Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

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)

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[19][20] while discussion on this exact issue was ongoing, and consensus was completely unclear. I have asked him to self-revert these changes,[21][22] to which he has not responded.

He has, however, since gone on to quote the text he had just changed[23] 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 [24]. 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[25]; the change made in this edit[26] 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[27] 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)

User:Aj8815647

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

---

User:Aj8815647 has made six edits in his/her 20 hour existence here. In one article, he/she removed a paragraph with the edit summary "Fixed typo" diff. In a second article, he/she removed another paragraph with the summary "Added content": diff. I will take care of reverting these edits, but I'm wondering if an admin can keep an eye on this. Thanks! - Location (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, Location. I also noticed issues with Aj8815647's edits. I reverted changes that were not improvements. That was before you reverted his/her subsequent edits, so it looks like this could (although it's technically not yet) turn into an edit war situation. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The user was given a temporary block. Likely nothing more than a fly-by vandal. - Location (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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?[28][29]

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.[30][31][32][33][34] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Request to stop WP:HOUNDING by editor

Hello, under the advice of [[35]] on my [page] I am starting a request here (*note...not at all urgent/an emergency) to ask that [[36]] 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 [[37]] (although she had not visited it for years prior), then finally went to a page I created personally [[38]] 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 [[39]] 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 [[40]] 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 [41] and slinging around all sorts of abuse to see what sticks [42][43][44]. 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.[45] 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: [46] [47] [48] [49]
• Carl Henderson left a detailed explanation trying to help and provide guidance, which Trinacrialucente did not take kindly to.[50]
• accuses Laszlo Panaflex of stalking [51]
• [52] 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 [[53]]. 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 ([54]), after discussion of the issue here. Roscelese does not appear to have removed any content from the page today ([55]). 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

Not sure how to deal with this

If this is not the correct place for this, please point me in the right direction. A user, 75Indians75 (talk · contribs), has taken to adding information about an album by an American musician, Deuce (singer). Said musician has recorded an album, Invincible (Deuce album). For whatever reason, that album has not been released. An account on the social media site, DK.COM, has been either releasing or leaking songs from that album. On October 30, 2015, the full album was released, without cost, on that site. 75Indians75 interprets that as a release. The album article is not reliably sourced, and it's up for AfD (not my nomination).

Now the problem,> It has been pointed out several times, here here and here, that the social media site is using the name "Deuce.com". That site is not about a singer and is empty. The singer's official website is "http://deucela.com/". The fact that Deuce is American and the "official" page on the social media site is written in Russian is another problem. The singer's official Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/DeuceLA/) and Twitter account (https://twitter.com/deuce9lives) don't mention it. There's no entry for it in the iTunes store or Amazon.

I understand that musicians and their labels may have fall-outs, and if that is the case with the singer, and if the singer has set-up this alternate social media site, why such an obscure one and not another one that would be familiar to his "market"? Why is it written in Russian? Are his fans that eager to run it through Google translate to see what's being discussed? Regardless, the editor doesn't seem to want to relent, going so far as creating a draft article and posting it to the subject's talk page.

So my reason for coming here is that I believe we need an administrator to intervene. Again, if this is not the correct place for this, please point me in the right direction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe I was involved in an AfD or the speedy deletion of Invincible (Deuce album) not long ago, and noted how there were no references, and that a (potentially fake) YouTube account (I came to that conclusion because of the use of AdFly was used to link to twitter/social media/etc) was the only indication that said album was legitimate, as I was unable to find anything relating to said album on his official social media. --  Kethrus |talk to me  20:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The deletion discussion I was referring to above doesn't appear to have finished yet (I thought it had, and was recreated). The discussion is located here. --  Kethrus |talk to me  20:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on Georgia TV and radio articles

• 74.127.86.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked 26 October for 2 weeks)
• 38.66.208.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 72.29.32.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked 13 September for 2 weeks)
• 72.29.38.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 207.171.196.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (blocked 25 September for 1 month)

This editor has been vandalising numerous articles related to TV and radio stations in the area around Macon, Georgia, and lists and templates that include these; recent contributions are at Special:Contributions/207.171.196.122. Edits include Template:NPR Georgia ("Macon WOSU-FM", but WOSU-FM is in Ohio), WPEZ and list of US radio stations by call sign (both obviously incorrect) and WGXA (unverifiable, but probably vandalism as the other edits are). The first range is currently blocked, blocks on two others have expired, pending changes protection has been applied to at least two articles (WRBV and WGXA), and one article (List of Sirius XM Radio channels) is semi-protected, but the vandalism continues. Are blocks for the other ranges possible? Peter James (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the range contributions for 38.66.208.0/22 and 72.29.38.0/23, both ranges have made edits almost exclusively on articles and other pages involving TV and radio. The edits appear to be made to a very wide range of articles, none of which warrant a change in protection (not that I can see, at least). Their recent contributions do appear to be vandalism; if someone else agrees with me that they are so, then I see no problem with a temporary range block. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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.[56] 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 [57] [58] 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 [59][60][61]. 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 [62][63][64][65]. 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)

• 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)

Vandalism on Cannabis (disambiguation)

There appears to be quite a bit of vandalism on Cannabis (disambiguation). I would suggest that someone would patrol it and semi protect it. Cannibas is a touchy subject anyway so it will always be subject to vandalism.

Thank you

Eh eh eh oh oh (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than the move problem two months ago, there hasn't been any vandalism since December of last year. I don't think that protection is warranted at the moment. Deor (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The last edit was a page move in September and before that December 2014. That's quite a few redirects you've created eh? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone smell socks? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on basketball pages

Anonymous IP (79.167.110.166) has been reverting all my edits on Liga Sudamericana de Básquetbol article with no valid reasons. His last edit summary was this insult to me that does not need further comments.

I suspect this is the same user that had been reverting edits on several basketball pages with another IP (see here). According to his modus operandi, there is no chance to reach an agreement with this user. - Fma12 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Relatively sure WP:AIV would resolve this. --  Kethrus |talk to me  21:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

IAR article restoration against CSD G5?

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

---

I was looking on the showcase of WP:X and I noticed that Christ Church, Newton was listed as a GA yet had been SD'ed under CSD G5 for being created by a banned user. I listed it at WP:UND because I felt that Wikipedia shouldn't lose something like that when it was the editor who had done wrong, not his work. I questioned it and @JohnCD: asked the deleting admin @Sphilbrick: about it, which Sphil argued that it renders a ban toothless if it was allowed to stand but did state he wasn't aware of anything preventing it being retained on an individual basis. In my view because it had been independently reviewed and passed as having the quality required for a GA (and as pointed out by @Gerda Arendt: was well on the way to becoming a FA before the deletion) then in this case we should WP:IAR and restore this article while possibly changing the name of the creator to indicate that he was blocked for wrongdoing.

I am opening this discussion here for comment as had been suggested at UND. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support restoration, - quality content, verified by an independent reviewer, should not have been deleted, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support restoration. I get the point of deleting contributions of editors who are caught with a sock puppet account. But, as far as I know, this case is being appealed and some editors leapt on deleting content as soon as the block notice was posted. There is no hurry to eliminate all evidence that this editor contributed as a writer. If an editor who socks has created decent, GA level content, it only hurts Wikipedia to blow it up and remove it entirely from the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  I think maybe we should consider altering G5 or BMB to state that each contribution of a banned user must be done on a case by case basis so that the nonsense articles or low standard ones get removed while the quality ones remain so we don't get the blanket "delete all" situation we got here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is also absurd to G5 delete images/files (like here) that a blocked editor has uploaded. What if the images are being used for other articles? How does it help to delete images contributed by an editor if it causes problems on pages they haven't worked on? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several issues to consider:

1. Is the allegation well-founded? (Note that the editor disputes it and it is in discussion among the functionaries)
2. Handling of articles, especially GA
3. Does the Drmies contribution mean it isn't substantially from one editor. (The G5 rule states "which have no substantial edits by others" — is the contribution by Drmies enough?)
4. Categories (G5 Has an exception for categories "that may be useful". Why is this? Is it acceptable to delete the category created by the band editor and replace it by an identical category created by another editor?
5. Photos - The editor in question has a number of photos tagged as G5. Do we think photos ought to be handled differently than articles? e.g. File:Kittatinny Mountain near NJFFS Catfish Fire Tower.jpg

I have a knee-jerk hatred of the concept of deleting a good article. On the other hand I am very sympathetic to the argument that if we retain articles created by man uses what on earth is the point of the ban. We are literally encouraging them to circumvent the ban. For those who argue in favor of restoring this article, are they essentially arguing that G5 should be eliminated? If not what tools do we have to address edits by banned editors?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If you check my comment above, I am not advocating abolition. What I am proposing (merely as a future preventative suggestion which i'm not strongly behind) is a minor alteration so that pragmatism on individual cases is the main focus rather than a blanket mass deletion. Specifically on the image mentioned, it isn't used in any article except his sandbox so I would see no problem with treating it as an article. If its used in an article and contributes to quality then keep it. If its not used in an article or is just window dressing then delete. That in my opinion should be the focus not "it's by a banned user, delete it". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My concern is it converts the ban message from "because of your inability to contribute within the rules we request that you stay away from Wikipedia" to "because of your inability to contribute within the rules we request that you stay away from Wikipedia, unless of course you can add some really good content". Is that the message we really want to send? I think the best option is for an editor to start with the sources (which are not subject to copyright) and rewrite the article from scratch. I fully realize this is easy for me to say as I'm not stepping up to offer to do it. I equally realize that writing a good article which is on the cusp of a featured article is a fair amount of work. However, dealing with banned editors is also a substantial amount of work, and this proposal to reinstate the article if enacted, may result in even more work for those trying to keep band users at bay, thereby harming the development of the encyclopedia overall. Of course, some of this is speculation. I don't know how many person-hours are expended in tracking down and discouraging banned uses, but I'm sure it is considerable and I do not wish to make it worse.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the percentage of banned users who create really good work is in a very small number. JacktheVicar may have done wrong with the socking but I highly doubt that its going to become common knowledge that GA level articles created by banned users will be retained as I am not aware of any others where that has happened. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (oh man) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triadenum fraseri, which I closed, is relevant here: if we decide to keep this deleted we should probably delete that one also. For what it's worth, I support keeping these articles around. G5 has its uses, but deleting good content that is CC-BY-SA-licensed should not be one of them. These articles have evolved beyond the point of being the work of just one editor. — Earwig ^talk 21:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• I've restored the article for now, so that non-admins can see it while this section is in discussion, in addiion to the fact that I don't think it meets CSD G5. G5 requires "...no substantial edits by others." To me, in spirit if not in letter, the fact that a well respected community member went through all the effort to perform a GAR and to fix up the missing ends means that this article has been significantly contributed to by other editors than JacktheVicar/ColonelHenry... In general, well, I guess I'd just like to point out that perhaps a closer inspection of the actual reasoning behind me last block of JtV by me by the unblocking admin and commenting community members instead of a completely inapproproriate unblock of JtV (that actually broke NPA in the unblock message) would have detected this problem months earlier. If others don't agree that Drmies GAR (which includes a citation check...) is a contribution enough to make the article not G5able, once consensus has been established, I invite any admin to implement that consensus with no threat of WP:WW. But until that consensus has been established (and so that non-admins can even see what we're talking about,) I feel comfortable enough stating that @Drmies: GAR is a significant enough contribution to the article as to disallow G5. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It was rather rude to do so without checking with me first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right that I probably should have done so, and apologize for not doing so. However, I stand by my statement that I think this falls well outside of the intended scope of G5, and that even if it is G5able, it should absolutely be restored for purposes of discussion even if eventually redeleted. A GAR isn't a cursory onceover on the part of Drm, but a non-zero committment. Kevin Gorman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the article so non-admins can contribute to the discussion, Kevin. I agree with the reasoning that a GA review represents a significant contribution to the article, so would support its permanent restoration. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

On the general subject: Admins should continue to delete articles on the basis of being created by a banned user, but only if there has been no significant editing on them by legitimate editors. Then, if any legit editor has a cogent argument for why the deleted article should be retained, it should be undeleted as a matter of course, without concern for admin social niceties. In the best of all possible worlds, the deleting admin would undelete without prejudice for their previous action, but if not, it's much more important to retain good articles than it is to shelter admins from having their actions reverted. Similarly, it is important to say "banned is banned", but not at the expense of the encyclopedia.

When editors revert the edits of banned users, they are expected to take on the responsibility for those edits, and the same thing should apply here: the editor who asks for a deleted article to be undeleted should bear the responsibility for that article. BMK (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have no objection to restoring this page on an IAR basis, but I am strongly opposed to The C of E's suggestion of watering down WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BMB to say that deletions should only be done on a case by case basis. That would amount to saying to a user who is banned (which is not done lightly): "you are no longer welcome here, if you create socks they will be blocked (you can always create more), but volunteers will trawl through their contributions and they will all be kept unless we find problems... " On that basis a ban is completely toothless, and the banned user has no incentive to change his ways or seek an unblock. JohnCD (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I was just throwing an idea out there, I wasn't intending for it to be a strongly serious suggestion unless there was support for it, which there isn't so I will not pursue it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Agreed, thanks Kevin. Most likely audited content should be generally non-G5-worthy. (FWIW, I do think G5 is often more trouble than it's worth; ill-judged, disputed G5's are the opposite of WP:DENY.) In this case it's fair to be cautious given that the purported sockmaster was involved with hoaxes, but since the "behavioral evidence" for socking apparently did not include any current hoaxing, there's no reason to make more work for ourselves by not waiting till the matter is resolved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Quick comment: I'm familiar with the editor's audited content, and from what I've seen it's problematic. Have a look at Talk:When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd, the GA review there, and the tags I had to place in the article. In other words these articles need to be checked. We can't assume that reviewers checked each and every sentence against sources, and when that was done for other content this person wrote, problems were uncovered. A lot of those problems still exist in mainspace because fixing them requires time and work. Victoria (tk) 23:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear: this article was edited by ColonelHenry, not by JackTheVicar. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah... herein lies a likely issue. Looking at the sources in the article I restored, a lot of them are the exact type of sources that would be used to support hoaxed content. I don't have access to solid academic databases right now (what was intending on being a very brief gap has turned in to a much longer one,) and thus can't gain access to most of the sources involved. G5'ing content with hard to verify sources when there's been documented past hoaxing is a much easier thing to support than G5'ing otherwise high quality content that had at least some outside review. I'll do what I can to verify the sources in the individual article I restored past what might have been done by Drmies, but would suggest that any confirmed hoaxing as JtV may necessitate nukes, even on pages he's been involved on that other editors have also been involved on, unless the content added can be verified. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. When I posted the above, I just assumed that the overzealous deletion of this user's contributions had to do with the purported sockmaster's known history of hoaxing, and intended to point out that there were no current hoax allegations to warrant such haste in clearing these articles out of mainspace before the appeal was considered. On re-reading I see that I was the first person to even mention hoaxing. So, self-trout for me for thinking an ANI thread had considered the context of a topic under discussion.
      FWIW, I looked at Triadenum fraseri - the only one I know anything about - and it seems fine. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support restoration If someone broke into my house and left a Ming vase behind, I might be very concerned about how the intruder got in, but I certainly wouldn't throw away the gift, no mater how bizarre its appearance may have been. We need to find far more effective ways to identify those who violate Wikipedia bans, but we'd be harming ourselves by tossing out useful content. I had looked at most of User:JackTheVicar's articles before he was identified as a sock and the only reason I didn't edit more of them is because they didn't need much work; They were good articles -- literally and figuratively -- backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources. As with my hypothetical home intruder, I would be very careful about changing the locks and I would double check that there was nothing wrong with the Ming vase left behind, but I would aim to do that as non-destructively as possible. Alansohn (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's pursue that analogy. If the intruder left a vase behind, which look like a Ming vase, would you display it in a position of honor, and let all your visitors know you are now the proud owner of a Ming vase, if you knew that the intruder had a history of creating fake artifacts?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In my analogy, as in the reality that we're dealing with, the intruder has a bad habit of breaking and entering, leaving behind a string of diversely beautiful Ming vases. All the porcelain works examined so far have been found to be genuine. As with any putative Ming vases, I'd be careful to check, but I certainly wouldn't toss any of them into the trash or smash them into pieces. In Wikipedia terms, the fact that so many of these articles, after careful examination by some of our top judges of such content, have been identified as, or are well on the road to being, good articles should let us conclude that the works should indeed be placed in a position of honor. Our real problem is that our locks are broken and can be easily picked or bypassed. Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of G5 is to enable us to get rid of obvious junk and possible junk: we don't have to spend time examining questionable content and obviously bad content that's been added by a banned and/or block-evading user. When it's obviously good content, or when someone is willing to check questionable content to see whether or not it's junk, using G5 to delete one or more pages is cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Since it's currently at FA, it's obviously going to be experiencing extensive checks for veracity and consistency with its sources. Given the fact that nine different humans had contributed to the article (Jack plus eight other accounts, ignoring bots, vandals, and vandal-fighters) before it was tagged for deletion, it's also a big stretch to say that this was a page that had no substantial edits by others. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is the good of the content versus the bad of the likelihood of disruption by the banned editor. As I discuss below, we are now using ANI to confirm an IAR justification when we have another system with a little more checks and balances, namely DRV. A stub written by an atrociously bad sockpuppet may not survive DRV (and someone else can write it later) while a GA written and re-written extensively by many editors with a sockpuppet having created the first version would be a snowball restore, which would provide cover to any admin who wants to restore it while reducing admin discretion in favor of a consensus that one based upon ANI questioning an IAR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose using IAR as a justification. I say we use the way we resolve pages that were deleted under other CSD issues for which people want it restored: Deletion review. If someone creates an article and it is properly deleted under G5, then someone who wants it restored should make a petition at DRV for restoration. This system works for articles deleted under A7, A9 or other criteria where people haven't created a new draft or other reasoning or generally dispute the deletion (even CSD deletions) so I don't see why it shouldn't apply to the G5 deletions. Otherwise IAR gives no criteria on when a G5 should be restored (any other editor? substantive edits? what if the edits were all possible sockpuppets?), too complicated. It is almost carte blanche to wheel war as admins argue over whether or not IAR is appropriate. DRV allows for a snowball restoration and there's less of an argument between admins about when IAR is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no wheel-warring going on here, and if there was, we'd be quickly stripped of our tools. Sphilbrick is right that I should've consulted with him directly first (I've made similar complaints myself,) but one admin action was made and reverted - no wheelwar. I am strongly of the opinion that a GAR by the respected Drmies means the article isn't G5able, but since this may have been made by someone with a history of source issues does mean the sources should be checked out. I'll check some out myself, and JtV has on his talk page offered to provide me with scanned copies of any sources I doubt in this article. If he actually follow through on that, then between that, source verification being done as it can be, and Drmies GAR, I don't see that as any way a G5able article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I said it is almost carte blanche. This situation doesn't seem that way but the point is. rather than a "IAR is a justification for G5 article that is also a GA", I'd prefer a discussion with some other people. IAR can be a justification for anything and I'd prefer we try to minimize all possible uses for it. A process will provide cover and ensure that it's resolved. Besides, I know I'm basically advocated WP:BURO by asking to have a DRV started that I know full well will result in speedy keep but that doesn't mean I as an admin should go out there and just restore pages that without question have been deleted in line with the current CSD policies. The reason I see that RFA is miserable is because we argue to give more discretion to admins so the standard for being an admin must be raised. I'd prefer we keep IAR to a bare minimum because the more it's used, the less power it ultimately has. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• The creations of banned authors are eligible for speedy deletion, for obvious reasons. As always, though, we should treat these situations with common sense and we are not mandated to delete any such content. Blind deletion of positive, constructive content for a strictly-technical reason does not help the project in terms of building an encyclopedia or undoing the fact that a ban was evaded. Just because you're allowed to delete an article doesn't mean it would be the best decision. The claim that not deleting the article would "render a ban toothless" is laughable. I hate to break this to you, but a ban is toothless. It's just a social decision kicking a person off the site. You can try to enforce it all you want, but it is not hard to evade and some banned editors who properly start over may well never be detected. Literally all we can do is block them if they reveal themselves and revert any damage they've caused. Beyond that, deleting good content from the project we're building doesn't actually do much. Swarm ♠ 07:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a balance. The extent to which we allow for "good" content depends on the nature of the user. Editors who have personality conflicts aren't always given free reign, regardless of their content contributions. Similarly, a user who is banned shouldn't automatically have their work restored just because the content is good. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. One could easily argue that keeping content created or added by a sockmaster who has been determined to be a long-term abuser is encouraging sock activity, therefore, would be the antithesis of that stated in IAR ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it"). Looking at the history of the community ban of ColonelHenry via the links below does show, in my opinion, that there is a certain risk of more sock activity in the future as a result of said encouragement through keeping these articles, images, and edits alive or having the banned editor's sock as the article creator. G5 policy and the essay WP:DENY were written with prevention of further socking in mind.

I encourage editors to read the following (which is six sections long) as having a complete picture regarding the long-term history and depth of ColonelHenry's history and reason for the ban is important: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71].

• Strong support, per my comments on WP:AN (the articles I linked to over there should be restored also). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ah ANI, how have you been? Funny: if my edits were substantial G5 is disallowed but the GA review would have been non-kosher. I don't think my records were that substantial, but, as do many others, I hate throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don't have much of an opinion on the case itself; it's pretty obvious to me (and it was already) that JackTheVicar is not a new editor, but I didn't know who they might have been or why (frankly) I should care (I've been called an enabler of bad people before). They wrote a good article and I put "Good Article" on it. I don't know about the hoaxing--you can look at the GA review to see a few notes about the sources, but I accepted them, sure.

  As for the larger point, that disallowing G5 circumvents the whole idea of the ban in the first place, well, some of you are familiar with my ideas about rules and bureaucracy. Spirit above letter. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Bad Faith, Bias, Self-serving Bullying editing by User User:DrFleischman. Please Review,

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

---

Hello This editor has reverted/changed this article over 30 different times. He also has been bullying other editors acting as if he is the owner of wikipedia. In a particular instance where he told user Markos200 that he has 24 hours and he will change the article back to his satisfaction. See this article talk page of bullying towards another editor. Another edit war between him and user Brian Dell (talk), see the previous edit war before User:DrFleischman deleted it from his talk page. See this.

It appears when someone makes an edit to an article and User:DrFleischman does not like the edit, he will check your IP or User Editing history to try to find issues on articles you have either created or edited and tag your article and cite that it is not Neutral and needs citations and or he would request that it be deleted. He has moved to get numerous articles deleted. One recently whereas he cited that an institution called Atlantic International University does not have any Notability in Wikipedia, see this article's deletion page. The AFD clearly states

• Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). This section is not a notability guideline, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are.
  • Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. 'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion is anchored in policy.
  • Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
  • Schools that are being planned or built, except high schools reliably sourced to be opened within 12 months, are usually deleted.

There were sources provide that proved the institution exist.

Please review all User:DrFleischman's editing history as it seems that he has a lot of Bias opinions and a little over the top as to enforcing Wikipedia's procedures. He seems to be acting as a representative or some what an owner of Wikipedia. This article was created 7 years ago and as you can see, User:DrFleischman has chopped the article down to his personal liking. He will revert any meaningful edit with sources that someone makes on this article. This editor needs to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that provides extensive information as to organizations, so chopping the article down to predominately nothing seems to be a self-serving.2605:E000:6009:9700:3448:B254:BF69:A47E (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I notified the editor than an ANI discussion was taking place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The OP has already brought this up at ANEW -- it was dismissed ("This is not the place to continue your content dispute with DrFleischman. Their reverts are few and far between.") They then brought it up at the Disruptive Editing talk page ([72]), where I advised them to try ANI instead. GAB^Hello! 02:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Seriously dude, you wikilinked Selfishness in your thread title? And you haven't provided a single WP:DIFF of evidence? And your sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to file three different reports on this user? I'm smelling some flying eucalyptus wood. Recommend an admin close this down before we waste any more time on it. Softlavender (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

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"[73]
• Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"[74]
• Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[75]
• Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[76]
• Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[77]
• Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[78]
• Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"[79]
• Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"[80]

Original edit:

• 11:01, 31 October 2015: CFCF changes "biomedical information" to "biomedical and health information"[81]

This change to the guideline was to support his claim that "Any health related information is covered by MEDRS"[82] and his claim that "The guideline takes the most general application of biomedical possible, which includes anything health related."[83] -- claims that have received a huge amount of pushback from the other editors on the talk page.[84][85][86][87][88] 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.[89]

Edit warring:

• 14:40, 31 October 2015: Minor4th reverts (1st revert)[90]
• 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (1st revert)[91]
• 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (2nd revert)[92]
• 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (2nd revert)[93]
• 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (3rd revert)[94]
• 00:12, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (3rd revert)[95]
• 00:27, 2 November 2015: Guy Macon reverts (1st revert)[96]
• 00:30, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (4th revert)[97]

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[98] 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".[99]

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 [100], [101], [102], [103], and [104]. 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.[105] Guy Macon thinks his edits are allowed and is reasonable[106] to revert way back to 21:48, 28 May 2015. His reverts also reverted improvements that were unrelated to the reverts.[107] So far editors do not agree with reverting way back to an older version.[108][109] 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.[110][111] 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[112][113] 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.[114][115] 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)

Google Doodles, George Boole

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

---

George Boole is the Google Doodle of the day and the article has become the subject of recurrent IP minor vandalism. Do we sprotect it to prevent minor vandalism or use this as an opportunity for anyone to improve the article? -- Samir 05:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a yes/no answer. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

INCORRECT AND BIASSED INFORMATION ON PAGE - LIVING PERSONS

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

---

I am Jeffrey Hoad - lead singer and co founder of Australian Rock Band Kings of the Sun. The page in question is Kings of the Sun (band).

This page has been live for several years and has an extreme amount of non-factual data and is in no way an accurate record of the bands history, trajectory and current data/performances/published articles etc, and reads in an extremely biassed fashion. It also contains non-relevant and non-existent links which are sited in the references section.

As this page is a protected page - it appears that it is unable to be corrected. Are you able to offer assistance/guidance as to how to remedy this situation?

I look forward to your response.

Regards

Jeffrey Hoad JeffreyHoadKingsoftheSun (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd either take it up on the BLP noticeboard or on the talk page of the article. Though I'd read WP:COI before you do much more, as it's generally frowned upon for people to edit their own articles or articles which they have a major stake in pbp 06:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed at BLP/N where Tokyogirl79 has taken the lead by (1) deleting much of the article as copyvio, and (2) blocking the OP as a sock puppet of a banned user. Looks resolved to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Owxbyktav

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

---

User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and is repeatedly vandalizing pages despite multiple warnings. He should be blocked immediately.--Cahk (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

it is just a mistake and i clearly told him that --Owxbyktav (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You have made 8 edits to my user page, despite being told you are vandalizing. You need to be globally and IP blocked.--Cahk (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Helloooooo? Anyone here?! Please rev delete the antics of this troll Owxbyktav (talk · contribs) when you get a chance, first admin who notices this thread on this admin board. Thanks for stopping by. Doc talk 10:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Would soomeone please indef the troll now: Special:Contributions/Owxbyktav. For the lazy, just check the edit summary and comment at 10:23, 2 November 2015. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some admin's noticeboard. No admin is even watching it! Doc talk 10:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It took 36 minutes from the time of reporting this troll until it was blocked, all the while vandalizing one of the most highly viewed pages here.[116] SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) is my new hero. Thanks for being there for the project! Doc talk 10:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There are not enough admins, and no one is willing to do anything to remedy that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Half an hour between report and action doesn't seem like that long a delay ... -- Euryalus (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Doc9871 can run to be an admin, and then fix all these really long waits? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This event happened at 3 AM MST. We need more admins that are not in North America, and/or more that are insomniacs. :) -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As the original reportee, I thought I should clarify that I made a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism well before I made the post here. I had to make the post here as a last resort after failing to get any response on the AIAV.--Cahk (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

IP has closed a contentious AfD Improperly

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

---

Please review this. 15:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was far from a given on that AfD for one. Two that appears to be an IP that is in a range which has been blocked for edit warring and vandalism related to articles about gerontology articles, specifically super-centarians. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

AFD close reverted. Topic banned editor blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible Sockpuppetry

Users User:KennyBoyLonghin and User:Joshverburg777 might be sockpuppets made for SPD Discussion as the only edits I have seen them make are on the now deleted Talk:Josh verburg and seem to have been created around the same time as that article. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User:KennyBoyLonghin made an edit to User:Joshverburg777 which I deleted. Giving the sense that these 2 are related. An SPI is needed. 146.200.163.2 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• WP:SPI is thataway → . Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Attack against User:Doug Weller

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

---

95.153.32.3 posted [[117]] on User:Doug Weller. S/he has already been warned once not to attack specific edtiors. Eteethan (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI: The IP was blocked over 3 hours before you posted this. But thanks for posting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

HughD

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

---

Will someone set User:HughD free? See User talk:HughD. As it's clear, HughD was misled by the admin who told him the page wasn't in the topic ban and then was blocked anyway for violating the ban. This is a ridiculous abuse of process and his unblock request has been ignored repeatedly without discussion. 166.170.47.98 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Um... GAB^Hello! 01:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, a 166.170.x.x IP! Been a little while since we saw these socks. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Extra comment. Of course, this IP would have a problem with the block since it was Ricky81682 who made it. IP's in this range, known to be used by the indef'd KochTruth, have been harassing Ricky81682 for quite some time. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Any admin want to do the honors? GAB^Hello! 01:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I may as well. 12 hours for block evasion but the editor seems to have moved on. As to the unblock situation, the request is open amid a lengthy (and I mean lengthy) 30k argument about it. My annoyance is expressed there, contact me on my talk page if anyone thinks it's excessive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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 ([118], [119], [120]), 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)

I feel sort of uneasy about this

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

---

Yesterday I moved the article Peter Kuttner for a newer user. Today I looked back at the talk page of it and saw that three users had posted comments on the article. What is weird about it is that they are all new users, and their userpages are almost identical. Their comments and writing styles were very similar as well, as were their usernames. I'm wondering now if they are sockpuppets of the article creator or socks of another user. I decided to open this here rather than at SPI because I'd like for others to look at the page and see if they notice the same similarities I did: I don't want to start an investigation on a false alarm or get these people in trouble if they are not socks. I just want to get some other, more experienced opinions on this issue. Thanks, White Arabian mare (Neigh) 00:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

They appear to be students of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/School of the Art Institute of Chicago/New Histories of Chicago Media (Fall 2015) and Peter Kuttner shows up as one of the pages being worked on and reviewed. I'd say the talk page comments are peer reviews of a page written by another student or group of students. clpo13_(talk) 01:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you. It just seemed sort of fishy to me, and I wanted a second opinion. I was probably just thinking about socks because one of the pages I received from SuggestBot (and have put on my private to-do list of articles to improve) appears to have been written entirely by a sockpuppet of a user is now indefinitely blocked. Thanks. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 01:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

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

"Barnstars" from User:Jabberwock2015

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

---

Jabberwock2015 has awarded a series of barnstars, almost at random to my eyes, which seems like a friendly thing to do until you read them - e.g. the "Jimmy Savile Barnstar", "for having short eyes and busy hands". See diff as one example. I'm coming here rather than taking it to AIV because the vandalism's obvious and running through four warnings the expense of User Talk pages seems almost as disruptive as the vandalism. JohnInDC (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

AIV still might be quicker. Most admins patrolling there don't require 4 warnings for a vandalism only account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You beat me to it. JohnInDC (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Eh, AIV's pretty backlogged, not sure which will be faster. Someone will get to it eventually. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Immediate block needed

Please block this joker asap. He's modifying this discussion as well. Have already emailed oversight for cleanup. John from Idegon (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And vandalized Floq's page after his posting here. If I still had the bit I would block him myself. This is the first time actually that I regret giving it up. John Carter (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) J has also removed this thread. A check of their editing shows a clear WP:NOTHERE pattern. This goes beyond simple vandalism as these are violations of WP:NPA. The items should be rev/del from the various talk pages as well. MarnetteD|Talk 02:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist has done the honors. Thank you, Materialscientist.John Carter (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like HJ Mitchell is removing the offensive items from the edit history. Thanks to all involved for the quick action on this. MarnetteD|Talk 02:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Indefinietly blocked by Materialscientist for disruptive editing. Closing. -- Chamith (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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. Thank 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)

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)

User:Czoal and WP:Personal attacks

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

---

Czoal (talk · contribs) is an editor a few others (including Beyond My Ken and myself) have noted is not a WP:Newbie. Once confronted with the notion again that he is not a WP:Newbie, he engaged in an egregious personal attack against Montanabw and then reverted my post commenting on the matter, including that he'd just committed a personal attack. Minutes later, he restored my comment. I'd ignored Czoal's non-newness, but I decided to comment when seeing his personal attack against Montanabw. If we are to apply WP:Assume good faith without common sense in this case and state that Czoal is indeed a WP:Newbie based solely on his word, despite all evidence to the contrary, then he is a WP:Newbie who needs to know that the WP:Personal attacks policy should not be taken lightly. He is also involved in a heated discussion with Montanabw at Talk:American Pharoah#Content about "going-away" party and where he'll stay in November 2015. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

His latest attacks can be seen here. He only restored my comment so that he could make more attacks, as expected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Czoal said this to Flyer22 Reborn, and he said this to me. Whoever this is, they took what was a dispute over nothing and became increasingly hostile. Montanabw^(talk) 04:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The user doth protest too much. clpo13_(talk) 04:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If anyone chooses to come to my talk page and make rude and baseless personal allegations instead of focusing on article content, like Flyer22 and his good friends Montanabw and BMK did, I will reply in kind. Montanabw was very nice in her initial post on my talk page, but then returned solely to lodge her baseless conjecture instead of talking about the disputed content issue. Maybe Flyer22 should've considered minding his own business instead of involving himself in a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with him. And the "heated discussion" Flyer22 alluded to is old news; it reached resolution many hours ago. I wonder how many other "newbies" he's taken to noticeboards like this one. Czoal (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We are not fools, Czoal. Your edit history is the evidence that you are not anywhere close to being a WP:Newbie. And if you want to see some of the cases where I've uncovered WP:Socks here at WP:ANI, all you have to do is ask. Furthermore, as various administrators have stated, inquiring whether an editor is new or not is very much allowed, especially when there is ample reason to believe that the editor is not new. There was no valid excuse whatsoever for your personal attacks against Montanabw or against me. But by all means, continue to claim you are a WP:Newbie and defend your responses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And I'm female, by the way; surely you already knew that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that Czoal may not have realized how hostile and aggressive his/her tone had become in the debate over the article content; I made my comment that he/she was clearly not a newbie upon noticing that this user had other hostile interactions on his/her talk page. But no matter how surprised they were, it is never appropriate to engage in the "FU SOB" outburst Czoal made at me. Montanabw^(talk) 05:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And he's thrice removed from Talk:American Pharoah a URL link to this noticeboard discussion, the second time with a threat to report me, which he's now made good on. Sigh. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

And he is now at 4RR for removing the link: [121] so that's a part of this. He was also 4RR for removing the material we were trying to discuss too:[122] Montanabw^(talk) 07:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Czoal is correct that it is not usual to place such a link on an article talk page, and I note that those restoring it are also edit warring, if not as much. I agree with Montanabw's comment above that (perhaps) Czoal did not realize how aggressive his or her tone had become, but I also agree that Czoal's attacks are not acceptable. DES ^(talk) 07:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DES. I apologized on my talk page for the FU SOB comment to Montanbw on my talk page, even though I still disagree with her about the now-resolved content dispute we had. But Flyer22 - based on her user page, editing history, and clashes with numerous editors - seems to clearly be on a mission to harrass any editor she believes to be editing illicitly, evidence be damned. Apparently, she sees herself as a high-ranking officer of the Wikipedia Sock Police. Czoal (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. My numerous clashes with editors mainly concern WP:Disruptive editors. And since my track record for catching WP:Socks and putting an end to disruptive editors speaks for itself, including the latest section on my talk page, I gladly accept your "high-ranking officer of the Wikipedia Sock Police" award. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, perhaps you are the "disruptive editor" in many of those situations. And the fact that you actually have "sections" devoted to your sock-hunting obesession speaks for itself. That's rather disturbing. And apparently you missed the key words "sees herself"; it's by no means an award. Those who covertly edit to avoid sanctions need to be caught and removed, but people like you who go around "hunting" (your term) for them and making wild accusations with no evidence can be more dangerous to this project than they are. I read the sock noticeboard and it makes clear than anyone accusing an editor of being a sock without providing reasonable evidence to back it up can be blocked themselves. Maybe you should spend more time trying to improve articles than accusing people of wrong-doing based solely on your hunches. If you believe someone is really a sockpuppet, then gather your evidence and take it to the sock noticeboard. Czoal (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: Czoal has been blocked as a  Confirmed sock of Lootbrewed (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Czoal, what a predictable response. Yes, I am sure that those who keep disruptive editors, including child molesters, off Wikipedia are the disruptive ones. Oh the horror. What a dangerous type of editor. I don't need to go around hunting for socks; if you paid even a decent amount of attention to the "disturbing" section that used to be on my main user page, you would know that WP:Socks trip themselves up, with their silly mistakes. I cannot help it if they make such silly mistakes, which result in it being easy for me and others to recognize them. I cannot help it if a good number of them stalk me, and expect me not to notice them. None of my WP:Sock accusations have been wild and/or without evidence, which is why a variety of administrators trust my word on such matters. WP:CheckUser evidence is not the only evidence. And asking a person if they have a previous Wikipedia account is most assuredly allowed. If it were not, I would have been blocked ten times over by now. Instead of trying to get a rise out of me, because you are threatened by me, perhaps you should work on your people skills; you clearly need it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I was typing my "08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)" reply before I saw that this thread had closed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

LenovoTest01 (talk · contribs)

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

---

Above user is blocked per checkuser. Just reverted an edit where he redirected his talk page to Lenovo. Please revoke tp access. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access has been revoked by MaxSem. -- Chamith (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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 into individual sandboxes. 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 [123]. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)