Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Programmatic Media

Programmatic media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following contribution to the programmatic media page has been repeatedly reverted by Macrakis and JohnInDC.

"It has been suggested that the interactive media division of WPP Group's Ogilvy and Mather (now known as Neo@Ogilvy), has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media. Their 1981 venture, known as Teletext, entailed the broadcast of print material on television sets equipped with a special decoder that utilised binary code. Programmatic media has built on this digital framework with an algorithmic method of transacting cross-media."

The last revert came with the following warnings on my talk page unsourced verifiability. It was suggested that the fact about "Teletext and Oglivy & Mather" was "nonsense" and the "1981" date is inaccurate.

After lengthy conversations, the following link was shared by User:JohnInDC https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19790516&id=DwEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=21gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6334,14832&hl=en here

It was suggested that I "Forget Joseph & Turow and Yale" (my Joseph Turow citation), which I believe is the integral part of the paragraph.

Following another lengthy conversation, the following link was shared https://books.google.com/books?id=rK7JSFudXA8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22the+daily+you%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI-fXXp8DRyAIVDJWACh345w5n#v=onepage&q=teletext&f=false this link

This links to the page referred to in my Joseph Turow citation (which was apparently non existent and also the reason that a warning has been placed on my talk page).

I would be grateful if someone could confirm whether the reverted item contained citations or not. If so it would also be useful to gain an opinion on whether citation about O&M being involved with a teletext venture in 1981 is in line with the book.

If The above can be confirmed, it could be suggested that the other editors removed a perfectly relevant paragraph without a reasonable justification and also added unnecessary warnings on my talk page (on numerous occasions).

The users Macrakis and JohnInDC continually revert any content that I add to this page and refute anything that I add on the talk page. The administrator User:Jbhunley does not appear to have a neutral approach, and has been known to use expletives in conversations with me. I am now at the point where I am simply receive deletion threats (sometimes based on make belief rationales).

Please advise. Regards, -JG (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Not an administrator. Used one (1) expletive. And for the last time stop copying my signature. Jbh^Talk 18:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The problems with the page, Programmatic media, and Jugdev's unrelenting resistance to any changes or improvements to the thing, were previously raised here at ANI, at this link. Macrakis, Jbhunley and I (among others) have spent quite a bit of time trying to improve the prose, clarify the concepts, and generally bring the thing more in line with what a Wikipedia article should be. Our concerns, and edits, have been extensively discussed (almost literally one by one) on the article Talk page. Jugdev has reflexively resisted all of these efforts, and in response routinely - and persistently - simply restores the text that he authored. Indeed he has been blocked at least twice in the past two weeks for edit warring. I invite interested editors to review the prior ANI filing, and the article Talk page, Jugdev's Talk page, and the current version of the page up against one of the earlier iterations, to permit them arrive at their own conclusions about where the problematic editing & behavior here in fact lies. JohnInDC (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'll take a moment to comment on the single substantive issue that Jugdev raises above:

The passage that Jugdev would like to re-insert (he has done so by my count 8 times already - hence the blocks) is factually incorrect, inaccurately reflects the cited source, and is of no articulable relevance to the article subject. Ogilvy & Mather did not invent Teletext. Teletext was not invented in 1981, but well before that; and Teletext (involving the rote reproduction of ad copy text on TV screens) is not a precursor of programmatic media, which is the real-time purchase and sale of customer-specific advertising space based on computer algorithms. Indeed the cited source says none of the these things, but rather notes that O&M by virtue of a two-year stint in creating marketing material for a Teletext undertaking by Time, Inc., may have had the “deepest roots” in persuading wary clients to purchase ads in the nascent 1990s field of “interactive media”, including CD-ROMs and on line services such as Prodigy.

Every one of these issues was extensively discussed on the Talk page (search for “1981” to see a sample). JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute I'm not sure the discussion belongs here. Nevertheless - Jugdev, per WP:DISCLOSE, would you like to advise us of any conflict of interest in matters relating to Ogilvy & Mather? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two aspects to this matter: procedural and substantive.

Procedural: Jugdev does not appear to respect the consensus judgment of three other editors that this particular paragraph is both irrelevant and misleading. He repeats arguments he has made before (many of them generic rather than specific) and which have been answered before. He flatters his own contributions as "technical" and questions other editors' literacy. In general, he acts as though he owns the article, presuming that if he feels his concerns haven't been addressed, there is no consensus. He deploys absurd arguments, like "Are you suggesting that Yale University [Press] would allow the publication of inaccurate facts?"[2]; not only are presses generally not responsible for the contents of books they publish, but the issue here is his (mis)interpretation of the text.

On the substance: Multiple sources (including WP itself) show that Teletext was not invented in 1981, and not by Ogilvy and Mather. His paraphrasing of the source (which two editors have checked) is incorrect. The connection between Teletext as "mechanised media" and programmatic advertising is tenuous at best, since the core defining characteristic of programmatic advertising is targeting, whereas Teletext was broadcast, showing the same content and the same ads to all users. Adding weasel words like "It has been suggested that..." to questionable statements doesn't make it OK to add them. Puffery like "has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media" (even if sourced) doesn't belong in WP.

Finally, I feel that Jugdev is beating a dead horse, wasting our time, and discouraging other editors (User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:RichardOSmith are no longer editing this article). I have no idea whether this is intentional (WP:AGF), but it is certain disruptive. I only bother to respond at such length because I hope it will keep me and others from having to waste more time on endless, pointless discussions with an editor who refuses to listen to consensus. --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Jugdev's response to the above

We must not digress from the items that have been noted in my original request to the administrators. We should address any other items in turn so that things do not get lost in translation. All of my contributions to Wikipedia contain citations from the industry and academia. -JG (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

When you bring an issue to AN/I, all aspects of it are going to be examined, not just the ones that serve the purposes of the reporting editor. This being the case, you need to respond to the comments of the editors you've complained about, and of uninvolved editors. For instance, a specific question was asked about your connection, if any, to Olgivy & Mather. You need to respond to these things - stonewalling will not serve you well. BMK (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That article is a mess. How advertising networks and intermediaries decide what ads appear on a displayed web page is important and complex. The article does not provide much understanding of the process; there's real time bidding, multiple layers of intermediaries, and tracking going on behind the scenes. Here's a Gizmodo article which does a far better job of explaining this.[3]. The article tree which starts at Online advertising addresses the subject better, and has links to over 40 other articles about the details of online advertising. Those links do not include the article in question. This is almost an orphan article; it's linked from Online Target Advertising, which itself is an orphan article. Deletion is starting to look like a good idea here. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have put a lot of time into trying to get my arms around the subject, and in trying to clean up the article, but I have never been comfortable with where we collectively have got with the thing and I have no objection at all to deleting Programmatic media if the topic is already covered, better, elsewhere here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please address the items noted in my original request. anything else in my opinion are another conversation - happy to discuss once we move on from this particular case. -JG (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of both Programmatic Media and Online Target Advertising, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. If the articles are deleted, this dispute becomes moot. As for the Teletext/Prestel/Ceefax issue, those were one-way systems which broadcast data by piggybacking it on TV signals, similar to the way closed captions work. Such broadcast content could not be targeted at all, and hence is irrelevant to "target advertising". Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting makes sense to me. We should also delete the 240 SEO-like redirects that Jugdev has made, pointing to this article as I suggested a few weeks ago. --Macrakis (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev has removed the template from Programmatic media, so that'll require another avenue. JohnInDC (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. The article has had a whiff of PR/SEO about it from the beginning, those redirects to everything under the sun have been an issue from the outset. Even the term itself does not seem to be widely used. JohnInDC, Macrakis and all of the other editors who have worked on it have done a yeoman job cleaning it up but it should go. Jbh^Talk 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media Jbh^Talk 20:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

-JG, WP:BOOMERANG is worth a read. Despite your accumulation of multiple sanctions, you chose to raise the matter here. Editors will look at what all sides are saying and past history and determine who is really causing the disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN Thank you sir. -JG (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding all the redirects (Programmatic media inventory Programmatic media suppliers Programmatic media agency Programmatic media company Programmatic media uk Programmatic media us Programmatic media france Programmatic media germany Programmatic media spain Programmatic media italy Programmatic media netherlands Programmatic media india Programmatic advertising inventory Programmatic marketing inventoryProgrammatic advertising suppliers Programmatic marketing suppliers Programmatic media owner Programmatic marketing agency Programmatic advertising agency Programmatic advertising company... and over 100 more) to the AfD. That's blatant keyword spamming. Nobody does that on Wikipedia. Now someone has to clean up the mess. John Nagle (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle, its in good hands. The administrators will instruct as required.-JG (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, is it just me or, while all/most of those terms make grammatical sense in themselves (and some, like "programmatic media buying", the first one mentioned in the Programmatic media lede, even have some 100 hits on Google Books), "Programmatic media" itself - the article's main title - doesn't really mean anything? LjL (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Deep in the Talk page there's some discussion about renaming / moving the article to something a bit more descriptive but I think we figured to attack the substance first. (In short, you're right.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is long and tedious to read, but it really does help understand the situation. A clear consensus emerged among several editors for various changes, all of which Jugdev opposed. He seems to see this consensus-building as an attempt to hijack his article. I don't know what to think about the 100+ redirects or the repeated insistence to include certain corporations in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang Topic Ban for OP

I propose a boomerang topic ban on the OP, User:Jugdev, from the Programmatic media article and from the Programmatic media topic area, broadly defined, both for ownership attempts at the article, and as a vexatious litigant, whose use dispute resolution raises competency issues. As NinjaRobotPirate points out, there is a consensus on the article talk page, and the OP continues to oppose it. On 5 October, the OP filed a request for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but failed to identify the other editors. The request was closed by the coordinator, stating it was the responsibility of the filing party both to list and to notify the other editors. On 6 October, the OP filed another request for moderated discussion. This request was even more malformed, failing to identify the article at all, although it did list the other editors in the text of the request. This request was likewise closed. The OP was warned that future incorrect use of dispute resolution, after having the procedures explained in detail, might be considered disruptive editing. On 22 October, the OP filed a third request for moderated dispute resolution, this time listing the other editors, but still failing to notify them. Now on 23 October the OP has filed this request at ANI. It isn't clear what administrative action the OP is requesting, but it is clear that the administrative action to be taken should include a boomerang topic-ban. (A block might be in order, but that is another question.)

• Support topic-ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, also because I don't know if we can talk about a WP:COI here as it was denied by the editor, but there definitely is something fishy (see Search Engine Optimization) going on. LjL (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I was about to strike this request for two reasons. First, the article has been nominated for deletion, and its deletion will render the topic-ban moot. Second, the subject editor has been blocked for two weeks (longer than the period of the AFD). I won't object to an uninvolved administrator archiving this whole thread, including the topic-ban proposal, as a case of the OP being blocked by his own boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Jugdev has edited other, related articles and indeed his first edit-war block came in connection with another, related article. I'm skeptical frankly whether he will be able to observe the limits of a topic ban, and would be surprised if it turned out to be anything but a rest stop on the way to an indef block, but that's a discussion for another day. JohnInDC (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing to support for an indef site ban in light of apparent block evasion and his apparent inability to comprehend even the most basic instructions and advice (evidenced by, e.g., his repeated pointless unblock requests). JohnInDC (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As mentioned above, the article is at AfD and headed for deletion, mooting this specific issue. I can't figure out what Jugdev is trying to accomplish. At first it looked like a COI issue, but it doesn't seem to benefit anybody. All those redirects look like search engine optimization, but why drive traffic to Wikipedia for an article on a general subject? The insistence over a bogus claim about Teletext, a dead technology, remains puzzling. I dunno. In two weeks, their current block expires. WP:ROPE may be appropriate. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - It is a bit of a mystery. I don't think it's a COI, despite the fixation on this Ogilvy & Mather / Teletext issue. I literally think that issue became the focus of discussion because it was toward the beginning of the article and it was the first change he wanted to re-introduce after returning from his prior block. I believe ultimately it's a competence issue - with Exhibit One being his decision to press here at ANI an issue that was linked directly to - and directly contradicted by - a reviewable source. So, yeah, I agree about ROPE. JohnInDC (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think this editor should be fully site banned. They clearly aren't here to contribute accurate information to the project. Any ban in any area of the project gets my support.--Adam in MO Talk 20:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all advertising related topics. site ban. The obvious block evasion and continued attempts to deflect blame on his talk page tell me this user is unlikely to ever become a positive contributor. More ROPE will lead to more disruption and we will be right back here. I have tried to get through to this editor multiple times. Their behavior is intractable. Jbh^Talk 20:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Changed to support site ban. Jbh^Talk 22:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The author seems destined for a permanent block and this may be moot, but if they can still edit at all they must not be allowed to continue making such a negative net contribution to Wikipedia. Several well established editors have spent a considerable amount of their time attempting to clear up the article already, a task that is made far worse whilst this editor continues to try to reinstate meaningless and/or factually incorrect content into it. I too cannot fathom exactly what is going on with some of the content issues but I'm pretty sure that if we assume good faith and take it that the editor is actually here to build an encyclopaedia, they lack the WP:COMPETENCE to do so. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support topic ban, and also indefinite if there's a "majority" for that. Both because of suspicious/fishy editing (possible COI, 200+ redirects pointing to their pet article to make sure that as many readers as possible are led to it...) and because of extreme ownership behaviour. Thomas.W ^talk 20:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support after this obvious block evasion. Jugdev is never going to drop the stick, and I see no evidence that he's ever going to listen to the advice that's been given to him. Also, the retaliatory accusations of COI are silly – and they follow previous accusations of vandalism when people attempted to make copy edits. See his talk page for details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Site-Ban due to disruption of AFD by COI accusations and socking accusations made by a sock. (As proposer of topic-ban, I have already !voted for that.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban but should the SPI come back positive, I'd support an indefinite block. Zero tolerance for sockmasters. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban - previously I suggested WP:ROPE. Then came the AfD disruption, after three rejected unblock requests declined by three different admins. Enough. On a related note, this mess impelled me to try to clean up the online advertising tree of articles, which has good info but is a bit too specialist-oriented. I've added some graphics and indicated that online advertising is the main article. This area could use help from more editors. See Talk:Online_advertising#Article_set_improvement. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The SPI was closed for lack of evidence. Not how I would have closed it, but I'm not an SPI clerk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

7 days have elapsed for WP:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media, a consensus has emerged, and the AfD is ready for closure. John Nagle (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD closed by admin; result was "Delete and salt." All related redirects have been deleted. Some useful content from the deleted page was moved to online advertising. All content issues have now been dealt with. John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Now that the article has been salted, the topic-ban is moot. I suggest that an uninvolved administrator close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Problem dealt with. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The article is deleted and salted but Jugdev is only on a temporary block and will shortly have editing privileges restored. Their edits on media/technology have been problematic both in terms of the content (suggesting this is an area they poorly understand or, at best, cannot elucidate well), and in their WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. However, their earlier edits were music related and there is no sign of such problems there. I maintain my view that Jugdev should be compelled to stay well clear of media-related topics and will hopefully find an area where they can contribute well. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for "... broadly defined", including e.g. "online advertising", "teletext", "hypertext", "visual media", ... DavidLeeLambert (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, as a minimum, after reading and following this saga. This should not be allowed to slip into the archives with no remedy enacted. RichardOSmith elucidates well, just above, exactly why, and I concur. Begoon ^talk 11:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Harvest of Sorrow

I am notifying User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes. This two editors are looking for any excuse in order to delete all my edits to the article. I tried to find a solution, but it came out they are just excuses, they just want to delete everything. Please check Talk:The Harvest of Sorrow to see the relevant facts. Here are the diff [4], they always roll back to a stub article. Also Volunteer Marek is going under all my contributions in order to delete them, as it is evident in Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow and Warsaw Pact.-- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Flushout1999 is hitting a trifect on those article. WP:POV - on Harvest of Sorrow, he's got a criticism section which is six times the length of the rest of the article, misrepresenting sources - the sources actually give a positive reviews to the book but Flushout1999 has managed to cherry pick single sentences or out of context quotations to make it seem like the sources are critical of the book, and to top it all of WP:COPYVIO where they copy paste entire paragraphs (cherry picked of course) from the sources. In particular they've been told about WP:COPYVIO, they've been warned about it, but none the less persist in re-adding copyvio material. I suggest an indef block until the user acknowledges that we have a policy on copyright and promises to respect it. Volunteer Marek  22:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A discussion recently started on another page; here is a comment about this. Then an RSNB report was filed by another user. Here is a discussion on talk page of Flushout1999. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Marek and MVBW. They deserve thanks, because someone is going to have to through Wikipedia and remove/fix all of Flushout1999's edits, which are a toxic combination of POV-pushing, tendentiousness, and copyright violations. As best I can tell, Flushout1999's sole reason for editing Wikipedia is to try to discredit Robert Conquest (a reputable, if opinionated, historian) by any means necessary. Personally, I was planning to wait till he was done and then try to clean up the damage, but a more proactive approach would probably be wiser. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

MastCell, Volunteer Marek, and My Very Best Wishes are correct. Flushout1999 is editing contrary to policy and looks like he isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Just had the unfortunate experience of looking through User:Flushout1999's recent edits. Propose either block or topic ban for Flushout1999 until he can behave himself. Darx9url (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just looking to me as a cherry picking of old diff in order to put myself in a bad light and imply that I am in bad faith. I ask the administrators to go through the entire talks that have been reported here. The editors here are just now working as a team in order to have my edits deleted definitively, because they share the same point of view on these particular topics.

My edits were all well sourced with reliable sources, if there was copyvio is because I am still new here and I had not time to read all the policies until few days ago (see my contributions to verify, still few and on few pages). Here all these users are just looking for a way to punish me as I have been too "bold" in their opinion. They actually know and are aknowledging that the facts I reported in my edits are well sourced and real, but nonetheless they are always looking for new ways in order to delete my edits. What happened here is that they never assumed good faith since the beginning, go in Talk:Robert Conquest, you will see a persistent constant attack towards me with allegations of "having an agenda" (perhaps, just to improve the article?) and claims of being marked with a "sin". While what you see in The Harvest of Sorrow it looks to me like just a hidden vandalism (WP:SNEAKY: "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages") as they don't delete only what they claim should not stay there (for copyvio and not RS) but everything everytime. And, moreover, they don't improve the page in any form, just reverting it to a stub.

This is, in actual facts, POV pushing of their own personal point of view and a form of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing as they want to be present in the articles only what is according to their own personal point of view. Moreover User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes are now working as a team in order to delete my edits in The Harvest of Sorrow and discourage me to correct eventual issues on my edits. What I see it's just a distortion and misuse of the wikipedia policies in order to not have others editors going ahead with the edits they dislike (as these edits are not in agreement with their own personal point of view) even if, in the final outcome, these edits would comply with the wikipedia policies. In fact they are just working as political partisans here on wikipedia, in order to not have reported important facts that they dislike while knowing they really did happen. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang block (48 hours) for forum shopping at ANI and tendentious editing with a refusal to accept consensus or drop the stick. Hard to take you serious when you have refused to follow policies such as copyright under the claim that you are new. You began editing in July 2013. We don't appreciate having our time wasted collectively with such tripe. There is currently an article which is full-protected for a week because of you and I'm surprised that you didn't get blocked then. Perhaps it would be a good idea if someone would leave a neutrally-worded request on the talk pages of the three pertinent WikiProjects for more input into future discussion. This may relieve the editors that have been dealing with this and get more eyes on those articles.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh please...I never went to this noticeboard in order to not be blocked, in fact I was expecting to be blocked because of the copyvio. If the wikipedia rules state that you get a block when you commit copyvio more than one time then it's really fine to me! Mine was not an excuse in order to not be blocked, it was only an explanation of how it happened!

I did not came here to not be blocked, I came here for a totally different purpose: to address the fact of the presence of "political partisans" who are doing whatever is possible to have important and undisputable facts omitted and deleted from the articles pages, who are distorting and using policies (such as WP:CONSENSUS for example, but also WP:RS) in order to have only their own personal point of view be present in the articles. For this reason, as I have more time, I will continue to write in the talk pages of those articles bringing again and again more new sources and proofs of the facts which I believe deserve to be present in those articles. And of course I will refrain to make new edits on those page if there is no consensus.

Let's see what happens! Maybe I could be wrong and mine is only a misperception! I would be very very glad to give my apologies if I'll be proved wrong! -- Flushout1999 (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If I summarise your comment, Flushout1999, it reads as "I'm assuming bad faith until proven wrong." What I am reading in your editing pattern and general behaviour on Wikipedia is that it is you who is the partisan editor here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Being here to test other editors on how far you can push your POV before you point your finger at them and accuse them of obstructing your attempts to get at The Truth = you're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Iryna, until the other users assume bad faith towards me, I'll just repay them with the same money, if they are not going to change this attitude of theirs towards me. Until now, they had only demonstrate that they simply wanted to cancel my edits since the beginning, as well put out by MasterCell comments [5].

I accepted the block without protesting and, of course, I assume all the responsability for the copyvio which I accidentally made, but this is something that will be so easy to resolve in the near future and in my future edits, that I really believe now the issue is another.

For example, in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is written clearly:

"we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

Everything was very verifiable and from reliable sources, and when the sources are primary (like it can be Conquest himself speaking) I use to write quotation. So I really think this does not apply to me.

(And that's in fact why you were able to check on copyvio, because the sources were real, verifiable and reliable indeed, as these are: wikileaks PLUSD [6] (search "Robert Conquest"), official biography of Henry Jackson [7], official biography of Margaret Thatcher ([8], it can be easily found on libgen if you want to check it), and, Conquest's "Reflections on a Ravaged Century", chapter 7 and 9).

WP:NOTHERE is something that you can apply more correctly to people who are reducing articles to a stub, instead to people like me who worked to improve the same articles adding new facts and sources. Also I see you have a long record here in this very ANI thread, as you are involved in many present and old incidents like these ones [9][10][11], because of that it is very hard to consider you a "neutral" contributor to wikipedia. It seems to me you spend more time in the Administrator noticeboards fighting with other contributors than editing the articles, is this not WP:NOTHERE?

As stated there: "If a user has a dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing." It looks to me that you never seek dispute resolution in a peaceful way, but instead you just look (as others do) for solutions aimed at punishing whoever does not share your personal POV.

In any case, I really believe that dispute resolution with the aim of giving the project high priority has to be found focusing on contents and not on simply citing of wikipedia policies/pages in order to prove that the others are wrong, or going under the users' talk pages filling them with "warnings", so that, at the end, only your personal POV can be present in the wikipedia articles, which is something that you and others seems to do constantly.

I asked the other users more than one time to discuss about contents in the talk pages, they have been actually only able to delete my edits and to accuse me of copyvio. I am still waiting for an answer on contents so I am now asking myself if they actually had something to add to the articles in order to improve them or if they are only able to destroy the others' edits. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've just glanced at Flushout's 6500 character change to The Harvest of Sorrow. It's not terrible, he's going to the right source for criticism of Conquest's (inflated) death count, Slavic Review, which is the main American journal for Soviet Studies. Conquest is a controversial figure in the field; he's very, very political with his scholarship, one of the main anti-Communist historians of the 1970s and 1980s. The mainstream of history writing for the Soviet period is well to Conquest's left, but neither would it be accurate or fair to call Conquest a "fringe" historian. There was a huge generational fissure between the Traditionalist/Anti-Communist/Conservative/Political historians of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and the new, post-Vietnam era Social Historians, who tend to be liberal or socialist in their personal politics. The latter group in the 1980s were known as "Revisionists" in contrast to the "Traditionalists" — not to be confused with German holocaust denialists, who use the same word as a self-describer. Bear in mind that I've just glanced at Flushout's stuff and especially have no opinion on the copyvio complaint — but at a glance he appeared to be serious and reasonable. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Again, with respect to his changes to the Conquest bio, I am far more concerned with the one-shot rollback of 43000 characters of Flushout's generally pretty decent work than I am with the contribution itself — offering no opinion on any potential copyvio. It appears to me that Flushout is being sandbagged by conservative "owners" of the article, who blew up a lot of generally pretty good work with a hand grenade. As usual, it is the wrong version being "protected" by a meddling page freeze. It would be extremely unjust to block Flushout or to topic ban him, he's clearly a serious and grounded historian coming into conflict with people who do not share his interpretations. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• The history of Flushout on the Denial of the Holodomor piece is more troubling, resembling an effort to whitewash a section for political reasons (PLP?). Getting to the bottom of this would take more time than I have this evening. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the version which Flushout wrote myself. It is primarily based on this Village Voice investigation which is a very detailed look at the book and its claims. It is mentioned in Flushout's writing that the Village Voice's article is controversial. Conquest's own response to the piece is given as well: "error and absurdity". Further down in Flushout's writing, there is a review in the journal Slavic Review, which is a very respectable journal of Soviet studies. There is definitely an argument that the criticism relies too much on the Village Voice source. However, the article as it stands now is nothing more than a stub, and all the content added, good and bad has been eviscerated. This is not the way to write an article. The editor is definitely one with a strong POV, but their contributions were not all bad. This needs to be handled with nuance and appropriate phrasing, not sledgehammer tactics. Unfortunately, I am not especially knowledgeable about the topic to do it myself. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On the Denial of the Holodomor article, I again see their edit here as perfectly legitimate. The edit is straightforward WP:OR claiming that the Village Voice article denies the Holodomor. No source is given for this claim, as Flushout correctly state in their edit summaries. The Village Voice article explicitly states that there was a famine, for which Stalin was partially responsible, but states that this did not rise to the level of a genocide. This kind of stuff cannot simply be summarized as "denial of the Holodomor" without any source, as some people on the talk page have discussed. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Having dug more into this, the entire "Modern Denial" section, one section of which Flushout edited, is one huge WP:OR. Absolutely trash sources, or no sources, are used for wild claims, including a discussion at the mailing list of Left Business Observer (I know the publication and have followed it for a long time, but its mailing list is a free for all, by design). Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed as I read better the sources used for the Jeff Coplon part in Denial of the Holodomor, I can say not only we are in front to a huge WP:OR with the conclusion that Jeff Coplon is a "Holodomor denier" never being present in the primary sources reported [12] [13]. In fact, Coplon never denied the famine but instead only denied that it was a "genocide" and that it was "planned/premeditated", as most sovietologist historian do (for example R.W. Davies and S. Wheatcroft [14], and even the later Conquest himself! [15], [16] pag.3 note 6), but also, it is not clear at all what is that makes different a "holodomor denier" journalist denying human premeditation in the famine, from a respected historian denying the very same premeditation!

In "Rewriting History", Jeff Coplon cites historian J. Arch Getty so that it's apparent his conclusions are the same of Getty. Coplon writes "Stalin and the Politburo played major roles" and then cites Getty: "[Responsability for the famine] has to be shared by the tens of thousands of activists and officials who carried out the policy and by the peasants who chose to slaughter animals, burn fields, and boycott cultivation in protest." (see also: [17]) Is this denying the 1932-33 Ukraine famine?

Actually it seems to me that confusion arise because in the article it is not stated very well if to be "holodomor denier" means one person denying just the existence of the famine itself (like Walter Duranty did), or if it means one who denies that it was "planned/premeditated" or that it was "genocide", without denying its existence.

This would be in any case deeply troubling, as not only the conclusion "Jeff Coplon=Holodomor Denier" can put in the position of being "Holodomor Deniers" many sovietologist historians, but this particular conclusion on just Coplon himself would be anyway a so partisan/biased conclusion that even if a secondary source is found it would have to be correctly cited stating "According to ...".

P.s. Thanks Carrite and Kingsindian for having read my old edits, if you found any problem in them and you want to tell me about it on my talk page I would be more than happy on having some advise from you for my future edits. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, according to Cathy Young, [18],

Revisionist Sovietologist J. Arch Getty accused Conquest of parroting the propaganda of "exiled nationalists." And in January 1988, the Village Voice ran a lengthy essay by Jeff Coplon (now a contributing editor at New York magazine) titled "In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right." Coplon sneered at "the prevailing vogue of anti-Stalinism" and dismissed as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime. Such talk, he asserted, was meant to justify U.S. imperialism and whitewash Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis.

Hence Coplon dismissed as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime. Consider a journalist who dismissed as absurd the idea that the Holocaust had been created by the Nazi regime. Would he qualify as a Holocaust denialist? Now, if you think that Cathy Yang was wrong, please bring other sources, but not your personal opinion, and not the writings by Coplon himself. But this is a content dispute, is not it? Why bring this to ANI? My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content. The diff I gave above had no sources at all. Furthermore, an opinion by a journalist that another journalist is engaging in Holodomor denial is not sufficient to assert in Wikipedia's voice that it is indeed so, without any source at all. Not to mention that even the source you give does not state that Coplon engaged in Holodomor denial. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Young is a journalist. Dr. Arch Getty is a full professor of Russian History at UCLA. Who is the subject expert here? Carrite (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindan. Yes, sure, this is a behavior problem. I responded to Flushout because he/she continued placing walls of irrelevant text in this thread with promises "to repay them [other users] with the same money", right after receiving a block for forum shopping. @Carrite. The quotation was about specific publication by Coplon, not about Getty. Speaking about Getty, he much better known than Coplon and his historical approach is frequently described in books by Oxford University Press here) as "similar in many ways to the line taken by the revisionist school in Germany, with its opposition to moral condemnation of Nazism, its call to "historicize" Nazism, and its objection to such crude terms as "heroes" and "villains"". My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the big wall of text which Flushout1999 placed were not helpful, but sometimes big content disputes require some elaboration. But I see their edits on the Denial of the Holodomor article as perfectly good. I advise Flushout to read the essay WP:TLDR. I also advise Flushout that their attitude "Users assume bad faith towards me, I will pay them back with their own money" is disastrous, especially in a contentious topic area. Even if you suspect users assume bad faith towards you, you should stay calm and not retaliate. I advise Flushout to read the excellent essay WP:GLUE. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll always assume good faith but I have to say this was not done at all towards me since the beginning. I now read WP:PARAPHRASE so that I have now clear how I will be able to fix my past edits, I will just go back to the talk pages so we can all discuss on contents first. For the WP:TLDR, the issue is very complex so I'll probably have some trouble to synthesize my opinions but I'll try. I'll now check this issue on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor#WP:OR in the .22Modern Denial.22 section., I'll basically copy-paste what I wrote above trying to be more coincise. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Experienced editors should know better than to make edits like this. I haven't reviewed the other edits by Flushout1999 but he was certainly right to remove that section. Ssscienccce (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, Flushout was wrong by engaging in edit war on this page with several contributors and by trying to disprove reliable sources on the basis of his own ideas, like here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on the talk page allow interpretations and arguments - that is not WP:OR by itself. This is to be sharply distinguished from making changes in article space based on no sources at all, which is present in the diff I and Ssscienccce presented. I agree with the edit-warring claim though. Flushout seems to have simmered down and is following proper procedure now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

All editing by Flushout1999 during last year was directed towards promoting certain POV in several related articles. He/she should either stop doing this by making edits which do not cause objections from multiple contributors or edit something else. My very best wishes (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

At least his removal of the Coplon attack section was in line with BLP and OR. The revert by Iryna Harpy certainly wasn't. A single source was used for a whole section that claimed Coplon was a Holodomor denier. And that single source was the article Coplon wrote, pretty much the definition of OR. I mentioned that section in the RfC a few weeks ago, didn't bother removing it because I know who would win that battle, either by endless discussions or with help from friends... Flushout1999 did remove it, we'll see how long it takes before that account is blocked indeff... Ssscienccce (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this is mostly fixed right now, thanks to effort by Iryna Harpy and others. You are telling that Flushout1999 can contribute positively to the project as follows from his editing history in Holodomor denial (3 reverts and discussion). However, the actual problem is here. Flushout1999 re-wrote the page about Robert Conquest by copy-pasting large segments of text from an article by Jeff Coplon (related discussion), same person he removed from the page about Holodomor denial. So, after looking at his editing in general, I tend to agree with comments by user MastCell [19]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF gaming changes to MEDRS guideline

There is currently a dispute at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Clarifying_.22biomedical.22 regarding the meaning and importance of the word "biomedical" in the guideline WP:MEDRS.

CFCF (talk · contribs) took it upon themselves to edit the guideline towards their preferred interpretation[20][21] while discussion on this exact issue was ongoing, and consensus was completely unclear. I have asked him to self-revert these changes,[22][23] to which he has not responded.

He has, however, since gone on to quote the text he had just changed[24] in support of his position in a content dispute at Talk:Domestic_violence_against_men#Wikipedia_policy. Per WP:TALKFIRST this should be considered WP:GAMING. I am not asking for any specific outcome, but my hope is that greater attention from the community will at least convince CFCF that he may not act unilaterally in this matter. Rhoark (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The change from medical to biomedical was made in July of this year and seems to have snuck under the radar [25]. The recent changes were merely restoration to the original interpretation of policy, and are not intended to do anything beyond clarify the position of the guideline. Of note is that the essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information has been present in the lede for the entire duration of this discussion. Consensus is clear, and I have responded to requests by this user by stating that the changes are fully due and supported. Multiple discussions can be found, notably at WT:MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 18:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, With respect, the change in July was from medical to biomedical[26]; the change made in this edit[27] is from biomedical to biomedical and health - a significant expansion on the scope in July - and the locus of the current dispute referred to by Rhoark above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, I invite editors to examine the differences[28] between the July version & the most current. I note numerous removal of biomedical, and corresponding insertion of health where it was not present in July. Given that "health" is being proposed to cover all aspects of public health, not simply "medical information", I suggest that this is a sufficient expansion of scope. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, note that, despite Ryk72's claim, "health" and/or "medical" was in place of "biomedical" in various places in July. The guideline had been stable in that respect. This was changed in August, as seen with this and this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know that this really needs an ANI report at this point, especially since there are currently ongoing discussions at the MEDRS talk page, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and the talk pages of Domestic violence and Domestic violence against men. At this point, I assume CF's participation in the discussions and edits to the guideline are made in good faith, as are yours Rhoark. But there is obviously some misunderstanding about the guideline and its application -CF seems to be saying that all content related to statistics and prevalence must be sourced according to MEDRS and that is just wrong, and it's being used to exclude content that is reliably sourced. I think it's time for a full bore RfC on the MEDRS guideline and the scope of its application. I have never started an RfC before, but I can try to do that - or someone else can? Minor4th 21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the section is not to settle any questions about MEDRS, but to address the behavior of changing a guideline in order to play it as a trump card in an existing content dispute. The fact that it read similarly three months ago is not sufficient justification. If it "flew under the radar" then, that's because it was not actively disputed at that time. The bottom line is that edits to policy and guideline pages need to come from consensus, not be used to strongarm consensus. Rhoark (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: CFCF is correct; like I recently stated, he was simply restoring the guideline to the WP:STATUSQUO. Like I also noted at the WP:MEDRS talk page, to MastCell, who recognized the same thing, "[Y]our comment touches on what I stated above about men's rights editors; the domestic violence articles, and similarly related sex/gender medical articles (such as reproductive coercion), have been burdened by these editors wanting to forgo higher-quality sources so that they can push a particular POV (in the case of the domestic violence material, it's usually the POV that men are affected by domestic violence more than women are or more so, or that there are just as many women who commit domestic violence as there men who do so). A lot of editors are drained because of this, and many have walked away from these articles because of this. We have Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, but that isn't always enough, especially considering that these editors commonly pop back up with new registered accounts and/or coordinate off-Wiki to gang up on Wikipedia editors." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again, this is not the place to recapitulate the whole MEDRS discussion. I have to state the correction though that you are the one pushing sources that do not meet MEDRS recommendations. There is nothing about the way the guideline was edited three months ago that gives license to ignore talk page consensus right now. Rhoark (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that I am "the one pushing sources that do not meet MEDRS recommendations" is incorrect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And this thread is a complete waste of time. CFCF will not be blocked or sanctioned for restoring the guideline to the WP:STATUSQUO. And this noticeboard is not for such disagreements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• A person who is advocating a particular interpretation of a Wikipedia policy and seeing significant opposition should never be allowed to edit the policy so that it supports his interpretation while the discussion is ongoing. CFCF should be warned, and if he does it again, blocked. Please note that Flyer22 Reborn advocates the same contentious interpretation of policy that CFCF does, and thus may be biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Needless to state, my view contrasts Guy Macon's view. He is yet another editor from the contentious group trying to get CFCF sanctioned. I invited him to report me here at WP:ANI, but, alas, no such report was filed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And as I keep reminding Guy Macon, WP:MEDRS is a guideline; it is not a policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"They" act upon it as if it is holier than the Bible. And it is often misused to shut out inconvenient parts like positive sources about organic subjects. The Banner talk 08:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My main concern about applying MEDRS to "non-biological medicine" or "anything related to human health" is that MEDRS was written to cover subjects like whether cholesterol-lowering drugs improve lifespan. It was not written to cover basic safety (please look both ways before crossing the street), refrigeration (please don't drink spoiled milk), car wrecks (bad for your health!), discrimination and poverty (both of which are also bad for your health). When we say "health", some people then misunderstand it as being the primary guideline for all of these subjects. When we say "biomedical", they are more likely to get it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am with WhatamIdoing 100% on this one (great minds think alike...). The key here is that a Wikipedia reader can reasonably be expected to use our site when deciding whether whether to accept a doctor's advice to take cholesterol-lowering drugs. Because of this, any information we give out on cholesterol-lowering drugs must be referenced to the higher MEDRS standard. Readers can not reasonably be expected to use our pages on safety, refrigeration, car wrecks, discrimination or poverty to help them to make medical decisions, even though, as WhatamIdoing correctly pointed out, they all have major effects on public health. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the scope of the WikiProject Med, and artificial line is being drawn between different approaches to addressing health. Public health topics like car crashes, occupational safety, domestic violence, sanitation, and disasters & emergency recovery efforts have evidenced based research in systematic reviews. It is most important for national guidelines, and people making organizational level decisions to use evidenced based content when writing these policies and guidelines. And Wikipedia articles need to reflect this high standard, too. So, MEDRS is relevant in public topics, too. For example Cochrane has a research study group called Work whose scope is to study "exposure at work to agents adverse to health, working behaviour adverse to health, occupational and work-related diseases or disorders, occupational disability or sick leave, occupational injuries and health promotion at the workplace. These interventions can be labeled prevention, treatment, management or rehabilitation."

In a few weeks, a group of Wikipedia medical editors are meeting in Washington, DC with US Federal agencies to discuss how to work together to get their research on to Wikipedia. There are already two Wikipedian in Residence at CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Additionally, Wikipedia readers are not just consumers but health care professionals, students, and policy makers, and leaders. Wikipedia content is the starting place for many of them looking for a quick reference. We are doing them a disservice if we don't maintain a high level of quality across all health related topics. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

High quality is good, but MEDRS means excluding information. For example, most of DNA methylation or exercise would simply be deleted if all health-related claims had to be sourced by MEDRS. That doesn't help researchers or the general public. Rhoark (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in those two articles would need to be excluded, since all of it can be replaced by WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. For example, WP:MEDDATE states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." It is also clear that newer is not necessarily better. If the older source is better, then we go with that, as medical editors commonly do at the Circumcision article. Furthermore, the Physical exercise article certainly commonly adheres to WP:MEDRS; Doc James takes care of that article, and Talk:Physical exercise is tagged with the WP:Med banner. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In practice, most of what's in those articles would be excluded, because several of MEDRS' enforcers have difficulty understanding how that sentence applies. There is also a persistent misperception that the sentence which begins "ideal sources include" means "you may only use the following types of sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree there since I can't imagine any WP:MEDRS enforcer removing most of the content from those two articles. Doc James is a MEDRS enforcer, for example, and I don't see where he's hacked away from the Physical exercise article in a ridiculous fashion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, though, that "There is also a persistent misperception that the sentence which begins 'ideal sources include' means 'you may only use the following types of sources'." I've seen that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:FloNight, this is your personal reminder that it doesn't matter what WikiProject Medicine's scope is (available at WP:MEDA, if anyone cares; note that I wrote most of it and am probably still the person best qualified to answer any questions about it), because MEDRS belongs to the whole community, exactly like WP:RS does. MEDRS is a community guideline, not a WikiProject WP:Advice page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Call for administrator intervention

A person who is advocating a particular interpretation of a Wikipedia guideline and seeing significant opposition should not be allowed to edit the guideline so that it supports his interpretation while the discussion is ongoing. CFCF should be warned, and if he does it again, blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole case is an attempt to missinterpret consensus by users engaged in pushing questionable content at Domestic violence against men, and an attempt to gain an advantage in a content-dispute by "scaring away" other editors. These editors have tag-teamed against the proper supported consensus that can be seen in the discussion and are not engaging in constructive discussion as present in the active RfC. CFCF 💌 📧 12:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep using the word consensus, but I don't think it means what you think it means. Rhoark (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have warned all involved here. What I am wondering is why this has been broken up into two section? Also "health" was used in the guideline before and someone took it out with a lack of discussion. So it is sort of murky what is the long standing consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The last time I checked, the word "health" was still in the guideline—about twenty-five (25) times. Having the word on the page 25 times is hardly the result of "someone taking it out". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking indef ban of Second Dark

Hello, I'm seeking to have the user Second Dark (talk | contribs) indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Their account was created in May this year, and is solely aimed at disrupting The Frankfurt School page. This user has so far been warned for violating WP:TPG, WP:CANVASSING and has previously received a 24 hour ban for WP:EDITWARRING - such is the composition of their talk page. More recently the account has adopted the tactic of WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING against the editorial consensus. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and to my mind this is an open and shut case that would have been resolved the first time I raised it - but wasn't due to a distracting sock puppet investigation (the user was found not to be a sock, but is still worthy of a ban). Literally every edit to The Frankfurt School page this user has made has been reverted by other editors (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5), all of whom have made their best efforts to explain the situation to this disruptive user. Please make sure this matter gets resolved this time, as it risks falling into the category of WP:LONG long-term abuse --Jobrot (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You neglected to inform them of this discussion so I've placed a notice on their user talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Liz, I must have gotten distracted. --Jobrot (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Recommend BOOMERANG. From his contributions history, Jobrot is a battlegrounding edit-warring SPA who is here to make Wikipedia describe cultural marxism as a right-wing conspiracy theory (it is neither) in violation of the neutrality pillar as well as the civility pillar since Jobrot is calling the other editors in the content dispute conspiracy theorists. Second Dark is also an SPA but he is not breaking policies.

Anyone interested in the subject in dispute can refer to p.189-190 of Great Ideas, Grand Schemes by Paul Schumaker et al which describes 20th-century communist philosophies as calling for "a total and revolutionary transformation of society", "transforming human consciousness", and "cultural revolution" to "break down political and social institutions and customs on a continual basis." Examples are given of the Soviet Union and Maoist China. The content dispute is over whether everyone who is aware that this history happened should be described in Wikipedia's voice as a right-wing conspiracy theorist and associated with the mass murderer Anders Breivik. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The page and section isn't dealing with "communist philosophies" in general - and the key proponents of this conspiracy theory are specifically claiming its aim as "destroying Western culture and the Christian religion" - the conspiracy theory is associated with Breivik as he championed it in his manifesto as reported in various WP:RS sources. In fact, all the sources in the current section meet WP:RS.

"Second Dark.. ...is not breaking policies." ignoring editorial consensus, repetitively performing WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING without consulting or even listing any complaints on the talk page, disruptive edits to the talk page, WP:IDHT and not being WP:HERE for the right reasons (in this case, comming here only to break policies) are all policy violations. Besides which Second Dark is a repeat offender and has already been warned several times in several ways by several different admins as well as users. Their time here is over, and they have proved their disinterest in community, policy and editorial consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What consensus?[29][30]

Reading this article for the first time, and knowing nothing of the subject matter, I also thought it quite inappropriate that 'conspiracy theory' is used as if a fact rather than reported as a claim made by opponents.... Wikipedia should not be using an abusive term as a statement of fact. As an analogy, you may well find sources saying George Bush is an idiot, but describing him as such as a matter of fact (e.g. 'During his presidency it became clear that Bush was an idiot', or the heading 'President and idiot') rather than reporting someone else's description of him as an idiot is to say the least unencyclopedic. Ben Finn (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

In your defenses of the deletion, you're attributing undue weight to left-wing sources which deliberately seek to discredit the beliefs of the right using rhetoric similar to that which you are employing in our discussion. We would not (for example) use primarily right-wing sources to dictate the tone and content of the article on feminism unless we were Conservapedia ... Ptprs (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is quite simply WP:NPOV and WP:OR of the worst kind imaginable. Please keep in mind what trade literature has to say on the subject and don't develop your own theories or try and portray a very common term in cultural studies as a "conspiracy theory", this is unsuitable for an Encyclopedia. 62.157.60.248 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's crazy how people are so desperate to pretend that saying the Frankfurt School was influential in forming the current American Left ideology is somehow a "conspiracy theory." I took courses in philosophy at UMKC which discussed the Frankfurt School at length, although my professor was trying to put them in a positive light (in my opinion) and calling it "cultural Marxism" was no big deal, cause it was Marxism and it was about culture instead of economics... --BenMcLean (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015 - Change "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism". Remove condemnation of racism and include references to association with racist ideologies. Overall, make the tone significantly more neutral... Ideloctober (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please make the section heading CM not CT - I don't care about whatever you guys are all into, but a heading should be as descriptive as possible. It is currently failing.... Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

... This is disappointing, embarrassing, and far from any neutral point of view being claimed... — 50.252.14.210 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not do as German wiki and create Cultural Marxism as a disambiguation page with links to Cultural Studies and a page about Cultural Marxism as a right wing catch-phrase/slogan? ... --Batmacumba (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As we can see in this article the term "kulturmarxist" was already in use by the 1960s to describe Frankfurt schule proponents among the German academic right. It's absolutely not true that the term didn't appear until 1992. VivaElGeneralissmo (talk • contribs) 22:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How has Jobrot been allowed to completely defy the overwhelming consensus on this talk page that Cultural Marxism should have its own page? 86.170.51.163 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Jobrot wants Second Dark banned for adding a POV tag here.[31][32][33][34][35] That is the "disrupting", "not here", "disinterest in community, policy and consensus" etc that Jobrot refers to. Adding a POV tag to a POV dispute. Again, recommend BOOMERANG. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(Above post formatted by Softlavender for ease of comprehension in this overlong thread.) Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What you've done there is very dishonest indeed. You've taken parts of the talk page which came BEFORE consensus was formed, and pasted them AS IF they represent the current views of the active editors on the page. I have pasted a link to the consensus, but obviously I now have to do what you've just done, and quote from the page it's self:

Main page: Frankfurt School Talk page

I'd be interested in hearing from other editors on this matter so we can gauge the consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Any of the more descriptive ones would be fine with me. I guess I like "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" the best but only by a little bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:RFP I've put in a request to the appropriate admin for lowering the protection on the redirect page so that we can change the heading (without breaking the redirect). If nothing comes of it I'll put a more general request in at WP:RFP. Thanks for your interest in this topic. In the meanwhile, hopefully some other editors will comment as to clarify consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped the protection to semi; can I suggest changes are only made when there's a clear consensus to do so, though? At the moment, there appear to be at least three options on the table. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I would support "Cultural Marxism (Conspiracy Theory)". It's clear from what Jobrot has said before that this page does not address the common usage of 'Cultural Marxism' among conservatives, but only about the fringe conspiracy theories related to that usage, as attested by RS's. This would be more descriptive and avoid the earlier conflation between the two. PublicolaMinor (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for the parenthetical. Just write "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Or just leave it as is. Dave Dial (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and made those changes! Congratulations on helping to come to the first consensus based decision this talk page has seen in a long time! --Jobrot (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is all from the bottom quarter of the talk page, making it some of the most recent discussion on the page. The stuff you've pasted is from the top half, and those discussions CONTINUED until the other participants either saw reason, or saw enough reason to cease their line of argumentation. THAT is the purpose of talk pages - to DISCUSS editorial changes to the page - NONE of the threads you quotes accomplished consensus. Hardly ANY of them were even suggesting editorial changes, and many of them were going against WP:TPG - I suggest this IP user, along with Second Dark BOTH do as I have repeatedly advised - learn the purposes behind policy. I'll note here again that today Second Dark is once again demanding the NPOV tag be put on the section, without being able to suggest ANY changes to the article that would help. It's just a personal WP:BATTLEGROUND desire of theirs to call the section NPOV when it's not - and they need to accept that what they're doing goes against the WP:NPOV guidelines:

Main article: NPOV

"Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"

"Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

Learn the rules if you're going to come here and flood this page. --Jobrot (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Since this appears to be about the whole "cultural Marxism" thing, this AfD discussion might be of some use. In short, some people disagree with it being called a conspiracy theory and think a simple POV tag is going to it. clpo13_(talk) 08:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And those people have provided NO EVIDENCE, and NO UNDERSTANDING of the topic. As I've just made clear at the bottom of the current section of the talk page. There is no case to be made that The Frankfurt School was ever part of any organized movement to overthrow Western Civilization, and it's a poor reflection on Wikipedia that I'm having to go to this much repeated effort to re-iterate this simple yet obvious fact about The Frankfurt School. No academic nor any reliable sources have EVER made this claim of them because it's a RIDICULOUS claim to make about them and goes against their own writings and beliefs. --Jobrot (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of WP:NPOV it's a matter of WP:DRIVEBY and now of WP:BATTLEGROUND and it needs clearing up with great prejudice in favor of the academic and editorial consensus. It's clear whose side Wikipedia should take, and what should be done as this specific user has been lingering and displaying poor conduct for some time now. Do not let it fall into the category of WP:LONG, this user has already been overlooked once for a banning (and now we're back here), don't let it happen again. There are no redeeming features. --Jobrot (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• The user is now edit warring. --Jobrot (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's JobRot who has been edit warring by removing the POV tag when there is a clear POV dispute. He has camped out there for months and has refused to work with literally dozens of people. I'm willing for there to be a no POV tag once the dispute is resolved, but it has to date not even been entertained. He also consistently accuses me of vandalism when I haven't made a single edit except the tag. I've tried to work with him but he refuses and is in violation of the consensus on the talk that the article is not neutral.Second Dark (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you even know what the term "consensus" means? I've linked to the consensus I'm talking about, and there has already been a consensus on the previous AfD. What do you have to show your "consensus"? Nothing. So your accusation is as foolish as it is empty. Likewise demanding there be a POV tag due to the title (as is your claim) when there is a strong pre-existing consensus on the title (as I've linked to) IS VANDALISM and a VIOLATION OF CONSENSUS. This is an example of the consistent WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE actions I've had to endure from this user and their edits - they are only here to WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND and they refuse to WP:LISTEN. This arduous and repetitive cycle must stop. This user fails to accept policy or even recognize consensus (as you can see in their own statements). They need to be banned to stop this madness. --Jobrot (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• At the very least they should be permanently banned from The Frankfurt School page and the associated talk page. This is not the first time they've been disruptive there, but it ought to be the last. --Jobrot (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You've also refused to discuss adding sources, academic sources, that counter your point of view. Any Admin can just look at the talk page. Also, about half the talk page is JobRot trying to scare people away from the page. He's been doing this for months. He's also lying when he says there was any sort of consensus: he's basically an army of one. I'm willing to work with him, but this is very clearly a POV dispute if there ever was one.Second Dark (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please - feel free to go to the talk page and cite an academic source and quote the text you think should be included. That would be a LEGITIMATE use of the talk page! Which we could have a legitimate editorial discussion around! PLEASE DO THIS! I'VE BEEN ASKING YOU TO DO THIS SINCE MAY. Instead you've been failing to WP:HEAR me, and using the talk page as a WP:FORUM to discuss your personal views on the matter - which I frankly don't care about at all (as I've now made clear to you on multiple occasions). --Jobrot (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

All you've done on multiple occasions is prevent a neutral point of view from being added. I'm not the only user there who you've had a problem with. The page simply needs admin attention at this point.Second Dark (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

...and back to square one we go! --Jobrot (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've suggested several sources over the months as evidenced by the talk page...then he starts screaming that they're my personal opinions. Please stop lying. Do you really think your accusations aren't verifiable? JobRot has wikiowned the section and talk page. I really need admin attention at this point. I'll check back shortly.Second Dark (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:deadhorse --Jobrot (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you just try to ignore this editor, and the anon ips who continuously push this conspiracy theory. That is the reason I reverted the attack on the article Talk page that you reinstated. It's not going to do any good to reason with these editors who refuse to listen. Pointing to the AfD or other discussions that we've had over and over is enough now to show consensus. Responding to every comment-attack is really just useless. I also agree the editor(Second Dark) should be blocked for disruption and tendentious editing Dave Dial (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Request block of Dave Dial for personal attack. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your initial revert to the talk page was probably the correct direction to go in. The user in question hasn't been on the talk page since PublicolaMinor and Aquillion showed up. So I suspect my presence there is their problem with Wikipedia. I'll try to stick to WP:horse but as you suggest, users who repeatedly flaunt their inability to WP:LISTEN to policy should probably be removed from causing everyone else problems... and policy/consensus has been quite clear on this topic Talk Page consensus, AfD consensus, MfD consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The only problem is that SecondDark tends to take large breaks then come back for repeat performances - as they did in May and September. Which is why I'm pushing the issue here. This isn't their first stint at this, and they've been directed to policy often enough that normal comprehension should have occurred months ago (see their talk page). So their behaviour appears to be intentional/motivated. --Jobrot (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It's too early for anyone to be banned from Wikipedia. A topic ban, a temporary block, or an indefinite block with WP:STANDARDOFFER might be in order. But let's not jump to site bans yet. NOTES: (1) The IP participating in this discussion appears to probably be Second Dark logged out (i.e. socking), which adds to the measure of his problematic behavior. And add to that his knee-jerk "Request block of Dave Dial for personal attack", above. All things considered, I personally Support blocking Second Dark for disruption and tendentious editing. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but none of the ip's were me. I submit to an investigation if you don't believe me.Second Dark (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Meat Second Dark has proven that they only care about Wikipedia's policies to the extent they can be aided in avoiding their repercussions. Whether this has been their off site canvassing immediately after being warned for onsite canvassing, or their recent brinkmanship of 3RR after having already received a 24 hour block for violating 3RR (and in all honesty I would have had them suffer another 3RR block had this AN/I not already been in progress). They've even had the gall to complain when informed of policies - that they could have in their own words; "easily looked up themselves" - yet failed to do so. I'd say that a topic ban is the minimum that can be expected from this user's ongoing behaviour and would also serve to clear up what they are WP:HERE for. Their continued violations against WP:Consensus and tendentious editing, on top of their long lineage of other violations, uncooperative behaviours with multiple editors and unwillingness to comprehend policy when directed should have earned them at least that by now. I'd hope that would also act as a warning to others considering going down the same path. --Jobrot (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Second Dark, it's pretty obvious after the IP went for a block of Dave Dial for making an observation about you that the IP is you or someone you called in. If I were you I'd desist in all of your disruptive activities immediately, including editing the The Frankfurt School article and talk page, before you get indef blocked. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial called me a conspiracy theorist. That was a personal attack just like that 900FootJesus comment. If requesting a block is out of line, look at the title of this section. And nobody called me in. Did Jobrot call you in? 71.198.247.231 (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You've never made a single edit to Wikipedia except for this ANI thread, so you were either called in or you are Second Dark socking. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Because you're psychic? Or you cannot imagine any other reason that two different people could agree that the page fails NPOV so badly that it made the news and you are pretending not to have seen the quotes of others agreeing that you formatted. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The author of that article David Auerbach is tied into the GamerGate controversy (he even coined the term "Gamergate moderate"), and in the AfD on the previous Cultural Marxism page it was noted by many that GamerGate is a group that housed strong although ill-informed support for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Hence the resurgence of the conspiracy theory coming from GamerGate related forums [36] (where "SJWs" and "Cultural Marxists" are the same mythical beasts) [37] as well as appearing on 4chan and 8chan. However, what these ill researched individuals fail to note (and it is a stark fact of the matter) is that on the previous Wikipedia page about 'Cultural Marxism' only 3 out of 9 of the sources in the reference list (which the page is constructed around) even mentioned the term "Cultural Marxism" (and two of those references come from a single individual, with the third coming from the right wing commentator William S. Lind). Contrast this to the current section where 14 out of the 14 sources for the section use the term 'Cultural Marxism' within them. This is not a space for re-hashing the unanimous AfD and the fact that the IP is attempting to extend the controversy around GamerGate to this discussion somewhat reveals their position (which as noted, does not have the sources on its side). --Jobrot (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

None of that justifies Jobrot's persistent refusal to approach the subject in a neutral manner and throwing a salad of aspersions against anyone who suggests the slightest change in wording in a transparent attempt to get people banned for opposing his agenda. Several people have presented several sources showing that there is more to cultural marxism than the right-wing conspiracy theories and Jobrot still pretends that never happened. Jobrot refuses to allow quotes from Marcuse and Gramsci on their own beliefs and won't allow Lind to be cited for Lind's own opinion in the section about Lind's opinion that credits Lind with popularizing the term. This is a clear case of page ownership by someone who is on a mission to modify Wikipedia's content for political reasons and not to build an encyclopedia. If Jobrot is doing this to win internet points in this gamergate dispute then that is all the more evidence that the problem in this area is Jobrot. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Jobrot refuses to allow quotes from Marcuse and Gramsci on their own beliefs" - I've never made such a refusal. Also, Gramsci wasn't part of The Frankfurt School.

and won't allow Lind to be cited for Lind's own opinion in the section about Lind's opinion - I was the one who put in the Lind citation (of course his work is completely WP:OR claiming things like "when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality... ...They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual" and "Political Correctness is intellectual AIDS" - so naturally I made sure to include a secondary source that puts Lind's views in context).

If Jobrot is doing this to win internet points in this gamergate dispute then that is all the more evidence that the problem in this area is Jobrot. I've never edited the GamerGate page (nor the talk page), nor do I intend to.

Your claims are demonstrably false, and are thus most likely damaging the case you're attempting to make. --Jobrot (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I retract the claim about Gramsci since I was unable to find anyone quoting him in a quick browse of the archives. Marcuse and Lind are two of the citations from the original article that Jobrot just said were inappropriate for inclusion. As for the claim that Gramsci had nothing to do with the Frankfurt School and is not relevant to a discussion of cultural marxism, that is not what Jobrot was saying at a4d.

... this particular subject isn't covered or defined in any sense other than as directly synonymous and interchangeable with the views of The Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci... --Jobrot (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The academic use refers to Gramsci and The Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The academic school of cultral marxism is defined by Jerry Watts in The Socialist as Ostrich: The Unwillingness of the Left to Confront Modernity from Social Research vol. 50 No. 1 (1983)

Cultural Marxists are all of those who consider themselves the theoretical descendants of Gramsci, the early Korsch, Sartre, Lukács, Lucien Goldmann, and the "Frankfurt School."

When Jobrot rejects sources that discuss these subjects and their application of marxist critical techniques to culture just because they don't use the then-obscure term "cultural marxism", Jobrot is throwing out good sources.

Regarding the modern use of "cultural marxism" to describe the general tendency of marxists to attempt to change culture, a different subject worthy of a different page and what Jobrot wants Wikipedia to call a conspiracy theory, George Waskovich in The Ideological Shadow of the U.S.S.R. (1950) describes this tendency as obvious, well known, and hardly needing mention.

To one familar with Marxian ideology and the political purposes which rest on it, it is no surprise to know that the ultimate purpose of the present Soviet leaders is inexorably to transform the neighboring states into economic, social, political, and even moral counterparts of their own state, nor that certain means and measures must be used to achieve this objective. Indeed, the technique of revolutionary change has become all too clear...

Waskovich follows this with descriptions of marxist attacks on the cultural traditions of eastern Europe that the USSR used to strengthen its hold on these countries. Or as Jobrot calls it, a wacko conspiracy theory.71.198.247.231 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa, David biddulph, and JzG:admin able see if ip sock not accusation true false so ping adminMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please all calm down and settle this like adults, it seems like all this discussion had gotten is people angry. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block with WP:STANDARDOFFER as per Softlavender's suggestion. I've had enough discussion with Second Dark (6 months off and on) to know that further discussion would be WP:deadhorse, others are free to try to corral this user into understanding and accepting Wikipedia's policies but at this point and with their repeated bad behaviour and policy violations, I have to give up. --Jobrot (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: there's your answer. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Walter Görlitz

User:Walter Görlitz has repeatedly reverted my edits to Major League Soccer related articles. A consensus was established here that "FC" and "SC" were used too often in team names within Mrelated articles, and I'm trying to edit these articles to reflect this consensus, but I keep getting reverted. See these reverts, for example:

1234

This seems to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, based on this discussion on my talk page and the comments that accompany his reverts. He insists that the consensus supports his position when it clearly does not. It's become distruptive: I'd like to move on this issue and work on improving these articles, but his reverts aren't allowing that. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm tired of Bmf 051's combative editing behaviour. The consensus was clear and he's removed almost every mention of "FC" in article. That's not "less often" it's unconstructive edits. Not only did I hear it, I'm tired of him yelling about it. I'm happy for him to to have a topic ban. And it's not my position, it was a position that was agree upon when the Whitecaps entered the league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus changes. IF there was an agreement made when Vancouver entered the league (I don't think you've ever shown that such a discussion took place), this new consensus changes that. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As an example of his "less often" edit I offer this edit where he states "YOU need to read the discussion. It says FC and SC should NOT be used as much. Quit defying consensus." Yet, "less often" here means not at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My edits have left several instances of "FC" and "SC". I have not removed all them. See here for example. The discussion talks about bringing it inline with other soccer/football articles as far as the usage of "FC" and "SC". I've removed some instances, but have left others. Your edits have not removed any, which isn't at all what the consensus states. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

At least two piped-out all instances. Some edits removed several, but in what I would argue is an unacceptable way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

So what's a working-criteria for keeping or removing these? --Jobrot (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Modifying the discussion for a closed RfC. Bmf 051 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is this the place where we want to discuss a working criteria or should it be discussed where the vague criteria was offered? I returned to the project to request comment from them. I did not follow and revert Bmf 051's edits on articles not on my watchlist, only those that were. In most instances, the edits adding the FC were made by other editors so I would argue: leave them alone until a clear criteria can be offered. However, I have little hope of that happening. The FOOTY project is entrenched in a European milieu, not one with close ties with MLS.

Since I edited outside the closed RfC (after {{Rfc bottom}}), it is acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jobrot: My criteria when I made these edits: keep it for the first instance of a team's name in an article, plus any uses in templates (Template:2015 Major League Soccer Western Conference table for example) as those may appear in multiple articles, and therefore could potentially be the first instance of a team's name in a particular article. The spirit of the consensus is to bring it in line with other soccer articles. This criteria actually comes short of doing that (i.e. it leaves more instances of FC and SC than you would see in Manchester United F.C. for instance), so I'm not sure what that complaint is. Bmf 051 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And that's the point, MLS has different WP:COMMONNAMEs than European clubs do. The discussion at the RfC is imposing a European understanding on the North American teams. I have had to deal with that for years when nominating third- and fourth-division Canadian teams for deletion. The response from the FOOTY project members is "'Keep - they're a third-division team, so they're notable." They have no understanding of the sport on this side of the water. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking solely at http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news and how they elect to self-describe. As of now, the first fifteen articles use the following terms to describe themselves. "Whitecaps FC": 5, "'Caps": 4, no team name: 3, "Vancouver" 2. In the fourteen articles that loaded (one timed out or reset over two attempts), this the breakdown. "'Caps" or "the Caps": 30, "Whitecaps FC": 27, Vancouver’s" or just "Vancouver" (only in reference to the team, not the city): 21, "Vancouver Whitecaps FC": 11, "Whitecaps" or "the Whitecaps": 3, "Blue and White": 3. There's no question that they use multiple terms, but never ever just "Vancouver Whitecaps" which is why it should not be used on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

But MLS is a Single-entity league. Meaning, technically, MLS owns the team. Why are you selectively looking at that one MLS-related website? If you search mlssoccer.com, the league's site, you see "Vancouver Whitecaps" plenty of times. See. Also, what if you were look at what the media calls them, for example? Besides, the consensus is already decided: FC should be used less. You're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but technically, MLS doesn't exist, it's the teams that own each other. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The league uses the full name in standings http://www.mlssoccer.com/standings. I see no reason why we should not. They use it in schedules http://www.mlssoccer.com/schedule. So we're left with deciding on whether it's in maps and prose. Maps are likely a first mention so I would argue full name as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the solution you're suggesting reflects the consensus, because it would keep the full name in the vast majority of cases. One of the gripes that you have (I gather) is with the wording of the question itself, specifically the meaning of "less often". We could sit here all day and debate whether "less often" means one less, two less, or 100% less – or we could actually read the discussion. The spirit of the discussion that formed the consensus, was that "FC" and "SC" are used far too often. The working-criteria should not start with eliminating as few FC/SCs as possible, but with using as few FC/SCs as necessary, because that reflects the consensus. Bmf 051 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not discussing the consensus here. As I have explained, the consensus was reached by people with an understanding of the sport in a different context and if you can’t see that they misunderstand the actual situation, then it explains why you’ve been edit warring to remove almost every mention of FC for those teams, which is also against the consensus. If you don’t respect the way the league and team represent the name, then we have nothing to discuss other than a topic ban for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I really doubt that anyone has done anything here that would result in a ban.

It seems to me that the consensus you want is one that applies only to Major League Soccer articles. If such a WP:CONLIMITED consensus existed, why would it override a wider community consensus, regardless of the "context" of their "understanding of the sport"? Besides, it's not as if MLS editors weren't given the opportunity to respond to the RfC: notices were posted on the talk pages of relevant articles weeks before the discussion was closed. In fact, over half of the the editors that responded to that RfC are people that regularly edit MLS articles (including you and me). And why are you ignoring all the other references to these team's names on the rest of the MLS website? Bmf 051 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No. I would expect it to apply to all North American leagues. The problem is that the North American editors don't engage with the FOOTY project because of past experiences exactly like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what other North American editors don't engage the FOOTY project for this reason (as opposed to some other reason)? Bmf 051 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ckatz (talk · contribs) and KitHutch (talk · contribs) were two of the main editors who insisted on the separation of the three Whitecaps team articles. Three additional editors, who are have not edited in over a year discussed the topic as well. Oknazevad (talk · contribs), CUA 27 (talk · contribs), Bluhaze777 (talk · contribs) and most notably UncleTupelo1 (talk · contribs) edit MLS articles and I cannot recall seeing them in Footy discussions. There are NASL editors who I have never seen there either. I will not speculate on reasons why they don't participate in Footy discussions. Perhaps they can comment on the piping-out of FC from Whitecaps, Sounders and other club names. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My 2¢? Once initially established that the full name includes the FC?SC?Whatever, it can be dropped, just like any case of using a short name for an article subject. It almost seems pointless (yet pointy) to insist on every mention including it. Charts and tables excepted. But frankly, the majority of writing on MLS just calls them "the Sounders", not "Sounders FC"; that just reads oddly. oknazevad (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That was what I suggested above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with oknazevad's suggestion. CUA 27 (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

On an unrelated topic, I'm somewhat concerned about Bmf 051's sudden interest in a topic I edited earlier today. I trust that this is not the start of wikihounding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What is my sudden interest in Jesus? Do you hear yourself? Bmf 051 (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Not an interest in Jesus, in theology, and an obscure theological article at that. You have not edited in the area in your recent history and it happened to be at the top of my history at the time of your recent edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The larger question is, who are you to question my interest in anything? I checked your contribution page to find some diffs of your reverts, I saw a page that interested me, and I made a constructive edit. Nothing wrong with that. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There is if you're doing it for the wrong reason. I would advise you not to find any other "interesting" articles that you haven't edited before but which are normal editing subjects for Walter Gorlitz. BMK (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I know that, and I don't intend to. Not because I did it for the wrong reason (it's not uncommon for me to make minor improvements on articles that I don't normally edit e.g. this and this), but because I don't want to give the impression that I'm doing it for the wrong reason. Bmf 051 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. BMK (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Continued disregard of no original research and addition of social media links as "sources"

Soapfan2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently been adding original research to the articles of Kristen Alderson and Chad Duell, despite being told of the policies for Biographies of Living Persons. Their continued persistence in addition information, which was mere speculation and not confirmed, despite warnings (and multiple attempts to discuss) from myself and Clpo13 went unnoticed and ignored. User has long displayed this behavior for years, and it's completely troubling. User also believes social media links are acceptable for whatever purpose, even if they do continue information of third-parties, which per Wikipedia standard says that they cannot be used if it deals with subject matter that is not for primary topic. Their excuse is that "they know the truth", showing signs that they are not here to edit in a collaborative manner, and that there might be slight ownership issues of actors they appear to like (as evident of their user page). Their use of slightly inappropriate edit summaries is also uncalled for — which user has a long history of providing. User has history of owning things "cuz I said so" where social media is concerned, despite being warned and told about such information before. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Since when is Soap Opera Digest a third party resource, see your making stuff up about me again, I'm not the one that's adding sources from FB and Twitter. P.J. (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edits made to Chad Duell, this appears to have started when livelikemusic removed a duplicate reference to twitter here and changed the paragraph to say that the living person is still currently dating Kristen Alderson. Soapfan2013 then reverted this change made by LLM and modified the duplicate twitter reference to include another source, which does not discuss their relationship's status - just her decision to move to another city. LLM then removed the reference added and reverted the paragraph, stating that they are currently still in a relationship. He then added Kristen Alderson as his partner in the article, and changed it back when an IP modified the start and end date (note that this is the IP's only edit - whether this edit was made by Soapfan while logged out is something I cannot prove). Afterwards, the paragraph was modified and another source added, which uses the twitter reference to speculate their relationship. LLM then modified and reverted the change to again reference the first source used by LLM earlier.

WP:TWITTER states that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (which the twitter source does appear to meet). However, the twitter source does not directly state that they ended their relationship, and the "soap opera" sources use the twitter message as their only reference. I don't believe that these references are reliable enough to assert (with the certainty that BLP articles require) that they have broken up. Aside from the sources themselves, I believe that an edit war is slowly cooking between you two. I see no talk page discussion between you two about the BLP and the sources provided.

This very ANI discussion looks to show a "he's poking me!" or a "at least I'm not like this!" kind of attitude, which is not constructive towards the project and coming to a consensus. Both of you need to stop making edits to the BLP articles in question and reverting each others' changes, and discuss the dispute on the articles' talk pages. This back-and-fourth editing counts as reverts to me, even if they were done manually and without the use of automated tools. I think that further edits in this fashion can result in blocking for edit warring.

I'll review the other article as well, but my position and response here stands unless I run across different behaviors or policy violations that are worth mentioning here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've checked into this and livelikemusic, your edits and edit summaries are childish and uncivil, not to mention incorrect. I suggest you withdraw this ANI filing before it WP:BOOMERANGS on you. There is clear evidence from reliable sources that Kristen Alderson has broken up with Chad Duell. Also, Soapfan2013, you need to stop with the snarky edit summaries as well. Softlavender (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Seconded regarding the editors' behaviors, edit summaries, and WP:BOOMERANG. I don't have any input regarding the sources or the BLP's relationship. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP, claiming to be author David Bret

86.151.165.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who claims to be David Bret (David Bret (talk · contribs)), has made a legal threat in this diff, in response to an AFD for his article. David has previously been blocked for a legal threat in 2011. -- ferret (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, someone throw that sock back in the drawer, please. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Erpert, Editing logged out, particularly by a very occasional editor, isn't socking. David Bret isn't currently blocked, so this isn't block evasion. The legal threat is present,m but very mild IMO. The poster, assuming it to be bret as claimed, doesn't really understand how notability works here (in which he is far from alone among editors here) and is understandably concerned about the BLP of which he is (or claims to be) the subject. An AfD is in progress on David Bret, and I don't see any admin action needed here until that is ready to close. DES ^(talk) 15:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had already blocked the IP for disruption before seeing this thread (I saw the ANI notice when placing the block notice). I had seen the uncivil posts (borderline NPA), then saw the legal threat in an earlier edit. If others disagree with the block, no need to review with me further should they request unblock. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the block. It is clearly a legal threat in my eyes (even if your block was placed due to other reasons). ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• You know, if you or I were David Bret, we'd be royally pissed off about the way we'd been treated here for yours. He may not be be a great writer, but his works get ample coverage, even if that coverage is not the easiest to find online. It took less than a minute for me to turn up a discussion from 2008 where an editor falsely claimed his books weren't reviewed in standard outlets like Kirkus. Of course, they had been. If editors here didn't make uninformed, derisive or derogatory comments about article subjects, we wouldn't get anywhere near as many outbursts like the one complained of. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

How people feel about articles written about them is not our problem. If someone has a problem with a policy-compliant article, they need to take it up with the sources of the article. And if the article isn't policy-compliant, it should be fixed regardless of the wishes of its subject. Bobby Tables (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bobby, screw those people whose lives are affected by our inaccurate articles about them. They should take it up with someone else, and stop bothering us. We are, after all, infallible, and incapable of doing harm, inadvertently or otherwise. Sheesh... I do so hope that sort of attitude is now very "last century" here. Shame on you.Begoon ^talk 12:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to stop WP:HOUNDING by editor

Hello, under the advice of [[38]] on my [page] I am starting a request here (*note...not at all urgent/an emergency) to ask that [[39]] refrain from WP:HOUNDING. This began when I ran-into her initially on 28 October editing the "Council of American Islamic Relations" page, wherein we had a disagreement on my editing addition. Since this point she followed me to this page [[40]] (although she had not visited it for years prior), then finally went to a page I created personally [[41]] here. She would never have known this page existed had she not been following me/WP:HOUNDING. She has undone edits, specifically regarding a photo which has already been deemed as an unsourced photo uploaded by a wikipedia user [[42]] She continues to undo my edits (on the photo as a specific example) regardless of the fact that the issue was already settled on the talk page here [[43]] It is not at all a fair or pleasant experience to be stalked or WP:HOUNDED specifically on pages I am just starting. I welcome additional opinions, but in the case of this user it is obviously meant to be counter-productive and harassment.Trinacrialucente (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You had not notified the user of this discussion, so I've done that for you :) also, for clarity Trinacrialucente is referring to the user Roscelese. samtar ^{t} 16:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: As far as I can see, you seem to be involved in a content dispute, rather than a WP:HOUNDING. Please see WP:EDITWAR for how to resolve this. If you feel that another editor has crossed the line into abusive behaviour, can you please post some diffs here of individual edits that you believe show this? -- The Anome (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe this has crossed into WP:HOUNDING as it is not a singular content dispute...which is how it began. This user has followed me to two separate boards, undoing any edits I do (including on the page I created). Thus WP:HOUNDING.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Can you tell us which articles this relates to, beyond the Anglican Church sexual abuse cases and Council on American–Islamic Relations articles? Or is it just those two? -- The Anome (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I will spare other users the time commitment by pointing out that I have been a frequent editor on Council on American–Islamic Relations and Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community for years. Trinacrialucente's claims of hounding are - at best - lazy and paranoid, and at worst, intentional lies. In general, the user doesn't really seem to understand how Wikipedia works, eg. insisting that no one could revert his/her edits while s/he was waiting for "third-party admin" intervention [44] and slinging around all sorts of abuse to see what sticks [45][46][47]. If the user is willing to change their behavior from what it's been until now, and accept guidance, it's possible that s/he could be productive in the future, but that's entirely dependent on their good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I mostly concur with User:Roscelese, although I would have preferred that she not characterize User:Trinacrialucente's claims of hounding as "paranoid". That isn't civil, but the greater civility violations have been by Trinacrialucente. There is a content dispute. Trinacrialucente added a controversial paragraph to Council on American-Islamic Relations. Roscelese reverted it. Trinacrialucente re-added it, and then requested a third opinion, apparently thinking that is a request for binding admin arbitration in a content dispute. User:TransporterMan, the Third Opinion coordinator and an extremely respected and experienced editor, replied to the third opinion request not as a third opinion volunteer but as an editor, and removed the questionable material as WP:BLPCRIME and synthesis amounting to original research. Trinacrialucente engaged in personal attacks against both Roscelese and TransporterMan. A boomerang warning to the OP is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente has now asked ArbCom to look at the case.[48] I think a mercy block is needed. Rhoark (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not "forumshopping". As mentioned I put the request here first then was told by an editor that it would be in my best interest to move it to this location. Were I to engage in the same mischaracterizations as the poster above, I would call it a "lie" to say I was forumshopping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 19:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING as part of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Rhoark's suggestion is a good one. MarnetteD|Talk 18:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record I think it is worth noting that I was in fact the person who advised the OP to post here, as can be seen by this edit here, which was made before this thread was started here, as can be seen by the existing discussion on my user talk page at User talk:John Carter#Verification request.John Carter (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Seems like this may be a case of CIR. The OP needs to reel it in and perhaps needs a mentor if they are going to continue editing here. Dave Dial (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the arbitration filing when I posted above. I have never heard of a "mercy block", but this editor is being disruptive, and I would support a boomerang block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by that is that a short block to cool down could be kinder than the ensuing spectacle otherwise. Rhoark (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a block is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting that it looks like Trinacrialucente demonstrates a pattern of personalizing disputes, reacting harshly to criticism, and acting aggressively while wielding a relatively poor understanding of Wikipedia policies.

• Exchanges with Epeefleche: [49] [50] [51] [52]
• Carl Henderson left a detailed explanation trying to help and provide guidance, which Trinacrialucente did not take kindly to.[53]
• accuses Laszlo Panaflex of stalking [54]
• [55] Floquenbeam creates section with title "I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time here if all you're going to do is be aggressive with every single person who disagrees with you", which Trinacrialucente responds to by "empt[ying] the trash"
• In these and most of his/her other talk page edits are accusations of pov-pushing, racism, bias, stalking, and general claims to persecution accompanied by a pervasive aggressive tone and sarcasm. Most, if not all, of the accusations look to be exaggerated or based on an incorrect understanding of policy (e.g. the present section, which seems to be based on an overlap of two pages in an area Roscelese frequently edits).
• Trinacrialucente looks to be very passionate about the subjects he/she works on, and it's possible that enthusiasm could be used to improve the encyclopedia -- but Trinacrialucente, please take the advice of all of these people to heart regarding the way you interact with people or it's quite likely you'll be blocked from editing (and at very least you invite additional scrutiny of your own edits/behavior). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rest assured, I do take the feedback from other editors very seriously, but that does not mean I always agree. I'd like to make two corrections to your statements above: 1) there are three (3) page "overlaps" now where Roscelese has sought to undo or criticize my comments; the initial "CAIR" page where we had our first interaction on Oct 29, then very shortly thereafter on the Heredi and MY page contribution, Anglican church abuse 2) you point out that this "overlap" occurs in 2 pages Roscelese "frequently edits"...which should be past-tense: while it is true Roscelese edited the Heredi page frequently in the past, it has been months (if not years...I don't have the energy to look back that far in her history) since she made her last edit prior to our exchange (once again, it was initially on Oct 29 then after a long hiatus felt compelled to edit after I did (Oct 31 to be precise). Lastly, if you or anyone feels my past interactions are relevant to this discussion as opposed to simply looking at the facts/timelines of the incident in question, don't you think it is also worth looking into past interactions that Roscelese has had as well? You will find similar accusations of bias and blocks from wikipedia staff for behavior. I personally do not find that relevant as I am only interested in THIS incident here. But if you are going to "go there" then I would think it would apply to both of us. The tone here is absolutely not meant to be sarcastic or persona, I'm simply stating facts and my observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 20:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Per a message just left on my talk page, it appears this incident will not be resolved here...and I'm fine with that as I believe the point has been made re WP:HOUNDING given the timelines and facts I outlined above. I think the user is "on notice" not to stalk/hound me at this point as any future incidents outside of the 3 pages identified above where the editor in question has no recent history nor motive to edit will be seen as indisputable proof to my accusation. Trinacrialucente (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: On the contrary, the general feeling seems to be that you need to adjust how you interact with other editors. No hounding has occurred and Roscelese is certainly not "on notice". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe this ridiculous thread is still open and the filer hasn't been admonished yet. Is someone going to look after this person, or are they just going to keep on decreeing that other people aren't allowed to edit their article, accusing people of supporting child abuse, etc. indefinitely? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Trincrialucente continues to edit war on Anglican Church sexual abuse cases reinserting claims that are not found in the sources. I don't know if there's a pattern of hounding across multiple pages, but it's no excuse for OR. Rhoark (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "edit warring". I cited two reliable sources which support my statement...AND the issue of the "graffiti photo" has already been resolved in this article [[56]]. If you or anyone disagrees or wants to discuss, I welcome any/all input on the Talk page, as opposed to a unilateral edit (of course I never decreed anyone cannot edit...that is beyond ridiculous). And once again, no one here seems interested that the editor in question, Roscalese undid my edits on the Heredi page just today...the user removed an entire section that the user in question CREATED YEARS AGO simply because I edited it. Still not seeing a pattern?Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs for these accusations? The section removal you appear to be referencing was made by Epicgenius, not by Roscelese ([57]), after discussion of the issue here. Roscelese does not appear to have removed any content from the page today ([58]). Trinacrialucente made similar accusations against me some time ago -- see the diff linked above. I responded to remarks he made on his talk page regarding a discussion I was involved in, and he accused me of stalking him. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm only clarifying this so no one can accuse me of "lying"; after MONTHS of not touching said article, less than 1 day after our interaction the editor in question comments on the talk page, then subsequently suggests to the editor, Epic Genius, that the same section Roscelese added once upon a time now be deleted...right after I edited it. Epic Genius complied and deleted the entire section, upon which Roscelese continued editing today. So, technically Roscelese simply continued editing ON TOP OF/AFTER the section I edited had been deleted by Epic Genius...after the suggestion by Roscelese. As you point out, it's all there on the Talk page and history. I would also like to point out that I tried to resolve this issue TODAY with Roscelese by suggesting that user take a break from following me/editing the page I created and in return I would not edit the Heredi page since I am VERY tired of dealing with this as it is disruptive and not at all constructive. There are certainly many MANY more articles and topics that might benefit from that user's opinions than a page I just created.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it on my own accord. As I stated on the talk page, you can feel free to re-add the content provided, that it does not violate BLP rules. I am re-adding content gradually, without adding any names. epic genius (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Completely understood. No one is accusing you of anything. But the conversation with you and the editor in question only took place after I added my edits. And it had been months since that editor even visited that page. One can draw their own conclusions.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Conclusions like "when someone edits a page all the time, it is probable that they have it watchlisted"? Those kinds of conclusions? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone who knows what they're doing at Commons speedy-delete File:Anglicanpriestchasingchildren.jpg? Trinacrialucente has literally just ripped off someone else's photo about Catholic abuse in Lisbon and renamed it "Anglican", claiming it's an "unsourced wikipedia photo" from an "unknown and unsourced Wikipedia user." It is a CC-licensed photo by Commons user Milliped with clearly stated context, but I don't have the Commons savvy to deal with this. Why has this user not been blocked yet? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• For clarification, the file uploaded by Milliped in February, 2011 is here, and is their own work with extended description of the picture and where it was taken. While editor 'Trinacrialucente' seems to have downloaded the same picture, and re-uploaded it here, claiming it is of a different denomination depicted taken by an 'unknown and unsourced Wikipedia user'. Clearly false and copyright violation. Dave Dial (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Trinacrialucente, this kind of source falsification is serious and could easily result in a block. Do you have an explanation? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This was not source falsification. I stated clearly when I reuploaded that it originated from another wikipedia user and was thus free to use/download/put on other pages. Per the comments on the Catholic Abuse Forum, it was stated also clearly that this picture was NOT verified and thus could NOT use the word "Catholic" in the title...and was thus removed. Yet, everyone persisted in saying it portrayed a "catholic priest" when there is nothing but the title of the photo to say so. Since the title of the file could not be changed, I changed the title of the file for my page to be more relevant. Once again, I stated clearly this photo came from another wikipedia user. I would point once again to this discussion of the photo regarding ambiguity here Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#.22Graffiti.22_photo where Anglicanus states: "I've removed the speculative commentary since we do not seem to know anything about what it is trying to actually depict." Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not how copyright violations are dealt with. Nor is it in any way acceptable that you believe a 3 person discussion on some article Talk page discounts the picture and description by the copyright holder. I won't get into how this picture is used by reliable sources as a depiction of a Catholic Priest chasing children, but they do. Because that is not the point. The point is that you downloaded the picture, then re-uploaded it claiming it was something that it is not. That not only violates our guidelines, it's disruptive and deceptive. Dave Dial (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Trinacrialucente, saying "I changed the title of the file for my page to be more relevant" shows you have little regard for what sources (however questioned they might be) actually say and will make up content to suit your aims. Do anything like that again and I will block you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring these warnings, the user continues uploading non-free material and lying about its source and copyright status. File:Anglicanabuseapology.jpg –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked until they show an understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

---

References

Diego Grez-Cañete, yet again

• Diego Grez-Cañete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diego Grez-Cañete is edit-warring to keep his own non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Marino (online newspaper), an article with which he has a clear and admitted conflict of interest. More to follow I'm sure.... Vrac (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That editor, active on Wikipedia since 2006, has now "retired". See his final, frustrated, edit comment.[59] Certainly there's a COI, his non-admin closure of his article's AfD was out of line, and he's had similar problems before over the years. The real problem is that he puts up articles related to a small town in Chile, and, of course, there are few third party reliable sources on those subjects. So his material gets thrown out of Wikipedia, and he gets frustrated. He added many articles related to Chile, some of them good, some of them not so good. A prospect for WP:Editor retention, perhaps. John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately he acts out quite inappropriately when frustrated. I had recently defended him a couple of times [60] [61] myself, but enough is enough. Recommended reading for anyone considering a retention effort. Vrac (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, long history there, mentoring was tried, and didn't work. So be it. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Editor has numerous socks (see the current thread about him on COIN for a few). Every article that links to Pichilemu has probably been created or edited by him (sock or no). Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonfree logo posted to dozens of talkpages

Due to what I presume was an oversight, the nonfree logo for the New York Academy of Sciences (File:New_York_Academy_of_Sciences_logo.gif) was mass-posted to more than 60 user and Wikiproject talk pages as part of the invitation to the Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science. Is there any way to clean this up without having to edit the pages individually or roll back the invitations en masse? (I've fixed the invitation file, so if rollback is necessary the invitation should be easy to repost). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There's an unlink feature on Twinkle that I've used in the past, but I can't seem to activate it now. Maybe someone else can check that. —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle's unlink searches for page backlinks (presumably), which doesn't include images. Perhaps worth filing as a bug with the Twinkle people? — Earwig ^talk 06:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

While an AWB run could do the individual page edits: the text part of that logo is free, so if we upload just the text-version of the logo at this image, and recreate the graphic version at a new file which only affects the NYAoS page, that would automatically reflect in the notified pages. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And the use of File:Women Science.png with a link= to make a click on that image not go to its image-description page might violate the licensing of that image by failing to provide attribution. DMacks (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have commented out the New York Academy of Sciences logo using Twinkle and had to remove a few instances manually. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Forgot to say, you can set Twinkle up to do this task by going to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, there we go, it was a namespace thing. Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 07:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't Hullaballoo Wolfowitz just kindly ask Rosiestep to remove the logo? Why the ANI report and templating of a regular. It just looks plain nasty reporting it here like she's a vandal or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, one reason is because I thought it would be less pleasant for Rosiestep and Ipigott to be greeted today with a message asking them to clean up dozens of pages than with a message showing them other editors were helping resolve the problem. This is a board for discussing matters that "require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors", and this was resolved through the intervention of an experienced editor. I've brought a few image-related matters here before, generally caused by mistakes/oversights by good faith editors, and no one commented they were inappropriate, and I've noticed other editors bringing technical glitches up here occasionally. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm the vandal, not Rosie. It was indeed simply an oversight. At least the image was not included in articles in the main space and was only posted on the editors' talk pages. Anyway, thank you all for saving me the trouble of cleaning up the invitations individually.--Ipigott (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not had my first sip of coffee. Looks like the logo in question has been removed. What else needs to be done with this? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

For proper attribution, clicking on the image File:Women Science.png should go to the file description page for that image rather than to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. I can't find the policy page though I know it is true -- Diannaa (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Extended image syntax includes this detail in the lede explanation of linking, and Wikipedia:Images linking to articles includes it as well. DMacks (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

While that is a hard rule in article pages, I don't think it's strictly needed for copyright purposes on project pages, or at least linking to something other than the file description page is very common on official WMF-curated project pages (on meta, for example).--Pharos (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bazonka and spelling changes

User:Bazonka is mass changing licenced to licensed across thousands of articles. Examples [62][63][64]. This is generating some stiff opposition at User talk:Bazonka#WP:ENGVAR. Bazonka has been reverted by multiple editors, but simply edit wars the change back in [65][66][67][68]. I think the user should be stopped until a consensus is established to do this. I cannot block myself as I have become involved in the discussion. This would also seem to be something that requires WP:BAG approval. SpinningSpark 11:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I am simply making changes to spellings as per MOS:S. Some of the editors who reverted me actually thanked me when I reverted back with a fuller explanation, i.e. that "license" is the correct verb form of the BrE noun "licence" and is not (as it initially appears) an AmE spelling. Bazonka (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And WP:BAG is irrelevant as no bot is being used. Bazonka (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

BAG is not the main issue here, but from WP:Bot policy on assisted editing,

While such contributions are not usually considered to constitute use of a bot, if there is any doubt, you should make an approval request...In general, processes that are operated at higher speeds, with a high volume of edits, or are more automated, may be more likely to be treated as bots for these purposes.

The case is at least arguable. SpinningSpark 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I felt that MOS:S gave sufficient justification. I'll look at BAG before I do any more. Bazonka (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I requested BAG approval but they essentially told me to bog off. My actions are not relevant to them. Bazonka (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop wasting Bazonka's time with frivolous complaints: it's perfectly fine to fix spelling with AWB. Aside from when debate on spelling exists (e.g. Oxford spelling), spelling changes to conform with the OED are never wrong for en:gb articles, and if you don't know how to spell your own language, or you think you know better than Oxford, there's no reason to listen to you on this. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's rather sad for your argument then, that OED does not actually declare the licence form wrong. My reading is that it permits it. SpinningSpark 01:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be technically correct, but uncommon in official and contemporary writing. MOS:S explicitly mandates the use of the S spelling, so I suggest you raise it at the talk page there, and unless you can convince people to change MOS away from the accepted common usage, then I think Nyttend's decision should stand. Bazonka (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's rather sad...

Actually, it's rather sad that your argument for reflexive edit-warring is "Well, technically it's not prohibited". Pretty much means that you've lost the argument about whether something is the right thing to do. 106.140.138.151 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• This is far from getting "stiff opposition", but rather support.

Fowler is pretty adamant that Bazonka is correct here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what? Unless someone can actually point out what I'm doing wrong, that isn't either completely bogus (e.g. citing WP:ENGVAR) or in contravention of MOS:S (e.g. advocating a preference for archaic spelling), then I'm going to continue. I reckon I've virtually fixed all of them already though. Bazonka (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia often makes us challenge our own preconceptions. I thought you were wrong, I checked, you're right, please do carry on. NebY (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmains and AWB

Would someone please remove Hmains' access to AWB immediately? Despite the lack of consensus for the project, and indeed opposition thereto at WT:NRHP, Hmains has singlehandedly created and populated most or all of the Category:Historic Districts on the national Register of Historic Places by state tree with AWB. These categories currently contain 9 subcategories and 3,611 pages, most or all of which were put into this tree by AWB edits like this one. Some of these even contained errors, e.g. putting an article into a nonexistent category, and despite his assurance that "I can and do fix any errors", it's up to other people to fix those errors. So once again, for flagrant violation of the WP:AWB rule three, Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale, Hmains needs to have AWB access removed immediately. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is it -- aside from the errors -- that you find objectionable about these edits? BMK (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I re-quote the rules: Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue. Hmains has definitely not gotten consensus for these mass changes, which themselves were controversial at a now-archived discussion at WT:NRHP. He's failed to follow the process, and he's given the project the finger by deciding to ignore that discussion and forcing through his preferred category setup. Yesterday I reminded him to stop (the edit to his talk page immediately before the "I can and do fix any errors" diff), but instead of following the requirements and demonstrating or achieving consensus, he kept on going. This is precisely the "being bold" situation that the rules prohibit; removing AWB from someone who uses it controversially should be just as simple as blocking an account that's being operated as an unapproved bot. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

PS, if you were asking for my reason for opposition to the edits themselves (why I would disagree with someone manually making just one edit of this sort), see rationale. Note the link to another clueless edit by Hmains some time back to a related category (the category is for all historic districts in the state, not just NR-listed districts); this isn't the first time he's made an incorrect or outright wrong series of AWB edits to categories in this topic. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"I dont like it" does not make it inherantly controversial, nor does (in advance) of making the edits thinking possibly that someone somewhere will object make it controversial. If every time the possibility of someone objecting to a change made that change 'controversial' nothing would ever get done. I went back through 10 archives and the only discussion related to this was your comment after the fact, so I dont see how Hmain could have been expected to forsee his changes would be considered (by only one person from what I can see) controversial. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

* Agree with Only in death. It looks like this is the concensus you're referring to, if so, it doesn't really show a concensus. If I'm wrong, feel free to post the correct link. That said, I don't think he'd need permission from WP:NRHP, that would be more or less local consensus, just my .02 KoshVorlon 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• OK all, can I continue to create and populate the category tree Category:Historic Districts on the national Register of Historic Places by state either manually or using AWB (my choice based on what needs to be edited), and without user Nyttend continually threatening to get my edit and/or AWB use privileges taken away and without him doing mass revokes of my work as he did at the time he first posted his complaint here? Thanks. Hmains (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you may want to hear this, but I think it might be wiser to bring the discussion back to WT:NRHP. Looking at the single previous discussion, I don't think anyone anticipated that it would generate that much feeling. If both of you can clearly lay out your preferences for the category hierarchy (I think I would have to doodle for a bit on scratch paper to work that out from the current discussion) and get people to take a close look at the pros and cons, I think a more robust consensus would develop. Not that I like making people jump through hoops, but a flurry of AWB edits is, in practice, a lot more intimidating to other editors than the same tweaks to a single article, and I think it's a good idea to secure a more robust basis for making the changes than "well, I can't actually be blocked for them." Choess (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) by CFCF

This concerns edits to multiple parts of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) by User:CFCF, but for I am going to focus on the lead paragraph -- the other changes just support this change.

Stable version:

• Version from 1 October 2015: "any biomedical information in articles"[69]
• Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"[70]
• Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[71]
• Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[72]
• Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[73]
• Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[74]
• Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"[75]
• Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"[76]

Original edit:

• 11:01, 31 October 2015: CFCF changes "biomedical information" to "biomedical and health information"[77]

This change to the guideline was to support his claim that "Any health related information is covered by MEDRS"[78] and his claim that "The guideline takes the most general application of biomedical possible, which includes anything health related."[79] -- claims that have received a huge amount of pushback from the other editors on the talk page.[80][81][82][83][84] Other editors kept saying that the guideline clearly said "biomedical information" and not "biomedical and health information", so CFCF simply changed the guideline to agree with him.[85]

Edit warring:

• 14:40, 31 October 2015: Minor4th reverts (1st revert)[86]
• 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (1st revert)[87]
• 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (2nd revert)[88]
• 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (2nd revert)[89]
• 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (3rd revert)[90]
• 00:12, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (3rd revert)[91]
• 00:27, 2 November 2015: Guy Macon reverts (1st revert)[92]
• 00:30, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (4th revert)[93]

I was not willing to go to 2RR to see if CFCF would make a 5th revert.

Comment

While Minor4th did revert 3 times (twice in 24 hours) he she was restoring the version that had been in place for many years while CFCF's proposed changes were discussed. CFCF proposed an interpretation on the talk page, and when multiple editors told him that his interpretation went against the clear wording of the guideline and against common sense (car crashes, bicycle riding and refrigeration relate to human health, as does domestic violence -- the specific topic that CFCF wishes to place under MEDRS) -- he just went ahead and changed the guideline to agree with him and edit warred to retain his changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the "stable" version (I agree with Guy Macon on which one he thinks it is), it is improper to change the article right in the middle of a discussion. We can debate, like Clinton, of the meaning of "is", but whatever "stable" means, a constantly edit-warred addition is less stable than the version which was there for three months at least. Btw, Minor4th is female I believe, though they have not set their preferences: {{they|Minor4th}} = they. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am female. I am not part of some men's rights group as alleged below by CFCF, and I consider that casting aspersions. I also agree that it is disruptive of CFCF to change the guideline to suit his preference in the middle of an RfC discussing the scope of that guideline. I note that CFCF has also been edit warring the guideline re: "country of origin" which is also a the subject of an RfC close that CFCF disagrees with. Minor4th 17:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Like I noted at the WP:MEDRS talk page, Guy Macon has neglected to mention the other stable version that was involved in this dispute. The stable version he is far from eager to support. There is edit warring on both sides regarding this guideline, and I fail to see why CFCF should be the only editor sanctioned for it. And this second thread on CFCF is completely unneeded, considering that there is already the #CFCF gaming changes to MEDRS guideline thread above; talk about overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. I simply picked the first edit made in January of 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, and 2015, the first edit in July (mid year) of 2015, and the first edit made on the first day of the last three months. I correctly identified the consensus version that was stable for at least five years. CFCF announced[94] that he was changing the guideline to support his position in an ongoing discussion.

in the two diffs Flyer22 cites, the lead paragraph of the article said

"Wikipedia's articles are not intended to provide medical advice, but are important and widely used as a source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that any biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current knowledge."

both before and after the edit, and Flyer22 himself herself had no problem with "the biomedical information in all types of articles".[95]

So how do a couple of diffs that don't change the lead paragraph in any way show evidence that the lead paragraph was anything other than the version that I have clearly shown to be stable for at least the last five years? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No nonsense. I showed that "health" was already at various parts of the guideline, and that this was also a stable part of the guideline. You, however, clearly do not support that stable version. And I am female, by the way (in case you didn't know). And I indeed had an issue with the "biomedical" change, which is why I stated, "If we are going to stress 'biomedical, then we should link to it, since, as seen at Talk:Domestic violence against men, editors commonly do not understand what biomedical entails." You were clearly one of the editors I was referring to. That change in text is also why I started this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We are discussing changes to the lead paragraph. If you wish to discuss changes to some other paragraph, make a list of when it was changed and by who and post it on the article talk page (if you think it needs to be changed) or here (if you want to accuse an editor of wrongdoing) Changes to other parts of the guideline are not evidence that there is consensus to change the lead paragraph of the guideline -- which has been essentially for at least five yeas -- in the middle of a heated discussion about the lead paragraph of the guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What I pointed to also concerns changes to the lead of the guideline, and they are most assuredly relevant to this discussion. "Health" has always been a part of the guideline, in the lead and lower; and CFCF was attempting to restore the WP:STATUSQUO. That is my point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits are strongly supported by the consensus on the talk-page, and have been so far only opposed by two editors who came to the discussion after trying to push questionable quality evidence at Domestic violence against men. The edits are a supported clarification of consensus, and reverting them is very disruptive. This section is an attempt to game the system, trying to get rid of anyone who doesn't support the Mens Rights cause. Of note is the previous discussion on this board that was clear that there was support for the edits. Filing a second report is not constructive. I realize this may be seen as editwarring and I agree to back down, but on the basis of the previous post here any attempt to go against the percieved MRA-cause is called upon as disruptive. Frankly restoring these edits is a waste of time, as they will need to be readded by other editors again, and the reverts by Guy Macon and Minor4th are a clear example of attempts to undermine existing consensus from the MRA group on Wikipedia. I invite anyone here to take a look at the talk page WT:MEDRS and again take the time to say that the edits are not supported by the very extended discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Does_MEDRS_apply_to_Epidemiology?. CFCF 💌 📧 11:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Strongly supported by the consensus on the talk-page"? See [96], [97], [98], [99], and [100]. I can post a couple of dozen more if required. Or you can do as I suggested at the start and post an RfC to see if the community supports your changes. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - one of those diffs provided in the OP is not me reverting CFCF; I was restoring info that inadvertently got caught up in a revert by another editor over unrelated "country of origin" content. The domestic violence issue has been settled for some time, as we all agree that a better/newer source has been provided to replace the source in question. Raising that now is a straw man. To say that your changing the guideline in the middle of an RfC is supported by consensus is blatantly false. The RfC discussing the issue is only a few days old for one thing, and there is a great deal of opposition to your overly broad application of MEDRS to non-medical topics. Finally, what the heck is "MRA" and why are you putting me in that group? Minor4th 17:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  You are correct. It was clearly a simple error correction and should not be counted against you. Sorry for missing that. So, by my count, nobody has gone past two reverts except CFCF. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I find it very troubling that CFCF has edited a major guideline during the midst of discussion to match is preferred outcome. This has the possibility of slanting the results of the RFC as the first thing responders will do is check the guideline for what is says. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Guy Macon has a history of reverting way back to an older version where he thinks it is a stable version.[101] Guy Macon thinks his edits are allowed and is reasonable[102] to revert way back to 21:48, 28 May 2015. His reverts also reverted improvements that were unrelated to the reverts.[103] So far editors do not agree with reverting way back to an older version.[104][105] See Talk:Domestic_violence_against_men#Article_restored_to_last_stable_version_before_edit_war. According to User:Kevin Gorman, there were concerns about copyright violations. Guy Macon also reverted at the MEDRS guideline page.[106][107] QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have a complaint against me, post it in an ANI report with your evidence. This ANI report is about CFCF editing a major guideline while it is being discussed so that it supports his position, and then edit warring to retain his changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to start another thread. Do you still think it was appropriate to revert back to an earlier version[108][109] or are you going to stop doing things like this? QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am going to ignore you and keep doing what I have been doing, which has resulted in a ten-year, 30,000 edit record with zero blocks so far.[110][111] You are roughly half a dozen accusations on random talk pages away from being reported yourself for harassing me. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that people are arguing about whether or not "health information" is or is not included within "biomedical information". Seems like an easy to formulated question for a RfC. I would recommend that all of those who are editing warring needs to start a RfC and stop edit warring. User:Jbhunley made the last revert just a few minutes ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

An RfC is the way to go. I was, shall we say disappointed, to find that one of the parties to a content dispute had been editing source guidance when I went to consult it before commenting on the issue. That kind of thing is disruptive and, in my very strong opinion, the kind of thing that should resort in a block both for disruption and for being deceptive. The deception being much worse than the disruption because it shows extreme bad faith.

That said, expanding biomedical to include all 'health' seems like it would have all sorts of knock on consequences. Where does it stop. Without defining the parameters of 'health' the whole guideline becomes subject to massive gaming and/or POINT making disruption used to show how over broad it is. Jbh^Talk 21:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think thats a major point of some of the responders, where does it end. Pure medical or health information is one thing, and should be covered by MEDRS. But some supporters and the proposer of the RFC suggests its still MEDRS after 2 or 3 degrees of separation like car crash statistics of someone who walks away ok from a crash. There should be a line somewhere, that at present doesnt exist. AlbinoFerret 21:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that is the precise issue. The guideline has always included health, but it wasn't until recently that some editors with a less than clandestine motive questioned our definition of biomedical. If you take time to read the guideline it is very clear that it does not only cover the strict biological portion of medicine, and that would exclude all of mental health/psychiatry, where MEDRS is very needed. There is no idea of deceiving the community behind the edits, and they were strongly supported by several editors.

As I pointed out the guideline already links to WP:BIOMEDICAL which defines to the lay-man what is included in "biomedical", and that includes "health", epidemiology etc. There is no expansion of scope with either wording, one is only a only a clarification. With the link in the lede defining biomedical we are not really in a different position with or without the clarification, except that without it readers and editors will be expected to read so much more to grasp the scope.

And to respond to AlbinoFerret, car crash injury is a major public health issue and covered under epidemiology. Listing the number of car crashes is not a medical statistic, but listing injuries, or even lack of injuries is! You will see how it is a logical fallacy to include one but not the other, when one is the total minus the other. This has been explained several times, but you seem not to want to reply to those explanations except to conclude they are "preposteroous". CFCF 💌 📧 21:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. This ANI report involves you (CFCF) editing a major guideline while it is being discussed so that it supports your position, and then edit warring to retain the changes. There is no "but I was right!" exception to the Wikipedia policies you have violated. I suggest that you try to come up with a reason why you should not be blocked rather than continuing to assert that you were on the right side of the content dispute that led to your disruptive editing of a major guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This thread also concerns you. At WP:ANI, anyone's behavior may be under scrutiny, and your behavior is clearly under scrutiny, since you were "editing a major guideline while it is being discussed so that it supports your position, and then edit warring to retain the changes." And as for a WP:RfC, there was already one; it simply is not going the way you want it to, since various editors there are clear that WP:MEDRS applies to epidemiology, and that they view epidemiology as "biomedical." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a bunch of people edit warring the document in question during the discussion. Likely a bunch of fish need handing out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: That is a bit misleading. The first edit adding "and health" was added by CFCF here on October 28 with the edit summary "per discussion". There was no discussion supporting such a change then, and this was immediately objected to. CFCF claimed next that the phrase is "longstanding consensus". CFCF uses "per consensus" and "per discussion" in highly idiosyncratic ways,, which recalls the famous line by Inigo Montoya in Princess Bride. Obviously edit-warring requires usually more than one editor, but the locus of the dispute is clear. All people are asking is to get explicit consensus before making the change, and now the RfC has been opened after more than 3 days of edit-warring. Was that so hard? Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover?. This, of course, means that everyone will immediately stop discussing the content dispute on ANI and focus on the user behavior issues, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha...I mean, of course. clpo13_(talk) 06:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the dif that looks at before CFCF edited the article back in June 2014. What we missing now is "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article" I do not have the energy to dig around and see who exactly removed "health related" but it was their before and is not now. "reliable content about health" also changed to "reliable biomedical content" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This ANI report is not about edits to other parts of the page. this is specifically about CFCF improperly editing the lead in the middle of a discussion about the lead. If you are implying that CFCF was on the right side of the content dispute, there is no "but I was right!" exception to the policies that were violated here, and ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That diff is from June 2014 to the present (59 edits) and includes CFCF's edit. Looking specifically at the page on June 14 we find "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles" [112]. AlbinoFerret 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? CFCF 💌 📧 15:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

First you proposed a change to the lead paragrraph on the talk page, then you changed the guideline to agree with your interpretation, then you edit warred to retain the changes, and most recently you falsely implied your desired change to the lead paragraph isn't a change from the version that has remained stable over the last five years. The editors above were simply correcting that last claim. Not that it matters; what you did was against Wikipedia policy no matter which side is the right side of the underlying content dispute, and ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. Nice try deflecting the conversation away from your changing the guideline in the middle of a dispute about the guideline though. It almost worked. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that is just a repeat of the exact same arguments as before, which have already been proven to be false. Repeating your position isn't going to make it stronger.
It doesn't even come close to answering the question posed to a different editor of why it matters that I edited some entirely different part of the guideline. CFCF 💌 📧 22:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason it came up is because you and flyer22 keep bringing it up The reason it matters is... it doesn't. This ANI and the RfC you recently posted are about the very first paragraph of WP:MEDRS what you did or did not do in the third or thirty-third paragraph is irrelevant. You were reported for changing that first paragraph, not some other paragraph. Are you ever going to attempt to explain your behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

He changed more than the first paragraph of the lead, as seen here and here. So stating that we should only focus on that first paragraph is insincere, especially since he was attempting to restore the lead to the WP:STATUSQUO. Of course more than just the first paragraph is the focus. You don't get to tell us or others to focus only on the first paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

IP legal threat

2602:306:c819:20e9:13d:3b1f:61dd:58fa (talk · contribs) has just made a "Listen, shithead..." legal threat over some original research, following up with a suggestion that if we block them for making a legal threat, they'll sue us for violating the first amendment. The editor is now asking an editor if they've "considered an attorney yet". --McGeddon (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Clear legal threats, blocked for 72 hours. -- GB fan 13:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd wager that 2602:306:C819:20E9:9100:21AB:6D85:8817 (talk · contribs) is the same user. And 2602:306:C819:2529:39C0:28D1:5E44:DD7C (talk · contribs). And 2602:306:C819:2529:9505:6A21:4551:9FE3 (talk · contribs), and 2602:306:C81A:9EE9:65DE:13EA:FD3D:553F (talk · contribs). All of these accounts happen to geolocate to the Raleigh, North Carolina area. Doc talk 13:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, undoubtedly. They're now block-evading as 2602:306:C81A:AC99:2D7E:656:2A3C:DC9D (talk · contribs) to restore their edits and legal threats. (I'd already put the Sanal Edamaruku article that they're targeting up for protection an hour ago, but it's not gone through yet.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That one is blocked and the article is protected for a month. -- GB fan 14:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Reads like one of the IAC loons, has anything riled them up recently? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

When someone starts throwing "First Amendment" around, it's important to advise them that there is no constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The First Amendment does give the WMF the constitutional right to operate its servers. The principle of private property, also in the United States Constitution, gives the WMF the right to control its servers. Agree with Bugs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Doc, if you think some IPs are the same, I suggest we set up an SPI. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be a waste of time. Checkusers don't do anything with IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely correct; Checkusers are the ones who need to sign off on larger rangeblocks so as to limit collateral damage. Besides, a CU would very likely know the range all the disparate IPs fit into. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:RANGE, anyone? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The IPs show they are under AT&T Internet Services ... and my range calculator shows that to cover that entire range would take an extremely large range (according to my cheat-sheet, a /46 would cover 4,835,703,278,458,516,698,824,704 individual IP numbers). As they use more IPs, we might eventually be able to narrow that down to a handful of smaller sub-ranges ... but given the provider, I would anticipate quite a bit of collateral damage. For now, playing whack-a-sock using WP:RBI may be the best route. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please remember, it's IPv6. "host identifiers (the least-significant 64 bits of an address) can be independently self-configured by a host." I think the damage will not be that bad. Kleuske (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

2602:306:C819:2529:C5EA:BED:6C61:465E (talk · contribs), also. I've never filed a SPI on an IPv6 hopper. And I don't think I want to if it concerns the potential blocking of septillions of IP addresses. Facepalm The behavior of each IP I've mentioned here points to them all being the same user. I stand by that, and if a SPI would do any good I'd happily help with it. Doc talk 13:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

88.91.62.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP 88.91.62.28 is apparently trying to make a point about Tunisian Arabic being a dialect and not a full language by removing mention of it in favor of Arabic on various Tunisia-related pages ([113], [114], [115]), despite Tunisian Arabic being the de facto national language of Tunisia. clpo13_(talk) 23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not an expert on the matter, but while it seems per the article itself that Tunisian Arabic is spoken in Tunisia, per that article and per the article on Tunisia the official language of Tunisia is Standard Arabic, and as such the Arabic scripts of the names of Tunisian biography articles should point to Arabic rather than the unnecessary colloquial subset of Tunisian Arabic. While the IP's edit-summary rationale is flawed, I personally agree with the edits in the biographies -- we should use the official language of the person's country. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

History of Islam

• History of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Arman ad60 (talk · contribs)

Apologies for bringing this here, but this appears to go beyond a content dispute, and involves ownership of a major and potentially contentious article. The above account is persistent in removing sourced content, often adding unsourced and possibly original research text in its place. They are, in effect, eviscerating a major article without seeking, let alone establishing, consensus. Thanks for any insight that can be provided. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Concur with OP's assessment. I requested temporary pending changes protection of the article to at least try to slow things down. Request declined. General Ization ^Talk 02:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've also brought this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam since History of Islam is a top-priority article. Arman ad60 appears somewhat willing to use the talk page, but large-scale changes like this should really be backed up by consensus. clpo13_(talk) 02:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm being tactful in my report. I suspect the endgame will be a mass reversion to a 'last good version', but would welcome a discussion that integrates thoughtful revisions. Not my bailiwick, but I've edited here long enough to know when WP:OWNERSHIP is an issue, especially on a major theme. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Very tactful. Requesting some form of page protection if the edits should continue would certainly be one way to bring more discusion to the talk page. John Carter (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Arman ad60

I have made the article History of Islam. Well I have to say here something :

1. I want to change the entire article. For this obviously I have to remove a huge part and I have to do this rapidly. I have not changed the entire article altogether. I am removing all the materials part by part. So I dont think I have violated any law.

2. This article is not really a good one. It is a class-C article. So I dont think I have done any harm to this article.

3. You are speaking about source. It needs time to go to the webstie and bring back the link. It is really a strainious job to write the articles, make tables and the sources. I havent given the maps, tables and sources yet. I need some more time. You have to wait for some time. Please be patient.

4. I have removed sourced materials? Well if I remove some thing there will obviously be some source.Well I have removed something , then I will add something. When I will add something I will add sources with them. So just be patient.

5. You have accused me of not talking properly. I have talked enough in the talk pages. I have given every kind of logic for all my changes. You have not given any proper logic and are just accusing me of ruining the article.

6. You have not clearified to me which part I should change. You are only takling about rules and regulations, sources and consensus. You should tell me which empire of mine has problem, which empire I should remove or which empire I should improve.

7. You may be anxious about my removal of huge part of the article. I will add something with this later.I have already removed many parts from the article and added many parts later. I will fill in the vacuuam created from my removal. Dont worry at the end of my editing the size of the article will be the same.

8. There are many Muslim editors in this article. They have written in this article. They are watching everything. They have not complained about anything. So I think you should not also have any problem with that.

9. Those people I have talked with here are all Christians. I dont think they have such a great idea about Islam. Well if any Muslim guy comes forward and tells me about his problem I will accept it.Arman ad60 (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup: those last two bullets are rather alarming signs of ownership misconceptions.-- Elmidae 06:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly a problem. But the main problem is that I don't think Arman ad60 understands the article or what he is doing. I've just restored a section discussing the early sources that he removed on the grounds that "Because early sources are not considered reliable. there are hundreds of modern sources in the end. It will take time to remove this section." It seems very appropriate for an article on history to discuss the earliest sources on the subject, whether or not they are now considered reliable. I don't understand his language at times - how can a table be 'dirty'? And removing sourced material and saying "Why not if I'm going to add new sourced material" isn't a good reason either.Doug Weller (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the earlier version entirely as I can see that much of the new material is copied - probably from our own articles (I'd need to check to see that the copied text wasn't copyvio also) but without attribution this is of course copyvio. Doug Weller (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You are free to create a draft of the page in your user space, like at User:Arman ad60/History of Islam, and make any changes you might want to there, and perhaps later propose revising the article along the lines of your draft later. I would suggest that the best place to start with any changes you might wish to propose is some of the leading reference works relating to Islam or Islamic culture. You should find at least a few at Bibliography of encyclopedias: religion. Reference overview sources like the ones listed there tend to be the best indicators we have for matters like WP:WEIGHT and similar. John Carter (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Holy mackerel, the user has done nothing on Wikipedia except repeatedly remove mass amounts of material from History of Islam. A topic ban is certainly indicated. In fact, a block, even an indefinite one given the TP warnings that have been posted, would probably be even better. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Arman ad60, you did not make the article History of Islam. The article was created in 2001, 14 years before you started editing on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You're off by 10 years. I suspect due to a typo. Nice to know: the second edit in the article is by Jimbo himself... Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No empires should be removed. The article is a History of Islam, not of a particular branch or caliphate.

Secondly I am concerned with the editor's grasp of English. This level of ability is fine for writing non-contentious articles which can be rapidly cleaned up by a copy-editor, but not so good for working on an established core article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose topic ban, neutral-but-leaning-support on short block Softlavender &co may well be right on the substance. But TBANning an SPA from the only topic they have ever edited is pointless, and clogging up the logs on WP:RESTRICT with these kind of stuff is worse. I am not prepared to make a judgement on whether it is indef-worthy without looking more deeply into the substance. Certainly their edits to the article are disruptive, but they don't seem to be malicious and seem to be engaged in good-faith "trimming" that to them makes the article more readable but to everyone else removes worthwhile information. There has been almost no discussion, either the article or his user talk page, until this week -- has anyone even tried politely telling Arman ad60 that his edits are not helpful? I notice he asked a question on the talk page in August and was ignored. I'm a strong believer in strict enforcement of WP:CIR when a user is repeatedly told their edits are disruptive and they make no attempt to change, but in this case ANI seems to have been treated as a first resort. If they are POV-pushing or the like, giving them warning that their edits are disruptive, then giving a 24 hour block next time they violate the warning, then we will know once the block expires. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

But for the record, I do find several points in the user's above "statement" to be very problematic, especially the last point. Making assumptions about other users' religious affiliations, and those users being in some way "biased" based solely on their religious affiliation, is completely inappropriate -- whether it is a radical atheist assuming that users who consider Jesus of Nazareth to have been a historical figure are all "Christians", a Christian fundamentalist assuming that users who think the word "mythology" can be applied to anything in the Bible are all radical atheists, or anything else of the sort. The user should take this back and apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the material added by the editor (and in his sandbox) is copyvio. He denies copying any of it but I've spent far too much time documenting it on the talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Technical 13 drafts in other editor's names

User:Technical 13 seems to have been blocked back in June following Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13 but I found a number of draft articles that User:Technical 13 created but stored under the user User:TheShadowCrow from 2013 . I have no idea of the background of this case nor how these two users knew each other but I'm trying to figure out if pages like User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Alain Boghossian (Special:PrefixIndex/User:TheShadowCrow/ shows about 28 in total]]) should be reviewed/examined/taken to MFD or just G13 nuked. It looks like the articles were created at User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox in one giant pile together and then copy-and-paste moved out like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no immediate evidence that T13 created (as in wrote) those articles -- TheShadowCrow did, and T13 merely put them into article space or divided them up into smaller individual sandboxes (see [116]). There's no way of immediately telling if the two users are the same; one of the things T13 was banned for is socking, but that doesn't mean this was a sock account. Bbb23 and/or DeltaQuad should have an opinion on this and/or know what to do. In terms of any usable content, the consensus on two separate MfDs was to retain the content [117]. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 wasn't banned for socking, they retired rather than go through the case. Therefore the provisions of Wikipedia:Drafts#Deleting_a_draft apply; I don't think the prior Mfd has much applicability because TheShadowCrow seems to have ceased editing. Per not buro a mass Mfd could be proposed, but even easier would be ignoring them useless there's some issue (e.g. blp/ copyvios...) NE Ent 10:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, his requested block from Floq was changed to an ArbCom site-ban by Euryalus. And one of (as I stated) the issues was the evidence of sockpuppetry that came to light during the investigation. The site-ban and the abuse of multiple accounts is noted on his userpage. In my opinion it's worth retaining the material and publishing the drafts live assuming they meet notability. I think it's also worth CUing whether TheShadowCrow was another one of T13's socks or not, since there's already an SPI on him. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sure if the 28 or so articles (Special:PrefixIndex/User:TheShadowCrow) were taken to MfD now, they would all be deleted, so to IAR I would just speedy delete everything as a Stale Draft. Pinging @GiantSnowman: for his opinion too. JMHamo (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow's last edits seem to have been in May 2014 Special:Contributions/TheShadowCrow, so it seems unlikely there'll be anything for a CU to look at. Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 was attempting to help TheShadowCrow who was under a topic ban and as part of that, created the pages in question. I don't see any particular reason to suspect sockpuppetry. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The pages are:

many of them have a main-space equivalent already. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

Yerevantsi might know what to do with these. Note that any text reused should be attributed to TheShadowCrow. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

There is no hurry to delete these. Perhaps from one form the stale draft project can check to see if they are wroth saving. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But by god those have a mangled history. Technical 13's edit summary creating the page gave literally no idea where it came from. It almost would be better if there's anything worth saving to go create a new draft version with an actual link to the original gigantic sandbox rather than keep that edit summary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest making a null edit with an edit summary pointing to the original page for attribution. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Complicating matters is that in some cases it seems the sandbox was a copy of the mainspace article that the editor was working on sourcing/improving. User:TheShadowCrow/sandbox/Karen Ashotovich Grigorian is an example of this I looked at. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 De-prodding several random articles without explanation

2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 , came through yesterday and de-prodded several articles [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] and templated the nominators, which speaks to experience with the system. No improvement had bee made to any of the articles and no reasons given for the de-prod. Reasons are not required but just the shear number of de-prods they did plus this post here lead me to believe this user may actually be evading a block and just trying to be disruptive. Hopefully someone can look into this to see if it is a case of block evasion.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Identical behaviour to WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#De-prodder... JMHamo (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be a blocked editor: [130] and therefore a block evasion. I think an insta-block is due the IP if all it is doing is de-prodding articles seemingly at random. Or at least a warning and a promise not to do that anymore. Also, if it's a block evasion, needs to definitely be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all of the past and current IPs are geolocated in the same area. Undoubtedly the same editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about the block-evasion factor? [131] ? Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: Per WP:BE: "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked." Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast with "Proposed uncontraversial deletion". Evaluate each page and consider if it's worth the mental investment to shepherd it through a AFD nomination. I do not see a ban proposal with respect to the IP range so it's my understanding that we have to treat these as AGF and can't apply the RBI stick to it. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have to treat this as AGF there is evidence of a block evasion. The block evasion is what this is looking at now, if it does turn out to be block evasion then the de-prodding can be considered disruptive and reverted. This will also allow us to nip this in the bud if it happens again in the future. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It/they are obviously WP:NOTHERE, are obviously block evading, and are playing a game of silly buggers with us, as Floquenbeam would say. Time to stop the nonsense and disruption per WP:BE and WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE, not to mention multiple accounts. Softlavender (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: @Mcmatter: It would be great, but the problem is that because this is an IP address and therefore isn't officially agreed to ToS, we have to follow the rules with respect to prods If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. There is a reasonable belief that there's an objection to deletion (even if it's they don't want anything deleted) therefore we are bound to follow policy. Don't like it? Round up a consensus to change the policy. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: by that logic all IPs should be unblocked now and given free run of the place because they have not accepted the ToS, but this is not the case, if you look at the text just above the save button it states By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. which means they have agreed to the terms of use and cannot claim freeman rights as you claim. Once again you are missing the major issue of the of block evasion, I have no issues with the PROD issue if the user is not evading a block.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You have to prove that the editor is block evading. Without proof, there is nothing here that is actionable. —Farix (t | c) 23:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: this is why I have brought it here as stated in my initial post. This post was never about discussing the PROD policy or system but the actions of a user which seems to be counter intuitive to the project community. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So you are asking others to go on a fishing expedition based on unsubstantiated claims of block evasion? —Farix (t | c) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed this user also has a penchant for changing "Delta Airlines" links to "Delta Air Lines" ([132], [133], [134] as this user; [135], [136], [137] as 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E). Not a big deal (Delta Air Lines is the actual name) but a good behavior indicator. clpo13_(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Massively removing PRODs for no reason has petered out, that would be the place to discuss making a change to the prod policy. Vrac (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: It's not the prod policy we're talking about, it's disruptive editing. The IPs are a block evader who is simply rampaging through the list of prods and mass deleting all the tags. This is WP:DE and WP:BE no matter how you look at it. IPs that are block evaders must be blocked per WP:BE. IPs that are intentionally mass disruptive must be blocked per WP:DE. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

1) Where is the blocked account? Before you can claim that someone is block evading, you have to identify the blocked account. 2) Removing proddes, even en-mass, is not disruptive editing. These articles can easily be sent to AfD using the exact same rational as the prod. It is also far less disruptive to Wikipedia to start an AfD than to argue over the "legitimacy" of a deprod. —Farix (t | c) 11:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Relatedly, 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 is also de-PRODing multiple articles.- MrX 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  I had been trying to fight what was obvious vandalism (to me) by this behavior, but if no Admin sees it that way, and it's not considered disruptive, what's a regular editor to do? We have policies and guidelines, and this has been debated multiple times. The PROD process is clearly broken. It IS disruptive, if you force the "obvious" deletions to go through AfD - it takes additional editor time to wade through an AfD. Go ahead, let IP's and sockpuppets steal what actual editing time committed editors have to contribute by forcing it through the AfD process. This is a loophole that any actually allows wholesale vandalism to the project just because we can't add a few words to the PROD process. Say, MUST give a valid reason, or only registered editors can PROD. We limit deletion powers to Admins; why not limit PROD removals to registered editors? Or even Admins? Or Autoreviewers? Or Pending Changes Reviewers? We have some processes that require demonstration of commitment to this project to perform an action. Put deleting PRODs on that list. For that matter, put deleting maintenance tags on that list. Scr★pIron^IV 21:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  Starting an AfD is not going to "waste" other editors times. Constantly arguing over the legitimacy of prod removals "wastes" far more time than starting an AfD and is much more disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  Fourteen dePRODs by this IP hopping "editor" in less than 15 minutes today (four in the span of on minute! Clearly, in depth analysis is going on) each will involve at least 5 editors, often more, to evaluate and contribute. That is a very fine act of vandalism if I do say so. Where one Admin could evaluate the PROD, now we multiply that by the participants in AfD and add the Admin back in again to close it. Starting "an" AfD is not the issue - forcing a dozen or more without any evaluation IS the issue. Multiply the editing hours for all of them vs. a single ANI/AIV report - the math is clear. This is actually quite clever trolling, with a flawed policy behind it to support it, so nothing can or will be done. And for those who would choose policy over common sense, then I suggest a change to policy or an implementation of the WP:IAR policy to prevent continued damage to the project. Or have we abandondoned WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY? Scr★pIron^IV 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  Drop the stick already because nothing is going to happen. Removing prods is specifically not vandalism and is allowed under the deletion policy. If you truly believe that an article should still be deleted, send it to AfD as the next step. —Farix (t | c) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Collateral damage from rangeblock

Formerly i think i've undergone an admin's misuse NE Ent 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

hi everyone, i'm here because i think i've undergone an admin's misuse as you've read in the title. the situation's this: this morning i've noticed that my ip address was blocked because it had the same range of another user who was blocked 5 days ago for edit warring. you've got to know that the ip range 151.x is largely common in all 8 regions of northern italy, where i live, and thousands of persons use this very ip range. i've made an unblocking request at 9 am explaining what i've just explained here and i think i've been polite enough. after 3 hours no answers yes, so i've made another request with another ip of the same range, since it's a dynamic ip or we weren't talking about ranges, and after almost 3 more hours the 3rd request with one more ip. now, and i admit this was my fault, i checked for an answer about 20 minutes before making my 3rd request, but didn't check again right before sending the request: in fact, i'd received an answer by User:Ohnoitsjamie, which was this: "You'll need to find another IP range to edit from if you wish to edit constructively.". i felt teased when i've read that answer, so i've added some text to my last request. how am i expected to find another ip range? seriously, how? have i got to crack one of my neighbours' wi-fi? i could use open proxies, but i know it's against rules, and the last think i've ever wanted on wikipedia is going against rules. in order to explain better why i thought my, and not only my, ip range should've been unblocked i've also looked for the user who was first blocked searching in pages, talk and contributions of the admin who made the block, User:MSGJ: the user was blocked for edit warring on the page Mafia which... had already been protected for 2 weeks! honestly, i believe that under these circumstances keeping that range block is totally wrong, there's no reasonable point to prevent thousands of italians from making constructive edits to wikipedia just because of one stupid guy who's now not able to make edit wars again on that page even if he wants. i quote from Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks: "the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption" (the page was protected); "that your conduct...is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range)". but that's not the reason why i'm writing here. the reason is the answer to my 3rd request: "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses.". where on wikipedia is written that a block can be extended if i've repeated an unblock request??? and i've repeated it not because i've read the answer "no" and didn't agree with that, but because after 3 hours first and then after almost 3 more hours i hadn't received any answers. indeed, when i've finally read the answer, i didn't made a new request, i just added some text to my last request, luckily with the same ip. i'm convinced that what i've undergone because of admin ohnoitsjamie it's a misuse, or even an abuse. not only for me, but also for all people who share this ip range. i'm appealing to you, admins, and your common sense and goodwill to at least shorten the block back to what it was before ohnoitsjamie's intervention, please. i had to create an account to write this, but i won't use it to edit anything, just to eventually discuss here if there's anything to discuss about. i trust wikipedia and i want to go on trusting it. thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centocinquantuno (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the username! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

Am I understanding this problem correctly? User wants an ip range unblocked so that he can edit as an ip, when in possession of a perfectly good username. Seems daft. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Too long, difficult to read, except that maybe User:Roxy the dog has it right, in which case the request is silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough: thanks :)
Robert McClenon Roxy the dog: i'll explain my point in 3 points:

• admin ohnoitsjamie extended the block because i made 3 requests, but: first, i've been left without an answer for almost 6 hours and that's the only reason i've done 2 more requests (not too many, on my humble opinion); second, i read on wikipedia: "If you make repeated invalid or offensive unblock requests, your talk page access may be revoked which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking." "If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.", which means both that one's supposed to keep requesting, invalidly/unconvincingly or offensively/disruptively, after beeing answered, and that the punishment is being prevented from making new requests on one's page, not extending the block: "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses." is not a reason provided by wikipedia to block someone, unless we want to vote to change rules
• as i've said when i've made the 3 requests (identical, copy-paste), there're thousand of persons who can't edit wikipedia just because they share one troll's ip range, furthermore the cause of the block is no more (the page was protected one day after the beginning of the block), so keeping all those people blocked is completely wrong, from my point of view
• i've created this account just to be able to edit this page, i seldom come on wikipedia to make edits, i noticed the block 5 days after it'd started, i'd never created an account before because i don't like social network stuff such as nicks or avatars. this is maybe the weakest point, but aren't the 1st and the 2nd sufficient?

Centocinquantuno (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Centocinquantuno, there is a bright yellow box at the top of the page when you post a complaint here that says you must notify the editor you are talking about. You didn't do so, so I've informed Ohnoitsjamie of this discussion. Perhaps he can provide some answers to you about your situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the contributions on the /17 that is blocked and it appears to be a necessary block. Multiple IPs on the range have been making disruptive edits to not only Mafia but other articles related to the subject. There are very few productive edits by IPs on the range in the last two weeks. --Versageek 20:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My analysis of the edits on the /17 was incorrect, that will teach me to examine larger samples before drawing conclusions. --Versageek 23:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You could say that about almost any IP range over a given two week period. A range block here is too broad, block the individual IPs. What's the point, we all know how this will play out:

• The editor (who only created their account to report a genuine problem) will be blocked for block-evasion
• the IP range will remain blocked, disadvantaging the encyclopedia and discouraging new editors
• We'll all pat ourselves on the back "good job, good job"

Just a normal day at wikipedia. 107.107.58.249 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the OP seriously suggesting that thousands of users are blocked because the entire range 151.x is blocked? Akld guy (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Liz: i'm sorry for not reading the box, i'd never written on this page before, thank you very much for informing him already, i want to listen to what he'll say, so far the only things he told me were "You'll need to find another IP range to edit from if you wish to edit constructively." (thanks for making fun of me) and "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses." (not provided by wikipedia rules at all).
Versageek: i didn't look at every ip within that range on the page about mafia, actually i didn't think about it, but you were right to do so, and i've just do it too. i haven't found any other disruptive edits in the last 2 weeks but the edit warring about mafia, and the only related edits were made on both mafia and users' talk pages, not disruptive anyway, but if you've really seen disruptive edits involving other articles related to the subject i'm asking you to please tell me which ones, i may say that you're right but i'd like to see them before.
107.107.58.249: thanks for supporting me, i really hope that's not the way this story'll end, i've always had a good consideration of wikipedia, let's hope this was just a misunderstanding.
Akld guy: excuse me, sincerely i didn't understand what you mean, thousands of persons share the 151.x ip in italy, if it's blocked they're all prevented from editing everything because of one stupid troll who can't even keep on edit warring any more, this is a fact Centocinquantuno (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this edit by the IP account that User:Centocinquantuno admits is him: [138]. Note the similarity in this edit from the IP troll on Talk:Mafia: [139]. The writing style is similar, especially in use of quotation marks to separate a clause from the edit to which the user is replying to. I'm fairly certain that User:Centocinquantuno and the Mafia troll IP are one and the same. That being said, I think this 2 week range block is overkill for the problem and suggest that it be overturned now that the page in question is protected -- Samir 01:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Centocinquantuno, if all IP's starting 151.x were blocked, then there would indeed be thousands blocked. But I can't imagine an admin blocking such a wide range. My first reaction was that you were misrepresenting the extent of the block. My apologies if that was a wrong assumption. It is possible, but not likely, that the admin made a mistake. But in that case, how did you know the range blocked was far wider than it needed to be? Akld guy (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Samir Akld guy: thank both of you for your answers. let me clarify your doubts:

• i'm not that foolish troll and i'd like not to be likened to the cause of my problems, i don't know why you think i could be him comparing our writing styles, i've just had a look and, for example, he uses the "br" between a line and the following unlike me, he quotes each sentence before replying "like this" not “like this” (check, please), and his english is better or at least visually cleaner than mine; the only similarity i've found is that he doesn't use the ":" to reply a single interlocutor (you didn't say this, if i'm saying it myself it's because i'm not the troll we're talking about) and i don't use it because i reply to 2 or more persons at a time, but how many normal unregistered users do the same because they're not used to talk in pages like this?
• the ip range which was blocked is a /17 range, which means more than 32000 potential users blocked. i've checked just now, i wrote an inaccurate ip number, it was 151.20.x actually, thanks for making me notice that! anyhow in this discussion i've been no longer contesting MSGJ's block (just 24 hours or so to go), which i may not agree with because of its exaggeration and futility but is perfectly legitimate, i've been contesting this block's extension by ohnoitsjamie because such a penalty isn't provided by wikipedia for making 3 unblock requests in 6 hours due to lack of answers and because his "wasting people's time" isn't even a reason for a block...

i know he's a human like me, he may have just been tired or in a hurry in that moment, i don't think he's a bad guy or someone who likes abusing users, not at all, but he's done something he shouldn't, exceeding his authority. what about the "assume good faith"? i'm doing this with him, but he didn't with me from the beginning. Samir wrote: "I think this 2 week range block is overkill for the problem and suggest that it be overturned now that the page in question is protected"; that's what i'm asking for: please, just restore the previous block ending tomorrow! i'm asking both for me, who didn't go against rules, and for the 32000 and more persons who won't be able to edit wikipedia for 2 weeks, please Centocinquantuno (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Notes to Centocinquantuno: (1) If you want to be taken seriously, kindly type like an intelligent adult, with correct capitalization, spelling, and grammar, and paragraph breaks, and avoiding irrelevancies and walls of text. (2) No one is prevented from editing Wikipedia just because an IP range is blocked, any more than you were prevented from editing. All they have to do is create an account. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. Is this text better? You are right about correct capitalization and paragraph breaks, but please keep in mind that I am Italian, unlike you I am not a native English speaker, so my spelling and grammar can not be as correct as yours. If you had written in my language, I would have not pointed out that you did not write in perfect Italian. Also you have just written "cmts" in the summary.

If one's IP range is blocked, he or she can not create an account. I had to ask a neighbour to create an account for me so that I could log in, but I am a bit experienced about IPs and the Internet stuff, and I was lucky enough to have a friend among my neighbours.

Thank you very much for your note to admin(s)! Consider that the article we are talking about (Mafia) had already been protected one day after the range block started. I hope that you appreciate my effort to write in proper English. This was the first time I took part in a discussion.

Centocinquantuno (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note to blocking admin(s): If the problem is now seen to be confined to merely one article (and I see no one now denying that), please just semi-protect that article for as long as necessary. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(i'm gonna try my best to write in the most proper and comprehensible english)
I am summing up the matter because the original block is going to expire in a few hours:

• Thursday, october 29, Administrator MSGJ blocked the 151.20.x IP range because a troll was edit warring on the article "Mafia", which was protected the next day.
• Yesterday morning I realised that I could not edit anything because my dynamic IP range was 151.20.x, which is a very common IP range in Northern Italy.
• At 9 a.m. I made an unblocking request; at noon I had received no answers and I made another identical request; after waiting 3 more hours I made the third identical request.
• Administrator Ohnoitsjamie answered a few minutes before, but I became aware of that after making my last request, so I answered on that page.
• His answer was this: "You'll need to find another IP range to edit from if you wish to edit constructively."; how can a user with a 151.20.x IP range use a different IP range?
• He read my last request and answered: "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses."; that is why I am writing here.

First: I have broken no Wikipedian rules, I have just been waiting for an answer to my unblocking request, almost 6 hours to be precise.
Second: I have made 2 more requests just because I did not receive an answer, and such requests were neither invalid nor disruptive.
Third: "...your talk page access may be revoked which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking..." "...you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired..."; rules are clear, not being blocked but being unable to access to one's own talk page.
Last but not least, more than 32000 persons who have already been prevented for a week from editing en.wikipedia (because of a single troll who could no longer continue his edit war on an already protected page) are now being prevented from editing for two weeks because of an admin's hasty or not enough ponderate decision about me (who did not break any rules as I said).
I am just asking admins to restore the previous IP range block, cancelling its extension. Four of you have already said that the block has no reason to be any more and/or it is exceeding, the first two responders had a different opinion because I wrote a "wall of text" and I did not provide sufficient nor sufficiently clear information. Please, remove the last block concerning 151.20.x IP range. Centocinquantuno (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note to blocking admin(s): If the problem is now seen to be confined to merely one article (and I see no one now denying that), please just semi-protect that article for as long as necessary, instead of rangeblocking, as everyone seems to agree that would be the best and obvious and normal procedural solution. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Since there is no-one disagreeing with Centocinquantuno, Softlavender's endorsement seems sound. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC).
    
  • I agree. Centocinquantuno, I'm sorry that you feel frustrated but it's not unusual for these cases to take a few days to resolve themselves as more admins read over the comments and someone decides to take action. I'm not familiar with setting range-blocks so I can just affirm that they should be as narrow as possible and if the vandalism is limited to one article, it is better to protect the article than have collateral damage of preventing other editors from editing from those IPs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you everyone, now all we need is a willing admin who physically clicks the "unblock-button" :) Centocinquantuno (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have unblocked the range. If disruption resumes please feel free to handle as you see fit. --Versageek 18:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Versageek: thank you, you've acted adultly because you made a misjudgement and then changed your mind! 32000+ thanks ;)Centocinquantuno (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet still no explanation why Centcinquanteetun cant edit. This is an encyclopaedia my friend, not a social network. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, i didn't call you "Rossi de dogghe" or anything else, why did you cripple my name? however, there were 32000+ persons who couldn't edit, last week for a single troll and this week for an admin who exceeded his authority because of "assume bad faith", and i couldn't create an account since my full range was blocked, as i said yesterday i had to ask a friend to create an account for me so that i could log in, how many of the 32000+ potential users could do the same?Centocinquantuno (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Involved admin comment I agree with Samir's suspician that we are dealing with the same IP user who was targeted in the original block, and no one else appears to be affected by it thus far. See my comment to original blocking admin here. I'm not planning on taking further action on the IP range, but I'm not going to wheel war with another admin who does. The problem at Mafia can easily be handled in the future with page protection extensions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

oh, look who finally showed up! and just after his block was undone, not before. i'm answering in MSGJ's talk page since you've already written that there and the issue discussed here's already been resolvedCentocinquantuno (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lord & Taylor editor, back as an anon again

• Lord & Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 74.76.148.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - previously blocked
• 2600:1017:b015:e37b:a452:1444:94e:2b31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - current issue
• 70.209.133.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another IP
• 2600:1017:b02b:deaa:e9fc:aea3:3e82:9891 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another IPv6 address.
• Previous AN/I history: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Lord_and_Taylor_COI_editor_-_various_IPs
• Previous AN/I history: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive902#Lord_and_Taylor_COI_anon_editor_is_back.

The Lord & Taylor COI editor's IPv4 address remains blocked, but they now have a new IPv6 address. Compare [140] ("The Fall 2015 campaign includes collections by Givenchy ...") with [141] ("The Fall 2015 campaign includes collections by Givenchy ..."). They've also been editing Crossgates Mall (which is "anchored by Lord & Taylor") to remove negative information [142]. The edits aren't that bad, but they're all happy talk PR, and trying to do via IPv6 what you were blocked for on IPv4 is clear block evasion. John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: another IP, 70.209.133.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with exactly the same edit.[143]. Also another related but not too bad edit from a new IPv6 address.[144]. Suggest semi-protection on Lord & Taylor, since they seem to have a large supply of IP addresses. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Semied 4 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Batmacumba

User edited the article on LGBT rights in Greenland. I reverted their edit and later edited the article myself.

There is currently a bill pending in the parliament of Denmark regarding an amendment to its marriage laws in respect of Greenland.

My edit was supported by several sources - including a pdf of the bill.

Regarding the matter we disagree on you only presented one source - the pdf of the bill. I asked if you had additional sources for that claim and you didnt reply to that.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User took to the talk page and criticized the alleged unsourced "claim that it [the law] could take effect on April 1, 2016" [145] and claimed that "the bill itself says April 1, 2015 (so retroactively)" [146]. I copy-pasted the bill's relevant section (regarding its entry into force) to the talk page [147]. Still user doesn't get tired to claim the bill itself (my source) states it'd take effect retroactively in April 2015 instead of 2016.

Please see: article's talk page [148], article's revision history [149] and my talk page [150].

I left a note on user's talk page, asking them to read about disruptive editing - but that only made them call me "arrogant and destructive" [151]].

Doing this instead of entering into a dialogue was an entirely unnecessary escalation.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I decided to neither start an edit war nor an endless discussion on a crystal clear fact. Everybody who is literate can see it's 2016 - not 2015.

You should have assumed good faith (if it was "a crystal clear fact" it wouldn't have been challenged) and entered a dialogue - obviously not started an edit war.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the source in question. It's a pdf of the bill. Please see its §5 - it reads: "Loven træder i kraft den 1. april 2016"176.0.104.36 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's on page 2. What is it on page 35 that says: "§5 Loven træder i kraft den 1. april 2015, jf. dog stk 2" BMK (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Pages 1 and 2 are the actual 'law proposal' ("Forslag til lov").

Pages 3 to 26 are 'comments on the law proposal' ("bemærkninger til lovforslaget") - on past legislation, on changes to be made and their effects, on why those changes are proposed etc. etc. etc.

Pages 27 to 35 form an annex ("bilag") comparing the laws' wording as currently applicable ("gældende formulering") with the law proposal's ("lovforslaget") wording. Page 35, which includes the typo, forms merely part of the explanatory notes.

The actual law proposal, members of parliament will vote on, is made up of pages 1 and 2 only.176.4.137.39 (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You never made this clarification in the discussion on the talk page. This would have formed a sensible point of departure for a discussion.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Btw: User hasn't edited since I started the discussion on this board. Instead another user, User:Renard98, popped up shortly thereafter, made a disturbing edit to the same article regarding a date[152] and copy-pasted User:Batmacumba's wording of the section to another article [153] - followed by another disturbing edit [154] regarding a date. (Now it's "retroactively from 1 April 2016")176.4.137.39 (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems two sections of the bill contradict each other. I was going by the final section "Lovforslaget sammenholdt med gældende ret", where it is compared to the present legal status and it says 1 April 2015 there. This may be an error, but we can not just assume so. The complainer ignored several messages to his talk page and the actual content of my messages on the articles talk page. Instead he was being very dismissive and arrogant in his replies (needlessly so). As I stated on the talk page there is no ban on retroactive legislation in the Danish Constitution, so one need to be sure whether 1 April 2016 (a long implementation time since the previous identical bill had already being prepared and the Folketing approving this is a formality) is correct. There was no need to take this to the admins board, the complainer could just have entered a good faith dialogue assuming there was substance to my claim instead of being so dismissive. I was also unsure whether he could read Danish, since he seemingly assumed there was substantive changes, whereas its content is similar to the previous. Stating whether he can read Danish would have been constructive (I had already told him I was Danish).--Batmacumba (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There really is no reason to involve an admin in this trivial matter. It should be perfectly possible to solve it on the talk page of the article assuming good faith on both sides.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC) @Batmacumba:wikipedia not crystal ball. until bill pass confirm, not mention bill in articleMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The bill is a formality, the Danish Folketing always accepts Greenlandic opt-ins on realm laws. So the "crystal ball" element is not in play here. We have to mention that the Greenlandic parliament has approved same-sex marriage and therefore also where the process currently is - anything else would be odd.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Your "You never made this clarification [...] on the talk page" - referring to one of my edits to this board [155]... - well, you don't grow tired spreading the information that you're a Dane [156] [157] [158] [159]. Still you are reliant on someone else - for them to give you some "clarification" on a Danish-speaking text ?!?

"Stating whether he can read Danish would have been constructive"

How is that ? Because knowing you're confronted with someone who is able to understand Danish ... would make it more difficult for you to fool them, huh ?176.4.137.39 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway ... as said: Document is divided into three parts. Parts 2 and 3 (pages 3 to 35) are explanatory notes, comparative tables etc. etc. etc. Only part 1 (pages 1 and 2) is the actual law proposal (forslag til lov). In section 5 the law proposal says: "Loven træder i kraft den 1. april 2016". Simple as that176.4.137.39 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

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

---

An anon user was recently using different IPs to edit war on the Ben Affleck filmography, insistent on adding unsourced rumour material. During one of the reverts, the user vandalised the article with this uncalled for message that seemed to be directed at me. After the article was protected to avoid further disruption, the user proceeded to pay a visit to my Talk Page in order to insult me in an obscene manner. Although I have warned the user against edit warring in the past ([160]), this attack was entirely unprovoked. The user clearly isn't interested in any sort of discussion aside from juvenile insults. DarkKnight2149 05:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clearly unacceptable, blocked for 31 hours. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

This looks to be resolved and ready for closure. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

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

User:SundayRequiem, part three

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

---

My apologies for returning to ANI so soon again. This is probably the third ANI thread regarding SundayRequiem (talk · contribs) (first case, second case), and I sincerely hope that this will be the last, because I frankly am getting tired of dealing with the same issues over and over again.

Background information

• On 17 October 2015 I reported this user to ANI, under the complaint that the user had been disruptive on a few articles, and that he did not seem to be someone who is here to constructively build an encyclopedia. The result of the ANI thread was that a warning was issued to the user by User:JzG.
• On 17 October 2015, User:Codename Lisa filed a 3RR report against the user for edit-warring on Microsoft, and the user was formally warned.
• On 24 October 2015, User:Darx9url reported the same user to ANI, under the complaint that they had been hurling abuses and personal attacks at other editors ("go fuck yourself", "fucking idiot", et cetera). It was also noted that he created an attack page against administrators which was swiftly deleted. The result of the ANI thread was that the user was blocked for one week by User:Swarm.

Recent events

• After his most recent block, this user has continued to edit war on Chengdu J-20, Alcohol and health and EBay. Not to mention, even after his earlier warnings, he continued to edit war on Phoenix (mythology).
• He has harassed User:BilCat on his talk page, after BilCat reverted one of his edits.
• He refuses to acknowledge WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks and makes blanket reverts out of spite without any reasonable explanation, refer to the edit history for EBay.
• He refuses to acknowlege WP:MEDRS and laughs at me for linking it to him, refer to Talk:Alcohol and health#Criteria and the edit history for Alcohol and health. Earlier on there was a similar issue with WP:MOS-ZH at Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning.
• He has attempted to chase away IP editors for the sole reason of being IP editors. He was warned for WP:BITE-ing, and this warning was dismissed.
• He has made a personal attack against me, labelling me as "Chinese" within his edit summary in an effort to discredit my edits. This is not the first time.

Additional information

• His very first edit made on 7 June 2015 is a blatant vandal edit; not much has changed in his behaviour within the next 371 edits. Between June and November, he has attacked editors that he does not agree with, edit warred on various different pages, and has generally been disruptive overall.
• I also find this edit suspicious. Dark Liberty (talk · contribs) was indef blocked on 9 October 2014 for edit warring.

Based on this editor's refusal to engage in proper and civil community discussion, non-adherence to MoS guidelines established by community consensus, and confrontational behaviour, I honestly believe that this user is not here to work cooperatively and collaboratively on an encyclopedia which is built upon mutual collaboration. This editor causes more harm than good for the project, and until this user can learn how to respectfully communicate with other people, I am not convinced that they should continue their activities on this project. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I considered an indef the last time and regret not keeping a better eye on him since his last block expired. Thank you for taking the time to compile this report, I think it speaks for itself and serves as more than sufficient justification for an indefinite block, and I will be implementing the block presently. Swarm ♠ 09:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I do support an indef block, pending a satisfactory explanation from SundayRequiem for the edits listed above. There does seem to be a clear pattern of antisocial behaviour and unhelpful edits to articles that would mean that a satisfactory explanation would probably also have to be an extremely good one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 15:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

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

not know how describe

OP post update reply to question in refdesk archive, not know rules before, but suddenly find mentions and accusations+veiled threat of being other user OP not know. OP raise complaint in ANI cause OP think admin attention needed. OP believe want good faith practice. ruleset of editing refdesk archive OP not knewMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Have no idea what you're saying, but I'm thinking it's related to this note on your talk page KoshVorlon 18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This editor edited the Reference Desk archives in order to ping other editors and was cautioned that editing the archives for that purpose was disruptive editing. Some of this editor's posts to the Reference Desk have a troll-like character to them. I would advise this editor to read the boomerang essay, as well as reading the competence is required essay as to a minimum level of English. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Is everyone here now just too scared to say "troll", even with a weight of evidence, and deal accordingly? Because I've looked and looked at the contributions here, and I see nothing that says "not troll", whilst every edit says "troll". That we turn this obvious nonsense into an issue, rather than just quietly and firmly blocking and dealing with it, demeans us, and gives them the audience they crave. Begoon ^talk 12:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the mere fact that he can communicate perfectly clearly, but chooses instead to pepper wiki pages with only nonsense-speak, I'd say yes, it's time to quickly block and ignore and DFTT. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed we are so stupid. There's a lesson here, but I'm damned if I know the right place to go to hammer it home. Have we blocked the troll yet? Begoon ^talk 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As the saying goes, never ascribe malice to that which can be adequately explained by, in this case, a poor command of English. I don't think we need to treat this editor as a troll. He edited the RD archives in error, and the admonishment he received for doing so was probably unnecessarily harsh, and he may have interpreted it even more harshly than that, and brought it here. I would say:

• to Mahfuzur Rahman Shourov: it wouldn't hurt to phrase your questions in more conventional English, if you can.
• to other refdesk contributors: if you don't like this person's questions, just ignore them. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [revised 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)]

I'd agree with As the saying goes, never ascribe malice to that which can be adequately explained by, in this case, a poor command of English, if I had not reviewed the contributions. I have, so I don't. This is a troll. Blocking should be automatic, and immediate. Anything else leaves me disappointed.Begoon ^talk 14:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Begoon, Scs, and Softlavender:what happen to AGF? I new here, not remember all rule, can just warn person, but go outright accusationMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist96 ARBMAC violation

• Terrorist96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an uninvolved administrator please apply the relevant WP:ARBMAC rules in case of User:Terrorist96's abusive comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=689040786&oldid=688923648

I would do it, but I am obviously involved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. There was nothing abusive about it. This user has taken it upon themselves to remove the infobox from a micronation article whilst many other micronation articles have infoboxes (i.e. Principality of Sealand, Conch Republic, Aerican Empire, Republic of Molossia, etc.). The user resides in Croatia, which is a statement of fact. Terrorist96 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To accuse people of being biased solely because of their nationality is widely recognized to be abusive, especially in this topic area. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Joy: there is obviously no consensus to remove the infobox on the talkpage. If anything its a fairly even split with perfectly reasonable arguments on both sides - in which situation the status quo continues. The RFC is poorly phrased and ultimately leads the respondents to arguing in for treating Liberland as an event rather than a micronation and certainly does not make it clear that the intent is to remove the infobox. Using the (and I disagree entirely with the closer here) the stated consensus to phrase the article as about an event as evidence the infobox should be removed is... well twisty logic at its finest. Thats a content dispute which needs to be hashed out on the talkpage. Terrorist96: regardless if someone is from the country which claims the land in question - it does not make them incapable of editing or having an impartial opinion, and I have not known Joy to edit in a nationalist manner. Disregarding someone's argument because of their ethnicity is not a way to work with people and continuing will likely end up with sanctions under ARBMAC. I suggest you both go back to the talkpage and start a specific Infobox RFC to resolve it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There I just opened one. Go forth people and decide the future of an infobox on a non-existant micronation! Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The person who closed the RFC said explicitly that there is consensus, yet somehow you want to relitigate it, and to top it all of you come here apparently in defense of a person who explicitly insulted me by assuming bad faith solely based on nationality. This is beyond ridiculous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Joy is the RFC you're talking about ? , if so, AlbinoFerret closed it by saying There are two questions in this RFC. Should the article be made into an event article. There is consensus for this. The majority opinion is this is how it is described in reliable sources. That the coverage is about the declaring of a micronation, not that one exists. There was nothing stated about the infobox itself. As far as Terrorist96's comments, they were addressed by Only in death, I will also state that his comment was un-called for, making any comments about someone's ethnicity is flat out wrong. No, Terrorist96 isn't blocked, he was warned, and if he continues, will likely be blocked. No one's thrown you under the bus. KoshVorlon 20:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I never mentioned their ethnicity. I simply said they reside in Croatia, which is a statement of fact as mentioned on their talk page. I don't know their ethnicity nor do I care. The reason it's relevant is because the article is about Liberland, a new country that has been declared on land that's disputed between Croatia and Serbia. Croatia refuses to recognize Liberland, while Serbia claims that Liberland isn't infringing on its territory. Croatia doesn't claim the territory either, but wishes that Serbia would claim it (so as to give credence towards their interpretation of the border). Because Joy resides in Croatia, it was my opinion that they weren't injecting a neutral POV by repeatedly deleting the infobox AND several other paragraphs in the face of multiple other users re-adding them. That's all. I never called Joy anything defamatory nor effused any malice towards their nationality. Thanks for not banning me, but even a warning is unwarranted in this situation, IMHO. Terrorist96 (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon I'm assuming this is being treated as 'resolved', so can an admin archive it? Terrorist96 (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That is correct, my close did not address an infobox. AlbinoFerret 21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist96 Come on, even though you worded your edit summary carefully, it still looks like you're talking about her ethnicity without actually outright saying it, kind of like if I said someone resides in north korea therefore they're not neutral on anything about north korea. To me , your statement appears to be impling an ethnic remark, and no neither you nor I should close this out. KoshVorlon 11:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon That's why I picked my words carefully, so that I don't violate any rules. In addition, I'm not the only one that doubts Joy's neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689073189 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689071477 Terrorist96 (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the alleged micronation of Liberland is on land disputed betwen Serbia and Croatia, it is clearly in the Balkans and thus is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. I have given User:Terrorist96 an alert under those sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest taking this to WP:AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

GentleCollapse16

• User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) - This user continually adds information without sources, removes sourced information, implements original research, baits other users, aggressively attacks others. They have been warned multiple times on their talk page, and even blocked in the past. Examples include removal of cited and accepted info and implementation of original research for the Lana Del Rey page. When met with rules by other users, this user becomes incredibly aggressive and projects onto others. Past incidents include vandalism on art rock, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Axis: Bold as Love - which resulted in a ban after repeated incidents. Ilovetati91 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Interested users might want to ' see this, it looks like ILovetati91 and GentleCollapse16 are edit warring on genre, there's already a discussion on the talk page about this, and it looks like GentleCollapse16 is being reasonable. I recommend this be closed at forum shopping. KoshVorlon 18:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable, yet users' valid points are constantly deterred through personal attacks and evasion? The page's vandalism needs to be addressed, and it's not limited to the genre. Please see the page's edit history. GentleCollapse16 has been banned multiple times due to this exact type of editing patterns and it has extended to a page in which a significant amount of prior work has been put into reversing vandalism and original research already. ilovetati91 (talk) 18:16 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have checked some of GentleCollapse16's edits and can find no vandalism or personal attacks. Can you please provide examples of where both of these occurred? Also, I have made a formal notification that this thread has been opened (you should have done this yourself). Also, GentleCollapse16 has not been "banned multiple times", the editor has been blocked once only, for 31 hours, in August 2015. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, I agree. I think, also, it would be reasonable to expect ilovetati91 to provide an answer to your questions. Bringing a user to ANI is serious, and upsetting for the "accused". ilovetati91 should withdraw or apologise, or support this with diffs. Begoon ^talk 12:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:ParamountFanatic2001

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

---

Extremely likely to be a block evasion of sock Caidin-Johnson. The same gibberish articles as other previously blocked socks.--Cahk (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The place to report socking is WP:SPI (with supporting evidence). And if you report anyone here you must notify them, as clearly highlighted in the edit notice when you edit here. Please do so immediately. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

User_talk:Jimmy_Aneja

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

---

constantly removes encyclopaedic information from pages without any consulting or writing on the talk pageYatan-verma (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Diffs? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lets wait for what the complainer wants to say more with differences. But I just happened to notice that they themselves have removed International Phonetic Alphabets from one article; which isn't encyclopedic either. Please read WP:BOOMERANG §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to show diffs, u can go and check this person's edits though, they constantly remove encyclopaedic paragraphs from people's wiki pages without any reasons, as for me removing those alphabets, i can revert that back, that doesn't compare to the chucks of information that user removes without no reason Yatan-verma (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Showing differences is quite basic. If you don't know that I doubt you understand more difficult polices and guidelines of Wikipedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing, personal attacks, and use of multiple accounts

6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also uses the account 6-A04-W96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been editing tendentiously on File talk:Qing Dynasty 1820.png. He tagged at least five maps on the Commons as "modern fantasy" (see contribs), even though four different users have disagreed with him, see thread1 and thread2. When Rajmaan disagreed with him, he attacked Rajmaan as a troll. I then cautioned him against using personal attacks, but he responded by calling me a troll as well.

The person has been using at least two accounts on both en-wiki and the Commons (although to be fair, he does not attempt to conceal the fact). One of his accounts has already been blocked on the Commons for vandalism [161]. -Zanhe (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Images hosted on commons are regularly dealt with at commons, not on wikipedia. It appears that he is trying to push his agenda on the talk page of the image file on English wikipedia simply because he cannot get his way at commons since he was blocked there with one of his accounts for disruption and runs the risk of of getting blocked again if he disrupts with his other account. This is cross-wiki disruption.Rajmaan (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

For information, that's the same user than Pseudois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (that worked on en: and fr:, with a lot of unfair edits and removing of sourced informations and their references. He said in late 2014, it will work no more on wikipedia before creating the 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account in february 2015 and working the same way.Popolon (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all above users. What he did was considered disruptive and it is now clear it was exactly him who makes POV push and tendentious edits in various pages in both Wikipedia and Commons. --Cartakes (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks

User:Mrandrewnohome was blocked indefinitely in August for posting controversial anti-semetic material at the reference desks in the guise of asking questions.diff

He created an admitted sockpuppet User:Hadlad90 to protest being blocked, then erased that socked comment form his talk page.diff. (See also the suspiciously overlapping Special:Contributions/69.121.131.137)

He was advised "The reference desk doesn't exist to engage in arguments. Your actual editing work is fine, that's not problematic but stop it with the controversial questions here."diff

Mrandrewnohome then promised "It won't happen again" and was unblocked.

He has not edited the project since then (under this user name), except to resume posting concern troll questions about anti-semitic material at the ref desks which he promised not to do ever again:

• Nazi propaganda
• Hi, does anybody know if it's possible to acquire a translated version of the May 1934 issue of Der Sturmer, with the headline 'Jewish world plan to destroy gentile humanity'

We have articles on Der Stuermer and Der Giftpilz indicating their anti-semitic nature. This site, http://www.gailallen.com/rv/rv-vol-01-iss-07.html referencing the first item is typical in asking whether or not Jews are actually by necessity racist liars and murderers.

Hence after two months we have the same user returning not to edit the project, but again to seek commentary on what he says is a "university project".

This is a longterm pattern:

• Holocaust revisionism (a rambling essay)
• This is not intended as a racist post, and racist opinions are not welcome on it
• a prior argument at ANI that the preoccupation with anti-Semitism was based on a university thesis

Given the user has shown an ability to edit the project, but not to keep his promise to stay away from posting controversial questions on "Jewry" at the ref desks, I propose a narrow topic ban preventing posting any questions or comments at the ref desks regarding Jews and Nazism or related topics. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Look, I don't know. I warned him about asking those types of questions and while yeah asking for Nazi propaganda is out there, there aren't questions being asked or anything argumentative or even a posting of something inflammatory. It is two requests for things that while untasteful, still do exist. I don't see any commentary here at all, just a description of where a source for those items could be found. I'm not comfortable that asking to find Nazi propaganda should itself be considered grounds for presuming that someone actually agrees with the propaganda especially when there hasn't been a response and there hasn't been any editing in support of those sources. As I note here, there is examples to be found in the works of a professor at Calvin College so it's possible to find good faith in the university study argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no request that questions about antisemitism be blocked.

There's a request that a user who seems obsessed with the topic and unable to keep his promises of "never again" to be held to the words under which he was restored: a request that an admitted sockpuppeteer whose first edits under his own name violated that promise be held to his word

And a request that someone who posts images and texts libeling Jews for being Jews and naming non-Jews as Jews be narrowly blocked from bringing up the topic of Judaism and Nazism at the ref desks.

See, for example, the user's post of this BLP violating image (The un referenced image names 3/4 of the media and government as at least crypto-jews, if not "worse") when he last promised not to post controversial "questions" about Jews under the guise of University projects.

It should be quite obvious that no real university student would be referencing such blatantly racist WP:BLP violations without motivation. And the user has not gone back to editing WP as promised;

He has gone back to bringing up libels of Jews.

μηδείς (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from anything remotely connected with the "question" asked here. WP:AGF is wonderful but, particularly given the background, asking how to get a translation of the "Jewish world plan to destroy gentile humanity" is trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with that this seems like trolling more than posing legitimate questions. BMK (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban in the name of not feeding the trolls. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, this is getting ridiculous. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mrandrewnohome was notified of this discussion, but responded to me on my talk page rather than here. I advised him that he should respond at the ANI, and repeated my encouragement to him to edit productively, which he is eminently capable of and has done in the past. Perhaps Andrew would consider voluntarily promising to a topic ban? In any case, here is his comment on my talk page, and my response: "I know you think I'm a racist, but". μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Wars with Flyer22 Reborn

Flyer22 Reborn has unjustifiably deleted my edits on the basis that edits should only reflect community consensus instead of actual peer reviewed publications made by scientists/researchers. In other words, he/she wants to control information on Wikipedia and will not allow others to contribute actual scientific data. Help resolve this issue so I can edit instead of getting reverted by this troll.

These are the pages I have edit wars with: [162], [163], [164]

Need your administrator assistance ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doe1994 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a routine content dispute, Doe1994, complicated by the other editor's accusations that you are a sockpuppet. Instead of denying that, you resorted to personal atttacks, calling the other editor a "bitch" and a "fucking troll". Your behavior has been far from exemplary. Please mend your ways. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment: the editor filing the complaint failed to follow the guideline above and notify user:Flyer22 Reborn, on her talk page, that this issue is being raised, instead pasting a broken link to the user page. I cannot speak for Flyer, but I seldom look at my user page unless editing it, so this user-page notice is insufficient to notify her that this issue has been raised here. (Another user has placed a courtesy note on Flyer's talk page, so presumably she will make an appearance here to discuss the reverts in question.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 User:Etamni Yeah, my bad I'm sorry I lost my temper and I'm sorry towards user:Flyer22 Reborn for calling her a "bitch". I am also a noob here so I don't have perfect knowledge how to notify people properly. However this issue is very critical because it shows there are some people like user:Flyer22 Reborn who is suppressing and restricting others from posting newer or relevant peer reviewed sources. As someone who is a regular follower of Peer reviewed journals, I find it unacademic that wikipedia allows individuals to restrict others from posting new official data. Flyer22's defence is that posts have to comply with community consensus which I find is irrational since that's not what the wikipedia rules says.The guidelines says you can post as long as the sources are valid. Community consensus should be frowned upon if peer reviewed sources outmatch any of their opinions. Doe1994 [[165]]

Doe1994, the editor you are in a dispute with is not a troll by any definition of the term, and personal attacks will get you nowhere, except possibly blocked. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and railing against consensus is also unproductive. Not every peer-reviewed journal article is a good source, especially for any medical related article. We have a strong preference for review articles which analyze a large number of primary research articles. Please read and understand WP:MEDRS. In every Wikipedia article, editors working together are responsible for summarizing what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, not battling to get their favorite peer-reviewed article included as a reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there was a bit of aggression on both sides. I don't like editors who just revert edits "because a sock made them" without giving some other auxillary reason to back it up (eg: POV pushing, unsourced, BLP violations etc - I'm not saying you did this, these are just examples off the top of my head), and equally I don't like people who respond in kind. Reliable sources for medicine is not my thing, but from a quick look at the content, I would say that Cullen328 is correct in terms of content, and the sources you use don't look like highly respected medical journals. Start a discussion on Talk:Sex differences in psychology and stake your claim as to why the sources you use are suitable. Flyer22 is not out to get you, and when in a dispute, it is always best to put personal differences aside and focus only on content - it can be annoying at the best of times but it really is the only sane way to resolve things. tl;dr - Flyer22, don't revert for no reason (where have I heard that before?) based on content, Doe1994, don't dish out insults when you're angry. Are we done? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to point out that Flyer22 has an excellent record in regard to recognizing sockpuppets. In my experience, she is right far more often then she is wrong. (In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any cases in which it was proven that she was wrong, just cases which have not yet come to fruition). BMK (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. If a sock made edits, and unless they're fixing vandalism or a BLP violation, I'm not expecting an auxiliary reason for a revert. Editors in good standing have enough to deal with without having to check the sock's edits for accuracy, NPOV, WP:V, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I see to be in the minority of admins who can hand on heart say that I don't give a flying toss who made an edit as long as it improves the encyclopedia, and we have the whole cause / effect thing back to front. Socks don't really get their edits reverted because they're socks, they get undone because the behaviour that caused the original block has not been fixed in the sock and they revert to type. If this is a genuine long-term problem, somebody will be able to direct me at an earlier ANI thread and say "aw jeez, not this again". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles

I'm not sure if here or WP:AN is the best place for this, but since I want as many editors (not just administrators) to weigh in on it, I've brought it here. User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (etc.) has left three messages on my talk page, which concern his using Wikipedia to publicize his material, socking, how he can't be deterred, and his war against the anti-child sexual abuse crowd. See User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary for more detail. So I of course was disappointed and frustrated to see that Sadads restored two of his articles -- List of tools used in sex offender forensic psychological evaluations‎ and Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk, stating in the logs, "Clearly notable topic... just because they are banned doesn't mean its not quality." and "Clearly notable topic... just because they are banned doesn't mean its not quality." See this discussion for further detail. I told Sadads, in part, "I recognize in other ways that a WP:Notable topic should perhaps not be deleted. But as Alison, JamesBWatson, NeilN and others can tell you, we are dealing with a very serious sock/banned editor in this case, one who loves to publicize his work on Wikipedia, usually for shameful ulterior motives, and has openly declared a war against Wikipedia editors. [...] And I don't see why it should at all be encouraged. [...] I don't see that these articles or any other articles this editor creates are quality content; this editor's articles are usually based on one or two sources, are often non-notable, WP:POV forks, and/or don't comply with WP:MEDRS. If a topic is WP:Notable, we should leave it up to good editors to create, not editors like this one. I stated on my talk page, in part. "His latest post on my talk page was titled 'I can't be deterred; I can only be temporarily incapacitated'; if that were the case, he would not feel the need to rant on my talk page after I obliterate his socks and work. Deleting his work does deter him. And temporarily incapacitating him is also good. Just imagine the frustration and/or anger that exploded in him when seeing that I'd gotten all of his articles (which were a lot, and are now memorized by me...title-wise) deleted, except the remaining three that I will be sure to continue pursuing deletion for as well." The third article is Kurt Bumby. I think all the other articles were deleted; I'll check again at some point.

So my questions are this: Should we, under any circumstance, accept an article by this editor, especially given the aforementioned statements he posted on my talk page? For example, when the article is deleted under WP:G5, should it be restored because it's WP:Notable or perceived as WP:Notable by the administrator? Below are options and a discussion section for this matter, to help gauge different views. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to this discussion.

Delete any new article by this editor, WP:G5-type or otherwise

• Support, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Partial support I guess but I object to the whole idea of any further arguments about this at ANI. This is not something that requires admin conduct other than in the pure technical issue of restoration. It's something that should be based on a consensus and not a consensus based on people who visit the drama board so to speak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete only under certain circumstances

• Comment: The article would have to be pretty spectacular, and/or significantly expanded by a different editor for me to be okay with keeping it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The prior discussion involved a GA that people thought could become a FA, as an example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete non-WP:G5-compliant articles by this editor

Take the discussion elsewhere

• Delete them and take them to WP:DRV for separate discussions there. See below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with this but the question remains about what to do in the situation where an admin undeletes a G5 article unilaterally. My feeling is that the admin now takes responsibility for the content and any deficiencies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Same situation, different CSD criteria, what's done? If an admin uniltarally undeletes a page speedied deleted under other criteria, say A7, I think that's a fair IAR and wheel warring dispute to bring back to ANI but wouldn't the article be re-deleted and then taken to DRV? I think we need to look at this on an article by article basis rather than a remedy on the editor basis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

When the last G5 issue came up, I stated that I did not believe that ANI is the proper location for these G5 arguments (whether or not it was an appropriate IAR to restore G5 articles). Same here again. G5 falls under the other CSD criteria and we have a system for discussing restoration following a CSD-based deletion, namely WP:Deletion review. This is the wrong venue and we need to come up with a more systematic way of handling these than just ANI arguments. It's too complicated for here. There is no reason why people should be using ANI discussions to formulate a consensus around G5 discussions when we have a much better place that already deals with restorations following A7, A1, and many other CSD deletions (including I believe wholesale deletions for copyright violations). It would also be a better place for someone to bring a new draft if they want to argue for restoration based on not using the G5 problem editor's work, much better than arguing it here at ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thank you. I understand what you mean, even though I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion be a good start? There is already Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Why_use_G5_for_useful_pictures.3F about images with G5. The issue is whether we want to change the wording for G5 (then WPT:CSD works) or just IAR to get around the literal meaning of G5 (at which point there's no real discussion place other than ANI for whether the IAR is appropriate). Let's see if anyone else cares about my point as no one seemed to last time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Dharmadhyaksha

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

---

biased editing and removal of content without using the talk page or consensus Yatan-verma (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs and links for evidence, thank you. sst✈^discuss 08:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You should also notify User:Dharmadhyaksha. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 08:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

He did notify me; I just removed it as it was placed on top of my talk page disturbing the chronology.
And in above section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Jimmy_Aneja he says he doesn't know how to show differences! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

182.74.182.130

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

---

Please check the special:contributions/182.74.182.130. --CiaPan (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That looks like vandalism. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 08:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

User:SFCTID

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

---

Please block this user, who is being an idiot at Sepp Blatter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• He's gone. Bye.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• The article has also been move protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Bethel, Alaska

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

---

Could this edit be reviewed, please? [166] This editor reverted seven edits I made, even though I left the new information in the article very well referenced. The reason given, "not encyclopedic", is specious at best. Thanks for the help. Juneau Mike (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michaelh2001, ANI is not the venue to review single edits. If you disagree with an edit, you need to open a discussion about the content on the Talk page of the article. If you cannot come to an understanding, then investigate WP:DR for further options. Softlavender (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Assistance needed with User:Robert Rowlkey

• Robert Rowlkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tucson Pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Apparently related commons image: File:TucsonPrideLogoLargeNew 7.jpg

Mr. Rowlkey created an article on the Tucson Pride organization. He also added two logos for the organization (one here, one at Commons).

The problem is, since then, he has refused any assistance with the article. He undid some image reformatting that I did and twice removed the {{COI}} tag from the article. He has now blanked the article twice, after threatening to "take the page off line and have a friend of mine put it back up."[167]

Now, my efforts to improve the article have been labeled "harass[ment]" and "LGBT discrimination". While no legal threat was made, he did state "This is going to become a media matter if this harrassment continues. I have kept screencaps of EVERYTHING. THe court of public opinion can be a real bitch."[168]

As a result, I no longer feel it's beneficial if I engage with this editor; I'd like some expert help to come in and provide a different angle in explaining policies like WP:OWN and WP:COI to this editor. The article wasn't a bad article - I mean, I didn't delete it CSD A7 or G11. It needs some attention, and I think that with some guidance, User:Robert Rowlkey could become a valuable contributor to the project. However, if we can't all make a change of course here, I don't think we'll get to that point. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I'll admit that Robert Rowlkey's reactions to your actions might have shown that he has a bit of a hair trigger in this regard, but I don't believe you helped the situation by failing to engage the user in anything but a string of templates. Sometimes an actual dialog is much more helpful. In this case, his first file submission indeed had no evidence of copyright, but as it is a low-res logo of an institution, it falls under fair use and could easily have been marked with {{logo fur}} (which I have now done). Helping rather than templating. Marking his article with a COI tag was appropriate, but when he railed at that, a simple explanation that the article was not going to be deleted, but that the tag exists solely to inform other readers and editors that other points of view might be needed, would have gone a long way to defuse the situation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Hungrygyhhbgftygv

User:Hungrygyhhbgftygv has been repeatedly inserting dates into infoboxes in articles on Australian TV shows, despite template documentation, embedded notes in each article being edited, and escalating warnings to the contrary. They have yet to engage on any talk page (including their own). Example diffs [169] [170] (and pretty much their entire contribution history). Borderline as vandalism, but since the information may well be accurate and is just being inserted badly and out of process I figured I'd bring it up here instead. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Dozens,Thousands upon thousands of unnecessary redirects

• Neelix (talk · contribs)

I dropped a note about this to Drmies, who suggested I bring it here [171]. There may be a history of such edits from this user, but the current issue is dozens of useless, if not puerile, redirects. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirect bombing seems to be the vandalism flavor of the day. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#User:TX6785 appears obsessed.) That user ended up being identified as a sock puppet. Possible here also? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse some kind of action if this continues; per my comments at User talk:Neelix#A couple of redirects..., if I saw this kind of crap from a new account I'd block it instantly as a vandal-only account, and AGF only goes so far. Is there something in the water this week? I think this is the fourth "mass creation of pointless redirects" thread in the last few days. ‑ iridescent 21:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked over his contributions but this is the fourth case of needless redirects over the past week. Something in the wire? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the SPI--'A window cleaner me' was the account I remember seeing do this recently, so this rang a bell when I came across it this afternoon. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix has created a few useful disambig and talk pages so I've kept those, but the heaps of redirects have been mass-deleted (useful tool!) and I'll leave a warning. The speed of editing suggests automated tools. GiantSnowman 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Turns out they're an admin. Concerning. GiantSnowman 21:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Neelix is flagged as an admin in my UI and their contribs go from Fractional Brownian motion to boobies!!!. It may be a compromised account. I notified the Bureaucrats mailing list. Jbh^Talk 22:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I sense a compromised account. I recommend an immediate block until some talk page explanation is forthcoming. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a recent incident on the WP:BNB of admin accounts that were compromised. Could this also be one? I cannot fathom a logical reason that someone would create all of those infantile redirects. Dave Dial (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

My account has not been hacked. I agree that the terms and phrases are puerile, but I think we should have redirects for puerile terms and phrases. Considering that there seems to be so much opposition, I will not object to the redirects being deleted and I will not attempt to create more redirects in this vein, but I do think them valid. We have a wide and diverse reader base, and people can and do use search strings consisting of slang terms, both the silly and the crass. Neelix (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies, Iridescent, and DD2K: who have all commented on Neelix's talk page on this matter. GiantSnowman 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

My immediate reaction to Neelix's response? Very concerning from an admin, making redirects they admit are "puerile". GiantSnowman 22:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not think the redirects puerile, but rather the terms. We have entire articles about puerile subjects because they are notable. That does not mean we should delete those articles. Neelix (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Consider, for example, Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, a featured article on a puerile subject. Neelix (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If they think links like Titty constructor, Boobie builder and a dozen variations --> Breast reconstruction and Tiny titties with many variations --> Micromastia and many similar things I strongly suggest they do not have the maturity and judgement we expect in out administrators. Jbh^Talk 22:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)‎

(edit conflict) How on earth could you think Constructed titty and Constructions of the booby (and dozens of very similar variants) were valid redirects?! GiantSnowman 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree entirely with GiantSnowman. I can't believe you genuinely think Constructions of the titties or Tubular boobies are either appropriate redirects, or plausible search terms. (If you do believe that, we have an issue.) That you appear not to understand the difference between a redirect and an article, judging by your response above, looks to me like a serious WP:CIR issue. ‑ iridescent 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I still think steps need to be taken to ensure Neelix is in control of his account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix, if you are redirecting to appeal to the 'lowest common dominanator' of reader as claimed, by creating Little titties etc., why have you created redirects such as Hypoplastic tits? GiantSnowman 22:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FFS I just found Booby cancer, Booby milk, Booby cyst, Titty cancer, Titty milk - it goes on and on and they have been doing this since at least September. Those redirects just seem to be hidden in the hundreds of semi-automated edits they do per day. Jbh^Talk 22:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NeilN: we need a crat to review, and consider possible emergency de-sysopping as an extreme, or at least some kind of CU check or something. GiantSnowman 22:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Shrinkages of the titties? OK, given how long this has been going on, I'd support at least a final warning, and I wouldn't oppose hauling Neelix in front of Arbcom if this continues. ‑ iridescent 22:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I glanced through the pages GiantSnowman deleted and noticed one, Female figure (disambiguation), was a valid disambiguation page [172]. There might be others. KateWishing (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought I'd unclicked all the disambig pages, now restored. GiantSnowman 22:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, the bolded terms in the lead of the Micromastia article are valid redirects and should be recreated. Neelix (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean, the bolded terms you just added? I am seriously considering indefblocking you. ‑ iridescent 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not add any of those terms; they were already on the Tuberous breasts, which I merged into Micromastia today. I did not invent them. Neelix (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I ran a checkuser and he has been on the same IP since early September, of course - the creation of odd redirects go back that far as well. --Versageek 22:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

So the IP changed around the same time as the strange edits? Interesting. Highly probable the account is compromised, I suggest a de-sysop and block. GiantSnowman 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• If these were terms that were commonly searched by readers, then they would be useful (see WP:RFD#K5). Fortunately, we have a tool for that:
  • Booby cancer - 8 hits in the last 60 days
  • Booby milk - 9 hits
  • Booby cyst - 5 hits
  • Titty cancer - 4 hits
  • Titty milk - 10 hits
  • Shrinkages of the titties - 10 hits, all on the same day

Clearly none of these are common searches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I do not object to the deletion of the redirects. If people are seriously concerned that my account has been compromised, there are several prominent editors who have met me in person who can confirm my identity off-Wiki. Neelix (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think any of the redirects are particularly useful. I especially don't see the value of creating pages with titles like titty banged, frenchfucking, licks boobs, boobyfeeding, a trip down mammary lane, and so on; you've created thousands of these redirects. Wikipedia is not censored, but we're also not Urban Dictionary. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This goes back months, and there are literally thousands of them. If this is a compromised account, it's been compromised since at least December 2014 (when such fine redirects as Nudity of the thorax and Anti-trousers were created). ‑ iridescent 22:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the account is compromised (at least not recently). This user has seemingly always had a proclivity for creating unusual redirects - this is just the first time it caught attention. --Versageek 22:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked around to see how wide this problem is. Here are the pages I checked: Redirects to Nipple discharge (Titty discharges etc.), Redirects to Breast cancer (Particularly bad including Titty tumors and Tumourous boobies among a dozen or so others) [Redirects to Breast cyst] (Cystic boobies, Tit cysts etc) Redirects to Breast implant (Titty implants, Boobyjobs etc) Redirects to Breastfeeding (Boob-feeds, Boobfeeding, Titty suckles, Tittyfed etc). I am sure there are many more but I am all titty'd out.

At the very least Neelix needs to clean up their mess. I also strongly suggest they state whether they created any other 'puerile redirects' on other subjects or if they just stuck to breasts. Jbh^Talk 22:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley, follow this link, and keep on clicking "next 5000"—there are literally tens of thousands of these. It was going on long before his RFA (anyone for Twenty-three-heads, created 2009?), but it seems nobody noticed it at the time. ‑ iridescent 22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for creating unusual redirects. When creating them, I did not think the community in general would be against them. Again, I am very sorry. Neelix (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jbhunley that Neelix should clean all of these up. What a mess. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Additional Comment -- I have now went back months into this editors contributions, and the thousands upon thousands of absolutely puerile and useless redirects is staggering. Literally there are thousands and thousands just in the last several months. Something needs to be done about this, but I am not sure what. The editor also has many useful edits, but this type of behavior needs to be curtailed and/or there needs to be some type of promise made. Dave Dial (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This seems to go back for years: way back in 2010, Neelix was blocked for rapid creation of inappropriate pages: [173], and their response at that time seems to have been much the same as now: [174]. At least this pattern seems to rule out compromised account. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• [ec] Thank you all. GS, thanks for pushing that button. These redirects weren't just puerile and unnecessary, they were offensive. Far be it from me to psychologize this matter, but perhaps Neelix... etc. Given that there is no evidence for a compromised account, we are left with two issues, both of which made extra pressing given that Neelix is an admin.

  First, there's the use of tools, possibly; they were (briefly) blocked for something like that in 2010 (I haven't looked into the particulars of that). I find automated editing problematic to begin with, and I see I'm not the only one who questions what happened here and how it happened; we need to hear from Neelix what they were doing and how they were doing it. Remember that we have blocked and banned and topic-banned for automated or apparently automated edits.

  Second, I want to know what the hell they were thinking. I supposed someone could be looking for some of the terms, but Constructions of the titties is the title of a soft-porn novel, Tiny Tit is a character in a rejected Dickens novel, and Hypoplastic titties is a ridiculous conflation of high-brow and low-brow language that no person, high-brow or low-brow, would ever be looking for (there's two Google hits, though my posting this will probably up that). In short, they are offensive and ridiculous, and this is seriously unbecoming conduct. One wonders... etc.

  Given that we now desysop admins in a matter of hours for all kinds of stuff, I think it behooves you to start talking and giving some substance. I for one do not trust your judgment to make serious decisions, such as blocking or deleting or revdeleting, when it comes to content and behavior that can be called offensive. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not been using any automated processes or bots. I am simply a fast typist. I apologize again for my creation of these redirects. I promise not to do so again. I do not believe any of my non-redirect-related edits have been offensive. Please let me know if you would like any further comment from me. Neelix (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)