Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BlueSalix (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 12 April 2017 (→BlueSalix wikihounding). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    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: [1], [2], [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13].

    Diffs of reverts and warnings: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28].

    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)[reply]

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

    There's something more going on here than what Kingfisher claims. I note, for example, Kingfisher's removal[29] 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 [30], the marginal Independent Journal Review [31]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[32] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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 [dubious – discuss] that Horowitz makes documentaries? The Kingfisher (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    I suggest again that you read WP:BOOMERANG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    I would essentially agree with the above. In addition, [[33]] Sweden does have issues, airbrushing unpleasant realities out does nobody any good. Irondome (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But asking for sources for dubious claims also does nobody good. // Liftarn (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    So we know who this dude is and his activities have been given the boot? L3X1 (distant write) 02:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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 WordsmithTalk to me 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, the Drumpf is almost certainly unintentional. TimothyJosephWood 22:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The same issue is also being discussed at WP:ENI#NPOV problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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: [34]

    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: [35][36][37] I reverted this twice and placed two warning templates on the user's page: [38][39]

    Then, the user left a note on my talk page, to which I responded thoroughly: [40] I was going to report this at WP:NPOVN but the user has just responded again [41] 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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:Vvven has been warned about copyright breaches ([42] [43], ), uncredited interwiki copying ([44] [45]), and the use of machine translation ([46], [47]). A month after the warnings from User:Diannaa, Vvven's last five creations have been:

    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)[reply]

    I have issued a final warning and will monitor their contribs. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Looks good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Consensus is that the edit summary was comparable to calling something a BLP vio. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At [48] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    A mistaken legal threat is still a legal threat. Besides, he/she is past 3RR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Not a legal threat. It's the same thing as saying it's a BLP violation.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)[reply]

    Red X Blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:Bored1995

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    "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 ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53]) adding material that is out of scope to List of oldest universities in continuous operation, don't know enough English to understand what the list is about, or understand messages on their talk page. And I have really tried to explain what the problem is, both in edit summaries (and yes, they're obviously Wiki-savvy enough to both use edit summaries themself and see what others write in summaries, they just don't know enough English to make themselves understood, or understand others) and on their talk page, including strongly suggesting they should edit the Japanese Wiki insetad of the English language Wiki, but they just continue. Obviously feeling they're entitled to add whatever they want wherever they want since they "donate to wiki". But I give up... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned about edit warring so they'll have to make coherent arguments on the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds very familiar but I can't remember the exact incident, can others? Possibly a return of a blocked user. Andrewa (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds familiar because it's every single banned POV-pusher ever. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely... the phrase I donate to wiki (rather than to Wikipedia) indicates a particular linguistic background, and it has been used before. If they are a repeat offender they may well read this and change it next time, of course. Andrewa (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The only places I can find that phrase used are here, and here (in the form of a question: "Would I donate to wiki? ABSOLUTELY NOT..."} Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    N I H I L I S T I C

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)#[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I agree, the request is quite pertinent: who are you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Indeffed (for now). --NeilN talk to me 09:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Inlinetext? El_C 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably, the self-righteous harassment of Vipul is a giveaway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    . Yup. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Good call. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oath2order

    Oath2order has been constantly refusing to leave the table on the article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) alone regardless of an ongoing discussion [54] 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 [55]. 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 [56]. 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 [57] [58] [59] [60] yet they continue to change it. Brocicle (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What you're doing is unpopular. I said "enjoy constantly reverting" because anonymous people will continue to do it. Not me. And stop editing S9E1. That's blatantly not OR. Oath2order (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also amusing that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the anonymous editors but you know. Oath2order (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about "popularity", it's about the fact that the discussion is ongoing. You changed it well after you stated that which can clearly be seen in the diffs. Never said it was OR but as other editors, including yourself have said high/low is against policy. Also you, as a registered editor should know to take note of edit summaries and respect policy and standards, which you continue to ignore due to personal preferences. Brocicle (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it's about popularity. I said that it's the anonymous editors that are going to keep reverting back to the highs and lows. Sure, the discussion is ongoing, but that is not going to stop the anonymous editors from doing what they do. You took my quote out of context. Before that I said "there'll be quite some outrage", strongly implying that'll be from the other people. As you've been one of the people reverting, you should know full well that I'm not the only person who's been doing that. You come here to complain about me, but looking at your contributions, you have not done anything to attempt to mitigate what the anonymous editors are doing.
    You mention that I agreed that HIGH and LOW is against policy. You do understand that things change in discussion, right? That's what happened. I discussed it with other users and we came to an agreement on how the tables should be formatted until you decided to intervene.
    Finally, I would like to mention that the examples of reversions that I've done that you've posted were on April 5. One of them was not even something I've done (link 75) so I don't know why you shared that. But. April 5th. That's when you first joined the discussion on Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9). You'll note that with the except of one edit on season 9, I have not reverted anything. I listened to what you said in the edit summary. Oath2order (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done anything? Reverting with an explaination, and pointing them in the way of the discussion seems like doing something to me. Yes, things can change in discussion but that doesn't change the fact that you acknowledged it is against policy yet went against it and discussing it with ONE user hardly holds merit. There are multiple diffs included of you reverting without reason on more than just the season 9 page, after I explained to keep it as it was originally until the discussion is complete, along with sneakily adding in the high/low to each episode under the pretense of your edit summary discussing the first episode alone on April 8th. I said exactly what I said in the episode summary multiple times on the talk page and in the reverts before you decided to pay attention to it, which a quick look at the edit history shows. Also when I joined the discussion has no relevance, an editor may choose to join a discussion at any time if they choose. Brocicle (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brocicle: Except that the anonymous editors and other users have done far more than I have. Why aren't you reporting them here?
    You joined the discussion on April 5th, and your first edits telling me to stop reverting and go to the discussion were on April 4th and April 5th. So, let's look at the edits.
    Let's look at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1). You edited on April 4th, which I admit I reverted, and you edited once more directly after, reverting my revert. The edit on the 4th of April was your first time in the last 500 edits where you told anybody to stop reverting and go to the discussion page. These 500 edits go back through January of 2014. The next time I edited this page was on April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Let's look at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2). You edited on April 4th, which I again admit I reverted, and you edited once more directly after, reverting my revert. As with Season 1, the edit on the 4th of April was your first time in the last 500 edits, where you told anybody to stop reverting and go to the discussion page. These 500 edits go back through April of 2016. The next time I edited this page was on April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Season 3, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert my revert, first edit of yours in the last 500 edits, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through July 2015. Next time I edited was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Season 4, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back to July 2016. Next time I edit was never, actually.
    Season 5, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through May 2016. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Season 6, same thing. Edit on April 3rd, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through February 2016. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Season 7, same thing. Edit on April 4th, and I did not revert anything. This is the first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through July 2015. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.
    Season 8, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through April 2016. Next time I edit was never.
    Season 9, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, this is first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion.
    RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 1) is different as you have never told anybody to go to a discussion page, or edited within the past 1000 edits, for that matter.
    RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 2) is different as you have never told anybody to go to a discussion page.
    So, with that evidence here, let's look at your argument. Quotes of yours are in bold/italics, my responses are not.
    Quote A: Oath2order has been constantly refusing to leave the table on the article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) alone regardless of an ongoing discussion regarding the issue. This has been proven false. The word constantly implies that I've been ignoring what you've been saying; it implies that there's been an edit war over the status of the table. This is wrong. Throughout each season, I have shown that you have directly told me once to go to the discussion on the season 9 talk page. It is not a "constant" refusal. It's been nearly a week since you first told me to go to the discussion page, where I have only edited the pages in a method that would be compliant with WP:MOS, not even touching the HIGH and LOW that we have been discussing. If you did have an issue with the white "win" text, I apologize, as as far as I'm aware, you've said absolutely nothing on the matter.
    Quote B: They also go against policy on the use of HIGHs and LOWs And you're wrong here. I have not been adding HIGHs and LOWs. I've added different coloring, which the users on the talk page came to a consensus about before you joined the discussion. Now, as you mention, yes, I know that editors can join a discussion at any time. However, at the time, that was the consensus. Consensus is ever-changing, I understand that. But you have to remember that that was what it was at the time.
    Quote C: They have acknowledged previously that the use of HIGH and LOW is (in their own words} " technically against policy " in this discussion here And that's why we, the editors on the talk page, came to the agreement about the coloring. See comments in Quote B about consensus at the time and how it changes.
    Quote D: which seems to indicate that they are editing on purpose specifically to be disruptive This is wrong. See comments in Quote B about consensus at the time and how it changes.
    Quote E: I have informed the user multiple times to leave the table until discussion is complete multiple times across many of the other season articles as seen here You know, adding this in is extremely disingenuous. You're implying that I've been constantly reverting. I haven't. As I've said in Quote A, you warned me about the talk page and then I stopped reverting.
    Quote F: discussing it with ONE user hardly holds merit. Given that that's all who was talking at the time, and that's all who had been in that discussion since it started on March 28th, you can't really claim that it "hardly holds merit". Nobody else was joining; you can't blame me for nobody else joining the discussion.
    Quote G: in which they have ignored the hidden note added by an editor You do understand that I was the one who added the hidden note, right?
    Quote H: There are multiple diffs included of you reverting without reason on more than just the season 9 page. I reverted without reason once, and gave the second reason here.
    Final Notes: You come off disingenuous here. Your tone and wording acts as if I'm edit warring, and ignoring a long extended period of notes and warnings to stop reverting and go to the talk page. As proven above, this is just downright false. Oath2order (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass category changes

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

    Disruptive behavior especially falsely accusing others by User:Rævhuld

    Complaint

    Sorry if this is too long but I request you to read it carefully. Hello User:Rævhuld, has recently been involved in disruptive behavior especially falsely accusing others. The incident started after his sourceless edits at 2017 Stockholm attack were removed. After that he comments on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack stating that it should be mentioned as Islamic terrorism. But instead of giving any reliable sources which state that this attack was done so out of such motives, as reliable sources are required, he makes false claims that "the attacker has accepted he did it for ISIS" even though no source made or reported such a claim and there were only suspects and no definite identity of the attacker. He also made insinuations and indirect accusations questioning that "knowledge is not allowed" and "Is Wikipedia a safe space"? His claims seem to be based on local media reports that the suspect arrested in the case had posted pro-ISIS propaganda online. However as that isn't anything itself about the nature of the attack and still unconfirmed information at this point. There have been reports about ISIS links but these were reported after some of Rævhuld's edits regarding Islamic terrorism and comments. Regardless, there has been nothing about the attack itself and as such unsourced edits or text not present in the sources cannot be added. He later made another claim on the talk page that ISIS claimed responsibility even though it didn't. His sourceless edits have been removed by multiple users with all of them over the reason that there isn't any source or the source isn't saying what he added: [61], [62], [63], [64]

    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: [65], [66], [67]. 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: [68], [69] though I desisted from telling him even though his reverts at the article were more this as at the topic was about using sources and not misrepresenting them. There are several other disruptive behavior which he did including claiming my warning him about his reverts as "Ridiculous". He also was agressive to User:AusLondonder, claiming his comment was "Ridiculous" even though all AusLondoner told him was to stick to one variety of English as required per guidelines. Also while I was writing this complaint, he has complained about me, wrongly accusing me of "harassing" him and claiming I was blocked over the article (I wasn't, as already said it was a past incident at another article 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing and I already apologized for it). He also goes against another rule, not to accuse others falsely of disruption and he also didn't provide any diffs. I request that he be warned not to falsely accuse others and engage in disruptive behavior. Thank you.

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

    Comments

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

    Why was it deleted? And that by a sock puppet, which was banned short time after? Could we please set it back in again?--Rævhuld (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I have reported him for harassing me on this website. Someone (Monster?) has removed my plead for help. This user is harassing me, could someone please stop him? It's unbearable! I reported him because of edit war and he was blocked. Then he harassed my talk page. I asked him to stop his abusive behaviour and he harassed me again on my talk page. Then I asked you admins to stop him and someone - as far as I can see it, it's Monster - removed my post about him being abusive.
    Honestly, can you please stop him?
    PS! Could someone please check if User:Vujjayani is one of his sock puppets? Which other reason should this user have to delete an entry here (vandalism)?--Rævhuld (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rævhuld: Vujjayani was a sockpuppet of Nsmutte, a long-term abuser and troll, who vandalises for no reason other than to harass other users. --bonadea contributions talk 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS! Just read his talk page! A lot of people agree with me on his aggressive behaviour. Someone said he should step back and drink a tea! Please, someone, could you please stop him from harassing me? And why was my post about him deleted by a blocked user? Could you please set my plead of blocking him on my talk page back in?--Rævhuld (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Rævhuld, do not baselessly accuse me of being a sockpuppet of User:Vujjayani or him being mine. Just because someone removed your comment doesn't mean you can hint at me or baselessly accuse me of it, the comments of many other people were deleted, not just you. I was the one to complain him. When I originally made this comment, I cited the article name of ANI as well as the section of your complaint as that time your comment was there. After some time I noticed your complaint was gone, which i exactly why I changed the link to the section of the article to the diff of when your complaint was made. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am accusing you of bein a bully. I am not accusing you of being a sock puppet. I only ASKED if someone could check if the new user who "accidentally" deleted my post could be a sock puppet of yours. That is at least a possibility. That is not an accusation, I only asked the admins to control it. Since it's very suspicious that someone deletes me trying to get help getting rid of harassment and suddenly the post is gone and the harasser is posting about me.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And now what harrasment and edit-war are you talking about? I only commented once on your talk page, that too to notify and warn you anout your reverts, before you falsely started accusing me of harassment. Also what block are you talking about. My 24-hr block was made for 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing 5 days ago. That is over and I apologised for it. On 2017 Stockholm attack where you reverted twice, I reverted once. And I am providing undoubtable proof for everything I say. Please do not falsely accuse me, it is you whose behavior is becoming a harassment to me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you undid more than once. The only difference is, that you did it manually. Not to mention that I got an edit war warning on my talk page - and I decided not to edit again on the article. Some hours later you put an edit war warning on my talk page, clearly because I did in on yours because of your edit warring. I asked you in a polite way to stop harassing me. But you know what? You continued. Then I asked the admins to just block my talk page so you can't reach it. Funny how this was deleted.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rævhuld, I undid only once and you did it twice. But I didn't start accusing you of edit-warring automatically. Your claims clearly seem to be not put of any good intent. I warned you because of your reverts, you should apply the ideals to your own self as well, please do not complain of "harassment" that too when one warns you simply for your mutiple reverts. Just after one warnng for your reverts, you started accusing me of "harassment". I wouldn't even have commented on your talk page again if you hadn't falsely accused me of harassing you. Your talk page cannot be blocked, the user has to stay away. I told you not to falsely accuse others, when you still kept being disruptive I warned you. But you don't listen. You also made negative comments against others. You have broken mutiple rules. That's why I have complained against you. I was making my complaint before yours got published. So please do not blame me with excuses or false accusations when your behavior is the reason behind it all. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also while you say are requesting admins to "block" your talk page, I was the only one who asked you to stay off my talk page and not come again with warnings. Of course you came back to falsely accuse me of "harassment" even though I had only commneted once on your article when you first accused me of "harassment" and that comment too you removed. These are complete double-standards in your behavior. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you lie. You harassed my and I asked you to stay away from me. Then you harassed me again. I wrote to the admins. And then you wrote to the admins. And everyone who reads your talk page is clear about who is the bully here.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I want is to not being bullied here. If someone just can block you from editing ever again on my talk page, I would be happy with that outcome.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rævhuld I "lie". I go the pains of a hour of collecting all the evidence, I avoid making needless disputes with you, yet I "lie". Do I? You never asked me to stay away from my talk page, but after me warning you for edit-warring, I didn't come again except to warn you to not make any false accusations against anyone. All you asked me was to stop harassing. Even though I never harrased you nor made many comments at your talk page except when warning you for when your behavior was against rules. I didn't bully you, but you sound like I am some sort of "evil sadistic person". In good spirt, I asked you to desist from any attacks and accusations on others. You didn't desist, what else will I do but complain you? I asked you to stay away from my talk page, you didn't. Don't comment about what others are seeing, contemplate on your own behavior. No one can block anyone from editing on anyone's talk page, but I haven't commented on your talk page except to provide you warning for your behavior. The only other comment was to notify you of this ANI complain as a notification is mandated by the rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also per you User:Rævhuld, me notifying you about the ANI complaint against you is "Harassment" even though it is required by the rules to inform the one who you complained of. Also I forgot to mention. You say you did not accuse me of being a sockpuppet. But you made it clear in your own comment that you think Vujjayani can be the sockpuppet of no one but me: PS! Could someone please check if User:Vujjayani is one of his sock puppets? Which other reason should this user have to delete an entry here (vandalism)? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Rævhuld why did you feel it necessary to add material that has not been verified yet (if ever)? You can't simply say someone is harassing you just because you do not like what they write, especially if their side goes with consensus. Also, just wondering, is this your first account? On your userpage, you awarded yourself a barnstar and in the description it states you have been editing for several months. However, that is not possible because that was self-received during your first month here. Could you elaborate?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Which not verified material did I add where? I used source on all my work. And yes, this is my first account. I had an account many years ago, but that was just one week and I forgot my log in data. When I created my page, I just took another users talk page as inspiration. And I actually provided evidence for the harassment. Just view the post that was illegally deleted here. He harassed me. I asked him kindly if he could stop. And he just continued. End of story. --Rævhuld (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And? What do you want? If you could some Danish you would know that my name means "fox hole" and not asshole. There is something called Danish English. You removed it and claimed it did not exist. I saw my mistake and did not put it back. Are you happy now? This has nothing to do with the topic. I am being harassed by a user.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Rævhuld Oh, but I do know Danish, and a fox burrow is "rævegrav" in Danish, not "rævhuld" (check this article about the red fox on da-WP: "ungerne fødes i en såkaldt rævegrav, en gang udgravet f.eks. i en bakkeskråning", and a search on "rævhuld" on Google yields nothing but a username on a number of websites, including WP. So who do you think you're fooling?. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas.W thanks for the read. I am more convinced this is not a new user and even if he/she is they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Why was Rævhuld not blocked during that discussion?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't seem to consider to wait for information to come in and sources to say anything. He kept claiming the sources said "The attacker has admitted he did it for ISIS" and "ISIS has claimed responsibility" which is a misrepresentation of sources. This seems to be based on local media reports that the suspect arrested in the case had posted pro-ISIS propaganda on social media. However, what he added was completely something which the sources never claimed and these reports about pro-ISIS propaganda too are just reports, and any link with the group is not confirmed. Either he isn't properly reading the sources or is violating rules wilfully. Oh and Rævhuld, nobody is stating your names means "asshole" even if they thought so in the past. If they think your user profile reflects that you aren't a new user, then that they can investigate. So yes, it is entirely relevant unlike your repeated baseless claims of anyone harassing you or insinuation of others being a sockpuppet just because your complaint was deleted. Nor many of your edits were actually based on what the sources said. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As for unverified content, some of it is here:[70], [71], [72], [73]. Also I doubt one week amounts to months. Even if you did, you should mention it on your user page. From your user page, it is clear you aren't correctly claiming you edited for past many months. If you only copied the other as inspiration, it seems odds for you defending it. You are harrasing others yourself Rævhuld, such disruptive behavior cannot be tolerated. You must stay within the rules. Falsely accusing others is completely against them. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I earlier thought he was misinterpreting and didn't have much knowledge about him violating the rules through his behaviour, but based on this it seems he is behaving in this way deliberately and wilfully. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on a TFD please

    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Political POV-pushing by User:HistorianMatej

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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 [74] [75] [76], 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @El C: I feel blessed by mere looking at the book titles alone. — kashmiri TALK 22:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Immense light be upon you. Now on AfD. El_C 22:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:GoldenGuy23

    User on mandatory one-month vacation. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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 [77], 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 [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    I've blocked His Illustrious Highness, the Count Adam Nicholas Schemanoff, BSc (Hons), FdSc. --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched both here and on the Commons, but I couldn't find a place where the user was specifically told to contact OTRS to verify the permissions. I've now done so on their talk page. Mz7 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to lie, I don't believe a word that has come out of TecSatans mouth here. My greatest problem here is the failure to issue the threat with basic English proficiency. Fair not fare; copyright not copy right; obverse outrages behaviour means, literally, opposite to outrageous behavior; outrageous behavior not outrages behaviour; disproved or proved to be false is a tautology, they mean the same thing; and finally, a supporter of one ..., not, a support of one .... Serious question to people with legal knowledge; Sadly, the law and electoral commission guidelines supersedes any terms and conditions that may be held by Wikipedia - does UK law have even the slightest jurisdiction on Wikipedia's affairs? to my knowledge, the encyclopaedia is under US jurisdiction. Under what circumstances could the encyclopaedia be affected by external judicial affairs? I get that for copyright we employ both US and origin country copyright laws, but, is this to protect the encyclopaedia from being sued or censored? If there is a policy or page I can read for this kind of information I'd greatly appreciate it. Recently I've gained an interest in how legal structures operate in different countries and the interplay between nations. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I understand it, British law allows for libel cases to be filed regardless of whether there is any British jurisdiction, and I would presume that extends to other civil suits as well. But I don't think a person could be charged with any sort of criminal offense based on an edit to WP, even if that person is a British national residing in the UK, given what (admittedly little) I know about international jurisdiction. In truth, I'd be a little disappointed if a person were able to be charged with a crime over an edit to WP in any jurisdiction, though I wouldn't be particularly surprised. Note that I'm an American, and am, therefore, by definition ignorant about all things that can't be deep fried or have a bald eagle silk-screened onto them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't supposed to deep fry the eagle? No one ever told me L3X1 (distant write) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    Deep fried eagle? That's just blindly harmful over enthusiasm; destroying the very thing you wish to honor. It doesn't get any more 'Murikan than that!!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd point out that the legal threat the user was making was to go to the police and have an editor charged with electoral fraud because he removed the editor's preferred candidates's picture from Wikipedia. This is so comical that either the user is trolling us or they haven't got a clue about the laws on electoral fraud, which is ironic if he is interested in promoting a candidate in an election. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You wouldn't expect kings to know the finer points of electoral law, tho'. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He has now claimed that not only have complaints been made, but a cease and desist order has been issued. However, if he is indeed the person that he claims to be, a swift Google will probably explain the reality of the situtation... Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a rapid response. I wish my local constabulary would react with such alacrity. The last (and hopefully, only) time I had to take out a restraining order against someone, it took about 5 months to go through. To be fair, a temporary one was issued after a mere 2 weeks (and the subject getting arrested on related charges). But still, it begs the question: to whom, exactly, was the court order issued? I humbly suggest that even if the threat were to be retracted, there would remain another obstacle to an unblock. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And the source of His Highness's nobility: [83]. (Don't beat me for spamming, I couldn't resist.) — kashmiri TALK 22:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's worse: His Excellency President for Life, Ruler over all Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Lord of the beasts and fishes, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE for example. Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1 (addressed as His Worshipfulness Lordy Lord) 23:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's more impressive than Norton the First, by the grace of God Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico. Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN and Black Kite: Has this editor claimed to be nobility somewhere? I haven't seen it and I feel lost now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MjolnirPants: It was on his userpage, but has since been removed. Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MjolnirPants/MPants at work:- Can this be reopened please? The user has just posted on his talkpage saying he is capable of (in theory) hacking and is now blaming other users for his issues. Courtesy ping: Mz7; NeilN Nördic Nightfury 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-opened. I have removed talk page access and email access (based on a note on my talk page) from the editor. They seem to have reproduced an email complete with addresses on their talk page - another admin may want to remove and possibly revdel. Note my only interaction with the editor was to block them. --NeilN talk to me 15:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The deed has been done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'll forward the email I got from this editor to any uninvolved admin who might need to see it. There's nothing really shocking in it though, just more of the same crap from his talk page and the rather unusual assumption that I'm in charge of the admins. Don't get me wrong, I definitely should be in charge, but I think we all know I'm not. Yet. I'll leave the next close for someone else this time, because I get the feeling I'll say something really snarky in the result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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: [84][reply]

    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)[reply]

    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    By some quirk of time and space, User:Seraphim System has escaped a WP:BOOMERANG block. So this time, I will just administer a WP:TROUTing.
    It would be unwise to expect that any re-runs will end so benignly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spam by User:Patrick Boots CEC

    Given a one-week time-out. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 12:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    Yup. Edit warring too. --NeilN talk to me 17:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Has stopped after last warning; I have speedy deleted the two spam redirects he created . Lectonar (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Blocked for a week. Nyttend (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. RegalHawktalk 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    Socking. Took the appropriate actions. [85] --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. GoldenRing (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Spoken like a typical irritable male.[FBDB] 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)[reply]

    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: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95].

    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)[reply]

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

    User:Bgc7676 disruptive editing

    I have made edits to the Big Brother Canada (season 5) page, and User:Bgc7676, has reverted my edits ([96], [97], and [98]). 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    [[99]], 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)[reply]

    Harassment

    I don't think Votes for Banning is needed yet. Final warning issued, user claims to be retiring. If that changes, further on- or off-wiki harassment will be met with an insta-block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    usernamekiran reported an edit war he was involved in to AN3.[100] 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.[101] 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.[102] 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."[103]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revdel, please?

    NeilN has done the decent thing. GoldenRing (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    and a vandalism block for our friend the IPv6. L3X1 (distant write) 01:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done and done. --NeilN talk to me 01:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible !vote stacking?

    Move along, nothing else to see. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 12:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    Apparent sock blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. Newbie warned per WP:AGF. Swarm ♠ 03:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    Correction: Draft:Cozido covered more general content, as the Cozido article was originally written on a more specific type of cozido dish, namely cozido à portuguesa. --Epulum (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, except it's not a correction, it's quite consistent with the synopsis above. And as far as I can see, irrelevant anyway. And such a reply is typical of the discussion to date.
    Is it the only dispute you have with my synopsis above? Andrewa (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely unacceptable threat of block

    There's no threat, just friendly advice, as has already been explained. Please move along now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See: [104]. 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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible vandalism

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Personal attack by Fabartus

    Fabartus posts this on my talk page about seomthing that happened 5 days ago. I don't appreciate it and if someone could just take a look and do something that would be great. [105].SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi SparklingPessimist - This looks like only one occurrence. Am I missing something? Is this a repeated behavior? What dispute is this originating from, and where? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He has also attacked other users as well Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes on a TFD please SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Fabartus (talk · contribs) appears to have a long history of persistent incivility and general hostility. See the half dozen NPA blocks between 2008 and 2011, as well as continued personal attacks and bizarre, militant comments just within the past few days (not including the diff linked by the OP). Fabartus's interactions with other contributors seem to fall short of the decorum we expect. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see his reply to my ANI notice for the thread above [106]. I didn't even think to check his block log when I made that report... – Train2104 (t • c) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Juliancolton - I agree. This is problematic behavior, and clear evidence shows that this is a repeated and long-term issue.
    Fabartus - I don't think I need to go into in-depth details regarding Wikipedia's civility policy nor Wikipedia's policies against making personal attacks towards others. Your history clearly demonstrates that you've been shown these policies numerous times and that you should be reasonably aware of their existence. This is the only warning I'm going to give you. You need to either engage in civil discussion over the specific disputes and concerns you have and appropriately, or drop whatever stick it is that you're carrying and move on. Your last block was for one month due to incivility; please please don't make me have to be the guy that blocks you for yet another instance of this issue... :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't have that much patience. Indef blocked, any admin can undo it if you feel he's reformed and will stop attacking and harassing other editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In context, that seems ridiculously disproportionate. Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the very considerable history before acting. Please confirm you have, and let me know why you think it's disproportionate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)This was in response to someone claiming mere mention of a one of the more benign Trumpism was "hate speech." Obviously the response was that of a seventy, eighty-ish (I'm guessing) curmudgeon, written in Curmudgeon-ese. Reads like the know-it-all wiseass inhabiting the end stool at a thousand bars, but it isn't the sort of thing that deserves blocking, any more than the piece responded to, written in Snowflakian is, although, truth be told, her bit was more insulting, in some ways. Anmccaff (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anmccaff:That's pretty insulting, I just gave my honest opinion on something and I didn't insult anyone or curse at anyone. I think it's funny you think I'm an old curmudgeon, though considering the fact that I'm a college student, I'll take it as a compiment. Don't you have some redditing to attend to? Thanks.SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Yes. Your honest opinion was roughly "Trump EqUaLS HITLER!!!!!! That's what "hate speech" kinda implies, connection to some real underlying nastiness, although if you think the Godwinning is premature, substitute David Duke, or something. And please don't promote yourself; Frank's the Curmudgeon, you're the Snowflake.
    What, exactly, if anything, do you mean by the reditting crack, BTW? As I see it, you have once again substituted thought with personal insult. People who seeks bans might want to look behind them, 'cause when you throw some stuff, it tends to return. Anmccaff (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignored.SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to take your bickering elsewhere, both of you? It's not adding anything to this discussion at all. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect this is the right place; while Frank has a long history of low-grade assholery; the person bringing the complaint is gaining on him pretty fast. Were it not for the old stuff, and the (justified, I think) fear that it'll continue like this, this should have a boomerang, or perhaps a double trouting. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look; one and only one person in this debate called one editor a "Girly Girl" on their way to other offenses and outright said that all IP editors are using subterfuge, said the particular one was an idiot, generalized that all hiding behind IPs are (caps original) "NOT WORTHY OF RESPECT", and deliberately furtive, and that they're deliberately betraying trust and that "Drawing and quartering would be too good for them.". As far as I can tell the IP merely disagreed with him on a sensitive (to him) point. I can believe this is a user who's older and used to being the old curmudgeon on the bar, but if that curmudgeon starts suggesting the death of other users like that in the middle of otherwise insulting tirades, most bars are going to ask them to leave. This behavior is not OK on Wikipedia. It would not be OK in most diners, in libraries, in internet cafes, at home. That (presumably) he felt ok to do it here was a mistake, and he should not have the opportunity to continue it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Three points. First, Frank ain't here. You blocked him, indefinitely; continuing to comment on things he can't respond to seems a little tacky, unless it is required for other reasons. Next, if we take as a given the prematurely crusty persona (he appears to be a decade younger than I'd guessed), "girly girl" is mostly an ageist crack, not a sexist one, as the remainder of the post reinforces. Those are both peripheral, and, as mentioned, overcome by events; the guy was blocked without even a chance to respond, followed by the usual stream of admins suggesting that perhaps it should have been different, but, now that it's done....
    The big deal is that two people traded snark, and one of them continued it onto the board here...and that's the one walking away. Anmccaff (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand, user was given a final warning by Oshwah above—on the other, it's clear that this has been a repeated issue. But it has been over half a decade since the last block. I think 3 months block is sufficient in this case. El_C 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    re to El C: Half a decade, but significant recent behavior. In any case, any bold enough admin can roll it back to 3 mo if you want, or I will if I see a consensus here that it was excessive. Waiting for more consensus input (thanks, Beeblebrox & El C) may help. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough, I haven't familiarised myself with the recent history, so you two might be right. Waiting for a sensible block appeal sounds... sensible. El_C 22:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor continues to upload problematic images

    Happy to see that a problematic editor is now contributing positively. Worth keeping an eye on, but nothing to do at this time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    Looks like an issue of competence and not listening—considering blocking to get their attention. El_C 22:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Copy that. El_C 22:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    213.143.51.223

    213.143.51.223 is clearly the same user as the blocked users Christy BoT aylor and Awindner. See [107]. The IP is now name-calling and trolling at Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft.[108] Should they just be warned or does someone want to go ahead and block them? Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Angry sock master targeting me

    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.

    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)[reply]

    He also used Special:Contributions/190.213.66.238 to do the same Syd Barrett disruption. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Binksternet - The IPs listed have been blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BlueSalix wikihounding

    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)[reply]

    And now he has added more insults to the sockpuppet report. Justeditingtoday (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "They have also failed to even notify the other editor of the report." - incorrect, see: [109]
    As for the claim of "wikihouding," here is our editor interaction report: [110]
    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)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=775022781"