Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. 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

Legal threat?

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

Warned. El_C 05:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Normally a person's request to remove a photo should be taken seriously, but there isn't much wrong with File:Witter Bynner Fellows Poetry Reading 2008 - Monica Youn (cropped).jpg on Commons. It has complied with the relevant Commons guidelines and was taken at a public event. Legal threats aren't the way to go here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see why she would not like it, aesthetically - it is not of portrait quality, by a long way. But the issue here is philosophical: it's a legally permissible image, but that does not necessarily make it a good idea to include it. Mugshots are permissible, but including them as the headshot for an article is kind of problematic. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• We should always be respectful of WP:BLP subjects who express strong preferences. The best solution here is to suggest she create an account, then discuss releasing a photo that she finds acceptable. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the image in question is hosted on Commons, shouldn't the discussion be pointed there? — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that's a separate issue (plus Commons can be complete asshats about this kind of thing, they have never shown any inkling of understanding that just because you can doe something, that doesn't mean you should). This is an enWP problem. A subject has only one available Commons image, the subject does not like the image. Whether to include it or not is a purely editorial judgment. The best solution is always to negotiate release of a photo the subject prefers, and approaching it in full-on angry mastodon mode doesn't make that any more likely to happen. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Guy, I respect your efforts to be diplomatic. That's great. Buuuuut. This is an encyclopedia not a publicity machine. It doesn't matter if the subject "likes" the photo or not. We aren't here for her publicity, we are here to depict the subject. That's all. Cheers. Nesnad (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Removing the image was the wrong move. El_C 12:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Well hey, I thought that photo looked awfully familiar. Agree with the above. We have no obligation to comply with the subject's personal preferences in minor areas of aesthetics. We do however have an assumed obligation to present the best article we can, which includes using the best images available. If the subject has a strong opinion about it, then it should serve as impetus for them to take and upload a better version or follow the steps to release one for use. TimothyJosephWood 12:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look around and it isn't difficult to find images or videos of Monica Youn appearing at public events. If the disputed image was the only image available it might be a problem, but there would need to be an explanation of why it was causing a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because a photograph was taken at a public event doesn't make it acceptable for upload here or to Commons. Here, it has to fulfill WP:NFCC, which, unless it was a free or a compatibly licensed image, it won't be. A non-free image won't be accepted for a subject that is alive and for whom there are free images available. For upload to Commons, it also has to be free or compatibly licensed, and no non-free images are accepted unless they are released by the copyright holder. Being taken at a public event is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Being taken at a public event by the Library of Congress is relevant. At any rate, I am in apparent contact with the subject and we can probably close this. TimothyJosephWood 18:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not relevant to whether it can be used on Wikipedia or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, no? It's actually centrally relevant since original creative works by US Federal Government employees created in the course of their duties are de facto in the public domain if non-sensitive and unclassified. TimothyJosephWood 21:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Which has nothing whatsoever to so with whether the photo was taken at a public event, and everything to do with whether it was taken by a US government employee in the course of their duties, wherever it was taken. It could have been shot in the Oval Office bathroom, the 15th sub-basement of the CIA building, or on Mars, for that matter. 22:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, no one mentioned the Library of Congress or government-employee-produced-image in this conversation until quite late. All that was said originally was "at a public event", which is what I responded to, and which is, to repeat, not relevant to an image's status as usable here. Some images taken at public events will be usable, some will not be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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 [1] 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 [2]. 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 [3]. 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 [4] [5] [6] [7] yet they continue to change it. Brocicle (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What you're doing is unpopular. I said "enjoy constantly reverting" because anonymous people will continue to do it. Not me. And stop editing S9E1. That's blatantly not OR. Oath2order (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Also amusing that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the anonymous editors but you know. Oath2order (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not about "popularity", it's about the fact that the discussion is ongoing. You changed it well after you stated that which can clearly be seen in the diffs. Never said it was OR but as other editors, including yourself have said high/low is against policy. Also you, as a registered editor should know to take note of edit summaries and respect policy and standards, which you continue to ignore due to personal preferences. Brocicle (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I never said it's about popularity. I said that it's the anonymous editors that are going to keep reverting back to the highs and lows. Sure, the discussion is ongoing, but that is not going to stop the anonymous editors from doing what they do. You took my quote out of context. Before that I said "there'll be quite some outrage", strongly implying that'll be from the other people. As you've been one of the people reverting, you should know full well that I'm not the only person who's been doing that. You come here to complain about me, but looking at your contributions, you have not done anything to attempt to mitigate what the anonymous editors are doing.

You mention that I agreed that HIGH and LOW is against policy. You do understand that things change in discussion, right? That's what happened. I discussed it with other users and we came to an agreement on how the tables should be formatted until you decided to intervene.

Finally, I would like to mention that the examples of reversions that I've done that you've posted were on April 5. One of them was not even something I've done (link 75) so I don't know why you shared that. But. April 5th. That's when you first joined the discussion on Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9). You'll note that with the except of one edit on season 9, I have not reverted anything. I listened to what you said in the edit summary. Oath2order (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done anything? Reverting with an explaination, and pointing them in the way of the discussion seems like doing something to me. Yes, things can change in discussion but that doesn't change the fact that you acknowledged it is against policy yet went against it and discussing it with ONE user hardly holds merit. There are multiple diffs included of you reverting without reason on more than just the season 9 page, after I explained to keep it as it was originally until the discussion is complete, along with sneakily adding in the high/low to each episode under the pretense of your edit summary discussing the first episode alone on April 8th. I said exactly what I said in the episode summary multiple times on the talk page and in the reverts before you decided to pay attention to it, which a quick look at the edit history shows. Also when I joined the discussion has no relevance, an editor may choose to join a discussion at any time if they choose. Brocicle (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Brocicle: Except that the anonymous editors and other users have done far more than I have. Why aren't you reporting them here?

You joined the discussion on April 5th, and your first edits telling me to stop reverting and go to the discussion were on April 4th and April 5th. So, let's look at the edits.

Let's look at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1). You edited on April 4th, which I admit I reverted, and you edited once more directly after, reverting my revert. The edit on the 4th of April was your first time in the last 500 edits where you told anybody to stop reverting and go to the discussion page. These 500 edits go back through January of 2014. The next time I edited this page was on April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.

Let's look at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2). You edited on April 4th, which I again admit I reverted, and you edited once more directly after, reverting my revert. As with Season 1, the edit on the 4th of April was your first time in the last 500 edits, where you told anybody to stop reverting and go to the discussion page. These 500 edits go back through April of 2016. The next time I edited this page was on April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.

Season 3, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert my revert, first edit of yours in the last 500 edits, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through July 2015. Next time I edited was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.

Season 4, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back to July 2016. Next time I edit was never, actually.

Season 5, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through May 2016. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.

Season 6, same thing. Edit on April 3rd, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through February 2016. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.

Season 7, same thing. Edit on April 4th, and I did not revert anything. This is the first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through July 2015. Next time I edit was April 9th, where I added the white win text, as per WP:MOS. The page at that time had HIGHs and LOWs, which I did not add.

Season 8, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion. This goes back through April 2016. Next time I edit was never.

Season 9, same thing. Edit on April 4th, I revert, you revert the revert, this is first edit of yours in the last 500, where you tell people to go to discussion.

RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 1) is different as you have never told anybody to go to a discussion page, or edited within the past 1000 edits, for that matter.

RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 2) is different as you have never told anybody to go to a discussion page.

So, with that evidence here, let's look at your argument. Quotes of yours are in bold/italics, my responses are not.

Quote A: Oath2order has been constantly refusing to leave the table on the article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) alone regardless of an ongoing discussion regarding the issue. This has been proven false. The word constantly implies that I've been ignoring what you've been saying; it implies that there's been an edit war over the status of the table. This is wrong. Throughout each season, I have shown that you have directly told me once to go to the discussion on the season 9 talk page. It is not a "constant" refusal. It's been nearly a week since you first told me to go to the discussion page, where I have only edited the pages in a method that would be compliant with WP:MOS, not even touching the HIGH and LOW that we have been discussing. If you did have an issue with the white "win" text, I apologize, as as far as I'm aware, you've said absolutely nothing on the matter.

Quote B: They also go against policy on the use of HIGHs and LOWs And you're wrong here. I have not been adding HIGHs and LOWs. I've added different coloring, which the users on the talk page came to a consensus about before you joined the discussion. Now, as you mention, yes, I know that editors can join a discussion at any time. However, at the time, that was the consensus. Consensus is ever-changing, I understand that. But you have to remember that that was what it was at the time.

Quote C: They have acknowledged previously that the use of HIGH and LOW is (in their own words} " technically against policy " in this discussion here And that's why we, the editors on the talk page, came to the agreement about the coloring. See comments in Quote B about consensus at the time and how it changes.

Quote D: which seems to indicate that they are editing on purpose specifically to be disruptive This is wrong. See comments in Quote B about consensus at the time and how it changes.

Quote E: I have informed the user multiple times to leave the table until discussion is complete multiple times across many of the other season articles as seen here You know, adding this in is extremely disingenuous. You're implying that I've been constantly reverting. I haven't. As I've said in Quote A, you warned me about the talk page and then I stopped reverting.

Quote F: discussing it with ONE user hardly holds merit. Given that that's all who was talking at the time, and that's all who had been in that discussion since it started on March 28th, you can't really claim that it "hardly holds merit". Nobody else was joining; you can't blame me for nobody else joining the discussion.

Quote G: in which they have ignored the hidden note added by an editor You do understand that I was the one who added the hidden note, right?

Quote H: There are multiple diffs included of you reverting without reason on more than just the season 9 page. I reverted without reason once, and gave the second reason here.

Final Notes: You come off disingenuous here. Your tone and wording acts as if I'm edit warring, and ignoring a long extended period of notes and warnings to stop reverting and go to the talk page. As proven above, this is just downright false. Oath2order (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You're interpreting tone to your own will. Also yes, you did add high and low in this edit here [8] which you can clearly see in the diff. Why ignore the note if you added it yourself? You're more than welcome to ask other editors for their opinion on something, especially since only one other person was in the discussion and was about a mass change to all seasons. Two people having a discussion for a day hardly constitutes a consensus. Rather than follow protocol you deliberately went through each season to revert without reason. You're also mentioning the anonymous editors, question is why aren't YOU doing something about it? Trying to shift the responsibility to me when you acknowledge what they're doing is rather poor. And if you know high /low is against policy why in your recent edits have you not removed them? Pot kettle situation but whatever. Brocicle (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Brocicle: I ignored the note because as I have repeated numerous times, the consensus at the time was to remove them. The discussion about high and low started on March 28th, it was not "just a day". The anonymous editors and reverting of pages quite simply is not my job. I'm sorry but you can't try and make something my responsibility. I use Wikipedia in a different way than you do. Oath2order (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Your discussion specifically with User:Seanmurpha lasted a day. You ignored the note on April 8th which was long after the discussion about the "consensus" had begun. Utterly ridiculous that you sit there and try and make something my responsibility and when it is turned around back on you backtrack. Very ironic. Brocicle (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Brocicle: Yes, and if you read the rest of the talk page, you would see that HIGHs and LOWs were discussed with User:Realitytvshow in the section titled "HIGHs and LOWs" which started on March 28th. You can't look at one single part of a discussion and say Okay, yes, I ignored one note post-warning. One. Throughout all seasons. You're trying to make this into a far bigger deal than it actually is. I'm not making anything your responsibility; you've seemed to take that upon yourself by just starting to warn numerous editors, both registered and anonymous. It's not ironic because what you don't seem to understand is that I use this site differently than you. It's not my responsibility, nor is it my obligation to police other users on their edits. It's not my responsibility, nor is it my obligation to revert the other users edits. I'm sorry if you don't like the way I edit.

You have absolutely no right to get mad at me for adding the lightblue/pink colors to the table. There was a discussion among three registered users, with anonymous editors popping in and out every so often. We achieved a consensus on how the pages should be laid out. Following the simple diagram under WP:EDITCONSENSUS, we had a previous consensus for cornsilk SAFE. The page was edited to reflect that consensus. The article was edited further. I did not agree. We followed the "seek a compromise". I have done absolutely nothing to warrant you opening up this discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Oath2order (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. Guys, ANI does not handle content disputes. Please take it to the article(s)'s talk page(s) and gain clear WP:CONSENSUS there. If you can't gain consensus, look into and utilize some form of dispute resolution. I also advise posting a neutral request for input on the talkpage of the parent article, RuPaul's Drag Race. If there is edit-warring, then warn the other user about edit-warring on thier talk page, and report at WP:ANEW if they persist. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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: [9], [10], [11], [12]

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: [13], [14], [15]. 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: [16], [17] though I desisted from telling him even though his reverts at the article were more this as at the topic was about using sources and not misrepresenting them. There are several other disruptive behavior which he did including claiming my warning him about his reverts as "Ridiculous". He also was agressive to User:AusLondonder, claiming his comment was "Ridiculous" even though all AusLondoner told him was to stick to one variety of English as required per guidelines. Also while I was writing this complaint, he has complained about me, wrongly accusing me of "harassing" him and claiming I was blocked over the article (I wasn't, as already said it was a past incident at another article 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing and I already apologized for it). He also goes against another rule, not to accuse others falsely of disruption and he also didn't provide any diffs. I request that he be warned not to falsely accuse others and engage in disruptive behavior. Thank you.

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

Comments

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

Why was it deleted? And that by a sock puppet, which was banned short time after? Could we please set it back in again?--Rævhuld (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I have reported him for harassing me on this website. Someone (Monster?) has removed my plead for help. This user is harassing me, could someone please stop him? It's unbearable! I reported him because of edit war and he was blocked. Then he harassed my talk page. I asked him to stop his abusive behaviour and he harassed me again on my talk page. Then I asked you admins to stop him and someone - as far as I can see it, it's Monster - removed my post about him being abusive.

Honestly, can you please stop him?

PS! Could someone please check if User:Vujjayani is one of his sock puppets? Which other reason should this user have to delete an entry here (vandalism)?--Rævhuld (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rævhuld: Vujjayani was a sockpuppet of Nsmutte, a long-term abuser and troll, who vandalises for no reason other than to harass other users. --bonadea contributions talk 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

PPS! Just read his talk page! A lot of people agree with me on his aggressive behaviour. Someone said he should step back and drink a tea! Please, someone, could you please stop him from harassing me? And why was my post about him deleted by a blocked user? Could you please set my plead of blocking him on my talk page back in?--Rævhuld (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Rævhuld, do not baselessly accuse me of being a sockpuppet of User:Vujjayani or him being mine. Just because someone removed your comment doesn't mean you can hint at me or baselessly accuse me of it, the comments of many other people were deleted, not just you. I was the one to complain him. When I originally made this comment, I cited the article name of ANI as well as the section of your complaint as that time your comment was there. After some time I noticed your complaint was gone, which i exactly why I changed the link to the section of the article to the diff of when your complaint was made. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I am accusing you of bein a bully. I am not accusing you of being a sock puppet. I only ASKED if someone could check if the new user who "accidentally" deleted my post could be a sock puppet of yours. That is at least a possibility. That is not an accusation, I only asked the admins to control it. Since it's very suspicious that someone deletes me trying to get help getting rid of harassment and suddenly the post is gone and the harasser is posting about me.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

And now what harrasment and edit-war are you talking about? I only commented once on your talk page, that too to notify and warn you anout your reverts, before you falsely started accusing me of harassment. Also what block are you talking about. My 24-hr block was made for 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing 5 days ago. That is over and I apologised for it. On 2017 Stockholm attack where you reverted twice, I reverted once. And I am providing undoubtable proof for everything I say. Please do not falsely accuse me, it is you whose behavior is becoming a harassment to me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, you undid more than once. The only difference is, that you did it manually. Not to mention that I got an edit war warning on my talk page - and I decided not to edit again on the article. Some hours later you put an edit war warning on my talk page, clearly because I did in on yours because of your edit warring. I asked you in a polite way to stop harassing me. But you know what? You continued. Then I asked the admins to just block my talk page so you can't reach it. Funny how this was deleted.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Rævhuld, I undid only once and you did it twice. But I didn't start accusing you of edit-warring automatically. Your claims clearly seem to be not put of any good intent. I warned you because of your reverts, you should apply the ideals to your own self as well, please do not complain of "harassment" that too when one warns you simply for your mutiple reverts. Just after one warnng for your reverts, you started accusing me of "harassment". I wouldn't even have commented on your talk page again if you hadn't falsely accused me of harassing you. Your talk page cannot be blocked, the user has to stay away. I told you not to falsely accuse others, when you still kept being disruptive I warned you. But you don't listen. You also made negative comments against others. You have broken mutiple rules. That's why I have complained against you. I was making my complaint before yours got published. So please do not blame me with excuses or false accusations when your behavior is the reason behind it all. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Also while you say are requesting admins to "block" your talk page, I was the only one who asked you to stay off my talk page and not come again with warnings. Of course you came back to falsely accuse me of "harassment" even though I had only commneted once on your article when you first accused me of "harassment" and that comment too you removed. These are complete double-standards in your behavior. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you lie. You harassed my and I asked you to stay away from me. Then you harassed me again. I wrote to the admins. And then you wrote to the admins. And everyone who reads your talk page is clear about who is the bully here.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I want is to not being bullied here. If someone just can block you from editing ever again on my talk page, I would be happy with that outcome.--Rævhuld (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Rævhuld I "lie". I go the pains of a hour of collecting all the evidence, I avoid making needless disputes with you, yet I "lie". Do I? You never asked me to stay away from my talk page, but after me warning you for edit-warring, I didn't come again except to warn you to not make any false accusations against anyone. All you asked me was to stop harassing. Even though I never harrased you nor made many comments at your talk page except when warning you for when your behavior was against rules. I didn't bully you, but you sound like I am some sort of "evil sadistic person". In good spirt, I asked you to desist from any attacks and accusations on others. You didn't desist, what else will I do but complain you? I asked you to stay away from my talk page, you didn't. Don't comment about what others are seeing, contemplate on your own behavior. No one can block anyone from editing on anyone's talk page, but I haven't commented on your talk page except to provide you warning for your behavior. The only other comment was to notify you of this ANI complain as a notification is mandated by the rules. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Also per you User:Rævhuld, me notifying you about the ANI complaint against you is "Harassment" even though it is required by the rules to inform the one who you complained of. Also I forgot to mention. You say you did not accuse me of being a sockpuppet. But you made it clear in your own comment that you think Vujjayani can be the sockpuppet of no one but me: PS! Could someone please check if User:Vujjayani is one of his sock puppets? Which other reason should this user have to delete an entry here (vandalism)? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Rævhuld why did you feel it necessary to add material that has not been verified yet (if ever)? You can't simply say someone is harassing you just because you do not like what they write, especially if their side goes with consensus. Also, just wondering, is this your first account? On your userpage, you awarded yourself a barnstar and in the description it states you have been editing for several months. However, that is not possible because that was self-received during your first month here. Could you elaborate?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Which not verified material did I add where? I used source on all my work. And yes, this is my first account. I had an account many years ago, but that was just one week and I forgot my log in data. When I created my page, I just took another users talk page as inspiration. And I actually provided evidence for the harassment. Just view the post that was illegally deleted here. He harassed me. I asked him kindly if he could stop. And he just continued. End of story. --Rævhuld (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - If you're in reading mode I suggest you check this ANI-discussion about "Rævhuld" from 8 March 2017, just after the account was created, and the swiftly removed message (see bottom of page) I posted on their talk page on 12 March might also be of interest. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

And? What do you want? If you could some Danish you would know that my name means "fox hole" and not asshole. There is something called Danish English. You removed it and claimed it did not exist. I saw my mistake and did not put it back. Are you happy now? This has nothing to do with the topic. I am being harassed by a user.--Rævhuld (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Rævhuld Oh, but I do know Danish, and a fox burrow is "rævegrav" in Danish, not "rævhuld" (check this article about the red fox on da-WP: "ungerne fødes i en såkaldt rævegrav, en gang udgravet f.eks. i en bakkeskråning", and a search on "rævhuld" on Google yields nothing but a username on a number of websites, including WP. So who do you think you're fooling?. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thomas.W thanks for the read. I am more convinced this is not a new user and even if he/she is they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Why was Rævhuld not blocked during that discussion?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to consider to wait for information to come in and sources to say anything. He kept claiming the sources said "The attacker has admitted he did it for ISIS" and "ISIS has claimed responsibility" which is a misrepresentation of sources. This seems to be based on local media reports that the suspect arrested in the case had posted pro-ISIS propaganda on social media. However, what he added was completely something which the sources never claimed and these reports about pro-ISIS propaganda too are just reports, and any link with the group is not confirmed. Either he isn't properly reading the sources or is violating rules wilfully. Oh and Rævhuld, nobody is stating your names means "asshole" even if they thought so in the past. If they think your user profile reflects that you aren't a new user, then that they can investigate. So yes, it is entirely relevant unlike your repeated baseless claims of anyone harassing you or insinuation of others being a sockpuppet just because your complaint was deleted. Nor many of your edits were actually based on what the sources said. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

As for unverified content, some of it is here:[18], [19], [20], [21]. Also I doubt one week amounts to months. Even if you did, you should mention it on your user page. From your user page, it is clear you aren't correctly claiming you edited for past many months. If you only copied the other as inspiration, it seems odds for you defending it. You are harrasing others yourself Rævhuld, such disruptive behavior cannot be tolerated. You must stay within the rules. Falsely accusing others is completely against them. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment 2 - "Rævhuld" is also trolling the German Wikipedia, doing the exact same thing there as here, trolling that has drawn the attention of de-WP administrators, including a block for personal attacks yesterday... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I earlier thought he was misinterpreting and didn't have much knowledge about him violating the rules through his behaviour, but based on this it seems he is behaving in this way deliberately and wilfully. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment When I saw the user page with all the self awarded barnstars and ITIS awards I thought he looked familiar. Starting to sound more and more NOTHERE. L3X1 (distant write) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
• Seems like there are no takers this time either. Odd. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand that statement, Thomas.W L3X1 (distant write) 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Tecsatan: Using legal threats on talkpage

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

I've blocked His Illustrious Highness, the Count Adam Nicholas Schemanoff, BSc (Hons), FdSc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I searched both here and on the Commons, but I couldn't find a place where the user was specifically told to contact OTRS to verify the permissions. I've now done so on their talk page. Mz7 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, I don't believe a word that has come out of TecSatans mouth here. My greatest problem here is the failure to issue the threat with basic English proficiency. Fair not fare; copyright not copy right; obverse outrages behaviour means, literally, opposite to outrageous behavior; outrageous behavior not outrages behaviour; disproved or proved to be false is a tautology, they mean the same thing; and finally, a supporter of one ..., not, a support of one .... Serious question to people with legal knowledge; Sadly, the law and electoral commission guidelines supersedes any terms and conditions that may be held by Wikipedia - does UK law have even the slightest jurisdiction on Wikipedia's affairs? to my knowledge, the encyclopaedia is under US jurisdiction. Under what circumstances could the encyclopaedia be affected by external judicial affairs? I get that for copyright we employ both US and origin country copyright laws, but, is this to protect the encyclopaedia from being sued or censored? If there is a policy or page I can read for this kind of information I'd greatly appreciate it. Recently I've gained an interest in how legal structures operate in different countries and the interplay between nations. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, British law allows for libel cases to be filed regardless of whether there is any British jurisdiction, and I would presume that extends to other civil suits as well. But I don't think a person could be charged with any sort of criminal offense based on an edit to WP, even if that person is a British national residing in the UK, given what (admittedly little) I know about international jurisdiction. In truth, I'd be a little disappointed if a person were able to be charged with a crime over an edit to WP in any jurisdiction, though I wouldn't be particularly surprised. Note that I'm an American, and am, therefore, by definition ignorant about all things that can't be deep fried or have a bald eagle silk-screened onto them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't supposed to deep fry the eagle? No one ever told me L3X1 (distant write) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Deep fried eagle? That's just blindly harmful over enthusiasm; destroying the very thing you wish to honor. It doesn't get any more 'Murikan than that!!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd point out that the legal threat the user was making was to go to the police and have an editor charged with electoral fraud because he removed the editor's preferred candidates's picture from Wikipedia. This is so comical that either the user is trolling us or they haven't got a clue about the laws on electoral fraud, which is ironic if he is interested in promoting a candidate in an election. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You wouldn't expect kings to know the finer points of electoral law, tho'. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

He has now claimed that not only have complaints been made, but a cease and desist order has been issued. However, if he is indeed the person that he claims to be, a swift Google will probably explain the reality of the situtation... Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Quite a rapid response. I wish my local constabulary would react with such alacrity. The last (and hopefully, only) time I had to take out a restraining order against someone, it took about 5 months to go through. To be fair, a temporary one was issued after a mere 2 weeks (and the subject getting arrested on related charges). But still, it begs the question: to whom, exactly, was the court order issued? I humbly suggest that even if the threat were to be retracted, there would remain another obstacle to an unblock. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

And the source of His Highness's nobility: [22]. (Don't beat me for spamming, I couldn't resist.) — kashmiri ^TALK 22:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There's worse: His Excellency President for Life, Ruler over all Africa in General and Uganda in Particular, Lord of the beasts and fishes, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE for example. Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1 (addressed as His Worshipfulness Lordy Lord) 23:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's more impressive than Norton the First, by the grace of God Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico. Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN and Black Kite: Has this editor claimed to be nobility somewhere? I haven't seen it and I feel lost now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: It was on his userpage, but has since been removed. Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants/MPants at work:- Can this be reopened please? The user has just posted on his talkpage saying he is capable of (in theory) hacking and is now blaming other users for his issues. Courtesy ping: Mz7; NeilN Nördic Nightfury 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-opened. I have removed talk page access and email access (based on a note on my talk page) from the editor. They seem to have reproduced an email complete with addresses on their talk page - another admin may want to remove and possibly revdel. Note my only interaction with the editor was to block them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The deed has been done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I'll forward the email I got from this editor to any uninvolved admin who might need to see it. There's nothing really shocking in it though, just more of the same crap from his talk page and the rather unusual assumption that I'm in charge of the admins. Don't get me wrong, I definitely should be in charge, but I think we all know I'm not. Yet. I'll leave the next close for someone else this time, because I get the feeling I'll say something really snarky in the result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh my God, Pinky and the brain.... best TV show ever! ...NARF! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It really is at the top of any recommended watching for anyone plotting world domination. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reply - I just noticed that I was referenced in Tec's talk page comments, though attributed to NeilN. Presumably, if Tec is being honest, due to their dyslexia. I'd like to be clear that I was not aware of Tec's dyslexia and was, I had thought, making fun of the immaturity of their behaviour. Tec in the interest of full disclosure; I am not an admin. Now with regards to harrassment and electoral fraud, I'd like to put these to bed. Permanently. Having an image deleted off Wikipedia is not harrassment. Period. There is no futher discussion to be had about that. Now, I have not stepped foot in the UK in my life, so take my interpretation of your electoral fraud laws with a bushel of salt, but, nobody has committed any of the following; bribery, treating, undue influence, personation, made false statements (propaganda and libel), breached the secrecy of the ballot, committed racial hatred, or any of the false registration/multi-vote offences listed here. But seriously, if you actually reported this to the police... facepalm. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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. [23].SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi SparklingPessimist - This looks like only one occurrence. Am I missing something? Is this a repeated behavior? What dispute is this originating from, and where? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

He has also attacked other users as well Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes on a TFD please SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Fabartus (talk · contribs) appears to have a long history of persistent incivility and general hostility. See the half dozen NPA blocks between 2008 and 2011, as well as continued personal attacks and bizarre, militant comments just within the past few days (not including the diff linked by the OP). Fabartus's interactions with other contributors seem to fall short of the decorum we expect. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Also see his reply to my ANI notice for the thread above [24]. I didn't even think to check his block log when I made that report... – Train2104 (t • c) 19:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Juliancolton - I agree. This is problematic behavior, and clear evidence shows that this is a repeated and long-term issue.

Fabartus - I don't think I need to go into in-depth details regarding Wikipedia's civility policy nor Wikipedia's policies against making personal attacks towards others. Your history clearly demonstrates that you've been shown these policies numerous times and that you should be reasonably aware of their existence. This is the only warning I'm going to give you. You need to either engage in civil discussion over the specific disputes and concerns you have and appropriately, or drop whatever stick it is that you're carrying and move on. Your last block was for one month due to incivility; please please don't make me have to be the guy that blocks you for yet another instance of this issue... :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't have that much patience. Indef blocked, any admin can undo it if you feel he's reformed and will stop attacking and harassing other editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

In context, that seems ridiculously disproportionate. Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I read the very considerable history before acting. Please confirm you have, and let me know why you think it's disproportionate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This was in response to someone claiming mere mention of a one of the more benign Trumpism was "hate speech." Obviously the response was that of a seventy, eighty-ish (I'm guessing) curmudgeon, written in Curmudgeon-ese. Reads like the know-it-all wiseass inhabiting the end stool at a thousand bars, but it isn't the sort of thing that deserves blocking, any more than the piece responded to, written in Snowflakian is, although, truth be told, her bit was more insulting, in some ways. Anmccaff (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff:That's pretty insulting, I just gave my honest opinion on something and I didn't insult anyone or curse at anyone. I think it's funny you think I'm an old curmudgeon, though considering the fact that I'm a college student, I'll take it as a compiment. Don't you have some redditing to attend to? Thanks.SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes. Your honest opinion was roughly "Trump EqUaLS HITLER!!!!!! That's what "hate speech" kinda implies, connection to some real underlying nastiness, although if you think the Godwinning is premature, substitute David Duke, or something. And please don't promote yourself; Frank's the Curmudgeon, you're the Snowflake.

What, exactly, if anything, do you mean by the reditting crack, BTW? As I see it, you have once again substituted thought with personal insult. People who seeks bans might want to look behind them, 'cause when you throw some stuff, it tends to return. Anmccaff (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ignored.SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible to take your bickering elsewhere, both of you? It's not adding anything to this discussion at all. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is the right place; while Frank has a long history of low-grade assholery; the person bringing the complaint is gaining on him pretty fast. Were it not for the old stuff, and the (justified, I think) fear that it'll continue like this, this should have a boomerang, or perhaps a double trouting. Anmccaff (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Look; one and only one person in this debate called one editor a "Girly Girl" on their way to other offenses and outright said that all IP editors are using subterfuge, said the particular one was an idiot, generalized that all hiding behind IPs are (caps original) "NOT WORTHY OF RESPECT", and deliberately furtive, and that they're deliberately betraying trust and that "Drawing and quartering would be too good for them.". As far as I can tell the IP merely disagreed with him on a sensitive (to him) point. I can believe this is a user who's older and used to being the old curmudgeon on the bar, but if that curmudgeon starts suggesting the death of other users like that in the middle of otherwise insulting tirades, most bars are going to ask them to leave. This behavior is not OK on Wikipedia. It would not be OK in most diners, in libraries, in internet cafes, at home. That (presumably) he felt ok to do it here was a mistake, and he should not have the opportunity to continue it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Three points. First, Frank ain't here. You blocked him, indefinitely; continuing to comment on things he can't respond to seems a little tacky, unless it is required for other reasons. Next, if we take as a given the prematurely crusty persona (he appears to be a decade younger than I'd guessed), "girly girl" is mostly an ageist crack, not a sexist one, as the remainder of the post reinforces. Those are both peripheral, and, as mentioned, overcome by events; the guy was blocked without even a chance to respond, followed by the usual stream of admins suggesting that perhaps it should have been different, but, now that it's done....

The big deal is that two people traded snark, and one of them continued it onto the board here...and that's the one walking away. Anmccaff (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

On the one hand, user was given a final warning by Oshwah above—on the other, it's clear that this has been a repeated issue. But it has been over half a decade since the last block. I think 3 months block is sufficient in this case. El_C 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

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

re to El C: Half a decade, but significant recent behavior. In any case, any bold enough admin can roll it back to 3 mo if you want, or I will if I see a consensus here that it was excessive. Waiting for more consensus input (thanks, Beeblebrox & El C) may help. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I haven't familiarised myself with the recent history, so you two might be right. Waiting for a sensible block appeal sounds... sensible. El_C 22:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• I probably would not have gone for an indef block, especially before the user had a chance to acknowledge Oshwah's final warning, but now that it's done I see no pressing need to intervene. Fabartus is just chronically nasty to his peers and that's something we shouldn't tolerate. Digging a little deeper, I came across more instances of blatant personal attacks from the past several months, among them: "I really find you and this bothering event to be outrageously silly"; "OK jerk, the articles are all yours"; "suggesting this kind of change because you're ignorant, also says you are too lazy to research the topic". This is to say nothing of his having addressed a female editor as "Girlly Girl". Until Fabartus learns to comment on content and not contributors, I think the block is perfectly justified. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Uninvolved commenter here: I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but the personal attack in the first diff pretends to 'refute' the OP by citing (easily) demonstrably wrong "facts" in response to her claims during a very brief exchange. I can understand (if not entirely sympathize) with someone who gets upset at an editor who displays some fundamental ignorance over a long period of time, but to attack someone over such a short exchange with an argument that is, itself fundamentally ignorant is something we just don't need here. I'm endorsing the indef. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• I should probably add this for the record - I am completely fine with Georgewilliamherbert's block. After five previous blocks for the exact same issue, I consider the notion that "we're past warnings at this point" as a completely valid argument. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Sad to see Frank blocked. I have worked with him one before with no problem, but agree with the block. I hope he will learn his lesson and come back in 6 months. L3X1 (distant write) 03:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support block, indifferent on the length of time. When a user starts yelling at everyone about a template they created, it's time to put on the brakes. While nothing in that gigantic wall of blue text was brazenly insulting, there's enough sarcasm and passive aggressive language to make me raise an eyebrow. I do realize, however, that there will always be a curmudgeon or two on the project, but at some point we need to stop ignoring our racist grandparents and start holding them accountable (and no, I'm not saying Fabartus is racist, it's a metaphor for not saying "oh, that's just the way they are"). Primefac (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Reduce block - An indef is overblown, I recommend a reduction to 3 months. I have to agree with Anmccaff on the general gist of what happened. A crusty old curmudgeon (Fabartus) got angry at an ill informed college student (ThatGirlTayler/SparklingPessimist) for spewing tired old talking points and calling people names. It is what it is. I mean for crying out loud she called at least 60 million people bigots; Donald Trump barred Muslims from entering the U.S. supporting him is supporting hate speech and bigotry - please don't give me that shite excuse of, well "saying someone is supporting bigotry doesn't necessarily mean that you're calling them a bigot". Don't you think Fabartus, potentially a Trumpian, might be insulted by that crude generalization. Let me weigh this up; girly girl vs. supporter of hate speech and bigotry. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Indef: This user seems to have a sustained history of incivility, including over the short-term. The particular comments raised here go beyond garden variety personal attacks and into truly hostile, abusive language, with more than a little bit of a territorial/intimidatory character. Given this user's apparent inability to internalize even a baseline adherence to our civility standards, despite a long tenure here and multiple blocks for similar behaviour, an indef seems entirely appropriate. Meaning no offense to Mr rnddude, but I don't think a temporary block (of any length) is prudent. Even if Sparkling's comments had been much more targeted and caustic, it would only be an argument for examining her conduct, not excusing Fabartus' comments, which were simply not acceptable. Most importantly, an indef will require Fabartus to actually come to terms with what is unacceptable (under our community standards) in their approach here, and articulate to either an admin or the community how they intend to approach similar situations in the future. That's a significant distinction in a case like this where a user has continued to exhibit the same behaviour repeatedly over the course of years and could easily wait out a block and then return to the same approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for renewed topic-ban

I'd like to ask for a renewed topic-ban for User:Robertwalker User:Robertinventor on Four Noble Truths. He has been flooding the talkpage with his comments since 5 december 2014 (Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 2#Request for comment on reliable secondary sources for articles on Buddhism + Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 3 + Talk:Four Noble Truths + Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism#Have you ever seen this before?). See [25] [26], [27] for previous (eventually granted) requests for a topic-ban. Pinging Ms Sarah Welch and JimRenge for their opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It does look like this is a problematic disruptive recurrence of the same activity described in the prior ANI posts. I should note however that the user in question is Robertinventor and not User:Robertwalker (which is unregistered). -- Dane ^talk 04:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The account in question is User:Robert C. Walker, which is a declared alternative account of User:Robertinventor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. He signs with "Robert Walker." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Joshua Jonathan, in terms of "renewed topic-ban": Please submit the administrator's diff from the user's talkpage imposing a previous topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks. The topic ban was for six months and expired 27 November 2016. After the expiration, Robertinventor did post extensively on Talk:Four Noble Truths from mid-to-late December 2016, whereupon he stopped for three months: [28]. He made one post a few days ago, which was a concise summary of his perceived problems with the article: [29]. Since that was not a disruptive or over-lengthy post, I do not at all see any cause for a topic ban. In fact, it was your WP:TPO-violating deletion of that post [30] which caused the consequent brouhaha on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. I recommend that this thread be closed with no action. Softlavender (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's right... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking at Talk:Four Noble Truths, which the OP asserts Robertinventor "has been flooding with his comments", I only see one single comment by Robertinventor since December 2016 [31], a concise summary of what he perceives to be problems with the article: [32], which Joshua Jonathan summarily deleted three hours later [33], in blatant violation of WP:TPG. It seems to me therefore that if anyone needs a topic ban from the article (or other sanction), it is more likely to be Joshua Jonathan. – Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, everything here is confusing. Instead of User:Robertwalker, the OP appears to have meant User:Robertinventor. And instead of Talk:Four Noble Truths, the OP appears to have meant Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No, he did not mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism; he did indeed mean Talk:Four Noble Truths. He's trying to dredge up an old feud and defunct ANI discussions as justification for his violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Alas, I lack psychic skills at remotely reading the IP's mind, and would rather wait and see what the OP declares he meant. Talk:Four Noble Truths seems to have been the location of the earlier topic ban, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism seems to be the location of the current dispute. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't need to. He mentioned Four Noble Truths and Talk:Four Noble Truths several times in his OP and made it clear that is where he wants a topic ban enacted. The username mixup was quickly resolved as caused by the way the user signs their posts. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well he has posted but hasn't addressed the matter, so you are right. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

A topic-ban would naturally include any discussion of the topic on the article talkpage itself, and other pages.

I have above referred to Robert's previous extensive commentaries at the talkpage of the "Four Noble Truths" article; he resumed his comments in december 2016 (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Three things wrong with this article, and continued in april 2017 at the same talkpage, repeating his arguments (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Short summary of the issues with this article). I reverted this latest addition, beacuse it got fed-up with the repetition of his previous posts, including his december-post. There-after he also posted a thread on the the same topic at the Buddhism Project page.

I'm not "trying to dredge up an old feud and defunct ANI discussions as justification for his violation of WP:TPO"; I'm trying to show that Robert has brought up the same topic again and again, without gaining concencus. I got fed-up with the extensive posting when Robert added this summary of his previous post which was a repetition of his posts from 2015 and 2016. I found it disruptive; from the absence of any comments he might have concluded that there is still no support for his view or suggestions, just as before. Instead, he again brought up his complaints. Anyway, I apologize; I reacted on impulse, as I just had enough of it.

After that, I thought, again, "Ignore, ignore!" Yet, the triggering point for asking for a renewal of the topic-ban, is the fact that Robert again mentioned a discussion I and several others had with User:ScientificQuest at the Anatta talkpage. Robert writes "@Joshua Jonathan: reverted every single edit that @ScientificQuest made to the Anatta article. He eventually just gave up editing wikipedia." See Talk:Anatta/Archive 3#Again, Talk:Anatta/Archive 3#About Reliable Sources for Articles on Religion, and Talk:Anatta/Archive 3#Constructive comments, in which I and several others explained what the problem with his edits was. In "Constructive comments," I gave an extensive explanation of my revert, to which SQ responded:

"Hi Joshua, Chris, Victoria, and Robert. Please don't mind my personal note - since I made some bad personal remarks here earlier, I figure it is only right for me to write a personal apology. And again, instead of writing on your individual talk pages, I decided to own it up in public.

Joshua, thanks a lot for your very constructive feedback. I really appreciate this line-by-line feedback of exactly what went wrong in my post. It keeps it to facts, and states exactly what the problem is with the style. Coming from a background of writing for academic Journals, I can see my tendency to write original research - because arguably that's what academics do (unless perhaps they're editing Wikipedia pages). So I acknowledge your criticism and I stand corrected."

So, it's not only the overflow of comments by Robert, it's also this kind of tendentious editing which is too much. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch, please stop deleting and or collapsing other editors' text on Talk:Four Noble Truths. See WP:TPO and WP:TPG. Moreover, if text is collapsed, an explanation should be given in the title of the collapse, and should be signed and dated using four tildes, so that everyone can see who collapsed the text, when, and why. I have now uncollapsed the myriad instances on Talk:Four Noble Truths. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: Please do not falsely accuse me of "deleting", when I didn't. I only collapsed the text. I did add an explanatory title, informing the interested reader to also consider the discussion in Archive 3. Fair title, I say, for a wall of post that is linked to more walls of text about the same thing. The TPG guidelines state "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts". Let us request Robertinventor to avoid repeating himself in his walls of post (evidence below), per TPG. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• I thought my post was clear, but for complete accuracy I've now changed the word "and" to "or". The post you collapsed was not a repetition (I've checked the archive you referred to). Nor did you sign and date your collapse. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Softlavender: - thanks so much for reverting[34] Sarah Welch's non consensus collapse of the talk page discussions for Four Noble Truths! I know that I tend to be verbose. I think you have pretty much all worked out what happened now, glad to see it. In case it helps, here is a short summary as I see it. I did one post on Talk:Four Noble Truths after four months of silence there. @Joshua Jonathan: reverted that post deleting my comment from the talk page[35]. @Farang Rak Tham: reverted his edit. @Ms Sarah Welch: then collapsed nearly all my posts on the talk page. I posted to @Joshua Jonathan:'s talk page asking him not to delete my posts and in that comment I also reminded him of my previous request to warn me about any problematical behaviour first and attempt amicable settlement before taking me to WP:ANI [36] but explained this did not extend to asking him to delete my posts, which I can do myself. He did not warn me of this current action or ask me to modify my behaviour before taking it out. Meanwhile I also posted to the Buddhism Project talk page about the reverted and collapsed comments. The conversation is here: [37]. Later in that conversation I declared my intention to add a POV tag to the article to say that its neutrality has been questioned and asked Joshua Jonathan if he would take me to WP:ANI for adding the tag. @Joshua Jonathan: responded saying that he wouldn't take me to WP:ANI if I add the tag but there is a "consensus" that the article is unbiased and that mine is just a "personal opinion". @Ms Sarah Welch: said that if I do add the tag, she will immediately revert it because she says I am repeating a past concern rather than voicing a new one[38]. The discussion then turned to what counts as a WP:RS in the topic area of Buddhism which has been a matter of much heated debate in this project. I wrote a very long reply to that - but it was my only comment for the day.
  
  Then - to explain why I am using a different name just now - at that point, realizing that I had written rather a lot in that conversation, I logged out of my main account and logged into User:Robert C. Walker. It is an account that I have linked to my main account in both directions as a legitimate alternative account. It's purpose is as a way to log into wikipedia for non controversial editing as a "wikibreak" when I get caught up in any controversies that may lead me to be over verbose in my replies. It means that I don't get those red notification messages when I am pinged which I find helps me to take a real wikibreak from the conversation while I can still edit wikipedia in areas other than the controversy, whatever it is. I have just seen a message on my alternative account by Joshua Jonathan saying that he has taken out this action. So that is the whole of the story as I see it. Any questions do say. I have logged back into my main account for this comment to avoid confusion. Robert Walker (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please add @Robertinventor's walls of post on WikiProject:Buddhism talk page as evidence here. Nevertheless, I hesitate in supporting the topic ban proposal for what has happened so far, and need more time to reflect on this. FWIW, @Robertinventor is repeating the post-April 2016 discussion (he acknowledged his habit of repeating himself). Would @Softlavender be willing to volunteer, read the walls of text and discussions since April 2016, the sources cited in those discussions, and mediate an outcome that helps improve the article further per wikipedia content guidelines? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That WikiProject Buddhism thread came about because Joshua Jonathan summarily deleted Robertinventor's recent (after a three-month absence from the page/article) concise and neutral post three hours after Robertinventor posted it [39] -- an action which was a direct policy violation. As I've stated above, if anyone merits any kind of sanction here, it is Joshua Jonathan. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender, You evaded my suggestion: I take it you don't want to mediate yourself. Would you want to deal with Robertinventor's walls of texts, self-confessed repetition etc? Robertinventor behavior has been disruptive, as past admin reviews have found, and which led to a block. I find your concerns with @Joshua Jonathan unpersuasive and one that ignores the full context. You mention this delete that included in its edit comment "You've summarized enough". Which is true! Even Robertinventor admits, "I thought I'd just briefly state the main points again [= repeat], perhaps I went into too much detail". Clearly, TPG states, "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts". Yes, indeed WikiProject:Buddhism discussion thread came about because Joshua Jonathan deleted something, but that delete came about because Robertinventor did something. Almost all human beings react when they are repeatedly provoked. Perhaps not the way we may like in our better moments. There is a chain of events relevant here. You can help stop this chain and wreck-in-the-making, if you would be willing to mediate by reading the scholarly sources, Robertinventor's and Joshua Jonathan's take on them, and suggesting ways to improve the article. Would you mediate? Would someone else want to go over the walls of text in Archive 2, 3, 4 and the current Talk:Four Noble Truths, then mediate? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been reading Robert's latest post again (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Short summary of the issues with this article, and this sentence sums it all up:

"So, given that, then the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream."

That's what he has been hammering on since two and a half years, despite any lack of concencus for reverting to his preferred version. The problems with that preferred version have been pointed out again and again and again and again and ad infinitum: WP:OR and a lack of WP:RS.

I've also read part of Talk:Four Noble Truths#Three things wrong with this article again; it's a long overview of his personal understanding of Buddhism, and his lack of knowledge of the relevant literature. Which has also been explained over and over again.

Content issue

Take the quote from Walpola Rahula at the section Talk:Four Noble Truths#According to the Pali Canon Buddha realized cessation as a young man of 35. Rahula views Nirvana as some sort of metaphysical entity, which can be realized/known ("gnosis"). In a Buddhist context, this is a highly disputed notion. According to Rahula, the reality of this entity is proven by the fact that it can be experienced. Gombrich himself, a student of Rahula, expressed his astonishment on Rahula's views on this; he found it to be a naive kind of epistemology. A quote like this needs context, on the history of Buddhism, religious/mystical views on metaphysical reality and the highest principle or reality, the interplay between Asian spirituality and western spiritualiy (Rahula's view reminds of Neo-Patonism and the One; the Theosophical Society, which had a very strong influence on Sri Lankese Buddhism, was deeply influnced by Neo-Platonism, which was en vogue in the 1800s; was Rahula influenced by western thought, and if so, by which, an to what extent?) et cetera. It takes hard work do give this context, and a lot of WP:RS. Robert seems to be unaware of this. Instead, Robert writes: "The four truths are understood in this way in all the main sutra traditions, Zen [40], Tibetan [41], Therevadhan [42], etc." Websites, of teachers. Who don't even support what Robert states: Rahula: "It is incorrect to think that Nirvana is the natural result of the extinction of craving. Nirvana is not the result of anything." Dalai Lama: "When we eliminate the disturbing negative minds, the cause of all suffering, we eliminate the sufferings as well." The Dalai Lama also says "Thus, the texts on Middle Way [Madhyamaka] philosophy state that the root of all the disturbing negative minds is grasping at true existence." For Madhyamaka, this includes Nirvana; Nirvana is not a metaphysical reality or "true existence." Those two primary sources show fundamentally different Buddhist teachings on the essentials of Buddhism. Therefor, primary sources like these are not the basis for Wikipedia-articles; we rely on secondary sources, which interpret those primary sources. We don't do that ourselves, otherwise we get the kind of misunderstanding we see at work here. That's why I get fed up with the endless repetition: it's personal opinion, based on a personal understanding of primary sources.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: For the wikipedia guidelines on Relgious sources, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources. Thanks! I had the idea today to write a short essay on WP:RS in the Buddhism topic area in particular for the project, for comment, which may help. But this is obviously not the time given that I am being taken here to be topic banned for writing too much :). I'm taking a wikibreak for a few days to calm down, and most of the time I am logged into my linked alternative account which I use for this purpose. But because of this action against me I am checking it occasionally for a few minutes at a time in case a brief reply from me is needed such as this one. Robert Walker (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• It seems to me that what we're dealing with here is a basic misunderstanding with the way Wikipedia works. Presenting detailed arguments why an entire article is on the wrong track is not going to work when you have active and well respected editors disagreeing with you. Robertinventor, a better tack for you to take is to propose very short changes to the article, suitably backed up by references, and do this one change at a time. For example, you say the solution is not to rewrite the article so that it only presents the views of Gombrich and Anderson. I know next to nothing about this topic but, as an independent observer, I'd like to see a couple of things: the exact text that incorporates these other views and a clear sense of how much weight they carry in the scholarly literature. Suitability referenced, of course. It is then possible to discuss whether those views are relevant and whether or not the text accurately reflects the scholarly weight of those views. Your current approach is not going to work and is going to come across as disruptive, particularly when I look through the talk page history and see long polemical posts on things that are, in your opinion, wrong with the article.--regentspark (comment) 18:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. First when you look at the archives please remember they originate from before anyone told me I was being too verbose on this talk page. Dorje108 and I did try focused RfCs. They were inconclusive. We couldn't edit the article itself as our edits would be reverted and we don't edit war. After he gave up editing wikipedia I tried one more focused RfC, the most focused one ever, on whether the word "redeath" is a Buddhist word, and whether it is used appropriately in the article and cited correctly. I was topic banned when that RfC was still in progress on the charge of writing too much in its discussion area. It was just like the current situation, no warning, no attempt at amicable settlement, no suggestion that I change my behaviour, just a note on my talk page when we were mid discussion in the RfC, saying that he had taken me to WP:ANI for verboseness, which he posted soon after the first vote in the RfC in favour of my recommendation on the topic (this was a vote by an uninvolved editor). For this reason I have not attempted an RfC since then. On the basis of that and earlier experiences, I don't think it will work. On the views of Gombrich, Anderson, Bhikkhu Sujato, Prayudh Payutto on the authenticity of the Pali Canon, then so far nobody has found a secondary source discussing them all in detail. But the range of views can be described, and is done so just fine in Pali Canon##Origins. I will not say any more at this point as this is not the appropriate place to discuss these matters. I hope you understand. I thought I should do a brief reply. If you are interested we can follow this up further either on the article or Buddhism project talk pages after this action is over. Robert Walker (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to say, but Robert simply drives other editors mad. See also User talk:Robertinventor#Ultramicroscope, for example diff and diff. See also trolling. Sorry for these harsh examples; but I'm really not the only one who is getting insane by his endless "dicussions." And, to add a friendly note: I'm really convinced there is no bad intention whatsoever from Robert; I'm sure his intentions are good. But he really, really doesn't get it. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, you are still not making your case. That usertalk discussion is not even remotely on the same topic or even subject. The only thing Robertinventor has done recently (in the last three months) on Four Noble Truths is post on its talkpage a concise 3,731-byte summary of his perceived issues with the article, which you immediately deleted, and a third party then reverted your deletion. 8 days later you posted a 12,500-byte reply to it: [43]. I don't see any problem here. I still recommend closure of this thread with no action. Alternatively, I recommend a boomerang for Joshua Jonathan, for deleting Robertinventor's concise good-faith post and for trumping up a non-issue here at ANI when there is clearly no current problem except that one created by Joshua Jonathan's WP:TPO-violating deletion. Softlavender (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this case is not suitable for ANI. And that JJ should not have removed the talk page post and that this ANI complaint is hasty. But we do need to explain to Robertinventor that their approach is not going to work. The problem is that broad "Here's what's wrong with this article" statements are not actionable, particularly when you have well referenced articles such as the one in question. Since they are not actionable, repeatedly posting the same statement, even if in concise or restated form, is unhelpful and can head toward being disruptive. At a minimum, it is a frustrating for other content editors. And, while that frustration may lead to hasty posts on ANI, they definitely don't deserve a boomerang. My suggestion is that Robertinventor is advised to make more specific suggestions and informed that WP:DR exists as an option if those suggestions don't get traction. That that's how this thread should be closed otherwise we're just going to see more frustration on that talk page. --regentspark (comment) 16:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

"In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. (Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.)

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed."

WP:TPO says:

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

But, indeed, WP:TPO says:

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

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

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

Clear. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Tim Zukas block evasion

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

• 205.154.246.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2016 – April 2017
• 205.154.244.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) June, December 2016, January–April 2017
• 205.154.244.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January–February 2017
• 169.229.6.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) September 2014, January–February 2017
• 205.154.244.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) December 2016 – March 2017
• 169.229.6.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) January 2015, February 2017
• 130.65.109.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) October 2016, February 2017
• 169.229.202.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2014, January–March 2015, February 2017
• 169.229.202.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) February–March 2015, February 2017
• 75.16.27.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2014 – February 2015
• 128.32.104.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) July–October 2014, January–February 2017
• 70.90.163.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) October 2013 – February 2015, December 2016 – March 2017

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

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

Need some admin attention here

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

Blatant advertising on wikipedia - Violation of T&C

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

Yes it is, rather. Going by your username, are we to assume that's your competition?! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I have adjusted the content of the article slightly, so it is now less spammy. Thanks for bringing it to our attention 👍 and, mind, note well what happens to Forex ads on Wikipedia. And any others, for that matter! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Play Magnus

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

---

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

You're both edit warring, and should go to the talk page to discuss the infobox parameters and where that image should be. There is nothing wrong with an editor editing an article after placing a deletion tag. I've even started a talk page section for you. Sam Walton (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

And per the giant notice at the top of this page and when you edit this page, I have notified Codename Lisa of this post. Sam Walton (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I am going to do something that I am sure everyone agrees I am perfectly allowed to: I am going to edit something well outside the area of dispute. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand this edit war. I've seen a lot of them. User:A thinks the subject of the article is a fraud. User:B thinks it is not so. User:A brings a source. User:B says it is unreliable. Then, forth and back revert. Something like that.

But Codename Lisa's changes looks like the kind that any sane Wikipedian does every day. Hell, if I had come to that article first, I might have done it. And IQ125's revert looks like some vandal doing random reverts. IQ125 is giving contradictory messages. On one hand, he comes to CL's article and says why doesn't she improve the article. On the other hand, he reverts the improvements. Also, there is shouting, juvenile vilification in AfD. "DO NOT CHANGE ARTICLE WHILE IT IS UNDER A DELETION +TAG." I had never heard such nonsense. How do you suppose the article rescue squad works then?

I don't like this at all. Something is very wrong here. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

As a regular editor of chess-related articles I have frequently noticed this editor's behavioral problems, including edit warring, article OWNership issues, original research, overlinking, wholesale reverts rather than discussions, lack of understanding of wikipedia policies, bad faith accusations of "vandalism" etc. Perhaps WP:MENTORing would help but frankly this editor has been around long enough to know better. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:SevenGear23

User:SevenGear23 consistently adds unreferenced controversial information [44], [45] and removes my warnings from his talk page [46]. Please, help me with the issue. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Corvus tristis: users are permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages, it is to be taken as a sign that they have read them. They've only had one recent warning about unreferenced edits, it seems you might get somewhere by better explaining that Instagram is generally not reliable as a source. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, he removed, but he had two warnings about reliable sources. If you look through his editing history, he never adds any source at all. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There was an older one from December, other than that it looks like you posted the warning, then posted the same warning again after they removed it, which to my mind is just one warning. As for sources they mentioned Instagram in an edit summary. That's not really how it works but at least they tried. If the Instagram had been reliable you could have added it as an inline citation for them and/or shown them how to do it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Corvus tristis, users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages, see WP:OWNTALK. Unless you have some more diffs of problematic edits to articles, this thread is pretty much done. Softlavender (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Here he adds without any sources the team that few weeks after confirmed their exit from the series. I have understand about removal of the warnings, but I think it will be better if someone tell him that we can't add speculations like the Arden's case. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I realize it is frustrating, but I don't think we've risen to the level of, say, blocking him yet. If he persists, and fails to heed your warnings, and continues to add unsourced information, then bring him back here down the line (and at that point, if he has been totally unresponsive, I myself will recommend an attention-getting block -- and you can ping me). But as yet I don't think this merits sanctions so far. Someone else here may disagree. Softlavender (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: POV Forks

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have replaced what EJustice was trying to post without the breaking of the page. --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Upon reading the above post, I am trying... very hard to continue to assume good faith, but there appears to be a serious disconnect between what this educator wishes to achieve and the goals of Wikipedia. Hopefully someone more eloquent than I can set EJustice on a better path than they are right now. Messing up ANI is not a good first step when assuming Wikipedia competency. --Tarage (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's nothing to do with "good faith", though. I'm sure the fella means exactly what he says, and that he's doing it for our own good. Whether we need it or like or not. I'm from the University & I'm here to save help you! Anmccaff (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) At this point I feel obliged to point out that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. From the above, I do get the distinct impression that this bit of knowledge hasn't yet arrived in Berkeley. Kleuske (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This class is also being discussed at WP:ENI, where the issue of a possible shared account, violating WP:NOSHARING, has arisen. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@EJustice: You said, "A Wikipedian accused our students of manufacturing the claim that Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax, going so far as to correct them by saying that Hillary Clinton accused him of having said that. He had tweeted it personally."

You have yet to acknowledge that your students misquoted an attributed source.

The editor wrote, "He once called climate change a Chinese 'hoax'". But the original source said "concept" -- not "hoax".

Per MOS:PMC, "quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." More generally, all student writers should be taught this principle. See Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed.: "It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of meticulous accuracy in quoting from the works of others. Authors should check every direct quotation against the original."

An unrelated point: I think that if your students are seeking to advance social justice through their contributions here, they must by definition act "on behalf of ... communities who are ... excluded from meaningful participation" in Wikipedia. See Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed., s.v. "social justice". I suspect that this would include, in particular, lower socioeconomic-class communities, whose members lack the leisure time or education needed to take part here. You may accordingly want to have your students search for and publish more information about what the administration's environmental policy means for working-class communities generally, not just for particular subsets of those communities. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is so awkward. User:EJustice you and your class are attempting to use WP as a WP:SOAPBOX (which is part of WP:NOT - which defines the mission of Wikipedia and says what WP is, and what it is not) as well as WP:NPOV. Your class is adding loads of very bad-by-WP-standards in a topic that is so controversial that it has been to our "Supreme Court" (WP:ARBCOM) on multiple occasions and has what we call discretionary sanctions" on it, namely contemporary US politics. We generally warn people not to make their first edits on topics that are so hard to work in. You have led a whole class of new editors into it, in a very foot-stomping way.

The problems go far beyond "going into too much depth in their articles" (part of what we call WP:UNDUE). Almost all the content is pure advocacy with explicit POV language and sourcing. The same content and ideas have been added to many articles and new articles, with no effort to integrate or deal with WP:WEIGHT. There has been a lot of WP:CRYSTALBALL content with negative projections about the future. There have been WP:BLP violations.

Your post is not promising in that you show no openness to understanding the problems here, as does this AfD !vote, this partial (?) removal of a PROD, this response to someone trying to point out relevant policies and guidelines... oy.

Please be aware that we do indefinitely block editors (and students and their instructors are editors like everybody else) who refuse to listen when people try to explain community norms (the policies and guidelines by which the editing community governs itself) and press on. The discretionary sanctions allow that blocking to happen swiftly when the problems are clear and there is no sign of them abating but only continuing. That would be ... awkward and I for one hope you can start hearing what people are saying to you in the several places across Wikipedia where people are responding to the class and to specific articles. I understand that your WP liaison is trying very hard to communicate with you, your TAs, and your students (diff) off-WP. I hope that bears fruit and this does not turn into more of a train wreck than it already is. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I disagree with your characterization of our students' work (soapbox, not, npov, undue, crystalball). I've read those policies and don't find that the pages in question generically violate them. Could you perhaps show statements that do so? It would help us understand what you're speaking of. Your references to the few edits I've directly engaged in highlight the same problem. Sections and pages were deleted without any real evidence while the sections themselves were well supported by scientific journal and popular literature citations. No need to do this yourself, but if you could find a soapbox-y statement that would be great. There's a lot of contentious stuff going on right now in the US and it does feel like a lot of soapboxing is going on. But that doesn't mean that, for example, mountain-top removal coal mining isn't actually affecting poor people in Appalachia. How is it a violation to document that?

Thanks! --EJustice (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately, a response with WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:ARBCOM, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc. is a not uncommon intimidation tactic. The work of your students is far better on the whole than typical newby editors. Their work certainly should not evoke this knee-jerk response. I hope some admins with cooler heads step in and help resolve this.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I highlighted a few examples in my AfD comments, but I'm not sure ANI is the right place for this discussion. For example there is WP:CRYSTAL about Trump in Financial Accessibility of National Parks in the United States, I reviewed several of the the articles and I don't think the policies are being cited maliciously in this case Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Your AfD comments cited this as POV, not CRYSTALBALL, but I agree that at this point this entry is CRYSTALBALL "Accessibility to national parks can decrease during this administration because President Trump has threatened to defund the National Parks Service. This would cause the National Parks to become more expensive to visit, through increase in entrance or yearly fees, or in some cases even shutting down National Parks. Our national parks are becoming increasingly vulnerable to destruction as climate change will negatively impact the ecosystems of many of our National Parks."

Note however that my talk page feedback to this page a few weeks ago specifically suggested to them how to remedy this. Very easy to show how proposed cuts in Trump's budget will impact park accessibility as the subject of accessibility is a widely researched one. We know, from rigorous peer-reviewed research, how fees affect park attendance by various groups. The editors of that page need to bring those citations to bear or modify the page. I do not think this warrants the TNT you suggest.

Overall grateful for a good example so editors can remedy. Most of the AfD comments have been unsupported by actual analysis and, again, does the need for better citation warrant an AfD? Wiki's systemic biases do make it harder for certain groups' issues to be addressed and I'd urge those reacting so strongly to think about that.

--EJustice (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

note, fixed indenting Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH carefully. If the secondary source does not explicitly say "Trump's budget cuts have effected park accessibility..." etc. I don't think it will pass scrutiny from our editors. As for better citation, Indigenous rights to land along rivers cites to Wikipedia itself. The errors are such flagrant policy violations that I don't think there is much to debate at this stage in terms of application and systemic bias. They demonstrate a clear and persistent misunderstanding of the most basic Wikipedia policies. I think it your responsibility to better familiarize yourself and your students with Wikipedia's policies and their applications, before accusing us of making unsupported accusations. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with I am One of Many's comment. There is no need to threaten the instructor and the students with blocks. What an embarrassment to the Project. What happened to WP:AGF and WP:BITE?
  That said, I agree with Seraphim System that students are writing things that do not follow our rules, especially rules against original research, synthesis and citing to primary sources, all of which would be acceptable in academic writing. The solution is not to WP:BITE the newcomers but to teach them respectfully how to follow our rules and write good content using proper sourcing that will stick. Deleting all their new articles rather than improve them is incredibly insulting. Just imagine if you were in a class and your instructor did that with all of your work.

I have offered to help the instructor and the outreach has already begun. Why are the rest of the dedicated Wikipedians not doing more of the same? Why are we instead slinging mud, as the instructor correctly pointed out here? I think the students and instructor are learning quite a lot from this experience, especially about Wikipedia itself, and about how we treat new editors who come in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia and provide well sourced content, and in particular how we treat the work of students from one of the U.S.'s top universities. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Without involvement, i observe there are new editors confronted with a wall of violations by Jytdog. Above I AM One of Many summed it up, intimidation tactic. Jytdog might as well be not even aware how he comes across to new editors. Wikipedia lacks new editors because of such harsh responses. Yet, editors with a history of conflicts are allowed to getting involved, over and over again. prokaryotes (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment This is why my suggestion would be to stay out of ArbCom subject areas (like Trump) as much as possible, at least until you are comfortable with the basics of WP:OR, because ArbCom is where editors will encounter truly esoteric applications of policy. It doesn't seem fair to allow pages to POV-fork out of ArbCom just because they are part of a school project. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I don't regard our placing the entire area of American politics under discretionary sanctions, as a particular strange thing to do, especially in time. And we arbitrators do not make the decisions about enforcement for individual violations of discretionary sanctions--this is done by other administrators. The process is deliberately divided. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree. Two of our five core policies are "Wikipedia the Encyclopedia anyone can edit" and be bold. Eliminating political and controversial topics from student involvement would violate our core polices. The problem comes from our end of not following our own policies as I mentioned at here at WP:EN/I and not giving these students the core policy of respect they are entitled. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, as long as you're proficient enough in English, competent to understand our rules, and do not violate our policies. Then, there may come a time when the community will decide that you can't edit, regardless of "anyone can edit." And while WP:Boldness is encouraged, bold edits are just edits, there's nothing sacrosanct about them, they can be reverted and the discussed just like every other edits. Neither "Anyone can edit" or "Be bold" are "Get Out of Jail Free" cards, they do not protect editors who do not follow policies from criticism or, potentially, sanctioning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Update, over at ENI the Education folks have said that they had a video conference with EJustice and that they have moved some articles back into sandboxes, will allow AfDs to continue, noted that some articles are probably OK and will continue to be improved, and clarified that students are not going to be graded on final product but on their drafts. And User:Train2104 is keeping track of the articles at a userpage, here.Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think the solution of userfying was a good one that I advocated for at the WP:AfDs and I thank Ryan (Wiki Ed) for the hard work done. However, we must own up to our failings both to the instructor and to the students from not following our core policies WP:5P3, WP:5P4, WP:5P5. We need to reflect on our behavior and our failure to be more welcoming to these students and the instructor and to the student's hard work.[47]--David Tornheim (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have mixed views on this issue. I've been involved with two articles from this class Draft:Environmental impacts of the War on Drugs and Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. The former I had to move back to draftspace during NPP because it was a very biased essay and full of loaded words (Draconian cannot possibly be used in a current politics article without being a loaded word.) I've reached out to the students to try to help. The Trump article posed an entirely different issue because it was also very essay like, but it also contained 6 sentences of close paraphrase/copy and paste, that required 128 revisions to be deleted. That being said, I firmly believe many of these articles have a place in Wikipedia. The student just need to follow NPOV better, and we could react better by not sending them to AfD, but by draftifying and helping them. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, Professor. I apologize for the wall of accusations that you have been met with here. You were operating in good faith. You and your students just need to be educated on the difference between a Wikipedia article and a term paper. A Wikipedia article does not express opinions, does not reach a conclusion, does not have an introduction explaining what the writer is going to say - none of that. A Wikipedia article only reflects what is has been given significant coverage by independent reliable sources. No WP:synthesis, no WP:Original research, nothing from the writer at all. And of course no opinions. Having said that, let me say that my first reaction on looking at the article Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration was that as a Wikipedia article it was terrible. But then I looked again and realized that it was well researched, very well written, and provided a good framework on which to build a Wikipedia article. In fact, it was by far the best student-written submission I have ever seen here. It just needed work. So several of us, particular TonyBallioni and myself, have done a major rewrite on that article to remove the copyright violations (direct copying is an absolute no-no and your students should know that), and to eliminate the "student essay" character of it and convert it to a neutral encyclopedia article. Your students might want to compare the current article with the version before we started in on it; it would be instructive for them. Thanks for reaching out to the community here, and I hope future efforts from you and your class will be welcomed as fully encyclopedic material. If you want to discuss my comments further, you can talk to me at User talk: MelanieN. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again...the entire revision history has been deleted. The record seems to indicate 2 potential copyright violations in what was quite a long article. Hard for students to review their work under such circumstances. I've asked the editor involved to revert. If you can join that call, we'd all have a better record to learn from. --EJustice (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

EJustice: Sorry, I missed this comment earlier. The reason that (almost) the entire history got deleted is that the copyright violation was not discovered until a lot of time had passed and a lot of intermediate edits had been made. Wikipedia is very sensitive on this subject for legal reasons. They will not allow copyright violations to remain here, even in the revision history. That means that every version of the page that contained the copyright violation - every page between the addition of the copyright violation material and its removal - unfortunately had to be revision-deleted. I understand this causes problems for students or anyone else trying to figure out who said what; it makes the history almost worthless. But it won't do any good to ask for the rev-del to be reverted. It was applied per Wikimedia Foundation policy, which trumps anything we editors may wish to do. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article. I'll make sure the student editors take a look. We are finding that material related to women, indigenous communities, people of color, and low-income people is being more heavily targeted for criticism than other material both at the full-article level as well as sub-sections. And the students are, by now, well-trained in sourcing strong material for points about these communities. So deletions rather than suggestions for additional sourcing seems unreasonable. As you run across insufficiently documented statements, please point them out since there's so much good stuff for people to bring to bear on issues that affect low-income communities and communities of color and are under-documented on Wikipedia. Thanks again! --EJustice (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the women's studies articles you are talking about? One of the areas I edit in is women's history. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I think one reason your comments here met with such a negative reaction was because of your expressed desire to create vital resources for people affected by pollution and injustice. That came across as wanting to push a particular viewpoint - in this case, that Trump's policies are bad, but we would have reacted just as negatively if you were here to push the viewpoint that Trump's policies are good. Please read this essay; the message is that Wikipedia is not a vehicle to "right great wrongs". We state what we find in neutral reliable sources - and we don't cherry-pick to make a point. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your comment. Every piece of content in the world, including the content on Wikipedia, is a resource for somebody and not a resource for everybody. The more clear you are about who your audience is, the better the content, even if it's neutral. And providing vital resources is quite different from righting a great wrong. Wikipedia is a vehicle for educational content, and it's gotta be alright for some of that neutral educational content to be of use to people affected by pollution and injustice. Does anyone here think that it's legitimate to have material on Wikipedia that serves such folks? --EJustice (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: To clarify the Righting Great Wrongs essay: It's OK for the class to help right a wrong if they do so by reporting information published in RS while upholding WP:NPOV. They could try searching diligently for reputable sources that say (1) what his policies are, (2) the ways in which they're bad or good, (3) the degree to which people "affected by pollution and [environmental] injustice" are more concerned about pollution or about jobs, and (4) what the trade-offs are authoritatively expected to be. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

break

EJustice: I would suggest showing your class the difference between some articles as they were initially written by your students, and those same articles after they were revised. For example, for Agua Prieta pipeline,this was the "before" version (replete with many problems), and this is the version after I extensively revised it (including some new additions) to conform to our policies. I share in the comments made by others above (such as MelanieN) and add the following additional recommendations, which strongly encourage you to review:

(1) you should instruct your students not to revert articles to their preferred version when Wikipedians raise objections. On at least three separate occasions that I saw, two different students simply reverted without discussion when efforts were made to bring their articles in line with Wikipedia practices: here (where one student inexplicably reverted a page move, even though another Wikipedian had explained why the initial page title was improper) and here and here (when another one of your students simply reverted, when in fact some of the manifest problems with the article had been pointed out — including fairly obvious stuff like citing Wikipedia as a reference in a Wikipedia article. Take a moment to read, and share with your students, Wikipedia's policies on dispute resolution and consensus.

(2) You should expressly and clearly tell their students that they have a responsibility to explain edits, to become familiar with basic Wikipedia policies, and to never simply revert or edit-war when they encounter problems.

(3) You should explicitly tell your students that creating a new article is often not a good idea choice in situations when it's likely to be viewed as a essay or fork of an existing article. Rather, you should allow and encourage your students to add/revise existing articles, where more references and content are often sorely needed, and where experienced Wikipedians are more likely to monitor the page. For example, rather than adding an term-paper-style essay in Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America (as one of your students did), try adding content to air pollution in the United States or Health equity#Ethnic_and racial disparities, or both.

(4) You should tell your students that it is important in a Wikipedia article to actually explain the topic, starting with a basic core of facts that puts the event in context. For example, in the Agua Prieta pipeline, the article as initially written by the student talked about events 400 years in the past, but failed entirely to give basic expository facts, like the name of the company that owns the pipeline. Additionally, and perhaps more seriously, the article as written by the student cherry-picked basic facts: for example, it wrongly portrayed an indigenous tribe as monolithically opposed to the pipeline, when in fact the reliable sources show that the tribe is internally split on the subject.

(5) You should teach your students about the differences in source quality. For example, advocacy groups and their publications are often not reliable sources for statements of fact. Your students, when possible, should try to cite to respected academic/scholarly sources or high-quality journalistic sources. Many of your students, to their great credit, have done so — but several others have not. Neutrality^talk 02:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions. WikiEdu provides great guidance to classes up front. I believe all these points were in fact covered by the trainings the students took. I've cross-referenced your points to the trainings they provided and not found them wanting, but if you could take a look and make additional suggestions I'll try to incorporate them as well as pass them on to WikiEdu. Here's the detailed syllabus and list of trainings as well as links to the training materials. And I am SUPER proud of them for not having responded less respectfully to the disrespect they've received here. Their constructiveness and meekness in the face of hostile editorial responses that seem at times to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class is admirable. They are as upper-division students fairly well trained researchers and certainly good at finding good supporting and citable materials. Your assistance in how to turn their considerable skill and expertise into great Wikipedia material is most appreciated. --EJustice (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe all these points were in fact covered by the trainings the students took. Then perhaps the training was too sketchy, or covered so much material that some of it wasn't absorbed. Because the cited examples (like reverting, or edit warring, or not explaining their edits) are things that your students actually did, despite their training and despite their syllabus. I would have preferred to see your response be "ok, thanks for pointing these issues out, I will call them to the students' attention so that they will not make this kind of mistake in the future." Rather than saying "We already told them that" and ignoring the fact that telling them wasn't effective. Look, we really do want your participation here, now and in the future. And we would like your next venture into Wikipedia to be a more pleasant and less confrontational experience for you and your students. But that depends on you learning what is important to Wikipedia, and transmitting it to your students. If you can't accept the strict neutrality required for Wikipedia, and the input and corrections and even rewriting that ALL Wikipedians are subject to, then maybe having them write a journal article or something would work out better for you. --MelanieN (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I take your point...so let me make it explicitly. I have thanked everybody I've responded to for their help. Which means we appreciate the help and are taking the legitimate advice seriously. The students spend about an hour a week in active, instructor-led review of their weekly work, in addition to the substantive course material. As of a couple of days ago, WikiEdu worked out explicit measures to de-escalate the conversations that have gotten a bit "hot" and to further improve quality. So editorial feedback is being taken seriously and reverting has specifically been flagged as unproductive. Out of 180 students, we've detected no more than 3 incidents of reverting. Not sure about how many have unexplained edits, and David Tornheim made the great suggestion that we quiz to some of these issues. But, let's say we ran a quiz in the form of what actually happened...3 Fs out of 180. Pat those kids on the back, no? So thanks to all for pointing issues out. Myself, the TAs, and the great folks at WikiEdu are training, coaching and monitoring the work being done using Wikipedia's standards and the feedback we're getting.

Some editors have also joined me in raising concerns about systemic bias which may be responsible for there being more editorial complaints about the race and class issues than other issues, as well as how the hostility appears to violate some of the community's principles of open-ness, assuming good intentions, and boldness in writing (WP:ANI and WP:BITE). I know we are learning a lot on our end about such issues, in addition to how to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia itself. Thanks again for all the input and help! --EJustice (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. When I say all Wikipedians are subject to being reverted and corrected, I mean it. You and your students are not being singled out. Take me: I have been here 10 years and am an administrator, but I am not immune. Just yesterday an edit of mine was reverted by another editor. So I went to the article talk page and we will work it out. That's how it works here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be wise if all of us who have concerns about the work of students, spend some time looking over the material provided by Wiki Ed here. I had asked about this a while back and got no response. It would be helpful for Wiki Ed to make sure experienced editors know what the students are being taught. Based on what I see there, I compare that to Neutrality's comment:

(3) You should explicitly tell your students that creating a new article is often not a good idea choice in situations when it's likely to be viewed as a essay or fork of an existing article. Rather, you should allow and encourage your students to add/revise existing articles,

This is not consistent with how the training modules by WikiEd are set up. The courses specifically encourage student to make new articles on a subject not covered by Wikipedia, which is exactly what those students did. The fact that some editors think these are POV forks does not mean that the students or the instructor would come to the same conclusion. I have disagreed with others about whether these articles were truly content forks and "already covered". In the training module for the instructor here it says:

Wikipedia writing assignment

In a Wikipedia writing assignment, students find topics that aren't covered well on Wikipedia. They research that topic with quality sources, and build up a well-referenced encyclopedia article.

This is exactly what the students did, which I believe is one of the reasons the instructor said s/he was following the program.

Also look at the next page and how similar it is to the subjects chosen. This leads me to my comment below about the instructor's comments about the cause of the problem here being related to the subject matter. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I read this guide and I think it would have been clearer with examples. Yes, it tells students to choose a topic that is not overly broad, though not too narrow, and the checklist at the end asks "Is the title short and simple? Make sure it doesn't look like an essay" - I think some clear Right/Wrong examples would go a long way. The very brief note on WP:OR might benefit from some examples/emphasis also. Bold font and CORRECT and NOT CORRECT is how I got through most of my assignments in college. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Yes, I had read that PDF guide too when I first saw some courses, but I do not believe that pamphlet is the main document they learn by. The link I provided has much more information and is more user friendly and interactive than the 16 page PDF. It also includes the instructions for how the instructor should design the courses. Familiarity with those documents should reduce some of the confusion about expectations, etc. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: If it wasn't for the wiki edu connection, User:EJustice would have already been warned, if not blocked, for POV pushing per WP:NOTHERE. The comment immediately above - accusing editors of being "motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class" - is a good example of this. StAnselm (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm active in I/P Collaboration and I don't consider myself "to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class" - I think blanket, unsupported statements like this narrowly escape being WP:PA by not being directed at any one editor. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Question: Are the marking criteria for this assignment publicly available? I see that one of them is the extent to which Environmental Justice is covered in the article. This creates a whole lot of WP:POV and WP:COATRACK problems, when every topic is seen in the light of Environmental justice. Perhaps instructors should be asked to submit marking criteria to Wiki Ed for feedback or approval. StAnselm (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I can see immediately that there will be an inherent clash between the way the encyclopaedia works and they way academia does. Clash 1; I would expect a university/college student (in a social sciences/humanities course) to learn to research a question/topic, to synthesize material on the question in order to draw (hopefully) well-reasoned conclusions about the question or topic. The reason for this is to help students develop their critical thinking and analysis faculties. This encyclopaedia works similarly in terms of research and writing, but, synthesizing and drawing conclusions is something Wikipedia has no wiggle room for. No original research. We are but mindless drones reporting only that which is explicitly stated in the sources we use. Compare college; Source A says that "Extra-terrestrial species A" populations declined over the course of the 19th century; Source B says that "Extra-terrestrial species A" spent the 19th century embroiled in constant war and famine. At college you might take these together to conclude that "Extra-terrestrial species A" populations declined because of "constant war and famine". On Wikipedia, you would not do this (even so far as to say "might") without a third source (source C) explicitly confirming this. Note that I am presenting as simple a case as I can for what I am saying. Clash 2; POV. Students are, again hopefully, encouraged to develop their own perspectives and ideas on issues and not just to mindlessly repeat what their college professors are teaching them. Full bias disclosure; 1) If I hear the word justice and it isn't in the context of Justice (law) then I become highly skeptical of whatever comes next, 2) Berkeley is renowned for the strong leftist POV ... it should be obvious that this will clash with NPOV and 3) Given the issues at Berkeley recently, I am ... let's say concerned about the institution. On the encyclopaedia, we have to pretend to have no point-of-view. We have one, but, it cannot be represented in our editing. If it becomes obvious that we're pushing a POV in our editing, then chances are our edits will be removed or de-POV-ed and possibly we'll be forcibly removed from the topic area. This is known as a TBAN. These two clashes specifically stick out to me, I am sure there are others. I honestly don't think this was a good exercise for your students as it won't allow them the freedom to think and develop their critical faculties, just repeat whatever is on the page in front of them in their own words. On the off-chance that the question arises as to why I isolated social sciences and humanities courses at the start, it's because different disciplines will have different requirements. I don't expect a Mathematician to go out and collect survey data from people like I would a business student, for example. At the same time, I am under no illusion to think that professors' will encourage their students to pursue ideas that fundamentally contradict their biases. I don't see an Environmental Justice student bringing a "climate skeptic" perspective to the table, in the same way I don't think it likely an Astrophysicist will bring a paper on "Why the Geocentric model supported in the Bible is correct" to Neil deGrasse Tyson and expect anything more than an F---. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Can I add, if this is going to be part of the curriculum for the next group of students, that I highly recommend your students go via WP:Articles for Creation and have their submissions checked over before they enter the mainspace. It will stop the issue of contributions being sent to AfD and also give the article a chance to be checked against Wiki policies including notability, source reliability and verifiability, NPOV and WP:NOT. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While it's a Sunday Truth (and look, it's not only Sunday, but Easter Sunday!) that Wiki allows no synthesis, were it enforced, a good deal of the articles would go away. A more accurate statement is that it tries to allow no synthesis except that which anyone, barring insanity, would agree on. There are plenty of unsourced conclusions, but only the ones that no one could question without feeling stupid should be left alone. Yeah, this is nit-picking, but it's very, very obvious from some of the words above that nits are about to be (selectively) picked. Anmccaff (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The last thing I'd want to be doing now is sending mixed signals when wikipolicy firmly states; don't synthesize. Even the material that the instructors and students are given says that. Does it happen? yeah course it does. One of our FA's is full of synthesis and OR - Using primary source Suetonius to draw conclusions about what Suetonius thought. That doesn't mean it's good. Now, if you tell me the sky is blue then no I do not expect a citation. I can't, however, think of an instance where synthesis would be expressly allowed. Especially not on a controversial topic; Some of the contributions fall directly under WP:ARBAPDS. Not an easy topic area to be editing. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't meant as, and needn't be taken, as a mixed signal: if people can draw two different conclusions from a set of facts, wiki articles should have a cite for any conclusions stated (and, of course, should have cites for all the possible conclusions, not just the ones a particular wikitor likes.) If there is no other conclusion to be drawn, though, leaving it uncited isn't uncommon. Finding examples of this does not invalidate the need to cite contentious conclusions. Anmccaff (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not what the materials from the WikiEd program tell them to do. They were following the guidance as I just explained above with this comment. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood will read. Thanks for taking the time to relink it to me. Serves me right for skimming through some of the later parts of the discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Have now read the Orientation for Instructors and "Designing a Wikipedia writing and research assignment". My first thought is... the guidance is generally accurate but doesn't give an instructor more than superficial insight into how Wikipedia works. I'll be honest, a 30 minute course to tackle the core policies of the encyclopaedia ... I've been here two years and I still regularly have to go back to policies. I only found out a week ago about WP:CCSI. Consensus is the toughest one to grasp, because, consensus dictates what falls under OR, NPOV, etc, etc. I'll have to think on this. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment re Issues of Race and Class:

The claim by the instructor that the negativity was likely "motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class" is not at all surprising for an instructor who likely is an expert in the study of civil rights and other similar justice movements. If you read the literature of this field--which I have--such negativity and dismissiveness is indeed the most common response when such issues are brought to the attention of those in power. Consider the civil rights movement and in particular Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous Letter from Birmingham Jail where he responded to the critics who had locked him up for being an "outside agitator". If you look at how these students and instructor have been treated, is the parallel not obvious? Aren't they being accused of being "outside agitators" with claims such as WP:NOTHERE, when all they were doing was following the WikiEd program? Yet for some reason--I can't imagine what that might be--they were treated differently than students and instructors from other classes that do not deal with issues of race and class? It does not seem like a big jump to conclude that inhouse editors' discomfort and dislike of the subject matter might be a leading cause of the negativity the students received (and continue to receive) to their articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment@David Tornheim: Reviewing the materials you linked to above, they seem to echo that "Prof. Rupel encouraged her students to avoid controversial topics" - I've also read literature in this field, in my undergraduate courses, and in law school. Everything you are saying is true, there is injustice in the world and every law student knows that injustice can prevail - there may be a double standard, and you may have to work harder then others to overcome bias, and part of what you can do about it is to make sure your work is policy-compliant. This is necessary, if not sufficient, for anyone who is serious about social justice work. In the real world, when lawyers don't file paperwork before the deadline, their clients are executed. Period, end of story. Obviously, we are more lenient here on Wikipedia. I have not said they are WP:NOTHERE, but I have pointed out that editors have personal responsibility to defend their edits against these complaints by applying policy, and this is true for all editors on Wikipedia. If you are instructing your students to edit in a controversial area, by posting anti-Trump POV in numerous articles, then the standard you have to meet to justify adding that content is going to be very high. There is no excuse for not doing that AND then speculating about the nefarious motives of Wikipedia's editors over and over again, without acknowledging the mistakes that have been made (even after numerous editors have courteously pointed them out.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Damned straight. Having some cryptofascist point out that "drought" is not always a type of honkonic "oppression" is exactly like being tossed in close quarters, with bad food, and roommates who have forgotten what the opposite sex looks like, but think you might be a reasonable simulacrum. Parallels seldom get much closer than that. Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• sigh* That depends entirely on how you treat the subjects of race and class, but, fuck me this is a pang if I ever saw one; ... and see tears welling up in her little eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well, no I don't think it has much, necessarily, to do with how you treat the subjects. Some people are uncomfortable with what's going on here because the whole subject makes them uneasy; some are squicked by sophomoric self-satisfied slacktivism about what is sometimes a very real problem. "We're against poverty, war and injustice, unlike the rest of you squares...", as the poet Lehrer put it. Same apparent behavior, radically (literally) different underlying base.

Yupp, treating people like dirt for no reason under their control stinks, and race relations in many parts of the deep South were a strong example of this. Some less dramatic examples -by both sides, left and right - are a big part of why the US just had an election in which the majority of the electorate decided on the basis of how much damage they were willing to do to their nostrils holding their nose while voting. We don't need that here.

I dunno if we need this here, either; this has gone a little far afield. The important points, I think, to the discussion are that we have left students and teachers with unclear guidance about what the limits of participation are; one hand of Wikipedia not knowing what the other is doing. I think we have also set up a situation almost guaranteed to mimic canvassed invasions of subjects, with all that entails. From a POV POV, there isn't that much difference here from a fratload of Frogboys showing up at Snopes. SS, Diferent Direction. Anmccaff (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Just FYI, see here which describes topics that instructors should avoid:

Not such a good choice

Articles that are "not such a good choice" for newcomers usually involve factors such as a lack of appropriate research material, highly controversial topics that may be well developed already, broad subjects or topics for which it is difficult to demonstrate notability.

• You probably shouldn't try to completely overhaul articles on very broad topics (e.g., Law).
• You should probably avoid trying to improve articles on topics that are highly controversial (e.g., Global Warming, Abortion, Scientology, etc.). You may be more successful starting a sub-article on the topic instead.
• Don't work on an article that is already of high quality on Wikipedia, unless you discuss a specific plan for improving it with other editors beforehand.
• Avoid working on something only sparsely covered by literature. Wikipedia articles cite secondary literature sources, so it is important that you have enough sources to provide a neutral point of view and be verifiable.
• Don't start articles with titles that imply an essay-like approach (e.g., The Effects That The Recent Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis has had on the US and Global Economics). These type of titles, and most likely the content too, may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

wise advice. -- Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

But "starting a sub-article on the topic instead" is exactly what they did (even though they breached the last point). Also, it might be worth a warning about WP:MEAT on the page about consensus. It's showing up at the AFD, and is probably a common instinct of students in such a situation. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

IP vandal (14 April 2017)

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

---

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

Thanks for the report. The person has not edited since 15:08, April 13, 2017 (eleven hours ago), so there's no need to block at the moment. Please let us know if the vandalism resumes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I posted here with the hope that someone else would monitor this user’s activity, since I’m not particularly active here as of late. But I’ll shout if I see something. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, please note that all four of the recent edits were clearly deliberate vandalism, with deliberately misleading edit summaries. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing.

Chazlepley (talk · contribs) has constantly reverted my edits on the Big Brother Canada articles without including an explanation as to doing so, I have tried to explain to them the reason for my edits, but they keep reverting them. ([48], [49], [50], [51]) VietPride10 (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Beatley and SvG articles salvation effort

As many of you know, Sander v. Ginkel created a lot of articles about sportspeople. The quality of these articles was substandard, and they were moved to the draft space, so that users can work on them and after cleaning this up move them back. A dedicated effort was set up; in particular, very clear guidelines were set, detailing what are typical problems with the articles and how they should be addressed. Unfortunately User:Beatley misused the effort by moving a large amount of articles back to the main space without fully addressing the issues. As a result, we have a lot of articles which are likely unnotable (example: Muna Muneer, fails WP:NSPORT and likely WP:GNG, at least the user did not make an effort to demonstrate WP:GNG), and article with unsourced statements (see this or this. We are talking about dozens, possibly hundreds articles. The user's attention was drawn to this fact at their talk page, see User talk:Beatley#SvG drafts and User talk:Beatley#SvG drafts (again) to which they responded [52] expressing the willingness to continue in the same manner. I believe that at the very least, the user must be topic-banned from SvG articles, and whatever they moved to the main space must be moved back to draft. Which is a pity, since it was massive waste of time for new page reviewers including myself, as well as for other users cleaning up after them. Note that all of these are BLP articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oh dear lord no - If I had more time I'd formally propose a Community Ban to prevent Beatley from "helping" with the SvG cleanup, as they are clearly not interested in the reasons behind it, they just want to fish all of those turds out of the toilet bowl for reasons best known to themselves. The comment on their talk page, words to the effect of "take them all to AfD if you don't like what I'm doing," should be taken at face value - we're going to be forced to sit through god knows how many AfDs just because this editor wants to prove some ridiculous point. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note that the user's reaction at their talk page is dismissive and not really helpful. In addition, they likely do not understand our BLP and notability policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• And they're still going at it - Shibi Joseph. GoldenRing (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the terrible way they're doing it - for example, not even making the adjustments that experienced editors make to the categories before moving a draft to article space - suggests they have no idea what the hell they're doing. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked them indef; they will be unblocked after we decide here what to do with them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Good call - it was already getting slightly out of hand, and it's going to take quite a bit of fiddly work to undo the mess they've already made. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, so...

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

• Support as proposer. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support reverting them all. Suggest we wait and see whether we've got through to the user before enacting a ban. and banning. Changed since the user has made no noises at all in the interim and the scale of disruption is larger than I imagined.GoldenRing (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly the signs are not good. GoldenRing (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support CB sticking your hands in the commode w/o proper equipment is bad for your health, as our friend is learning with his indef. I'm fine to AfD, I like those. L3X1 (distant write) 20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Would it be disruptive if I started AfDing the ones I think are unnotable? L3X1 (distant write) 20:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this will not be disruptive but try not to overload AfD please, either group many articles in one AfD with absolutely identical problems, or nominate several per day.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huang Szu-chi I'm going to be adding other female volleyball player SvG articles throughout the day. L3X1 (distant write) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support His talk page comments show that he doesn't understand what he's doing wrong at all. Topic Ban , unfortunately.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support both the community ban and the reversion of all of these moves to article space. Enough is enough, already. David in DC (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban & moving these articles back to draftspace. This user isn't actually cleaning up the articles at all, and so isn't solving any of the SvG issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Note there are over 1000 drafts and talk pages that have been moved. I'm chatting with MusikAnimal about resurrecting the bot task to shift them all back to draft, since it would clearly be a waste of our time to do it manually. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

And L3X1, I think that answers your question about AFDing them ;) Primefac (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac so yes AfD them all? If the bot is resurrected, there will be 4000 junk articles that need to be sorted through, only they will be in the draft space. Or am I just confused by what Aymatth2 stated below? L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not clear. We will bulk delete all draft articles and all mainspace articles restored by Beadley and other rogue editors. AfD is not needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Don't panic!. See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes. When we started the clean-up we anticipated rogue editors blindly moving SvG stubs back to mainspace without checking or fixing them. As of 24 April 2017 the clean-up period will end, all remaining drafts will be deleted, and then an audit will check for rogue editors. All articles restored by rogue editors will be deleted. My guess is that of the 4,000+ articles restored at least 3,000 will be deleted. Don't rush to plug up the AfD queues. Most of the garbage will be cleared away en masse during the audit period. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• !vote change Reviewing Primefac's link has filled me with righteous anger, no just disbelief and that feeling when you see a mountain of work ahead of you. For the amount of disruption done, I think our friend the moving man should bestay blocked till every last S.v.G article is taken care of, either through AfD, or being moved back to draft space. This can be done per the difference between indefinite and infinite. And has anyone with CU powers ran SvG and Beatley? Just to make sure? Not casting aspersions, but I would think this would be SOP for the course. L3X1 (distant write) 00:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Beatley is blocked for now, but he is not the only one who has being doing bulk restores. There is no urgent need to move the articles restored by these editors back to draft. The audit result will be to just delete them all. Simpler. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks, now I understand. L3X1 (distant write) 01:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help with this. I've looked at a sample of the moves, and they all seem to be low-value articles with dubious notability, mainly volleyball players. If any of them fall into the scope of the cycling clean-up lists, let me know, and I'll take a closer look. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Lugnuts: A reminder that if the audit finds that Beatley has been restoring articles without checking and fixing them, all articles he restored will be deleted regardless of improvements made later by other editors. If you want to salvage one you should userfy it, then wait a few weeks for the dust to settle before restoring it. It might be easier to just let the mass deletion happen, then start a new article from scratch. Most of the SvG stubs are trivial. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple unsourced edits spanning several years

• Saltlakecityjazz (talk · contribs)

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

I am afraid we are talking about an indef block and a mass revert, see the talk page of the user. Any objections?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A quick look suggests genre-warring at least since 2013. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly when they registered their account.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes--experience has taught me to leave that observation open-ended, in case an admin should turn up evidence of multiple accounts. It happens so often in genre-warring and date changing. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes for heaven's sake please indef block before he continues much longer. The more he edits, the more cleanup there is to do. Softlavender (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Quantummechanic

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

IP, you need to notify the user that you have opened a thread about him here. You may use the template in red at the top of this page. I have also linked the username in your thread title for easy reference. Softlavender (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have also warned the editor about adding unsourced content, and I've reverted his edits thus far. Softlavender (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Country block?

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

We're not very good at mind reading. Who are you talking about? Softlavender (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

To keep it brief, I didn't think I needed to state that. My question is whether it's possible to block him from editing the articles of NZ. He also edits Philippine articles, and I and the other NZ editors have no way of knowing whether he's doing a good job on those. So a country-specific block (NZ) would allow him to continue editing Philippine articles. Akld guy (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

We can't geo-block IP addresses. We can only block IPs by their range, or sometimes by the topic, or a combination, but we require examples. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you. I'm going to take no further action because it will cost me several hours to assemble all the diffs and present my case. In a few days, he will have changed ip address again and the problem will restart. I have reported this ip's behavior to an admin, but he is reluctant to impose a block because the ip does some worthwhile edits and we have no way of knowing whether his Philippine edits are good. So I'm fighting uphill to get the admin to block him. I thought that the admin might be more willing if the ip could be blocked on an NZ-specific basis, but you've answered that. Thank you again. Akld guy (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the question is whether we can block an editor from editing articles concerning specific countries, and the answer is no. We can ban editors from specific topic areas, which is simply a prohibition and nothing technical. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

And even if we could, we are not going to dish out a topic ban on "all articles relating to New Zealand" to an editor who is in New Zealand. Since this would be a de facto siteban, either they're problematic enough to be kicked off Wikipedia altogether, or they should be helped to understand what they're doing wrong. ‑ Iridescent 20:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The OP states that the user edits Filipino articles, so it wouldn't be a de facto site ban. If the user has competence issues regarding Auckland trains and malls, and over 50% of those edits have to be reverted, that is an actionable issue. Of course the OP would have to tell us who he is talking about for it to be effectively addressed. Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Boing and Iridescent. It's impossible to help an ip who cannot speak proper English and never leaves an edit summary and never replies when messaged. We (a couple of other editors and myself) will just soldier on with our reverts and rewording, caring not a jot about the extra traffic on WP's servers and wear and tear on their machinery, and just laughing when WP asks for donations to pay for server costs. Bonus: this ip's actions boost my edit count :)) Akld guy (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Having read the additional information above, this is clearly a content dispute, and the behaviorial problems so far revealed have been the IP not being willing to talk about it (the IP-hopping could be outside of the IP's control, so it's not necessarily a behavioral issue) and Akld guy not coming clean at the very beginning about what was going on and, apparently, padding the complaint to make it appear worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the IP-hopper edit-warring (vandalizing) for months on end on this one article (since August 2016 [53]): [54]. I don't know how many articles the IP-hopper is edit-warring on, but if it's just a few, semi-protection of the article(s) can be requested at WP:RFPP (just explain that there is edit-warring and vandalizing by an IP-hopper), which will prevent IPs from editing it/them. Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Don't know if I'd call it "vandalizing", but most certainly edit-warring. I also agree that the template that the IP was removing with those edits seems as if is proper for that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's definitely deliberate vandalizing, and he's been doing it since August 2016: [55] (actually for one year, since April 2016, but different vandalism then: [56]). Softlavender (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Here are the IPs involved in the above incident, in case anyone wants to calculate a range block:

• 27.252.172.70
• 27.252.139.194
• 27.252.165.30
• 27.252.185.189
• 27.252.170.116
• 27.252.184.49
• 27.252.142.124
• 27.252.145.37
• 27.252.185.223
• 27.252.153.1
• 27.252.180.119

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) To the admins above: Listen up people. I did NOT come here to make accusations against an unnamed ip. I asked a general question as to whether an ip could be blocked on a country-specific basis. Read my original question, FFS. I was then asked for the ip's address by Softlavender and I endeavoured to be helpful by giving it because she seemed to think I was not serious. I see now that she lured me into a trap, where my query was turned into a formal complaint. FFS people, don't shoot the messenger. The problem is not content dispute but disruptive editing consisting of persistent removal of content by the ip. This situation is known to admin Schwede66, who has blocked the ip on one occasion. Jesus Christ, you fellows need your head read for turning nasty on a genuine editor who asked a simple query. As for apologizing to the ip, you must be joking. This is the last time I will ever come to WP:ANI. Akld guy (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to "ask general questions", this is the place to report incidents, so don't come here with veiled accusations and then complain when the (very thin) veil is torn away. As for not coming here again... really, nobody should ever come here, and doing so repeatedly is a sickness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a fucking joke people, ON MYSELF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Neither Softlavender or I are admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not been here for months. I have reported incidents in the past. I meant that I will never come here to report an incident again. Akld guy (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Um, Akld guy, where did I lure you into a trap? Read what I have written above -- I have indicated that the IP-hopper has been vandalizing that article for at least a year. It is Beyond My Ken who has accused you of malfeasance, not me; I have supported you every step of the way. Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My IQ Range needs to apologize to me for jumping in boots and all and shooting the messenger before determining what the situation was. Akld guy (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hurling a quasi-NPA isn't going to help you, so I suggest you strike it.

Look, your inquiry fit the mold of many that get posted here, the "hypothetical" problem which is claimed to be a discussion of generalities but turns out to be a specific question about a specific circumstance. People ought not to do that, and people ought to be told not to do it when they do it, so they don't do it again, and people who read it learn that it shouldn't be done. As Softlavender said, you should have said right off the bat what the problem was, and not hid behind generalities. You didn't come here because you had a burning desire to know about whether country blocks were a possible thing, you came here because you're having a dispute with an IP, and you should have just said so, laid out the situation and seen what kind of response you got. I get that you're pissed off now, and I apoloigize for my part in bringing that about, but, frankly, you're neglecting your own part in causing that situation to occur, don't you think? A striaght-forward and honest approach would have brought about a much different result, one (probably) much more to your liking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

BMK, please stop. Your hostility is counterproductive and your accusations unfounded. You have turned what could have been a productive ANI resolution and intervention against rampant vandalism into an attack on an inexperienced good-faith user who has done nothing whatsoever wrong except get upset at your unfounded accusations and your out-of-the-blue hostility. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I reject your premise and doubt your projected conclusion. You have also now several times ignored your own considerable part in the debacle. You're also projecting hostility from somewhere, 'cause it ain't coming from me. Nevertheless, this is going nowhere, whether or not I'm here, so I'm gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please indicate, with diffs, my "considerable part in the debacle" and my "hostility". Softlavender (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The OP was specific from the first sentence, so I honestly don't know what you're on about, BMK. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I must be tripping, 'cause that's not how I read it at all. Doesn;t matter, I be gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Schwede66 is offline now but I will ping him here anyway for when he returns. Schwede66, can you help rectify this situation? I'm not sure how familiar you are with the disruptive Filipino IP-hopper, but we have direct proof here that he has been steadily vandalizing the Onehunga Branch article for more than a year. Can you place a considerable-term semi-protection on it? Or at the very least longterm pending changes. I do not know how many articles are affected by the IP-hopper's vandalism, and unfortunately BMK seems to have scared Akld guy away by making uninformed accusations and bitey comments. Do you know which other articles are the main ones affected? Softlavender (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, Softlavender, disagreeing whether a template should be on an article is not vandalism - please re-read WP:VALDALISM to confirm that. It is a content dispute, and both the IP and Akld guy were involved in a slow-motion edit war over that dispute. I happen to think that the IP is wrong and that Akld guy and the other editors who reverted the IP are right, but that doesn't turn edit warring into vandalism, so please stop saying it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh good grief, please review WP:VANDALISM. This is not a content dispute. This is article vandalism that has gone on for over a year. Softlavender (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Party A wants the template in the article, Party B doesn't. They take turns reverting each other. That's not vandalism, that's edit warring over a content dispute. Cite what part of WP:VANDALISM covers it, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please review the entirety of the IP-hopper's 22 edits to the article from 2 April 2016 forward [57], which encompasses a multitude of forms of vandalism, including wanton and repeated removal of that template. The wanton removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

G'day, from what I can see, semi protection of the Onehunga Branch article would possibly be supportable in the circumstances, if only for a short period of time to break the cycle of edit warring. I'd suggest that at the same time, a discussion should be started about the edit on the talk page to establish consensus there for or against it. The IP could then be invited to participate and explain themselves. If consensus is established to keep the template, and the IP edits against that, then the article could be semi protected for a longer period, or a range block applied. As Schwede66 has already been pinged and appears to have dealt with the IP before, I will defer to their judgement, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Akld guy and the IP have been here before, in DecemberSeptember (IP blocked for 1 month), November (IP blocked for 31 hours, but unclear if that had anything to do with the ANI report) and October (IP blocked twice, but probably not because of the ANI report). The strange thing about the repeated removal of the template is that it seems to have been the IP who added that template in the article in the first place, even reverting another user who removed it. Sideways713 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

As someone who regularly criticised other people for calling something vandalism when it's not clear it is, I for once can't agree that it was a mistake to call this vandalism. Of course it's true that disagreement over a template can be a legitimate content dispute and not vandalism. And even doing it repeatedly may be WP:edit warring, but not necessarily vandalism. But remember, WP:Vandalism says:

Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense. Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

For the first few edits, perhaps it could be said "readily apparent by examination of the content itself", but when people have reverted and there seems to have been resonable requests for an explanation but none has been offered, this is hard to justify. When other content was removed repeatedly, again even if an argument could be made at the beginning the explanation was obvious, once it keeps getting repeated without any further explanation, and when again attempts were made to seek an explanation, thist just further adds to the resonableness of calling it vandalism.

Perhaps an even more important point is it doesn't really matter. It's resonable to call out people when they're calling something vandalism and therefore potentially making problems in communicating with the other editor concerned. And it's also important that editors understand what vandalism is so they don't make mistakes in the future which could cause problems. But in this case it simply doesn't seem productive. When someone is unable or refuses to communicate when it's needed despite repeated attempts to get them to do so, they're clearly not a suitable editor for wikipedia. And whether you feel you should still WP:AGF after evidentally a year of removing content without any actual explanation and repeated requests for one or simply call it vandalism seems a pointless argument.

Incidentally, I also agree with others that the hostility by BMK here seems unnecessary. Maybe the first question wasn't perfect, but while it's true the sort of 'asking about another editor's behaviour without actualling naming them' questions are generally unwelcome, that doesn't apply here. Maybe this wasn't the best place for the initial question but compared to the many clearly pointless threads, this one seems to have unsurprisingly evolved into a useful one that it simply makes no sense to criticise so harshly the original post/s.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The only real criticism I can come up with is the lack of use of the article talk page. I've said before, that a possible content dispute with zero activity on the talk page, no matter what was said in edit summaries or on editor talk pages is generally not a good sign. But this case is so simple with zero actual communication from the IP that I'm reluctant to say that here. Especially since I can't help thinking there may be at least one instance when it was tried. Nil Einne (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Been on a short holiday; now back. A few weeks back, I looked into the situation. The edit warring and the disruptive edits always follow a similar pattern, and it's easy enough when you go through the contributions of a particular IP address that the anon is going through a variety of articles, from one railway station to the next, and the pattern reappears with a new IP address some time later. The Auckland rail network is extensive and I'm not sure that article protection would be helpful other than pending changes. I haven't come across a single edit of Filipino articles that has been reverted (at least I can't remember having come across it) so the editor seems to be genuinely confused about what's going on in Auckland (there were some changes going on in the network, and much of it was about content dispute). The Auckland topics editing behaviour is most certainly disruptive. So overall, I'd favour pending changes protection over a rangeblock. Any other thoughts? Schwede66 02:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

G'day, Schwede, thanks for posting your thoughts. Pending changes seems like a reasonable solution to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No reverts of Filipino articles? Take a look at WayKurat's contribs. He was reverting almost all of this offender's Philippines edits a month ago, when I asked Schwede66 to be pro-active on the offender rather than asking me to assemble and present a mountain of diffs which he might act on. Akld guy (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Asking us to look at the contributions from a month ago is about as practical as is compiling a mountain of diffs. El_C 06:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP: 188.39.71.98

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

Looks like a content dispute. Why not try engaging the user on the article talk page? El_C 06:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with promotional user names?

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

---

(Bajakaladi (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC))

Report them at WP:UAA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Title blacklist exception: 💥☠️💣🍥👊 -> Symbols (album)

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

---

💥☠️💣🍥👊 is the title of Symbols (album) as best can be represented in Unicode, but I can't create the redirect because of the title blacklist. Could someone with the power please do so? NeonMerlin 03:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Blanking without participating in a discussion by SaripBB

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

---

User:‎ SaripBB blanked sourced contents three times[58][59][60] without participating in a discussion at Talk:King cherry#Blanking by ‎SaripBB. Any action is required to prevent further edit warring.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing reasons are mentioned. Remove Original research sentence that is not related to articles. Do not build a story that does not exist. ―― SaripBB (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So why are you not explaining yourself on the article talk page, SaripBB? El_C 06:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:AIV backlogged

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

---

Could use some administrator assistance over there. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 08:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

All we need, is more admins; simples! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I looked, closed two non urgent reports, and say I take a dim view of people lying about backlogs. What about CfD? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh. So no AIV backlog then? But whooaah! to CFD- January?! Blimey. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Could be because a couple of others got there first and cleaned out quite a few? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So you did ;) sorry about that. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:CyberBrinda

Hi everyone,

OK, this user has submitted a review appeal on UTRS ticket is #17984. They were blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing back in October 2016 by SpacemanSpiff. There was also an accusation of them being a sockpuppet. Back in October 2016, they were offered the standard offer which they have taken us up on. They have said in their unblock appeal that they did not intend to be uncivil and they did not intend to vandalise Wikipedia. They've said that they have now read all the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and if unblocked, they promise to be open-minded and converse with other editors.

I asked CheckUser to run a CU check and Ponyo found nothing. Do we give them another chance?--5 albert square (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• An editor who did nothing but add utterly promotional material, "sourced" to non-RS pageant- and modelling blogs, pageant web sites and similar, and create tonnes of articles about utterly non-notable models and "beauty-queens", and showed all signs of being part of a very large net of intermeshed sockfarms (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove and others) that has engaged in that kind of very promotional editing for many years here? Umm, NO THANKS. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Looking through their contribution history, it is clear their acknowledgement of their past behavior is disingenuous. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 11:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• No. Or, just for fun, we can wait until This AfD, which is clearly the reason why they're back here, has concluded. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Classic :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"Dickling" (see thread above) now "limpdick "

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

---

• IP 94.191.187.61 was blocked by Euryalus (see above) with an added comment by Mr rnddude... IP is now posting from 94.191.184.126 .... First post was at least pseudo-constructive, but later post devolves. See Talk:Bengal famine of 1943‎. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have left a message to the IP on the article talk page. Note; their previous block has not expired and their actions amount to block evasion. Um, I'm always keen on amicable resolutions so somebody who is in full Mjolnir-mode feel free to block with impunity. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Cs california

The above user is making changes to the infobox location maps on hundreds of articles about New York City places -- presumably using semi-automated software -- without having held a centralized discussion to receive consensus to do so, and continues to make these changes after being told they need to have such a discussion [61]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a pattern. El_C 19:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that previous discussion, I've rolled back the majority of the edits - I may have missed some, and if I rolled back something I shouldn't have, any editor is welcome to restore it. I think that because the editor is certainly now aware of the need to get a consensus to make mass edits, if it happens again a block for disruption should be considered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Kudos to Cs california for going through articles and adding the relevant maps. I fail to see what the issue is here, let alone what on Earth the "incident" is that Beyond My Ken has whipped up here. I've already started with reverts to BMK's edits for those articles that have appeared on my watchlist and I agree that BMK should be blocked if any further such incidents are manufactured. Alansohn (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

edit war at two nuclear sites in Belgium, Doel and Tihange

I would like you to mention the ongoing edit war at the wiki's of:

• Doel Nuclear Power Station
• Tihange Nuclear Power Station

Here there is Mcvarial, SDeSchep, and a few "anonymous" editors like 62.205.127.160 and 212.123.4.132

Template:Mcvarial:ANI-notice J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC) , Template:SDeSchep:ANI-notice J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC) , Template:62.205.127.160:ANI-notice J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC) ,Template:212.123.4.132:ANI-notice J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure that these people has quite some knowledge about nuclear power, and all things attached to this subject. Mcvarial has mentioned that he live near the Doel Nuclear Power station, maybe within 20 kilometers. But he has such a positive point of view about all what is happening there. I wonder whether he studied nuclear physics and he might even worked there or might still involved with the plant.

In fact I doubt his neutrality in this matter. These are safe plants, never seen a saver plant anywhere ?

A month ago the Belgium government took away the license for disposing nuclear waste, besides the used fuel bars, those are stored from the all the beginning of these station, all other nuclear waste was processed at the plant, and after this it was stored see: [[62]]

Mcvarial like us to believe that this processing never was done, and that all was stored from the beginning at the plant. Accoding to him was Belgoprocess, the industrial daughter of NIRAS in Dessel, never involved by all this, what so ever...

But then I cannot see the relevance of the newspaper article mentioned otherwise.

In the past Mcvarial has put me away as an an enemy of Islam. When he made a complaint about me on this place, a few days ago. He took that away rather fast, but this is another insult from his side. Recently he did repeat this allegation another time.

I would like an end to this edit war, and in the mean time preserve the neutral position of wikipedia.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, have you taken this to the edit warring noticeboard ? L3X1 (distant write) 17:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I sure would like that, the problems here make me think that wikipedia is not neutral at all, when we take FANC and the people working there as neutral. The way mister Mcvarial is behaving, and he tries to put me away. I'm fed up with this. J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out User:User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse has also made 'contributions' on the Dutch article: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Kerncentrale_Doel

Where he encountered similar resistance like on the English page, by multiple users and is now trying to push his views trough this way.

Wikipedia articles should be based on objective sources and is not a tool to push an agenda one way or another, User:User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse has shown he cannot do this.

In fact his accusations aren't even remotely true and much like the content he has contributed isn't backed up by facts and wildy editorialized.

MCvarial (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

[P]ut me away as an an enemy of Islam—proof? El_C 19:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It is to me ridiculous that the nuclear safety authority (FANC) which is a governmental organisation, is not an acceptable reference to User:User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse. I have offered to answer his questions on his talk page multiple times, but he just continues editing the article without asking me relevant questions. His talk about the neutral position of Wikipedia is also not founded on any real basis. The neutral position is not based on who provides the reference, but on the reference itself. It does not matter then if any poster works for Greenpeace or Electrabel. The information and the factual manner in which it is presented are what counts. This is the case for the edits I have provided. SDeSchep (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Administrators

Hello, I am User:Vvven, I can not connect to my user account, I even wanted to enter placing my email, but this do not recognize the email. I hope you help me. I was given a warning in the recent past, they told me that the next block but was not a next time because I did not contribute until today in anything else. I ask that, try to solve the problem. Thank you--200.35.214.201 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

So you don't know your own password? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know my password and also all my emails, I put them but I can not enter.--200.35.214.201 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, please anyone help me since I am a user that I make many contributions in the day, more than everything creating articles, I can not enter my user for a week--200.35.214.201 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Check your caps lock, maybe. But there's really nothing anybody here can do to help you otherwise — you may be able to get some help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but this isn't an issue that ANI can do anything about. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the fact that you were warned is (so far as I can tell) unrelated to the problem you're having with getting logged in. You haven't been blocked, and even if you had been, that wouldn't disable your login. Try Bearcat's suggestions just above, and good luck! ReverendWayne (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Always Be My Baby

Please can you fully protect the above article as Kellymoat keeps adding unsourced content as per usual? Ta'niqua (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You didn't notfiy Kellmoat. L3X1 (distant write) 17:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: I have on my talk page Ta'niqua (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Umm... That's usually taken to mean "on their talk page". Also, mind the WP:3RR-rule. Kleuske (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

SPI has been opened. But, oddly enough, I have opened RPP for this article as well, lol. Kellymoat (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You think all those redlink editors are the same? L3X1 (distant write) 17:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And some of the IP users. Kellymoat (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User has been blocked, and the article has been protected. I am taking this page off of my watchlist. If you need me, you'll need to ping me.Kellymoat (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Bpkhy69

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

---

Despite warnings, Bpkhy69 (talk · contribs) is continuing to upload images with false copyright information. The most recent one is File:ISIS 2...34-1png.png, which they tagged with {{PD-shape}}, and you can see the rest here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That is an impressive collection of warnings. I mean, we're headed into connoisseur-of-warnings territory here. I'll have a look through their contributions, but based purely on their talk page I'm struggling to imagine that they're a net positive. GoldenRing (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Uploading copyrighted images isn't the only problem with their edits:

Copy of my just filed report at WP:AIV:

• Bpkhy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Removal of content/blanking after final warning: ([63], [64]) The account is less than two months old but has already been blocked twice for edit warring, their talk page is full of user warnings, including multiple level 4s, notices about images they have uploaded that were copyrighted and have been deleted, edit warring warnings etc etc etc, and they are now repeatedly removing material from both United States and China that they claim isn't needed when others feel it is (it's about whether China has a larger area than the United States, or vice versa). Probably without even understanding what it is about, judging by the bad English in their edit summaries... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

- Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Enough rope, I think. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble disagreeing. Despite the flood of warnings, they've never edited in talk or user talk spaces. The pattern today seems to be to make the same edit three times, then move on to another article. I can't see this as a great loss. GoldenRing (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately we can't waste any more time on a user with so little competence. Since they are simply repeating the actions (both uploading copyvios and damaging articles) that they have been repeatedly warned about, a block is the only answer. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Blatant canvassing by Herostratus

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

So, this user wrote an essay Wikipedia:Being blocked hurts. In January they moved it from user space to project space. I made some edits to that essay that they reverted.[65] I opened a discussion on the talk page [66] regarding my perspective on the essay. They did not engage in that discussion in the nearly two months that followed. I then proposed moving it back into userspace as it seems they wanted to WP:OWN it and keep it complete with the over-the-top hyperbole that comprises basically the entire essay. [67]

So, a discussion ensued. Now, I get that the nature of the discussion by definition personalized it from the outset a bit more than is usual in a move discussion. But what has gone on there is, like the essay itself, a bit over the top:

• this edit] Which is entirely directed at me, and in which I am told "Stop it", "calm down", "You have an overly harsh and punitive attitude", "You are not entitled to vandalize this one, which is what you did -- " ( a fairly serious accusation) "On being told by me that you can't do that, you're now having a tantrum and suggesting moving it out of main essay space. Stop it." (a second direct order to cease and desist in the same edit) and "leave this work to others".

• Some other users commented over the next week and a half, and one of them seemed not to have gotten what the nomination was saying, so I attempted to clarify it [68] and that was met with another long rant by Herostratus, ending with this proclamation: "I have no choice but to call in reinforcements. If you think I am "owning" this page, I feel bound to get other editors involved with the page." [69]

• And they did just that, going not to a central noticeboard, but to the editor retention WikiProject, and posting not a neutral request for previously uninvolved users to comment, but a direct attempt to recruit users to do things to "de-fang" the rationale for the move. [70]

• I warned them for canvassing, using both the standard template and a my own personal message. [71] to which their reaction was to cite WP:TEMPLAR and suggest that I am the one in the wrong here, and that by saying they wanted to own the essay I gave them no choice but to go ahead and willfully canvass people to do their bidding, while actually suggesting at the same time that "isn't their fault" if people find the move discussion as a result of their canvassing. [72]

I honestly don't know what to say or do with someone who shows such a startling lack of self-awareness and denial of their own culpability, while simultaneously displaying the very traits under discussion. Help. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that unless Herostratus allows other editors to contribute to the essay, it needs to be moved out of Wikipedia-space into their user space, where it can represent their own personal opinion, and they can maintain complete control over its contents. Otherwise, if it stays in Wikipedia space, it's subject to the policy against WP:OWNERSHIP - although any editor, including the creator, can protect the essay against attempts to pervert its message to something opposed to the original point of the essay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And, the openly-declared, deliberate violation of WP:CANVASS? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say those deserve a firm "don't do it again" warning, maybe even a trout, since Herostratus should know better, and a follow up block if they do it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• ANI? Over an essay? REALLY??? EEng 21:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "over the essay". The requested move is where the essay itself is being discussed, or should be anyway. I'm looking to address the behavioral issues, specifically deliberate, premeditated canvassing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• XFD for the subtle attack on the establishment. What useless writings. L3X1 (distant write) 21:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean, but FYI, there is no "XFD" just a move request, and the subkject here is Herostratus' behavior in that discussion, not the merits of the essay itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a somewhat involved party to this mess, but I'd like to point out that more than once Herostratus has admitted to wrongdoing and claimed that they had no choice. I urge admins to uphold the concept that our guidelines and policies do not become moot if you think you need to have your way. Also anyone that says "Those are on me, but since I'm the one templated and then dragged here, I'll add WP:BULLY and Violation Of WP:FUN With Aggravated Failure To Be A Womble on Beebs." probably ought not be editing this encyclopedia. That's just my opinion and no one likes my opinions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No Action Needed

Per WP:Canvassing: not all canvassing is harmful to the encyclopedia or even forbidden. There are clear conditions for improper canvassing and the specific actions shown here of this regular and experienced editor do not meet those IMO. No action is necessary. I agree with the comment by Beyond My Ken, ownership is a problem here, but I do not see clear evidence of that here. Canvassing when done properly is not ownership IMO but an attempt to prevent wp:local consensus. I also agree with EEng that this AN/I was not called for and a wp:boomerang may occur if this is not closed. And on that note it should be mentioned that this appears to come from a disagreement at a RfC Wikipedia talk:Being blocked hurts where admin input may be helpful. This AN/I may represent wp:battleground. Endercase (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

(Response from User:Herostratus). I agree, no action needed. Let's see, to break it out, I think there are four things in play here:

1. User:Beeblebrox sure doesn't like me, my essay, or my whole general attitude very much.
2. WP:OWN on WP:HURTS.
3. WP:CANVASS, on the Requested Move at WP:HURTS.
4. Those are on me, but since I'm the one templated and then dragged here, I'll add WP:BULLY and Violation Of WP:FUN With Aggravated Failure To Be A Womble on Beebs.

As to the first: oh well. Not sure what we can do about that here. Can't expect everyone to like us.

As to the second (WP:OWN)... as User:Beyond My Ken says "any editor, including the creator, can protect the essay against attempts to pervert its message to something opposed to the original point of the essay"; this makes sense to me, and that's exactly what I was doing, in my opinion. Maybe my opinion is wrong, but it's reasonable. Since it is reasonable I'm entitled to act on for the time being, I think.

I explained all this on the talk page of the essay (Wikipedia talk:Being blocked hurts) and on my talk page (at User talk:Herostratus#April 2017. It's all there, here's an excerpt:

Upon encountering this page, if you don't agree with it (and fine, that's your perfect right), you are entitled to write your own essay... and link to it from this page. You are not entitled to vandalize this one, which is what you did -- man, you can't add a section to an essay that contradicts the nutshell and the basic thrust of the essay. I can't go over to the essay Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band and add a section to the effect of "On the other hand, forget what you just read and ignore everything else in this essay. If you have a band, you should write an article about it, because our mission is or should be to document the artistic life of the world, including every band that exists" or whatever.

The main reason for this is: the only real use of any essay is to present a cogent argument with examples and so forth so that editors can make a point by invoking the shortcut without having to type it over and over. That's the main use. The essay needs to speak in one voice -- not rigidly, but more or less having a coherent point of view.

But OK, if you don't agree, what's the remedy? If it's a Wikispace page, Userfy it -- which is being proposed right now. I think the WP:OWN argument is false and disingenuous (the real motive is objection to the text of the essay on the merits), but I could be wrong, and anyway, if Beeblebrox can convince or bamboozle enough people into believing it, then that solves that problem. And if he can't... that is life I guess.

As to the third, WP:CANVASS.

I mean, yeah, I see the point, but on the other hand, what am I supposed to do? As I explained on my talk page, if I'm WP:OWNing the page as I've been accused of, I need to try to get other eyes and voices involved in helping to curate and improve the page. I mean, I didn't do anything for a long time, but Beeblebrox kept accusing me of OWN. Anyway, if I am guilty of canvassing (could be, but I think I have justification, probably) what's a good remedy? Well, coming here! Here there's a bunch of people (adminst) who as a statistical group probably won't take kindly to the page, so maybe some of you will go there and vote it off the island, and again, everything shipshape and Bristol fashion.

As to the forth... User:Beeblebrox should relax about this. For some reason he just hates this fucken essay. It's not a condemnation of the admin corps or of anybody. Hell, I've blocked plenty people (90%+ are just drive-by vandals or obvious net negatives (and possibly we should block more people to enforce polite behavior), but for the others -- I didn't like doing it, and it is stressful, and it's doubly stressful if you worry about it and doubt yourself -- but you have to never stop worrying and doubting yourself, and asking yourself if you did everything reasonably possible to avoid that outcome. Otherwise you wake up and you're the LAPD. And I get that its a burnout job and its worse if you're not confident that every block was right -- but every block isn't right, so what can I say?

But that's another discussion. This essay is trying to say one small thing, that is worth saying, and worth saying often enough to be in Wikispace and have a shortcut. And if it really is fringe nonsense, let it ride and everybody will see it for fringe nonsense, and there's your remedy there. Herostratus (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying that this is because I don't like you as a person, and then saying nasty things about me. You invoke WP:BULLY when in fact it is you who have tried to bully me away from your precious essay, repeatedly directly ordering me to "stop it". "it" being opening a discussion ion the talk page, which last time I checked is exactly how we are supposed to go about trying to resolve things. And your canvassing really could not be more =blatant. That you would even try to define it as soemthing else or worse yet, openly say that I made you do it is appalling. You announced you were going to do it, and then you did it. That's substantially worse than someone who just doesn't know any better. You've essentially tried to tell me that I have no right to even be at that page if I'm not 100% in agreement with it's overly-privileged first-world-problems perspective on life. Your own privilege is showing, int hat you essentially told me I simply must go away, and when I didn't you called for those you assumed to be your equals to come and assist you in defeating me and making me leave your space, when it was actually our space all along, since you chose to move it into project space. That you can't see how ridiculous you are acting while making it out like I'm tha bad guy is telling. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox and Herostratus: I think both editors are editing in good faith, however your actions are often close to battleground and harassment, at the very least both of you appear to not be AGF on the part of the other editor. I would like to request that both of you leave the AN/I and the RfC alone for a little while and consider removing some of your comments. I'm sure both of you have conveyed your POV on the issue and the community as a whole will come to a consensus on these matters. You both appear to be very involved in these issues. If you would like to take a break from them please work together and critique User:Endercase/Argument from authority introduction as it is up for RfC and will be merged soon. Endercase (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

BLPCRIME

There is a BLPCRIME issue on 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing - my removal was just reverted by 200.45.195.7. If I remember correctly this is one of those "rm on sight and notify admins immediately" issues, so I hope I'm in the right place. My understanding is there are current ongoing legal developments regarding the psychiatric history of the accused,, and that its a BLPCRIME violation to update unresolved legal developments, especially using language like "perpetrator" and "attacker" before there is a conviction (or some other kind of equivalent resolution in this case, whatever that may be.) This page isn't part of DS for some reason, but I would still prefer admin input on this, thanks. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Another great example of why we should simply not have articles on new topics in current events until they've been out of the headlines for 4 weeks. EEng 21:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I told the deletion crew to wait a month after it was finished to nominate it. United 3411 and this are on the June nom list. L3X1 (distant write) 21:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a one-off—Not to jinx it(!). El_C 23:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Too late! El_C 23:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed it per BLPCRIME a second time, but don't want to violate 3RR, even for a BLPCRIME violation Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You, however, are exempt (3RRNO, #7) from 1RR—BLPCRIME does apply. El_C 23:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of SaripBB

• Page: King cherry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Pnika3131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.36.57.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sockpuppets of SaripBB came during his block period and made the same edits (partial) as before. I request an urgent measure to prevent further edit warring.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but for future reference: WP:RFPP seems like what you are looking for, and possibly WP:SPI. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretty clear what was going o there, block extended to indefinite, socks blocked, page protected. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Yes I know this is not a place for WP:SPI. I was a frequent user of WP:SPI :). However I thought this time is urgent. Please forgive my selfishness.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you were being selfish, and it's really not a big deal, just wanted to make sure you knew about RFPP. The socking was so blatant that actually SPI was not really needed at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ramih3

• Ramih3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So far all edits have even vandalism. Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Rikster2 (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I reopened this, because the user has filed an unblock request, however, it broke the block template, and I can't figure out to fix it. As it currently is, the system hasn't logged an unblock request. L3X1 (distant write) 00:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)