Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd still AfD em, and as High Command is staying tight lipped about who these accounts are, I doubt we're ever going to find a list of all his articles. L3X1 (distant write) 14:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this has been checked already, but some of the job descriptions are public and mention the subject name. Here's a list of the ones I found after looking through every entry: Klaus Guingand was AfD'd, Valmont Group was disclosed (talk page) though someone should probably check the accounts named there, Host Analytics Inc doesn't appear to have been looked at and has no disclosure, similarly with Rainer Gerhards, Countable Corp., Sam Rizk was AfD'd, Lamia Ltd (can't find the article, described as a "Finnish e-commerce solutions provider"), eCaring (can't find an article), Octopus Deploy (not disclosed), Air Fibre Internet (can't find article), Business Models for Dummies (deleted), Touchmail (updated, deleted) . From looking through past jobs this person has also been engaging in paid link additions, though there were no specifics. If someone had the time, you could click through each job to the client, and see if you can find out who they are from their other (public) jobs to look for an article. Sam Walton (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Irving Guyer might also be one from this job, but less certain. Contains links to that clients website, and was created at the same time the job was accepted/completed. Sam Walton (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby, L3X1, and JzG: I've created a table of the public job postings at User:Samwalton9/Ravish. If you want to help, click onto a job, look at the job message + clients other jobs, and see if you can figure out where their article is/was. Bilby, what's your history with this user? You seem to have already been deleting and blocking, so don't want to duplicate efforts. Sam Walton (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) adding material that is out of scope to List of oldest universities in continuous operation, don't know enough English to understand what the list is about, or understand messages on their talk page. And I have really tried to explain what the problem is, both in edit summaries (and yes, they're obviously Wiki-savvy enough to both use edit summaries themself and see what others write in summaries, they just don't know enough English to make themselves understood, or understand others) and on their talk page, including strongly suggesting they should edit the Japanese Wiki insetad of the English language Wiki, but they just continue. Obviously feeling they're entitled to add whatever they want wherever they want since they "donate to wiki". But I give up... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The only places I can find that phrase used are here, and here (in the form of a question: "Would I donate to wiki? ABSOLUTELY NOT..."} Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of those diffs is wrong, should be this one, but close. But it's interesting on another level too... it does not appear on my Google search and should. The User talk:Onorem/Archive 9 definitely contains the string. So perhaps there are others I am missing, too. Andrewa (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not going to push the issue per WP:ACCOUNT, but agree with Guy that all of this suggests a good deal of Wikipedia experience. It looks like you have been around the block here and are not a complete rookie when it comes to doing Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was a complete rookie. I just ignored the inferences JzG was making about me because they were irrelevant. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask you straight out, and it's not irrelevant because it was mentioned in the initial post: What other accounts have you edited under? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Given that Nihilistic is an obvious sock of somebody and has ducked direct questions on that issue, and given that they have taken to going around canvassing and stirring the pot (e.g this edit at Vipul's page, creating Template:Don't_use_econlib.org,_use_Wikisource_instead, creating Tabloidophobia, opening the swiftly closed ANI below, etc ) this user does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest that we indef them already. Jytdog (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not a new user, but not obviously a sock. Seems like WP:CLEANSTART applies, unless there is any proof of using this account to evade sanctions or using this account in conjunction with another account, then what is the issue? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecowboy420 please read the thread before commenting. Even if the editor is not a sock puppet (more likely than not they are), he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia by the evidence provided.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Inlinetext? El_C 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, the self-righteous harassment of Vipul is a giveaway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. NIHILISTIC doesn't seem to be harassing Vipul, but in fact arguing that links added by Vipul shouldn't be blacklisted, which strikes me as the opposite of what ILT would have suggested. Additionally I can see several times when their editing substantially overlapped in a way that would be difficult to do. While NIHILISTIC's account was created on the same day as ILT's, it was made in the morning, before ILT was blocked. They're also not editing in an area that ILT did. It's possible, but I'm not seeing the evidence. Sam Walton (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone asked a CU about this? I have an unfortunate history of not being able to get CUs to perform checkuser when a duck comes along and essentially admits to being someone's sock but I couldn't figure out whose by myself, but I'm pretty sure it's technically possible if the evidence is compelling. Nihil's unusual interest in specifically trolling JzG, including knowing about JzG's interactions with a half-dozen users before his account was created, means that if JzG can't figure out who the master is, likely no one could. Personally I'm slightly inclined to think it was one of the users "notified" of Nihil's recent ANI thread: it would be rather stupid for someone trying to hide the fact that they are socking to do that, but I've seen people do some pretty stupid things of late so it's not beyond belief. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JzG explained above that "Checkusers don't go fishing". That is, an SPI case naming a master with evidence would have to be made before their involvement. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Johnuniq: I'm aware of that, but sometimes a reasonable guess can be made and a Checkuser will perform whatever procedure they do based on the evidence presented in favour of that reasonable guess. There's also this -- my mentioning on ANI that a user had admitted on Japanese Wikipedia to socking on English Wikipedia, even with a malformed diff, was enough to convince a CU to run a check. (I'm not sure if the rules have changed since 2014, but they definitely haven't changed since 2016, as the same CU who ran the check on Chie one told me three weeks later that CUs don't go fishing, and he had performed the Chie one check on his own discretion because the evidence I presented was slightly more convincing. In his opinion. Honestly, I would find a direct admission to sockpuppetry more convincing than generally precocious behaviour if it were me, but I guess that's why I'm not a CU.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything at WP:CU or M:CU corroborates that. It only says there must be a reason to run a check, but beyond that they can be run at CheckUsers' discretion. Swarm ♠ 02:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: My understanding is that the exact rules of what CUs can and can't (or will or won't) do are not elaborated anywhere on-wiki per WP:BEANS. I was reluctant even to cite those specific precedents above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

. Yup. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Just to be clear, I was replying to John's comment above yours. In any case, your comment makes sense. Swarm ♠ 03:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, I see what he was saying. You'd have to have some evidence to run a check on another account suspected of being related to this one. Swarm ♠ 02:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oath2order has been constantly refusing to leave the table on the article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) alone regardless of an ongoing discussion [6] 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 [7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9] [10] [11] [12] yet they continue to change it. Brocicle (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're interpreting tone to your own will. Also yes, you did add high and low in this edit here [13] which you can clearly see in the diff. Why ignore the note if you added it yourself? You're more than welcome to ask other editors for their opinion on something, especially since only one other person was in the discussion and was about a mass change to all seasons. Two people having a discussion for a day hardly constitutes a consensus. Rather than follow protocol you deliberately went through each season to revert without reason. You're also mentioning the anonymous editors, question is why aren't YOU doing something about it? Trying to shift the responsibility to me when you acknowledge what they're doing is rather poor. And if you know high /low is against policy why in your recent edits have you not removed them? Pot kettle situation but whatever. Brocicle (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Sorry if this is too long but I request you to read it carefully. Hello User:Rævhuld, has recently been involved in disruptive behavior especially falsely accusing others. The incident started after his sourceless edits at 2017 Stockholm attack were removed. After that he comments on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack stating that it should be mentioned as Islamic terrorism. But instead of giving any reliable sources which state that this attack was done so out of such motives, as reliable sources are required, he makes false claims that "the attacker has accepted he did it for ISIS" even though no source made or reported such a claim and there were only suspects and no definite identity of the attacker. He also made insinuations and indirect accusations questioning that "knowledge is not allowed" and "Is Wikipedia a safe space"? His claims seem to be based on local media reports that the suspect arrested in the case had posted pro-ISIS propaganda online. However as that isn't anything itself about the nature of the attack and still unconfirmed information at this point. There have been reports about ISIS links but these were reported after some of Rævhuld's edits regarding Islamic terrorism and comments. Regardless, there has been nothing about the attack itself and as such unsourced edits or text not present in the sources cannot be added. He later made another claim on the talk page that ISIS claimed responsibility even though it didn't. His sourceless edits have been removed by multiple users with all of them over the reason that there isn't any source or the source isn't saying what he added: [14], [15], [16], [17]

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: [18], [19], [20]. 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: [21], [22] though I desisted from telling him even though his reverts at the article were more this as at the topic was about using sources and not misrepresenting them. There are several other disruptive behavior which he did including claiming my warning him about his reverts as "Ridiculous". He also was agressive to User:AusLondonder, claiming his comment was "Ridiculous" even though all AusLondoner told him was to stick to one variety of English as required per guidelines. Also while I was writing this complaint, he has complained about me, wrongly accusing me of "harassing" him and claiming I was blocked over the article (I wasn't, as already said it was a past incident at another article 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing and I already apologized for it). He also goes against another rule, not to accuse others falsely of disruption and he also didn't provide any diffs. I request that he be warned not to falsely accuse others and engage in disruptive behavior. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

Honestly, can you please stop him?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for unverified content, some of it is here:[23], [24], [25], [26]. Also I doubt one week amounts to months. Even if you did, you should mention it on your user page. From your user page, it is clear you aren't correctly claiming you edited for past many months. If you only copied the other as inspiration, it seems odds for you defending it. You are harrasing others yourself Rævhuld, such disruptive behavior cannot be tolerated. You must stay within the rules. Falsely accusing others is completely against them. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

??? Whats that mean? L3X1 (distant write) 12:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• HistorianMatej (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:HistorianMatej is trying to use the article Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia as a propaganda platform. It's bad enough that reliably-sourced content gets removed with edit summaries such as "Lying media and press, unreliable sources" (the sources are Financial Times, CBS and Politico, and there's about a half-dozen more equally reliable sources supporting the same content, given on the talk page). But apparently it's hypocrisy of adding neo-nazism to party ideology because media said so and deleting official party statements because of no secondary source. The official party statements in question accused others of being fascists. No, equally following what secondary sources report in both cases is not hypocrisy; following blindly what the party says about itself and its opponents is somethint the party website may do, but not an encyclopedia. HistorianMatej edit-warred for the past few weeks over both the removal of reliably-sourced content and the addition of party propaganda without secondary sources. They have been repeatedly asked to discuss the content or pursue venues such as WP:RSN if they seriously want to claim that Financial Times is "lying". This conduct is highly disruptive and should be stopped, either via a block or via a topic ban. Huon (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's fairly clear to me that he doesn't understand WP rules on reliable sourcing. The content he was removing seems to be reliably sourced, and the part he was adding I would call, at best, a WP:SELFSOURCE that could only apply to statements about themselves. That said, I don't get the feeling that he is being purposefully disruptive. He is probably a member of that party and doesn't like having his party called "neo-nazi," but is not very experienced in understanding how WP reliable sourcing works. I would support a limited duration page ban on Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia so he can cool off, edit something where he doesn't have such strong feelings and know this isn't appropriate behavior on WP. But someone needs to go through and explain to him how WP:Reliable Sources works on WP. -Obsidi (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• He hasn't restored his latest edit since it was reverted, but it seems to me like this is going to need some kind of resolution to avoid becoming a problem again later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bahuzag's promotional writing, apparent in Zaheer Abbass Gondal which he created, focuses on promoting the same religious sect (and its literature, websites) as the 2015 flock of sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364/Archive: a Pakistan-based sect of devotees of a mediaeval sufi Sultan Bahu. Apart from promotional writing, Zaheer Abbass Gondal's initials can be seen in the username "Bahuzag", so we likely have a case of creating autobiographic articles. Additionally, after article creation Bahuzag seems to have been switching to IP editing [27] [28] [29], perhaps in a poor attempt to avoid highlighting the link between his username and these promos, so this again can be termed as sockpuppetry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the source of His Highness's nobility: [30]. (Don't beat me for spamming, I couldn't resist.) — kashmiri ^TALK 22:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Talk:Identifying reliable sources#Defining reliability of a medium via the trust on the medium among its readers was closed by User:Francis Schonken on April 13:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC). Diffs: [31][reply]

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

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

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

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

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