Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Repeated fair use violations[edit]

TechnicianGB (talk · contribs)

Inactive user 20171 (talk · contribs)

This is a result of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 29#File:Official Köppen climate classification of Spain maded by AEMET.png and is a culmination of many many attempts to get full and valid fair use rationales for every attempted use of the image here: File:Official Köppen climate classification of Spain maded by AEMET.png

I have attempted numerous times to explain to both the above editors how fair use works and that the burden of creating fair use rationales is on the one that wants to place the image on specific articles. I thought I was getting somewhere, but apparently there is either some break down in communication or wanton disregard of our policy on the use of copyrighted images. Frankly, I've had enough. These two editors have now tried numerous times to insert this image into articles without filling out fair use rationales against policy. This is considered a copyright violation. The latest addition to Iberian Peninsula was the final straw and after giving a final warning to Inactive user, TechnicianGB went and reinserted the image again without any attempt to fill out a FUR. This has now crossed the line into pure disruption and repeated copyright violations. Asking for an admin to take a look at this and to put a stop to the nonsense. --Majora (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought we all agreed that the page on Iberian Peninsula makes a completely fair use and it's not needed to fulfill a FUR for this article... lol? --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I just did a search of that FFD discussion and I literally said "every" article requires a FUR 5 separate times. So right now you are in clear WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. --Majora (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Now the file will be deleted after May 10. I hope you are happy, you achieved your scope. ;) it's not even worthy for me to write a will to explain why this file must remain on Wikipedia. First the file was scaled to a lower size because it's "not free" meanwhile the copyright of the source clearly states that is free to use without commercial purposes,[1] as it's a own Spanish official / public agency who made it. Not happy with that, now you made this. Enjoy it! You done it. Congratulations! @Majora:. I love how do you think that you improve Wikipedia, deleting useful files. ;) --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we require that for an image to be free, it must be usable and modifyable by all downstream users, so a license that restricts to non-commercial use is not considered a free image here. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
And I wasn't the one that tagged the image. I was trying to get you to a state where the image was acceptable. It was you that refused to listen. So you can take your blame and give it to someone else. In any case, the tagging of the image does not excuse your inherent inability to listen to what people are trying to tell you. Copyright is a huge deal here. If you can't understand what we need then you need to stop editing the file namespace. Period. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Best regards to you too, Majora. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: I can upload it with a different type of use? I mean, to not upload it again with a "free image" tag ? I can also make a map by myself... --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason File:Spain map of Köppen climate classification.svg (or anything else in c:Category:Köppen climate classification maps of Spain) won't work for all these use cases? See Geography of South Korea. Non-free maps are hardly ever acceptable unless the map itself is subject of discussion. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course: Those maps are extremely bad in relationship to the climatic reality of those zones. Just compare them with the AEMET map (official agency) and see that you can find 13 different climates in Spain, not 8. And many of those represented in that map are extremely bad in comparison with the real life... It's simply a joke for someone who is a climate enthusiast like me. Madrid the same climate as Alicante according to that map... and both have very different climates. --TechnicianGB (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


I agree, maps are (very) incorrect so there is no alternative to AEMET official map. Is an additional Fair Use rationale needed for Spain and Iberian Peninsula? They both have prominent climate sections... Also, Majora, don't you think that it would be more productive to add the FUR yourself, thus assisting the Wikipedia project, instead of opening this ANI? It would have taken you less time. Inactive user 20171 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Majora's extremely aggressive threatening tone is not warranted. Please discuss solutions and build consensus in talk rather than threaten other editors with a block. Thanks. Inactive user 20171 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You were told multiple times not to do something. You (both) kept doing it. The solution is to comply with wikipedia's fair use policies. Which you were told to do. So do it. Repeatedly breaching copyright by failing to provide a fair use rationale *after being informed you have to provide one* is grounds for a block. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Instead of squabbling can we at least work together to resolve the issue. The image clearly has to stay in those three articles. If something has to be done (providing a fair use rationale, whatever, can you (plural) do it? I think the main problem is none of us KNOW how to do it except Majora, who so far has not given us specific directions on what to do. Inactive user 20171 (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, which has instructions and some sample templates you can use. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
By what I can see it has been done here already. user 20171 (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
FUR have been created by the only three articles that seem to support a fair-use claim: Climate of Spain, Iberian Peninsula, and Climate of Portugal. As mentioned, it's not rocket science. --Discasto (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The FUR's are there, but I'm still sticking with my belief that this image is violating NFCC criterion 1, as the threshold for non-free media is not just whether a free alternative exists, but whether one could be created. FUR templates are a necessary procedural matter, but our goal is to do more than just go through the motions. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Train2104. I see your point, but I'm afraid it's not that simple. I've had a look at the source and noticed this: "El tratamiento de interpolación y el cartografiado de la variable precipitación y de la clasificación de Köppen han sido realizados por Andrés Chazarra" (The interpolation handling and the mapping of the rain variable as well as the Köppen classification has been carried out by Andrés Chazarra). My understanding is that the generation of the map requires a complete dataset and some specific processing to have it created. That's something that, unless the dataset is available and the processing tools are in place, cannot be reproduced. Of course, it's my (humble) opinion. --Discasto (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The file is going to get deleted on the 10th of May? Why? Where is that discussion taking place?Inactive user 20171 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Inactive user 20171: it won't be deleted. Actually I changed the status of the image to disputed, as it can't be replaced. We just had to do that in order to not follow with the removal. I did it, and now we can see this discussion and the FUR are already fullfilled for the 3 articles... (btw, thanks for doing it, as @Discasto: too, which really surprised me). So now I suppose that Majora can't complain more... and you're right, that attitude is not very appropiate. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Majora's "attitude" is the natural outcome of your refusal to understand fair-use and to comply to Wikipedia's rules. At the end of the day, it's been me and not you the one that have tried to fulfill the fair-use requirements. Ranting and removing templates while still under discussion will eventually lead you to being blocked. --Discasto (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
My attitude is not appropriate? That's rich. Considering you two have repeated violated copyright policy again and again in a clear disruptive string of behavior even though I tried, multiple times, to get you to stop. Inactive user, you even did it again after this thread was started [1]. In clear violation of everything everyone was trying to tell you. This is clear disruption. --Majora (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The reason I tagged the file with {{di-replaceable fair use}} (which may not be removed before the decision to delete the file occurs, which will happen after May 10) is that I agree with Train2104 in that a freely licensed image with the same data could reasonably be created. If you look at other articles on climate (e.g. Climate of the United States), the files on the article are not copyrighted and are freely licensed. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have a look at File:US50states koppen.svg, you'll notice that it's been done by using information openly provided by the University of Oregon. Unfortunately, in Spain the attitude towards open data is really different and such information does not seem to be openly available. --Discasto (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling this may be the case; I haven't had a chance to research if but if the weather statistics/data is not published, we can't make a free replacement (it would be improperly OR to try to read that off this graph). It also seems that data can be protected in Spain Copyright law of Spain, so even if there were open databases of weather data, using a substantial portion may be inappropriate. That it, a person in the US could make a "free" image (where data is not protected and we can remake graphs from published data freely), but the data would still have copyright nature to the Spanish agency that collected it, making it a free-er non-free version here. But this is a very high level read, and we might want to see about asking someone at Commons about this who knows more about Spanish copyright law. In lieu of that, this is a reasonable non-free to use, but per NFC, needs to be very limited in its use, and needs a separate rationale for each use. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Point of order Masem. Enwiki does not care about the copyright status of works in other countries. In practice we violate it all the time with {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}}. However, that designation is generally only used for logos that otherwise would not meet the threshold of originality in the US (generally UK logos). So in theory, as long as the data is published and it is uploaded directly to enwiki, Spanish copyright law does not matter at all. In general practice though, everything besides logos we tend to respect the copyright of other countries. It just depends on whether or not we would want to do so in this case. --Majora (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That's sorta what I was trying to get at. I agree that scenario possibly can qualify as PD-USonly (and thus potentially reuable on many times), though as you say, I've never seen that applied to anything but logos and workmarks. It's just here, I can't readily tell if the original data is available outside of interpreting off the existing map, which we do not want to do (too much error, OR issues, etc.) --MASEM (t) 21:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Discasto, I didn't know I had to make another template. I thought I had to change the template to disputed, not to make another one. Btw, now it's correctly done. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please help TechnicianGB make another template?Inactive user 20171 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Inactive user 20171: no worries, I already did it. I just had to create an additional template near the other with the deletion, in order to let know that is disputed and to not remove the file by any means. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: has deleted the file. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Here, I'll repost my response to Marchjuly on my talk page: Pretty blatant violation of WP:NFCC#1, even in light of the two discussions. I supposed I should expect to be yelled at for it, but I'll clarify now that I have zero intention in restoring the file. This actually reminds me of File:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg (the first black map), which I deleted under a similar basis. A free image existed (File:Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Syrian-Turkey border.svg) as one does for this topic (File:Spain map of Köppen climate classification.svg), I deleted it under the same criteria, was taken to DRV for it, which resulted in it being listed for deletion and ultimately deleted anyway. My sound judgment there is no different here. xplicit 02:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: this map (File:Spain map of Köppen climate classification.svg) is extremely bad and inaccurate for the climate of Spain. Then, no images for the article climate of Spain, is enough with the description and climate examples. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


(non-admin closure) Half of everyone here needed or received a block. Personally I agree with Ad's block; 9 blocks in 10 years for NPA and civility strikes me as concerning, but other admins say otherwise. Ce la geurr. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring on Template:Francis Bacon (artist). - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Takes two to tango. Why are you reverting his attempts to clean it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The context for this is in the Another Believer thread above, on the forcefully withdrawn FAC, on FAC talk where I had to apologies for withdrawing an article due to related targeting,[2] the redirects for deletion,[3] on multiple threads on my talk, and the Francis Bacon Nav box template,[4] which has to be read to be believed. Note, initial accusations on my talk seem to be, in seconds, followed my an ip seeming, but incredibly inarticulately, defending me, as in a classic, but clumsy, joe job. [5],

[6]. Check-users might do well to take a look, as there seems to be coordination, to put it nicely. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I hope you are not accusing me of sockpuppetry. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Somebody in your group is logging out, and I would like check users to establish fact. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
My reverts are for WP:REDNOT and WP:EXISTING issues, seems to have nothing to do with your comment. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
No, you are applying the letter rather than the spirit of the law to further a grudge. Note the redirects for discussion opened earlier in the week form all of this is failing, both in terms of reasoned argument (where you have none), and editor numbers (you might have a few reserves). Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
What grudge ? I reverted your additions per the guidelines I posted above, you instantly reverted my edit, given your involvement with this template I took your revert as willing to edit war, now we're here. That all there is to it, regardless what you think. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mlpearc, can you please stop templating regulars as you have here, here, and here. Last weekend my watchlist was lit up with the dispute, which is a content dispute, and I'd hoped to try to sneak into Wikipedia without drama this weekend and would very much like to see the swarming around these Francis Bacon articles stop. The issue is this: on a nav template like this we don't blue link and create redirects. We leave the red links for various content related reasons. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
An aside to the dispute, about which I know nowt, but the idea of redlinks in navboxes defies common sense even if there is a guideline about it. You can't navigate to something that doesn't exist. Hence the restriction on redlinks that did (does?) apply to See also sections. We may have an inconsistency here that needs to be discussed elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but such navboxes arranged by type (eg single heads, portraits, triptychs, religious figures etc), and as such give an indication of the artist's breath, and for earlier artists (best example I have is for Jan van Eyck, see also Bosch and Vermeer) serve to indicate the number of attributed works as the work of art historians develops - the JvE box contains a contested section. I dont think we should abandon this to near bot like revenge editing. From the boxes interested readers will also be able to map artistic progression from the combination of formats, dates and titles. See Catalogue raisonné, its not just a whim - for those interested the boxes provide both an overview and links to those articles today covered by the project; if we were to follow AN's reasoning to its logical conclusion we should also abandon categories as useless. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sitush. The issue is this: we don't create 40+ new pages that are either redirects pointing to the biography page or are five word stubs. The idea is that the red links will become real actual articles and that new editors might try to take a crack at them. Clicking a blue link that brings a reader to the biography is counterintuitive for the reader; how to disentangle a redirect to build a page is counterintuitive for a new editor. Yes, it can be addressed elsewhere, but baiting and templating regulars is counterproductive. This is a content dispute and shouldn't keep ending up at AN/I. It's really counterproductive. Victoriaearle (tk) 01:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
FWIW in this context (the Bacon Template:Template:Francis Bacon (artist) I find the redlinks informative, educational, valuable and encyclopedic. As mentioned above also a heads up for additional articles...Modernist (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, well in principle I agree. Enabling bluelinks in navboxes by creation of numerous redirects to the same root article - a bio in this case - is not at all helpful and indeed may be misleading. I regularly clean out such stuff in caste-related navboxes and no-one of good standing has ever raised it as an issue ... and those links often are misleading. That doesn't address the concept of redlinks in navboxes but, as I said, it is really an issue for another place. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Requesting an interaction ban with Mlpearc & Another Believer, so I can edit in peace in an area I have edited in since 2006.[7]. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you're the one that needs interaction bans. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This exactly the place Sitush, as the point is not about the redirects as such (as if they could care less), instead they found a sore spot and are prodding in a sustained way. I am frankly amazed that Mlpearc would turn bring to AN/I such trivial changes, to me that indicates that unless brought to a sharp head a slow wear and tear is intended; again there are logged out edits following all of this stuff, though thats hardly the worst of it. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • People should not pick scabs, and they should not use ANI to help with their campaign to irritate a good editor. It may be possible to argue that Mlpearc is correct and the red links are an abomination only a rule-breaking disrupter (Ceoil) would want, therefore it's up to Mlpearc to push push push until achieving victory. However Wikipedia is a collaborative project and hammering good content builders over trivia is the most destructive form of behavior possible at enwiki. Mlpearc should find something else to do. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Mlpearc, I thought this issue was resolving itself with the discussion about the redirects, so it's disappointing to see it flare up again. Can you not let Ceoil get on with his work on the Bacon articles? SarahSV (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Fine. Template has been removed from my watch, happy editing. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Mlpearc, thank you. SarahSV (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • For General Information- Ceoil has been blocked for 48 hrs for breach of NPA CIVIL and AGF. This is not a resolution of this ANI thread but a response to his abusive behavior on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is the thread that led to the block. Ad Orientem, you can't block an editor for engaging with you in a way you dislike. You could simply have stopped responding instead. Please unblock. SarahSV (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Err, Ad Orientem, not a good idea to block an editor you are in an argument with. Strikes me as involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ad Orientem, you closed this thread about 45 minutes after I mentioned it was a content issue, which really wasn't enough time to understand the underlying issues here. I'm really tired and haven't been well, but if you haven't bothered to look into the background, I'll take the time tomorrow to post diffs about how we got here. Last weekend Ceoil was repeatedly templated, no discussion took place and from what I could see there was little understanding of the issue. His edits were followed form one venue to the next to the point that someone was edit warring with him when he tried to withdraw a FAC nomination and he was clearly being baited. I'm aware because it lit up my watchlist and I have many of these articles and the template on my watchlist. Now I feel guilty that he's been blocked after I made the mistake of mentioning content dispute that then led to the hatting and his subsequent frustration at not having his grievances taken seriously, when in fact the substance of my post was to ask Mlpearc to stop the templating. It's very discouraging to try to return to editing after a month of absence and see that a single word in a single post at AN/I results in blocking a prolific editor who only edits on weekends. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Ad Orientem has unblocked. SarahSV (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Ad Orientem asked me if they thought they had acted improperly in their conversation with Ceoil on their talk page; I believe they had not. They asked Ceoil twice to not post there anymore, and Ceoil's language was quite uncivil, in my opinion. So it's not a single word--it's a series of posts.

Having said that, I did look at the template and the edit war, a few days ago and again earlier this evening. I did not yet see that it required admin intervention, though I am with Ceoil on the substance of the matter--the links in the template--and I also think that Mlpearc's templating was unnecessary. Still, I can't help but think all this was unnecessary: if I read the time stamps correctly, Mlpearc had already stated they were withdrawing from editing the template before the matter really came to a head on Ad Orientem's talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, you've not understood the issues here. I was upset last week when, what to me seemed to be unnecessary edits were made to a FAC I co-wrote with Ceoil. I wasn't able to complain at the time and didn't want a Wikipedia shitstorm. I thought it safe to dip in here tonight, but obviously it's not because the templating started again immediately and no one has bothered to follow all the edits from the Francis Bacon redirects, to the van der Weyden TFA, to all the Bacon articles, to the FAC, to the talk pages of various editors throwing fuel on the fire and creating a swarm, back to the Bacon articles, to AN/I, back to the Bacon, back to AN/i. One person got blocked for using bad language. I can use bad language too, but what's worse than bad language is the drip drip drip of having people follow your edits and spout Wikipedia alphabet soup at an editor whose been here for more than 10 years. This is a textbook case of delving into the core issue and only caring about blindly following alphabet soup. Good luck to all of you. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Out of an abundance of caution, I have unblocked Ceoil with due regard to INVOLVED though I believe his grossly uncivil behavior after being told not to post on my talk page does constitute justification. That said I respectfully request an uninvolved Admin to block Ceoil for 48 hrs for gross abuse of CIVIL and NPA. On a side note I agree that my close was precipitous which is why I chose not to contest it's reversion. However none of that can excuse Ceoil' shockingly abusive behavior on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Please no one block anyone else. The situation is resolved. SarahSV (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Sarah, I hold you in the highest of regard, but this is far from resolved; my opinion of Ad Orientem's ability to explain even the most basic of his/h eradmin action (closing tedious AN/I threads) is not only insufficient but inflammatory. I was blocked here for wanting to continue a discussion, the admin was ill equiped to even give a one line rationale, baited, threatened if i was to continue for even basic explanation would be blocked, then blocked for 36 hrs, conferred minutes later, unblocked minutes later again. Meanwhile I have a new block record, on half grounds,backed by a warning of "I havnt had time to read up but suppose you are wrong because I don't like you" from an arb. The minutes later unblock was marked only by a flippant "corrected" emoticon on AB's talk, in a post that was seemingly in reply to my reposing of the original restated question re my being harassed. The hell? Its not good enough. Ceoil (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You were told repeatedly not to post on someones talk page and continued to do so in an insulting manner. Your block was entirely justified. When someone says to stay off their talk page, you stay off their talk page unless you are required by process to notify them of something. You had adaquate warnings and chose to ignore them. Get over it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Please mind your own business. Your stupid comments are not helping the situation. CassiantoTalk 10:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I've already blocked Mlpearc once for thinking the edit warring and civility policies only apply to other people, and the more admins that pick up on that, the better, as far as I'm concerned. That said, nobody should have been blocked as a result of this thread; if an editor you're in a dispute with does something you don't like, step away from the banhammer and do something else Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem should not have handed down the block in this situation, but it was an understandable reaction to the abuse that was being thrown at him. Only in death summarized it well. This can probably be closed. Lepricavark (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Tagging dispute on Mechmont[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP blocked 72 for Block Evasion and EW. This level of attention to detail is not required here (referring to the page's history). d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Myself and User:Fixer88 are involved in a dispute on Mechmont. I tried to nominate the article for deletion via CSD and PROD as the article does not provide enough context for those unfamiliar with the subject. After the deletions got contested, I added the {{context}} tag to the article, and Fixer88 keeps reverting the tag addition without explanation. (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It won't be deleted because as a commune of France it's unquestionably notable, but equally the tag is undoubtedly inappropriate since an article that reads in full Mechmont is a commune in the Lot département in south-western France. pretty much by definition is too short and lacks context. Regardless of who's right, both of you are behaving appallingly with your edit war, and are lucky you're not both blocked for it. ‑ Iridescent 13:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • 11 words (or 12, depending on your perspective) of content, and 25 edits to achieve nothing of great significance. I suggest both of you take a step back and consider how silly that sounds. Murph9000 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

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

American college basketball[edit]

Revenge persecuting other editors after getting blocked and then failing to notify them and heed advice is venturing into very dangerous territory. There is nothing for admins to do here, and OP is advised again to drop the matter. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Lepricavark: User:Lepricavark has systematically emptied dozens of "xxxx-xx in American college basketball" categories. In my opinion this qualifies as disruptive editing. Any comments. DjlnDjln (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Bro, didn't you just come off a block for this? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Notified for you. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You waited like 3 days, well after I had stopped, to file this report, didn't discuss anything with me at all before bringing it here, and failed to notify me at my talkpage about this discussion. I am not going to waste any time defending myself from a diff-less report. Ciao! Lepricavark (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Djln, it's time to change your behavior on this one. Lepricavark is restoring order from the upheaval you created with your previously un-discussed and much criticized mass edits. If you wish to pursue this endeavor further, please continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#. I have left an explanation and a question for you there. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: Thank you. Could you review this edit, made shortly before this report was filed, and confirm or correct my suspicion that it is basically the same thing that got Djln blocked several days ago? In other words, has he returned to unilateral category changes? Lepricavark (talk)
That edit looks fine to me. He justed moving something into an pre-existing, appropriate, more specific category there. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Part of the reason why I haven't further pursued helping with the cleanup is that it is difficult to sort out exactly how the articles were categorized before Djln went on his spree. And it's apparent that Djln has no intention of working with others in restoring order, hence this 3-day late attempt to get me sanctioned for cleaning up after him. Lepricavark (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Nepal Mathematical Society: addition of unsourced / original research[edit]

(non-admin closure) SEMId for 10 days by Neutrality. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've hit a problem here, with a new user that's not getting it regarding WP:UNSOURCED and WP:ORIGINAL research. I've reverted 3 times (on the basis of UNSOURCED / OR, with a side issue of inappropriate formatting / style), and am stopping now, as it's not a clear 3RR exemption case. The latest edit summary comment suggests there may be sources, but they are not being presented for Wikipedia's consideration. I've thought about WP:DR, but I'm not disputing the content itself, only the lack of sources. If there was sourcing, I would have just fixed the formatting instead of reverting. The edits appear to be in good faith, but are problematic. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for 10 days. Neutralitytalk 08:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

New editor trying to make Wikipedia an index of his academic papers[edit]

(non-admin closure) Blocked a week by Magog the ogre for disruption, copyvio, and failure to respond to discussion. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rubiat Mustak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) ... new user is putting in multiple articles which are summaries and links to his academic papers. I cannot see what he thinks Wikipedia is for. Can an admin please have a look an/or a word? Thank you DBaK (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Now sorted by Anthony Bradbury, thanks. DBaK (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to reopen this, But I have been checkin his contribs, and take issue with many of them. I get he's an expert in aerodynamics, but Tiger sharks as well? He goes around deleting all sorts of things, and doesn't leave a reason d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 19:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of his uploads appear to be likely copyvios -- conference papers usually have copyright transferred to the publisher. Certainly it all appears to be self-promotion. EEng 00:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

User:MjolnirPants on Reliable Sources Noticeboard and other pages[edit]

User:PraiseTheShroom is indefinitely banned from editing any page related to Argument from authority and from any discussion of the subject anywhere on Wikipedia, broadly construed, with an appeal at WP:AN allowed no sooner than six months from today. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC).
So after six months he can appeal to authority? EEng
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MjolnirPants simply will not help build a constructive page on argument from authority. He and I disagree on what sorts of sources are acceptable, so as seems sensible I went to the reliable sources noticeboard. Yet even there, he changes the title of the submission to mockingly include references to “random youtube martial artists” and completely misrepresent the issue. (The sources he presents are not even ones which I have in mind!). Please assist so that a productive, civil discussion can be had. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

<grabs the popcorn> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Youtube is not a reliable source. You are in the wrong here. I'll go ahead and revert your changes. --Tarage (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic nitpicking by yours truly. I don't actually disagree on the substance. I just don't like over-simplistic statementsabout how "YouTube isn't a reliable source", as it makes life difficult for those of us who actually do use it as the reliable source that it very often can be. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Tarage: Sorry to seem like a devil's advocate, but you hit on one of my pet peeves. It has nothing to do with the specific videos in question, but "YouTube" is not normally the source being cited, and as a "source" is not inherently either reliable or unreliable. The publisher (the YouTube channel that uploaded the video) can be reliable or unreliable, and sometimes people link bootleg YouTube videos of documentaries or lectures that were not even originally meant to be posted on YouTube. This latter is an ELNEVER for copyright reasons, but it doesn't mean the video that was bootlegged is itself an unreliable source (I remember, in a talk page discussion, citing a radio interview with Bart Ehrman that I had heard in the form of a likely-bootleg YouTube video that I was unwilling to link, but the content of the interview itself was not unreliable). I remember citing a video from The Young Turks (a left-wing news organization generally considered adequately reliable for uncontroversial statements where no other sources contradict them) to fill in a [citation needed] tag, and I was reverted by an IP who said pretty much the same thing you did above, even though "YouTube" was not my source. Search the RSN archives for "YouTube" and I guarantee you will find dozens of users asking if "YouTube" is a reliable sources and quickly being told that their question somewhat misses the point that "web video" is a medium, not a publisher. In theory, YouTube videos are self-published, and so are subject to normal restrictions on said, but in reality a lot of YouTube videos are not self-published, as the accounts that uploaded them are not operated by the people who are being cited as the sources. This is a well-known example with which both MPants and I are familiar. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: There were plenty of reasons to pick. I went for the easiest out of being lazy. --Tarage (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Cool. As long as no newbies read your comment wihout also reading the title of this collapsed section, no harm done. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read what I am saying: I do not care about any YouTube source. He is misconstruing me with that and has even changed the title of my submission to be about an irrelevant issue. What I did was add a citation of the Medical Press and Circular journal, which was deleted for not being a philosophical source by him. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this an appeal to authority about which sources are authoritative for the article on that fallacy? As curious as that may be philosophically, what administrative action is needed here? Jonathunder (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

He is changing the titles of my submissions in an insulting manner, and will not help build but only reverts to an old version PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Newbies who have been at the receiving end of the undo button often feel that "building" is somehow more protected an activity than "deleting". They are wrong. Deleting bad content is on precisely the same policy-footing as adding good content. In the eyes of Wikipedia's administration, your edits are no better than Mjolnir's. Well, maybe his are better, since he's right. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) what administrative action is needed here? Just taking a wild guess here, but I suspect I may need to be indeffed because I'm such an annoying stickler for using sources by philosophers and logicians in an article about a defeasible argument. You know, as opposed to environmental scientists, youtube personalities, and primary school educators. Or maybe it's because I'm engaged in "rampant ludditism" or because I'm "running wild". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The Shroom's last edit added "is a type of argument which argues that because a person or group seen as having authority on an issue believes something about it, it is likely to be true" and removed the bit about it being fallacious. You may take it on excellent authority (mine) that this is mushroom food. Jonathunder (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is, Shroom, step away before you hurt yourself. You are incorrect. --Tarage (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, Shroom is merely contending that his authorities are more authoritative than my authorities when they lend their authority to the claim that authorities can never be authoritative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I would not trust Mjolnir's summary of the matter. He has only one advanced userright, so cannot be considered an authority on Wikipedia-related matters. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Damn. You got me. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, Bernard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to join in on the above, but couldn't think of anything witty to say, and I'm apparently not very good at it to begin with, so it's probably best I shut up before embarrassing myself by making LOUD NOISES. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Well... THAT escalated quickly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:BOOMERANG -- the filing editor is the one causing the problems and edit warring against WP:CONSENSUS and has been warned to stop. I don't mind him/her posting at the talk page--if he or she remains civil and strikes all ad hominems such as "rampant ludditism". As a remedy, I propose a one week prohibition of any changes to the article (not talk page) be imposed (which if violated leads to a one week block) or a different time period at the discretion of an admin. as appropriate. Other editors making similar edits against concensus have received one week blocks, but they are experienced editors so more leniency is appropriate for this editor, who I believe is new. I would support mentoring as well, but I am not volunteering for that job. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
He's about to be blocked for edit warring if he reverts again... --Tarage (talk) 05:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Support boomerang, per my own comment below. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been keeping my bad eye on this dispute for a while for other reasons, and when I saw this I wasn't sure if the OP had been involved in an off-colour discussion on a user talk page that I had read. He wasn't but it seems like he was the only one on his "side" of the dispute who wasn't. I have to say I find it interesting that two users on the OP's "side" were blocked in quick succession by User:Nyttend, while the only user on MPants's "side" who has recently been blocked was for a completely unrelated reason. On top of this, virtually every time RSN regulars get brought to ANI for their (honestly not all that out-of-line) behaviour on RSN the result is usually either a BOOMERANG or at least a trout for the OP. This happened with Nish a few weeks back (though not specifically for RSN problems), and if memory serves it has happened to MPants as well. That said, I find the content-based core of this dispute to be utterly laughable, and both "sides" should probably be trouted. Wikipedia editors should write article bodies based on external sources, and summarize those bodies in the article leads. Articles leads should not be drafted, redrafted, counterdrafted and !voted upon based on external sources, regardless of whether they just happen to summarize the body anyway. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
To be fair (to me, so I guess what I mean is "To be self-serving-but-still-honest"), drafting the lede wasn't my idea, though I reluctantly supported it. And while the body lacks any coherent definition or analysis of the argument, that is not to say that it has always had such a lack. Me and Original Position had a section defining and analyzing it there about a year ago, but the two blocked editors chipped away at it until it was gone. Currently, the lede is the only part of the article that hasn't been subjected to ~12 months of show POV pushing, and contains the only definition and analysis of the subject. I intend to correct that very soon, in a restructuring that will likely shorten the lede and create at least one new section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know whose fault it was. I just think anyone who has been involved on any deeper level than "What are you talking about? The lead should summarize the body, not the contents of external sources" should be trouted. I edit leads myself a lot of the time, but if a dispute explicitly about the lead of an article as opposed to the body goes on this long, it should have quickly morphed into a dispute about the article as a whole because drafting leads and disputing about leads completely misses he point. The above support for a BOOMERANG is based more on Shroom, and only Shroom, having chosen to take the dispute to ANI rather simply counting himself as lucky not to have been blocked already, when it seems like everyone else has been, than on anything specifically to do with he content of the dispute. Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly concur with your view on the purpose of the lede. The only issue in this case was that the body of the article didn't actually accurately describe the subject of the article. That's being addressed as we speak. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Check out this version. I've taken your concerns to heart and moved the structure and examples to a new section. I've also trimmed out some deceptively edited quotes, and claims that weren't supported by the sources, as well as adding important information to bring some claims in the article into agreement with the sources used. I didn't realize that the body was that bad, but I suspect more eyes will be needed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict with some of the above, and while copy-pasting I thought it wiser to clarify something. Whether or not a ping could ever be considered canvassing (and the jusy is still, apparently, out on that one), my pinging of Nyttend was because of his already being quite involved in this incident (the opening of this ANI thread honestly reads like a last stab at "getting" MjolnirPants now that everyone else has been blocked for disruptive behaviour). I would also honestly rather be pinging any admin other than Nyttend, since he historically has a tendency to show up out of nowhere and block me. He's a good admin who does good work (and one of his suck-punch blocks actually helped me out quite a bit back in 2013), so I'm not trying to make this about him. Just deflecting any possible suspicion of canvassing. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, if I were them I'd be really annoyed at getting pinged to this. Poor guy/gal's put up with enough of this crap, and has remained steadfastly dedicated to improving the project throughout. And they've had to deal with me during this, so... Yeah. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You may well be right. As I said, it's my bad eye I've been keeping on the dispute, so I don't know to what degree he may have already tired out of it, or even to what degree he has been involved up to this point. I just thought I should ping him since the OP not doing so when Nyttend's having blocked the other two has probably hurt Shroom's situation a lot more than anything you've done, so it seemed like somewhat GAMEy behaviour. If Nyttend is annoyed at having been pinged, I apologize for causing annoyance. That was not my intent. (In theory I could have used Template:Noping for the same effect, and if I suspected the ping might be annoying I would have done that. But honestly I prefer being pinged to someone mentioning me and not pinging me, unless the piger is only doing it to be antagonistic, i.e., I've already requested that they stop pinging me. The Golden Rule is pretty shitty in a lot of real-life situations but I've found applying it on Wikipedia has a disproportionately positive effect.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You can use "guy". See my userpage; that's the only option for Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes/Eagle Scout :-) No complaints about the ping; this is entirely reasonable, especially as just a few hours earlier I'd discussed Shroom's actions on this specific article, as well as blocking two other editors for disrupting an article that a year ago I'd blocked them for disrupting and warned them not to edit more. I didn't look at the video situation this time around, but having watched it last time, I know that one of the problems was that people were persistently using it to say what it didn't say — regardless of how reliable or unreliable a source is, using it to say something it doesn't say is hoaxing and thus (in a non-legal sense) fraudulent; see a good summary of the issue. I'm not sure what to do with this article, which basically keeps attracting problems. It's really tempting just to revert the article back about ten or eleven years and then full-protect the article and the talk page. Any more-reasonable suggestions? Any other admin with a good idea and/or with a readiness to handle the situation? Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

So long as the version from ten or eleven years ago is based on sources of the same qualities as those in the lede I've been pushing (in other words; works from logicians and philosophers which specifically cover the topic of this argument), that would be a perfectly acceptable solution to me. That being said, I doubt many others would agree with permanently fully protecting the page, because what if there's a typo? What if some wonderful new example gets written about? What if, what if, what if... etc.
But to be sure, this content argument is a perennial problem on this page, going back to 2007 at the least. I'm a little surprised that there are no sources covering what appears to be a common phenomenon here: people who not only mistakenly believe that appealing to an authority is always a fallacy, but who will appeal to perceived authorities to prove it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Extra header for simpler section editing[edit]

  • The best solution I can see is actually getting Arbcom to make a ruling on this. They wouldn't, of course, need to take an issue on the content questions, but could implement a set os discretionary sanctions which could be used to nip this sort of problematic POV pushing in the bud. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I checked some ten-years-old revisions, and they had no sourcing at all. The content appeared to be better, but I'm not cutting out the sourcing, of course. That's one of those "I wish I could" things, not something that I'm actively considering doing. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Most cases focus on one or a few editors, or on a group of articles, but a case for a single article wouldn't be unprecedented; they've had cases for Speed of light and for Tree shaping, for example, and I think there was one on the Monty Hall problem as well. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The more I think about full protection, the less I like it. The sourcing problem you mentioned means we'd have to come up with a "definitive" version of the page (either by restoring old text with new sources, which is a mess of work in and of itself, or by defining a stable version from what's currently there), and while I'm very confident in my own edits, I don't think for one second that means that no-one else could possibly improve upon them. Indeed, I think the article still needs some work. I might try putting together an Arbcom request later during the week. At least then you wouldn't be the only admin dealing with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, I'm not seriously suggesting doing it. It's one of those situations where the solution would probably be worse than the cure, but the solution would still feel good because we'd be rid of the immediate problem. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you hear that pervasive sound? It's the sound of nobody arguing with you. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't sure of your meaning, and I just wanted to make it clear :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My first ever request for a boomerang (in an ANI thread about me)[edit]

I woke up this morning to this wonderful example of harassment in which PraiseTheShroom tried to make the case that I have been edit warring based on the fact that I made some formatting changes to a section, which included re-adding some bullet points which Endercase had removed as part of a previous edit. This is really getting ridiculous. After being told by every participant here that there is no basis to this complaint, after being told by every participant at RSN that they were wrong about the use of sources, they are still hurling crap at me to see what sticks.

Shroom has already left an edit warring warning on my talk page right after I declined to revert them a third time and left a message on article talk explaining why, already left an incredibly deceptively titled request at RSN, my editing of which was the basis for this thread despite being confirmed as accurate by another participant in the discussion thus far. Shroom has made (lame, but still) personal attacks against myself and David Tornheim in accusing us of engaging in "rampant ludditism" and accusing me of "running wild". And now it's clear they have no intention of stopping.

Can an admin please block this guy so that I can stop dealing with this pointless drama? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The forum shopping to try to get you into trouble is not acceptable, so I have issued a 48h block for continued disruption and harassment. If this continues once the block expires, we should be blocking for longer. Also, with such a disruptive approach, I think a topic ban might gain approval if anyone wants to propose one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Right now, considering the fact that this editor's only real contributions to the project are to this page, I'm pretty sure that a TBAN would be nearly indistinguishable from an indef block, so I'm not too comfortable asking for one just now. However, I see the user has made this edit which continues to push the POV that informed the two blocked editors, and is difficult to verify as the source doesn't exist as an ebook. I've ordered a copy of the book and will be verifying that the claim is supported by the source. If not, then I'll likely change my mind about the TBAN. I was dead serious above about making a request to ArbCom to institute DSes on this page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I offer no opinion on the change and I do not know the source, but "Schaum's Easy Outline of Logic" doesn't exactly sound like a rigorous academic volume. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears to be a college-level supplement, which should be pretty authoritative, assuming it actually supports the claim (that article was shot through with claims that the sources didn't support, including a whole bunch of OR and SYNTH, so I'm suspicious of any source I can't quickly read online which was added by Shroom or the two blocked editors). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK. It's just that books like that tend to strike me as verging on tertiary sources, a bit like encyclopedias (that is, they're collecting and/or summarizing secondary sources). But yes, we'll see what you think when you get your eyes on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that textbooks and supplements are tertiary sources, but I generally contend that they're as reliable (as a whole) as secondary sources, due to the editorial oversight and the expertise of the authors. There are exceptions, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fair enough. In this case I suspect either the book does not support the assertion at all, or it is specifically talking of deductive reasoning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
No need to order a copy: you can find the relevant page by going on the Amazon listing for that book and searching for the word "authority." Not only does the source not "refer to appeals to authority in general as fallacies," but it has a comically large note in the middle of the page declaring that "Appeals to authority are not fallacious provided we have good evidence that the authorities have adequate justification for their views." Lord Mondegreen (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that (the page does not appear to be available to me). I think it's time for a topic ban proposal, so I have started one below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back, Lord Mondegreen! This was good work (though I assure you that the amazon page didn't permit one to look inside just yesterday; I had to Ctrl+F5 to get it to work). You've saved me 7 dollars, so I suppose I owe you a beer or two. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I was gonna propose this myself. I was kind of surprised to see that the Shroom wasn't already blocked. I can't possibly understand what drove him to think opening that ANEW discussion was a good idea, let alone arguing with Ian.thomson (no ping this time, as it hardly seems necessary at this point -- this looks about finished) to keep it open. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I would support a TBAN if it's proposed, but I'm not going to propose it myself, since I think a better solution to the page in question and its apparently insoluble problems would be the revert and permanent full protection option. (And I'm only partly joking.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have just noticed the following comment from PraiseTheShroom:
"Aye, MjolnirPants, I do: a scientist is a natural philosopher responsible for finding useful knowledge, a mundane philosopher is responsible for using as many words as possible while saying as little as he can. If science is what brings useful knowledge while philosophy is what gets a man nowhere (for when has an "advance" in philosophy ever come? It has not, and cannot: such a thing would be as if an "advance" in fiction, for philosophy is about fictions and little else), then if useful knowledge is what a man seeks then he should take the standards of science and avoid the pitfall of this fallacy. But if a man seeks to go nowhere then by all means let him follow the philosophers into their hole. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)"
If that old canard represents his understanding of philosophy in general, then it's arguable that he should not be editing articles about philosophy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (Disclaimer: MA Philosophy)
(Your response is shockingly similar to my own at the talk page :D ) If you think a TBAN is appropriate at this time, then I would defer to your judgement. My general reticence to request extensive sanctions is based mostly in a desire to avoid contributing to the drama. But I acknowledge that, on occasion, we need to ramp up the drama levels in the short term to lower them in the long term. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Haha, yes, our responses are indeed quite similar! I won't propose a topic ban myself and I will not opine on one if it is proposed, because I want to stay out of the argument itself so that I can continue to act in an admin capacity if necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Boing, and thanks for intervening here. Even if I weren't tired of the situation, it would help to see another uninvolved admin come in and do what I was inclined to do — it's confirmation that I've been going the right way and evidence that these aren't a few helpless innocent editors being persecuted by one rogue admin who's acting contrary to what all the uninvolved people are thinking. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was bored ;-) (And if you ever do need a rogue admin to persecute anyone, you know where to find me!) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Might I also suggest the Angry Mob Noticeboard as a good venue for procuring rogue-like* behavior?
*Here meaning "having the qualities of a rogue" not "procedurally generated, infuriatingly difficult and experience with which separates the true nerds from the pretenders". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking, should AMN and WP:EYDL be moved to the userspace because they are jokes? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Propose topic ban[edit]

Lurker notice: recently inserted by PTS up above evrything else. IDK is it should be moved below or not. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved. —JJBers 17:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The idea of a topic ban for PraiseTheShroom has been raised above, with the editor tendentiously pursuing administrative action against ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants in an apparent attempt to win a content dispute, after having failed to gain consensus both at Talk:Argument from authority and at WP:RSN. Several instances of misuse of sources has also been documented (see above), but I was still reluctant to take the step of proposing a topic ban (as were others).

However, we now have a clear example of deliberately misrepresenting a source. PraiseTheShroom used Nolt, John; Rohatyn, Dennis; Varzi, Achille (2012). Schaum's Easy Outline of Logic. The McGraw-Hill Companies. p. 115. ISBN 0071777539 as a reference for the assertion that "...a minority of others refer to appeals to authority in general as fallacies". (See diff).

Lord Mondegreen has now examined that source and says (copied from above):

Not only does the source not "refer to appeals to authority in general as fallacies," but it has a comically large note in the middle of the page declaring that "Appeals to authority are not fallacious provided we have good evidence that the authorities have adequate justification for their views." Lord Mondegreen (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I therefore propose that PraiseTheShroom be indefinitely banned from editing any page related to Argument from authority and from any discussion of the subject anywhere on Wikipedia, broadly construed, with an appeal at WP:AN allowed no sooner than six months from the day of enactment of the ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I was waiting on a copy of this book which I ordered from Amazon to arrive so I could verify it. But seeing as we now have verification from an editor (whose return to Wikipedia delights me to no end, welcome back!) who has access to the book already that this is a misuse of the source, I Support this proposal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It's good to see Lord M here, and I hope the good lady is well too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the O'grady was actually an editor here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I feel the misuse of sources is worse than having none at all. Especially just to start a content dispute. —JJBers 13:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support They haven't learned to let things go and not pursue other editors. Lenght of time should be at least a year. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 19:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I know I don't actually have to independently support a proposal I already said I would support if someone proposed it, but this thread has been open a while and so is theoretically liable to get archived without a close, and I have seen some subjects of ANI threads pull some pretty weird shit with situations like that ("Stop hounding me", "Drop the stick", "Stop bludgeoning the discussion" and so on when people try to unarchive the thread), not to mention closers pulling some weird shit when proposals have unanimous support from less than some arbitrary number of editors. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I was hoping the editor in question would understand by this point, but given that they haven't edited since being blocked, I have little faith that they have. This seems like a reasonable step. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I know I'm undermining my own support here, but you know the block is still in effect, right? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
My previous comment no longer applies. I'm now a little freaked out by Tarage's psychic skills. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Just because you are blocked doesn't mean you wouldn't, say, edit your talk page. Also I'm good at recognizing patterns. --Tarage (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Very clearly disruptive in this area. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Others take the words of others uncritically (as seen with the YouTube allegations) and use that selfsame slander as proof of guilt. Anyone who would read through the long and detailed discussions now and in the past in the page's Talk could not miss the many and clear sources which give a dissenting opinion, stating that these arguments are fallacies.
Yet just as with the clearly disruptive attempts at shutting down the discussion I initiated at the reliable sources noticeboard being fully tolerated and not once questioned, I see that there is no true investigation of facts being done: the one who speaks loudest is simply taken as an oracle of truth.
Yet there is still a chance for redemption. Truly investigate the matter: read what I have said and done, and see what little resemblance it bears to the creature they parade as my thoughts. See my sincere attempt to determine if scientific sources were permissable, and see it then insultingly derailed. I hold out hope that these shall be ernestly looked into, yet hold much doubt that it shall be done. Finding facts is a hard path that leads only to still harder work in a mine, digging and brushing and polishing until at last a jewel is presentable. Far easier to simply heed the voice of whichever crier is nearest.

So we shall see: are there any who will consider what I have said and conduct an inquiry? Or will you all simply take an accuser at their word? PraiseTheShroom (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Above, PraiseTheShroom characterizes editors here of "tak[ing] the words of others uncritically," eschewing "a true investigation of facts," accepting "the one who speaks loudest ... as an oracle of truth," of not "read[ing] what [they] have said and done," of not "ernestly look[ing] into" sources," of not "consider[ing] what [they] have said and conduct[ing] an inquiry," and of "simply tak[ing] an accuser at their word."
However, they do not support any of these accusations with specific evidence. Furthermore, it is plain from this discussion that these complaints are false. The accusations have not been accepted uncritically or without an investigation of the facts, but rather on the basis of specific facts that are publicly available. For example, in bringing up WP:BOOMERANG, MjolnirPants gave several links to objecionable diffs, including baseless talk page templating, disruptive editing, and personal attacks. Nor have people refused to look into the source; rather, the proposal for this topic ban came about precisely because, in looking into one of the sources that PraiseTheShroom referenced, I found that it had been flagrantly misrepresented. And nobody has to take me at my word, because, as I said at the start, the relevant source can be publicly examined on Amazon.
I'm not going to take a stance for or against a topic ban, because I'm not experienced enough to know in what circumstances topic bans are appropriate. But I wanted to object, in any case, to the accusations I've quoted above. Presumably, nobody in favor of this is going to be impressed merely by being told that they're being unfair. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, Lord Mondegreen, the post above looks to be completely baseless. For example, it's trivially easy to disprove (one can clearly see that Shroom reverted to a version which included the youtube link, repeatedly [8] [9]), and the best defense Shroom could mount against that proof was that they were taking the word of others uncritically by assuming it was a valid source. WP:TBAN covers the hows and why's of topic bans, and you can see for yourself that they are intended to cover precisely these sorts of circumstances; wherein editors edit one particular topic disruptively, but seem relatively helpful (or at least to deserve a change to prove they can be helpful) on other topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR: "I am not wrong and you are wrong for not seeing it the way I see it." My vote stands. --Tarage (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Competence/WP:OWN issue on ITN article[edit]

(non-admin closure) When a handful of longtime editors tell you that something is a content dispute, it's pretty damn likely that it's a content dispute. Settle this on the talk page or through dispute resolution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's a very egregious case of WP:CIR going on in the ITN article WannaCry cyber attack. The user is Special:Contributions/GliderMaven. This is an example of his edits. Another example. There are much more serious violations of WP:RS and WP:OR amongst his ~50 edits, but those should be good quick examples of his lack of familiarity with editing.

I initially wrote a lengthy talk page comment addressing the large number of issues, at here. I then spent about 40 minutes meticulously reversing or fixing a large number of his poor edits, including several instances of plagiarism. An hour later, the problem user reverted to his own latest version with no discussion.

I'm hoping for a quick admin note to the user's talk page, advising him to read WP:MoS and gain some experience before essentially WP:OWN-ing a high-traffic article on a topic that he is unfamiliar with. (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2017 (UT

The anonymous editor has been unintentionally damaging the article, removing large amounts of text and dozens of reliable source references, and not understanding the references in context. Among many, many other things, he removed the fact that the malware is a computer worm that can spread without user interaction on unpatched systems. I consider him to be well meaning, but his edits have been mostly harmful, and he has been making edits that damaged hypertext markup.GliderMaven (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I removed duplicate text that was additionally plagiarized from sources with no attribution. I'm not sure if those edits were directly made by you, but it is present in the version of the article that you are reverting to.
Your comment again betrays a lack of experience with basic WP etiquette and guidelines. I strongly recommend that you let go of this and spend some time reading up WP:MoS and WP:OR before you get yourself blocked. You're one of those rare good faith users that are simply awful enough to warrant a ban. (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

note: the user was previously warned by an admin for 3RR violations on a content change he made on Human in Feb 2017. He deleted the admin warning then reverted the article again. His edit there was also problematic based on basic WP:MoS guidelines (and is factually incorrect, as far as I can tell). I frankly think a short block is needed, the user clearly isn't prepared to do his due diligence before barging into high-traffic articles, and does not respond to verbal warnings. (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
additional note: admins who want a quick glance at the extensive problem in those edits can compare this current version with the old version that GliderMaven is reverting to.
Note the completely unsourced/OR lines such as "This greatly slowed the spread." in the lede. Note the "WannaCry functionality" section that is both improper style and happens to be copied and pasted from the first two sections.
There's a myriad of other problems; see this frustrated comment for example.
Again, a quick admin intervention would be nice. (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This mostly sounds like a WP:Content dispute which as with all content disputes, should be resolved via some means of WP:Dispute resolution, not via ANI. It doesn't matter whether the article is on ITN. (At most, the article should be removed from ITN, but that can be dealt with at WP:Main Page/Errors if it really comes to it. But there is one area which may have to be dealt with here at ANI namely that of plagiarism, if it rises to the level which gives WP:Copyvio concerns. Can you provide one or more specific examples of this plagiarism and the sources it comes from? Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not a content dispute, or I wouldn't be bringing it up here. Please spend a few minutes to compare the two versions of the article I posted above. Cross-check sections 1, 2 and 3. There is a stable version of that article; it's the article that didn't contain duplicate paragraphs with copy-and-pasted quotes from multiple articles (i.e. plagiarism) with no/incorrect attribution. I agree that some of what I brought up may be dealt with on a talk page, but the most serious problem needs to be immediately dealt with by an admin, and he isn't responding to any attempt at discussion anyway. There are about 5 users on that article who are reverting his errors piece-meal. Just fix this fucking mess. (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
What you're describing sounds exactly like a content dispute. Your claim there is no discussion also isn't true, a simple check of the talk page proves this. And you even participated in this discussion, so your statement here is frankly the second or third most concerning thing after the plagiarism problem (and perhaps edit warring). GliderMaven in fact responded before you posted here, and less than 2 hours after you first posted on the article talk page. (Please don't get into a pointless debate over who should have opened the discussion on the article talk page.) And yes there is a lot of reverting going on in that page, which isn't a good thing, but it's clearly not everyone reverting GliderMaven [10] Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
You are significantly misjudging what happened. The revert by the other user came from a similar misjudgment. You'd recognize why if you actually bother to read that user's version of the article. (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no discussion. A simple check on the talk page shows that I carefully listed about 20 problems and he did not address a single one of them.
Again, this is not a specific content issue. This is an issue of 50 near consecutive edits made to an article, almost all of which are contrary to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including sourcing and OR issues, not to mention an entire duplicate section. That's not a content dispute. An article of passable quality existed when that item was posted on ITN. The article fell below that quality because of a large number of changes that fail basic. This doesn't go to dispute resolution, this warrants a basic application of your fucking common sense.
I spent hours of my life carefully tracking his incorrect edits and fixing them. It takes literally 5 minutes for you to compare the two versions, see the immense amount of sourcing problems that had been fixed in my version, give the user a brief warning for edit warring, and move on. Instead you prefer to debate with me on the exact definition of a content dispute. (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
You are still describing a content dispute. The only problem is instead of settling it with small, discussed edits you are reverting a whole version of an article for your preferred version. Now you are acting incredibly hostile because you are told by an uninvolved editor (Nil) that it is indeed a content dispute.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Even if you want to call this a content dispute, it's a clear case of WP:Ignore all rules. Seriously look at his version of the article and tell me you don't see a huge fucking problem, as one of the sections is literally copy and pasted. This is on the front page right now. This is absurd. (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This IP user is severely breaching our civility policy. Would another admin please handle?
I also note GliderMaven has been repeatedly been warned for edit warring over the last year, and queried about OR, but they just blank their talk. A block for both parties might serve to protect this article. Fences&Windows 16:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I second your suggestion that another admin handle the issue. You have spent more time commenting than figuring out the problem.
Meanwhile, the article is still in immediate need of fixing a WP:Plagiarism issue. Which I had fixed, before you came along and accused me of edit warring on a content dispute, a conclusion you made based on reading talk page comments. (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Fences gave an accurate summary of the issue above. At ANI, he can't handle content disputes, as you have been told. He can, however, share an opinion on your civility violations and any harmful editing patterns by GliderMaven.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a content dispute. It's a clear case of IAR, applying common sense, and telling the amateur user to knock it off with the edit warring. All of that information was available in the first two comments I posted here. Instead, the admin appears to have spend 30 minutes himself to figure out that the user might just be problematic, and is yet to show any indication he's actually read the article and recognized how absurd it is that we're even discussing this as a content dispute. The current version of the article has about 5 duplicate paragraphs that the problem user has disguised as original content. Go read the article. If you don't see the problem within 5 minutes and immediately take up my position, I'll drop the issue. This isn't a content dispute, this is a problem that requires 5 minutes from a clear-headed admin to fix. (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Look, my position is that other editors are on task, I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of doing any more reverts on the article, I reverted this single incredibly tendentious deletionist IP, twice, I have never, ever plagiarised anything and the discussion is going just fine on the talk page, and I'm fine with whatever happens there.GliderMaven (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
"the discussion is going just fine on the talk page"
That is not true. You had a 3 comment back and forth with another editor, which ended with him leaving out of sheer frustration. You have not discussed anything with anyone else. You've ignored the massive amount of edit summaries and explanations for the myriad of serious problems in your edits. You have repeatedly reverted about 5 people's attempts to fix your errors, out of sheer WP:OWNism, and you only bothered to "discuss" with one of us. Another IP (see here) had reverted a highly problematic assertion that you insist on putting into the article, and you've reverted him 10+ times with no discussion. There are a dozen other examples. Your continued portrayal of this as a content dispute between you and me is an outright lie. That lie was what made a regular on ANI go help you revert my 20+ edits with zero attempt at engaging in any discussion or reading any of the policy guidelines that you've violated to the point of being farcical. (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute. This is WP:OWN coupled with incompetence and repeated edit warring. The user has ignored multiple warnings from admins and other content editors on the same problem, and had curtly removed those warnings himself. Telling me to bring this up to dispute resolution is absolutely absurd. It took me 2 hours to carefully identify all of the problems he inserted into the article. I'm not about to write fifty paragraphs explaining those edits down to the word in some futile effort to engage with this user. This is a clear case of WP:OWN and WP:NOTHERE, that ANI can deal with. This user has reverted a dozen editors' attempts to fix his mistakes, all with zero effort made at reading or understanding other people's comments. An admin here could have just easily banned him from participating in that article two hours ago and I'd have had two more hours to actually work on that article, and he'd have had two more hours to read WP:OR. (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • An/I can't live without the f word for more than 3 days apparently. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

IP long term vandalism on female wrestler articles[edit]

2605:E000:8404:8500:C922:8842:ECF5:E232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I've come across a vandal who consistently adds out of place references to 'brutal hair-pulling' and spandex tights to various articles about independent female professional wrestlers over the span of five years. The edits, while numerous, are pretty minor, but I found the vandal though a line of vandalism that had been there since 2012, so it is problematic. The user has been warned many times on previous IPs. Here are the previous IPs of the same person:

Cjhard (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Appears to be a vandal cop. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that was me before I logged into my account. Accidentally put myself on the list. Cjhard (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Heh! I was wondering why Redacted was no longer vandalizing the Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx article! Everybody's gotta have a hobby, I suppose. Anmccaff (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


(non-admin closure) Not for ANI, Mjbmr can use BigHaz's talk page if he wants to talk about it. —JJBers 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have no idea what he is accusing me of, but his action must be stopped, he is attacking against me. please see Special:Diff/778442313 Special:Diff/778442489 Special:Diff/778442471 Special:Diff/778442505 Special:Diff/779967949 Special:Diff/780326653. If we have rules in Wikipedia, and were applied to one of AfDs then what stops me from creating a AfD on my own articles, this is ridiculous that people vote based on their interests. This guy have asked other people to vote on my AfDs, he must be stopped from bothering me. Mjbmr (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Nominating your own articles for CSD and AfD seems an awful lot like deliberately wasting other's time, and opening an ANI thread on the whole issue seems an awful lot like suicide by admin. TimothyJosephWood 18:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Timothyjosephwood I'm waiting for someone say something useful, a lot of my articles were deleted by ambushes, that wasn't wasting my time?! Mjbmr (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
By ambushes, do you mean CSD and AfDs? Those are all permitted, in fact, essential to help preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. This whole ANI thread, as well as the self-nominations of your articles for deletion, are immature ways of dealing with it, sorry to say.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick you can reread Timothyjosephwood comment just avoid, you two make no sense. one says allowed one says no. Mjbmr (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Nominating your own articles for CSD and AfD seems an awful... says User:Timothyjosephwood do you mean CSD and AfDs? Those are all permitted says User:TheGracefulSlick. Mjbmr (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
BigHaz is an admin, and I see no problems with their actions. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and we all humans. Either all articles which were reviewed by Schwede66 (AN ADMIN!) and were deleted by K.e.coffman and Hawkeye75 should be restored or the rest of my articles should be deleted, I spend a whole year writing these articles, I guess that's the way Wikipedia is, but I won't bother writing again, I just don't want to bothered again with this template messages like these: User talk:Mjbmr/Archive 3, you can recreate the rest of my articles with your own name if you want to keep them. Mjbmr (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Above thread[edit]

No one's blocking anyone. The above conversation was over, so it was closed. So, too, will this one. This isn't (yet) a matter for ANI to handle. It should be dealt with on the relevant user's talk page(s). Primefac (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Above thread was closed by User:JJBers while we were talking and comment was removed by User:TheGracefulSlick please take an action. Mjbmr (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Boomerang.jpg TimothyJosephWood 19:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The thread was closed. Consequently, no comments are supposed to be added after the fact. At this point I feel you are begging to be blocked for your behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I closed it for the fact that it was not a matter for ANI, if you want to talk about it, use the user's talk page instead. —JJBers 19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick are you threatening me? Mjbmr (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me if you're going to ask me nonsense. No, I'm not threatening you. If you continue to waste people's time, like you are, you will most likely be blocked. That is not a threat, it is logic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

RevDel on, please?[edit]

R-D requested and granted. (non-admin closure)O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) said some naughties. If someone has the time and prefers that this stuff not be visible, a bit of revdel might be in order. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for all that work! Jim1138 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Eliyohub spamming me with threatening emails[edit]

Case closed as Sockpuppetry. NAC, SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just now,Eliyohub was spamming with me threatening emails, saying that if ever decide to return to Wikipedia, he'd show up at my home address and have me butchered with an axe. Can he blocked please? I'd also like to get his real identity so I can report him to the police, because I'm really scared for my life.Johndoe4199 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

What type of axe? Is the blade wrapped up in a sock? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
You're account is minutes can you be "returning" to Wikipedia in any capacity? Besides, if you actually are having your life threatened you contact police with the e-mails you supposedly received. I don't think socks have a life to threaten though.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocked as a sock. This is the likely master. --NeilN talk to me 16:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
If the first edits are trivial creations of user and talk page so as to avoid redlinked attention, sock likelihood is over 9000. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

For the record, no "axe emails" or the like (or any emails at all to Wikipedia contributors, past or present, for that matter), were sent by me. Eliyohub (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer[edit]

This user is harassing me to the extent that they have now twice reverted my withdraw of an article on FAC[11] There has been persistent targeting in the last hours, which is fine, whatever. But...they need to calm down. I'll take a block fine, but a word about what wikipedia is for is needed. Note I have had a number of seriously ill informed warnings on my talk from a fan base in the mean time. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, ok. I'm going to step away and let others deal with User:Ceoil. There are much better ways to be spending my time improving Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Ceoil's behavour is totlly out of line today, [12], is that you posting to your own talk as an IP ? seems to go with your recent behaviour. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Not my style to log out to inelegantly put my view. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Mlpearc, if you're going to make accusations like that you'd better have some evidence. Since the IP geolocates to a different country than Ceoil it seem fairly unlikely. ‑ Iridescent 20:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: That was a question, calm down. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
What? This just seems to be a misunderstanding here. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Not really. Its actually a fundamental problem that needs to be nipped in the bud. Another Believer wants to blue link each and every painting by particular artists to a redirect to the arists bio. We had a real mess on the Francis Bacon box today, which isnt a trivial problem, apart from reader utility, a number of us use that template to see what has been covered and what has not, ie planning, also it is useful for tracking recent changes. In other instances, eg with Jan Van Eyck the box is used for tracking trends in canonical attribution. If we are now going to link evry and every thing with bio redirects, ie wikidata all this stuff, there is a significant loss in usability & credibility. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with redirecting works to appropriate parent articles (such as the article about the artist or a list of works by an individual). Stub articles are appropriate for inclusion in navigation templates. The pages being discussed were originally redirects, which were converted to stubs. The stubs should be displayed in the template. What's the problem? I'm not even going to comment on the accusation of harassing Ceoil -- their edits, edit summaries, and actions speak for themselves. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Different problem—I do agree with you that the painting should be kept, although. But, as I said, that is a different problem than the one at hand, and not a serious one where any sanctions are needed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, just to note, ceoil should probably have told Another Believer that they can withdrawl their own nomination. And, Another Believer should have explained why he was restoring the article to FAC. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with nomination withdrawals. I just assumed blanking the FAC page wasn't the best procedural way to acknowledge the withdrawal. I noted this at the FAC talk page, just like I've started a few talk page discussions today about Ceoil's edits. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, but I do think that you should have pointed out in the edit summary your reasoning. Anyways, this seems to be resolved, so a close soon might be appropriate, unless there are other problems. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
With respect Reily, you completely miss the point, and have been less than useless here. Why are you inanely commenting on something you have no idea about? Your just enabling this nonesence. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
That wasn't useful at all. —JJBers 21:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG: The user who started this discussion has been wiping out its talk page, unaware of recent warnings posted in its history. If you Don't Stop Believin', now this may be the time to say "this time, it's for real". You can argue on both sides, but you cannot really report someone who has been telling the truth beforehand. Slasher405 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You have typed words, but they make no sense. A very shallow reading of events. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I do think that Ceoil's behaviour today hasn't been very good, but to me it seems that this has just been a bad day here for them. Of course, if the behaviour continues, then a block might be in order, but I think that if Ceoil can just get off WP for a bit and we can stop talking about him for a bit, then all should be good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
No. I mentioned above that there is a matter of substance behind this. Also if you look at the diffs there is (pitifully organised) tag teaming, and editors logging out to discredit others. Children will be children, but notice about 142 reverts; 3 on WP:FAC, where they continued the troll claiming concern with process. And thats apart from the fact that AB irreparably made a mess, deliberately, of a Francis Bacon template I had been working on since 2007. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the occasional incivility (not this, you have been pretty (sorta) civil on here, apart from one comment) today. I do not know whether I would advocate for sanctions against you, but I think that if you continue with your behaviour today, you might have sanctions imposed on you. I do not want an experienced editor blocked. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't followed everything that has happened, but looking at