proxies or similar, since the MO is entirely the same, and I doubt this is a copycat. As for the specifics, this is something similar to what and, for 1Wiki8, the similarities are in here, here, here and here, and FWIW the similarities can be shown at here and especially here because the brushing off of someone's genuine comment at User talk:104.163.140.228, much like 1Wiki8 at his ANI notice and surrounding messages from others, he would casually take as an apparent humorous game. I suppose the WikiLawyering at here may fit in too. "Smart" comments also show similar tones to this 104. IP at here and here, something that was still prevalent at 1Wiki8's ANI ban. As for why I started to consider, Winterysteppe-Pyrusca was because they would actively use multiple accounts at the same time, but I'm starting to seriously doubt this is them. Something as attention-grabbing as this (104's talk page) is certainly something mirroring what 1Wiki8 would've said at his talk page, given thank you for giving me a good hearty laugh during this festive season. Please more, you are wonderfully hilarious!, Thanks for your continued humor! I love it! Keep going. Also, to specify a part in his ANI, this shows some of his used "DeProds" and the relevant commentary. I know a lot of the commentary there, such as "I consider a PROD disruptive" or "Biased prod", can be used by different users, but I still can't believe it's all a happy coincidence. SwisterTwister talk 17:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Something else I happened to find while looking back is one of the random IPs that would show, here with the same MO, and there were quite a few, at the time, basically changing every day and totaling a dozen, 2 of which would geolocate to Montreal. Meanwhile, I found another 1Wiki8-involved AfD here and here. Comparing this, it's becoming far too suspicious. SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Can someone please block this IP? They have been entirely unresponsive about genuine concerns yet they continue their activities as shown by their contribs, showing they are not emphasizing an understanding, and especially when WP:DUCK is obvious here. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not see why someone would block me, as I've done nothing wrong and broken no rules. I imagine the reason no one is responding to your claims is that you have not provided any evidence of wrongdoing. The text above all amount to instances of "they might be X", which is just completely inaccurate speculation. The fact that I responded to someone's request that I get an account with "no", well, that amounts to a hill of beans, as they say. I have to say that I am hard pressed to see where I slighted you. I might have called one of your prods incomprehensible, which in my perception it was, but if that offended you I do apologize. Finally, I am an IP editor and have rights to AGF just like everyone else does, so I would suggest it's time to stop speculating and calling names. Have a nice day. Also, it seems that my router has reset and i± have a new IP. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as looking up both ips return both of them being static, I feel like routers reseting wouldnt change your ip, however using a proxy would. [1][2] Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Those users who accuse me of something do so in violation of WP:AGF. I've done nothing wrong. My router assigns a new IP abotu once a week; I am not sure why. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ doesn't know how my ISP assigns IP's, but implies I'm a sock. Everything above, except for the admin asking for proof, is classic ANI bullying group dynamics.96.127.244.160 (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a list of the various IP's you've edited under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure that is a realistic expectation. I wouldn't be able to. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe just the most recent ones. It should lift any cloud of suspicion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It kinda looks like this thread is the chain of recent IPs. Primefac (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Might I ask, kind Wikipedia editors, on what basis are you beginning this witch hunt? Just for fun? Show me the incorrect thing I have done to bring on the mob. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of anything... i was simply stating a fact. Your defensiveness towards this topic matter however is leading me to suspect you of being a sock however, I cannot personally prove it at this time, but i will look for any evidence and present it. However, no one is assuming bad faith we are just stating what it looks like as well. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 01:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

When suspected of being a sock, the suspect's first order of business should be "Don't act like one." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

With respect, calling someone a sock without any evidence is not acceptable here.96.127.244.160 (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're not a sock, you have nothing to fear, and hence no reason to get defensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not going to block someone without evidence. If any of these two IPs have done something wrong, list it and we'll see. So far I have not seen any specific evidence (have you, Ivanvector?), and "suspicious behavior" doesn't mean much to me. SisterTwister, "DUCK is not obvious"--not to me. You were asked to provide evidence, but what you gave is edit histories, not diffs with comparisons that we can act on. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen anything here that suggests a connection. I would think that when two administrators and an SPI clerk say "this isn't obvious, show the connection" the accuser(s) would not just continue to say "it's so obvious!" and hope for action. "I think they're the same user" is not evidence, and no admin who wants to keep their tools is going to respond to that. We do not require any editor to disclose what (other) IPs they might have used, and such a request is pretty close to harassment. If you have evidence (in the form of diffs) that demonstrates a specific violation of the multiple accounts policy, please file at WP:SPI, but do not do so if you can't make your own case. 96.127 is correct: accusing someone of sockpuppetry without evidence is a sanctionable personal attack.

I suggest this thread be closed immediately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The unsubstantiated accusations of socking are an example of what is wrong with the Wikipedia process. The rational responses of two admin are an example of what is good in the Wikipedia process. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@96.127.244.160: don't read my comments here as an endorsement, there is simply nothing here that I can review. If other users raise good-faith concerns about your edits, it's in your best interest to discuss in pursuit of resolution of those concerns. This is a collaborative project, it's difficult to collaborate with editors who don't discuss. If you can't agree, please seek a third opinion and/or dispute resolution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss. As you and Drmies point out, the editors have presented no evidence that I have done anything wrong. All I see is unfounded accusations, which is as you correctly point out, harassment.96.127.244.160 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Better title for this thread.96.127.244.160 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What about the IP editor's removing PROD tags? That is a fairly close affinity with the behavior of User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR[54][55][56]. Apologies about the very delayed response, I haven't been online as much lately. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 05:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Boomer Vial I think you're saying that a) a blocked user removed PRODS, and b) I have removed prods therefore c) I must be the same editor? Have you heard this one: Marilyn Monroe is beautiful. I am beautiful. Therefore I am Marilyn Monroe? Classic logical fallacy.96.127.244.160 (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What part of the behavior is the same did you not understand?[57][58][59][60] If I am incorrect, then you would have no reason to worry, nor to get so defensive. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You continute to make a personal attack with no evidence. Prods have been removed by literally thousands of users, perhaps tens of thoussands. You need to apologize an stop attacking me for nothing. Why is this thread still open? zero evidence of any wrongdoing has been offered. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Methinks thou doth protest too much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no evidence here, just badgering and personal harassment. Close the thread or sanction the harassers.96.127.244.160 (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't act like a sock and you won't be treated like one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Pinkchaddigurlz

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

---

See userpage and their Special:Contributions/Pinkchaddigurlz. I think this account should be blocked to stop the ungoing tagging, and their userpage and all contribs should perhaps be deleted. Would not be surprised if this were sock of Inlinetext, who went over the edge with claims of undisclosed paid editing. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User page G10d. L3X1 (distant write) 20:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello everybody. I am associated with Mr. Anand's office to evaluate the prominence on smartphones and other mobile devices of the new template undisclosed paid expected to be applied to all articles of Vipul by the CCI in Linkedin, see template usage on Timeline of LinkedIn. The template's usage (as developed by @JzG:) while seemingly supplementing pre-existing talk page conflict disclosure of the client agency via Connected contributor (paid), fails, however, for these warning notices are not showing up on smartphones, see example 3 in the DOTCOM disclosure. Sorry cant reveal more here (privacy and legal related), but we had only selected articles where volunteer editors did not include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution in their edit comments. It would be improper for me to respond beyond this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkchaddigurlz (talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE and indeffed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Is "slanderous" a legal threat?

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

---

At [61] an edit warrior said something about "slanderous". Does that comply with WP:NLT? As far as I can see, there is nothing slanderous in labeling a real peddler of pseudoscience as a peddler of pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course there's nothing slanderous there. This is the written word. Were it to be anything, it would be libel! --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A mistaken legal threat is still a legal threat. Besides, he/she is past 3RR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

After checking the material was properly sourced and did not violate BLP, I've blocked the IP for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

By itself, accusing another user of slander libel isn't a legal threat. However, if they imply that they might pursue legal action, then we have a problem. DarkKnight2149 00:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. While it is wrong to label another editor's actions as "slanderous" or "libel" without strong supporting evidence, a legal threat by definition involves threatening (whether explicitly or otherwise) to pursue legal action against an individual, group, or entity. This appears to be a pretty typical POV-based issue that comes up at contentious articles; experts generally agree on something, Wikipedia text reflects it, and an editor whose views are in conflict with the broader consensus feels that their viewpoint is being unjustly denigrated by the liberal use of loaded words - in this case "pseudoscience". Which the geocentric model is, for the record. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

NLT is meant to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. Technically nothing short of If you do X I will sue you is a "legal threat", but editors who talk about "libel", "defamation", "such-and-such editor may be in violation of such-and-such legal statute" and so on are almost always doing so with the clear intention of creating a chilling effect and so are in violation of the spirit of NLT, since the whole point of NLT is to protect editors from suffering said chilling effect. To defend editors who carefully skirt the boundaries of NLT on the basis that they didn't issue a direct legal threat is not a good idea. The one possible exception I can think of is related to copyright -- if someone says This Wikipedia article is in infringement of my copyright. Please fix it. is not a direct legal threat and should generally not be treated as though it were meant as a legal threat. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Good grief no. Plus it was only in an edit summary, which read "Removed slanderous statement." Softlavender (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep. There is, after all, a great divergence between accusing someone of something and ensuring that they face a consequence for doing so. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 12:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a legal threat (Darkknight2149 has put it best IMO). A legal threat sounds like "I'm going to sue you" and is a pretty bright line. Even commenting on one's activities exposing them to legal liability ("you could be sued for ...") is generally not a NLT legal threat, unless it's in the form "I could sue you for ..." and/or it comes with "... and I'm going to sue you". However, repeatedly referring to other editors' activities as libel and slander is likely to earn you a WP:CIVIL block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a legal threat. It's the same thing as saying it's a BLP violation.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

POV forks being created as school project

I need some more admin eyes here. Looks like there's a school project going on at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of California, Berkeley/Environmental Justice Section 101 (Spring 2017). Many of the articles they're working with are fine. However, I'm seeing a lot that are pretty blatant POV forks, things like Food Justice, Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California, Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America and Undocumented Farmworkers in California. Moreover, there are a number of these in Draft and User space that are also issues, such as Draft:Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming which until just now referred to the President of the United States as "Drumpf". Many of them have already been nominated at AFD, but it would be great if we could have some more people come take a look at these. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the Drumpf is almost certainly unintentional. TimothyJosephWood 22:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why an article on the well-accepted fact that pollution has a disproportionate impact on minority communities would be a "POV fork" — what article is it forking? We don't have an existing, specific article on the topic that I can find. If the article needs cleanup, improvement and balancing, then it should be edited accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The same issue is also being discussed at WP:ENI#NPOV problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to reflog the horse about early closing AfDs, as that was done last week, but the Afd for Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California seemed to be closed awful fast, 140 minutes with 3 delete votes. Can we wait a little longer for the others to see if any !keeps are given? L3X1 (distant write) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I've suggested that Wiki Edu require its students/participants to submit their pages for WP:New pages patrol review before putting them in the mainspace. – S. Rich (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Srich32977 Not sure what you mean, all their articles are once moved to mainspace enter the new pages feed. I am unawar of any to get NPP on a page in a sandbox without turning it into a draft and submitting that for review. I asked Ian(wiki ed) about what to do with educational article here and he said Students should be treated like any other new editors . The section directly underneath that talks about drafts as well. L3X1 (distant write) 01:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Is that the guidance that Wiki Ed is providing? Not good. They are sloughing off their responsibilities as teachers and handing us regular WP editors garbage to shovel out. Moreover, they are not following their own procedures by listing courses and articles under their purview. The Ed program is now in 80 countries. Whac-A-Mole on steroids. – S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Be advised that there are 6 sections (101-106), all of which are working on similar articles. Many are about California's Central Valley. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California was speedy deleted G11 during the course of the AfD, so there was no point to keeping it open anyways. ansh666 06:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

- CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. We have a few people looking into this. A few things:

Students should indeed not be given any more or less consideration vs. any other new user. They do have staff support, however, so if there are problems you can notify us (either by pinging, leaving a note at WP:ENI/WP:ENB, or leaving a message for the Content Expert working with the class, who in this case is Ian (Wiki Ed)). Worst case scenario (presuming no truly egregious content, e.g. copyvios), everything is moved back into a sandbox pending thorough review and, if problems aren't addressed, they never leave the sandbox.

Regarding sloughing off their responsibilities as teachers - To be clear, Wiki Ed are not instructors, but rather exists to set instructors up for success, giving them tools, training materials, assignment design help, and staff support throughout. The processes and best practices we use are based on years of past experience and community feedback (and will continue to evolve based on what works and what doesn't, so feedback is always welcome). Then we try to help out if things go wrong. If anyone would like to take a look at exactly the assignment structure and guidance these students receive, you can see it at the course's timeline page on the Dashboard.

I don't think I understand the idea of "submitting to" NPP. Do you mean AfC, or just not using a draft/sandbox first? Having them work in sandboxes and using our resources rather than AfC is specifically to avoid being a drain on volunteer time (among other reasons). Students work in sandboxes and are encouraged to ask for feedback when doing so. That's personally emphasized to instructors working in particularly contentious areas.

Getting down to this specific class, its goal is to fill content gaps relating to environmental problems that had implications for environmental justice. While these topics are, for the most part, notable, they tend to focus on aspects of problems that are several steps more detailed than our existing articles. Because of this, Ian encouraged the class to begin by expanding existing articles, or creating more mid-level articles (even if this involved scaffolding an obviously incomplete article). While most of the class did this pretty well, sometimes the students got the scope wrong and ended up with overly narrow articles, or created forks where daughter articles would have been appropriate. In other words, in general it's a well-intentioned attempt to work within policy that has sometimes gone wrong. Ian's goal (in progress) is to help them to rebalance their articles or redirect their efforts in more appropriate ways. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

and, as I'm sure Ryan will confirm, this tendency to write overly specific articles is characteristic of many class projects; it's due to the students (or sometimes the instructor) not recognizing the difference between atopics appropriate for a term paper and topics appropriate for an encyclopedia . It's one of the reasons why some degree of supervision by Wiki Ed is important. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm basically going to let WikiEd stuff be, as the ins and outs are outside of my abilities. L3X1 (distant write) 02:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright breaches by User:Vvven

User:Vvven has been warned about copyright breaches ([62] [63], ), uncredited interwiki copying ([64] [65]), and the use of machine translation ([66], [67]). A month after the warnings from User:Diannaa, Vvven's last five creations have been:

• April 6 - Puente Colgado (Aranjuez), a machine translation of a blog
• April 6 - Hotel Internacional (Barcelona), an uncredited translation of es-wiki
• April 2 - Portal Nou, a machine translation of a blog
• March 22 - Convent del Carme, Valencia, a machine translation of a blog
• March 22 - Sant Agustí, Valencia, a machine translation of a blog

Although Vvven is an energetic contributor, repeated requests to change behaviour haven't worked and the pattern is pervasive. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning and will monitor their contribs. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• While this user has been brought to our attention, is the promotion of the drug Citicoline at User:Vvven an appropriate use of a user page? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that too; but they also have useful links etc on the page. Just the one section needs to go. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I have removed it and notified the user as to why — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Users Dianna, Boing and Hydronium, i will change my strategy in order to develop that articles above named, and others. i will resume the information from that blogs because simply they not invent that information, they wrote that from sources that explain what happened with that buildings, their history. my intention is write all that important information but in a different way of writting, thats mean, a resume. And citycoline write, is a story of my life, not a advertsiment.... Thanks--Vvven (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Vvven blogs are not considered reliable sources here so I encourage you to find others. Also, may I ask, do you have an adept level of understanding of English? I just noticed you made several grammatical errors and some awkward phrases in your response above.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

When I write without my translator, it tends to get worse. But it becomes comprehensible when I use it, as in the case of writing an article, or as in this paragraph. Greeting--Vvven (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I know, but only in these cases could be considered as reference blogs, since they were articles of buildings demolished centuries ago, so the photos and drawings of important painters are there, but the information, there are very few sources--Vvven (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Says Dianna that the next time I will block. I ask for a moment of consideration, maybe it will block a troll or a person who is creating articles of buildings that were important part of the history of countries when they were erected, however it is difficult for another person to create--Vvven (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Vvven you recently created Puente Colgado (Aranjuez). Could you provide the source you used for the content? Since you are being analyzed for copyright violations, it would be helpful to see if you improved with this latest article. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick Hi, friend, I summarized it, only placing the most important appointments as dates, architecture style, who built it, and other things, I took it from the same source--Vvven (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vvven, could you please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Blogs are self-published, unedited, and so cannot (normally) be used as references for articles, though they can be used as inspiration and to provide hints in seeking reliable sources for articles. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over Georgina Downs

I'm currently involved in a dispute with Thefactcorrecter about the content of the article at Georgina Downs.

I came across the article on 24 March (via a maintenance category, I think) and discovered it was heavily promotional in tone. I made several edits cleaning out what I considered POV material and replacing obviously biased sources with references from reputable news organisations. Diff: [68]

I also proposed a merge of the article with UK Pesticides Campaign, as I thought there was nothing to suggest notability of the campaign as distinct from Downs herself. After no opposition in a week, I went ahead with the merge.

Today, Thefactcorrecter added content to the page that was distinctly promotional in tone. Diffs: [69][70][71] I reverted this twice and placed two warning templates on the user's page: [72][73]

Then, the user left a note on my talk page, to which I responded thoroughly: [74] I was going to report this at WP:NPOVN but the user has just responded again [75] claiming to be the subject of the article and threatening legal action so I thought it should come here. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I left a NPA warning; the legal threat is implied but I doubt she knows our rules. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

DGG, I believe you warned the reporting party, not the source of the problem. John from Idegon (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So I did, and you caught it in the interval after I realized it myself and reverted it and did it correctly. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a classic case of WP:DOLT. The message to Triptothecottage was not nice, but she kind of has a point. (When I've got a free mo, ask me about the time Peter Hammill dropped onto my talk page to complain that something I'd written on Van der Graaf Generator's article that was cited to Mojo - normally considered a good source - was complete bollocks). I have dropped some advice and agree with her on one salient point - just because something is cited to a reliable source, doesn't mean it's actually true. (It usually is, but not 100% of the time). I think the suggestion to re-appropriate and retarget the article to one about the UK Pesticides Campaign is a good one, and I think we should do that (ie: flip Triptothecottage's merge on its head). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have followed up with Ms Downs on my talk page, and done some reading up on who she is. Basically, at least some (and probably more) of what she tried to put in the article is backed up with reliable sources, and I've added a few, so while it might look like a vanity author, it does strike me as somebody who genuinely meets WP:GNG trying to do the right thing. I also note she has had column inches in the Daily Mail and I'm twitching (possibly with paranoia) that the last thing we need is another "my article was attacked by vandals and I was banned!" piece over there, so I have tried to tread very carefully with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather, it appears to me a borderline notable person trying to write a suitably POV autobiography to advocate a cause. It's a rulebook example of why people should not try to edit articles about themselves. Trying to do the right thing does not mean succeeding in actually doing the right thing. An individual is absolutely not the best source for the significance of their work--about the worst source there is actually, except for a source that's a personal enemy. I do not support editing articles out of apprehension about what a particular newspaper might say (especially after we've made a reasonable decision that nothing they say is reliable--particularly with respect to BLPs). The article needs drastic editing to remove POV, puffery, and material sourced or derived only from the subject, including non-MEDRS medical claims. If nobody gets there first , I shall try to do it. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing following many warnings at Ami Horowitz

User:Liftarn has many disruptive edits and tags on the Ami Horowitz article; s/he has repeatedly been warned and reverted; s/he has not initiated any discussion on the Talk page per WP:BRD; and s/he continues to make the same type of disruptive edits after the warnings and reverts.

Diffs of disruptive editing: [76], [77], [78],[79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], and [88].

Diffs of reverts and warnings: [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], and [103].

User:Liftarn was notified here.

Based on the above, I suggest a ban from editing on the Ami Horowitz article. The Kingfisher (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• support the edits are purely pov or pointy and the disruption has gone on long enough. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Or you could just add reliable sources to support dubious claims. // Liftarn (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The article has numerous RSs, including in the first three, citing that Horowitz makes "documentaries", and that he is a "documentarian" and "filmmaker". Per WP:LEADCITE, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". Considering that Liftarn was reverted repeatedly by three separate editors (without one editor backing his/her edits), consensus was reached. The Talk page, not here, was the platform for Liftarn to state what needs to be placed in the article. Per WP:BRD, after the first few reverts, Liftarn should have taken the discussion to Talk, but never did. S/he just continued the same POV-pushing and disruptive editing on previously reverted edits. If this is not an example for an editor to be banned from an article, I don't know what is. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There's something more going on here than what Kingfisher claims. I note, for example, Kingfisher's removal[104] of content sourced to Radio Sweden and to Dagens Nyheter. The relevant talk section appears to be Talk:Ami_Horowitz#Police, where Kingfisher claims that neither of these is a reliable, but is opposed by User:Sjö, who reverted the removal.

Their contributions to this page look serially problematic, e.g. using the clickbaiting International Business Times as a source [105], the marginal Independent Journal Review [106]. There may be a case for using those sources, but to use them and then denounce both Radio Sweden and to Dagens Nyheter -- that looks fishy.

Kingfisher is a relatively new editor (~300 edits sine registering at the start of January), and a significant proportion of those edits are related to this topic. Most of the seem to be promoting Horowitz. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what does any of that have to do with what I put forward regarding Liftarn? (I stand by my edit and comments regarding those sources, I used Talk, I did not revert User:Sjö, and I will most likely take it to WP:RSN.) By the way, User:Sjö was one of the editors to revert Liftarn. Do you have problems with User:Sir Joseph, who previously filed something against Liftarn? The Kingfisher (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This is why ANI is so toxic. I knew this would happen. BrownHairedGirl, the issue here is not a content dispute. Liftarn has shown that he is unable to edit without pushing a POV. He adds tags which are all reverted by editors sharing a multitude of views. For example I don't think Sjö agrees with all my edits on this page and I seem to recall a content dispute I had with Kingfisher, but he utilized the talk page and listened to other opinions. Liftarn has done nothing positive to this page and all his edits have been disruptive. Look at his history, he has a strong Swedish POV and has edited away or tagged anything negative about Sweden. That Horowitz is a documentary filmmaker is WP:BLUE, after all, he produced quite a few documentaries. What is needed is either a page ban or TBAN for Swedish stuff for Liftarn. Focusing on how few edits an editor has does nothing but makes sure new editors never engage in Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Beware WP:BOOMERANG. Liftarn may or may not be POV-pushing; I haven't reached a conclusion on that. But so far, I see stronger evidence that Kingfisher is a POV-pusher. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example. Kingfisher asserts above The article has numerous RSs, including in the first three, citing that Horowitz makes "documentaries", and that he is a "documentarian" and "filmmaker". The third of those refs is to The Times of Israel, says Horowitz, who operates Disruptive Pictures, has no training in what he calls “docu-tainment”. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What's your point of that example? Horowitz didn't officially study filmmaking, but he is now a filmmaker who makes documentaries, as the RSs cite. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You are talking content issues. Please try to focus on Liftarn's behavior and not proving why ANI is usually not a good place to seek out fixing issues. I find it extremely hard to believe that you looked at the diffs and history and still can't see problematic behavior from Liftarn. Which is a shame because you'll end up getting rid of several editors and you'll have an article that is incorrect and faulty. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

TO continue, Horowitz is not only famous for his Sweden documentary, he has done others as well. It's a POV push to say that because his Swedish documentary showed Sweden in a negative light, therefore he can't be a documentary filmmaker, that is a POV push. Look at all the large amounts of diffs provided. I'm going to bow out soon because I don't need my 12 year history looked at through a fine tooth combed which is the way of ANI. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I see an editor adding cleanup tags to problematic edits by an editor who appears to be POV-pushing. Maybe adding too many; maybe not discussing enough on the talk page. But I don't see Liftarn adding dodgy refs like those I mentioned above, nor do I see Liftarn denigrating reliable sources, nor do I see Liftarn adding refs to the unreliable Daily Mail, as Kingfsiher did here.[107] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

As I suspected, you haven't looked at the history fully. Liftarn is a disruptive editor and he is the one with a POV push. I'm going to bow out for now because I see no good of this. I'll just let this page become yet another biased article Wikipedia hosts. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, you continue to concentrate on the POV aspect, when this really has nothing to do with that. This entire report could have been written without a POV mention. As Sir Joseph pointed out, many editors have debated and discussed issues on the Talk page, all according to policy. Liftarn did not. You stated that Liftarn is "Maybe adding too many [tags]". What number constitutes disruptive editing, five reverts, 10, 20? You stated that Liftarn is "maybe not discussing enough on the talk page". "Enough" is not the correct word because Liftarn didn't discuss anything on the Talk page, after repeated warnings and opportunity, and per WP:BRD. Really, it is that Horowitz makes documentaries? The Kingfisher (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, my report had not one word about content or POV-pushing, but focused only on Liftarn's disruptive editing. I'm very interested in seeing how you address that, rather than your obvious focus on POV-pushing. Are there any administrators who might have a different opinion than BrownHairedGirl? The Kingfisher (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest again that you read WP:BOOMERANG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I understand, WP:BOOMERANG is an essay while WP:BITE is a guideline. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• NA Com As a 15 year plus editor with 46,737 of edits, Liftarn should know way better than to do this. If they have a pro Sweden stance, they should be old enough to recognize it, and control it so it doesn't push him into making bad edits. Re: POV, I believe SPA says that being an SPA is not illegal, nor even bad. The point of AN/I is not to boomerang everyone invloved. This is why AN/I is described as "toxic", dangerous, and distateful. AN/I is about investigating the merit of claims and doing something about it. (hiding behind primitive weaponry is how too many establish content editors get away with block worthy behavior). Liftarn's comment "why don't you just do what you are supposed to in the way I so desire, then I wouldn't be disrupting" sets a new record for me of ludicrous AN/I responses. TLDR: If you listen closely you can just about make out the sound of me not giving a hoot re Kingfisher's supposed promo-y actions or the content dispute. Liftarn needs to quit it or I may find myself !voting support soon. L3X1 (distant write) 20:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I would essentially agree with the above. In addition, [[108]] Sweden does have issues, airbrushing unpleasant realities out does nobody any good. Irondome (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

But asking for sources for dubious claims also does nobody good. // Liftarn (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You know that it was never about "asking for sources". After all of your disruptive edits and reverts, the first time that you used Talk was yesterday, after this at AN/I. If you had followed BRD, there wouldn't have been a report, nor our time wasted. The Kingfisher (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you know perfectly well that it is and you also know that all attempt at starting discussions have failed because you, User talk:Sir Joseph and User:Factchecker atyourservice never is interested in using sources or answering any any attempts at discussions. Also asking for sources for questionable claims (especially in biographies of living persons) should not require any discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Responding to name-drop. I have engaged this editor very patiently trying to work through his issues while also rescuing the article on Sweden-bashing which he began and which survived a deletion discussion only on the rationale that it would be completely rewritten (with multiple editors pointing to my own draft as a better starting point). I put in at least six hours rewriting the article to conform to policy but it has obviously not been to Liftarn's satisfaction. Our last discussions largely died down on March 11 and there were no further replies at talk. I just noticed that he posted a reply on March 31 which I haven't answered. I've considered posting an RFC just asking other editors what should be done about that article because of how fraught the discussion with Liftarn has been, but I just haven't gotten around to it.

I take no position on the dispute discussed here or any admin action; but the user does seem to have an extremely difficult time getting the point. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you prefer blindly reverting to your own POV fork without wanting to discuss any of the multiple issues with it like that you engage in original research an put in statements that are not based on any sources. When you are willing to talk about it, please respond on the talk page. // Liftarn (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:GoldenGuy23

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

---

After being blocked for a period of one week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content in January 2017 by Beeblebrox [109], this editor continues adding unreliable sources in articles, websites like Discogs, WhoSampled and Facebook or any other websites that are against the guidelines (WP:ALBUMAVOID). Other editors Dan56, Kellymoat, Walter Görlitz and me included has tell this editor in his talk page that these sources not reliable for Wikipedia but ignore us, after the edits has been reverted by other editors, the editor restore his poorly sourced content. Here are the edits made by this editor just recently [110] [111] [112] [113] [114]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a month's holiday. That should be time to clear up the mess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks. If this editor continue to adding unreliable sources in articles after the block has expired, I've reported this issue again if necessary. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Number 57: Uninvolved admins should not be so uninvolved they do not know what's going on...

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

---

here uninvolved admin is referring to a ARBPIA violation that I was already punished for with a 12 hour block. This is for some reason being raised in what should be a section about User:Shrike. Further the block is noted here in an AE complaint against myself by User:Shrike. I think there should be sanctions against admins who make these kinds of egregious errors during formal sanctions proceedings. Seraphim System (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it was actually Nishidani who raised those edits and I responded to them. It's true that I didn't notice they were the ones you had already been blocked for (although in fairness, that block was not discussed at WP:AE), but I also didn't say that you should be blocked for them. Perhaps it's also worth mentioning. You are required to notify someone when you report them at ANI... Number 57 17:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's worth mentioning, I have never reported anyone at ANI before. I have withdrawn the complaint, but User:Shrike is pushing for me to be sanctioned for the same infraction twice, even though he knows about the first block. I would ask the admins to clarify that attempting to hijack an AE complaint is not correct procedure. This is the kind of incompetence that has gotten User:Shrike blocked in the past, and makes editing Wikipedia very frustrating for competent editors. Seraphim System (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you drunk, stoned or otherwise trying to commit suicide by admin? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Now then, Kingsindian! We are expected to assume that all who ride the highroads and lowroads of ANI can walk in a straight line (or in a manner otherwise determined by the Chicago Outfit)... — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 17:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Kingsindian is stuggling to find an explanation for Seraphim System's behaviour having gallantly leapt to their defence at WP:AE... WJBscribe (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Now this from the same admin threatening to block me for reporting to ANI - I think this is disturbing and should be addressed, as I should not be threatened with retaliatory sanctions by a supposedly "uninvolved" admin. Seraphim System (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You do realise that Number 57 was the only one of the three admins who have commented so far that did not want to block you for the edits that were reported by Shrike to WP:AE, don't you? In what way are they involved? WJBscribe (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If ARBCOM wants to sanction a new editor for an unintentional good faith mistake that should have been resolved outside ARBCOM, I accept that, because technically I did violate the consensus clause - even if I did it unknowingly. You live you learn. ARBCOM admins pretending they are too dim to understand what I am saying, dismissing my complaints as frivolous, and threatening me with sanctions because I have filed complaints that I believe are legitimate is a separate matter entirely. I believe I deserve the same courtesy the Committee has shown User:Shrike. Seraphim System (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Kingsindian I am entirely sober and stand with truth and reason, though I am resigned to my inevitable defeat, thanks for asking. Seraphim System (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I also firmly believe that these actions by admins undermine Wikipedia and drive away competent editors. I would not be the first. If all the editors who can write and have a scholar's passion for citation are pushed out by the admins, they will bear the responsibility for having destroyed Wikipedia. Editors who are committed to improving Wikipedia should be allowed to do their work. It is very clear what is going on here. What is my interest in allowing myself to be abused to freely offer my contribution to a project that does not value my contribution or stand by its own purpose? Seraphim System (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I don't know if it has occurred to you, but the only one who is in danger of being blocked over this matter is you. I would advise dropping this ANI complaint and the retaliatory AE complaint, and make your case at the original AE complaint. There is no upside to escalating this matter and throwing around accusations. Since you say you have never filed an ANI complaint before, and you say that you're sober, I put this behaviour down to plain ignorance of the way Wikipedia works (which is distinct from how you imagine it works). Others may not be so kind. It is up to you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have already withdrawn my AE, due to the inaccurate perception that it was filed as retaliation, but it is still being commented on for reasons that I can not venture to guess at, which is why I came here. Seraphim System (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Spam by User:Patrick Boots CEC

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

---

User:Patrick Boots CEC is inserting disambiguation links into various articles that redirect to Aaron Fechter by saying that the topic is not to be confused with Anti-Gravity Freedom Machine. This appears to be spam in order to promote an invention by Fechter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Edit warring too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Has stopped after last warning; I have speedy deleted the two spam redirects he created . Lectonar (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Crikey, the things people turn fanatical over, eh? Still, he seems to have found the talk page now. GoldenRing (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Boots is now edit-warring at Aaron Fechter. NeilN removed most of the article, which was a mixture of trivia and dubious hagiography, and Patrick Boots is re-inserting it. Either this is paid editing on behalf of Fechter, or Fechter has a fan club that has aspects of a cult. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Nyttend (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible !vote stacking?

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

---

I recently opened a new AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PanJam and the article creator showed up along with a brand new user who has never edited before just to vote in the AfD. I couldn't help but notice how similar their writing style was. At they the same person? Is it vote stacking? Can someone please take a look? SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 02:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparent sock blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. Newbie warned per WP:AGF. Swarm ♠ 03:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Revdel, please?

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

---

German declaration of war against the United States (1941) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Could use a bit of revdel on recent ESs. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

and a vandalism block for our friend the IPv6. L3X1 (distant write) 01:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Done and done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Completely unacceptable threat of block

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

---

See: [115]. This is nothing short of a thinly veiled threat to ban a new user, and is in violation of WP:AGF and WP:BITE. 82.132.216.220 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That was a piece of good advice. It was not in violation of WP:AGF or WP:BITE. I strongly urge you to take note. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. You are required to notify the editor in question if you complain here. I've done so for you. Kleuske (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Seems lika a friendly advice to me, not a threat. Oh, and if someone referred to me as "it", as you seem to insist on doing to other editors here judging by the discussion you linked to, I would see it as an insult... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Harassment

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

---

usernamekiran reported an edit war he was involved in to AN3.[116] I, acting as one of the administrators for that noticeboard, left a single comment pointing out that Kiran's behavior in that edit war was not okay.[117] He took my sentence, "The scariest thing is that you act as if you're an angel who has not extensively edit warred with and personally attacked this user as much as he has done so to you" as a personal attack on his character, and demanded that I review all of his edits to substantiate this perceived accusation of bad character.(here, here) I did immediately explain that I did not mean what he thought I meant, and that I was referring to his behavior in the dispute he was reporting.[118] Yes, my response was pretty sarcastic as I initially perceived the message to be petty trolling by a disgruntled editor—my bad. The clarification of what I meant though, apparently didn't matter to him: "I don't care what you meant when you said 'I'm not angel'. It my hurt ego. Period."(via email) I declined his request to review his edits 2 days ago, yet he has continued to repeat the demand, both on and off-wiki, as recently as an hour ago.

On-wiki, he stated: "But now my patience are wearing out. So Swarm, start running my background check. I will contact you on Sept 15, 2017. I hope you dont get my statements mistaken for requests."[119]

In an unsolicited and unnecessary email, Kiran again stated his patience was running out, and explicitly made claims that he is a powerful person, who is very well-connected internationally to numerous intelligence and criminal organizations. He also stated that I will not "be in a situation to make jokes" after the deadline passes. I replied, simply asking him what would happen if I don't comply, to which he sent a much friendlier response saying that he did not mean to threaten me (despite the fact that he was clearly threatening me), though he did repeat and expand on the claim that he is extremely well-connected. I'll note that none of these supposed connections were ever relevant regarding anything having to do with Wikipedia; I believe they were obvious, thinly veiled attempts at intimidation. Regardless, before I could respond to his 'friendlier' second email, he left me this message again repeating his demand that I review all of his edits, saying, "I also hope that you understand the gravity of situation", alluding again to the claims that he is a powerful person due to his expansive international connections. While I suspect that this is not a credible threat that requires emergency notification to the Foundation, I do feel strongly that it's a clear attempt at intimidatory harassment and I would certainly intervene were this happening to another user. Will forward the emails as requested.

I don't know if this should be classified this as trolling, harassment, or simple immature incompetence, but I don't think any administrator should have to deal with this sort of behavior in response to criticism of an edit warrior at AN3. Any assistance would be much appreciated. Swarm ♠ 23:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am quite sure this is Option 3: simple immature incompetence. I'll leave him a very clear note; if he emails you again, or pesters you again on-wiki, let me know and I'll indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: As information, there's also this. I may have been a bit blunt but felt it warranted. The last section of archive 5 on my talk page has his response. He hasn't violated my warning, just making you aware. -- ferret (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Swarm Like i apologised several times previously, I apologise again. This is not harassment, nor intimidation, nor threat. At least I didnt intend for that if my communication seemed like that to you. I wouldnt choose "indirect" means for anything. Like I said explicitly for a few times, I have intense animosity for a particular editor. My point is, i dont use "indirect" means, I use clear cut statements. I even clearly stated that I have neutral feelings towards you (niether hard feelings nor adoration). I also clearly stated that I respect you for the work that you do on wikipedia.

If you felt I was threatening or harassing you, I apologise for coming off that way. I was/am not disgrunted. I was annoyed, yes; and as I am out of my sleep aid meds so I havent been able get proper sleep since like 4-5 days. (It is 5:30am in my place now). Because of lack of sleep, I am a lot irritated all the time. But this cant be an excuse. I apologise for the confusion/misunderstanding I caused.

But I still stand by my request. I am being painted as a bad person even when I am not. Previosuly my "scrutiny" was not required, but after this complaint, I think the scrutiny would be appropriate.

In any case, I am leaving wikipedia as soon as I finish typing this message. I have had enough of it for a lifetime. But I will be re regular reader of mainspace article. Nothing than articles though.

I apologise again. Again, Swarm, I highly respect you. I would never harass or threaten you. Why would I? You are simply doing your job promptly. —usernamekiran[talk] 00:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your previous "apology" could have been the end of our exchange. Instead you proceeded to issue another threatening message on my talk page after that, leaving me with little faith in your suddenly-reasonable comments here. Enough with the walls of text. Simply heed the warning please. Swarm ♠ 00:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

And furthermore, in the above "apology" Kiran claims that he would never harass or threaten, when Swarm has provided concrete examples of him doing so. Suggest an indef block for WP:CIR.--WaltCip (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef for CIR and 911. L3X1 (distant write) 14:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible vandalism

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

---

Would an administrator please take a look at this revision history and revert disruptive edits, if any? I do not want to engage in edit warring with other editors. Listofpeople (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Listofpeople. The IP's changes don't appear to be referenced, and a lot of content is being removed. Have you tried discussing your concerns on the IP's user talk page? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Oshwah, I hope the IP (or IPs) will not keep doing that. I have not left a message on the talk page yet. Thanks to an administrator and a rollbacker, that article is fine at the moment. I really appreciate your reply. Listofpeople (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome :-). Feel free to ping or message me any time you have questions or need help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Mass category changes

Shouldn't there be a discussion before changing all these cat's ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• If listed in Category:Massacres in Egypt then add Category:Massacres in 2011. If listed in parent Category:Mass murder in Egypt then add Category:Mass murder in 2011, what is wrong? Choose, both "massacres" category or both "mass murder". Articles in question are October 2014 Sinai attacks and Wael Mikhael incident. Both category (by year and by country) must be added for consistency, it doesn't matter, massacres or mass murder. 194.50.51.252 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Cow manure pasteurization machine

Cow manure pasteurization machine (talk · contribs)

Not really sure what this user is up to, but can an admin look into this...? Thx. 172.58.40.94 (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Cow manure pasteurization machine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a brand new account SPA who welcomes newly created accounts. The account appears familiar with pinging and welcome templates, and seems adept at finding one or two-edit accounts to welcome. Most probably, it is a sock. As I was writing this report, Beeblebrox blocked this sock. But now, this is where things are becoming more complicated. The accounts that were being welcomed by the now blocked user, are also behaving like socks. Some are creating mostly unreferenced articles which sound vaguely like hoaxes to me. Others are making edits that appear to be unconstructive. Yet others, collaborate on brand new articles, although they are one or two-edit accounts. Example, United States House Select Committee to Conduct an Investigation of the Facts, Evidence, and Circumstances of the Katyn Forest Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can a CU check into this? Thanks. Dr. K. 04:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: If this gets too out-of-hand, I can see this turning into an SPI situation rather easily. That may or may not be necessary at the moment, depending on what an administrator decides based on the number of socks, WP:DUCK applicability, ETC. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this user while I was doing New Page Patrol. User:Messy555 had created Oleander Sladojevich, which I tagged for WP:BLPPROD and another reviewer tagged for WP:A7. Messy555 removed the tags. I warned, and restored the tags. The subject editor then welcomed Messy555 six times, and Messy555 removed the tags. I gave a final warning and restored the BLPPROD tag. I haven't examined the behavior of the other welcomed editors. I think that Messy555 is a good-faith editor, who hasn't removed the BLPPROD tag the last time. I agree that the blocked editor seems to be a troll. As to one or two-edit accounts to welcome, there are always a lot of one-edit accounts, some of whom create clueless articles in article space that need speedying. Thank you for blocking the troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Upon checking further, the new accounts collaborating on the new article I mentioned above, appear to be members of a university educational assignment. Some of the other problem editors such as Billcrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be socks, some are vandals, some were created at around the same time, but I am no longer certain that they are related to each other. Dr. K. 06:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Regarding the first account: a very rudimentary guess is this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil, and I wouldn't be concerned too much about its connections to the accounts it's mass-welcoming. The user's just on a mission to find a way around extended-confirmed protection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor continues to upload problematic images

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

---

Editor Herblouise945 (talk · contribs) has been uploading a large number of problematic images since January. Their talk page is filled with warnings about these images and almost all have been deleted. Diannaa (talk · contribs) asked this editor in February to stop uploading images from the internet, however they continue to this day. Many of the uploads appear problematic and in some cases they've resorted to uploading them to Commons instead. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like an issue of competence and not listening—considering blocking to get their attention. El_C 22:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The ones I spot checked such as File:Bakersfield mayor harvey hall.jpg, File:Topeka mayor bill bunten.jpg, File:Gabriel e gomez.jpg are all sourced to YouTube videos that are released under a compatible CC-by-3.0 license. Please check carefully and make sure there's actually copyright violations here before blocking, because I'm not seeing it on the six files I spot checked. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As the person who did much of the mass-tagging early on, I concur with Diannaa - it looks like the user's uploads are now acceptable, from what I've checked. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 22:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Bored1995

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

---

Bored1995 has emailed at least three admins (and I suspect more) asking for particular edits that they have made to be deleted, and offering payment for doing this, see User talk:Bored1995#Re: Your Email.

They have not been specific about which edits are involved and what the problem is, despite at least two of us replying (in my case at least by email to them, so they have my email address now) and offering to help (for free) if they can be specific.

This is just a heads-up to other admins. No action required other than awareness required at this stage IMO. In particular, if valid it may really be a request for oversight. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I have no evidence of anything malicious going on here. But yeah, it's a bit odd that multiple admins get the same email and there is an offer of payment involved. Strange. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Likewise. I'm assuming it is just a newish editor who has made some edits they now regret (who hasn't?) and didn't realise that it's not trivial to delete them. That's the fascinating thing about a versioned wiki... in a sense you can change anything, but in another sense you can change nothing.

But it's a tricky one IMO. We've been asked not to discuss on-wiki, but we don't want to all be reinventing the wheel. I'm guessing that there are no oversight issues involved, but we must assume that there may be, and avoid raising them on-wiki.

I have now received two emails detailing what they want deleted (or suppressed) but have as yet no clue as to why. Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm one of the admins who received that first email. It had gone straight to my spam folder and then got deleted with the rest of the spam shortly after I read it. I never got the followup that Andrewa received with more information about what the person wants deleted, possibly because I only responded on Bored1995's talk page and never by email. This looks like a user who simply does not understand how Wikipedia works. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. And I don't want to bite them.

And yes, I'm sure they've provided some details to me precisely because I have invited them to do so off-wiki. Happy to forward them (by email again) to any admin, functionary etc who wants to see them. Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa and Doczilla: Why so keen to discuss off-wiki, though? Just being 'asked to' is an insufficient reason. In the interests of transparency, editors' behaviour and edits should be discussed openly by the community, not a select group. See: WP:EMAIL; 'Wikipedia is designed to work based upon public dialog, so communication between users is often better if it's in public (on users' talk pages or elsewhere on Wikipedia's talk and project pages), where others can review and note them.' Unless, of course, they are so dire as to require WP:OVERSIGHT. But that can't be the case, since none of the admins concerned hold that permission. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 07:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Why so keen to discuss off-wiki, though?" I'm not sure why you're asking me that, but I did not discuss any of this off-wiki. "But that can't be the case, since none of the admins concerned hold that permission." Clearly the user does not know what permissions we have. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please exercise a little precision :) I did not say you had discussed it off-wiki. And your permissions are for all to see. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 09:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, our permissions are for all to see, but I'm fairly sure this user has no idea of their exact significance. That's there too of course, if you dig, but many far more experienced contributors would have no idea either. Admins should make it their business to know, but most users don't normally need to, and that's one thing ANI is here for. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Exercising precision would help, yes. Precisely who were you talking about when you asked, "Why so keen to discuss off-wiki, though?" Fortuna? Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 02:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Admins are routinely asked off-wiki to delete revisions, especially any in CAT:REVDEL. Off-wiki is better suited for some people, and some subjects. And admins are quite capable of deleting non-oversightable content if policy allows it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I put this down to panic not an attempt to subvert the project. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. But we still have not eliminated the possibility that there may be some valid reason for this panic, and if there is then it's not for public discussion. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"Why so keen to discuss off-wiki, though?" A very strange question to ask the guy who started this thread, IMO. But some things can only be discussed off-wiki, and so I think it's important to seriously consider any request to do so, and to make allowance for the fact that the user requesting may not know much about the various roles, processes and permissions here. Agree that on-wiki is preferred for all others. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

My latest reply

Part of my reply to the email in which the requested "deletion" was detailed:

But to action it we need a rationale... the reasons you want these edits removed. And the reasons must be strong. You seem to be really asking for these articles to be all but deleted, and that will lose work by other contributors too.

When you made these edits, you agreed to license them. That license is irrevocable, and you have no right to withdraw it. This is quite clearly and prominently stated in several places.

But I'm assuming that you have good reasons for wanting these edits deleted. So have a look at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight/FAQ

it would be worth a careful reading. Note particularly the table comparing the three methods available, and the comment right at the bottom " Even if the material doesn't match the explicit limits of the Oversight policy, exceptions are sometimes made in unusual cases to allow for suppression of problematic material."

You could also look at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy

but I don't think it is much help.

Comments on any of that welcome. In particular, have I told any lies? Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Suggest close

Unless someone is concerned at the course I am taking, or has further information that is useful for other admins, I think this section has served its purpose. Suggest closing it and allowing it to be archived in due course. Thanks to all who have participated. Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Belated note: I also received an email. And my username also begins with an A, like some others' in this thread. Don't think you've told any lies; it looks like a clearly stated response. I would support a close at this time. Airplaneman ✈ 18:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

213.143.51.223

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

---

213.143.51.223 is clearly the same user as the blocked users Christy BoT aylor and Awindner. See [120]. The IP is now name-calling and trolling at Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft.[121] Should they just be warned or does someone want to go ahead and block them? Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kaldari - It looks like all three users listed have edited the Bd sm article (and the like), but the edit made by the IP in question (while definitely vandalism) was made back in September 2016. The discussion made today on Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft (while quite uncivil - using the word "feminazi", which was completely unnecessary) doesn't show me that this IP is Christy BoT aylor or Awindner. I don't see where this edit ties any of these users together. The only correlation I see is (like I said) the edits to Bd sm, which is too far in the past for me to use as a rationale today. If I'm missing something, let me know. Otherwise, I don't have enough evidence to proceed with action and with the justification that this IP is currently being used as a sock puppet to the other two accounts listed here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: That makes sense. Quick question: Is there any established "statute of limitations" on IP actions? In other words, if the time difference had only been a month instead of seven months, would it have been appropriate to assume that it was the same user? Not trying to wiki-lawyer, just curious if there's an established practice on this. Kaldari (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Kaldari - Good question! To give you the best answer that makes sense (and also to explain why): There is not a set timeframe that is "written" into any policy or guideline. It's left to the appropriate and neutral judgment of the administrator and given the many different situations and issues at-hand. In your example, even a month would have been much too long. IPs can change owners and be used by many different people - especially if they're mobile IPs that constantly change or are re-used, or if it's a public IP (such as at a public Library), or an open proxy... hopefully you can see where I'm going with this ;-)... it's not something that can just be black-and-white and written into a rule or policy to be blindly followed.

A general rule that I use when making this determination is this: if the IP isn't seen to be making active edits that are causing disruption or suspicion of sock puppetry or block evasion in real-time (or close to real-time... I'd say within a few hours or within the day, depending on the past blocks, if it's public or not, if it's a proxy or not, blah blah blah)... then there's no point in blocking, and it's probable that the user has already moved on. Once it stops and time has gone by without further edits from the IP, then I generally leave it be. I hope my response has helped to give you a better idea as to how we determine "active disruption" to "disruption in the past". It's never a fine-line, and it changes with each situation. Common sense and best judgment never hurts ;-). If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to message me on my talk page and ask them. I'll be happy to help you with anything that you need. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

One reason we can't have a hard-and-fast rule is that some IPs are stable; more than once, I've seen an IP be blocked for an extended period of time because over a period of years, it was being used to make exactly the same type of disruptive edits while doing essentially nothing else: clearly the same person was using the IP all that time, so it could be blocked almost like an account, and old edits could be seen as relevant. Conversely, as Oshwah says, IP addresses used by many people (whether they're in a public place like a library, or whether they're home addresses that constantly get recycled from person to person) should be treated as if lots of people are using them. Occasionally we'll still do a long block for shared addresses. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Block of 207.99.40.142 for a recent discussion over the appropriateness of an indefinite block for a school address that's constantly been used for vandalism for many years (it's been blocked for more 80% of the time over the last decade); as I said there, it's a school address, and those don't often change, but they can be counted on to have constant turnover in vandal populations. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Kaldari - I'm going to close this thread since there's no action needed here. If you have more questions, please do not hesitate to message me on my talk page and ask away! I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you with anything that you need. I hope my responses helped answer your questions. Happy editing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Angry sock master targeting me

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

---

I reported an IP vandal who returned to the Syd Barrett biography to re-assert his preferred version. This guy was recently indeffed as User:BloodySolitude, User:Thefalseman, User:BoredCharle, User:Whocanitnao, and he has been using multiple IPs in the 179.x range. After reverting him, two more IPs sprang into action solely to revert my other edits on other articles.

• 179.7.105.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.252.119.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 177.104.201.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can someone keep an eye out for IPs reverting my edits? I would like this guy to stop harassing me. Binksternet (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

He also used Special:Contributions/190.213.66.238 to do the same Syd Barrett disruption. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet - The IPs listed have been blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet - Any time :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Deletion of List of Muslim Scholars on ISIS's hit list

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

---

I have already started a discussion whether to delete the article here. However, the article now appears to be a major BLP violation. Requesting immediate attention from an administrator. RoCo^(talk) 10:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 10:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:SHARATH.S

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

---

Someone please block User:SHARATH.S whose sole purpose here seems to be to do this: [122] Hyperbolick (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, seems every edit was for self-promotion, definitely WP:NOTHERE as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Good. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Gonzo/Trump 2020 vandal - 2600:387:2:8*

Range contribs since March 25, 2017 found here. Unclear if this is a continuation of an already-known vandal's disruption.

There has been a spate of vandalism from the IP range where the user typically adds "gonzo" or "trump 2020" while vandalizing left-leaning activists' (esp. BLM activists) and other Black Americans' articles as well as any page with the word Gonzo in it. Example edits: [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132].

I was originally going to request an edit filter, but thought the first step should be here to consider a range block instead. If that does not seem palatable, then I will try WP:EFR. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Very wide range. Edit filter would be better, eespecially as it's a standard pattern. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Might be worth suggesting the "gonzo" bit as a ClueBot addition, too. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

BlueSalix wikihounding

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

---

BlueSalix created David Dao. I tried to redirect it to United Airlines Flight 3411 but they reverted me. I put it up for AfD and now they are pretty mad. They have been stalking me to a sockpuppet report I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp, gave me a false warning for edit warring, and now they are undoing my edits on articles. They are targeting others as well, having opened an edit warring report on another person who supported delete on the AfD and conveniently leaving out that they themselves were warned for edit warring. They have also failed to even notify the other editor of the report. I'm sorry that BlueSalix is taking the AfD so personally but this needs to stop. Justeditingtoday (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

And now he has added more insults to the sockpuppet report. Justeditingtoday (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"They have also failed to even notify the other editor of the report." - incorrect, see: [133]

As for the claim of "wikihouding," here is our editor interaction report: [134] In the last 18 months years we have edited exactly two of the same articles. Maybe this is a very "slow burn" Machiavellian wikihouding, I dunno.

To the final issue, I've explained the concerns I have with Justeditingtoday removing vast quantities of RS legal journals from dozens of articles here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp. I stand by those concerns.

BlueSalix (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this AFD has upset you, as can be seen in your aggressive badgering of persons saying it should be deleted. I would suggest that you take a break and try and get some perspective on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops, looks like another admin decided an involuntary break was in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

BlueSalix has a history of disruption and aggressive behavior like this (see for example this unfilled AE report). The block seems rather warranted tbh. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not surprised at the block, it was pretty much inevitable when someone is obviously going off the rails like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

[multiple edit conflict] Hm, it looks like a bunch of comments were left here while I was blocking and warning. Yes, I've indef-blocked; my block message is the fullest explanation for this action. Get indef-blocked (aside from block-by-rogue-admin or block-by-misclick) and unblocked, and return to major disruption, and you can expect a second indef block. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to give them a chance to back off, but honestly I didn't expect them to actually do it and have no objection to your block, given that you are clearly more familiar with their history than I am. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a good block. As EF said above, this editor has a long history of disruption and aggressive conduct. Neutrality^talk 04:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I think this is overkill. A block may have been in order, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail tomorrow. I think BlueSalix can and should come through this. AniMate 05:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone who got involved. While it was not my intention for BlueSalix to garner an indef block I am glad the hounding has been stopped. Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Dao

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

---

Before this thread is archived, perhaps an admin could have a look at the AfD and see if the threat could be SNOW closed? The article was created by editor who has just been blocked, and in part precipitated the indef block. Please also see: Talk:David Dao#BLP concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to do that. Deletion does seem to be the most likely utcome, but other users have supported keeping it so it should probably stay open for discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox - A WP:SNOW close is completely out of the question here. There are fair rationales on both sides of the discussion, and there is no obvious consensus. The thread must remain open. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Asking a question

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

---

This is about me. I have been editing for a good few months now and have just received my first vandalism strike on a page about Steven Wright 'baseball'. I would like to ask that I do not have my account deleted as this was not me, but was a friend that took my phone. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foster10 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Foster10. Don't worry. It's extremely rare that an editor is blocked on a 1st offense for disruptive editing. I only see the one level 1 note on your page. Just be careful who you give access to your phone or computer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Eyes on a TFD please

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 6#Template:Adr

Could some admins please keep an eye on this TfD please? The creator of the template (Fabartus (talk · contribs)) has made some uncivil comments and personal attacks, and it seems to be getting worse. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)In context, this hardly seems like a personal attack, and certainly not one at the level of the real one it responded to, and I say this, obviously, as no particular friend of User:Fabartus. Personally, I think user campaign buttons are a bad idea, in general, but selectively banning them is far worse. Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: - Sorry if I've assumed this incorrectly, but based on your comment I think you are looking at the wrong discussion. It sounds like you're looking at the Donald Trump user box discussion; Train2104 is referring to the Template:Adr discussion. Again, apologies if that's off.

As to this request by @Train2104:, I do think that Fabartus's comment posted on Andy Dingley's wall was probably not appropriate. Re: his most recent comment to me, I have to take some of the responsibility - I went over the top here, as I was a little irked by his "newbie" comment. I'm no longer a regular user of WP, and I was perhaps a little out of practice ignoring small slights like that.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, that was my error, for some reason it opened to the top of the discussions, and I responded to that. My apologies. I think the discussion you are embroiled in is a classic example of why I'm no particular friend &cet. Anmccaff (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The personal attack by User:Fabartus was in this diff of the TfD discussion. Fabartus was replying to an IP editor, 216.12.10.118 (talk · contribs), and he stated "Unfortunately, I can't really respect your cowardly behavior." Apparently Fabartus dislikes getting a comment from an IP address, and he makes a further insult about that later in the discussion. I hope that User:Fabartus will respond here and offer to watch his language. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting explicitly that the IP is tied to a single person, who writes consistently as such...i.e., it's a stable account, for most practical purposes, and no more anonymous than many, perhaps most, other WP accounts. Very different from some pest hovering around gnat-like with the IP-o'-the-minute. Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Bgc7676 disruptive editing

I have made edits to the Big Brother Canada (season 5) page, and User:Bgc7676, has reverted my edits ([135], [136], and [137]). They have reverted my edits calling them "vandalism" without an explanation even though I have throughly explained why I made those edits. I have even tried to settle the dispute on their User talk:Bgc7676 page over three times, but it seems like they have been ignoring me. VietPride10 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Part of a string of vandals that plague the Bad Girls Club articles. Frankly I've given up on them. Consider comparing behavior of this user to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BadGirlsClub10, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheSimsBadGirlsClub, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thestarborn1028, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon9077. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what else to do at this point. I have tried to explain my edits to them and they have just reverted and ignored me. VietPride10 (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

[[138]], they have reverted my edit once again saying "WHAT IS THE POINT?" when I have thoroughly explained my edits. VietPride10 (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Challenge to a closure

Wikipedia Talk:Identifying reliable sources#Defining reliability of a medium via the trust on the medium among its readers was closed by User:Francis Schonken on April 13:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC). Diffs: [139]

Discussion in the editor talk page ended without mutual understanding. 3rd party opinion was requested in Wikipedia:Third opinion, resulting as guidance to report the issue in Administration noticeboard. The other editor has been noted about this in his talk page following the guidance here. I am a new editor, been here only for 5 days, so I hope I did everything right before entering this board. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"I am a new editor, been here only for 5 days, so I hope I did everything right" I find that hard to believe. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I take that as a compliment. Anyway, that is the truth. Other editor in question was kind to link me to a guidance when I asked how to request reopening, I ended up reading quite a few pages to learn how to report and did my best doing it the right way. My studies on journalism were helpful too. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse the closure. (Non-Admin comment) The closure seems fine. Per WP:SNOW, a discussion may be closed quickly if it seems that the outcome won't change by allowing the discussion to go on for a long time. My advice is to accept the closure and focus your energies on improving Wikipedia. Good luck with your future editing! Exemplo347 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn Closure. WP:SNOW: closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. A discussion of only a few days with just a few people involved isn't enough to WP:SNOW close by anyone other than the initiator. As long as he still isn't convinced, I would wait a while longer for consensus to develop before a closure. Mind you, I think the idea is bad, and if it is opened up I'll vote against it, but I don't like things getting shut down that fast. (An IP here for all of 5 days is trying to make substantial changes to core policy pages and knows how to appeal to ANI. Either your a really fast learner or a sock, but miracles happen and so I'll WP:AGF.) -Obsidi (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"substantial change to core policy", I guess I just learned something more. I did not realize adding an aspect to a list of aspects would be such a big thing. No wonder the case ended up here with this speed... As I'm w/o reputation as an editor, only with some journalism in my back pack, I guess I'm not in a position to suggest any substantial changes. Where I live, we have 80% measured trust on our national main stream media, and I've learned via my studies to give more focus on reliability if a medium has low trust. However, already my inexperience as an editor might affect to the line of discussion. Whatever good faith, whatever supportive studies for expanding the aspects regarding RS from a journalistic perspective (also noting the importance of expertise, independence, accuracy and fact-checking) but now you got me thinking I might just not be the right man for the job in my current situation. In real, what would you suggest me to do? I wish not to be considered as a newbie trying to conquer any mountains here. The matter itself has all the time needed.81.197.179.232 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest proposing policy changes for new editors (not that you can't if you want to). Policy pages tend to generate a lot of controversy over even small changes to wording. There are not that many policy pages in total for all of WP, but those limited set of rules are what we all live by. A slightly changed wording can have massive impacts throughout the project. Go look at Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC_regarding_.22non-editors.22 about a few words of policy changes (that may itself be redundant with WP:BLPPRIVACY), and I count 6 admins, 6 former arbitrators, and one current arbitrator discussing it (each of these people have been working hard at improving WP probably for a decade). I suggest reading Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard and WP:PGCHANGE, although I don't think you did anything wrong. But you are trying to convince people that this thing you are proposing is going to be better than what they already know works, always a hard thing. Many of these polices are ingrained in the bones of WP editors, so we know almost every line of them (and often have to cite to them), this makes it hard to get people to change their mind. I would suggest waiting out to see the resulting of what you proposed, read their responses and try to understand it from their perspective. Imagine you are in a content dispute with a WP:Wikilawyer POV Pusher and how they will try to twist what you are writing. -Obsidi (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, then it might be the time for me to take a big step back. As I had written already my next comment to the suggestion itself, but couldn't post it due to the sudden closure, I'll just leave this here:

"From our national WP (Finland), I'd like to translate some related parts here: (1) Wikipedia articles should be based on published material by reputable or trustworthy entities, threshold being revisability, not the truth. (2) Sites administrated by reputable and trusted organizations, persons, journalists and researchers are listed as RS, while other mediums should be accepted only with caution, of which biased medium only when there are no other options and extreme medium not at all unless the page is about the medium itself. (3) Aspects for criticism are: Reliable, accurate info, well-known and trusted producer, published and evaluated material. (end of translations) - - I have a special reason to bring these up into the discussion: I see our national WP policies as supportive for quality journalism in our country, and most of our mediums aiming towards trust among their readers. We have very high level of trust (80% for the main stream media, independent poll). I think the English WP has something, if not to learn, but at least to listen to, from Finland's experience. Well placed WP policies can support, maybe even guide, other mediums towards better journalism." 81.197.179.232 (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Bahuzag

Reporting a fairly complex case involving Bahuzag (talk · contribs), his promotional articles and suspected IP editing, all in the context of a 2015 series of SPIs.

Bahuzag's promotional writing, apparent in Zaheer Abbass Gondal which he created, focuses on promoting the same religious sect (and its literature, websites) as the 2015 flock of sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364/Archive: a Pakistan-based sect of devotees of a mediaeval sufi Sultan Bahu. Apart from promotional writing, Zaheer Abbass Gondal's initials can be seen in the username "Bahuzag", so we likely have a case of creating autobiographic articles. Additionally, after article creation Bahuzag seems to have been switching to IP editing [140] [141] [142], perhaps in a poor attempt to avoid highlighting the link between his username and these promos, so this again can be termed as sockpuppetry.

Technically these are all minor transgressions on their own. But looking at them in combination, I see an example of bad-faith editing in clear violation of Wikipedia rules by an editor skilled in avoiding detection. Please advise. — kashmiri ^TALK 05:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

These books are a priceless treasure for the whole mankind and an immense light of absolute right guidance for all times to come—right in the prose. El_C 07:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I feel blessed by mere looking at the book titles alone. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Immense light be upon you. Now on AfD. El_C 22:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been about two years, but I believe this is the cult that conspired to, en masse, attack a number of Wikipedia articles about certain geographical features in India. They deleted sourced information and constantly nominated notable hills/mountains/other pieces of geography for deletion due to some weird belief about them detracting from Sultan Bahu's influence. It was really weird and each instance was merely annoying, but when all the various accounts and IP addresses kept at it, it became disruptive on the articles involved. I'm not really sure what should be done if they're trying to make a comeback because this had been one of the more unique cases of disruptive mass sock/meatpuppetry I've seen. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

N I H I L I S T I C

• N I H I L I S T I C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user made their first edit on April 3 2017. Their third edit was creating a fully-formed navbox. They have created a number of articles on non-notable political candidates, one of which (Carl Loser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) was deleted as a G10, and they have piled into several debates ad discussions in a way that makes genuine newbieness entirely implausible.

Is this a duck? Guy (Help!) 08:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The user name is dubious and suggests WP:NOTHERE. It may be a reincarnation of someone else, but that is for the checkusers to look into.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

And that would require knowing whose sock it is, hence the question here. Who might it be? Checkusers don't go fishing. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The Carl Loser deletion was discussed on my talk page, with the conclusion being that it wasn't a legitimate case of G10, but rather a notability issue. As for AfDs, I've gotten involved in maybe one or two that were unrelated to my own articles? I forget how I stumbled upon those, but in researching one of them, I discovered the econlib blacklisting issue, which opened a whole new can of worms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N I H I L I S T I C (talk • contribs) 14:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand nihilism, but I associate it with don't give a fuckism, which states, "Suffering (conflict and stress) is caused by attachment (giving a fuck) and can be relieved by detachment (not giving a fuck)." Every essay or guideline that says "there is no deadline," or "stay cool when the editing gets hot," etc. encourages patience; but it's a lot easier to patient when you're detached; and it's a lot easier to be detached when you feel a certain amount of despair.

Many, maybe even most, philosophies and religions have an element of nihilism, which encourages apathy toward a world in which our power to effect the changes we would like to see is limited. Christians say, "Don't worry too much about what happens in this world, because God will destroy it anyway." Buddhism teaches that attachment leads to suffering. Even some atheists say, "Life is meaningless because we are just a tiny speck in the cosmos, so don't fret too much about what goes wrong in this life."

Apathy often comes about due to burnout originally arising from caring too much, and people may turn to these philosophies during times of transition in their lives when they are looking for relief from stress, anger, sadness, exhaustion, etc. Society (while paying lip service to idealism, for the benefit of the youth and naive)even wants people to take this path, since it's more convenient for rulers to have a populace of people who have said, "I no longer care what happens in the big picture; I'm just going to do my job and put in my time until death, without stirring up trouble, because it's pointless trying to effect any major change."

I have seen this happen to many people, although some of them went back and forth between caring and not caring, as they would get involved again in trying to fix problems, and then get burned and say, "Oh yeah, now I remember why I decided to detach." Friends and family will of course always say, "Yeah, just detach and focus on your immediate family and your small circle of friends, and don't worry about the big picture." When you look at how entrenched culture often is, nihilism can start to seem reasonable. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)#

Let's look at the facts here. Your first edit was on April 3, 2017, and within a couple of days you're lecturing me on my Talk page about how terrible it is to remove links to these peerless libertarian think tank sources, leaving condescending comments and canvassing fans of the site sin question, specifically including the person who added rather a lot of the links to econlib. This positively screams WP:SOCK, WP:NOTHERE and indeed also off-wiki collaboration. There is no "can of worms" on econlib blacklisting, there's a site which was blacklisted due to abuse, a completely routine action, and, incidentally, a cleanup of excessive links (see User:JzG/EL abuse/Econlib for extended descriptions of some of the deceptive and inappropriate uses of these links, along with possible good-faith explanations which nonetheless do nothing to justify failure to fix the problem).

Bluntly, your use of Wikipedia process is inconsistent with the short duration of your registration here. What was your previous account? Guy (Help!) 15:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't lecturing you, I was disagreeing with you. "Lecturing" implies teaching someone from a position of superiority. I certainly didn't mean to have a condescending tone. Policy and guidelines are complicated and nuanced, even byzantine, so everyone is going to err at some point in their application of them. My concern is that there seems to be a pattern in which legitimate objections by various users (most of which boil down to the same points about reliable sourcing) are being repeatedly ignored or dismissed. You have some legitimate points at User:JzG/EL abuse/Econlib, and I'm glad you summed them up in an essay, but I think the solution needs to be narrowly tailored enough to avoid causing more problems. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to push the issue per WP:ACCOUNT, but agree with Guy that all of this suggests a good deal of Wikipedia experience. It looks like you have been around the block here and are not a complete rookie when it comes to doing Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I never said I was a complete rookie. I just ignored the inferences JzG was making about me because they were irrelevant. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll ask you straight out, and it's not irrelevant because it was mentioned in the initial post: What other accounts have you edited under? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the request is quite pertinent: who are you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Given that Nihilistic is an obvious sock of somebody and has ducked direct questions on that issue, and given that they have taken to going around canvassing and stirring the pot (e.g this edit at Vipul's page, creating Template:Don't_use_econlib.org,_use_Wikisource_instead, creating Tabloidophobia, opening the swiftly closed ANI below, etc ) this user does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest that we indef them already. Jytdog (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously not a new user, but not obviously a sock. Seems like WP:CLEANSTART applies, unless there is any proof of using this account to evade sanctions or using this account in conjunction with another account, then what is the issue? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 please read the thread before commenting. Even if the editor is not a sock puppet (more likely than not they are), he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia by the evidence provided.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed (for now). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Inlinetext? El_C 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably, the self-righteous harassment of Vipul is a giveaway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. NIHILISTIC doesn't seem to be harassing Vipul, but in fact arguing that links added by Vipul shouldn't be blacklisted, which strikes me as the opposite of what ILT would have suggested. Additionally I can see several times when their editing substantially overlapped in a way that would be difficult to do. While NIHILISTIC's account was created on the same day as ILT's, it was made in the morning, before ILT was blocked. They're also not editing in an area that ILT did. It's possible, but I'm not seeing the evidence. Sam Walton (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone asked a CU about this? I have an unfortunate history of not being able to get CUs to perform checkuser when a duck comes along and essentially admits to being someone's sock but I couldn't figure out whose by myself, but I'm pretty sure it's technically possible if the evidence is compelling. Nihil's unusual interest in specifically trolling JzG, including knowing about JzG's interactions with a half-dozen users before his account was created, means that if JzG can't figure out who the master is, likely no one could. Personally I'm slightly inclined to think it was one of the users "notified" of Nihil's recent ANI thread: it would be rather stupid for someone trying to hide the fact that they are socking to do that, but I've seen people do some pretty stupid things of late so it's not beyond belief. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

JzG explained above that "Checkusers don't go fishing". That is, an SPI case naming a master with evidence would have to be made before their involvement. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Johnuniq: I'm aware of that, but sometimes a reasonable guess can be made and a Checkuser will perform whatever procedure they do based on the evidence presented in favour of that reasonable guess. There's also this -- my mentioning on ANI that a user had admitted on Japanese Wikipedia to socking on English Wikipedia, even with a malformed diff, was enough to convince a CU to run a check. (I'm not sure if the rules have changed since 2014, but they definitely haven't changed since 2016, as the same CU who ran the check on Chie one told me three weeks later that CUs don't go fishing, and he had performed the Chie one check on his own discretion because the evidence I presented was slightly more convincing. In his opinion. Honestly, I would find a direct admission to sockpuppetry more convincing than generally precocious behaviour if it were me, but I guess that's why I'm not a CU.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything at WP:CU or M:CU corroborates that. It only says there must be a reason to run a check, but beyond that they can be run at CheckUsers' discretion. Swarm ♠ 02:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: My understanding is that the exact rules of what CUs can and can't (or will or won't) do are not elaborated anywhere on-wiki per WP:BEANS. I was reluctant even to cite those specific precedents above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

. Yup. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Just to be clear, I was replying to John's comment above yours. In any case, your comment makes sense. Swarm ♠ 03:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nvm, I see what he was saying. You'd have to have some evidence to run a check on another account suspected of being related to this one. Swarm ♠ 02:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of file deletion tags

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

---

RonaldGlider (talk · contribs)

In regards to: File:DOME T4240ZMS microserver.jpg

User has repeatedly attempted to hide the fact that they uploaded a file with an unclear source by changing the information and then remove the tags. I have warned them many times to do so and left them a final warning on their talk page to stop. They have not listened. This has crossed into the disruptive territory and is a blatant attempt to misrepresent a file's copyright status to protect it from deletion. I have no choice but to ask for administrator assistance. --Majora (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

3 month block for an editor-admonition for admin

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

---

This is being copied from User:Cassianto's talk page. He has been blocked for 3 months for "personal attacks", while the admin whose comments prompted his comment has only been admonished. We hope (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Amortias-so what then do you intend to do about the uncivil comment that caused this comment? "Actually, nevermind I don't care what your excuse is... You can shove that entire (sly) aspersion casting comment up your ass." We hope (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If there's no answer within a reasonable timeframe, I will take it to AN because this is unreasonable. We hope (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Seconding you on that, We hope. A shame, but — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Just the three months eh? Is that an example of the type of fine admin comment that lowly editors are expected to follow these days? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If The ed17 wishes to complain about it they able to do so, if they do I would suggest another administrator reviews it as I have (and was in the process of) advising Coffee that comments like the one they made may be acceptable between editors where there is a certain level of informality and understanding but they can be interpreted by others differently. Coffee however has not recently come off two recent block for personal attacks and harassment. Amortias (T)(C) 12:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So if I see an admin make a comment like that, I have to carefully research the background to check if there's "a certain level of informality and understanding" between the parties, yes? Sorry, but that doesn't seem quite right to me. And this 3-month block is preventative, not punitive, yes? And some kind of warning/ reminder was given first, yes? And I've just seen the grilling an RfA hopeful has been given about "conflict resolution". Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Amortias, warning Coffee nearly ten minutes after being advised about an ANI?! I'm afraid the chronolgy works against you :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis}

But he's the one who made the uncivil remarks. This doesn't cut it. An admonition for one but a 3 month block for the non-admin editor. We hope (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We hope Just to clarify, that's what I meant about the chronology- the way it reads now, Amortias didn't even approach Coffee until after you had pointed out to him what Cassianto was responding to, and warned him of a possible ANI. Damage limitation, nothing else :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I wasn't aware there was an ANI relating to this or a report lodged anywhere for that matter. I made the block then went to advise Coffee after querying with other admins as to if this needed to notified at somewhere such as AN as I imagined there would be some disagreement with the block, between seeking advice and finishing my notification to Coffee I've been reading a few talk page comments here and trying to respond to them.

@We hope: If you wish to raise this at AN to review the block then please feel free to do so, as per my comment above it is on the list of things I'd planned on actioning but hadnt yet had chance to action. Amortias (T)(C) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We hope (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for raising this We hope. Just to clarify, this is the chronology I was making reference to:
  • 11:46: Coffee's PA
  • 11:53: Cassianto's PA
  • 12:38: Cassianto blocked
  • 12:44: We hope advises Coffee over 'block[ing] one but not the other'
  • 12:52: Amortias warns Coffee over his PA
  • 13:07: Amortias says he 'made the block then went to advise Coffee' — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the admonishment is fine. Cassianto has a very long history of personal attacks, while Coffee doesn't. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I can believe if I told someone to "shove something up his/her ass" on a talk page or in an edit summary-I would be brought here. We hope (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If an editor has even "a very short history of personal attacks" is it really a good idea for an admin to be quite that uncivil? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@We hope: True, but I doubt that you would get a block for any significant period of time if it was your first offense. I'm not saying that I think he should have made that comment, but a sterner warning that this may lead to stricter measures if continued is all that is needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Coffee struck out his uncivil comment, here. Also his response to Amortias's warning is here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm very glad they have struck that. Although not until an hour had passed and it had been raised here? I've seen "ordinary" editors blocked for much less. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Inviting a user to shove something (a comment?) up their ass is rude, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a personal attack. Calling another user a hypocrite is definitely a personal attack. Given that it was obviously retaliatory I might have considered warning both users rather than blocking one, but then again given Cassianto's block log I can't fault Amortias' discretion here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Civility, one of the WP:5P, eh. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Shove it up your ass" is uncivil by all counts; the block for the non-admin sounds like the old police hue and cry "round up the usual suspects". We hope (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I...I'm sorry Ivanvector. I really don't know much that about Canada, but does it happen to be backwards day there? TimothyJosephWood 13:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a huge gap between an uncivil comment and referring to someone by a derogatory term in a section header on their talk page. Or should you be blocked for suggesting my rationale is backwards? Coffee's comment is sub-par, but it would not be a blockable first offence for any user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Or should you be blocked for suggesting my rationale is backwards? Oh boy. The knives are really out on this one aren't they? To answer your question, no because this a forum for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors, and if your observation makes patently no sense then others are free to question it. How many buttons you have doesn't factor into that equation.

I never said Coffee should be blocked, what I am saying is that on its face, the assessment that "shove it up your ass" is "rude" but "hypocrite" is somehow worse, is so outlandish as to be Orwellian in it's flat denial of the basic meanings of the words. If you're so emotionally wrapped up in this that you're willing to threaten to issue blocks because editors with common sense are willing to question the nonsensical then it might be time to take a break and revisit this issue after some tea. TimothyJosephWood 14:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Idiotic administrator comment - I went overboard in my reply to ed17, I'll fully admit (and I've amended it as such post-Amortias' comment on my talk page). But, treating one of our newer admins like they had some form of maliciousness in their block of Cassianto (which I wasn't even aware had happened till We Hope notified me of this discussion) when they were just doing what they viewed to be correct is not fair to Amortias. I'll sit here and take admonishments from anyone who finds it necessary to do so... Just please keep your frustration/anger/discontent directed towards the right admin. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So, you think that three months is perfectly fair then? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any possible way to expect myself to make a fair decision about this block, to be honest. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, right. Phew, that's you off the hook then. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, what in the actual fuck is going on around here? Am I seeing straight or do I see an admin telling someone to shove something up their ass and then someone being blocked for calling them a hypocrite? Coffee you should be ashamed of yourself. You are a disgrace to the admin corps. I'm done with this project. I no longer want to be a part of a system where this kind of bullshit is tolerated and admins are held up on a special platter. --Laser brain (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't go overboard and jump ship. We've had enough heads on platters. Let's find a way to work this out without making the whole world blind. Jonathunder (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Quite agree. Sometimes these kinds of problems are solved simply by admins voluntarily handing in some of their tools. Although, in this case, we seem to have a few admins able to choose that option. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment A 3 month block seems spectacularly way over the top, and definitely punitive to this uninvolved Wikipedian. I can't see why any kind of block was called for, but having decided it was necessary, 3 months?!? Seriously? It also struggles to reach any criteria for harassment. No comment about Coffee's behaviour. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Uninvolved also, but agree with above comments, unsure if a block was called for, but 3 months seems seriously disproportionate. Irondome (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that still the case if you become aware that the user just came off a 1-month block for the same behaviour? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean, that one that was on almost as shakey grounds as this one?! "That catch 22, that's one hell of a catch!" :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And that it's their thirteenth block for personal attacks? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well if I was an admin, I may attempt to engage with the editor. Irondome (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Amortias: You've not been an admin very long, only about 2 months. You probably therefore aren't in a good position to issue blocks like this, which are best handled by very experienced admins (Floquenbeam and Bishonen both spring to mind) and even then only after a strong consensus here. I'd invite you to go back to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing and look very carefully at his answer to Question 5, and wonder if it applies to you in this instance. As a result of your actions, we have now had a longstanding admin announce their retirement and quit. Therefore, your block was an absolute net negative to the project, and you really ought to have seen this coming. I don't really think Cassianto is interested in the project anymore so to be honest I can't see much call for him directly appealing the block or doing anything about it, but it should not have happened in the first place. Consider yourself admonished. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• For the record I object to this admonishment, in case it wasn't clear. In the interest of moving on I will not be commenting further in this thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(you might want to click on the link, the "admonishment" is not entirely serious and is more akin to something like this Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC))

Comment And if he did decide to go back to creating content, events like this block and the prior one have to make him say "why bother?". Laser Brain is a good admin and the project really needs to have him stay on board, but he's saying "I give up"-as so many of us are. We hope (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Right so it's absolutely fine for one admin to tell another to shove their comment up their arse but when another editor complains about said comment they get blocked ? .... How in the actual fuck does that make any given sense?, In all honestly Cass pushes boundaries at times we know that however in this case Cass didn't deserve blocking (and in all honestly neither does Coffee - A simple warning to Coffee would've sufficed), No one deserves blocking and I'm sure Amortias knew full well shit was going to hit the fucking fan so why block ?, This place is going down the shitter rather quickly now!. –Davey2010^Talk 14:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, Amortias, but that's an absolutely terrible block - if editors are trading insults, unless one is particularly egregious you either block both or admonish both (the latter would have been preferable, I think). But since Coffee is asking that advice be directed at him - what on earth has got into you recently? Various trips to ANI, badgering opposers on an RfA (and then on their talkpage)? It's not good and you need to wind it in pretty quickly. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: How are any of the ANI discussions that I've been looped into (or opened myself) relevant to this, or is it just that I'm supposed to carry every single thing I do around with me till I die now? I'll also note that I don't disagree, nor retract, any of my previous actions besides my comment to ed17 specifically. Unless replying to opposes (a thing that used to be almost standard for nominators to do a few years ago) is somehow unacceptable behavior on this site now? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    • No, of course you're not supposed to carry them around for ever, but these are recent. If they'd been two years ago and you hadn't been back here since, no-one would have cared, or mentioned it. And replying to opposes is fine, but not in the passive-aggressive manner that you did to Ritchie333 and Cassianto. You're not even doing the nominee a favour, because people are even more unlikely to change their minds. I'm not suggesting you get dragged off to ArbCom or anything, but you really do need to think a bit more sometimes before pressing that edit button. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
      • @Black Kite: I'm just concerned now, because if I am to take your comments, along with the entirety of this thread fully to heart... what I'm supposed to deduce seems to be that the metric we use to determine whether administrators are good administrators or not now depends on how often admins are brought to ANI. That is a scary thought. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Immediate Unblock and huge trout, whether Cassianto comes back or not, is irrelevant, the block should be undone immediately. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fine for Cassianto to get his block, but admins should not go around saying rude things. This happens on AN/I alot, people say wrong things and are never punished. What are we going to o, drop 24 punitives for incvility? Would those get escalated? Desysop people who can't control their mouths? C'mon. L3X1 (distant write) 14:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Unblock. This comment did not justify a block, much less a three-month one. Coffee has been baiting editors recently. I don't have diffs to hand, but as I recall he has done it to The Bounder. He has also been editing and adminning at the same pages. These are issues that should be looked into, rather than blocking someone who responds negatively. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Unblock and everyone step away from this cluster-fuck of a thread. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Oh dear, will I get blocked?

• Comment I'm quite happy to admit when I've screwed up and that I screwed up here. I'm happy to have the block overturned if its found to be made in error and give my apoligies for the storm its caused my intentions were good but we all know how the road to hell is paved. I'll offer my apologies to Cassianto at their talkpage if the block is found to be in error. Amortias (T)(C) 14:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Unblocked I've taken the liberty to unblock Cassianto for this. Yes, I am well aware of his block log, and history with personal attacks that have led to blocks, however this one was not warranted. I'm not going to comment on the activity that led to this, but sufficive to say this block was not appropriate. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Unblock - This... was terrible judgement on the part of Amortias. Cassianto should not have been admonished, let alone blocked, for their "PA". First off, Coffee was not only rude, but, they flouted ABF by doing precisely to Ed what they were so angry about having been done to them; the casting of aspersions. Side-question; Why (pray tell) would Ed respond to me and my comment at RfA in an e-mail? Did we not already having significant trouble because of off-wiki communications with regards to that RfA already. I have to hazard a guess that Cassianto's "hypocrite" comment was directed at the fact that Coffee went to Ed's page to cast aspersions about, what was in their opinion, Ed's casting of aspersions at Coffee - I'll come back to this in a moment. Is that not the defintion of hypocrisy? Now, I sincerely appreciate Coffee striking their comment and want to say they showed good character in doing so. Coffee, if you have an issue with something somebody said, you hash it out civilly with that person and not by going to their page and attacking that person in the same manner that you think they did to you. I don't personally see that this was necesssarily an aspersion, but, I can see how it may be interpreted to have been one. On a more general note; this is why people don't trust the admin corps on this site, when you're asked at RfA how you would approach an issue you respond by saying "with a gentle hand". When your given the mop you start swinging it like its a baseball bat at even the slightest issue. Stop. This is far from behaviour "befitting of your station". This, is one sorry state of affairs. Take a step back and have a think about the role you played in escalating a quibble, into a fist fight. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

He is unblocked. I guess there was no other alternatives to explain User:Coffee about his uncivil comments without using the word hypocrite as a section heading. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Whopper fiasco

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

---

Burger King had a 15 second ad last night on major TV shows in the US, ending with the phrase “OK Google, what is the Whopper burger?" that caused Google Home to read from Wikipedia. A top ad exec at the company edited the article (without declaring his paid editing status) the day before putting in straight ad copy into the Wikipedia article as the lede, which was read by Google Home. This is all documented at ADWeek from before the ad ran, Associated Press, Verge, the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. etc.

I'll just repeat was I wrote at User talk:Jimbo Wales

How should Wikipedians respond? First we should ban the whole company (excluding the burger flippers and minimum wage folks) and its parent company from editing. In particular, all directors and officers ranked VP and above, and all employees of the advertising, marketing, and PR departments, their regular advertising and PR firms, as well as the ad firm known as "David in Miami" who conceived of the ad. (He is also know for this work of genius [143])

Of course they should be let back as editors if they declare all their previous paid editing adventures. These are likely to be extensive since there are 71 articles linked to the Burger King navigation template (just over half of these are exclusively about Burger King).

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems like overkill on something that ended up being pretty minor, and I think ANI is the wrong venue - this isn't an incident specifically requiring administrator attention. Sam Walton (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's "pretty minor". Google news gives 10,000 articles on the incident. They all in effect say "Wikipedia is a joke. Content can be bought and sold - but we don't even have to pay Wikipedia!" In other words - it goes to the heart of our credibility. They are trashing it for profit and violating our Terms of Use at the same time. BTW, a million people have viewed the video on YouTube. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think the best response would be to let this work of vandalism stand until they stop running the ad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Note; I'm only half joking. See my comment at Jimbo's talk for why. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand, that was brilliant promotion. On the other, that's an abuse of Wikipedia. I think we should write a new policy document that starts with "We the Editors", gets to the meat of it with "It is their right. It is their duty. To throw off such advertisers and to provide new policies for their future security" and ends with "That these united Articles are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent of Advertising". Tag it with the usual CSD G1/3, {{NPOV}}, {{Advert}} maintenance templates and be done with it. Seriously though, this has been dragged onto Jimbo's talk page as well. It's going to be a company PR issue at this rate. I think it's a bit too meta for lowly admins to be stepping in. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So where's the best place to get the company banned? It's not just 2 paid editors - it was the company's decision to blatantly violate our rules for profit. We just need to tell them loud and clear that it is not acceptable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but this seems like petulance and revenge rather than a legitimate course forward. BK exploited consumers' over-reliance on technology to sell some more burgers, they didn't steal state secrets or cause anyone one or thing actual harm. What should be done is the same as what you'd do with any other paid editing, remove the edit, warn the editor. Repeat behavior warrants escalation of responses, but don't let your sense of embarrassment on behalf of the Wikipedia lead to reaching for the nuclear options. ValarianB (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You're requesting an unknown number of indef-blocks to be placed on an unknown number of accounts, a block of the person who actually did it? not appropriate per our blocking policy because the person hasn't so much as received a warning, but, more than that, us blocking them won't send a message at all. They won't care. The harder hitting message is the vandalism that the page has now received. It's a shame google blocked the ad. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The closer says that nothing can be done here. I checked on similar paid editing cases, and they were at WP:AN, e.g. [144]. Do you suggest I go there to start the community ban section, or are you saying that neither AN or ANI can now do community bans? Can a community ban be done from User talk:Jimbo Wales(I'd guess not) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is closed - please don't re-open it. Open a discussion at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard if you have proof that an editor is performing paid edits without disclosure. Administrators aren't going to start blocking people at random. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Smallbones: Well; Iridescent has described almost this exact situation in the words, directed at nobody specifically in this context, 'why would you want to hold a discussion like that on a user talk page, especially a user talk page with a near-legendary intolerance of opinions that go against the user in question's personal prejudices? No matter what's decided there it can't possibly be considered consensus'^{© (apologies for the ping- purely in the spirit of not talking behind backs)} That seems to sum up the so-called equitable value, such as it is, between this page and that one. Whatever won't be achieved here is less likely to achieved there, I think. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing random about the requested community ban. The company admitted the deception involving the edits even before the commercial went on the air . If the folks above are saying that a community ban of a company can't be done anymore at AN or ANI, then I'll likely take it to WP:COIN after the holidays. But community bans of companies have been done here at least twice before, I don't see what would prevent it from being done again other than most editors being off-Wiki right now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, you're not going to get the answer you want at this noticeboard - numerous people have pointed out to you that nothing can be done at this noticeboard. Can I close this discussion (again)? I've already directed you to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard - it's the exact place you should be discussing this at. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Look, I just want to know where the proper place to start a discussion on a community ban of a company is. It used to be at WP:AN. If it is now at WP:COIN I think we can both live with it. And it will be done after the holiday. Just pooh-poohing the possibility of a community ban of a company, however, is not acceptable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

TazminDaytime

TazminDaytime has been blocked for 72 hours by Ponyo. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Could you please look at TazminDaytime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been repeatedly adding incorrect/unsourced information, taking part in edit wars, ignoring people's explanations as to why their edit was undone and insulting other users in talk pages and edit summaries.--Koljanc (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous unfounded allegations. The information I posted was correct, you removed every single thing I posted with little to no explanation. TazminDaytime (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I see a lot of edit warring by TazminDaytime against different editors including this revert with an unacceptable edit summary. A WP:1RR restriction would curb this tendency. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

How long ago was that posted again? Don't be ridiculous. TazminDaytime (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you made this edit summary today, so... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Less than fifty edits ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Six edits ago, to be precise. I think someone really needs to have a good long read of WP:EW and WP:CIVIL, make an apology and start working with others before Neil decides I shouldn't be the only hammer in this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Six edits for the troll comment, about forty for the edit I linked to. And a lot of edit warring in between. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a lot better things to be doing than listening to you all overreacting about posts made three months ago. TazminDaytime (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This is from yesterday. So hopefully one of the "better things" you will be doing is learning how to edit collaboratively and seeking consensus in disputes rather than edit warring and personally attacking other editors, lest you find yourself with plenty of extra time on your hands while waiting out a block.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest a short block I think, with a response such as the one above, that the repeated warnings given in this thread are not sufficient to generate any introspection. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that their first edit after denying there was any issue here was another revert and snarky edit summary, I agree. I've blocked TazminDaytime for 72 hours for overall disruption and inability to edit collaboratively.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Massive edit war on Irritable male syndrome

A IP editor (185.104.184.142) has been edit warring with another editor on Irritable male syndrome. I cannot count how many revisions have been done but 185.104.184.142 needs to be blocked. He/she keeps making excuses that the content was put in by someone else and sources say it was rejected. RegalHawk^talk 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@RegalHawk: I'm struggling to see the IP's contributions as blatant vandalism that would justify you breaking 3RR. The change is partly a pretty uncontroversial wording change (it may not be an actual improvement, but it's not making the article worse, either) and the other part is changing "under scrutiny" to "rejected" - and "rejected" seems a pretty fair summary of the cited source to me. AFAICT, this is a content dispute that neither of you have attempted to resolve this at the article talk page. Feel free to explain it to me if I've grossly misunderstood the situation, though. GoldenRing (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Socking. Took the appropriate actions. [145] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call. GoldenRing (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to split this over multiple discussions, but reverting 40 times is not appropriate, it is quite disruptive, in fact. This is what ANI or RFPP are for. El_C 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The RFPP report sat there for 25 minutes before I picked it up. It was silly, making those rapid-fire reverts for non-BLP violating material but not worth blocking two good editors over, IMO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I'll stand down. But for next time, if one of us regulars is not attending to RFPP, there's always someone checking ANI. El_C 20:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The temptation to add "Irritable male syndrome? WHAT THE &*&&^% is WRoNG WITH THAT, ^&&%$?" would have irresistible back on the first of the month... Anmccaff (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there are not that many regulars at WP:RFP; I'd say about 15-20 all in all. 25 Minutes is not that much, imho. And indeed it was edit-warring, after all, socks notwithstanding. Lectonar (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say the avg time from report to response is more like 60 minutes, higher at Night US time and weekends. L3X1 (distant write) 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I've said this many times before and no doubt I'll say this many times again - measuring average times at RFPP is misleading. Sometimes reports sit there because they're on the edge of needing protection and admins are keeping watch on the articles for more disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And shorter at European day-time ;); I try to keep an eye on that, even while at work. Lectonar (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'll just add here that these guys should be warned IMO (I agree with NeilN that blocking would be innnapropriate). ~40 reverts isn't appropriate for a minor content change like this, socks or no socks. It is disruptive plain and simple. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Spoken like a typical irritable male. If someone will bring this to GA I'm sure there's a world-class DYK hook in here somewhere. EEng 15:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place. Found a Wikipedia user is posting for pay

This person is posting bespoke Wikipedia pages for businesses and individuals. He claims to be very experienced and active. I don't know if this is against policy but it seems like a conflict of interest.

https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01057b11b08a620d8a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadhenley (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not looked on favourably. Sadly, there are ways paid editing could help (eg: paying a group of researchers to add sources to every one of our 200,000+ articles tagged {{unreferenced}}), but they get drowned out by the spammers. I dunno, maybe somebody thought JzG wasn't deleting enough articles this month or something.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You know, the WMF should hire some of these people, figure out who they're editing as, and then block them for violating the TOU. Be useful with uncovering the past cruft they've added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at some of the reviews, and really this particular case looks like something that would be difficult to deal with unless functionaries wanted to get involved. You have both outing concerns and I suspect some socking going on. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what functionaries can do here, there's no obvious link between the name and an account, and the reviews appear to be anonymous so there's no indication of what content was edited. Am I missing something? (if I am and it even comes close to outing, email me or the functionaries team directly) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it could be narrowed down from the sentiments expressed in the advert; on the assumption that it could be actually believed. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

So this is the guy who is responsible for the 15K NPP backlog; jk. I'm about to run a username search, and as for outing, if his username is his real life name, thats not outing, that getting what you deserve. And ask for socking, I don't think he can have enough socks to obscure his evil deeds unless he is being deceitful on his resume. 1000 pages, 50K edits, 8 years, and 9 articles/day. Assuming he works 261 days a year, it would take just 111 days to create a thousand article, not 8 years. And anyway, the problem with socks is that he would have to birth, bottle feed, and raise a group of socks. Getting around duck is going to be hard work, and it is easier for him to fool the various LEO agaencies here at Wikipedia if he has just one accoutn, allowing him to pass off as an experienced established user. And being around for 8 years yet ony having 50K edits makes a pattern: It appears that he does an article in very few edits, not 40-60. So BOLO4 an editor named Ravish K or along those lines, from after 2007, who creates many articles, doesn't do CVU or participate in the community (AfDs, RfCs, RfAs etc) and uses a bare amount of edits per article created. In other words, could be any content editor. L3X1 (distant write) 21:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And witchhunt is over. First 500 Ravishs check out. Found a guy who had created 2 articles, this and this, but unless his entire resume is lies, they don't match. I'll let the WMF chase this hare. L3X1 (distant write) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, technically it isn't socking if they start a new account each time they have a new project and there is no overlap. It's a violation of th Terms of Use not to declare that you are paid, but such accounts are unlikely to get caught out if they create only one article and then go silent. That's exactly what I'd do if I was a paid editor, tell my client the name of the account so they can see I'm working on their behalf, especially since it looks like this guy bills for about ten hours of work for each article. Then when it's finished and I've been paid, abandon the account. Start a new one for the next client. If they disclosed their COI each time they wouldn't actually be breaking any rules at all. Perhaps I've said too much. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox: What about the part of WP:Sockpuppet about avoiding scrutiny? Making multiple accounts, one for each project, would seem to be an obvious violation of that, and therefore socking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hm. If they are editing in the same topic, it is SOCKing, right? One ~could~ say that paid editing" is a single topic. One very much could say that BLP is a topic, or consumer products is a topic, or articles about companies is a topic. So if they used more than one account to edit in any one of those topic, they would be socking even under a rigorous reading of SOCK. imo, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It is debatable if it is socking, but it is block evasion. The master account was indefinitely blocked earlier this year. If editing by that person is identified, it can be deleted under CSD:G5. - Bilby (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So we know who this dude is and his activities have been given the boot? L3X1 (distant write) 02:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

We know the master account. He's created at least one new account since being indeffed, which is known, but doesn't seem to have been active through Upwork since then. The problem is that if the main account is blocked, they tend to create new accounts for each subsequent job. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Which is good, because it means we can WP:CSD#G5 the articles. That word needs to get out. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd still AfD em, and as High Command is staying tight lipped about who these accounts are, I doubt we're ever going to find a list of all his articles. L3X1 (distant write) 14:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been checked already, but some of the job descriptions are public and mention the subject name. Here's a list of the ones I found after looking through every entry: Klaus Guingand was AfD'd, Valmont Group was disclosed (talk page) though someone should probably check the accounts named there, Host Analytics Inc doesn't appear to have been looked at and has no disclosure, similarly with Rainer Gerhards, Countable Corp., Sam Rizk was AfD'd, Lamia Ltd (can't find the article, described as a "Finnish e-commerce solutions provider"), eCaring (can't find an article), Octopus Deploy (not disclosed), Air Fibre Internet (can't find article), Business Models for Dummies (deleted), Touchmail (updated, deleted) . From looking through past jobs this person has also been engaging in paid link additions, though there were no specifics. If someone had the time, you could click through each job to the client, and see if you can find out who they are from their other (public) jobs to look for an article. Sam Walton (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Irving Guyer might also be one from this job, but less certain. Contains links to that clients website, and was created at the same time the job was accepted/completed. Sam Walton (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bilby, L3X1, and JzG: I've created a table of the public job postings at User:Samwalton9/Ravish. If you want to help, click onto a job, look at the job message + clients other jobs, and see if you can figure out where their article is/was. Bilby, what's your history with this user? You seem to have already been deleting and blocking, so don't want to duplicate efforts. Sam Walton (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Political POV-pushing by User:HistorianMatej

• HistorianMatej (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:HistorianMatej is trying to use the article Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia as a propaganda platform. It's bad enough that reliably-sourced content gets removed with edit summaries such as "Lying media and press, unreliable sources" (the sources are Financial Times, CBS and Politico, and there's about a half-dozen more equally reliable sources supporting the same content, given on the talk page). But apparently it's hypocrisy of adding neo-nazism to party ideology because media said so and deleting official party statements because of no secondary source. The official party statements in question accused others of being fascists. No, equally following what secondary sources report in both cases is not hypocrisy; following blindly what the party says about itself and its opponents is somethint the party website may do, but not an encyclopedia. HistorianMatej edit-warred for the past few weeks over both the removal of reliably-sourced content and the addition of party propaganda without secondary sources. They have been repeatedly asked to discuss the content or pursue venues such as WP:RSN if they seriously want to claim that Financial Times is "lying". This conduct is highly disruptive and should be stopped, either via a block or via a topic ban. Huon (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's fairly clear to me that he doesn't understand WP rules on reliable sourcing. The content he was removing seems to be reliably sourced, and the part he was adding I would call, at best, a WP:SELFSOURCE that could only apply to statements about themselves. That said, I don't get the feeling that he is being purposefully disruptive. He is probably a member of that party and doesn't like having his party called "neo-nazi," but is not very experienced in understanding how WP reliable sourcing works. I would support a limited duration page ban on Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia so he can cool off, edit something where he doesn't have such strong feelings and know this isn't appropriate behavior on WP. But someone needs to go through and explain to him how WP:Reliable Sources works on WP. -Obsidi (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• He hasn't restored his latest edit since it was reverted, but it seems to me like this is going to need some kind of resolution to avoid becoming a problem again later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinions on indefinite block please

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

---

I blocked LeoHsn for two weeks for a series of edits culminating in this disgraceful attack. I made it clear that any more cases of incivility would result in an indefinite block. [146] They've now posted two comments, while not uncivil towards a specific editor, I believe show an attitude which is incompatible with WP:5P2. [147], [148] Looking for feedback on whether or not the two week block should be changed to indefinite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Block per WP:NOTHERE. I had to remove personal attacks against editors (including me - which is unthinkable because I'm a delight!) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Islam-related terrorist attacks and I got bored of it very quickly. There's an issue with attitude that I don't think can be sorted out with temporary sanctions. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Indef supported That's someone who's looking to push their viewpoint, not work on an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• This is clearly indef-worthy, in my book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Block Their posts clearly show a WP:RGW attitude. MarnetteD|Talk 19:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Indef Block per WP:NOTSOAPBOX.- MrX 19:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note Talk page access should be revoked too... Exemplo347 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Per this edit here: [149] I've indef'd the account and pulled TPA. Sorry to jump the gun Neil, but that's enough of that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You did the deed while I was fiddling with the niceties. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

"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 ([150], [151], [152], [153], [154]) 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)

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)

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)

It sounds familiar because it's every single banned POV-pusher ever. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Cleanup on aisle Ponyo?

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

---

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

? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Already fixed, by the look of it. Anmccaff (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Soapboxing and other stuff

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

---

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)

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)

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)

Sounds great, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitamindaughter (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition: if you do this [155] again you may face sanctions. That really is not acceptable. Acroterion (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Armenian genocide? What possible relevance does that have to your preferred edits? Acroterion (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

So what? Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Great, so why don't we just leave the discussion there? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Possible sock of prev armenian brawl spa, or cu for vd? L3X1 (distant write) 20:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Holy crap: somebody needs to drop the blunt instrument and cool their jets for a while. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

GODVERDOMME! How many personal attacks like this does it take to get someone blocked? Kleuske (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note is an Admin planning on doing anything about this? Numerous warnings about personal attacks have been given by editors & admins, and nothing has happened. What gives? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Blocked indef - no indication that they understand the offensiveness of their behavior. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Trilateral Commission edits

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

---

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)

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)

Rick, I agree with you. Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Funny you should say that, I'm still waiting for my check!! David J Johnson (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Trilateral Commission should be placed under the Arbcom American politics ruling? John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Edit war on Raid on Dartmouth (1749)

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

---

There 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)

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)

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

Martinnorheim - Persistent unsourced additions

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

---

• Martinnorheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

Disruption continues: [156] EvergreenFir (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A 48 hour block might get their attention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

D'SuperHero and Shimlaites

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

---

I've copied this from WP:AIV:

• Shimlaites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – account is being used only for promotional purposes. This user is already changing lede of Airlift (film) and already i had referenced in Accolades section. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• D'SuperHero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – The user is unaware of the utility of block warnings, is reverting my edits on my talk page and is removing sourced information and citations from the page(Airlift (film)). Shimlaites (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

User Goodness222222

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

---

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)

Done - thanks Jim1138 (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User Maleidys Perez

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

---

• Maleidys Perez (talk · contribs)

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 [157]. Apparently China may soon get Youtube. Possibly. 2601:188:1:AEA0:DD8E:74CD:FBC3:49C8 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

Personal attack - threat of outing by PastieFace

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

---

I 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)

TP editing rights can go. L3X1 (distant write) 02:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Threats have continued. Jeh (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

• @Barek: ...which they promptly proceeded to do (this edit doesn't contain new outing though). Overall I think this user has problems with WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, and assuming bad faith on the part of other editors who, at Talk:Physical Address Extension, established consensus against their attempted addition to the article. And not to be arrogant, but I think PastieFace really does not understand the material in question as much as they think they do. They are fast approaching an indefinite block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

BLP applies to non-whites also

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

---

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)

• 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)
  • TRM, I know how you feel about this. So, their ethnicity is fundamental--so, they did it because they were Paki. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • What the hell are you talking about? Are you actually accusing me of being racist? Please be clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I need some diffs that demonstrate I'm racist please, or else you need to redact that claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• There are separate noticeboards for page protection as well as edit warring. ANI is not that place regardless of intent or desire. --DHeyward (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• (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)

• When The Rambling Man can post sentences on the article talk page like "I suspect strongly this will boil down to the ethnicity of the editors in question.", as his opening to a subsection which he entitles "Editor origins", then I think there is a possibility that there may still be a conduct issue in addition to the disagreement over content. MPS1992 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Please go ahead. MPS1992 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Continued harassment by unregistered editor

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

---

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)

 Done. El_C 04:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Winkelvi block appeal

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

---

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)

---

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 [158]), 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)

• Oppose for several reasons: (1) The previous block (September 2016) was for two months: [159]. (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: [160]. 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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, [161] seems to be "poking the bear" which was warned about. TL565 (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

And they proceed to completely ignore it. That's enough reason to reject this entirely. --Tarage (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In fact they removed George Ho's post asking him to consider withdrawing his appeal.[162] That may have been unintentional, but his remarks show a continued lack of clue. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Oppose Much too early as noted above, and Winkelvi in unblock request ignores talk page bludgeoning, which he had previously rejected. The many editors who !voted for an indeff were concerned about continued drama and here it is. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The unblock request is unconvincing and his recent comment on his talk page suggests a persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. The current block has apparently not yet had the desired deterrent effect. - MrX 16:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There's a reason the 3 month block remained in place. There's also actually still drama at Winkelvi's talk page, which is one of the contributing reasons which led to the block in the first place. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 16:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose-Seriously? Display name 99 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Avoiding warnings

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

---

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)

• [163]
• [164]
• [165]
• [166]
• [167]
• [168]
• [169]

(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)

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)

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. MohammedMohammed^محمد 16:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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. MohammedMohammed^محمد 16:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I believe I am allowed to blank my own talk page after I read the message. MohammedMohammed^محمد 16:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. MohammedMohammed^محمد 17:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

Small Admin action needed

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

---

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)

Would a Skinny Admin action suffice? Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Heightist! Anmccaff (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Drmies, yepp, that is correct. And a Skinny Admin action took care of it, Huldra (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Admin attention please

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

---

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)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kevinthomas1864 Exemplo347 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I filed first LOL. Yours looks better, so mine can be closed L3X1 (distant write) 22:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

And it's closed (twice!) now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

It just did appear again. There is also a draft. Burninate? --bonadea contributions talk 23:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Article gone. Sam Walton (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• We'll see how the covering admin handles it, but I've also listed Kevinthomas1864 as a hoax vandal at AIV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Ayup. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done-Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:NepaliHelper

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

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

---

(I'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)

(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)

@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)

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)

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

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

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

---

• See my user talk for IP 94.191.187.61, "Dickling, you are deluded and we've marked you"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

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

Legal threat

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

---

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

---

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

Play Magnus

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

---

Hi, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Legal threat?

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)

Warned. El_C 05:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

• We should always be respectful of WP:BLP subjects who express strong preferences. The best solution here is to suggest she create an account, then discuss releasing a photo that she finds acceptable. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the image in question is hosted on Commons, shouldn't the discussion be pointed there? — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Understood. Thanks. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

I agree. Removing the image was the wrong move. El_C 12:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is not relevant to whether it can be used on Wikipedia or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

IP vandal (14 April 2017)

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

---

I have 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

How to deal with promotional user names?

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

---

(Bajakaladi (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC))

Report them at WP:UAA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Blanking without participating in a discussion by SaripBB

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

---

User:‎ SaripBB blanked sourced contents three times[170][171][172] without participating in a discussion at Talk:King cherry#Blanking by ‎SaripBB. Any action is required to prevent further edit warring.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing reasons are mentioned. Remove Original research sentence that is not related to articles. Do not build a story that does not exist. ―― SaripBB (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So why are you not explaining yourself on the article talk page, SaripBB? El_C 06:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:AIV backlogged

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

---

Could use some administrator assistance over there. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 08:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

All we need, is more admins; simples! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I looked, closed two non urgent reports, and say I take a dim view of people lying about backlogs. What about CfD? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh. So no AIV backlog then? But whooaah! to CFD- January?! Blimey. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Could be because a couple of others got there first and cleaned out quite a few? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So you did ;) sorry about that. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Title blacklist exception: 💥☠️💣🍥👊 -> Symbols (album)

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

---

💥☠️💣🍥👊 is the title of Symbols (album) as best can be represented in Unicode, but I can't create the redirect because of the title blacklist. Could someone with the power please do so? NeonMerlin 03:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Bpkhy69

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

---

Despite warnings, Bpkhy69 (talk · contribs) is continuing to upload images with false copyright information. The most recent one is File:ISIS 2...34-1png.png, which they tagged with {{PD-shape}}, and you can see the rest here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That is an impressive collection of warnings. I mean, we're headed into connoisseur-of-warnings territory here. I'll have a look through their contributions, but based purely on their talk page I'm struggling to imagine that they're a net positive. GoldenRing (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Uploading copyrighted images isn't the only problem with their edits:

Copy of my just filed report at WP:AIV:

• Bpkhy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Removal of content/blanking after final warning: ([173], [174]) The account is less than two months old but has already been blocked twice for edit warring, their talk page is full of user warnings, including multiple level 4s, notices about images they have uploaded that were copyrighted and have been deleted, edit warring warnings etc etc etc, and they are now repeatedly removing material from both United States and China that they claim isn't needed when others feel it is (it's about whether China has a larger area than the United States, or vice versa). Probably without even understanding what it is about, judging by the bad English in their edit summaries... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

- Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Enough rope, I think. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble disagreeing. Despite the flood of warnings, they've never edited in talk or user talk spaces. The pattern today seems to be to make the same edit three times, then move on to another article. I can't see this as a great loss. GoldenRing (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately we can't waste any more time on a user with so little competence. Since they are simply repeating the actions (both uploading copyvios and damaging articles) that they have been repeatedly warned about, a block is the only answer. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

"Dickling" (see thread above) now "limpdick "

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

---

• IP 94.191.187.61 was blocked by Euryalus (see above) with an added comment by Mr rnddude... IP is now posting from 94.191.184.126 .... First post was at least pseudo-constructive, but later post devolves. See Talk:Bengal famine of 1943‎. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have left a message to the IP on the article talk page. Note; their previous block has not expired and their actions amount to block evasion. Um, I'm always keen on amicable resolutions so somebody who is in full Mjolnir-mode feel free to block with impunity. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Multiple unsourced edits spanning several years

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

---

• Saltlakecityjazz (talk · contribs)

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)

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)

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)

This is exactly when they registered their account.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

• Yes for heaven's sake please indef block before he continues much longer. The more he edits, the more cleanup there is to do. Softlavender (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Always Be My Baby

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

---

Please can you fully protect the above article as Kellymoat keeps adding unsourced content as per usual? Ta'niqua (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You didn't notfiy Kellmoat. L3X1 (distant write) 17:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: I have on my talk page Ta'niqua (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Umm... That's usually taken to mean "on their talk page". Also, mind the WP:3RR-rule. Kleuske (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

SPI has been opened. But, oddly enough, I have opened RPP for this article as well, lol. Kellymoat (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You think all those redlink editors are the same? L3X1 (distant write) 17:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And some of the IP users. Kellymoat (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User has been blocked, and the article has been protected. I am taking this page off of my watchlist. If you need me, you'll need to ping me.Kellymoat (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Ramih3

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

---

• Ramih3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So far all edits have even vandalism. Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Rikster2 (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I reopened this, because the user has filed an unblock request, however, it broke the block template, and I can't figure out to fix it. As it currently is, the system hasn't logged an unblock request. L3X1 (distant write) 00:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

So is he getting unblocked or not? L3X1 (distant write) 02:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not. That is him and not his cousin...his excuse is BS.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And even if it was his cousin, see WP:COMPROMISED. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet of SaripBB

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

---

• Page: King cherry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Pnika3131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.36.57.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sockpuppets of SaripBB came during his block period and made the same edits (partial) as before. I request an urgent measure to prevent further edit warring.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but for future reference: WP:RFPP seems like what you are looking for, and possibly WP:SPI. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretty clear what was going o there, block extended to indefinite, socks blocked, page protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Yes I know this is not a place for WP:SPI. I was a frequent user of WP:SPI :). However I thought this time is urgent. Please forgive my selfishness.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you were being selfish, and it's really not a big deal, just wanted to make sure you knew about RFPP. The socking was so blatant that actually SPI was not really needed at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Copy of deleted template

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

---

Hi. Is this the right place? I want to get a copy of deleted template Template:Wikis to import to somewhere else. Thanks. stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 03:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Done. Located at User:Stranger195/Wikis. Regards, Swarm ♠ 04:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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

---

A small group of editors, including User:Volunteer_Marek and User:Objective3000 are attempting to control the article's content through edit warring, refusing to engage in good faith debate on Talk, and misleading edit summaries. Case in point, information on assessments by Jeffrey Carr and the International Institute for Strategic Studies critiquing the case by CrowdStrike was repeatedly removed from the article despite being cited from reliable sources and having high relevance to the subject of the section in question. See: [175] which was the second removal of this material today. Objective3000 says This is pure speculation by someone outside of the investigation claiming to speak for the "intelligence community" which is factually incorrect: Carr was speaking about "the computer security industry" and not the "intelligence community", and engaged in technical analysis of the claims in question and not "pure speculation"; he was quoted by a reliable source which found his argument important enough to publish, and given its high relevance to the subject at hand it seems extremely unusual to insist on its removal from the article. These users have engaged in a pattern of disruptive editing of the article for some time, attempting to keep any information from reliable sources quoting credible figures out of the article if it in any way conflicts with the "intelligence assessment" of the US government. The Talk archive shows the majority of the article's editors support a more balanced text, but report being "exhausted" by the efforts of the disruptive editors. An article ban or page ban on the users in question may be necessary to allow the community to build a more accurate and balanced article without disruption. Adlerschloß (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a good removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with BB on that- looks pretty speculative. Incidentally, Adlerschloß, it's not the best idea to breach WP:1RR on an article ([176], [177]), when you have already been advised of discretionary sanctions being enforced. As for the advisability of then advertising that on one of the most heavily-patrolled dramaboards we have, I say nothing — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which does not require admin tools. Please continue to discuss on the article talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is a simple content dispute in which Adlerschloß seems to be the only one edit warring[178][179]. Neither Objective3000 or Volunteer Marek have been disruptive.- MrX 12:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Christy Clark

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

---

Hello--

Christy Clark is currently engaged in an election campaign, seeking reelection as Premier of British Columbia on May 9, 2017 .

Over the last week, since the election campaign began, my edits and copy under "Controversies" on Ms. Clark's page have been repeatedly vandalized. I can testify that my copy is well-cited and the references are sourced according to WIkipedia guidelines. I am happy to debate tone and neutrality, and I am also happy to comply with reasonable requests for edits and adjustments when warranted, and I do.

In this case the section is "Controversies" and it so happens there are many. The sense or suggestion of non-neutrality called for in one dispute (perhaps the only legitimate editor?) is odd--sensing perhaps that a scandal should not be referred to as a scandal? Even when the news sources cited refers to it as such? When an Ombudsperson or an Attorney-General calls it such? I suggest that the sudden interest in disrupting my copy is not actually questions of neutrality, but may actually be a politically motivated attempt to eliminate from the public record this politician's long list of actual, verifiable, scandals.

A clue as to the latest episode of vandalism, to note: The editors trackied from a time zone +7 hours from our Pacific Time Zone, which puts them just off the coast of Africa and Europe in the Atlantic Ocean. I think only a few remote islands lay claim to this time zone.

Again, whole passages of copy just wiped out clean. I have referred to the WIkipedia Dispute Resolution for your protocol and I find this:

When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add.

In all of the cases of vandalism--and there have been now several, from varied editors--there has been no attempt to improve or balance any of my copy. In all cases the editors have simply stripped the copy outright to eliminate the majority of the content under "Controversies", as far as the Wiki will allow, I suspect.

I hope an impartial Wikipedia Administrator might review the recent week's history on this page. I am bringing this also to the attention of media because I am certain this amounts to political interference. I also wish to grow and maintain good standing as a WIkipedia editor, in the public service, and I hope we might favourably resolve this matter for the sake of integrity and the public record.

Sincerely, Theadjuster (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Theadjuster: Content has been removed by a number of veteran editors and admins. You have called these edits "vandalism" and continued to edit war. The appropriateness of contentious information in a BLP which has been challenged via removal should be discussed on the article's talk page. Please start doing so before you are sanctioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And blocked for 48 hours, per BLP discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call, NeilN. As blatant a bit of political POV-pushing as I've seen in a long time. @Theadjuster: If you add the same or similar material again when this block expires, you should expect your next block to be significantly longer. Once your additions have been reverted, you should go and discuss them on the article talk page and seek consensus, not try to bludgeon your way to your preferred version. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Theadjuster has edited two articles since starting in September 2016. Christy Clark is the subject of this report and the undue Controversies section has been removed. However, the other article is Rich Coleman which proudly displays a similar Controversies hit piece. According to the articles, Clark and Coleman are, respectively, Premier and Deputy Premier of British Columbia. A topic ban may be needed if the issue persists. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I see the "Controversy" section in Rich Coleman was built almost entirely by Theadjuster too, and it makes up the bulk of the article. I suggest nuking that section and then starting again, with discussion on the article talk page to seek consensus on what should be included. Anyone agree? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources, press releases, OR? Yeah, I think we can safely nuke that section. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed it and have explained on the talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Looking further back, it seems SPA User:Mediararus did the same kind of thing at Christy Clark before Theadjuster came along - see this diff. I can't help thinking there's something socky or meaty going on here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• A wife showed up after the OP was blocked. [180] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• And was met with an appropriate response, I see. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee and NeilN: Theadjuster explicitly identified Mediararus as his account in this diff. /wiae /tlk 14:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, well spotted, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

I edit something true and bot give me warning.. what do i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelraval (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Angelraval If you believe your edit was a good-faith contribution and ClueBot NG made an error, report it here. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 14:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Angelraval: But please don't add unsourced trivia to articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• An IP made a complaint re CBNG yesterday, but I deleted it. I do know that Cluebot is down for STiki purposes, but that shouldn't affect it's judgment. L3X1 (distant write) 14:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

All 3 edits by Angelraval have been unsourced trivia, so no evidence of malfunction by Cluebot. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that the fact that the other two removals were not bot removals makes a case of a malfunctioning bot even less creditable.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Tecsatan: Using legal threats on talkpage

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)

I've blocked His Illustrious Highness, the Count Adam Nicholas Schemanoff, BSc (Hons), FdSc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I wasn't supposed to deep fry the eagle? No one ever told me L3X1 (distant write) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

You wouldn't expect kings to know the finer points of electoral law, tho'. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

And the source of His Highness's nobility: [181]. (Don't beat me for spamming, I couldn't resist.) — kashmiri ^TALK 22:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

@MjolnirPants: It was on his userpage, but has since been removed. Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

The deed has been done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Oh my God, Pinky and the brain.... best TV show ever! ...NARF! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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 - 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)

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 [182] [183], [184] 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)

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)

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)

Apologies. He signs with "Robert Walker." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Joshua Jonathan, in terms of "renewed topic-ban": Please submit the administrator's diff from the user's talkpage imposing a previous topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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: [185]. He made one post a few days ago, which was a concise summary of his perceived problems with the article: [186]. 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 [187] 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)

Yep, that's right... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at Talk:Four Noble Truths, which the OP asserts Robertinventor "has been flooding with his comments", I only see one single comment by Robertinventor since December 2016 [188], a concise summary of what he perceives to be problems with the article: [189], which Joshua Jonathan summarily deleted three hours later [190], in blatant violation of WP:TPG. It seems to me therefore that if anyone needs a topic ban from the article (or other sanction), it is more likely to be Joshua Jonathan. – Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well he has posted but hasn't addressed the matter, so you are right. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

• Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch, please stop deleting and or collapsing other editors' text on Talk:Four Noble Truths. See WP:TPO and WP:TPG. Moreover, if text is collapsed, an explanation should be given in the title of the collapse, and should be signed and dated using four tildes, so that everyone can see who collapsed the text, when, and why. I have now uncollapsed the myriad instances on Talk:Four Noble Truths. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• @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)

• 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)

• Comment @Softlavender: - thanks so much for reverting[191] 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[192]. @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 [193] 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: [194]. 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[195]. 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)

• 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)

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 [196] -- 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)

@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)

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 [197], Tibetan [198], Therevadhan [199], 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)

@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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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: [200]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Clear. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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. ([201], [202], [203], [204]) VietPride10 (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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 [205] 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 [206]. 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 [207]. 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 [208] [209] [210] [211] yet they continue to change it. Brocicle (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Also amusing that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the anonymous editors but you know. Oath2order (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

You're interpreting tone to your own will. Also yes, you did add high and low in this edit here [212] 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

User:SevenGear23

User:SevenGear23 consistently adds unreferenced controversial information [213], [214] and removes my warnings from his talk page [215]. Please, help me with the issue. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

• Corvus tristis, users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages, see WP:OWNTALK. Unless you have some more diffs of problematic edits to articles, this thread is pretty much done. Softlavender (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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: [216], [217], [218], [219]

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: [220], [221], [222]. 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: [223], [224] 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Comment - If you're in reading mode I suggest you check this ANI-discussion about "Rævhuld" from 8 March 2017, just after the account was created, and the swiftly removed message (see bottom of page) I posted on their talk page on 12 March might also be of interest. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As for unverified content, some of it is here:[225], [226], [227], [228]. 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)

• Comment 2 - "Rævhuld" is also trolling the German Wikipedia, doing the exact same thing there as here, trolling that has drawn the attention of de-WP administrators, including a block for personal attacks yesterday... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

• Comment When I saw the user page with all the self awarded barnstars and ITIS awards I thought he looked familiar. Starting to sound more and more NOTHERE. L3X1 (distant write) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Seems like there are no takers this time either. Odd. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand that statement, Thomas.W L3X1 (distant write) 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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. [229].SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

Also see his reply to my ANI notice for the thread above [230]. I didn't even think to check his block log when I made that report... – Train2104 (t • c) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

In context, that seems ridiculously disproportionate. Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

(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)

@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)

(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)

Ignored.SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support Indef: This user seems to have a sustained history of incivility, including over the short-term. The particular comments raised here go beyond garden variety personal attacks and into truly hostile, abusive language, with more than a little bit of a territorial/intimidatory character. Given this user's apparent inability to internalize even a baseline adherence to our civility standards, despite a long tenure here and multiple blocks for similar behaviour, an indef seems entirely appropriate. Meaning no offense to Mr rnddude, but I don't think a temporary block (of any length) is prudent. Even if Sparkling's comments had been much more targeted and caustic, it would only be an argument for examining her conduct, not excusing Fabartus' comments, which were simply not acceptable. Most importantly, an indef will require Fabartus to actually come to terms with what is unacceptable (under our community standards) in their approach here, and articulate to either an admin or the community how they intend to approach similar situations in the future. That's a significant distinction in a case like this where a user has continued to exhibit the same behaviour repeatedly over the course of years and could easily wait out a block and then return to the same approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:StephenTS42

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

---

StephenTS42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has been uncivl and has vandalized my user talk page multiple times now. This isn't his first ANI, and I believe at this point that a much longer block is need for this user. Links to the differences: [231] [232] [233] [234]. —JJBers 22:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:POINTY, edit warring, blanking pages, apparently using multiple IPs

• 2.216.82.255 (talk · contribs) Disruptive account, blanking pages and apparently using multiple accounts to make a point; see [235]. I took this to AIV, was advised to come here. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, 2.216.82.255 (talk · contribs) and 90.199.99.38 (talk · contribs) are the same editor - they are registered to the same UK broadband provider and there's no overlap in their editing, so it looks like their dynamically-assigned IP has changed. It seems that this is all about the sourcing of the section on local cricket in Roxwell. The IP objects to the standards of sourcing being required there and so is going around blanking the articles of local football leagues where sources that are (perceived to be) of a similar standard are used. That seems pretty clearly POINTy, though I'm not sure it's yet risen to the level of needing admin intervention. There's also absolutely no discussion of the disputed material (as opposed to sources) on the article talk page. I'd be interested to hear User:Charlesdrakew's views on this. GoldenRing (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked 2.216.82.255 for 48 hours for the harassment at User talk:Charlesdrakew. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC).

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)

Looks like a content dispute. Why not try engaging the user on the article talk page? El_C 06:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

We're not very good at mind reading. Who are you talking about? Softlavender (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

(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)

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)

• Here is the IP-hopper edit-warring (vandalizing) for months on end on this one article (since August 2016 [236]): [237]. 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)

• 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)

• It's definitely deliberate vandalizing, and he's been doing it since August 2016: [238] (actually for one year, since April 2016, but different vandalism then: [239]). Softlavender (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

(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)

This is not the place to "ask general questions", this is the place to report incidents, so don't come here with veiled accusations and then complain when the (very thin) veil is torn away. As for not coming here again... really, nobody should ever come here, and doing so repeatedly is a sickness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a fucking joke people, ON MYSELF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Neither Softlavender or I are admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not been here for months. I have reported incidents in the past. I meant that I will never come here to report an incident again. Akld guy (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, Akld guy, where did I lure you into a trap? Read what I have written above -- I have indicated that the IP-hopper has been vandalizing that article for at least a year. It is Beyond My Ken who has accused you of malfeasance, not me; I have supported you every step of the way. Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My IQ Range needs to apologize to me for jumping in boots and all and shooting the messenger before determining what the situation was. Akld guy (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hurling a quasi-NPA isn't going to help you, so I suggest you strike it.

Look, your inquiry fit the mold of many that get posted here, the "hypothetical" problem which is claimed to be a discussion of generalities but turns out to be a specific question about a specific circumstance. People ought not to do that, and people ought to be told not to do it when they do it, so they don't do it again, and people who read it learn that it shouldn't be done. As Softlavender said, you should have said right off the bat what the problem was, and not hid behind generalities. You didn't come here because you had a burning desire to know about whether country blocks were a possible thing, you came here because you're having a dispute with an IP, and you should have just said so, laid out the situation and seen what kind of response you got. I get that you're pissed off now, and I apoloigize for my part in bringing that about, but, frankly, you're neglecting your own part in causing that situation to occur, don't you think? A striaght-forward and honest approach would have brought about a much different result, one (probably) much more to your liking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

BMK, please stop. Your hostility is counterproductive and your accusations unfounded. You have turned what could have been a productive ANI resolution and intervention against rampant vandalism into an attack on an inexperienced good-faith user who has done nothing whatsoever wrong except get upset at your unfounded accusations and your out-of-the-blue hostility. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I reject your premise and doubt your projected conclusion. You have also now several times ignored your own considerable part in the debacle. You're also projecting hostility from somewhere, 'cause it ain't coming from me. Nevertheless, this is going nowhere, whether or not I'm here, so I'm gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please indicate, with diffs, my "considerable part in the debacle" and my "hostility". Softlavender (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The OP was specific from the first sentence, so I honestly don't know what you're on about, BMK. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I must be tripping, 'cause that's not how I read it at all. Doesn;t matter, I be gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Schwede66 is offline now but I will ping him here anyway for when he returns. Schwede66, can you help rectify this situation? I'm not sure how familiar you are with the disruptive Filipino IP-hopper, but we have direct proof here that he has been steadily vandalizing the Onehunga Branch article for more than a year. Can you place a considerable-term semi-protection on it? Or at the very least longterm pending changes. I do not know how many articles are affected by the IP-hopper's vandalism, and unfortunately BMK seems to have scared Akld guy away by making uninformed accusations and bitey comments. Do you know which other articles are the main ones affected? Softlavender (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, Softlavender, disagreeing whether a template should be on an article is not vandalism - please re-read WP:VALDALISM to confirm that. It is a content dispute, and both the IP and Akld guy were involved in a slow-motion edit war over that dispute. I happen to think that the IP is wrong and that Akld guy and the other editors who reverted the IP are right, but that doesn't turn edit warring into vandalism, so please stop saying it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh good grief, please review WP:VANDALISM. This is not a content dispute. This is article vandalism that has gone on for over a year. Softlavender (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Party A wants the template in the article, Party B doesn't. They take turns reverting each other. That's not vandalism, that's edit warring over a content dispute. Cite what part of WP:VANDALISM covers it, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please review the entirety of the IP-hopper's 22 edits to the article from 2 April 2016 forward [240], which encompasses a multitude of forms of vandalism, including wanton and repeated removal of that template. The wanton removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

G'day, from what I can see, semi protection of the Onehunga Branch article would possibly be supportable in the circumstances, if only for a short period of time to break the cycle of edit warring. I'd suggest that at the same time, a discussion should be started about the edit on the talk page to establish consensus there for or against it. The IP could then be invited to participate and explain themselves. If consensus is established to keep the template, and the IP edits against that, then the article could be semi protected for a longer period, or a range block applied. As Schwede66 has already been pinged and appears to have dealt with the IP before, I will defer to their judgement, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Akld guy and the IP have been here before, in DecemberSeptember (IP blocked for 1 month), November (IP blocked for 31 hours, but unclear if that had anything to do with the ANI report) and October (IP blocked twice, but probably not because of the ANI report). The strange thing about the repeated removal of the template is that it seems to have been the IP who added that template in the article in the first place, even reverting another user who removed it. Sideways713 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As someone who regularly criticised other people for calling something vandalism when it's not clear it is, I for once can't agree that it was a mistake to call this vandalism. Of course it's true that disagreement over a template can be a legitimate content dispute and not vandalism. And even doing it repeatedly may be WP:edit warring, but not necessarily vandalism. But remember, WP:Vandalism says:

Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense. Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

For the first few edits, perhaps it could be said "readily apparent by examination of the content itself", but when people have reverted and there seems to have been resonable requests for an explanation but none has been offered, this is hard to justify. When other content was removed repeatedly, again even if an argument could be made at the beginning the explanation was obvious, once it keeps getting repeated without any further explanation, and when again attempts were made to seek an explanation, thist just further adds to the resonableness of calling it vandalism.

Perhaps an even more important point is it doesn't really matter. It's resonable to call out people when they're calling something vandalism and therefore potentially making problems in communicating with the other editor concerned. And it's also important that editors understand what vandalism is so they don't make mistakes in the future which could cause problems. But in this case it simply doesn't seem productive. When someone is unable or refuses to communicate when it's needed despite repeated attempts to get them to do so, they're clearly not a suitable editor for wikipedia. And whether you feel you should still WP:AGF after evidentally a year of removing content without any actual explanation and repeated requests for one or simply call it vandalism seems a pointless argument.

Incidentally, I also agree with others that the hostility by BMK here seems unnecessary. Maybe the first question wasn't perfect, but while it's true the sort of 'asking about another editor's behaviour without actualling naming them' questions are generally unwelcome, that doesn't apply here. Maybe this wasn't the best place for the initial question but compared to the many clearly pointless threads, this one seems to have unsurprisingly evolved into a useful one that it simply makes no sense to criticise so harshly the original post/s.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The only real criticism I can come up with is the lack of use of the article talk page. I've said before, that a possible content dispute with zero activity on the talk page, no matter what was said in edit summaries or on editor talk pages is generally not a good sign. But this case is so simple with zero actual communication from the IP that I'm reluctant to say that here. Especially since I can't help thinking there may be at least one instance when it was tried. Nil Einne (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Been on a short holiday; now back. A few weeks back, I looked into the situation. The edit warring and the disruptive edits always follow a similar pattern, and it's easy enough when you go through the contributions of a particular IP address that the anon is going through a variety of articles, from one railway station to the next, and the pattern reappears with a new IP address some time later. The Auckland rail network is extensive and I'm not sure that article protection would be helpful other than pending changes. I haven't come across a single edit of Filipino articles that has been reverted (at least I can't remember having come across it) so the editor seems to be genuinely confused about what's going on in Auckland (there were some changes going on in the network, and much of it was about content dispute). The Auckland topics editing behaviour is most certainly disruptive. So overall, I'd favour pending changes protection over a rangeblock. Any other thoughts? Schwede66 02:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Schwede, thanks for posting your thoughts. Pending changes seems like a reasonable solution to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No reverts of Filipino articles? Take a look at WayKurat's contribs. He was reverting almost all of this offender's Philippines edits a month ago, when I asked Schwede66 to be pro-active on the offender rather than asking me to assemble and present a mountain of diffs which he might act on. Akld guy (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Asking us to look at the contributions from a month ago is about as practical as is compiling a mountain of diffs. El_C 06:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I've gone through the contributions of the IPs compiled by Beyond My Ken and pending changes protected three articles. Schwede66 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Coffee

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

---

FWIW: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Coffee&diff=prev&oldid=776154270

Not sure if I am reading the implications correctly, but if so someone needs to call 911. --Tarage (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:EMERGENCY contacted. Sam Walton (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, contacted some 30 minutes ago (they are looking into it), and local police are already aware of situation as well. Nothing more we can do here now. Fram (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, which is why I posted it here. I'd rather bring attention to it than pretend I didn't see it and regret not acting. Feel free to close/delete/whatever this section. --Tarage (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Wouldn't revdeling it be a smart idea? It's one of the suggested actions on WP:EMERGENCY. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The page says that issues of this nature require "discretion on the questions of blocking or removal of posts". In this case, where a core issue is the actions of administrators, I'm not sure deleting/rev-del would be an appropriate step to take. Sam Walton (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitely leave it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. revdeling and so on are more for threats of harm against others, here I would urge anyone not to take any action which could be seen as aggressive or negative in any way. (Layman's advice, I'm not trained or qualified for this). Fram (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Hoggardhigh

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

---

Page

Grady Nutt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Ike Altgens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Nashville tuning (high strung) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), et al.

User being reported

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

Comments

Continued violations of MOS:SERIAL and WP:DISRUPT, MYWAY and POINT. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

E.g. this tedious little campaign. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Given a chance to respond. Didn't. Blocked for 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:174.117.141.172

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

---

• Franco Vázquez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 174.117.141.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DISRUPT edit. Keep on changing the nationality despite the clear mos set up by WP:footy was stick with his international cap, whatever the player "change his mind" or not. Another ip vandal the page but not sure why the page protection was declined. Matthew_hk tc 03:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Already blocked for disruptive editing. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and What next

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

---

Resolved

I just reverted a case of vandalism where a page about Malayalam actor Prem Kumar was appropriated by an editor to talk about some Jharkhand actor (Revision before revert - [241]). However since its vandalism on 30th December 2016, a new page on the Malayalam actor has come up - Prem Kumar (malayalam actor). What needs to be done about this new page now? Jupitus Smart 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

N Deleted per WP:A10. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Vandal reverting constructive edits

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

---

User:Shellwood is reverting constructive edits on Bikini and has violated the three revert rule — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirtBrain69 (talk • contribs)

As he should. See WP:3RRNO. What you added was a clear WP:BLP-violation. Kleuske (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

OP indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Reyk and personal attacks

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

---

Please see this discussion at the Village Pump. Reyk made this edit. I asked them to retract/apologise, which they refused. Please can someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And I've just seen the edit summary on the first diff too. Appreciate a rev-del. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't like people poking through years-old edits looking for gotchas. That I was wrong three years ago and now know better doesn't make me wrong now. I also don't appreciate smug baiting, so knock that shit right off. Reyk _YO! 08:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact here is that you react so quickly with a personal attack hints you're not here to help. And that you refuse to acknowledge that you made an attack in the first instance is also a big concern. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Leave me alone. Reyk _YO! 08:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I originally closed the thread [242], but Lugnuts was unhappy, went to my talk page User talk:Ymblanter#Closure, and, after my explanations, was still unhappy and said I have a hidden agenda against them. Then I decided to reopen the thread in hope someone will apply WP:BOOMERANG to stop their rant.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Forget it then. Hardly a rant to be so disappointed with the initial outcome of this. I thought calling another editor a fuckwit was never acceptable. Sorry, I'm wrong here. I'm done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've heard of Suicide by Cop but I didn't know Suicide by Admin was a thing. Bringing this dispute here was clearly done in the heat of the moment, but pushing for it to be re-opened - well, it wasn't the best idea. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true that Reyk's language was less than optimum; but there's no doubt that many would consider this to be rather provocative, however it was intended. I'm not sure I'd go as far as suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG- but insistng that this was a bad close, and then casting WP:ASPERSIONS on the closing admin as having a hidden agenda is almost becking for a 24 hour break. The close, basically, took heat and light off both parties. Lugnuts, if you can't see that was basically doing you a favour, then it's bound to look as if you just want your pound of flesh. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

FIM - Myself and Ymblanter have crossed paths in the past, hence my feelings on this. To say I was enraged by their closure would be an understatement. But it's lunchtime here. I'll go and get some nice humble pie and forget about this whole thing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Here too Lugnuts. I recommend turkey noodles :) mmmm — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmmmm turkey. Or maybe some cooked goose would be more apt. Enough! Hunger is calling. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, are you sure you posted the right diff there? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: lol :) clearly Isadore's software is very provocative I was looking at something to be AfD'd or not. Thanks for catching that! -changed the link. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

SlitherioFan2016 Again

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

---

In case it isn't bleedingly obvious, someone should block this account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brony4689

Also, we need a new rangeblock, since he's just creating new accounts and causing random acts of vandalism, including reverting his own vandalism in an attempt to make his puppet account seem more 'legit'. --Tarage (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And no, I am not going to notify the user because they are obviously a sock. There's no other explanation for randomly coming to my talk page and trying to archive it minutes after being created. I really don't want to bother giving him time to respond. --Tarage (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I blocked him. If someone tracked down the IP addresses he's using, it'd be easier for me to tell if range blocks are possible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

They aren't, unfortunately. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a small list of his Melbourne IPs, but you said it was too far apart for a range block. L3X1 (distant write) 14:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Hi Administrators

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

---

Hello, I am User:Vvven, I can not connect to my user account, I even wanted to enter placing my email, but this do not recognize the email. I hope you help me. I was given a warning in the recent past, they told me that the next block but was not a next time because I did not contribute until today in anything else. I ask that, try to solve the problem. Thank you--200.35.214.201 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So you don't know your own password? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know my password and also all my emails, I put them but I can not enter.--200.35.214.201 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, please anyone help me since I am a user that I make many contributions in the day, more than everything creating articles, I can not enter my user for a week--200.35.214.201 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Check your caps lock, maybe. But there's really nothing anybody here can do to help you otherwise — you may be able to get some help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but this isn't an issue that ANI can do anything about. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the fact that you were warned is (so far as I can tell) unrelated to the problem you're having with getting logged in. You haven't been blocked, and even if you had been, that wouldn't disable your login. Try Bearcat's suggestions just above, and good luck! ReverendWayne (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

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

---

Page is getting 'spammed' again. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? At a glance I'm not seeing a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A few admins went through the list added by an IP and took care of it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: This and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#Vandalism_report.2C_since_AIV_is_currently_locked --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that link, NeilN. I haven't looked to see how it was handled, but it appeared suspicious. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition to spamming WP:AIV they will also make edits like this, which just irritates me to no end. This is all the same banned user, and it's too bad because I kinda have to let them do their thing. The edits obviously aren't vandalism, and apparently not everyone even sees the AIV spamming as disruptive either. I see them active with a new IP pretty much every day, and I can't do anything about it, I just let it happen. It's hard, knowing when someone is a sock but holding back anyway, at least for me. Sro23 (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

GUNNIER - incessant article creation and harassment

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

---

• GUNNIER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rachelmears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wishram Fishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

GUNNIER has been making copy-cat articles about Wishram Fishing (see also Yakama Dip Netting and Yakama fishing). These articles were deleted as A10 for hand net. GUNNIER recreated Wishram Fishing today, which I renominated for CSD. Rachelmears removed my CSD template shortly afterwards (something GUNNIER had done repeatedly yesterday). Then, the final straw, reverted a random edit of mine here. This is now harassment on top of either CIR issues or STICK issues. User seems to be NOTHERE anymore. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

SPI filed they sure look alike. L3X1 (distant write) 22:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked GUNNIER. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

SPI confirmed, blocked by Bbb23. L3X1 (distant write) 00:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behaviour by User:Huyandrew99

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

---

Apologies if this isn't the right place to report this, unfortunately I don't know where else I should be posting this but will be happy to be pointed in the right direction (I've tried reporting it as vandalism but it was declined).

Huyandrew99 (talk · contribs)

72.220.189.39 (talk · contribs)

has a history of disruptive behaviour. I'm pretty sure they're the same editor but reminded Huyandrew99 about editing while logged out yesterday rather than heading straight for a sock report & the IP has not been active since. Problematic behaviour includes:

1. Adding social media links to articles [243] & reverting numerous times when they are removed as per WP:LINKNO [244] [245] [246] [247] [248]
2. Adding unsourced/trivial/potentially unsuitable WP:BIO material [249] to articles and similar reverts [250] [251]
3. Adding incorrect &unsourced information to List of Daytona 500 broadcasters [252] & reverting [253] [254] [255] (WP:3RR warning given).

User's talk page is littered with warnings, none are ever responded to by the user, and as yet there has been no follow through in the form of a ban for this disruptive editing. Seeking assistance. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor blocked one week and hardblocked the IP for the same.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Jhené Aiko protection log issue

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

---

Whenever I go to deal with a pending edit at Aiko's page, this top entry in the protection log becomes visible:

• 04:16, 7 January 2017 Materialscientist moved pending changes settings from Jhené Aiko is ugly to Jhené Aiko (Jhené Aiko is ugly moved to Jhené Aiko) (hist)

(Emphasis added.) That means it's also visible to anyone who edits the page, even if it's only briefly before it gets hidden. Would an admin please unprotect the page and immediately reprotect it with "per ANI discussion" or something like that? It's not the biggest issue ever but I'm really grossed out that whoever did that page move accidentally got that kind of lowkey yet enduring vandalism power on a BLP. The relevant edits were subjected to RevDel in the page's edit history (although, uh, not in the corresponding talk page's history). I asked User:Materialscientist twice for help with this and both times, I was wiped out in a mass archiving without getting a reply. CityOfSilver 19:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Have a peek now, I revdel'd those specific changes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• And I got the edit summaries in the talk page history. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• When this happens it is usually best to re-protect, otherwise editors click on the prominently displayed protection details box and get presented with "(log details removed) (edit summary removed)". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• @RickinBaltimore and Floquenbeam: I can't say for sure who did what but, um, dagnabbit. The new entry is for a move back from "Jhené Aikhoe," which is kinda worse. The one before that, from 2014, could work. (And the moves were done by the indeffed User:TorontoCanada999, who created the same issue with Drake.) CityOfSilver 20:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• OK, the most recent change should now show I re-applied the protection, related to an ANI discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• @RickinBaltimore: That's a lot better. Thanks everyone for this. CityOfSilver 20:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

user:GLPeterson

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

---

GLPeterson (talk · contribs), a continual edit warrior on things Tesla, (ANI here ANI/3RRArchive with block hereANI here) has taken to (for some mysterious reason) wholesale reverting, and then reverting back, large sections of article content across two articles with no comment other than ‎ (******* OLD INFORMATION *******) or ‎ (******* Non-polarized Version *******)[256][257][258][259][260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267][268][269][270][271]. His normal MO seems to be to PUSH to insert his views, get slapped by administrator action, lay low for a few months, then come back at it. He seems to mirror allot of content from his own websites, sites listed at his other user name - User:GaryPeterson, at his user space, along with extensive copies of "his" versions Wikipedia articles[272][273]. He also maintains a directory of "his" versions of articles on his user main page[274]. This seems to be a continuous record of WP:NOTHERE behavior. A topic ban has been suggested before in other ANI's. This new behavior doesn't seem to fall under any of the points of WP:DISRUPT. It does seem to be "Intentionally making abusive edits" re:WP:VANDAL. Noticed another editor asked GLPeterson what he was doing and he blanked it[275]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Indeffed. He can offer assurance that he won't be doing it again from an unblock request...he'll have a harder time ignoring that.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

• Post note: I have accepted his unblock request since he assures that it won't happen again. Let's hope that we don't go down that road again.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

edit war at two nuclear sites in Belgium, Doel and Tihange

I would like you to mention the ongoing edit war at the wiki's of:

• Doel Nuclear Power Station
• Tihange Nuclear Power Station

Here there is User:MCvarial, User:SDeSchep, and a few "anonymous" editors like User:62.205.127.160 and User:212.123.4.132

MCvarial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC) , SDeSchep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC) , 62.205.127.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC) ,212.123.4.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure that these people has quite some knowledge about nuclear power, and all things attached to this subject. Mcvarial has mentioned that he live near the Doel Nuclear Power station, maybe within 20 kilometers. But he has such a positive point of view about all what is happening there. I wonder whether he studied nuclear physics and he might even worked there or might still involved with the plant.

In fact I doubt his neutrality in this matter. These are safe plants, never seen a saver plant anywhere ?

A month ago the Belgium government took away the license for disposing nuclear waste, besides the used fuel bars, those are stored from the all the beginning of these station, all other nuclear waste was processed at the plant, and after this it was stored see: [[276]]

Mcvarial like us to believe that this processing never was done, and that all was stored from the beginning at the plant. Accoding to him was Belgoprocess, the industrial daughter of NIRAS in Dessel, never involved by all this, what so ever...

But then I cannot see the relevance of the newspaper article mentioned otherwise.

In the past Mcvarial has put me away as an an enemy of Islam. When he made a complaint about me on this place, a few days ago. He took that away rather fast, but this is another insult from his side. Recently he did repeat this allegation another time.

I would like an end to this edit war, and in the mean time preserve the neutral position of wikipedia.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, have you taken this to the edit warring noticeboard ? L3X1 (distant write) 17:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I sure would like that, the problems here make me think that wikipedia is not neutral at all, when we take FANC and the people working there as neutral. The way mister Mcvarial is behaving, and he tries to put me away. I'm fed up with this. J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out User:User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse has also made 'contributions' on the Dutch article: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Kerncentrale_Doel

Where he encountered similar resistance like on the English page, by multiple users and is now trying to push his views trough this way.

Wikipedia articles should be based on objective sources and is not a tool to push an agenda one way or another, User:User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse has shown he cannot do this.

In fact his accusations aren't even remotely true and much like the content he has contributed isn't backed up by facts and wildy editorialized.

MCvarial (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

[P]ut me away as an an enemy of Islam—proof? El_C 19:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It is to me ridiculous that the nuclear safety authority (FANC) which is a governmental organisation, is not an acceptable reference to User:User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse. I have offered to answer his questions on his talk page multiple times, but he just continues editing the article without asking me relevant questions. His talk about the neutral position of Wikipedia is also not founded on any real basis. The neutral position is not based on who provides the reference, but on the reference itself. It does not matter then if any poster works for Greenpeace or Electrabel. The information and the factual manner in which it is presented are what counts. This is the case for the edits I have provided. SDeSchep (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

BLPCRIME

There is a BLPCRIME issue on 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing - my removal was just reverted by 200.45.195.7. If I remember correctly this is one of those "rm on sight and notify admins immediately" issues, so I hope I'm in the right place. My understanding is there are current ongoing legal developments regarding the psychiatric history of the accused,, and that its a BLPCRIME violation to update unresolved legal developments, especially using language like "perpetrator" and "attacker" before there is a conviction (or some other kind of equivalent resolution in this case, whatever that may be.) This page isn't part of DS for some reason, but I would still prefer admin input on this, thanks. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Another great example of why we should simply not have articles on new topics in current events until they've been out of the headlines for 4 weeks. EEng 21:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I told the deletion crew to wait a month after it was finished to nominate it. United 3411 and this are on the June nom list. L3X1 (distant write) 21:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What, precisely, is "the deletion crew", L3X1? I have been editing for eight years and have never heard that term. I thought that we were all the encyclopedia building crew. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

2 or 3 other editors and myself, who follow NOTNEWS. They are either the noms or the Deletion Review nominators. I voted delete, along with many other ediotrs, but supported the close as keep. L3X1 (distant write) 02:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Cullen328 ping, back in 8 hours L3X1 (distant write) 02:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Where exactly is this list? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 In my head. L3X1 (distant write) 14:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: I guess I'm a bit concerned when anyone talks about coordinating deletions with a sizable group. You plus "2 or 3 other editors" is enough to sway the outcome of most AfDs if you were coordinating, given low participation. How exactly is this "crew" operating? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Ah, I understand now. AFAIK no one is "plotting" to do anything. Come June, I plan on re-AFDing United 3411 and Light Rail Stabbing. I also plan on asking the original nominator of 3411 and the editor who appealed the closure if they think it should go up for deletion again. I am not planning on doing anything against policy re: SHOP, CANVAS, or MEATpuppetry. The editors are Primefac and Tvx1. Some 16 people vote delete on United 3411, but I don't plan on pinging any of them so as to avoid vote stack. Here is the (slightly useless) editor interaction report for the 3 of us, I have not colluded with anyone ever in an attempt to get something deleted under the radar. If you ask Primefac and Tvx1, they will probably tell you they have idea what I'm talking about, and that I'm nuts. This diff is my offer to re-nom. L3X1 (distant write) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that puts me more at-ease. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a one-off—Not to jinx it(!). El_C 23:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Too late! El_C 23:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed it per BLPCRIME a second time, but don't want to violate 3RR, even for a BLPCRIME violation Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You, however, are exempt (3RRNO, #7) from 1RR—BLPCRIME does apply. El_C 23:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible undisclosed paid editing

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

---

Please look at the articles Axtalent has created. [277] They deny being a paid editor but given the completely random topics, well-formatted initial efforts, and spammish nature of the subjects I have serious doubts about their denial. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As the person who reported this at WP:UAA, I share the same concerns as NeilN. This appears to be paid editing and the user has not disclosed this when given multiple opportunities to do so. -- Dane ^talk 17:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked at any of their creations but there's clearly some contrib stalking going on here on their end - tagging all the reporting user's articles (incorrectly, at that.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly related to this? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMZahidIqbal RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Promotional editing, lying, and revenge-tagging of others' articles? I'd say this editor needs to get off the train at the next station. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked per this and WP:DUCK. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Softblock? El_C 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This really, really should be a hard block. --Yamla (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nihonjoe? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It should certainly be a hardbloch, imho, as the username is the least of this account's breaches of our rules. Spamming, lying about it, breach of contract... Etc. Just opinion of course- but I'm with Marcellus on UPE :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 19:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

How 'bout a WP:COOLDOWNBOCK? EEng 23:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Since Nihonjoe appears to be taking a lunch break, I've gone ahead and made it a hard block, per all of the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • • Hardblock is fine. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted all three articles as they were created against the TOU. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:EthnicKekistan

The name and contribution history of EthnicKekistan (talk · contribs), I'm mighty suspicious of this new editor's intentions. Am I being overly sensitive here? --Calton | Talk 16:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the username and the focus on alt-right groups is not the best start for a new editor, but so far their editing seems okay. I've notified them of DS. Another admin might well consider their username disruptive but I'm inclined to just keep an eye on them for the minute. GoldenRing (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't see blocking the name outright, but I could see an WP:RFC/N concluding that an identitarian username based on what is basically the biggest troll's nest on the internet is not conducive to harmonious editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

He's here to promote an alt-right movement he seems to be a part of: [278]. He created the article and began adding the groups name to any and every page mentioning "white nationalism": [279]. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

My username was intended as a joke, not as an expression of white supremacism or to cause disruption. I'm a civic nationalist. EthnicKekistan (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (ec) The article isn't FA-material, but it certainly isn't the worst article I've seen on Wikipedia. The subject is notable by GNG standards and the article is reasonably neutral. Nowhere close to promoting "an alt-right movement he seems to be a part of". Kleuske (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's a bit more neutral now. I am not convinced the joint is notable, but an AfD should decide on that. Not every club that stickers on a few campuses passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think I'm going to go ahead and open that RFC/N. The name essentially means "a nation only for white people" and however it was intended that's a really poor choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done [280] Please add any comments about the username there. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Cs california

The above user is making changes to the infobox location maps on hundreds of articles about New York City places -- presumably using semi-automated software -- without having held a centralized discussion to receive consensus to do so, and continues to make these changes after being told they need to have such a discussion [281]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a pattern. El_C 19:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that previous discussion, I've rolled back the majority of the edits - I may have missed some, and if I rolled back something I shouldn't have, any editor is welcome to restore it. I think that because the editor is certainly now aware of the need to get a consensus to make mass edits, if it happens again a block for disruption should be considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Kudos to Cs california for going through articles and adding the relevant maps. I fail to see what the issue is here, let alone what on Earth the "incident" is that Beyond My Ken has whipped up here. I've already started with reverts to BMK's edits for those articles that have appeared on my watchlist and I agree that BMK should be blocked if any further such incidents are manufactured. Alansohn (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Response Since they are my edits I think it is fair that I give a response. I do not see the issue here there is a box for maps on the building adding it in is in the template example. It seems like Beyond My Ken is manufacturing an incident based on his personal Ownership issues. Here is my following arguments to support this:

1. Beyond My Ken is not a against the maps but want control on how they are implement as seen here. Note that he said " any sentient person should already know where it is (New York)" I disregarded this for two reasons (1) he has previously shown to be against foreign users by made disparaging remarks a users where english is their second language such as a Vietnamese wikipedia sysops (IP shown here) rather than work with him and correct his grammatical mistakes he view them to be malicious (2) He can easily remove the USA tag and I would not even care.
2. Beyond My Ken is disregarding Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. If the maps were a major problem BMK should have asked to remove the map feature from the template box and request for discussion. But did not do that.
3. Maps help foreign users gain context on where and entity exist or occur. As seen above Beyond My Ken asked to remove the USA map from the mapgroup, which takes up one line of text and the map is hidden using javascript.
4. As seen with this and this edit Beyond My Ken does not mind maps pre-existing on pages but his reversions to my edits show full removal of maps rather than edits to accommodate his criteria. You can see the obvious vandalism and abuse of the rollback privileges here, where updated photo was added, here where an updated image was added, here where an image was removed again, here where coordinates incorporated into the template box was removed, here where coordinates were removed,here where a more detailed map was removed for a lower quality one, here where coordinates are removed,where WHOLE template boxes were removed, where WHOLE template boxes were removed, Remove WHOLE two template boxes just to show a few. Not to mention the user has also been previously blocked for edit waring
5. Last he used 2 year old issues tangentially related as a leverage for personal attacks despite the issue being resolved and hilarious claims where I am accused of using a bot. This can be disprove by the sparsity of the edits he rolled back above and a comparison of request sent from my IP compared to a wikipedia bot going through a list.

If any administrator can review both of our arguments and put your foot down on the issue it would be appreciated. --Cs california (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note I take your point, but still, if you're going to be making large-scale changes en mass, it's best to try to gain consensus for them (even if they seem like intuitive improvements) on the talk page of the pertinent Wikiproject. It only takes a minute or two. El_C 09:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with that if it was a new feature or something but if you look at both examples on Template:Infobox_building I am just filling in data that was not there. And I am not aware of the which wikiproject page you are referring to. But please also let me know what deems this reasonable for a Administrator noticeboard rather than a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests --Cs california (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't have hurt to leave a courtesy note at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City. And it would take a lot less time than writing all of the above. El_C 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pointedly: 1. There's no number, obviously. But you are trying to avoid running into editors who object to your mass changes—like was the case today, as was the case two years ago, as may be the case two years for now. 2. There is no requirement, there is trying to avoid friction with other editors. 3. No, you should not undo all your edits if they were useful, nor should you report users to my talk page if they sparsely repeat the same edits—that question is tendentious. 4. Why are you asking me? I will not indicate it, because I made no such claim. But you splitting the conversation in multiple forums is a problem. If you're going to continue to make mass edits without notice, you can continue to expect objections to occur from time to time. All which can be easily resolved with a brief courtesy note at the pertinent wikiproject. It's up to you: continue carrying on as before and run into difficulties like these, say, every two years, or be preventative. El_C 22:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Cs california's attempt -- with help from Alansohn -- to make this about me rather than about their actions is a fine example of "the best defense is a good offense", and I have nothing further to say about that. Here are some points that I believe should be considered:

• The discussion from two years ago was directly applicable to the situation now, which is why I relied on it as a model as to what should be done now: mass edits were made by Cs california without consultation and consensus, and when editors found out about those, and discussed them, the consensus was to roll them back. There was no real difference between the situations, nothing changed in the intervening years to make the consensus arrived at then inapplicable now, hence I feel quite justified in having rolled back the current edits. So did the several editors, including one very prominent admin, who thanked me.
• This is especially the case because I attempted to start a discussion about their edits on Cs california's talk page, and aside from asking, basically, "what's the problem", they did not discuss, but instead continued to make the edits. An editor who has had problematic editing brought to their attention and does not engage in discussion about it and continues to make the problematic edits should not be surprised when action is taken in regard to those edits.
• If in the process of rolling back hundreds of edits, I inadvertently deleted other material which should not have been reverted, I apologize for being human and occasionally making a mistake or two. Obviously, I have no problem with that material being restored, and invite any editor who wants to look through the hundreds of rollbacks and find it to do so.
• In the interest of accuracy, I have been blocked for edit warring 8 times in my 12 years here, and once for incivility. I am not proud of that, but those are the facts. They also have nothing whatsoever to do with this situation, and Cs california's bringing it up is simply an example of attempting to poison the well. (Just to relate this to another thread on this page, I only felt that two of those blocks were unjustified; the rest I deserved.)
• Cs california -- and Alansohn for that matter -- doesn't seem to know that the name of the location map on articles about historic districts automatically generates a category: thus if "Lower Manhattan" is the first location map, then the category "Historic districts in Lower Manhattan" is automatically generated and added to the article. If there is no such existing category, the cat added will be a redlink. Redlink categories are something to be avoided.
• To a certain extent, the addition of numerous maps to the location map reminds me of something we did as kids. We would string out the location of where we lived as far Ias possible, as in: I live in Personville, Idaho, United States, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Local Group etc. etc. It's fun and all, but there comes a point where it's totally unnecessary. Nobody looking up Macy's Herald Square needs to see where it is on a USA location map, because the scale of the map is only showing where New York City is, and Macy's Herald Square is not the article one should be going to to find out where New York City is located in the United States. The location map has a function: to show the reader where something specific is located, and the larger the scale becomes, the less that information is being provided. That's why "Manhattan" and "New York City" are sufficient to sites in Manhattan, and why the addition of "New York" (the state) and "US" is unnecessary and, frankly, silly. In any case, there are points to be made against them, as I have here, and (I assume) points to be made for them, which is why a consensus discussion was necessary, so that editors could express their viewpoints before the mass changes were made, instead of doing so afterwards.
• The other stuff that Cs california brings up, such as that I'm supposedly biased against foreign editors, is pure unadulterated garbage.
• I doubt that I have anything more to say about this, so unless someone wants an answer to a specific question, I don't plan to be posting in this thread again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Good heavens folks, it's just a push-pin map. (I observed the revert on Chicago Union Station but took no action.) Mackensen (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly why I think it is just a minor edit and if you did not like it you can just revert it like Mackensen but I see your case for no action since the infobox might get cluttered. --Cs california (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your mediation comments El_C. So if it was only the Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Why was it not put for discussion linking it to the page? I would have just stopped edits and put up for discussion before further edits. If this was not an WP:Ownership issue he would not escalate a small problem that could have been solved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

1. If you look at BMK's edits he never mentioned anything of that nature and just randomly accused me of using a bot.
2. The issue two years ago I made mass edits users redirected me to a project page and we discussed it there and we came to a consensus on maps on cities, this has nothing to do with that as it is a different template and project. They did not accuse me of randomly using a bot without proof tarnishing the credibility and there are no cases of my account being blocked as an issue of editwarring. Making comment on users thanking you for reporting is an irrelevant attempt to gain brownie points.
3. For the point of editwaring it is relevant to the point of WP:Ownership being a persistent problem this is not poisoning the well based on how the issue was handled this simple issue was rashly post to Admin notice board instead of discussing it in the WikiProjects page (as suggested by El_C) that I did not know about or the Dispute resolution as recommended by wikipedia. Note that there was not no attempt to link the wikiprojects page on my talk page either. Even recently you can see that BMK is again engaging in starting edit wars with Alansohn at 22:37, 16 April 2017. Even being blocked however many times he mentioned he persists in attacking users that touch his page demonstrating that the blocks were not really effective in addressing the WP:Ownership problem
4. " I inadvertently deleted other material which should not have been reverted," hence proving my case on careless abuse of the rollback feature to attack my edits. Other times where my edits had to be reverted other editors were courteous enough to not touch irrelevant content. Even when I mentioned this with links above no attempts were made to review or reverse the edits showing that blanking of content was intentional. Also his concerns were New York base pages but he reverse edits on many pages pertaining to San Francisco.
5. About the "historic districts" the majority of edits were not those type they were building hence this point is irrelevant. His attempt to drag user Alansohn into this is just another attempt to discredit users that edit pages pertaining to the WP:Ownership problem
6. I already addressed the issue with the multimaps above, the difference from this iteration to the previous from wikicities is that it does not clutter the infobox and is hidden by javascript to one line. As I mentioned before I do not care which map is in and you can edit it if you want, but most of the updates refined the map. The USA is just added on the end if you erased it I do not care. It was a very small issue.
7. Since he was against the placing #USA and had a incident with a previous user where English was their second language this is relevant for the accessibility of others. Otherwise I would not have brought it up.

This is just a BMK targeting my account for WP:Ownership issues on a small issue that can solved with simple Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution or consensus discussion link.--Cs california (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:CyberBrinda

Hi everyone,

OK, this user has submitted a review appeal on UTRS ticket is #17984. They were blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing back in October 2016 by SpacemanSpiff. There was also an accusation of them being a sockpuppet. Back in October 2016, they were offered the standard offer which they have taken us up on. They have said in their unblock appeal that they did not intend to be uncivil and they did not intend to vandalise Wikipedia. They've said that they have now read all the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and if unblocked, they promise to be open-minded and converse with other editors.

I asked CheckUser to run a CU check and Ponyo found nothing. Do we give them another chance?--5 albert square (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• An editor who did nothing but add utterly promotional material, "sourced" to non-RS pageant- and modelling blogs, pageant web sites and similar, and create tonnes of articles about utterly non-notable models and "beauty-queens", and showed all signs of being part of a very large net of intermeshed sockfarms (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove and others) that has engaged in that kind of very promotional editing for many years here? Umm, NO THANKS. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Looking through their contribution history, it is clear their acknowledgement of their past behavior is disingenuous. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 11:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• No. Or, just for fun, we can wait until This AfD, which is clearly the reason why they're back here, has concluded. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Classic :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So Its going to be declined? L3X1 (distant write) 22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I doubt anything useful is going to come out of unblocking here, in addition to the blatant promotional activity, he was abusing editors on here by calling them rabid dogs (this isn't the only such account I blocked, there's another one too who then explained that he meant to say "that's ok" in Japanese). Given that I think it'd be an incredible waste of time if this person were to be allowed back here again. —SpacemanSpiff 14:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect

• Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Steven Goldstein (civil rights activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a flurry of edits by what appear to be involved editors at both of these articles, the Anne Frank article and the article on its director. Both can use administrator attention. Note this edit containing a borderline legal threat. I saw this article referenced off-wiki so there may be further such activity. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• There's more than a little promotional language in those articles. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'd say the legal threat is more than borderline; "hostile and actionable changes to our Wikipedia page" strikes me as more than a little intimidatory--at the very least, there are significant WP:OWN and WP:COI issues here. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree on both points. What I saw offline indicated that people hostile to the center inserted some material, which was then removed by the center staff. The center staff has definitely, openly edited the article on the center itself (I haven't examined the Goldstein article just yet). Frankly the sourcing of the article is totally inadequate at present, consisting almost entirely of links to its website, and that may be a result of edits by the staff. Coretheapple (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User Joaquin93

User only restores articles to old versions, as you can see here and here. He does not give any explanation and does not answer the messages, it seems that he only wants to do vandalism.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Philip J Fry: You forgot to notify the editor. Recommend waiting to see if they edit without responding. If they do, then block to get their attention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest a short block now tbh. Minimal Trevor (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since April 17 (almost a day ago), so I believe that a block would be inappropriate unless this continues further and while this ANI discussion is open (so the user has a chance to respond and explain). I see warnings on this user's talk page, but I don't see where questions were asked or a request for an explanation was attempted. I don't see anything on this user's talk page nor on the article's talk page? Am I missing something? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I followed up with NeilN's ANI notice here with a request to join this discussion and help us understand the reason behind the reverts in question. Hopefully this helps the user to explain what the deal is. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between James Cantor and Sceptre

I propose that some type of WP:IBAN be enacted between James Cantor and Sceptre. Why? Because any time there is an interaction between them, it is toxic or highly toxic and pollutes any chance of a collegial editing environment. In fact, their interactions remind me of the interactions that Jokestress (Andrea James) had with Cantor. Ultimately, in 2013, that matter was taken to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology (a case I participated in), and Jokestress was topic-banned. Granted, Jokestress being taken to Arbitration was for more than just her hostility toward Cantor. She said bye and has not edited Wikipedia since, at least under the Jokestress account. I feel that when it comes to monitoring and attacking Cantor, Sceptre has taken the place of Jokestress. See this 2015 case, which resulted in this block, for the most egregious example. There was also this Arbitration request. One would think that after those 2015 matters, Sceptre would know to stay away from Cantor. After recently seeing Cantor in a dispute with an editor at the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article, an article that is on my watchlist, I wondered if Sceptre would show up there. I figured that wouldn't happen, though, given the 2015 matters. But the fact that it did happen, and has also turned into an attack case, is why I am here now. Except for this ANI report, I have so far refrained from weighing in on that latest dispute.

Look, passion is good to have on Wikipedia. I understand Sceptre's passion. I understand Cantor's passion. But we have rules that we are supposed to follow. And, as the WP:Advocacy essay/info page explains, advocacy is not supposed to get in the way of those rules. Will some administrators look into this matter? I don't think that Sceptre is the right person to be reverting Cantor or conversing with Cantor about transgender issues. Like Jokestress, I don't think that Sceptre has any self-restraint when it comes to being hostile toward Cantor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I think the dispute would be better served with a formal topic ban on Cantor to enforce the laughingly meaningless pledge he made on his talk page nearly a decade ago. Cantor has a history of pushing fringe theories and COI editing over the past ten years on this subject, including prior meatpuppetry, disguised with the excuse that he is apparently "an expert", while simultaneously to delete or otherwise denigrate reliable sources that contradict the cottage industry that he is a part of. Sceptre (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I support a IBan between the 2 (or 3 if necessary). L3X1 (distant write) 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe Flyer22 is correct. I can and do interact with people I disagree with all the time, but Sceptre continues to be unable/unwilling to address content rather than attacking me. There is little that can be done with an editor who uses because-it-comes-from-Cantor as sufficient reason to revert [282] and when asked to produce a WP-valid reason [283] simply repeats their POV "The real dispute is that Cantor and his ilk have been pushing the same unscientific bullshit for the past thirty years"[284] (etc.). As Sceptre has said specifically about me before: “I don't want him to contribute at all in the subject area. He should've been topic banned in Sexology and it's one of ArbCom's greatest mistakes that he wasn't”, telling me that "you and your child abusing friends can fuck the hell away from it."[285] Very clearly, Sceptre has decided to enact what she thinks ArbCom should have.

In case it is relevant, I believe these pages remain under discretionary sanctions after the Sexology case.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

James, you are inflexible, demanding your version and only your version. I found previous encounters with in in these areas to be fruitless as shown in this thread where your goal was to eliminate me from editing a specific article simply because you wanted it say only what you wanted it to say, and be turned into an advocacy puff piece to advance your agenda. I think arbcom got it wrong by not topic banning you from these areas.--MONGO 22:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I cannot say anything about that case that won't be immediately obvious to anyone who wants to read it: The case shows exactly the opposite of what Mongo says it does. In fact, it serves as quite a good example: When science says something that some activists dislike, activists of whichever extreme attempt to discredit the scientist with whatever vague claims, but the requests for actual evidence, RS's, diffs, or whatever, remain unmet.— James Cantor (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to reread my linked thread. I even suggested you do a spinoff (and I do not support POVFORKS)...but nothing offered was good enough. You just wanted the article turned into a platform to promote your POV.--MONGO 23:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether editors choose to do anything about the James Cantor and Sceptre interaction now or ignore it, I guarantee that this matter will be back here, or rather at WP:AN, in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe it is a problem that Sceptre would revert edits made by James Cantor apparently on the sole basis that he made them, as here for example, where the edit summary was, "rv removal of content from someone with self-admitted conflict of interest". More emphasis should be given to the quality of the edits, and the question of whether they improve the article, than on who made them. Sceptre should be encouraged not to make edits that make it look as though they are pursuing some personal conflict with Cantor, and if they cannot follow that advice, then maybe an interaction ban would be justified. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)