Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945

Death threat from user:ViceCity343

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

---

ViceCity343 (talk · contribs)

I would like to report that Vicecity343 constantly threatened me, on my discussion page. See this, and this. Antecedent: I'm sysop and checkuser in huwiki, ViceCity343 and the whole sockpupett-farm is under longterm block on huwiki for personal attacks.

original, hungarian language threat by Vicecity343

google translate

Halott vagy te szemét! Hogy merted azt mondani, hogy Marec2 és Kucsák Ábel a zoknibábjaim ??!!! ŐK NEM VOLTAK A ZOKNIBÁBJAIM!!! Te annyira faszkalap vagy, hogy az hihetetlen! Te és a faszopó társaid halottak vagytok, érted ??!!! HALOTTAK VAGYTOK MINDANNYIAN!!!!!! Te egy utolsó szemét faszopó patkány geci vagy, úgy mint Rlevente, Puskás Zoli, Burumbátor, Pagony és a többi faszopó Wikipédia geci!!!!!! Azt hittem hogy te normális vagy, de ez hazugság volt!!!!! Te is egy bolsevista geci vagy, sőt, te egy spicli hazudós majom vagy, mint a többi Wikipédiás!!!! Bárcsak megszűnne ez a szemét Wikipédia, amiért hazugságokat mondtál rólam és a többekről is!!! Remélem előbb meghalsz, mint a többi komcsi hazaáruló spicli bolsevista kutya!!!!! Menj a pokolba te faszopó hazudós majom kutya!!!!!! --ViceCity343 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You're dead, you bastard! How dare you say that Marec2 and Kucsák Abel Sock puppet ?? !!! THEY WERE NOT A Sock puppet !!! You're so shit or that incredible! You and your fellow tree sucker you are dead, you know ?? !!! ALL OF US ARE DEAD !!!!!! You're a sucker last garbage or wood rat motherfucker, such as Rlevente, Zoltan Puskas, Burumbátor, Pagony Wikipedia and other wood sucking cum !!!!!! I thought that you normally are, but it was a lie !!!!! You're a Bolshevik spunk, in fact, you're a lying rat or monkey, like other Wikipedia !!!! I wish it would stop his eyes Wikipedia for having told lies about me and more about it !!! I hope you die sooner than other Commie traitor rat Bolshevik dog !!!!! Go to hell you're lying suckling tree monkey dog ​​!!!!!! - ViceCity343 ( talk) 10:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and sorry for my english. --Pallerti (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

additional explanation: user:Rlevente, user:Zoltan Puskas, user:Pagony are sysops on huwiki and user:Burumbátor is former sysop. --Pallerti (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Inventive use of the Hungarian language, but it doesn't look like a serious death threat though. More like a keyboard warrior who needs to go and lie down for a while. And be blocked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Thanks for your help, you have right: I do not think that would be a serious. --Pallerti (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lying suckling tree monkey dog -- I'll have to remember that one. EEng 07:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "EEng, you're a Bolshevik spunk, in fact, you're a lying rat or monkey." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd love to know the etymology of "wood-sucking" as a curse. Something to do with termites? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: ...yeah, it is funny, it is a spelling error, faszopó meaning is wood-sucking (it is a non-existent compound word: fa=wood, szopó=sucker), faszszopó is another compound word, fasz meaning is – ...khmmm – gentleman sausage. :-) --Pallerti (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well given that 'wood' is also a euphamism for 'excited gentleman sausage', I guess the meaning was clear! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. Serious or not, we can do without this. --Rschen7754 07:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose so, but the heart-rending existential angst of !!! ALL OF US ARE DEAD !!!!!! should be preserved for the ages. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Fanny46

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

---

Fanny46 (talk · contribs) is edit warring, reverting, threating people on talk pages (like here and here), not listening to everyone, he has been warned several times on his talk page about adding flags to the infoboxes on handball players articles where there should be no flags by consensus, he is replacing ndashes (–) with normal hyphens for years (he changed 2015–2016 to 2015-2016 etc.), he is adding unsourced additions to handball-related articles, like unsourced transfers of players, changing clubs even before the transfer is completed etc. like on Blaž Janc, Blaž Blagotinšek, Jure Dolenec, RK Celje and several other articles. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Fanny46 tried to remove this section with this edit. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Snowflake91, altho the removal of this section by the reported user does not bode well for her, some specific evidence is required. Please provide diffs to show specifically where the reported infractions occured. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop reverting Blaž Blagotinšek,Jure Dolenec,Blaž Janc and many others or things are going to get really BAD,think of this as a threat[1] Meh. I'm satisfied. TimothyJosephWood 20:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Same here. Disruptive behaviour and continue doing so after being told by several editors. Examples: here, here and so on... They all look the same as described above. Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User just left this message on my talk. Take this as you will, because I honestly don't know how to respond to it. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

He is not following any guidelines and consensus set, also Here, he added some "transfers" of the club, despite the fact that there are NO sources anywhere on the web that the player has transferred, Fanny even added "?" next to the player's name which basically confirms that the transfer is just a speculation and nothing official, yet he added it. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

...wut? TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

He has done it again, this time he even removed references... Snowflake91 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Administrator noteRegarding the edit on JudgeRM's talk page, there is basically only one way to respond to that, and I have done so per WP:URGENT. What will happen now is basically out of our hands. To be clear, the block is not in response to the overall issue discussed here but rather to that one specific edit and the mandated response to such postings. The user may be unblocked at some point, at which time this discussion can resume. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Can someone help Ottawahitech? I'm tired of trying.

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

---

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

User:Ottawahitech has been on Wikipedia since 2007. They have made over 75,000 edits. I have absolutely no doubt that they contribute to Wikipedia with only the best intentions, but they seem to lack a basic understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Yesterday Ottawahitech restored a section to an article about a bank which was called "Ripping off the elderly" (which an admin had previously removed). Yes, they did add a source and change the section heading to "RBC rips off the elderly. Would you trust them?", but that doesn't make it any better.

Today they created a new article which is ostensibly about Canadian dual citizenship, but is clearly just making a political point. It has no references at all. I would redirect the article to Multiple citizenship, but I know from past experience that it would only lead to an edit war and accusations of harrassment. Would anyone like to volunteer to help Ottawahitech? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: since you ignore your talk page, I'm letting you know about this discussion here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Since you've been on Wikipedia since October, I'll volunteer to help you find WP:DR. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's no dispute to resolve. It's not personal, Ottawahitech is just a terrible editor. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I deleted that page, it was obviously created to make a point, which is not how it is supposed to work. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The more Ipoke around here the more I'm thinking it may be time for a block. Their userpage brags about how many pages they have created have been deleted, they've been here nearly a decade and are still creating pages that qualify for speedy deletion. This does not seem to be from a lack of understanding but rather a willful disregard for content policies. I'll hold off while awaiting a response from them here and further input from the community, but this does look like a genuine problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Myself and others have had difficulties explaining to Ottawahitech recently, at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Being silenced on this talkpage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked at a few of Ottawahitech's creations. A number didn't seem pointy, just very lazy. In their speedily deleted versions of an article on [the actually encyclopedia-worthy] Rachel Maines, for example, they seem to be attempting no more than the bare minimum that might avoid summary deletion. (GB_fan deleted it anyway, and I don't criticize the deletion.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

After also looking at their article creations, the high number of deleted articles is striking. Looking at some random articles that survived:

• List of housing statutes, vastly incomplete list of statutes from apparently random jurisdictions
• List of sinkholes in Ottawa, seriously? How about "list of trees in the Amazon rainforest" next?
• Senior’s Supplement, minor local government program of questionable notability
• List of women inventors, seemingly just a conversion of the corresponding category, which is of very little benefit
• Mary Bobinski, one-sentence substub with bad formatting

It seems that Ottawahitech is content with lazily adding quite a lot of low-quality content to Wikipedia, in addition to political editorializing as described above, and I think that a case can be made that this is not to the benefit of the project as a whole, warranting sanctions.  Sandstein  11:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Clarifying note: the OP might lead one to believe that the heading correction was Ripping off the elderly → RBC rips off the elderly. Would you trust them?, when it was → "RBC rips off the elderly. Would you trust them?". Note the quotation marks that remove Wikipedia's voice. (Of course, restoring such an UNDUE paragraph, even if not vandalism, was not a bright idea.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• His userpage states that "932 pages (including 531 Categories and 96 articles) donated to Wikipedia by Ottawahitech have been deleted". There's clearly a massive CIR issue here. It looks like it's time for an enforced wikibreak or an outright CIR ban. It's too late for mentorship, and nothing appears to have improved despite ten years and 75,000 edits, and other people posting over a thousand posts on his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and issued an indefinite block. Personally, I do not believe this is an issue with competence. I believe this user is perfectly aware of our basic content policies and just doesn't care to follow them. They appear to be deliberately "playing dumb" a lot of the time, and that has probably what has helped them avoid real consequences for such a very long time, but enough is enough. I have suggested in my block notice that if they want to be unblocked dit will probably have to be with some sort of restriction on creating new pages. Let's leave this open for a bit and see how they respond. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know if it counts for anything but, Otta used to spend a bit on Wikipedia:Missing wikipedians and seemed to have his head screwed on there at least. this and this seemed like pretty 'on point' edits. I'm not saying I disagree with everyone else here, just that, from my perspective, there was at least one place that he did okay in. Credit where due, and such. (I've no problem with being proven wrong with this though) MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 03:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is his editing in article space, the most important and visible part of the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Matticusmadness and Beeblebrox: I was going to mention the Missing Wikipedians thing yesterday, but didn't see the point. But now that it's been brought up, nope, I don't think his head was screwed on completely right there, either, though he always struck me as very well-intentioned. Contrary to many of us on that page, he believed that indefblocked users should have been listed on there, and found some ... rather interesting examples. As I said on the "Missing Wikipedians" talk page, "trying to keep your eager but sometimes over-enthusiastic edits in check is basically the only reason I have this page on my watchlist now"" (I subsequently took it off there). It was occasional reversions like this, this, and this (wow, that was a long time ago) that did it. I know he very much respected my work on the page, so it pains me a bit to write this. The only other place I encountered him was in this thread on the notifications talk page (see the comment by Arthur Rubin). FWIW I have no strong opinion on the indefblock and haven't checked his other edits. Graham87 08:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate behaviour by editors User:Sitush and User:Bishonen (already tried RSN; no resolution achieved)

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

---

Hello,

First, I want to emphasise that I have pursued this issue on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, to no avail.

As stated in the original post in this section, which was removed due to the open discussion at the time (that I suspect will not garner further activity, as the original points continue to be ignored by edit User:Sitush).

Out of respect for the process, and User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi/User:Callmemirela's candor in managing the early parts of it (suggesting I let RSN play out), I have waited over a week for a reasonable response which never came.

Not to sound arrogant, but I surmised as much that the editor would not engage because of their inability to defend the conduct described on the RSN thread above.

Given that I have engaged and now provided four rigorous sources for the claims that Sitush originally did not contest (I bring readers' attention to User:Sitush's original deletion on December 2015 that did not touch the content he now claims is unreliable, which does not add up because of the massive deletion that took place at the time [deleting a little more wouldn't have hurt]), I am reviving this discussion as I feel it is not about the content, but something they don't want to explain.

I want to emphasise I have engaged in WP:goodfaith. I even went the extra mile and provided additional sources, where the other editor has neither invested the same time or effort in making his case, which I find disrespectful to the scholarly process he claims "Raj sources" do not adhere to.

He has also relied on User:Bishonen's administrative powers to keep his incorrect edits, and I feel the entire situation needs administrative intervention.

Here is the diff of that original conversation on ANI before closure; the text of the original exchange is given below to better facilitate the discussion, now that RSN has run its natural course without any appropriate remedy.

RSN text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Note. I've reverted Callmemirela's close of this as a "content dispute" after a mere hour. Complaining about my admin action (semiprotecting a page) as the OP did is hardly a content dispute, and I feel there may be more comments here, even though the OP has been blocked for disruptive editing. Comments by Sitush or some of the Indian admins, for instance. If not, I'll be fine with closing it in a few hours. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC). Hello everyone, I noticed that User:Sitush reverted my very important insertions, and administrator User:Bishonen claims the insertions were "disruptive". I must note that both users seem to have been involved in the prior dispute mentioned on the Reliable sources discussion page, and are violating wikipedia ettiquette. That is, the s:Imperial Gazetteer of India is considered a WP:RS per item (3) on the What is wikisource? article, which states that wikisources are reliable sources. Further, I looked at the old discussion involving User:Sitush's previous disruptions, and while the opposing editor at that time definitely passionate, I can see why they were frustrated. It seems Sitush is trying to use his own webpage to override a well-established protocol, which is that wikipedia sources are reliable. Here, Sitush claims they're unreliable and again (like before, from the previous dispute) refers users to his own page User:Sitush/CasteSources which seems to be overriden by the wikisource. I am seeking action on this matter, as it cannot be refuted that if the reference used is a wikisource, then it is a reliable source. I don't know how or why the behaviour by Sitush has been allowed. I do not think adding page protection was reasonable here, either. I would like my edits restored, and both User:Sitush and User:Bishonen reprimanded for violating ettiquette. I do not know why the latter is abusing their administrator privileges calling the insertions disruptive, either, when they are in line with wikipedia rules. I do not find Sitush's User:Sitush/CasteSources page as an acceptable argument to override rules (it seems this was also argued before, and upset the opposition as he kept doing this). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.86.58 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC) This edit indicates a history to this dispute that we are so far unaware of. Surely, too, the two ANI 'notifications' the IP left were a trifle vitriolic to say the least? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Comment: I'm not convinced item (3) on the What is wikisource? article means what you think it means. Wikisource contains Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, for example - this is a reliable source for what Darwin wrote; it is not necessarily a reliable source when discussing current evolutionary theory (and it is obviously not a reliable source for the current population of the People's Republic of China or the 2015 winner of the Best Actor at the Oscars!) It doesn't look at all to me like Sitush is using "his own webpage" to overrule consensus - it looks to me like he's summarised why otherwise reliable sources may not be reliable in all instances, based on previous discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm also a wee bit concerned that you don't seem to be assuming good faith with respect to these two editors. Also - why raise this at WP:RSN and here at ANI? Why not wait until editors at WP:RSN have replied? 80.229.60.197 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Note: It's utterly irrelevant to say that Sitush's subpage User:Sitush/CasteSources can't be used as a source. No, of course it can't! It has never been offered as a source, but as a page that explains about sourcing in the area of castes on Wikipedia, with a lot of diffs and links to show consensus regarding the points Sitush makes, as per 80.229.60.197 above. A good example is Sitush's explanation of the unreliability of historians from the British Raj period, and the necessity of using modern academic work. I would have thought this was obvious to anybody who read Sitush's page in good faith and with competence in reading the English language; I don't know which of the two this OP is short of. As for the notion that everything on Wikisource (a library of primary sources), however old, outdated, and/or biased, is a reliable source for any context, I'll just leave it to the reader to evaluate. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC). The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A few things: I did not know that Bishonen reopened the discussion after it was closed, as I took the discussion to RSN as was requested, and per process. I also find it disingenuous when User:Bishonen excludes my original response to some of these statements in the archived form, as it gives an incomplete picture of the discussion. Below is the text that was curiously exempted:

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

---

In response to what Bishonen has said, if he was so confident about the s:Imperial Gazetteer of India being an invalid source, why did he not participate in the discussion instead of locking the thread and allowing Sitush to make edits? He asks why did I not wait, well, I am using a wikisource that is said to be a WP:RS, and you proceeded to protect the page to allow Sitush to make his own edits. It does not make any sense.

No one is using these sources to cite populations, which obviously do get old and require updated sources. However to state Charles Darwin's Origin of Species is not a reliable source on current evolutionary theory is pure bunkum. While the text is old, much of it is philosophical in nature and very much holds to this very day.

I do not thnk this example is worth discussing as it distracts from the main arguments.

Further, I find it sort of comical that Bishonen is suggesting I do not understand english, as this was the very thing that got the previous editor who opposed both him and Sitush banned.

It seems you are engaging in the exact behaviour Sitush criticised the previous editor of, Bishonen]. Is this not an example of hypocrisy?

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

As was stated in previous posts that were tied to the original ANI post, this has nothing to do with caste and everything to do with demographics/geography. It seems the editors are unable to accept the fact that this tribe chose to ally itself with the "Raj" as early as the late 1700s, which would mean much of their history would have been given by the British.

To belabour this fact, the original source used by User:Sitush to contest the article's content actually proved the original editor's point, thereby bewildering me even further.

Can we please get some action on this issue? I've spent many hours providing rigorous evidence that the other editors simply continue to ignore. I am hoping there will be some accountability for these blatant edits that are more deletions than anything else. 208.69.162.243 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• What exactly did you expect to happen at RSN? It sounds like you were expecting Sitush and Bishonen to argue "their case": that's really not what RSN is about. Other editors - Only in death, for example - offered their opinion on the sources you wanted to use. You disagreed with their opinion, too. You've been here at ANI before, and editors have attempted to explain to you that inclusion in Wikisource does not make a source automatically reliable (I was one such editor who attempted to explain this to you). You've been blocked already for assuming bad faith of Sitush and Bishonen, yet you're continuing to allege inappropriate behaviour where - frankly - there really is none. Honestly, my recommendation would be to accept that when many editors are telling you the same thing, it's time to move on. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Content dispute. Short story - OP wants to use sources that are generally unreliable for certain information (due to their age, historical bias and other issues) - Sitush disagrees, Bishonen disagrees, when it was brought to RSN I also disagreed. OP thinks there is some bigger issue here than 'People dont agree the sources I want to use are reliable'. So have it people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• First of all User:80.229.609.197, you lost credibility when claimed Charles Darwin's work was not a proper source on evolution. I responded to that very clearly, and Bishonen did not include it in the archived post. I re-stated my response directly above your response, and yet you mention it as if I "pulled a User:Sitush" and did not answer you.

Did you consult the archived box to see that I included your response? If so, why do you provide a diff as if I've ignored your statement? I did not; and as I stated earlier: getting into how Darwin's work is still philosophically very relevant to the theory of evolution distracts from the main argument concerning the content in this dispute.

The entire tone of your response is "he isn't listening to what we say, and we're right" when I've clearly brought up issues with the blanket claim "Raj sources are unreliable". I am responding to each point that is brought up and have done so with proper reason.

• In order to address this distracting point re: philosophical pertinence of Darwin's Origins, academic and scholarly credentials must be given to establish the merit of those who make such critiques. I, of course, would have no problem doing that. I suspect, however, you would not be willing to do that, and that is okay. However, the choice of Darwin's Origins as something that is WP:RS, yet presently invalid as a source on evolution (in your opinion) was a very poor example.

You state there is no inappropriate behaviour, which I disagree with. If User:Sitush truly believed these sources were unreliable for the content being cited, then why did he not show how these sources are flawed instead of making blanket statements without any sources ?

1. Again, if the content left alone by Sitush on December 2015 was so unreliable, why did he not delete it at that time? Why did he, upon insertion of a citation that satisfied the request, decide to delete the entire page? It does not add up.
2. If Sitush was so sure the citations did not support the content, thereby making them unreliable, why did he not give a proper answer when asked by User:SageRad as to how? One cannot make blanket statements and expect them to hold in light of multiple sources
   I went through the effort to find additional sources that substantiated the WP:RS s:Imperial Gazetteer of India and another that caused Sitush to delete the entire page--giving a total of four
3. Secondly, I feel your tone projects the notion that User:Only in death, User:Bishonen and User:Sitush have given a rigorous justification as to how these sources are unreliable in the context of the content they are being used to cite (important) when they have not, and that I am blindly disputing something without evidence, which I disagree with.

A pretentiously-phrased blanket assertion does not is not an acceptable substitute for demonstrating how the cited content is flawed.

• Everyone is entitled to their opinion on James Mill, and deeming it as a CasteSource is borderline at best, as he critiques the flaws of the Brahmins (who are the at the 'top' of the foodchain in Hinduism) and exploit their role in this power structure. Even if we accept Mill's A History of British India as a "CasteSource", none of the citations used for this specific content pertain to caste. Rather, they are more focused on demographics and information that helped document the various aspects of the territory (people, climate, etc).

As stated in my RSN response to User:Boing! said Zebedee, the Phulkian tribe was allied with the "Raj", thereby making British sources the most reliable source for this specific tribe (One of the few that were south of the Sutlej river):

But the British Government, established at Delhi since 1803,

intervened with an offer of protection to all the CIS-SUTLEJ STATES;

and Dhanna Singh gladly availed himself of the promised aid, being

one of the first chieftains to accept British protection and control.

Why is the alliance between the Phulkians and British ignored when assessing the reliability of sources? I have mentioned this many times and it seems to clearly demonstrate as to why the "Raj sources" have accurate information for this specific tribe.

• Clearly this alliance would mean that most of the Phulkians' history would be documented by the Raj.

Lastly: I never hid the fact that I was blocked by User:Boing! said Zebedee for 48 hours. If I had wanted to circumvent that ban, I could have done so with much ease. Bringing that up is not helpful here.

I feel that I have engaged in good faith, have provided sufficient sources, and while my arguments may have some element of passion, it can't be disputed that I've spent the time and effort to properly substantiate my claims regarding the unreasonable deletions of valid content (again, three of which substantiate a WP:RS s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India).

• I've collapsed the text copied from RSN. ansh666 22:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

So... IP editor, you got banned, shot down, and in every way told no, and your idea of trying to fix this was to evade your ban and try again? Good luck with that, and enjoy your next ban. --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've now pointed out with more detail at RSN, your claim that everything on wikisource is a reliable source is fundamentally flawed. I have no comment on the reliability of the particularly source, but when you make such a nonsense claim I have no real reason to believe you have any real idea what you're talking about so don't see much point looking into the reliability of the source, or any of your other complaints. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to be avoid making such fundamental errors. Nil Einne (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne: I'm glad you took the time to state something that is half-true. I implied that the s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India's claims are valid as WP:RS because they substantiate claims that were previously argued to be "unreliable" by User:Sitush who did not provide any evidence to support that statement. The original source was from The Calcutta Review, and upon gleaning the content in (3) Wikipedia:Wikisource#What is Wikisource?, I felt that the citation of a WP:RS alone should have been sufficient, as it corroborated information from an earlier source.

Further, I provided two additional sources that again make the same claims that were contained in the WP:RS. It is pretty clear that, even if you wanted to try and remove the citation on the basis that "not everything in Wikisource is WP:RS", that this specific content *is*, since the dispute predates the use of s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India.

Secondly, you are free to disparage my abilities as much as you want. I feel my explanation and sources speak for themselves.

• It is completely fair to demand a rigorously-justified explanation as to how the cited content removed by Sitush was unreliable, as the WP:RS s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India substantiates information used in the earlier source he egregiously deemed unreliable. When this is taken in conjunction with the additional two sources, it becomes clear that it is not the content that is unreliable, but the editor. 137.118.142.148 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Blocked

I have blocked this IP for repeated personal attacks and for forum shopping way beyond all the feedback they have received at other venues. I don't know if any range blocks might be feasible, but I'll leave that for someone with the appropriate expertise to perhaps determine. As an aside, right from the start this one had it in for Sitush, so I suspect it's a returning caste or Hindutva warrior. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Page hijacking of Karcze, Greater Poland Voivodeship

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

---

On Time Steam Cleaning Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Was hijacked from Karcze, Greater Poland Voivodeship by Rsigh3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The article is rather promotional. I think an admin will need to fix this. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the usual move, rewrite and redirect routine. I'm dealing with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved back, ad/spam rev-deleted under WP:RD3, and the perp indef blocked. Thanks for your alertness, Jim1138. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

IP vandalizing Gerry Adams article

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

---

An IP is really going after this article. I've now given two warnings. Hope someone can protect the article or block the IP. TimidGuy (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a year, IP has been blocked in the past for 6 months, and 273 days as well. In the future you can also scoot on down to WP:AIV for all your vandal reporting needs. (Open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!) RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

64.114.207.125

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

---

The IP user 64.114.207.125 has made 34 edits from February 2016 to January 2017. All of this user's edits have been distruptive. The user has been warned on 8 seperate occasions. However, none have resulted in a block. The user has made references to 9/11 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/725457547) and has made offensive comments at User:Zamaster4536 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/751954344). All of this users contributions are here. I feel that this user deserves harsher penalties. What do you think? Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The IP was rangeblocked last week, until 2022. How's that for harsh? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Repeated WP:COPYVIO articles

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

---

By User:ANDRAS1. Nine so far, with repeated warnings and a ANDRAS1 friendly note, but to no avail. Despite repeated deletions, the editor is now recreating the self-same articles. All verbatim copied from SBKFilms.com: SkbasheedRamdev, Pottu Thallu x2, Evadra hero X2, Nottuku Potu Film, SKBASHEED XYZ, etc. Can we catch his attention and stop this ASAP please? Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I deleted the articles and blocked the user. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Disturbing User page

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

---

Came across this just now, and feel it needs admin attention. Thanks. Jusdafax 02:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Ad Orientem, blocked by me, emergency notified. Sam Walton (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have deleted this as a G10 attack page but the rambling and violent fantasies are indeed disturbing. I am thinking this may fall under WP:VIOLENCE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like Sam has handled that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I came across this but just ignored it! I must be going mad. Adam9007 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

In your defense, I almost did as well. I couldn't quite believe what I was reading. My thanks to Sam and Ad, I appreciate the actions. Suggest we close. Jusdafax 02:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw something about it being a test or something, and I think there were blank revisions? So I just left it. Adam9007 (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

admin reduce non-free File:Kmayburysnp.jpg‎

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

---

can someone reduce the size of File:Kmayburysnp.jpg‎ ? I think it might be too big Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I have also nominated the file for deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Offsite conspiracy to edit SPLC page

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

---

User The Quixotic Potato has claimed to have evidence that users at 8chan, archive.org, archive.is and webcitation.org and 4chan have conspired to edit the SPLC page (I am not sure to what end, it just seems they were talking about it but he says the page need to be protected) [2], [3].

If this is true it need looking into, it is (I think) a serious allegation (if he is claiming that there was a conspiracy to vandalize or alter the POV of a page, the user has not actually said that, in fact I am not sure what accusation they are making). I have asked them to explain, but they have already said they are going to ignore me [4].

Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Slatersteven, I genuinely think this does not require admin attention. First, this is about an incident that happened two and a bit months ago. Second, the allegation is that off-wiki collaboration occurred and does not include accusations geared towards any user. Third, the page protect was required in December, not now. I replied on my talk page as well. I was not aware of this filing at the time of writing my comment. I don't know. At most you can ask Quix to post evidence of this, and they may well choose not to. I don't see what admin action can genuinely be taken here, even if Quix is not forthcoming what precisely is policy violation and what exactly is an admin meant to do? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was not sure if he had raised this before (I cannot see any evidence he had). I would have assumed that admins would look at the page and see if any accounts has acted in a way that implied part of a meat puppetry campaign (for example) and block them. As to it happening a few months ago, true but the accounts may still be active and acting in accordance with any plan that may (or may not, as I said, and you did, no direct accusations have been made). But if no action is deemed needed fine, I just disliked the idea an allegation that implied a need for page protection from a cabal of users had gone unreported. Now a report is on record and can be referenced should any such campaign materialize.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• A page protect was placed on SPLC on Dec 7 [5]. On Dec 21 that protection was upped to administrator access [6] and removed on Jan 4th. Now, it would take me hours to look through WP:RfPP to find out who exactly requested these page protects, and indeed, if they were requested at RfPP at all. All I know is that page protect was applied. Who, when and where I don't know beyond the diffs I presented. Quix states they requested the pp, I AGF and assume that they did. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What is that for?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

For stirring up drama? I read your initial post and looked at some of the background. It's completely unclear to me what you want done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Time for a boomerang. Yet another straw man argument. Yet another false accusation. People love typing but they hate reading. Pretty much everything in the original post is incorrect. Three months ago some people from 8chan were talking about the SPLC article on an old 4chan raid channel. At the time I was using an IRC bouncer to monitor what they were up to. I requested protection. The article was protected for a while. I mentioned Archive.org and archive.is and webcitation.org on Rnddude's talkpage because I used their services to archive evidence. I have asked to OP to stop posting on my talkpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven please stop annoying me. Leave me alone. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw this as clearly it is not significant. All I will say is that an accusation had been made, and I felt it needed looking into if the implications (I saw) were true. Clearly I misread what the user was claiming had happened.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As I have said I clearly misread the situation and so am withdrawing this, no need for further comment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by TrayWitTheMac11

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

---

User:TrayWitTheMac11 posted a legal threat here. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked. Seems like a he crossed the bright line there. If he rescinds and agrees to play nice, will unblock. --Jayron32 03:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Why? He cannot write an understandable sentence. How is anyone who writes like that ever going to benefit the encyclopedia? John from Idegon (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on Mithila related pages

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

---

The China Room (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been making disruptive and unsourced edits on numerous Mithila related pages like Mithila (region), Janaka, Videha, Mithila, Nepal. All his edits have been unsourced and I suspect he's pushing a nationalist POV. I have made attempts to discuss with him on his talk page but he ignores it. He has received a warning for removing sourced content and today he received a warning for using sock IP's. Even after receiving the warning he used an IP to make the exact same edit was was reverted. I have the asked attending administrator to reopen his sock case but I would also like the issue to be sorted out once and for all. Diffs can also be provided as well. Damien2016 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This may be connected to a long-term sock for Nepal/Mithila matters - Poudar (talk · contribs) or someone like that. Template:Ping:Ponyo may remember the master. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo: re-pinging. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There were two sockmasters involved in the same disputes, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poojjan ccresta and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Admirenepal. At one point we thought they may be the same individual, but it was never determined. The behavioural overlap with the Poojjan ccresta accounts is strong, and there is technical evidence that ties The China Room to this master. I've blocked the account as a suspected sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

College project that's introducing copyvios, plagiarism, OR and Non-NPOV content to wide variety of Indian history articles

There's a huge group of college students working on some coursework related to historical kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent. They've been copying content from elsewhere on to these articles, some of them from out of copyright works and some from copyrighted works. Utcursch, Chewings72 and I have attempted to engage with a few of them, but except for one of them confirming to Utcursch that this is a college project and they aren't sock accounts, we haven't any response from anyone. Our request to have the instructor read the guidelines for educators and get involved hasn't had any impact either. I'm sure there are more people involved in cleaning up this area, I just don't know who all are involved yet (Doug Weller suggested I bring this here, after a conversation on my talk page). I'll list all accounts I'm aware of here:

1. Worldciv207 satavahanas (talk · contribs) (This is the student who confirmed that it's coursework and not sockpuppetry)
2. Worldciv2017 Chalukya Empire (talk · contribs)
3. Worldciv2017 GUPTAs (talk · contribs)
4. Worldciv2017 chola (talk · contribs)
5. Worldciv2017 kakatiya (talk · contribs)
6. Worldciv2017 tughlaq (talk · contribs)
7. WorldCiv2017 chera (talk · contribs)
8. Worldciv2017 pallavas (talk · contribs)
9. WorldCiv2017 Pallava Empire (talk · contribs)
10. Worldciv 2017 kushan (talk · contribs)
11. Worldciv pala (talk · contribs)
12. World Civ 2017 Maurya's (talk · contribs)

I've provided most (if not all) of the accounts with student-welcome template and have tried to engage with a couple of them but there's been no response. I'm not exactly sure what to do here as we don't even know who the instructor is (his name is Prof Srinivas Reddy) or if this is an outreach effort or any background information. We had a similar group from a college in Pune in 2015 that was working on Kumbh Mela related stuff but I was able to work with them back then, unlike in this case. If someone can actually get through to them and get them to stop the copyvios etc and work in a structured manner, it'd be helpful. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

:PS, with so many people to notify, it's going to take me a while to do the rounds. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Add World Civ 2017-SOLANKI (talk · contribs), whom I have just notified of this discussion. I've just been cleaning up their stuff at Chaulukya dynasty, as well as one of the above named accounts at Chera dynasty. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

All these accounts need to be thoroughly reviewed for copyvios, optimally by a Wikipedian with significant expertise in this area. Anyone who joins in, please don't just revert copyvios, but flag them for revdel using {{copyvio-revdel}}. BethNaught (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@BethNaught: how do we tag an eit as copyvio if it's already been reverted but not et revdeleted? E.g., here? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

By following the instructions in the template documentation... BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not all of the additions involve copyright violations. Sometimes they have tried to use their own words, but their English language skills are not up to it. The one you are referring to that I reverted seemed to me to be more about "Original Research" rather than a copyright violation. I will follow BethNaught's advice if I see any more copyvios.--Chewings72 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've left a note at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Student_projects_at_ANI. PamD 12:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Add
  • Worldciv2017 kakatiyas (talk · contribs)
  • Worldciv17 VN (talk · contribs)
• who haven't edited yet, but match the username pattern and were registered in the last 11 days. MER-C 13:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note: Worldciv207 satavahanas, the responsive student has confirmed on my talk page that they have alerted the other students about policies and guidelines and to follow them and also about talk pages and will be requesting the instructor to go through Wikipedia:Education Program. —SpacemanSpiff 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear this. I hope that when the students who haven't edited yet start contributing they do better. I've dealt with one. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Update. This is an assignment for the World Civilizations Class at IIT Gandhinagar. Graeme Bartlett has emailed the instructor, let's hope some structure comes out of this now. —SpacemanSpiff 07:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this page corresponds to the group on the Programs and Events Dashboard, created by User:Vishwanagarika. I am not familiar with this user, but hope this helps connect with the appropriate people. TFlanagan-WMF (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sudden Deth

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

---

This user is running amok, continued disruption, trollish behaviour, persistent edit warring. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Look how childish this user is being just because he's not getting his way. He is threatening with blocks (even though it's already been established I won't be blocked because other admins already agreed with my edits) and trying to turn other users against simply because I post correct information that he doesn't want to be there despite it being FACT. Grow up. SuddenDeth (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUCK → User:VorticA. TimothyJosephWood 16:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A look through your 'tribs plainly show you are NOT HERE to build an Encyclopedia, but to push your agenda of personal opinions. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@SuddenDeth: your lack of talk page participation is quite telling. You should be discussing edits on article talk pages and working towards consensus, not simply edit warring. A quick look at your talk page shows that there are a number of editors who take issue with your behavior. clpo13_(talk) 16:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if an uninvolved admin could look into this editor's pattern of behavior. Opening discussions on article talk pages is ineffective because SuddenDeth will not participate. He will edit war to push his opinions into the article, even when challenged by multiple editors, and prefers to argue through edit summaries over getting consensus. He's already been blocked for edit warring at Nine Inch Nails and you can see that he refused to discuss his issues. He's now continuing the same pattern in Metallica articles. --Laser brain (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

So Jason Newsted playing bass guitar on 1989 (a year he was a member of the band) live tracks is opinion not fact? SuddenDeth (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This is about your behavior. You should be addressing the concerns above regarding lack of discussion and edit warring. clpo13_(talk) 17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

At one point I thought the edit warring was over. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless User:SuddenDeth will agree to change their approach in the future I think an indefinite block should be considered. They appear to be certain they are right and have no interest in any negotiation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Kill 'Em All has been fully protected by CambridgeBayWeather. SuddenDeth, take this opportunity to start a discussion on the talk page (and please read WP:BRD). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

SuddenDeth blocked for three days for continuing to edit war on other articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

139.192.182.85

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

---

I have asked the admin to investigate this IP a week ago as he was harassing other users. But it seems that the investigation has been discontinued, as after seeing this:[7], the user has yet insulted another user with the slur word "puki", which according to this website:[8] means "vagina". This has gone too far. I have reported many anonymous user in this noticeboard for the last few months but it appears that they do not stop harassing other users. I need the admin to something about this, as I cannot report this incident every time. By the way, it seems that other user has warned the IP, but he doesn't seems to care and just remove his talk page. Cheers. CWJakarta (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Slightly-more-involved-than-I-was-last-time-comment. They've been blocked (72 hours) by Cyp. This editor has been discussed at ANI several times before most recently here. Last time Hoary made the point that there's a great deal of uncited editing and reverting occurring on various Airport articles; I've started going through them adding {{Refimprove}} tags, but these articles do seem to be a magnet for (a) no edit summaries (or vulgar edit summaries in Batak), (b) limited or zero referencing, and (c) slow-motion edit warring. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:‎I Love Failing Exams

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

---

The blocked user I Love Failing Exams needs their talk page access removed, as they are being disruptive. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Page hijacking

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

---

Ullaste, appears to have been hijacked to create a new article - Broccoli pizza and pasta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - . With brief excursion as Suzi Q Smith The editor is Fredix93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It would seem to need an admin to straighten this out. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Highstakes00 sock? Hijacking existing pages to sneak promotional/paid articles past new page patrol, moving the pages several times, and creating redirects so the moves can't be easily reversed is their MO, isn't it? --bonadea contributions talk 10:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it and blocked the user. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I've rev-deleted the intermediate nonsense, which I think can fit under WP:RD3 - it's disruptive for anyone trying to understand the real history of the genuine article (and it adds a bit of WP:DENY into the mix). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Blocked editor spamming on talk page

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

---

Sathish Kalathil (Film Director) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in 2012 for sock puppetry and self promotion. He has returned and is using his talk page to post similar self-promotional content. The blocking admin was Berean Hunter who has since retired, so if someone else could have a look that would be good. Melcous (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have revoked this account's and its related sockpuppets' talk page access. De728631 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Air India Tehran launch

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

---

Hello everybody!

Air India Express has delayed its launch to Tehran IKA from "1 March to 2017" to "26 March 2017" based on http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/271136/air-india-express-revises-tehran-launch-to-late-march-2017/

Several users have previously suggested this semi-protected edit on IKA's page but they've been collectively branded as vandals by Yamla and their suggestion ignored despite the incontrovertible citation provided.

So I just decided to not go down that path and bring this issue into attention right on here. Can someone assist me please?

Cheers 24.87.65.27 (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the blocked vandal, Theeasytarget (talk · contribs) who was not blocked by me. They have engaged in numerous examples of block evasion to disrupt the Wikipedia, as they stated they would; I blocked those when I found them. It is not true that "several users" have suggested this change. In all cases, this was suggested by this person using sockpuppet accounts or IP addresses. Additionally, they have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Air India Express Tehran IKA launch. I suggest blocking the most recent sockpuppet, Serentupitty1980 (talk · contribs), as well as this IP address. See additionally, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theeasytarget/Archive. --Yamla (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

{{Ping|Serentupitty1980}} as the most recent sockpuppet. {{Ping|MilborneOne}} as the original blocking admin and {{Ping|Boing!_said_Zebedee}} as the admin who revoked access from the user. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This was previously removed by Nil Einne (talk · contribs) in this edit with the edit summary, "Socking evidentally". I'll leave it to another admin to remove it here and to indicate whether it would generally be appropriate for me to have removed it myself, given the evident block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Sorry about the ec with the close, but we should note that I've indef blocked Serentupitty1980 as an obvious sock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Addendum: Three IP sockpuppets blocked so far for tampering with the report above. Page semi-protected. Acroterion (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a checkuser in the house? The last two three disruptive accounts were sleeper accounts old enough to be autoconfirmed once they'd made ten edits to userspace, all created January 18 so far. Acroterion (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a template for that: {{checkuser needed}}. BethNaught (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say there's not much available from a CU perspective - he's proxying all over the place, making it impossible to say whether there are any other accounts. Seems easy to spot, though - my advice is to revert and block on sight, and maybe protect this page for a bit if he doesn't get bored soon. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Any chance an edit filter can be applied for this? Just to add I've just protected the page again, third protection today for this vandal. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, filter 836, but it may need adjustment if they come back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This may be a blocked user, however, the request here is fully legitimate, as it is a sourced change that should be performed. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. Acroterion (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

College project that's introducing copyvios, plagiarism, OR and Non-NPOV content to wide variety of Indian history articles

There's a huge group of college students working on some coursework related to historical kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent. They've been copying content from elsewhere on to these articles, some of them from out of copyright works and some from copyrighted works. Utcursch, Chewings72 and I have attempted to engage with a few of them, but except for one of them confirming to Utcursch that this is a college project and they aren't sock accounts, we haven't any response from anyone. Our request to have the instructor read the guidelines for educators and get involved hasn't had any impact either. I'm sure there are more people involved in cleaning up this area, I just don't know who all are involved yet (Doug Weller suggested I bring this here, after a conversation on my talk page). I'll list all accounts I'm aware of here:

1. Worldciv207 satavahanas (talk · contribs) (This is the student who confirmed that it's coursework and not sockpuppetry)
2. Worldciv2017 Chalukya Empire (talk · contribs)
3. Worldciv2017 GUPTAs (talk · contribs)
4. Worldciv2017 chola (talk · contribs)
5. Worldciv2017 kakatiya (talk · contribs)
6. Worldciv2017 tughlaq (talk · contribs)
7. WorldCiv2017 chera (talk · contribs)
8. Worldciv2017 pallavas (talk · contribs)
9. WorldCiv2017 Pallava Empire (talk · contribs)
10. Worldciv 2017 kushan (talk · contribs)
11. Worldciv pala (talk · contribs)
12. World Civ 2017 Maurya's (talk · contribs)

I've provided most (if not all) of the accounts with student-welcome template and have tried to engage with a couple of them but there's been no response. I'm not exactly sure what to do here as we don't even know who the instructor is (his name is Prof Srinivas Reddy) or if this is an outreach effort or any background information. We had a similar group from a college in Pune in 2015 that was working on Kumbh Mela related stuff but I was able to work with them back then, unlike in this case. If someone can actually get through to them and get them to stop the copyvios etc and work in a structured manner, it'd be helpful. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

:PS, with so many people to notify, it's going to take me a while to do the rounds. —SpacemanSpiff 11:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Add World Civ 2017-SOLANKI (talk · contribs), whom I have just notified of this discussion. I've just been cleaning up their stuff at Chaulukya dynasty, as well as one of the above named accounts at Chera dynasty. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

All these accounts need to be thoroughly reviewed for copyvios, optimally by a Wikipedian with significant expertise in this area. Anyone who joins in, please don't just revert copyvios, but flag them for revdel using {{copyvio-revdel}}. BethNaught (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@BethNaught: how do we tag an eit as copyvio if it's already been reverted but not et revdeleted? E.g., here? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

By following the instructions in the template documentation... BethNaught (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Not all of the additions involve copyright violations. Sometimes they have tried to use their own words, but their English language skills are not up to it. The one you are referring to that I reverted seemed to me to be more about "Original Research" rather than a copyright violation. I will follow BethNaught's advice if I see any more copyvios.--Chewings72 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've left a note at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Student_projects_at_ANI. PamD 12:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Add
  • Worldciv2017 kakatiyas (talk · contribs)
  • Worldciv17 VN (talk · contribs)
• who haven't edited yet, but match the username pattern and were registered in the last 11 days. MER-C 13:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note: Worldciv207 satavahanas, the responsive student has confirmed on my talk page that they have alerted the other students about policies and guidelines and to follow them and also about talk pages and will be requesting the instructor to go through Wikipedia:Education Program. —SpacemanSpiff 13:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear this. I hope that when the students who haven't edited yet start contributing they do better. I've dealt with one. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Update. This is an assignment for the World Civilizations Class at IIT Gandhinagar. Graeme Bartlett has emailed the instructor, let's hope some structure comes out of this now. —SpacemanSpiff 07:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this page corresponds to the group on the Programs and Events Dashboard, created by User:Vishwanagarika. I am not familiar with this user, but hope this helps connect with the appropriate people. TFlanagan-WMF (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Sudden Deth

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

---

This user is running amok, continued disruption, trollish behaviour, persistent edit warring. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Look how childish this user is being just because he's not getting his way. He is threatening with blocks (even though it's already been established I won't be blocked because other admins already agreed with my edits) and trying to turn other users against simply because I post correct information that he doesn't want to be there despite it being FACT. Grow up. SuddenDeth (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUCK → User:VorticA. TimothyJosephWood 16:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A look through your 'tribs plainly show you are NOT HERE to build an Encyclopedia, but to push your agenda of personal opinions. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@SuddenDeth: your lack of talk page participation is quite telling. You should be discussing edits on article talk pages and working towards consensus, not simply edit warring. A quick look at your talk page shows that there are a number of editors who take issue with your behavior. clpo13_(talk) 16:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if an uninvolved admin could look into this editor's pattern of behavior. Opening discussions on article talk pages is ineffective because SuddenDeth will not participate. He will edit war to push his opinions into the article, even when challenged by multiple editors, and prefers to argue through edit summaries over getting consensus. He's already been blocked for edit warring at Nine Inch Nails and you can see that he refused to discuss his issues. He's now continuing the same pattern in Metallica articles. --Laser brain (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

So Jason Newsted playing bass guitar on 1989 (a year he was a member of the band) live tracks is opinion not fact? SuddenDeth (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This is about your behavior. You should be addressing the concerns above regarding lack of discussion and edit warring. clpo13_(talk) 17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

At one point I thought the edit warring was over. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless User:SuddenDeth will agree to change their approach in the future I think an indefinite block should be considered. They appear to be certain they are right and have no interest in any negotiation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Kill 'Em All has been fully protected by CambridgeBayWeather. SuddenDeth, take this opportunity to start a discussion on the talk page (and please read WP:BRD). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

SuddenDeth blocked for three days for continuing to edit war on other articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

139.192.182.85

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

---

I have asked the admin to investigate this IP a week ago as he was harassing other users. But it seems that the investigation has been discontinued, as after seeing this:[9], the user has yet insulted another user with the slur word "puki", which according to this website:[10] means "vagina". This has gone too far. I have reported many anonymous user in this noticeboard for the last few months but it appears that they do not stop harassing other users. I need the admin to something about this, as I cannot report this incident every time. By the way, it seems that other user has warned the IP, but he doesn't seems to care and just remove his talk page. Cheers. CWJakarta (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Slightly-more-involved-than-I-was-last-time-comment. They've been blocked (72 hours) by Cyp. This editor has been discussed at ANI several times before most recently here. Last time Hoary made the point that there's a great deal of uncited editing and reverting occurring on various Airport articles; I've started going through them adding {{Refimprove}} tags, but these articles do seem to be a magnet for (a) no edit summaries (or vulgar edit summaries in Batak), (b) limited or zero referencing, and (c) slow-motion edit warring. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible communications class?

• COMM112 (talk · contribs)
• COMM112BackRow (talk · contribs)
• Comm112 starboy (talk · contribs)
• Comm112TLC (talk · contribs)
• COMM112Sports (talk · contribs)
• COMM112KECR (talk · contribs)
• Comm112 Girlies (talk · contribs)
• COMM112ROX (talk · contribs)
• Comm112ack (talk · contribs)
• COMM112 4Beer (talk · contribs)
• COMM 112 is fine (talk · contribs)
• Comm112ChantalDePriest (talk · contribs)
• Comm 112 DaGreatest (talk · contribs)
• Comm112sux (talk · contribs)
• Comm112cool (talk · contribs)
• COMM112RachelM (talk · contribs)
• SprzybycienCOMM112 (talk · contribs)
• COMM112Rylee (talk · contribs)
• Comm112 Paul (talk · contribs)
• COMM 112 Wiki (talk · contribs)
• Comm 112 4Fun (talk · contribs)
• COMM112-2017 (talk · contribs)
• Comm112.Oscar (talk · contribs)

I am really confused as to what the hell is going on with the accounts listed above, all created today within about a 30m span of each other. I'm thinking it's a collegiate communications class. Most of their edits (collectively) have been vandalism.
I'll notify them as soon as I'm done unloading some laundry, but some eyes on this and maybe contacting them to see what the deal is would be needed. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Multiple_new_users_being_created_with_similar_user_names_.28COMM.29. Appears to indeed be a communications class, from the NDSU. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone supervising these kids? Did they receive any instruction at all about how Wikipedia works, and what is and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia? I haven't looked through all of their contributions, but the ones I've scanned are full of unsourced opinions (presumably the editor's own), unencyclopedic writing, and unimportant trivia. Yes, some editors are being too ruthless in removing their edits, instead of tagging them with "citation needed", but -- at least as far as I've see -- their first forays into editing have not been very successful. Have the Education people been successful in contacting the professor or instructor in charge of this group (who I assume is probably User:COMM112), because if some improvement is not seen, we're going to have a situation where nuking all the edits is the best way to go about fixing the problem, and I don't think anyone wants that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @NSaad (WMF): Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not "supervising" them, as in their professor, etc. But I am watching all of their edits on an individual basis. Some appear to be causing disruption (AGF applies of course), while others seem to be making legitimate contributions. It looks like the articles being edited the most by these users are Minnesota Wild and Minnesota Twins - these users seem to be making edits in the manner and on the articles that I'd expect school IPs and users to be making. I'd be surprised if this was one person playing multiple hands... I think the best thing to do is take issues on a user-by-user basis. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you or me or anyone from the WMF should be supervising them, that's the professor/instructor's job, of course. (And I agree that it's clearly a class and not an instance of multi-socking.) I was just wondering if anyone had had contact with that person to find out how they are handling the class: did they get any instruction on the policy basics (V,RS,OR etc.) or not. As a group, they don't seem to know about referencing (and the one I saw that used a reference did it as an in-line EL in a section title), or about not inserting their opinions. Some of their edits which other editors reverted I think were legit, and simply needed a ref from an RS, so they should be brought up to speed on that (not necessarily by you or I, but by the leader of the class). We all know that 15 years or so from its founding, Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve, and these kids could use some help getting on top of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This is also being discussed next door. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I've added a {{Please see}} for this discussion to WP:ENB. Something similar to this has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 16#Articles being created as class projects so perhaps editors who regularly participate in WP:ENB can provide suggestions on how to best resolve this. FWIW, I think students such as these may need to be reminded that editing for a class project and editing for Wikipedia are not always one and the same, and it is the latter that they should be encouraged to do. Maybe they should be advised to take a look at Wikipedia:Student assignments and take Wikipedia:Training/For students to better familiarize themselves with how Wikipedia works. There is also Template:Welcome student which could be added to their user talk pages. Other than that, I don't think they should be receive special treatment if their edits are not in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. If they make a mistake, then assuming good faith and a level 1 warning should probably be used. If, however, they continue to repeat the same mistakes/behavior despite being warned, then stronger action should be then considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• User:Jéské Couriano put an AN/I notice on each of the above accounts, and I also put specific links to this discussion and the one on AN on all of them, so perhaps at the next session of this class the message may get to the instructor (via the students) that all is not well in COM112's Wikipedia project. Add o that the fact that one of the account was username blocked.
  I really think that the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" slogan is responsible in some ways for this, as it creates the impression that one can open up the site and start editing immediately. Unless, of course, this is the instructor's way of demonstrating to the students that it's a bit more complex then that, in which case... Well, it's a good teaching strategy, but it obviously sucks from our point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

NOTHERE editor at Wind Turbine Syndrome

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

---

Mwest55 (talk · contribs) has, since creating his account last summer, done nothing but advocate for a rewriting of Wind turbine syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from it's current WP:MEDRS compliant form, to one based on anecdotes and news reports. In that time, Mwest55 has engaged in both article edits and talk page edits, always pushing the exact same thing. He has put his personal opinions right into the article [11], suggested compelling anecdotes as a reason to change the article [12], and accused his opponents of being shills for Big Wind [13]. It died down for some months after an initial spurt of edits, but on his return the edits are exactly the same. Mwest55 appears to be utterly impervious to reason, and incapable of comprehending Wikipedia policy. I propose that he be banned (either a community ban or just unilaterally banned by any uninvolved administrator) as clearly being not here to help build an encyclopedia, but rather to right great wrongs and be disruptive. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ha! That's nothing! Wait until he gets wind of the combined wind turbine and cell tower! EEng 04:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted this user's last edit here to the article for obvious NPOV issues, and left a warning for edit warring on the user's talk page. If this user continues editing the article without engaging in discussion or proper dispute resolution, he will be blocked for edit warring. I'll also note that this issue is not related to the report here, and/or any action that other administrators or the community decides as a result of this ANI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

User is blocked for 72 hours for continued edit warring on Wind turbine syndrome. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Support community ban per OP. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Someguy1221: a single admin can't ban a user off their own bat unless the pages in question are under discretionary sanctions; it would have to be by community consensus. Since the user is so unresponsive (not sure they know they have a user talkpage), I've blocked for 72 hours to stem the disruption. That might have the added benefit of helping them locate their own talkpage. I see no reason to close this discussion, though — I suggest it be kept open to discuss a possible community topic ban or NOTHERE indef block.Bishonen | talk 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

Repinging @Someguy1221:. Sigh. Bishonen | talk 15:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

• WP:FRINGE covers this. TBAN please. Can't do it myself as I am involved. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support community ban - this is pretty clear WP:RGW editing incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Part of being so thoroughly indoctrinated in alt-fact conspiracy theories of this sort is believing that nobody could possibly disagree without being an agent of the bad actors on the other side (in this case, people being paid off with gag orders from the Wind Company) and trying to explain our guidelines to such a user just reinforces their belief in the depth of the conspiracy. We can't possibly rehabilitate such an editor; WP:CIR covers this nicely. (my wrist is sore from endorsing all these Big Cheques from Big Wind) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just noting I was aware the user was blocked when I made this comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support community TBAN. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC).
• Support topic ban per arguments above, as the first effective method of dealing with the alt-fact universe. Miniapolis 22:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban from all subjects related to renewable energy and/or medical conditions Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, leaning towards community ban. At a minimum, this user needs to be removed from this topic area, but the fact that they are an SPA on an personal mission, having shown no intentional to comply with (or even minimally attempt to understand) our editorial policies, leaves me highly skeptical that they will respect the terms of the ban. Community bans should be reserved for really the worst-case disruptors who have proven they are unable to reform their behaviour to contribute productively, and yet I have to guess that in this instance, we are only creating a bureaucratic extra step, since this user will almost certainly resume inserting similar material eventually (if not immediately). We could close the discussion with the caveat than any violation the ban should be met with an immediate indef, but then there is no guarantee the responding admin will feel comfortable with that, not knowing the full context. It may be the best call to simply ban the user now. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support community ban This editor basically only edits this article and is a literal WP:SPA. A topic ban is in effect the same as a community ban. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban It can be expanded if the editor violates the t-ban or begins editing tendentiously in another area. We should aim for the least restrictive ban that fits the offense. (I'm not really convinced this editor can be steered into being constructive, but it's worth a try.) David in DC (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with a very strong encouragement of the editor to seek some sort of constructive mentoring of some sort. If he winds up being inactive because he can't edit the topic, fine - no loss. If he can, maybe, be constructively involved elsewhere, he might be a slight benefit to the community. John Carter (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - No new reason(s), those expressed above are sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Quick BLP revdel request

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

---

The last 3 edits of 103.12.8.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are pretty clear BLP vios, please do as you wish with them (and the IP, I guess). Thanks, ansh666 05:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked and revdel'd, thanks for the note. Doesn't anybody remove BLP violations anymore? The violations persisted through ten diffs. Acroterion (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess not, though the first people to get there expected the page to be deleted entirely. ansh666 05:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Then there are those of us, myself included, who are attempting to keep a hold on their sanity by paying as little attention as possible to the activities of the Trump Administration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Normally I would too, but apparently there's an executive order being drafted that could lead to an elderly family member of mine being deported...so so much for my sanity. But oh well, such is life, sadly. ansh666 08:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that. Believe me, I know other people in the same situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

User 72.21.198.65, 72.21.196.66 keeps reverting removal of original research

User 72.21.198.65 keeps reverting removal of original research citing "censorship", even when told not to do so on the following pages:

• SipHash (discussion regarding this is on SipHash:Talk)
• MurmurHash

Additionally, this user reverted my changes to the unrelated page — * NSA Suite B Cryptography, I suspect the user went through my edit history looking for "censorship".

I think 72.21.196.66 is the same user.

Dchestnykh (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Spammer with multiple accounts

User:Jesserealfan is edit warring to add links and content related to the subject's thoroughly non-noteworthy tooth whitening business, sourced only to her own promotional efforts. They're so annoyed about being reverted that they're now inserting multiple copies of the spam into the article. They're also violating BLP on this porn performer bio, adding unsourced and unreliably sourced claims, and using at least one clearly abusive edit summary.[14] The editor involved has made similar/identical edits as User:Jessesfan and using IPs. Blcoks and semiprotection are called for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Add - this user has also been reported to AIV for the personal attacks listed above. Garchy (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Left them a message on their talkpage, but it was prior to checking out the obvious link to previous accounts. Have blocked their account, given they've been spamming this tooth-whitening thing for some months. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary is inappropriate

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

---

Can someone delete this vandal's edit summary (here)? It's pretty much only there to provoke. DarkKnight2149 23:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the edit summary. Paul August ☎ 00:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

• Tautological section heading is tautological. EEng 11:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Tautological spelling is "tautological". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Tautological existence is. EEng 22:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Also, the tautological heading involves me saying the same thing twice. DarkKnight2149 00:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
        • You can say that again! EEng 00:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone please help

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

---

There are multiple sock accounts being made by someone at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Dallas Dance (2nd nomination). Someone is trying to frame me as a sockpuppeteer and I currently have an SPI case against me. I was accused by John From Idegon of double posting and my Keep vote was struck for some reason. It also appears that more socks have been piled for a delete vote on this AfD which is compromising the entire AfD. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Those are sockpuppets of long-term vandal Nsmutte - creating malicious SPIs is one of his favourite forms of trolling. All the sock votes need to be stricken per WP:DENY, and the SPI should be deleted as an attack (as many previous SPIs created by Nsmutte's socks have been). --bonadea contributions talk 14:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23 cleaned up the mess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal Threats by User:Nitish.massey

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

---

User:Nitish.massey has made what appear to be legal threats against User:Sitush, as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASitush&type=revision&diff=763714657&oldid=763314734

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANitish.massey&type=revision&diff=763716566&oldid=763686939

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=763726800&oldid=763612337

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

While they are indubitably pissed with me, I think a lot of it is down to English language comprehension, a desire to right great wrongs and an understandable lack of understanding regarding WP in-jokes etc. Let's just see what happens for now - they are highly unlikely to get anywhere if they were to sue. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Sitush, that is true and irrelevant. The question here is not whether they have a right to sue, or to threaten to sue, but whether they have the privilege of editing Wikipedia (which is a privilege, not a right, but is granted to almost anyone, with exceptions), while threatening to sue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we all know the answer to that: he does not. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The statements are certainly peculiar. I can't tell if the reference to "legal" principles are meant to be to refer to (supposed) legal concepts or (supposed) Wikipedia policies. Neither interpretation makes those assertions make much sense. But in any event, there does seem to be a basic WP:Competency issue here, between the substantial language barrier, the tenuous grasp of en.Wikipedia policy and the generally combative/WP:RGW attitude. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats/personal attacks or whatever, indef blocked. Let's not waste any more time here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

New article spam: 22nd Century and Beyond

User User:22nd Century and Beyond appears to have the sole purpose of creating pages that violate WP:NOTFUTURE. Several of his pages have been tagged for deletion and I believe some administrator should take a look on his contributions ( [15] ) and take appropriate action. Fbergo (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we get a temporary ban? This user isn't responding to anyone and the continual creation of these articles is concerning. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I appear to have established contact, though it took an impending block warning to do so. They say they're stopping for a "few hours." Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The same thing also happened with Brookerbs, which I have created an SPI subpage for at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brookerbs. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Brookerbs' "contributions" have been bizarre (or perhaps just stupid). -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Brookersb has been moving material from 22C&B's userspace into talkpages of unregistered accounts. NeilN has blocked Brookersb and I've deleted the mess they created. 22C&B is clearly related. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

They've admitted to using both accounts. Both have been blocked and the articles they have created have been mass-deleted. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well done. Incidentally, the admission is here. (And I wonder how this person understands the concept of encyclopedic "information".) -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC) ... tweaked Hoary (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably inadvertent socking. I've left the door open for an unblock if they agree to stick to one account and change the way they've been editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I think they were editing in good faith and didn't really plan things very well. I have no trouble with unblocking now that we've sorted out what was going on and have started some interaction. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If the editing was in good faith, then it shows a stunning unawareness or incompetence or something. In view of this, I'd ask what the editor proposed to edit next and how they proposed to edit it. The response to this needn't be flawless or expert but it should be pretty good. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender's suggestion below seems good; I retract my own in favour of it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Before any unblock, I think there should be explicit agreement from him: (1) Not to create any more year articles; (2) To go through WP:AFC for any and all future article creations; (3) If a year he wants to write about does not already have a Wikipedia article, he will just have to accept that and move on. This isn't a sci-fi fansite. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's essentially the conversation I'm having now. I think they;'re confusing Wikipedia with an almanac and are having a little trouble with the limits of an encyclopedia. I'm guessing that they're young and/or a bit single-minded, but not malicious. I'll incorporate the AfC suggestion. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The conversation is here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I was supportive of the creation of some of the articles because they contained astronomical predictions, and astronomical events are the only events that can be predicted with accuracy hundreds of years in advance. However, I support the block because of the sockpuppetry, and am not inclined to excuse sockpuppetry on account of newness or inexperience. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Competence is required, and competence is not yet evident. See the "conversation", which is hardly a conversation. -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the slightest bit of competence from either account, nor any indication that there will ever possibly be any competence. Every single edit he has ever made from either account has been reverted or deleted. He just keeps doing the same idiotic thing, over and over and over and over, despite being reverted or deleted, and he often edit wars, sometimes three times, and sometimes with the sock account, to retain the material he adds. I think it's high time we call it quits. It's obvious from his talk page that he is unable to listen or to understand. His enthusiasm is amusing but it does not belong here. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we've done our due diligence and beyond with this editor, and I see no possibility that they can be unblocked given the responses to attempts to engage by Soflavender, Hoary and myself on their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The matter continues on User talk:Brookerbs. Jbh has been extraordinarily patient there, and perhaps successfully so. What worries me is that although Brookerbs promises not to write about years and closely related stuff, they've so far shown no interest in writing about anything else. Some other admin can decide what to do about the latest request for unblocking. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the editor is likely both very young and ermmm... prone to be excessively and pedantically focused on any area they may take interest in. It just happened that the first thing they became interested in was something which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Neither of these characteristics are inherently bad but they will likely need guidance if they are unblocked. I think a bit of WP:ROPE is in order. They got off to a bad start but I do not think they are malicious. Maybe the CIR issues will get them in the end and they will run amok again but maybe they will settle in and find a productive interest. Jbh^Talk 23:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 06:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds here. It seems as if all the reverted and deleted edits occurred over only one or two days, so perhaps he did not notice in time that they were all getting deleted and that they were all disruptive. So perhaps he should be given a new chance at being a productive editor. That said, he exhibits such a youthful self-involvement and inability to heed that I'm afraid his lack of competence or awareness is going to probably catch up with him again fairly shortly. The question is, do we really have the time and manpower to babysit such an editor? Softlavender (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep changing the things that are based on evidences

This user keep changing stuff that we (some of the users) back to his format, thinking that he is correct. I am not sure if the user knows how wikipedia works But its getting annoying and that user is also annoymous so i can't talk to that user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IloveKVariety (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain what the issue is with diffs of this issue, who the user is, and did you inform the user of this conversation on their talk page? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at edit histories, the article is Kim Jong-kook (singer), the other user is an ipv6 in the 2404:e800:e610:1d5: range, and I have now notified the latest incarnation to come here. No opinion on the merits of the complaints. ansh666 18:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It strikes me that neither party needs to come here. This looks like a WP:Content dispute so there should be no need for ANI assistance. While it may be hard to notify a frequently changing IP, there is should ideally be no need to anyway. Any discussion should be held in the article talk page, whether it's an IP or an established registered editor. It can be helpful to remind editors to participate in discussion on the article talk page, but ideally it shouldn't be required. Since there's no real discussion (a single comment on an old issue by the IPv6 IP) on the article talk page, I'd have to say both editors are at fault for the lack of discussion. It's rarely productive to argue over who should have initiated discussion, just do it yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Annoying user

2404:E800:E610:1D5:20EC:B238:9A90:5D56 (talk · contribs)

I have enough of this user. He change a lot of things on one of a celebrity wikipedia page and it makes it more confusing. I change it back and he revert back. Even CNbot thought he was vandalising the page and revert back but he does not stop. The thing is he does not own a wikipedia account so i cannot talk about this situation to him that he is being a annoying user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IloveKVariety (talk • contribs) 08:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: us IP editors might not have Wikipedia accounts, but you can certainly talk to us, either on our talk pages (I've edited the template above so you should now see a link to their talk page) or on article talk pages, which you can link to or mention in your edit summaries. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This is already being discussed, in a section above. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've now mentioned above, this seems to be a content dispute so there should be no need for ANI. The claim you can't talk to the editor because they lack an account is incorrect. Since this concerns disputes over an article's content, discussion needs to be held on the article talk page anyway, not on the editors talk page. As there has been no real attempt at discussion by either party on the article talk page about the major issues and the only recent comment there is from the IP, both parties can be said to be at fault for the lack of discussion. In other words, you IloveKVariety need to attempt to initiate discussion on the article talk page. If the IP does not respond only is there reason to come to ANI. If you don't do that, then you don't have a legitimate complaint because you're aloso at fault for failing to discuss. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Wykipedia

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

---

Perhaps it is nothing, and there should be a better place to raise this but I can't find it, and all advice appreciated.

But do not log on to the site whose URL is linked below until its status is clarified. Admins in particular. Look at it, but don't give it your password no matter how convincingly it asks. Be VERY careful.

I'm very concerned about

[REDACTED - Oshwah]

which I stumbled upon by accident.

It appears to me that it MAY be a very sophisticated sham site, possibly mimicking Wikipedia for the purpose of capturing user passwords.

Am I missing something? Is it a legitimate alias or mirror?

email me or comment below or on my talk page. TIA Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That links not working for me, says the server cannot be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Here is the whois. I imagine someone should contact the Foundation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Or set up a new account here and then log in on that other site and then see what happens to your account :). Count Iblis (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I clicked on Create an account for the hell of it. It said I was editing from a proxy that had been blocked by a particular steward. However, if it hadn't, I wouldn't have actually created the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No, what Count I means is create a new acct here on the authentic WP, then go over to the fake and try login in to that account there, and see what happens. While that sounds safe, I certainly wouldn't try it. Since these guys are obviously up to no good, who knows what malware lurks? EEng 00:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it wasn't working for me because I was on a mobile device, works with my computer. This is very weird, it appear to be a complete clone of WP, histories, user pages and all, but no images. I'm going to contact the back office. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

 Administrator noteI'm not sure this is as nefarious as we are thinking, it may be a benign mirror actually hosted by the WMF. Pinging @Mdennis (WMF): just so she can see this discussion and comment if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Why does that somehow not surprise me? EEng 05:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond for Maggie :), We've made sure the proper folks within the WMF are aware and can look at it/the owners. I can confirm that we do not own the site and you should definitely not input your login information into their login page. Besides not working it (nor being a secure page) you are definitely giving the owners of the site the chance to capture your password. Jalexander--WMF 06:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just an observation that it seems to be dynamic - I just made some edits here, and then looked at Wykipedia and there they are already. I don't think this is actually a copy/clone, I suspect Wykipedia is just routing URLs and responses to and from Wikipedia and changing Wykipedia <-> Wikipedia in each direction. And the reason account creation won't work there is possibly because it appears (to Wikipedia) to be coming from the Wykipedia IP and not your own. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly. And that is exactly the way many spoof sites capture financial institution passwords. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@EEng, Andrewa, and Beeblebrox: Just a note, I created an account called BigLife228 here, went over to Wykipedia, and it said "You are centrally logged in. Reload the page..." (You know what it says.) I refreshed the page, and it redirected me to the Main Page of here (the secure and actual WP). I don't know what the [censored] is going on. This is confusing me enough. Email me if you need more details. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 04:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User with ownership behavior and uncivil attitude

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

---

Attention is needed on the article Imia/Kardak, where User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is acting as article owner and prevents or obscures information from being added to the article. He is lately touching upon almost anything the others are doing or adding to the page, either by editing or reverting other's edits when he WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

For example he reverted Dr. K's additions to the page on the grounds that the cited sources were... "Trivial truism" [16] which is not true and I have explained that to him here: [17] where I even provided more sources myself to soothe Future Perfect's unreasonable concerns.

Later, I have tried adding new content: [18] about the official statement by the Italian government (which was released in response to Turkey disputing international treaties), but Future Perfect stepped in and rightfully added the term [sic] to it, [19] which I didn't mind. However, shortly after that minor edit, he apparently decided that he didn't liked the phrase and paraphrased it as whole, even the quotations with the keywords in it, and thus, effectively undoing the meaning of the statement in the first place. I wish Future Perfect consulted with me on the article's talk page first before doing that, but he did not. I tried to recover the lost sentence but any of my subsequent attempts were followed by more of his reverts. The tensions between me and him at this point escalated further.

The fact that he arguments he used for reverting my work, were not convincing and insisted in his positions. For example he revert my revert to him, on the grounds that the Italian government's statement is... "pompous and cumbersome" [20], which took me by surprise given how the sentence BARELY is more than 2 text lines!

When I asked him for explanation for his actions, he responded to me [21] that "The only effect [...] would be to give the (Italian Government's) statement extra loudness – which may seem attractive to you, because you evidently like to trumpet things out to the reader at maximum volume if they are sympathetic to your POV, but that's not the way serious encyclopedia authors write.", and thus telling me with simple words that a quotation from source serves as... "extra loudness", and that the official statement by the Italian government regarding the 1932 treaty is POV! His response baffled me.

His arguments were poor and not convincing - I fail to understand how the technical term "continuously valid" (which the Italian Government uses to refer to the nature of the agreement in question as being has being continuously in effect since 1930s and means that no parties could 60 years later, in 1990s, unilaterally declare them invalid), can be POV, since it has nothing to do with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV Policy at all, since the text in question is quoted while the rest is attributed neutrally by us editors. But his refusal to be reasoned, gave me the impression that Future Perfect is rather trying maintain a certain POV in the article by WP:CENSORing the information (or have it paraphrased in an way to have its original meaning from the source obscured or altered), just because he doesn't like it.

Tried to explain to him that while information from sources can be paraphrased with our own words, this should be done as per WP:INTEXT and not at the expense of original word choices, and not in an way that the original meaning of the attributed text is censored or altered. [22]. Even made a compromise to soothe Fut.Perf.'s concerns that the information is "too cumbersome", by reducing the text on the article, without removing the quoted sentence and maintaining Italy's original wording in quotations [23]. I thought this could keep both of us statisfied but apparently I was wrong, because he reverted -again- the compromised version back to his own version and gave me a cold response with insults: [24].

To me it appears that Future Perfect at Sunrise insists on his faulty positions and doesn't seem to be interested for working towards reaching a consensus. He rather became impolite and uncivil while he clearly knows that by being uncivil with others, reduces like-hood for reaching a consensus. He called me an "incompetent" [25] just because I do not agree with him imposing a very EXACT re-wording to me and furthermore he asked me to leave the article alone [26], a clear case of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

I asked him to be more WP:CIVIL and strike/remove the insults [27], but he refused [28] and responded back [29] with even more insults: "I have no patience left to try to "work with you", and I will refuse to treat you as a bona fide contributor to be taken seriously in discussion from now on. I have reverted your edit again, as it was reintroducing a (likely) factual falsehood about the wording of the quotation". -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

So it's ok to have a (likely) factual falsehood about the wording of the quotation, but an uncivil outburst needs admin attention? Skimming the talk page shows there is a very clear explanation about the points mentioned above with a likely WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. By the way, WP:CENSOR has nothing to do with this topic—please don't add stuff just to make the report look more impressive. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Having read through that talkpage, while Fut.Perf's wording is more brusque than any I would use, his actions are very clearly not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you assertion of this would seem to back up his view that you are not engaging properly in the discussion. Particularly revealing in that respect was near the start of the talkpage discussion where he broke down his opposition into detail per source, and your reply was "You are dismissing sources just because -in your opinion- the "EU Parliament was an institution of even less actual power back in the 1990s" and "Commission, Council, and Council of Ministers were much more reluctant to take sides"?", which ignored the huge bulk of his response to focus on the last paragraph. Fut.Perf's frustration is clearly due to the lack of engagement shown in responses like that. CMD (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your opinions are very welcomed. If it is my failure to understand his arguments, - and you believe that his arguments are valid - then I will no longer object to him on this matter. I will just step back and just let it go. If his frustration is stemming from my inability to understand what he means, then I owe him an apology. And if I may ask here, you mentioned the term Factual Falsehood. May I ask for the definition? Sorry for this but English is not my native language. Search engine seems to give any results about the words as separate, but no definition of the term as whole. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

In light of the above opinions, I have stopped objecting to Future Perfect's edits on the article and let them stay. I trust in you that there is nothing wrong with him paraphrasing the sentence and that there is no censorship attempt and everyone has my apologies for my failure in understanding/adopting his arguments. -- SILENTRESIDENT 02:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

155.69.206.23

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

---

Continued spamming after warning. Would a limited-time school block be appropriate here? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Fpgatutorials (talk · contribs) is adding the same external links. Digging a little deeper, I find that Fpga4student (talk · contribs) was also making these edits and got blocked by Materialscientist for spamming. I'll block both the IP editor and the registered editor, but it looks like other Singaporean IP editors have been adding these links for the past two weeks or so. It might worth raising the issue at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#fpga4student.com --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible threat? (RevDel request)

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

---

Does this seem like a threat of some sort? I reverted it, but it possibly needs RevDel. Let me know what you think. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 04:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: I am not notifying the editor, he is already blocked. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 04:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think that rises to the level of RevDel, it's not really aimed at anyone in particular and is virtually certain to be just childish vandalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I requested rev'del on IRC and I also emailed emergency. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 9:39 pm, Today (UTC−8)

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

Greek nationalists trying to hide the Aromanian ancestry of Dimitri Nanopoulos

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

---

Greek nationalists try to hide the Aromanian ancestry of Dimitri Nanopoulos: [30]. Please guard the article to ensure that the information about his Aromanian ancestry is not deleted. Dimitri Nanopoulos revealed his Aromanian ancestry in his interview but the Greek nationalists try to censor this information from Wikipedia. Жиенду (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Жиенду: This is a content dispute, which doesn't belong on ANI. Moreover, the diff you provide is of one editor with only four edits (not "Greek nationalists") removing text that is extremely poorly-written and out-of-place. What is "his interview"? It isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. If you want to make a claim that someone is pushing a POV, you first need to make sure that there isn't a perfectly reasonable excuse for making the edit they did, and allow them to make more than four edits, and make some effort to discuss with them. You didn't even inform them that you had opened an ANI discussion of them, something that you are required to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Greek nationalists have infiltrated Wikipedia and push their POVs everywhere. His interview is the interview in the reference link that the Greek nationalists removed. They remove valid reputable sources. Жиенду (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nationalists of all shapes and sizes are all over Wikipedia and have been for a long time. Honestly, given the behaviour demonstrated on the talk page of that article and in your edit summaries, it looks far more like you are the nationalist editor, and you are showing significant signs of WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Your first edit was nine minutes before your coming here, and the article in question has not seen any edit-warring or tendentious behaviour before. Additionally, your claim that [t]hey remove valid reputable sources is demonstrably bogus; you added a new citation to the lead of the article that had never appeared there before, and you had copy-pasted it from an earlier version of the body of the article, where it still appeared, properly formatted, when you claimed it had been "removed".[31] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Close I was assuming good faith until now, but I really should have NACced this thread as soon as I saw it. The OP is an obvious sock-puppet of the indeffed user who originally added the material nine days earlier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Hijacked page Kamiesberg

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

---

On November 29, 2016, User:Chantishka Las hijacked the dab page Kamiesberg, moved it to Karndean International, then retargeted the leftover redirect to one of the entries from the dab page.

See this page for a list of similar page hijackings.

The dab page and its history need to be restored. Thank you.

Maybe I should make myself a template... — Gorthian (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

%$@?!%!!. Dealt with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN. These are rather frustrating.— Gorthian (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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