Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Spacecowboy420 blanking articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose restriction

I'm sorry to see Spacecowboy420 here again. My close last June said "further ill-considered blanking, edit warring over blanking, or incivil edit summaries might warrant another discussion". There doesn't seem to be a civility issue now, but redirecting Ragging in India without a merge or discussion is particularly ill-considered. I'm surprised he would be unaware of the major issue of ragging at Indian universities (which have specific regulations about this) and which is regularly alleged to have resulted in deaths that feature in the Indian press and medical literature.[1][2][3] Restoring a redirect when reverted was also poor judgment. Large-scale removal of content should not a first resort absent serious issues such as BLP, copyvio, but Spacecowboy420 is still going straight to removal. So I propose a formal restriction due to this ongoing issue, i.e. no undiscussed redirects or mergers. Fences&Windows 20:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Discussing proposals about large changes should be the first option. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely. This is a no-brainer. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Systematic disparagement by User:Eric

Eric (talk · contribs), whom I do not know, has gone around to troll and disparage me on several talk pages where I posted a request for an A-Class review: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. This is neither deserved, because I put much effort in the things I do, nor reasonable. In fact, it is exactly the kind of destructive attitude that is driving people away from Wikipedia. --Edelseider (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Thoroughness. 2) ??

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full disclosure: I am me

My self-declared foe @Eric: has stepped up his one-sided war against me by digging up my past: [9]. So for everybody who is interested in previous lives of editors, yes, I used to be RCS (talk · contribs) and also Insert coins (talk · contribs). And I do lots of good things! I write and edit articles and sometimes I lose my temper, which is not a good thing. I never systematically stalked another user in order to try and get him banned, though. In all the years that I have been active on Wikipedia, I have done some foolish things sometimes, but the good and constructive prevails: articles. Many articles. And more to come. This is what really matters, not my, our your, or his personal problems. Thank you and good morning or night. --Edelseider (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Persistent disregard for capitalization guidelines after many requests

DrillWarrior268 (talk · contribs) for several weeks has persisted in changing capitalization of headers from sentence case to title case, including after repeated requests by several editors with explanation of and links to relevant guidelines. Recent examples: [10], [11], [12]. There has also been a problem with adding unsourced information. Based on his/her edits, it seems to be a willful disregard of the guidelines rather than a competence issue. I hope this report can help this editor change this behavior. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpt from the super-secret Parents and Teachers Playbook.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued disruptive editing following many warnings at Ami Horowitz

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

Diffs of disruptive editing: [13], [14], [15],[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25].

Diffs of reverts and warnings: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], and [40].

User:Liftarn was notified here.

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

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

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

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

There's something more going on here than what Kingfisher claims. I note, for example, Kingfisher's removal[41] of content sourced to Radio Sweden and to Dagens Nyheter. The relevant talk section appears to be Talk:Ami_Horowitz#Police, where Kingfisher claims that neither of these is a reliable, but is opposed by User:Sjö, who reverted the removal.

Their contributions to this page look serially problematic, e.g. using the clickbaiting International Business Times as a source [42], the marginal Independent Journal Review [43]. There may be a case for using those sources, but to use them and then denounce both Radio Sweden and to Dagens Nyheter -- that looks fishy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see an editor adding cleanup tags to problematic edits by an editor who appears to be POV-pushing. Maybe adding too many; maybe not discussing enough on the talk page. But I don't see Liftarn adding dodgy refs like those I mentioned above, nor do I see Liftarn denigrating reliable sources, nor do I see Liftarn adding refs to the unreliable Daily Mail, as Kingfsiher did here.[44] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would essentially agree with the above. In addition, [[45]] Sweden does have issues, airbrushing unpleasant realities out does nobody any good. Irondome (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gurbaksh Chahal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whilst we're talking about providing proof. I'd also like you to post proof of me supposedly forcing you into an edit war, as you claimed here. ([[46]])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPI Investigation

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

Vandalism report, since AIV is currently locked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In doubt

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

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

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

This user is a Republican.

This user supports the presidency of Donald Trump.

T R U M P

---

Make America Great Again!

{{User Hillary Clinton prison}}

This user supports the Libertarian Party of the United States.

CThis user supports the Conservative Party of Canada.

This proud American is a Conservative Republican.

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

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

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

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

This user supports the Green Party of England and Wales.

This user supports the New Democratic Party.

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

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

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

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

AFAIK nobody has complained about these boxes on my page :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User potentially attempting to game confirmed/extended confirmed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this vein, kindly note [47]. I'll try to put an ANI notice on the user talk page, but under the circumstances I expect to be edit-conflicted out for a while... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure if this is the right place. Found a Wikipedia user is posting for pay

This person is posting bespoke Wikipedia pages for businesses and individuals. He claims to be very experienced and active. I don't know if this is against policy but it seems like a conflict of interest.

https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01057b11b08a620d8a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadhenley (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not looked on favourably. Sadly, there are ways paid editing could help (eg: paying a group of researchers to add sources to every one of our 200,000+ articles tagged {{unreferenced}}), but they get drowned out by the spammers. I dunno, maybe somebody thought JzG wasn't deleting enough articles this month or something.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You know, the WMF should hire some of these people, figure out who they're editing as, and then block them for violating the TOU. Be useful with uncovering the past cruft they've added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at some of the reviews, and really this particular case looks like something that would be difficult to deal with unless functionaries wanted to get involved. You have both outing concerns and I suspect some socking going on. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what functionaries can do here, there's no obvious link between the name and an account, and the reviews appear to be anonymous so there's no indication of what content was edited. Am I missing something? (if I am and it even comes close to outing, email me or the functionaries team directly) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it could be narrowed down from the sentiments expressed in the advert; on the assumption that it could be actually believed. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

So this is the guy who is responsible for the 15K NPP backlog; jk. I'm about to run a username search, and as for outing, if his username is his real life name, thats not outing, that getting what you deserve. And ask for socking, I don't think he can have enough socks to obscure his evil deeds unless he is being deceitful on his resume. 1000 pages, 50K edits, 8 years, and 9 articles/day. Assuming he works 261 days a year, it would take just 111 days to create a thousand article, not 8 years. And anyway, the problem with socks is that he would have to birth, bottle feed, and raise a group of socks. Getting around duck is going to be hard work, and it is easier for him to fool the various LEO agaencies here at Wikipedia if he has just one accoutn, allowing him to pass off as an experienced established user. And being around for 8 years yet ony having 50K edits makes a pattern: It appears that he does an article in very few edits, not 40-60. So BOLO4 an editor named Ravish K or along those lines, from after 2007, who creates many articles, doesn't do CVU or participate in the community (AfDs, RfCs, RfAs etc) and uses a bare amount of edits per article created. In other words, could be any content editor. L3X1 (distant write) 21:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And witchhunt is over. First 500 Ravishs check out. Found a guy who had created 2 articles, this and this, but unless his entire resume is lies, they don't match. I'll let the WMF chase this hare. L3X1 (distant write) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, technically it isn't socking if they start a new account each time they have a new project and there is no overlap. It's a violation of th Terms of Use not to declare that you are paid, but such accounts are unlikely to get caught out if they create only one article and then go silent. That's exactly what I'd do if I was a paid editor, tell my client the name of the account so they can see I'm working on their behalf, especially since it looks like this guy bills for about ten hours of work for each article. Then when it's finished and I've been paid, abandon the account. Start a new one for the next client. If they disclosed their COI each time they wouldn't actually be breaking any rules at all. Perhaps I've said too much. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox: What about the part of WP:Sockpuppet about avoiding scrutiny? Making multiple accounts, one for each project, would seem to be an obvious violation of that, and therefore socking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hm. If they are editing in the same topic, it is SOCKing, right? One ~could~ say that paid editing" is a single topic. One very much could say that BLP is a topic, or consumer products is a topic, or articles about companies is a topic. So if they used more than one account to edit in any one of those topic, they would be socking even under a rigorous reading of SOCK. imo, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It is debatable if it is socking, but it is block evasion. The master account was indefinitely blocked earlier this year. If editing by that person is identified, it can be deleted under CSD:G5. - Bilby (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

We know the master account. He's created at least one new account since being indeffed, which is known, but doesn't seem to have been active through Upwork since then. The problem is that if the main account is blocked, they tend to create new accounts for each subsequent job. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Which is good, because it means we can WP:CSD#G5 the articles. That word needs to get out. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

POV forks being created as school project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SimonTrew posting BLP violations at RfD

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question at science reference desk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Elevatorone and Vijaya Ramanayake

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

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

And he restored it again, despite my explanation on his talk page.[48] A block seems in order here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

104.163.140.228

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute over Georgina Downs

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

I came across the article on 24 March (via a maintenance category, I think) and discovered it was heavily promotional in tone. I made several edits cleaning out what I considered POV material and replacing obviously biased sources with references from reputable news organisations. Diff: [49]

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

Today, Thefactcorrecter added content to the page that was distinctly promotional in tone. Diffs: [50][51][52] I reverted this twice and placed two warning templates on the user's page: [53][54]

Then, the user left a note on my talk page, to which I responded thoroughly: [55] I was going to report this at WP:NPOVN but the user has just responded again [56] claiming to be the subject of the article and threatening legal action so I thought it should come here. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright breaches by User:Vvven

User:Vvven has been warned about copyright breaches ([57] [58], ), uncredited interwiki copying ([59] [60]), and the use of machine translation ([61], [62]). A month after the warnings from User:Diannaa, Vvven's last five creations have been:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Vvven, could you please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Blogs are self-published, unedited, and so cannot (normally) be used as references for articles, though they can be used as inspiration and to provide hints in seeking reliable sources for articles.

Is "slanderous" a legal threat?

At [63] an edit warrior said something about "slanderous". Does that comply with WP:NLT? As far as I can see, there is nothing slanderous in labeling a real peddler of pseudoscience as a peddler of pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treat by User:Nubailo

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

---

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

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

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

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

String of bad edits by User:Mohsenaghaloo

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

User:Cow manure pasteurization machine

Cow manure pasteurization machine (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

• Upon checking further, the new accounts collaborating on the new article I mentioned above, appear to be members of a university educational assignment. Some of the other problem editors such as Billcrash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be socks, some are vandals, some were created at around the same time, but I am no longer certain that they are related to each other. Dr. K. 06:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Threat, personal attack, etc.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Tarage

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

---

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

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

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

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

User:Bored1995

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could someone please do something about 14.193.192.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? They're repeatedly ([64], [65], [66], [67], [68]) adding material that is out of scope to List of oldest universities in continuous operation, don't know enough English to understand what the list is about, or understand messages on their talk page. And I have really tried to explain what the problem is, both in edit summaries (and yes, they're obviously Wiki-savvy enough to both use edit summaries themself and see what others write in summaries, they just don't know enough English to make themselves understood, or understand others) and on their talk page, including strongly suggesting they should edit the Japanese Wiki insetad of the English language Wiki, but they just continue. Obviously feeling they're entitled to add whatever they want wherever they want since they "donate to wiki". But I give up... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Warned about edit warring so they'll have to make coherent arguments on the article's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This sounds very familiar but I can't remember the exact incident, can others? Possibly a return of a blocked user. Andrewa (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It sounds familiar because it's every single banned POV-pusher ever. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely... the phrase I donate to wiki (rather than to Wikipedia) indicates a particular linguistic background, and it has been used before. If they are a repeat offender they may well read this and change it next time, of course. Andrewa (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric

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

---

Winged Blades of Godric makes edits to a Rfc that change its structure, refactor my comments against my express wishes, and as a result gives my proposal less chance by splitting it into two parts and moving one part to a subsection he created. He is also edit warring about it. I warned him on his talkpage about all this.[69] Please stop him and revert to the version before he came along. WP:ANI warning in place.[70] I admit to taking offense to this especially since that Rfc was opened after a protracted edit war and the issue is important to me. I worked hard on my counterproposal at the Rfc, and this editor is practically ruining any chances of it succeeding. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Unable to edit because of impersonation accounts

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

---

misidentification with a blocked use Can continue discussion?

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

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

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

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

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

Indefblock+Noedittalk for 엠비엔 뉴스특보

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

---

block this user

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

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

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

Legal threat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N I H I L I S T I C

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe I misunderstand nihilism, but I associate it with don't give a fuckism, which states, "Suffering (conflict and stress) is caused by attachment (giving a fuck) and can be relieved by detachment (not giving a fuck)." Every essay or guideline that says "there is no deadline," or "stay cool when the editing gets hot," etc. encourages patience; but it's a lot easier to patient when you're detached; and it's a lot easier to be detached when you feel a certain amount of despair.

Many, maybe even most, philosophies and religions have an element of nihilism, which encourages apathy toward a world in which our power to effect the changes we would like to see is limited. Christians say, "Don't worry too much about what happens in this world, because God will destroy it anyway." Buddhism teaches that attachment leads to suffering. Even some atheists say, "Life is meaningless because we are just a tiny speck in the cosmos, so don't fret too much about what goes wrong in this life."

Apathy often comes about due to burnout originally arising from caring too much, and people may turn to these philosophies during times of transition in their lives when they are looking for relief from stress, anger, sadness, exhaustion, etc. Society (while paying lip service to idealism, for the benefit of the youth and naive)even wants people to take this path, since it's more convenient for rulers to have a populace of people who have said, "I no longer care what happens in the big picture; I'm just going to do my job and put in my time until death, without stirring up trouble, because it's pointless trying to effect any major change."

I have seen this happen to many people, although some of them went back and forth between caring and not caring, as they would get involved again in trying to fix problems, and then get burned and say, "Oh yeah, now I remember why I decided to detach." Friends and family will of course always say, "Yeah, just detach and focus on your immediate family and your small circle of friends, and don't worry about the big picture." When you look at how entrenched culture often is, nihilism can start to seem reasonable. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)#

Let's look at the facts here. Your first edit was on April 3, 2017, and within a couple of days you're lecturing me on my Talk page about how terrible it is to remove links to these peerless libertarian think tank sources, leaving condescending comments and canvassing fans of the site sin question, specifically including the person who added rather a lot of the links to econlib. This positively screams WP:SOCK, WP:NOTHERE and indeed also off-wiki collaboration. There is no "can of worms" on econlib blacklisting, there's a site which was blacklisted due to abuse, a completely routine action, and, incidentally, a cleanup of excessive links (see User:JzG/EL abuse/Econlib for extended descriptions of some of the deceptive and inappropriate uses of these links, along with possible good-faith explanations which nonetheless do nothing to justify failure to fix the problem).

Bluntly, your use of Wikipedia process is inconsistent with the short duration of your registration here. What was your previous account? Guy (Help!) 15:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't lecturing you, I was disagreeing with you. "Lecturing" implies teaching someone from a position of superiority. I certainly didn't mean to have a condescending tone. Policy and guidelines are complicated and nuanced, even byzantine, so everyone is going to err at some point in their application of them. My concern is that there seems to be a pattern in which legitimate objections by various users (most of which boil down to the same points about reliable sourcing) are being repeatedly ignored or dismissed. You have some legitimate points at User:JzG/EL abuse/Econlib, and I'm glad you summed them up in an essay, but I think the solution needs to be narrowly tailored enough to avoid causing more problems. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Hookahlove

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

---

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

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

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

Baseball Bugs

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

---

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

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

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

User:Oath2order

Oath2order has been constantly refusing to leave the table on the article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) alone regardless of an ongoing discussion [71] regarding the issue. Through my time as an editor on Wikipedia I have learnt from various editors and discussions that the article should remain as it is prior to changes until the discussion is complete, something which this user is refusing to do. They also go against policy on the use of HIGH's and LOW's, in which they have ignored the hidden note added by an editor to the table as seen here [72]. In the same edit they also sneakily change the table before the discussion has closed. They have acknowledged previously that the use of HIGH and LOW is (in their own words} " technically against policy " in this discussion here [73]. They have also said specifically to myself on the talk page of article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) that " I hope you have fun spending what will probably be a long time reverting edits here. :) "which seems to indicate that they are editing on purpose specifically to be disruptive. I have informed the user multiple times to leave the table until discussion is complete multiple times across many of the other season articles as seen here [74] [75] [76] [77] yet they continue to change it. Brocicle (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass category changes

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

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

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

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

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

1. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2017#Immigration_law_refspam_round_3: Brief convo between JzG and Dark567 about econlib.org. Dark567 says, "I think econlib.org needs to be removed" from the spam blacklist. JzG responds, "It's being spammed by user:Vipul".
2. User_talk:JzG/Archive_143#Nolo_as_legal_source: Brief convo between JzG and Bri on the use of Nolo as a legal source, began 10 March 2017. Bri argues, "Nolo (publisher) is probably a reliable source." JzG responds, "It has been extensively refspammed."
3. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org: Convo among multiple users, including JzG, Jrheller1, and David Gerard, on the merits of blacklisting econlib.org, began 19 March 2017. David Gerard remarks, "This is not appropriate to blacklist in its entirety. Surely dealing with the actual spammers is the first move".
4. User_talk:JzG/Archive_144#FairTax: Convo between JzG and Morphh, concerning [78][79], began 20 March 2017. Morphh objects, "You should discuss these things on the talk page and site examples before tossing up such tags and removing references".
5. User_talk:JzG/Archive_144#Problematic_mass_alleged_REFSPAM_removals: Convo between JzG and jhawkinson, began 23 March 2017. jhawkinson objects, "Marginal Revolution is a reputable economics blog and mruniversity.com has their video segments. They don't qualify as REFSPAM."
6. User_talk:JzG/Archive_145#Removal_of_sources_as_not_complying_with_RS: Convo between JzG and Endercase, began 23 March 2017. Endercase objects, "If you don't have time to leave a slightly larger explanation on why you removed something maybe you don't really have time to be accurately removing cited information."
7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive950#massive_deletions: Convo among multiple users (initially Rjensen), began 26 March 2017. Rjensen objects, "User:JzG has been doing wholesale deletes on any footnote citation to a thinktank. about 50+ in the last hour or so. Most of theese are solid rs -- including two I added after studying an issue on food supply. user Rejects using talk page and gives a very poor explanation"
8. Talk:Avalon#Vanity_press: Convo between JzG and Cagwinn concerning Lulu-published book (see [80][81][82][83]), began 30 March 2017. Cagwinn objects, "Throop qualifies as a reliable source (see the second bullet below), despite this book being self-published, per WP guidelines, which I have already brought to your attention".
9. Talk:Cato_Institute#SPS_citing_of_Cato_data: Convo between JzG and Srich32977, concerning Cato as a reliable source (see [84][85][86][87]), began 1 April 2017. Srich32977 objects that "given that Cato-sourced material meets all 5 factors of WP:SPS policy it is not proper to cite SPS as a rationale for its removal."
10. Talk:Rent-seeking#Tullock_paradox_.2F_marginal-revolution: Convo between JzG and jhawkinson, concerning [88][89], began 1 April 2017. jhawkinson objects, "You are repeatedly making edits that are not justified by your edit summaries, as well as declining to usefulyl engage."

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

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

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

Line by line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive behavior especially falsely accusing others by User:Rævhuld

Hello User:Rævhuld, has recently been involved in disruptive behavior especially falsely accusing others. The incident started after his sourceless edits at 2017 Stockholm attack were removed. After that he comments on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack stating that it should be mentioned as Islamic terrorism. But instead of giving any reliable sources which state that this attack was done so out of such motives, as reliable sources are required, he makes false claims that "the attacker has accepted he did it for ISIS" even though no source made or reported such a claim and there were only suspects and no definite identity of the attacker. He also made insinuations and indirect accusations questioning that "knowledge is not allowed" and "Is Wikipedia a safe space"? His claims seem to be based on local media reports that the suspect arrested in the case had posted pro-ISIS propaganda online. However as that isn't anything itself about the nature of the attack and still unconfirmed information at this point. There have been ["Stockholm truck attack suspect is rejected asylum seeker, 'interested in Isis': police" reports about ISIS links] but these were reported after some of Rævhuld's edits regarding Islamic terrorism and comments. Regardless, there has been nothing about the attack itself and as such unsourced edits or text not present in the sources cannot be added. He later made another claim on the talk page that ISIS claimed responsibility even though it didn't. His sourceless edits have been removed by multiple users with all of them over the reason that there isn't any source or the source isn't saying what he added: [90], [91], [92], [93]

I tried telling him several times that the sources made no such reports as he has been claiming and his claims amount to OR and self-interpretation: [94], [95], [96]. However, instead of listening to it, he threatened me with edit-warring block, even though I had made only one revert that too by assimilation with other edits and sources. I didn't make any further reverts in any sense whether it be simple undoing or editing it back along with new content. I explained this in the edit summary while removing his warning. I again stated to him that the sources did not say what he claimed. I further lengthened the comment, asking him not to issue threats and notified him that he himself had reverted at atleast once. Seeing as we both had made the same number of reverts and the user should keep to the standars which he is setting, I warned him about his reverts as well. He however again issued the notice despite being notified about his own behavior and I had already read his warning. I removed it again and told him in the edit summary not to comment again or edit-war on my talk page.

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

He actually made 2 reverts in 24 hours: [97], [98] though I desisted from telling him even though his reverts at the article were more this as at the topic was about using sources and not misrepresenting them. There are several other disruptive behavior which he did including claiming my warning him about his reverts as "Ridiculous". He also was agressive to User:AusLondoner, claiming his comment was "Ridiculous" even though all AusLondoner told him was to stick to one variety of English as required per guidelines. Also while I was writing this complaint, he has complained about me, wrongly accusing me of "harassing" him and claiming I was blocked over the article (I wasn't, as already said it was a past incident at another article 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro Bombing and I already apologized for it). He also goes against another rule, not to accuse others falsely of disruption and he also didn't provide any diffs. I request that he be warned not to falsely accuse others and engage in disruptive behavior. Thank you MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)