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

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

---

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?"[1]; 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.[2]. The article tree which starts at Online advertising addresses the subject better, and has links to over 40 other articles about the details of online advertising. Those links do not include the article in question. This is almost an orphan article; it's linked from Online Target Advertising, which itself is an orphan article. Deletion is starting to look like a good idea here. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Boomerang Topic Ban for OP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [3], 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 [4].

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 [5] (search "Robert Conquest"), official biography of Henry Jackson [6], official biography of Margaret Thatcher ([7], 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 [8][9][10], 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 [11] [12]. 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 [13], and even the later Conquest himself! [14], [15] 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: [16]) 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, [17],

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this is mostly fixed right now, thanks to effort by Iryna Harpy and others. You are telling that Flushout1999 can contribute positively to the project as follows from his editing history in Holodomor denial (3 reverts and discussion). However, the actual problem is here. Flushout1999 re-wrote the page about Robert Conquest by copy-pasting large segments of text from an article by Jeff Coplon (related discussion), same person he removed from the page about Holodomor denial. So, after looking at his editing in general, I tend to agree with comments by user MastCell [18]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed we had a discussion on that admin noticeboard which was concluded with my answer (here: [19]).

You are also saying that in the page about Robert Conquest I copy-pasted large segments of text by Jeff Coplon, but in reality I used his article [20] only in this old version [21] of The Harvest of Sorrow (because of the large citations from academic and professional historians it contains) and, after your request [22], I deleted it totally (with this result: [23]). However, the page was again totally deleted by you and Volunteer Marek, and that's why I opened this incident.

Meanwhile you claimed in the noticeboard that this Coplon source was unreliable and that it was WP:OR in the Denial of the Holodomor article (here [24]). So I also deleted accordly the Jeff Coplon's section on that page for being OR and unreliable as you said. Iryna Harpy protested it and reverted it, telling me the article was well sourced (here:[25]), so at the end I left it as it was.

After that, you made an effort to find some WP:RS in order for the Jeff Coplon section and article to be present in the Holodomor denial page, however it seems to me and to other editors that the sources used are still not good in order to claim "Jeff Coplon=Holodomor Denial" (here [26]), also it is evident that Coplon never denied the existence of the Holodomor, he only has a vision of it near to the one most western historians have. In any case, only you know why you changed idea about the WP:OR on that section.

Also now (11-5) you are saying that you agree with MasterCell [27] that I have the goal "to assemble a case against Conquest, rather than to write anything remotely resembling an encyclopedic biography" while one day before you wrote on my personal talk page " I think that many changes in your version [28] are acceptable." (here: [29].

I'm sorry but I really don't understand your behavior, I was already blocked for 48 hrs for this issue because I made evident Copyvio (I was not aware of those policies, but now I acknowledeged them), in addition you and others deleted most of my edits, and I also said I will discuss on the talk pages before any edit. Why are you keeping this issue up? -- Flushout1999 (talk) 17:43, 7 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[30][31] while discussion on this exact issue was ongoing, and consensus was completely unclear. I have asked him to self-revert these changes,[32][33] to which he has not responded.

He has, however, since gone on to quote the text he had just changed[34] 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 [35]. 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[36]; the change made in this edit[37] 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[38] between the July version & the most current. I note numerous removal of biomedical, and corresponding insertion of health where it was not present in July. Given that "health" is being proposed to cover all aspects of public health, not simply "medical information", I suggest that this is a sufficient expansion of scope. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call for administrator intervention

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking indef ban of Second Dark

Hello, I'm seeking to have the user Second Dark (talk | contribs) indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Their account was created in May this year, and is solely aimed at disrupting The Frankfurt School page. This user has so far been warned for violating WP:TPG, WP:CANVASSING (off and on) 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 in which they were found not to be a sock, and my other complaints were somewhat overlooked (this time we're facing the distractions of a miscreant IP aimed at achieving the same outcome). 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. Their combative behaviour and policy violations have now been going on for 6 months well past the point any reasonable person would have developed a respect and understanding for Wikipedia's policies (which they continue to flout and WP:BATTLEGROUND). Please make sure this matter gets resolved this time, as it risks falling into the category of WP:LONG long-term abuse. This user comes back every few months to harass the page, I think they need an extended holiday from this activity. --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?[39][40]

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.[41][42][43][44][45] That is the "disrupting", "not here", "disinterest in community, policy and consensus" etc that Jobrot refers to. Adding a POV tag to a POV dispute. Again, recommend BOOMERANG. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Main page: Frankfurt School Talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main article: NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The author of that article David Auerbach is tied into the GamerGate controversy (he even coined the term "Gamergate moderate"), and in the AfD on the previous Cultural Marxism page it was noted by many that GamerGate is a group that housed strong although ill-informed support for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Hence the resurgence of the conspiracy theory coming from GamerGate related forums [46] (where "SJWs" and "Cultural Marxists" are the same mythical beasts) [47] as well as appearing on 4chan and 8chan. However, what these ill researched individuals fail to note (and it is a stark fact of the matter) is that on the previous Wikipedia page about 'Cultural Marxism' only 3 out of 9 of the sources in the reference list (which the page is constructed around) even mentioned the term "Cultural Marxism" (and two of those references come from a single individual, with the third coming from the right wing commentator William S. Lind). Contrast this to the current section where 14 out of the 14 sources for the section use the term 'Cultural Marxism' within them. This is not a space for re-hashing the unanimous AfD and the fact that the IP is attempting to extend the controversy around GamerGate to this discussion somewhat reveals their position (which as noted, does not have the sources on its side). --Jobrot (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a much more recent, much more relevant quote from me: "This is not a space for re-hashing the unanimous AfD"

I've always argued that the radical-left used the term prior and in a different way to the radical-right (that it originated in the radical left of the 1970s and was intended as a criticism of The Frankfurt School - I now own my own copy of the 1973 Trent Schroyer book it was first sighted in - which is critiquing The Frankfurt School for having departed with their Marxist origins), this usage came from the radical-left and was extremely rare and informal (being at least twice removed from the theorists in question as "Cultural Marxism" is a term based on "The Frankfurt School" which its self is an informal term/grouping (as is mentioned on The Frankfurt School page multiple times WP:NAME) - this makes the original meaning of Cultural Marxism all the more rare, informal and Non-Notable (just because a private author publishes an uncorroborated opinion doesn't make it notable for the creation of a whole Wikipedia article).

More vehemently I'd like to point out that people can change and flesh out their views within 6 months (the time it's been since your quotes of me), especially if they've spent far more time researching the term since then. As I have. So to dredge up and paste out of context comments from 6 months ago as if opinions are all static, unchanging and unaffected by time, reason, and research is frankly an incredibly pathetic attempt at agenda pushing. WP:AGENDA WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:DEADHORSE. I'm right here giving you my opinion - you don't need to desperately dredge through my logs when I can give you my most current opinions immediately and with great strength. --Jobrot (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If this were any other forum, this IP user's behaviour would be known as Thread jacking. I suggest we all focus on the purpose of this thread and on my original complaint. --Jobrot (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Walter Görlitz

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

1234

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm okay with this a well. This is not substantially different than my edits that were reverted. I too kept only (or mostly) the initial mention of FC in the prose, as oknazevad has suggested (see this revert). If the only thing Walter and I disagreed on is the mentions of FC in tables and charts that were removed, I don't think it warranted more than a partial reversion. Bmf 051 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

But there was no clear definition of what "less" meant and in the four examples I provided above you completely removed "FC". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 7 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)

Legal threat by IP, claiming to be author David Bret

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Bazonka and spelling changes

User:Bazonka is mass changing licenced to licensed across thousands of articles. Examples [48][49][50]. 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 [51][52][53][54]. I think the user should be stopped until a consensus is established to do this. I cannot block myself as I have become involved in the discussion. This would also seem to be something that requires WP:BAG approval. SpinningSpark 11:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's rather sad...

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

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

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

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

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

NebY, you've checked and found that there is evidence of a change. You have not found that the spelling I learnt in school before that second edition was written is incorrect (because it isn't); it may be old-fashioned, but so what? I'm not going to relearn spelling because fashions have changed. (anecdote warning) As it happens, I recall (again, before that second edition was published) seeing this very word mis-spelt (i.e., spelt with an "s") above the door of a pub; when I asked my parents they told me it was unusual but OK. Nyttend, the OED, like other reputable dictionaries, allows the verb "licence", so changing it to some other spelling is a not a change to conform with that dictionary. Bazonka doesn't have consensus for these changes, and is edit-warring over them to boot. He should be asked to stop forthwith. Once he has an established consensus, he can of course go round "fixing" people's correct English to his heart's content, just like the people who go round taking the hyphens out of correctly-formed compound adjectives. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, you must have gone to school a very long time ago. Most dictionaries these days don't even include "licence" as a valid alternative verb spelling. MOS:S is very clear about which spelling we should use, and it also states that "Older sources use many archaic variants (such as shew for show), which are not to be used outside quotations except in special circumstances". This is all the consensus that I need. Now, if I was changing "license" into "licence" then you'd have a valid case to stop my actions, but going the other way is fully in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, and I strongly suspect that in the vast majority of cases, the use of "licenced" or "licencing" in Wikipedia articles was not a conscious decision by the writer to use the archaic variant, but instead a mistaken belief that it is the standard current BrE/Commonwealth spelling. This is borne out by the number of thanks I have received after my re-reverts in which I gave a fuller expanation. Move into the modern world Justlettersandnumbers; Wikipedia is not the place for archaic spellings. In any case, I've finished now, so I (probably) won't be fixing any more. Have a lovely day. Bazonka (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, please don't stop. I love it when we argue about spelling on ANI. It's better than hyphens, and almost as good as dates. Have we done apostrophes yet? If not, please ping me when we do, I'd so hate to miss that. Begoon ^talk 12:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmains and AWB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I can certainly try this. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 05:12, 6 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"[55]
• Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"[56]
• Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[57]
• Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[58]
• Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[59]
• Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[60]
• Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"[61]
• Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"[62]

Original edit:

• 11:01, 31 October 2015: CFCF changes "biomedical information" to "biomedical and health information"[63]

This change to the guideline was to support his claim that "Any health related information is covered by MEDRS"[64] and his claim that "The guideline takes the most general application of biomedical possible, which includes anything health related."[65] -- claims that have received a huge amount of pushback from the other editors on the talk page.[66][67][68][69][70] 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.[71]

Edit warring:

• 14:40, 31 October 2015: Minor4th reverts (1st revert)[72]
• 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (1st revert)[73]
• 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (2nd revert)[74]
• 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (2nd revert)[75]
• 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (3rd revert)[76]
• 00:12, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (3rd revert)[77]
• 00:27, 2 November 2015: Guy Macon reverts (1st revert)[78]
• 00:30, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (4th revert)[79]

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[80] 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".[81]

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 [82], [83], [84], [85], and [86]. 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.[87] Guy Macon thinks his edits are allowed and is reasonable[88] to revert way back to 21:48, 28 May 2015. His reverts also reverted improvements that were unrelated to the reverts.[89] So far editors do not agree with reverting way back to an older version.[90][91] 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.[92][93] 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[94][95] 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.[96][97] You are roughly half a dozen accusations on random talk pages away from being reported yourself for harassing me. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That diff is from June 2014 to the present (59 edits) and includes CFCF's edit. Looking specifically at the page on June 14 we find "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles" [98]. AlbinoFerret 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I do get to tell you to focus only on the first paragraph. This is ANI. ANI is where you report editors for engaging in disruptive behavior. I reported CFCF for disruptive editing of the first paragraph of MEDRS. I don't know or care whether his edits to other paragraphs were or were not disruptive, not having bothered to look at the history of his edits to those paragraphs. I reported CFCF's edits to the first paragraph of MEDRS, and the evidence is clear that CFCF's edits to the first paragraph of MEDRS were disruptive. CFCF has to answer for the specific behavior he was reported for, not some other behavior that you would prefer to talk about. As far as ANI is concerned, what he did elsewhere is irrelevant until someone reports it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Per my "21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)" statement above, you do not get to tell me or anyone else to focus only on the first paragraph. And the sooner you stop repeating yourself, the sooner others will stop repeating themselves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Call for administrator decision and close

This has gone around in circles long enough. Either CFCF changed the first paragraph of a major guideline from the state it was in for the last five years while in the middle of a heated talk page discussion about making his change or he didn't. Either he edit warred, restoring his preferred version five times, or he didn't. Either this behavior is acceptable or it isn't. May we please have an administrator examine the evidence, decide whether the evidence supports this report, and take appropriate action to stop further disruption? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

History of Islam

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Arman ad60

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Technical 13 drafts in other editor's names

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

There's no immediate evidence that T13 created (as in wrote) those articles -- TheShadowCrow did, and T13 merely put them into article space or divided them up into smaller individual sandboxes (see [99]). 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 [100]. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The pages are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still, we're talking an editor who created drafts while topic banned from the area into a giant sandbox and then it was copied and pasted over to another sandbox by a different user. I'll take those to MFD that already exist but I'm generally against allowing for any user's content unless it's really good given that they were under a topic ban. It's the same general arguments we have over G13 and content from banned users I guess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Technical13 was a problematical user. From the start of his account he made pointy edits, resulting in blocks. Then he calmed down enough to get Template Editor rights. Then he reverted to form, several times, and got those rights removed, then blocked. In the midst of this, he decided that being a "mentor" to the ShadowCrow might help him on his path to awesomeness. So he moved some sandboxes. Then the Crow didn't like that, and they had a little fight. Executive summary: If any of this is worth keeping, own it. Otherwise, nuke it. Begoon ^talk 12:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 , came through yesterday and de-prodded several articles [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] and templated the nominators, which speaks to experience with the system. No improvement had bee made to any of the articles and no reasons given for the de-prod. Reasons are not required but just the shear number of de-prods they did plus this post here lead me to believe this user may actually be evading a block and just trying to be disruptive. Hopefully someone can look into this to see if it is a case of block evasion.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Appears to be a blocked editor: [113] and therefore a block evasion. I think an insta-block is due the IP if all it is doing is de-prodding articles seemingly at random. Or at least a warning and a promise not to do that anymore. Also, if it's a block evasion, needs to definitely be blocked. Softlavender (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

What do you think about the block-evasion factor? [114] ? Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: Per WP:BE: "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked." Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've noticed this user also has a penchant for changing "Delta Airlines" links to "Delta Air Lines" ([115], [116], [117] as this user; [118], [119], [120] as 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E). Not a big deal (Delta Air Lines is the actual name) but a good behavior indicator. clpo13_(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardblocking 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. This is disruptive editing and some editor is avoiding scrutiny to do it...I don't need to know which one to see illegitimate behavior. If you see him anymore then you can revert him because he will be evading a block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Good block, thank you. Vrac (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an extremely bad block. The editor was acting well within the deletion policy and could dispute whatever and as many prods as he/she chooses. If you want to limit the number of proddes an editor can dispute, either change the policy or take it to WP:ArbCom. —Farix (t | c) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is your right doesn't make it right. De-Prodding just because you can when it is clearly disruptive and generating excessive arguments on multiple admin noticeboards makes the de facto argument that it is disruptive editing...but I don't mind my block being reviewed here. We are not an endless pit of labor to be wasted just because someone has an argument. I believe that this editor is avoiding scrutiny. I believe that Wikipedia and its editors fare better with this editor blocked so that they quit being a time sink for those involved. That is a better outcome than allowing them to dickishly deprod everything and upset many editors to pick a point of policy. That editor didn't improve a single article did they? I don't believe in letting such editors generate needless amounts of work for others.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good block- Mass dePRODS are always just pointy attempts to wreck a useful maintenance mechanism for everyone. Staying technically within the wording of policy while deliberately subverting its intent is called gaming the system and should be prevented. It's also likely that this is some returning banned user or other. Reyk _YO! 10:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block "That is a better outcome than allowing them to dickishly deprod everything and upset many editors to pick a point of policy." Precisely. I'm unsure how anyone sees it otherwise. Policy "allows" us to do many things which we should not do. "I don't believe in letting such editors generate needless amounts of work for others." I'm glad you don't, and I'm glad you acted. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 12:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - disruptive behavior, clearly. GiantSnowman 12:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - The deprodding was obviously a form of disruption. I agree with the points made by ScrapIronIV and Berean Hunter.- MrX 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - Seems pretty obvious their intention was trolling and disruption. JMHamo (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - Thank you for taking this seriously. Scr★pIron^IV 14:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - The edits were disruptive and were specifically made in order to undermine the deletion process, creating unnecessary work for reviewers and admins.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block - yes, enough with this dePRODing drama with people who are too into WP:BURO to see that disruption is disruption just because the policy doesn't specifically state that mass-deprodding is not one of the "exceptions". LjL (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. Simply because a single action is allowed does not mean that a repeated pattern of such actions can't be disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment/Question - First, I agree it was a good block, but I have a question. I came across this editor's actions through an article I had prodded, which they contested. Another editor AfD'd it. I then came across another article where they had contested another editor's prod (I think it was one of Wolfowitz'). After researching, I sent that article to AfD, since it clearly did not meet notability guidelines. After that, I discovered the ip editor had been blocked, and took a look at their edit history. I began to look at each of the article's they had de-prodded. If research showed they did not meet notability criteria, I submitted it to AfD. Sometimes this had already been done by another editor, and if I had an opinion based on guidelines, I !voted at the AfD. However, sometimes the removal of the prod was, in fact, useful. Perfect example was Landau Forte Academy Tamworth Sixth Form. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is a secondary school, so all that is needed is proof of existence (while I may not agree with the guideline, if it is consensus I've agreed to follow it). That particular article had had the prod tag re-inserted. I removed it, as per the WP:PROD policy stated above where if a prod tag is removed, even in bad faith, it cannot be re-added. Then I went to check Casper Radza, where again, the prod had been re-asserted. However, this time the editor had referenced this discussion (hence my presence here). Sorry about my bloviating, but I felt it necessary to show the trail of thought which led there. So, is there an exception to the Prod rule? If so, I should go self-revert a couple of the other prod re-assertions I did. Thanks for any light you can throw my way. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:onel5969, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states " This section is not a notability guideline. WP:GNG and WP:ORG are." It's a section of WP:OUTCOMES which is an essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good block and I also second Doug Weller's comment. Schools are not inherently notable simply for existing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Doug Weller - and I know that, I used the wrong term (mainly I was trying to wrap up my overlong comment). My point is, that if you AfD an article like that you have 100% chance that it will fail, where there are several editors who quote that essay as being consensus on the topic. No point in wasting editors' time in nominating an article for AfD if it has zero chance of being deleted. And as I said, I disagree with the essence of the essay, was simply attempting to explain why I didn't AfD the article. However, I'm simply trying to learn that if there is ever an exception to the prod rule about not re-applying it? Right now, the guideline seems pretty clear that there isn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If it makes sense to not restore the prod on a particular article based on the merits of that article, then by all means don't restore it. The modification to the WP:PROD rule is just to prevent a loophole that allows indiscriminate mass de-prods. If a user de-prods 100 hundred articles they are likely to be correct on a couple of them, but correct by luck not design. Vrac (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Collateral damage from rangeblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I noticed this edit by the IP account that User:Centocinquantuno admits is him: [121]. Note the similarity in this edit from the IP troll on Talk:Mafia: [122]. The writing style is similar, especially in use of quotation marks to separate a clause from the edit to which the user is replying to. I'm fairly certain that User:Centocinquantuno and the Mafia troll IP are one and the same. That being said, I think this 2 week range block is overkill for the problem and suggest that it be overturned now that the page in question is protected -- Samir 01:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord & Taylor editor, back as an anon again

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

The Lord & Taylor COI editor's IPv4 address remains blocked, but they now have a new IPv6 address. Compare [123] ("The Fall 2015 campaign includes collections by Givenchy ...") with [124] ("The Fall 2015 campaign includes collections by Givenchy ..."). They've also been editing Crossgates Mall (which is "anchored by Lord & Taylor") to remove negative information [125]. The edits aren't that bad, but they're all happy talk PR, and trying to do via IPv6 what you were blocked for on IPv4 is clear block evasion. John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: another IP, 70.209.133.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with exactly the same edit.[126]. Also another related but not too bad edit from a new IPv6 address.[127]. Suggest semi-protection on Lord & Taylor, since they seem to have a large supply of IP addresses. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Terrorist96 ARBMAC violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redundant now. As T has not been warned previously, all that can be done is a formal warning. Which Ed just did. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see how even a warning is justified when all I did was 1. Make a statement of fact (Joy resides in Croatia); 2. State my opinion that it seems like she's not acting neutrally (by 1. deleting the infobox multiple times after it had been restored by several different users - none of which were me; 2. Deleting several paragraphs when there was actually no consensus to remove any of those things, as has been evidenced here); 3. State my opinion that I think she should be restricted from making edits to the article because of her numerous disruptive edits. I never denigrated her nationality nor attacked her as a person in any way whatsoever. I did nothing different than what this user did (with seemingly impunity): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689073189 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689071477 Furthermore, in order to gauge her neutrality, I asked why she is fixated on removing the infobox for Liberland only and not removing it for other micronations (i.e. Principality of Sealand, Conch Republic, Aerican Empire, Republic of Molossia, etc.) and I didn't get a convincing reply. If after all of this, you still think a warning is justified, then I don't know how else I'm supposed to layout my thoughts without offending anyone. I genuinely feel like I did nothing wrong. Terrorist96 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom warnings are not purely used as a "you do that again and you're going to get it!" type warnings. They're more of a "please be careful how you approach this article (and topic area) as there are sanctions associated with it." All editors who edit in Arbcom sanctioned topics usually get this warning regardless of whether they've actually done anything wrong. Many topic areas are covered by sanctions, articles on the Balkans, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, American Politics, Gun control, just to name a few are all covered by sanctions and every editor working on those articles are issued with these reminders. Blackmane (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Terrorist96 isn't blocked, he was warned, and if he continues, will likely be blocked." - User:KoshVorlon. But your point is taken, thank you. Terrorist96 (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in this kind of wikilawyering. It's just too transparent. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

GentleCollapse16

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

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

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

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

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

Tendentious editing, personal attacks, and use of multiple accounts

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

The person has been using at least two accounts on both en-wiki and the Commons (although to be fair, he does not attempt to conceal the fact). One of his accounts has already been blocked on the Commons for vandalism [128]. -Zanhe (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. About my wikipedia accounts. I have contributed for over five years, with no history of sanction whatsoever, in different Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects, with the following two successive accounts: Pseudois from July 2010 to November 2014 and 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 from February 2015 to early November 2015. As I decided to stop contributing, I asked both accounts to be blocked (on 1st November and 2nd November) in order to prevent any kind of vandalism or disruptive editions on my personal pages. A couple of hours after I asked my account to be closed, I noticed that user:zanhe removed the "disputed factual accuracy" template I had inserted. The template was removed despite several points raised by different contributors since years were not addressed. As 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 was blocked (upon my own request), I therefore created the account 6-A04-W96 for the sole purpose of reinserting the template and providing replies to the new comments on the talk page. The choice of the account name made it clear I was the same contributor.
2. "When Rajmaan disagreed with him, he attacked Rajmaan as a troll (…) he responded by calling me a troll as well." Rajmaan was continuously attempting to derail and personalise the discussion with his countless digressions. While I consistently attempted to put back the discussion on the right track, he wrote "Thats not what you tried to say (…)you clearly didn't read (…) Are you going to claim that (…) You made your purpose here clear (…) you are clearly interested in deleting Tibet from the map and not actually interested in anything else". I did not call him a troll, but considered this attempt at derailing the discussion a "trolling attempt". I never called Zanhe a troll, but maintained in my talk page that Rajmaan comment was indeed a trolling attempt.
3. "One of his accounts has already been blocked on the Commons for vandalism". See above about my contribution history. I believe this block is a clear misunderstanding and have asked (per e-mail) the common admin responsible for the block to reconsider it.
4. "It appears that he is trying to push his agenda on the talk page of the image file on English wikipedia simply because he cannot get his way at commons since he was blocked there" This is pure nonsense and is another illustration of the countless insinuations I had to face from these contributors: All the edits in en.wikipedia were made before the account was blocked in common.
5. "Images hosted on commons are regularly dealt with at commons, not on wikipedia. (…) This is cross-wiki disruption". The discussion was initiated in 2009 on the English Wikipedia page. When I came across this discussion 6 years later, I consistently continued the discussion where it started. As this page is not visible for non en.wp contributors, I inserted a link in the common page so that the discussion remains centralised.
6. "He tagged at least five maps on the Commons as "modern fantasy", even though four different users have disagreed with him". First of all the words "modern fantasy" and "digital manipulation" have been used by several other contributors over the past 5 years. I believe the inclusion of the "Disputed factual accuracy template" in the file description was more than justified. A look at the talk page shows that at least 7 different contributors have raised/acknowledged issues with this map, many of those have only be partly addressed or not addressed at all:

• 13 July 2010: "The map is a modern fantasy, and have no historical basis"
• 14 July 2010: "Actually there are multiple reasons (…). That region was never solely owned by Qing Empire (…) Territories to the east of Khabarovsk were not populated not by russians not by Chineese and should be shown as neutral (…) In fact Chinese borders never not then not later crossed Amur river (…) Daur rulers decided to pay the tribute to the Qing, but that was never accepted by the Russian empire (…) Sakhalin was not known to the both empires (…) etc."
• 10 September 2011: "(…) is right on this one. Heilongjiang, Jilin, "Uliassutai", Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, and Tibet are all shown as provinces on this map even though, in 1820, all of these areas were outside of the China proper and were not administered as provinces and in many cases had only a weak tributary relationship with the Qing. In the case of some Turkic areas and most Tibetan areas (current Tibet, Qinghai, and western Sichuan), there was not even effective Qing control (…)I invite the author of the map or other users to address these issues so that the map or something similar can continue to be used in articles"
• 22 September 2011: "Interesting logic regarding Sakhalin. How someone can own something, if they don't even know how it looks like?"
• 23 September 2011: "I have stated my view above. I think it should be shown as unexplored and not claimed by anybody, i.e. gray"
• 21 April 2012: "this map is modern fantasy, and have no historical basis for another reason: during the Qing dynasty there was no dotted-line as shown in the small box at the bottom left corner, The 11-dotted-line was not included in China map until 1946 or 1947"
• 29 October 2012: "Good points. There continue to be issues with this map that have not been addressed. Qinghai was not a province in 1820 (and as the map notes, Xining, its capital, was part of Gansu until 1928), Manchuria is not shown on the map. The whole Inner Mongolia/"Uliassutai"/Huijiang division is questionable. (…) instead of starting with present-day boundaries and working backward, it would be better generated by working with contemporary sources as well as present-day sources that display a bit more heft than a Baidu Baike map
• 13 May 2014: "The Chinese nine-dash map didn't appear until the Republican era in 1947. Based on which historical basis does it appear in this map of 1820 China?"
• 14 May 2014: "I can not see nine-dash map in these maps. Why does this map have? Any evidence?"
• 1 June 2014: "Why is this map used at all? Is it based on a real map? Why not use that map instead of using this one that had been digitally manipulated with countless anachronisms?"
• 29 October 2015: "Agree. This map, as well as other similar fantasy maps produced by wikipedians should be removed and replaced by real maps."
• 1 November 2015: "There might be relative minor issues need to be corrected (we can do it of course), such as in the case of Aksai Chin. Since the maps are generally identical, your claim that "they are not based on reliable secondary sources" is an exaggeration. Any other issues can you find besides Ladakh?"
• 2 November 2015: "1) Sakhalin is not include in the Oxford map. 2) List of tributary/vassal states is completely different. 3) Internal subdivisions are not mentioned on the Oxford map, see for example the 5-6 subdivisions for Tibet."

To mention just one example, the way Sakhalin is represented has been disputed for over five years! "Tendentious editing", I believe, is not made by the contributor adding a " Disputed accuracy template", but clearly by those who have removed it, such as here and here.

I perceive this ANI as an attempt to tarnish my past contributions, and object to the three points raised above:

• "Multiple accounts". The use of successive accounts did not breach any Wikipedia/Wikimedia policy.
• "Personal attacks". I never called "troll" any of the two contributors mentioned above, but have considered the continuous attempts to personalise and derail the discussion by Rajmaan a trolling attempt.
• "Tendentious editing". Considering the many concerns raised by the majority of contributors about the accuracy of the map, the removal of the " Disputed accuracy template" should be considered tendentious editing, but certainly not its inclusion.--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Multiple accounts: I see your accounts have been blocked on French wiki upon your own request (after you ran into disputes with other editors), but aren't you required to request unblocking before editing again, rather than creating multiple new accounts? Besides, your account 6-A04-W96 has been blocked on the Commons for vandalism [129], not as a result of your own request. And none of your accounts have (yet) been blocked on English wiki, yet you keep creating new ones (Comptetemporaire2015 is the fourth that I'm aware of).
• Tendentious editing: You keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again, even though they've already been refuted by multiple users. Old issues such as the 9-dash-line and Sakhalin have long been addressed, both on the local talk page and on the Commons talk page, yet you keep repeating them. WP:REHASH is a typical behaviour of tendentious editors.
• Personal attacks: Accusing of other people of "trolling" is personal attack [130]. I cautioned you against it, which you summarily reverted while repeating the trolling accusation [131]. -Zanhe (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Multiple accounts: Ironically, I am one of the few here who has never contributed simultaneously under different identifications, as it is the case of Cartakes aka Evecurid or Popolon aka 82.225.234.108 aka multiple complex IDs such as this one (I am not insinuating though that the simultaneous use of multiple identification by these contributors is breaching policies). It was quite obvious that the account 6-A04-W96 was blocked and tagged as a "vandalism-only account" by error. After I made the corresponding request, the block was immediately reverted by the same admin (see here and here).
• Personal attacks. I don't see any new element in the comment above, it is just repeating over and over the same point (WP:REHASH).
• Tendentious editing: The four contributors above have continuously claimed that issues raised by other contributors had long been solved and that I was the only one disputing the factual accuracy of the current map (e.g. "People raised issues years ago with old versions of the map, which appear to have mostly been fixed. You're the only one in the current discussion who thinks the map is inaccurate" "Don't bother him (…) All his work is mostly a POV-push", "Now it should be clear that it was him who makes POV push, and what he did is tendentious and should be reverted", "DHN raised an issue with the Nine Dash Line, which has since been removed. What other anachronisms are there?", "DHN's problem was only with the Spratly and Paracel islands and he had no issue with the other parts of the map", "You're the one who's being tendentious here, and nobody else agrees with your view", "You keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again, even though they've already been refuted by multiple users")

1. A quick look at the file history shows that it was last modified on 17 May 2014 and that the section "Digital manipulation: Why is this map used at all? (…) instead of using this one that had been digitally manipulated with countless anachronisms?" was created by User:DHN on 1st June 2014. Not change was made to the map between 1st June 2014 until I added the "Disputed factual accuracy" tag.
2. Representation of Sakhalin (as an example): even though Zanhe keeps affirming that "Old issues such Sakhalin have long been addressed", this is clearly not true. It is now 4 years since a contributor indicated that Sakhaline should be shown in gray, without any correction to be made afterwards. To the opposite, Zanhe claims that the outline of the map is similar to the one used in Oxford's Atlas of World History, while Sakhalin is clearly excluded from the Qing territory in this map. I tried to explain him that Sakhalin is not include in the Oxford map. In new attempt to justify the inclusion of Sakhaline, zanhe then cherry-picked four other historic map (all of them posterior to 1820, which is the year the "digital manipulation" is supposed to represent). Ironically, in 3 out of the 4 cherry-picked maps, the southern part of Sakhalin island is shown as belonging to… Japan!
3. As DHN mentioned in his last intervention, "countless anachronisms" do still persist on this map. As there were no further correction to the map afterwards, tagging its factual accuracy as disputed cannot be qualified as POV pushing. But removing this tag (1 and 2) is a clear attempt at denying the multiple anachronisms still affecting the map.--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a longterm pattern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has gone back to bringing up libels of Jews.

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

The problem before was WP:NOTFORUM issue and baiting questions at the Humanities desk. There isn't anything of that matter at the moment to me. Someone who wanted to seriously work on the blood libel page would want to look for Nazi examples of the material for a reference. As to whether or not any real university student would refer to that material, it is the actual study by a real academic so it is material that can be studied. My undergrad had numerous people who picked extraordinarily controversial topics like that and I'd rather deal with people interested in that by pointing them to academics who can objectively call it garbage rather than just topic banning and immediately going after any discussion on the topic. But that's clearly a minority viewpoint here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for someone who is indistinguishable from a troll to repeatedly ask questions about Jewish plans to destroy gentiles. The user can use the topic ban as evidence for their third year dissertation to note that some online communities do not encourage such nonsenses. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Request Admin Comment do we need an RfC or some other sort of discussion to institute this proposal? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd say any uninvolved admin can impose a WP:NOTHERE block. As to a topic ban, any uninvolved admin can impose an Wikipedia:Editing restrictions such as that via a consensus of the noticeboard discussion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Wars with Flyer22 Reborn

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

These are the pages I have edit wars with: [132], [133], [134]

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

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

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

User:Cullen328 User:Etamni Yeah, my bad I'm sorry I lost my temper and I'm sorry towards user:Flyer22 Reborn for calling her a "bitch". I am also a noob here so I don't have perfect knowledge how to notify people properly. However this issue is very critical because it shows there are some people like user:Flyer22 Reborn who is suppressing and restricting others from posting newer or relevant peer reviewed sources. As someone who is a regular follower of Peer reviewed journals, I find it unacademic that wikipedia allows individuals to restrict others from posting new official data. Flyer22's defence is that posts have to comply with community consensus which I find is irrational since that's not what the wikipedia rules says.The guidelines says you can post as long as the sources are valid. Community consensus should be frowned upon if peer reviewed sources outmatch any of their opinions. Doe1994 [[135]]

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

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

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

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

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

Some editors tend to see someone agreeing with someone they either know or consider a sockpuppet and draw the conclusion "Yep, that's another one." Not saying Flyer22 did that, necessarily, nor am I taking the OP's word against her. It's just something I've noticed in 12 years here, not a second of which was spent/wasted on sockpuppetry. Other editors tend to be pretty sharp with new editors or even older editors who slip up. It happens, and it's difficult to not react in kind, especially if the experienced editor in question has an itchy template finger - but I learned the hard way to not take an unjustified accusation, say, of editwarring personally. I wound up apologizing for (unjustifably) jumping into ANI to complain about being template-bombed on my user talk page with accusations of editwarring which were technically true.

I agree with Ritchie that the quality of the edit matters more than intuition or detective work pointing to an editor being a sockpuppet. I was falsely accused of it once, confronted my accuser and demanded he retract the accusation or bring it to an admin. That editor couldn't be bothered to either apologize or take it to the next level with an admin (I'd have welcomed either). The excellent point Ritchie made was to make good edits, regardless of what people think you might be. To which I add, if you're not a sockpuppet, unfortunately, no one's going to apologize for making a mistake in your case. Just consider what's in it for you here, and study the same stuff I haven't studied closely enough in 12 years of cleaning up content here. I'm going to relearn what I ought to have down cold by now. That's what you have to do. loupgarous (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Except that this user did not make helpful edits, he inserted poor quality material that was not suitable. It is also very inappropriate to say to another user "You're not a rad feminist or some troll are you?" as Doe1994 did at his talk page. A very brief review of the evidence shows we have a problem user trying to bully another and I heartily recommend a WP:BOOMERANG. Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In regards to whether or not someone is a sock, Flyer22Reborn accuses of almost everyone of being a sock and this, "I know who you really are but will let others figure it out on their own" thing of hers has gotta stop. She says that everywhere to everyone and, honestly, it's nothing more than a bullying tactic. She shouldn't be allowed to say that to people unless she knows for certain who they are and flat out states it. Either say what can be proven or don't make the accusation at all because it comes off as "I don't know anything but if I say this, it might scare you into going away because I want this page all to myself." These open-ended accusations of hers have long since grown stale (even with a rebirth).Cebr1979 (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey ho, Cebr1979. Let's tell the truth here, please, about her "accusing almost everyone of being a sock". I have interacted with her for several years, and she has never once accused me of being a sock. She has never accused any productive editor of being a sock. So, it seems that your definition of "almost everyone" is "all the disruptive, unproductive editors". That's because her attention is directed toward disruptive, unproductive editors. Show me a counterexample. You can't. So stop being disruptive, and all will be well. Repent, and improve the encyclopedia. Thank you in advance for your compliance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Put the poms poms down, Cullen. Fine, let's change my "almost everyone" to "an awful lot of people" and... VOILA! The message is still true: In regards to whether or not someone is a sock, Flyer22Reborn accuses of an awful lot of people of being a sock and this, "I know who you really are but will let others figure it out on their own" thing of hers has gotta stop. She says that to an awful lot of people and, honestly, it's nothing more than a bullying tactic. She shouldn't be allowed to say that to people unless she knows for certain who they are and flat out states it. Either say what can be proven or don't make the accusation at all because it comes off as "I don't know anything but if I say this, it might scare you into going away because I want this page all to myself." These open-ended accusations of hers have long since grown stale (even with a rebirth).Cebr1979 (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have interacted with Flyer22 occassionally on talk pages in the past (before she was reborn) without any problems, but Talk:Rick Grimes#Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources was a bit perplexing to me at the time, especially since the "makes me think that you are Marchjuly" part seemed to be really a bit of a reach. In hindsight, however, I realize her concerns were genuine and she was just basing them on her experiences in other similar situations. Moreover, she did apologize which is to her credit. Everyone has a bad hair day every now and then, and occassionally one's spider-sense goes on the fritz. I don't think commenting on another editor's behaviour (i.e., pointing out what you percieve to be a possible problem) is a bad thing as long as the discussion remains civil. So, if you're claiming there is a pattern of inappropriate behavior on her part, then I think you're going to have to be willing to provide more specifics (i.e., diffs) for others to see and assess. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Go to her talk page.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're going to need to be more specific than that. Nothing stands out at a glance. clpo13_(talk) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles

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

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

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

• Support, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Partial support I guess but I object to the whole idea of any further arguments about this at ANI. This is not something that requires admin conduct other than in the pure technical issue of restoration. It's something that should be based on a consensus and not a consensus based on people who visit the drama board so to speak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Anyone restoring needs (a) to take full responsibility for the article and (b) to explain why proxying for a banned editor is a good idea. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per JohnCD. Banned users are not welcome to contribute to this project in any capacity, no matter what quality. If admins don't intend to enforce this ban, then stop pretending that it means anything and lift it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete only under certain circumstances

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

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

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

Take the discussion elsewhere

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

Sorry for the late reply; I was waiting to see what others had to state about all of this. Not much, it seems. So far anyway. Given that I alerted that talk page and the WP:Sockpuppet talk page to this discussion, and there has yet to be substantial commentary from those two pages on this issue, and since WP:ANI has many more eyes than those talk pages, I don't see how taking the discussion directly to the criteria for speedy deletion talk page would help. Also, for this discussion, my main focus is on this editor; there is not quite another like him. While there are editors who do not mind if content comes from a WP:Sock, especially if the content improves Wikipedia, I think they should mind when the content comes from an editor like this one. His WP:ArbCom ban is serious, and I can't go into all the details here, but I will state that I can't support a person like this (unless he reverted vandalism, or removed some other very problematic edit). He is not so much concerned with Wikipedia, as he is concerned with his own ego and promoting himself and his views. And, as far as I'm concerned, his poor articles are not an improvement, especially when they are WP:POV forks. That stated, I very much understand what you mean about issues like this needing a broader focus, especially so that we can perhaps get some changes made to our guidelines and/or policies on these matters.

Davidwr, regarding this, I appreciated the comment. Do you mind explaining why you removed it? I take it that you are reevaluating this matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Davidwr responded to me via email, and I asked him before noting this here (if he was okay with me doing so). Also note that Tisane has replied again on my talk page. I've added it to User:Flyer22 Reborn/Leucosticte's commentary. It's the fourth reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have written an essay elsewhere about the counterproductive effects of deleting some good content by some banned users, where the work is unrelated to the reasons for the ban, and I can see both sides of that argument in some situations. But this individual is globally banned by the WMF Office, and from what I have seen, that is for very serious reasons. His current posts need to be brought to the attention of the Legal Department, which I will do, and people need to stop re-posting them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Assistance needed with User:Robert Rowlkey

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

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

The problem is, since then, he has refused any assistance with the article. He undid some image reformatting that I did and twice removed the {{COI}} tag from the article. He has now blanked the article twice, after threatening to "take the page off line and have a friend of mine put it back up."[136]

Now, my efforts to improve the article have been labeled "harass[ment]" and "LGBT discrimination". While no legal threat was made, he did state "This is going to become a media matter if this harrassment continues. I have kept screencaps of EVERYTHING. THe court of public opinion can be a real bitch."[137]

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

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

Diff 168 sounds like a veiled threat of retaliation ("This is going to become a media matter"). GAB^Hello! 23:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Obvious attempt to chill any discussion. While not a legal threat, it still has the effect of one. I'd be opposed to a block though as they do seem to be in need of some advice. Blackmane (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The article was brought to AfD as seen here: [138]. The user in question made some rather harsh personal attacks, accusing editors of homophobia and harassment and again threatened to seek outside influence. The article I believe is a good enough article to stay, however I did gently remind them that personal attacks like that need to be left out. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The personal attacks were directed at me among others. Would an admin please take a look at the above referenced AfD discussion and instruct the subject of this thread to remove his entire reference to his opinion of my motivation? We have here a SPA slinging attacks implying and stating bigotry as a motivation towards every editor who he encounters. As I found no reliable sources outside the area where this organization exists, it is my reasonable contention we do not have notability per org. Show me some at the AfD and I'll withdraw the nom. Meantime, we have a COI, SPA editor who is committing numerous copyright violations and personal attacks. IMO, we need to make it clear to him that this is not the place for that behavior and enforce that point on the next violation. John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And here it is. Restored blatantly copyvio copy. Please act, per NOTHERE. John from Idegon (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet another attempt at "chilling" behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tucson Pride..."Christopher Street West has now been contacted to observe the proceedings here as well." It's like, So? But the purpose of the edit is clear...to intimidate people from contributing. John from Idegon (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked for Robert Rowlkey, explaining to him that he needs to show he understands and is willing to abide by Wikipedia's copyright policies. As he also controls the source website, I also have concerns that a page containing "This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner" might suddenly sport a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Now I've removed talk page access due to legal threats. Max Semenik (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Hungrygyhhbgftygv

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

---

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

User:Hungrygyhhbgftygv has been repeatedly inserting dates into infoboxes in articles on Australian TV shows, despite template documentation, embedded notes in each article being edited, and escalating warnings to the contrary. They have yet to engage on any talk page (including their own). Example diffs [139] [140] (and pretty much their entire contribution history). Borderline as vandalism, but since the information may well be accurate and is just being inserted badly and out of process I figured I'd bring it up here instead. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I left a warning. If they continue doing this they should be blocked--so if it does, point an admin to that warning. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I just logged back on to check a couple of things and found [141] and [142]. So yep, that should probably be addressed now. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hungrygyhhbgftygv is now blocked 3 days by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Dozens,Thousands upon thousands of unnecessary redirects

• Neelix (talk · contribs)

I dropped a note about this to Drmies, who suggested I bring it here [143]. There may be a history of such edits from this user, but the current issue is dozens of useless, if not puerile, redirects. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The title of the article is Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, because that's the title of the episode. Notice that we don't have holiday crap episode or South Park Xmas shit as redirects. Alansohn (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I glanced through the pages GiantSnowman deleted and noticed one, Female figure (disambiguation), was a valid disambiguation page [144]. There might be others. KateWishing (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Versageek: The odd redirects started in September. See below. Jbh^Talk 23:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. It looks like they started with this edit creating Titty-fucks on 4 Sept 2015 and got 'hooked-on-boobs' so to speak. Going back through the years I see a lot of what I would consider nearly pointless redirect creation by this editor over years and not much else but nothing like what occured from Sept 2015 on. Jbh^Talk 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• Additional Comment -- I have now went back months into this editors contributions, and the thousands upon thousands of absolutely puerile and useless redirects is staggering. Literally there are thousands and thousands just in the last several months. Something needs to be done about this, but I am not sure what. The editor also has many useful edits, but this type of behavior needs to be curtailed and/or there needs to be some type of promise made. Dave Dial (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This seems to go back for years: way back in 2010, Neelix was blocked for rapid creation of inappropriate pages: [145], and their response at that time seems to have been much the same as now: [146]. At least this pattern seems to rule out compromised account. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• [ec] Thank you all. GS, thanks for pushing that button. These redirects weren't just puerile and unnecessary, they were offensive. Far be it from me to psychologize this matter, but perhaps Neelix... etc. Given that there is no evidence for a compromised account, we are left with two issues, both of which made extra pressing given that Neelix is an admin.

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

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

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

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

Well, you could do something: cock the hammer, it's time for action. Start deleting while you're still an admin. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Side question: is the justification "to help out with user searches" even theoretically valid? It seems to me that the better Wikipedia's search engine gets, the less time we ought to be spending anticipating wacky user searches and clogging the Wikipedia namespace with preemptive redirects. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to explain here without finding examples, but quite often yes. If we can create a redirect for a common but unusual search term to a target article, then the redirect aids in searches, since the automated search engine might not deal well with that. That doesn't seem to be the case for any that Neelix has created, at least none that I've found. In fact, many that he created actually hinder the search engine, for example see what comes up in search results for "boobs": [147] - many of the redirects we're talking about here come up, and they obscure potentially useful search results. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been of that opinion since about five years ago, too, when the search engine seemed to have got a lot better. Similarly, I habitually don't create {{R from other capitalization}}s and {{R from title without diacritics}} for the obscure articles I translate, for example, since the search engine seems to handle it fine; of course there are exceptions that are usefully "ovverriden" by a useful redirect. Si Trew (talk)

• While I can't say some the actions are appropriate (and I do have my own concerns about script-assisted editing, like others), I've realized from my time in real life that topics related to "naughty bits" get people in an abnormally strange, highly reactive state of mind. Same goes for "bad words." God help the people who combine them together, for a hammer of censorship awaits thee. Combine that with the types of personalities that land on Wikipedia—particularly the ones that stick around—and, well, let's just say I'll be the first to admit that in real life (and/or within the aforementioned topics), I can be socially awkward. Speaking to the other editors involved on this, I think that if you can't type or read the phrase "titty fucking" in this context (for example) without feeling uncomfortable or offended, then at least consider that your judgement may be biased in contradiction to WP:CENSOR and you may be over-reacting. Apart from that, scrolling through [148] looks like a lot of good faith combined with an over-active imagination with a reduced filter. For example, it's not beyond imagination that Mastopexy should need redirects from Titty lifting and Lift tits. That's society's and (a lack of) education's doing, and it's not unreasonable to make an effort to help rectify that, particularly on things that are prone to institutionalized censorship. Just sayin'. I have a feeling that regardless, the fact he's now aware that the way he's gone about it is seen as problematic could be enough to stop it from happening again, but maybe I'm just optimistic. :P --slakr^\ talk / 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"at least consider that your judgement may be biased in contradiction to WP:CENSOR and you may be over-reacting": your social awkwardness is showing, dude. This is nothing about censorship; the censorship guideline says we don't include information just because it's offensive to some. That's very different from "it's offensive to some and completely lacks any encyclopedic purpose whatsoever". Since you've proclaimed the user to be rectifying society's blind spots, I'm curious if you can justify the following redirects:

Atrophy of the titties

Inflames titties

Tumorous boobies

Suckling of the titties

Segmentally remove titties

After you. Ironholds (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ah Ironholds, the day has come that I agree with you. Slakr, society doesn't talk about "Atrophy of the titties", and if you can type "atrophy" you should be able to type something other than "titties". Titty fucking, that's an entirely different type of discourse. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Great. On 20 September he was into licking breasts, in all its permutations. Does Wikipedia offer workman's comp for RSI? (For me.) Drmies (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some of this stuff is just dumb rather than offensive. I'm surprised the vocabulary never got any more creative; where's atrophy of the bazongas? But the worst examples are really bad, and the fact that they're mixed in with all the dumb stuff makes the whole thing worse. There's a sort of callousness in redirecting "tumorous boobies" to breast cancer or "tubular titties" to tuberous breasts (which is an often psychologically distressing congenital deformity) that Wikipedia really shouldn't be implicitly legitimizing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman deleted a number of non-redirects in his purge. Template:Leucopogon, Leucopogon rubricaulis, Clodia Pulchra (disambiguation), Scarce (disambiguation), Miss Sophie (disambiguation), Starpeace (disambiguation), Pone (surname), etc. KateWishing (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I did. I used nuke (as in the literal admin nuke tool.) Almost all of the articles sucked. His plant disambigs were primarily against policy, and some of them were just factually wrong. Individual articles can be restored as needed but there's no way that people should sort through 80,000 articles when 99% of them are complete bullshit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• AFAICT we're trying to quickly delete the offensive/immature stuff, not the unnecessary but harmless stuff. We have existing processes for dealing with factual inaccuracies. It's definitely overreacting to claim unspecified policy violations as a reason for indiscriminately deleting pages that aren't offensive because their author also created offensive ones. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Are you willing to fact check the sources on 80,000 articles? Because a lot of them were created with a poorly written bot that fucked up DB pulls and are factually inaccurate. If someone wants to autocreate species articles, they can do it the right, policy compliant way. And we have a specific bot policy, that's not an 'unspecified policy violation'. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I've finished going through the mass-deletions and I've manually restored a number of things that seem questionable. As noted before, we have processes to re-delete if necessary. — Earwig ^talk 07:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Slakr: -This doesn't have anything to do with censorship. It's creating redirects with infantile wording just for shits and giggles. Taking serious subjects and creating redirects that are absolutely not real. Who the fuck is going to search Suckling of the titties instead of Breastfeeding? Or any of the other outright silly, made up redirects the editor made. On the other hand, I don't think there is a need to block, that's punitive, imo. As for if this goes further, that is up to Neelix. If he doesn't attempt to fix the problems he himself caused, why should the community allow him to retain his bit. If he does attempt to fix his childish bullshit, thena topic ban of redirects will suffice. Dave Dial (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggest that this should be brought to ArbCom

From WP:ADMIN:

Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... Repeated or consistent poor judgment. ... Administrators are expected to lead by example ... Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Although as far as has been detailed here, Neelix's creation of inappropriate redirects has not involved the use of his admin tools, that fact that this is a long-term behavior involving "tens of thousands" of redirects should at least raise the question of whether Neelix is fit to be an admin, as such egregious examples of poor judgment should not be tolerated from one "expected to lead by example." I believe that this should be taken to ArbCom for consideration of desysoping. BMK (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not opposed to ARBCOM necessarily but they are quite backlogged. What if Neelix pledges to clean up these thousands of redirects, and then abide by a topic ban from redirection? I mean, someone's going to have to clean these up, might as well be Neelix. I don't think that these creations necessarily point to admin abuse, just poor editing judgement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Having good judgment is why admins get the big bucks. BMK (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with BMK; given that he's already been blocked for this, he's clearly not going to stop, and while this may not be admin abuse I have no confidence in his (I think from the titties-and-boobies we can safely assume this is a "him") judgement regarding potentially sensitive decisions. After looking over his page creation log, I think the total number of redirects is around 80,000, of which between 50-95%, depending on how generous you're feeling, are inappropriate (plus however many have already been deleted); this isn't just a one-off blip. ‑ iridescent 23:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have stopped. I have promised to stop. I would be glad to delete whatever the community wants me to delete. Neelix (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd said delete every redirect you made which isn't entirely and completely vanilla. If you go too far, someone can tell you, or restore it themselves if they're an admin.

More importantly in my mind is some kind of explanation to the community about what the fuck you thought you were doing. It's extremely hard to conceive of a motivation for this behavior which doesn't impact seriously on your fitness to be an admin. So from my point of view, I'd say help clean up, as if you don't you're not going to have a chance in hell opf coming out of this with the bit intact; then explain yourself. Only a convincing explanation is going to save your bacon. If you already know that there isn't a convincing explanation to be had, clean up the mess and then give up the bit, under a cloud. BMK (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Neelix, if you have to ask you'll never know. I have been away from this board, and I don't know if I deleted dozens or hundreds of your redirects. I can't see straight anymore. If you can't tell what's appropriate and what's not you have no business being an admin. As BMK says, what the fuck? I mean, walk up to an adult--I'm sure you know one--and tell them you just created a redirect called "Absence of tits". Now walk up to a breast cancer survivor, man or woman, and say that. You made this comment sixteen minutes ago: you have been sitting on your hands for sixteen minutes. Damn it man, do something. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Neelix, to be blunt, your page creation log is such a mess that if you don't clean it up yourself, I'd seriously consider getting authorisation to run a damnatio memoriae bot over your account, and wiping every page which shows you as the creator and includes the string REDIRECT; I think my "5% are valid" above was actually a fairly generous assessment. At a minimum, I think you need a topic ban on creating any redirect other than as a result of page moves, and probably resignation as an admin or at least a firm written undertaking not to use the tools; given the lack of competence you've shown here (if you have any explanation for "continuing the exact same behaviour you were blocked for" that doesn't include the phrase "lack of competence", I'd love to hear it), I would think every admin action you make from now on would be legitimately open to challenge. This may sound harsh, but it's considerably less than the anvil Arbcom will throw at you if this does go that far. ‑ iridescent 23:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You want him to give up the "bit" because he's obsessed with boobies? LjL (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

An obsession with boobies is fine when it's not reflected in an editor's (much less admin's) work on Wikipedia. Neelix can keep his obsession, just not the tools at the same time. General Ization ^Talk 00:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I was more unsure about which "bit" was to be given up, as I only know of one that causes boobie obsession... nevermind, I was trying to lighten this up a bit. LjL (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It just seems so childish and Neelix has been editing here for 9 years. These are pages a high school vandal would make, not an experienced editor. I just don't understand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking perhaps an incredibly WP:POINTy demonstration that Wikipedia is not censored, but I'm not really sure. LjL (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• This needs to go to arbcom. It's massive abuse of an unapproved automated tool to create absurd redirects. It's absolutely godawful judgement at best, and makes it apparent he does not have the judgement needed to use the admin toolset. Also, Neelix, if you create any more of this shit before this situation is resolved, I'm blocking you for a severe violation of bot policy and emailing arbcom, crats, and anyone else I can think of to emergency desysop you as a level I until it's proven you aren't compromised, because the mere fact that you are an admin and did this suggests you are, and suggesting a level II desysop to arbcom. Frankly Neelix if there wasn't some value in you participating in this discussion I would block you for the sheer scale of violation of the bot policy immediately anyway. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• I agree Arbcom needs to handle this. If they were not an admin account I expect the community would be handing out an indef. The massive lack of judgement is not something we should accept in an admin. It looks like they have done very few admin actions in the last year particularly considering the thousands of redirects. Based on a diff I saw above it looks like they were inserting some of the more 'creative' terms into at least one article. Even after all that has been going on here they have not started cleaning up their mess by deleting these redirects [149]. To me that shows a lack of responsibility to go with the lack of judgement. Jbh^Talk 23:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Actually, I'm going to add something. @Neelix: - delete all these redirects en masse immediately, or I am going to block you. This would be a totally uncontroversial block if you weren't an admin and it's such a huge violation of bot policy and such horrible judgement that I'm comfortable blocking you regardless of the fact that you are a sysop. "A trip down mammary lane"?? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• See my comment above; cleaning this up will require a damnatio memoriae bot to wipe every page showing him as the creator, or at least every page which includes the string REDIRECT. I estimate there are roughly 80,000 problematic redirects—follow this link and keep hitting "next 5000" to get an idea of the scale of the problem we're dealing with here, and how long this has been going on. ‑ iridescent 23:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• This link gets you to the goods (so to speak) much faster. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Even most of his species disambig pages violate policy. I've contacted him off-wiki and if he doesn't start mass deleting his own shit, I'm fully intending on blocking him 30 minutes from my original comment, massdeleting everything I can, and emailing every body capable of executing an emergency desysop because this is either a compromised account or the goddamn worst judgement I have ever seen an admin use - and that's saying a lot. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin, a block would be punitive, IMO, at this juncture (though believe me, it would feel good). So would yanking his bit. I mean, I don't think he deserves it, but I'm not a fan of yanking in the first place. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• We regularly block people for violations much smaller than this, and on top of that there's yet to be any evidence that he's not compromised. If he wasn't an admin, AIV would've blocked him as a matter of procedure for literally 1/20,000th of this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• And that would be yet another needless block. I suppose I'm not as triggerhappy as some people are. But Neelix isn't editing, so there's nothing that a block would achieve--if I had to psychologize, which I'm not supposed to do, I'd say he's sitting in a corner feeling pretty miserable. We have no evidence that the account is compromised, or the account would have to have been compromised months or even years ago--apparently he's being making crappy redirects for a long time.

  What we need from Neelix is not that he sit in a corner and cry, nor that he be blocked and look at the screen--we need him to get off his fucking ass and start acting constructively. If he's as smart as he looks he comes up with something clever, or maybe he marked his calendar for especially happy and productive days, like 23 September must have been. If we can nuke by date, that sort of stuff might be helpful. But blocking an editor who is not being disruptive is purely punitive. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Iridescent, Neelix is still sitting on his hands, I suppose, and I'm developing some serious RSI. We need an engine that can pluck out all the redirects with those offensive terms and their permutations and delete them--I thought I made some progress but I've done only 120 or so, and I'm done. Neelix, I think Kevin is not joking, and neither is Iridescent. I'm the good cop here, but I'm done. You better start acting. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've just gone through all 80,000 page creations, and he was creating nonsense like Anti-trousers years ago. This isn't anything new, it's just the first time it's come to light. If Segmental removal of the titties doesn't turn red in the next 10 minutes I'm blocking him. ‑ iridescent 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would honestly support indeffing but we all know all kinds of shite would probably kick off so Arbcom is the 2nd best option I think, Those redirects are beyond moronic and quite honestly like everyone here I'm rather confused on why the bloody hell they were ever created in the first place... –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought admins were admins to perform administrative functions, not to be protected from [indef] blocks for egregious behavior. LjL (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the edits were last made about 2 months ago, so any blocking would be punitive and not accomplish anything as they are not currently being created. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Check the deleted contribs. [150] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see those, just the ones back in September. Still, Neelix has stopped now, so blocking without a specific blocking discussion and consensus (provided he doesn't go and start up again) would not be useful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm ready to block if his first edit on his return is anything other than (a) an undertaking never to create a redirect again other than as a result of a non-contentious page move, (b) a resignation of the sysop bit or (c) a bulk deletion of the vast majority of his creations, I agree that blocking without giving him a chance to explain himself won't serve any useful purpose, since one would hope even someone this clueless will have the sense not to start creating more. ‑ iridescent 00:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this. If he can't tell why the redirects were completely loony then he should stay far away from creating them. Blocking or desysoping need further discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My only problem with that response is that if this editor was not an admin, he would have been indef'd immediately, without hesitation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Really? I don't think so. Suppose [insert your favorite veteran editor] showed incredibly poor judgement that suddenly came under the spotlight. If they stopped, would you still indef immediately or wait for discussion? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he sure as hell would have been. AIV regularly blocks for four tiny instances of vandalism. The only reason I haven't blocked him is I threw it to arbcom. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

AIV blocks for vandalism after a final warning. You may want to drop by more often. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:, this is high school-level vandalism. I mean all of these redirects on titties and boobs? It's something a 14 year old would do. It it was brought to AIV, I think a block would have happened right away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean, I just deleted Shrink tits and Titty-fucks, for god's sake! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I've been on the bus since my last comment so I missed most of what happened in the meantime. I know I'm playing devil's advocate, but I can see this coming down to a good-faith misunderstanding of the purpose of creating redirects on Neelix' part. I really don't think he did this to be disruptive, I mean, there's just no evidence of harmful intent here. He's agreed to stop, although he had agreed to stop five years ago and here we are. But does that really require desysopping? Anyone can create redirects, this isn't misuse of the tools, so desysopping won't prevent him from doing this again. Definitely we should make absolutely clear that this sort of thing is inappropriate, but if he recognizes that and cleans up his mess, then the problem is solved, really. I don't know, I just really don't like punishing users for no good reason. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. The majority of the non-boob redirects I can see as actually helpful to one degree or another. I think it's just the sheer number of boob redirects that is causing people to feel overwhelmed. Looking back through the edits a ways, those are the only ones I have a problem with. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Seriously,Nihonjoe? You think Anti-trousers, Nudity of the thorax etc etc etc are "actually helpful to one degree or another"? ‑ iridescent 00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Please. To quote, "The majority of the non-boob redirects I can see as actually helpful to one degree or another." I would lump those ones you mentioned in with the boob redirects. Give me a little credit. ···日本穣 · <small 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd have more sympathy if this wasn't the 4th time we've had a problem on ANI this week about excessive redirect creation. In one week! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with Iridescent taking my comment out of context? I haven't been creating weird redirects, so whether or not this is the 4th or 40th time has little to do with this discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Should Neelix be asked not to act as a Wikipedia Online Ambassador (as mentioned on his user page) pending further discussion? NebY (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't see a need for that, unless the class in question is a particularly politically sensitive hot potato. "Online Ambassador" really doesn't mean much more in most cases than explaining markup and handing out attaboys, and "not understanding WP:POFR" isn't really relevant to whether he can explain how to complete a {{pd-old}} template. ‑ iridescent 00:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying that. Suggestion withdrawn. NebY (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• It saddens me to say that I agree with the proposal in that this issue needs to be presented to arbcom. Neelix has volunteered a lot of time, and I mean A LOT of time towards the project and making positive contributions to it. However, this is a serious violation. Judging just by the amount of responses that this very ANI has generated, it's clear that the community's trust in Neelix's ability to hold administrator rights has been called into question, and by a significant number of other editors (including myself, to be quite honest). Administrators are supposed to be leading examples of Wikipedia policy and trusted by the community to protect Wikipedia and enforce its policies when doing so is needed. I completely understand that mistakes happen; nobody is perfect and we cannot expect perfection. However, given Neelix's tenure on Wikipedia, the fact that he holds admin rights, and the fact that this isn't his first time being blocked for this very thing - one thing is very clear: Neelix is aware of this policy, and he knows better. Admins should know and understand the bot policy, and there is absolutely no excuse for violating it (especially to the extent that it was violated, and given the insane number of unnecessary redirects that this violation resulted in). The first time, it's a mistake; the second or subsequent time, it's a potential problem.

Neelix, you're a great contributor here (minus the, uhh, I'll call them "setbacks") and you've volunteered so much of your time to Wikipedia; I don't question your overall loyalty towards the project and I want you to know that. That being said, I think that you should save the community the time required for filing an ArbCom case, as well as ArbCom's time with everything involved with closing it, and voluntarily resign your administrator flag "under a cloud". At this point, I'm very certain that this issue will be escalated and presented to ArbCom if you don't - and you will almost certainly have the flag removed by them. As serious as this violation of policy and trust is, and how frustrated as many other editors may be over this, I hope that you view this as a learning opportunity and walk away from all of this with a positive mind and with no hard feelings. Whatever outcome results from this, I wish you the best of luck. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As a non-admin editor previously blocked for 24 hours for "incivility" and threatened with an indef block for such incivility, I certainly find it interesting that creation of 80,000 malicious redirects is apparently not grounds for a block of any length. That aside, the thing I find most troubling about this is the really vile misogyny. How can Wikipedia attract talented female editors in greater numbers when such crude behaviour is occurring? Behaviour that amounts to sexual harassment, in my view. I am not in favour of censorship. Swearing? Fine by me. Political and religious criticism. Great. This garbage is just not acceptable though. Run-and-rape game redirects. Redirects implicity mocking cancer sufferers "tits" or lack of. This is sickening. I would really like to hear from the editor involved. I read his userpage and he seems like a decent individual. Why did you do this? Do you understand that you did wrong? Even more disturbing is the fact that some editors have justified and excused this damaging and time-wasting behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

AusLondonder - He is not currently being considered for a block because blocks are meant to be preventative. He has stopped the behavior, meaning that a block would not serve its proper use. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Having slept on this, I remain convinced that the matter needs to be raised with ARBCOM. GiantSnowman 10:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Adminbot

Putting this in a separate section to avoid getting mixed in with the user-conduct issues
Assessing 80,000 redirects, the majority of which are problematic, would wreck WP:RFD. What are people's thoughts on either (a) authorising a damnatio memoriae adminbot to nuke every redirect created by Neelix, or (b) having a bot generate a list of all his redirects and dividing them up into manageable chunks for admins to go through and winnow out the nonsense? ‑ iridescent 00:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Damnatio memoriae is the only reasonable option. 80,000 redirects is too much work to put on the active admins when most of it is complete shit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe a few of the bot regulars can help. @Anomie, Magioladitis, MBisanz, The Earwig, and Slakr: Can one of you whip up something to make a list of all of these that's easier to go through than the contributions list? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is a list of redirects created by and only edited by user Neelix: User:Anomie/Neelix list. Note: if there are further comments for me, please ping. Anomie⚔ 13:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Bot yes, but erase from history, no. Due to the sheer number, a mass-revert is the most feasible option (other than "do nothing"). However, a list of what was removed and what it pointed to should be kept so people who care to do so can manually go through the list and re-create any good ones. The list should also mark if the redirect was created while the editor was blocked or not, and a request that if the latter are restored, the restoring editor put "originally created by User:Neelix at [timestamp]" in the edit summary. No objections if those created in violation of a block or ban are left off the list entirely. I highly recommend that the list be marked {{noindex}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note that the majority of the redirects are not so problematic. (Though I agree that the swaths involving boobies and titties have got to go.) The namespace is chock-full of needless redirects, and while Neelix has certainly been overzealous (if not monomaniacal) about creating them, most of them are not causing any particular or immediate harm. What would make sense is to find a way of automatically culling all unnecessary redirects, regardless of who created them. The algorithm is simple: if a given redirect meets both of these criteria, it can safely be deleted:

1. it is not linked to
2. entering its name into Wikipedia's search engine yields the linked-to page among the first N hits.

(Choose N to taste, maybe 3 or 5.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not that simple; there are some redirects, such as paintings which have been exhibited under more than one title, or people who have changed their name, where even if there's currently no incoming traffic to the redirect, there's a reasonable presumption that at some point someone might want to link to it. ‑ iridescent 00:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging some RfD regulars to comment on the criteria here: @BDD, Steel1943, SimonTrew, Tavix, Rubbish computer, and Lenticel:. I would add to this any that are redirects from moves, as these are often kept due to the possibility of off-wiki incoming links. RfD can certainly handle questionable cases; we do mass nominations quite frequently. Based on what I've seen from Neelix' history, there really aren't that many questionable cases. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This might be a little hard to program, but I would support a mass deletion of redirects under a certain page-view threshold. Something like 1 view/day or something that is normally within a certain the range of 'implausibility' on RFD. I've nominated several of Neelix's redirects for deletion at RFD and looking at his talk page, several others have done the same. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm queasy with the idea that adminsitrators make unilateral deletion decisions (in their programming/parameterization of a bot). In the case of "normal" bot edits it can be hard enough to undo the work of a general-purpose bot that is run with "bad" parameters (I have had run-ins on more than one occasion with one particular ex-admin who has done this),but with deletion, it is almost impossible even to know that the bot has run.

The problem is not the "80,000 redirects" but how many target each article. For many years I have expressed my view that too many (similar) redirects to an article hinder rather than help a search, but like wasps at a picnic it is difficult to argue that any in particular is a problem.

The RfD criteria here do not really cover mass listings well; presumably the more redirects there are to a given article, the greater the likelihood that each will get fewer hits. However, a bot should run under the same Delete/Keep criteria (in Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons) as mere human non-admin editors such as myself. If the gap is in the criteria, we should change the criteria:; what we shouldn't do is ignore it by unilaterally have redirects disappear without trace en masse in some Stalinistic purge. (I am not invoking Godwin's law here but trying to make a reasonable analogy, because the problem with deletion in particular is that it leaves little trace and is much harder to undo than a mere edit.)

The criterion suggested above for "if it is not linked to" would need to be qualified (my general qualification in RfD discussions is "not linked to from article space", but "user-facing space" might be better), because by listing it etc. it will cause it to be linked to. However, I am rather concerned that redirects disappear on the unanimous decision of one administrator (the bot's keeper) with no discussion or forewarning. Or is it suggested we have a kinda "Proposed mass deletion" page that one could add to one's watchlist? How often would the bot run? If that page were updated too frequently, I doubt many would check it. Si Trew (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure what's going on here since this whole thread is a mess, but it seems like the point of it is that Neelix has been determined to create problematic redirects. My only input on this that may be helpful is that sometime in the lady couple of months, I nominated several redirects created by Neelix that targeted Profanity or Minced oath. Hopefully that helps with something here as I'm not sure if deleting every redirect wholesale is wise since some might be useful; they would have to be cherry picked. However, with that being said, I weakly support some sort of sanctions on Neelix creating redirects, suggesting that they use WP:AFC/R for every single redirect from here on out. Steel1943 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Some of the redirects are valid, though I suspect the search engine would find the articles easily enough anyway. For example, Microhyla ornata has 18 redirects, all created by Neelix: ornamented frog, ornamented frogs ... ornate narrowmouthed frog, ornate narrow mouthed frog, ornate narrow-mouthed frog.... One or two of those would ordinarily be worth keeping, if anyone's ready to put in the effort of panning for them. NebY (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hatnotes too? Neelix has added some questionable hatnotes as well: [151] [152] Rwessel (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh man, what a mess we have here. Immediate deletion was probably not a good idea, either. This could have been approached more methodically—you broke a GA, for example. I need to make a phone call, but I'll respond to Nihonjoe's question right after. — Earwig ^talk 01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, definitely a mess. We basically just need a bot to make a list so they can be gone through much more methodically instead of a nuke-from-orbit approach. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Earwig, mass deletion hasn't happened. There are still tens of thousands of inane redirects. 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, it has (at least it was started). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Y'all better hide this under the rug fast before it reaches the press! LjL (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No, LjL, hiding embarrassing incidents is always worse than the incident itself. Throughout history, it always backfires. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment May I suggest a semi-automated approach in dealing with the 80k redirects? We could have bots identify entries with certain keywords like "boobies" and such and then subject to RfD the less questionable redirects. I agree that the sheer number of redirects may overwhelm the Rfd but a systematic batch nomination would slowly reduce them to manageable size--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And who is to decide what is more or less questionable? That is what RfD is for. boobies are lovely birds. Si Trew (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave the keywords to the bot users' discretion and the editors here who are more familiar with the case. I am a fan of great tits. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm currently running a database query that grabs all of this user's redirects and runs them through a profanity filter. I'll throw the TSV up somewhere when I'm done so people can use it as a baseline for a bot. Ironholds (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• I suggest running a bot to delete all redirects - if they are genuinely useful (only a very tiny minority!), they will be re-created in due course by good faith editors. GiantSnowman 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here ... the "really odd redirects" occurred after an IP address change? And IP2601 as a non-registered editor just "happened" to see them and then canvassed a bunch of admins to make absolutely sure Neelix got shat upon? Am I missing something? Neelix was organized and persnickety (to a fault) in his pre-September edits. He suddenly changed IP addresses, and went off the deep end.

Spoofing known IP addresses is not impossible (far from it, it appears), nor are "Joe Jobs" impossible (not even unlikely in a case like this). But we are united that we must do something drastic here? AFAICT, the more likely version is that a real registered editor (likely an admin who has seen the IP address for Neelix?) parallel edited the account - knowing most editors do not look at all their own contributions in the list. That person bides their time, then shows up as a mystery IP whistle-blower (this is far from unheard-of on Wikipedia) and wants Neelix gone as fast as possible.

If so, then the person who should be sanctioned is likely whoever is the faux whistle-blower. I decline to believe IP2601 is a random passer-by here. Collect (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, what have you been smoking? It has been reiterated several times by now that the edits do not just go as far back as September, but in fact, "inane" redirects are a long-term behavior, and even one that Neelix was previously blocked for. LjL (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• And I'm sorry, Collect, but that's a groundless hypothesis--it makes my skin crawl and underscores why I've tried to leave this site so many times--no good deed goes unpunished here. In spare time I frequently drop in at the recent changes page--do many administrators do that, to get a fuller understanding of how much crap flows by, a lot of which is caught quickly, but much of which seems to get through the sieve? It's a way to kill time while I'm simultaneously writing or corresponding, and I happened upon these redirects because, as Drmies noted at his talk page, I seem to have a good nose for this sort of stuff. Drmies, Bbb23, Kafka Liz and SandyGeorgia know who I am. Is it now necessary for us to summon character references on my behalf? For those who remain curious, my IP changes with exasperating frequency because I have a poor rural connection, and often unplug in hopes of temporarily improving it. But I welcome any and all IP checks if it helps establish my credibility. 2601:188:0:ABE6:80B1:14A7:1EB4:5451 (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Collect That is a disgusting and unacceptable attack on the IP editor and a complete breach of WP:AGF. AusLondonder (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is a matter of when AGF is good and when it does have problems. In general, Wikipedia has always seemed to look askance at IPs who edit from multiple IP addresses and decline to actually register as an editor with a username. (see AE discussions about allowing anonymous complaints being brought) And if you are in a really sparsely populated area, then I will gladly accept "bad connections." Warm regards. Collect (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You are talking garbage. Thank goodness this matter was brought up. Frankly I wouldn't care what motivated a reporter (or "faux whistleblower" as you term them, in violation of WP:NPA) anyway. No requirement exists for registration. Wikipedia is anonymous, even with usernames. I don't know who you are, even though you have a username. Neelix can easily create other accounts if he wanted. He would be just as anonymous as the IP. AusLondonder (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And let's remember about WP:EQUAL in the course of this incident, in both directions. LjL (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I've said before, either here or at Drmies' page: I choose to edit as an IP for reasons that are innocuous to others, but are valid to me. As long as I'm working here constructively, it is nobody's business. We all get that, I thought. I write professionally, am the subject of a bio here, and prefer to keep some distance between my edits here and my real life. In the course of reverting vandalism as a registered account, I was made uncomfortable by threats from vandals. And I forgot to add this: I like presenting a moving target that vandals can't easily get a handle on--they're less inclined to waste their time coming after an IP. If I were destructive, the Dr, Bbb23 or other admins who don't know me would shut me down. If a user wants to go after me for filing a legitimate report here, that's their prerogative, and I wish them luck. In the end, unless I've done something disruptive to Wikipedia, it will be seen as harassment. It is, in fact, as threatening to me as the bile of vandals. 2601:188:0:ABE6:80B1:14A7:1EB4:5451 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ban on creation of redirects

Since it seems a straight out block is off of the table I propose that Neelix be indefinitely community banned from creating any redirects not resulting from page moves.

• Support as proposer. Neelix has shown poor judgement in the mass creation of redirects. Since this discussion has opened he has not started to clean up his mess, even when asked to. Not even the a minimal response to iridescent's "If Segmental removal of the titties doesn't turn red in the next 10 minutes..." when it was pointed out by Drmies that "Neelix is still sitting on his hands..." earlier in this thread. This shows not only a lack of judgement but an incredible lack of responsibility as well. Jbh^Talk 00:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as co-proposer a few threads above. Neelix should not create redirects, that's a no-brainer. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Well, you know, sure, but here's the thing. If we don't block him now--and I don't think we have a reason to, besides to use as a stick when we have no carrots--then someone will block him the moment he makes the next idiotic redirect. (Where we draw that line, that's up to the admin who happens to be looking at it.) So a topic ban is already happening, practically speaking. I think the bigger question is whether we trust this editor with the admin bit, considering this piss-poor judgment. Imagine if The Atlantic got wind of this story, which actually has some meat on its bones. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I am amazed he was not blocked right out of the gate. I would dearly like to see bit-blind blocking in this kind of situation. By giving a formal topic ban it gives some cover to the poor blocking admin and the shit-storm that would pop up if they blocked on their own initiative. I would also love to see de-sysops for 'loss of the communities confidence' but do not expect that either. So...

Yes... I can see the headlines now "Wikipedia administrator with juvenile fixation on boobies spams Wikipedia with offensive tit links" or some such. This is a 'customer facing' issue unlike the the 'house facing' problem currently 'in the news'. I bet it would be easy for the press to tie them together though. Bah. Jbh^Talk 01:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, paradoxically, since I've already said (and meant) that if he doesn't give this undertaking I'm blocking him the moment he returns to editing. I dislike formal, written, topic bans, unless they're absolutely necessary; generally, to put a stop to a long-running, festering dispute. They serve as marks of Cain, and encourage assorted busybodies to pay undue attention to the editor in question's contributions in the hope of spotting a technical violation of the rules. As a thought experiment, imagine Neelix gives up the redirects and devotes his time to writing, and at some point creates an article on a book which was published under different names in North America and Britain/Ireland (this is not uncommon), and creates a redirect from the alternative title. Under the letter of a formal topic ban, this would result in his instant blocking; if you don't think there are admins who would block in these circumstances, I suggest you have a read through some Arbcom enforcement logs. ‑ iridescent 01:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think what you're saying is that you intend to enforce this proposed topic ban, informally, regardless of the outcome here and without formally recording it in whatever log these things get recorded in. If that is what leads to the situation being resolved, then I'm all for it, and I'm sure you're right about block-happy admins. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If he spent time doing other things for a year or so lifting the ban would not be a major issue. If he wants to create a redirect for an article he actually creates before then he can ask for someone to create it. It would show his judgement has improved. We work with the tools we have and here all we really have are bans and blocks once we have lost trust in an editor's judgement and editorial responsibility. Jbh^Talk 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support with modification. The silliness needs to stop instantly, but I take Iridescent's point. Perhaps a limitation of two redirects per day, both of which must be undisputably sensible.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support with modification. I like Newyorkbrad's suggestion of a limit on the number of redirects per day. The number can be up for negotiation. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I'm frankly more alarmed at the redirects like Run-or-rape games, a type of which he has also created a large number(scroll about 1/3 of the way down), than I am at boobies, though boobies was more than bad enough to start with. While Neelix has also created much more normal redirects (plenty of tree frogs!), the interspersing of utterly inappropriate ones is enough for me to support removing him from the area entirely. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Fluffernutter; I removed all those--there is very little justification for those redirects, and the plethora of it actually suggested we were dealing with an attempt to establish it as acceptable terminology. (Kind of running out of AGF too here. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Sorry, I'm a hard ass, and there's absolutely no reason that this editor should ever create a redirect for the rest of his Wikipedia editing life. If he needs one created, let him ask someone responsible to create it. (I'm also fully in agreement with Liz, the only reason he hasn't been blocked is that he's an admin. I don't say that as a slam against the various admins in this discussion, I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed, but there is absolutely no doubt that a rank-and-file editor would have been blocked by now.) BMK (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is punishment, and punishment is what makes people indignant, detached and ultimately unhappy. If they're the sort to abide, all they'll have learnt is obedience. The encyclopaedia is in no immediate danger from Neelix, who has - for the time being - stopped creating redirects. If, in a month's time or so, we've made no progress with reaching an understanding, I might then support a topic ban.
  And could we stop with the theatrics? Yes, iridescent and Kevin, you possess a block button. Well done. Alakzi (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I have a block button, which I greatly prefer to not use, and have actively argued against the blocks of multiple people in recent weeks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've not commented on what you've done in the recent weeks; I've remarked on your comments here, in this thread, where you and iridescent are repeating that you will block on repeat violation, as if that's gonna make them understand what they're doing is wrong. You might succeed in intimidating them, but that is no "success" at all. Alakzi (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel that it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on this following events a few days ago. Sorry, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support, and I think we also need a desysop. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – absolutely not. This is far too premature. We still have a lot to figure out. A shamefully large number of the deletions made just now were incorrect. — Earwig ^talk 03:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Dude, are you willing to sort through 80k articles and manually check sources on each one? It makes infinitely more sense to delete them all and selectiely restore ones that turn out to be useful or necessary. You restored more than one species article that were clearly done using a poorly written bot that fucked up a DB pull and are factually inaccurate. If someone wants to autocreate species articles, they can write a working bot, get it approved through BAG, and write actually accurate articles instead of leaving this many piles of crap around the wiki relying on people to check the sources of 80,000 articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I fear "delete first, ask questions later" is exactly the wrong approach to take here. You're going to need to provide stronger evidence that he was using a bot. I know what bots are, and this does not look like one at all. — Earwig ^talk 03:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also, there seems to be a bit of confusion. I have only restored one species article so far (Leucopogon rubricaulis, mentioned by us earlier). There were a few species synonyms that I restored too, which I individually verified, but not articles, and I can't imagine an argument against them. — Earwig ^talk 03:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support with modification - ban the use of any sort of automation to create redirects. I think that the ban should instead be that Neelix "be indefinitely community-banned from creating redirects using any form of automation". This will give him the freedom to learn from this incident and continue to contribute without being completely shut out of this area, but it naturally sets limits on how many he can make by requiring him to do this completely manually. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Neelix claims above not to be using any automation "I have not been using any automated processes or bots. I am simply a fast typist." [153] so this does not address the problem. Jbh^Talk 03:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I LOL'd. Hard. Also, I see your point and I'm inclined to agree with you, Jbhunley. This is obviously a ridiculous statement, but you point out something important: we don't have the full ability to prove for 100% sure that an edit was done using automation outside the edit summary and tags. This may present a problem. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCOm has gotten around the problem in the past by simply defining automated or semi-automated edits as anything that looks like automated or semi-automated edits, so if Neelix says he's not using automation and is just a fast typist -- well,that's bad luck for him. He'll have to learn how to type slower. (But not, in my opinion, to make redirects, which he should be indefinitely blocked from doing.) BMK (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

BMK - I've seen those ArbCom cases that closed defining "automation" as well. I do remember the definition being worded quite openly (probably to allow "leeway" as far as proof goes). I simply followed up to acknowledge Jbhunley's response and give it some merit. I still stand behind my vote, and that he should only be banned from using automation to create any redirects. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. From my outlook, what matters is fixing the harm done. I've looked at the logs and there seem to be 75,000+ redirects. I've never seen anything like it. Many aren't "dodgy" as to wording, but redirect off more or less useless permutations which, if done for the whole article space, could add something more than fifty million pages to the website. Even given that en.WP's search engine has always been weak (tip: a somewhat mangled Google search will most often bring up the sought-after article), redirects of this kind weren't the way to deal with it, indeed. My take is, I don't know how much Neelix could lend to the scripted/automated cleanup and human checking this mess is going to need. Ask him to agree not to do anything like this again. If he does agree and then does it again, it would show some worrisome lack of understanding or grip on himself and a swift de-sysop (along with perhaps a short block, if the timing called for it) would very likely follow. By the way, I don't think that if a non-admin with a long, otherwise helpful contrib history had done somthing like this in good faith as say, a time killer (however cluelessly), that it would have ended with a lasting block. Also, it doesn't look to me as though he used automation. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Redirects are useful, and, yes, some redirects need to be puerile to connect to all the subjects we cover. I can see how one can get carried away putting synonym with synonym. bd2412 T 04:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support idea but oppose a hard ban. Allow him a few redirects a day without discussion plus an unlimited number provided each one has been proposed on the target article's talk page for at least 3 days and has had zero opposition. Also, a temporary ban on creating redirects until the current mess is cleaned up (i.e. formalize what is probably already a de-facto super-double-secret-probation situation) followed by a longer (3-6 months seems reasonable) ban on creating redirects in topic areas where, based on the cleanup results, his redirects in that topic area are more harmful than helpful. The net result is he will be able to create as many redirects as he wants in most topic areas as long as he proposes them on the affected articles' talk pages and nobody objects for 3 days. He will also be able to create a few redirects without discussion every day, as long as they are outside the problematic topic areas. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with bd2412. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support. This is the most ludicrous case of boneheadedness we've seen in quite some time. It goes beyond disruptive -- it's positively destructive and is a form of trolling. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support total ban from creating any redirects at all. GiantSnowman 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alakzi. I trust this will stop because of understanding. "Other than page moves" will not work because someone eager to create redirects could simply move an article from one name to the next, several times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I'm all for giving people second chances but half of what he's created you'd expect from trolls & vandals ... Not from an admin with a 10 year history, AGF only goes so far and considering he's created thousands I think AGF went out the window a long time ago!, I don't believe the limit would work as it would mean someone would no doubt have to monitor him and to be totally honest we all have better things to do than to monitor someone 247 & 365 days of the year, The topic ban would hopefully stop it all. –Davey2010^Talk 14:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per BD2412 and Alakzi. Neelix evidently got carried away, but he is now aware that the community does not want these redirects, and has promised not to create them anymore. (Of course, if the behavior continues in the future despite this discussion, then a ban would be worth considering.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Bare minimum sanction, assuming that a desyssop will also follow. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

After spinning through the first 10,000+ redirects, it seems that the massive, overwhelming majority are good faith redirects. Not sure what to do about the small minority of bad ones, but anyone thinking this is a case of 80,000 vandalistic redirects needs to do a little basic research. Here's THE LINK again... Carrite (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose People do dumb things once in a while. I would support an option like this if the problem is repeated. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @I am One of Many: You do realize this has been going on for years, right? And he was blocked for it in 2010? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Level-headed in person. Never imagined I'd ever see this level of immaturity, but then I didn't know about the 2010 block. I can't help but also notice that Neelix's response to these revelations sounds eerily similar to five years ago. Sorry, Neelix. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Jbhunley.- Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support a limit of three redirects per day, with an option for the community to implement a full topic ban if behaviour continues. I've now briefly looked at about 20,000 of Neelix's redirect contributions. The same frantic level of creation of not-particularly-useful redirects has been going back to 2010 at least and quite probably much further. We all make mistakes, but a mistake that goes on for 5 years and over tens of thousands of edits is WP:CIR territory. Neelix makes useful contributions but adding redirects like (just to pick randomly) Judgmentalistically, Judgementalistically, Judgmentalistic, Judgementalistic, Judgmentally, and Judgementally isn't making Wikipedia better for anyone. A limit of three per day gives him the latitude to create content-focussed redirects without going over the top. I broadly concur with The ed17's judgment. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) times 3 Oppose. I think everyone has their rampages and their... um... fetishes once in a while. But the community should give Neelix a final chance before they TBAN him. He'd already stopped his behavior when this was proposed. (Also, if you are going to ban him from creating redirects, also ban him from moving pages, since that itself automatically creates redirects. Also, ban him from merging pages, because that also forces the creation of redirects. Just sayin'...) epic genius (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Except this particular "rampage" has been going on since at least 2010 -- that's not occasional behavior, that's an integral part of their overall editing pattern. BMK (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It was mentioned above, but since it may have gotten lost in the size of the discussion, they were caught before, and at that time they said that "While that continues to be my belief, I understand how strongly some editors feel that profanity-related redirects not be created, and the redirects I create in the future will not be profanity-related." Yet they continued doing it for the past five years, regardless. I honestly do not feel they are capable of controlling their behavior in this respect. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - At the very least. The 2010 block, promise and subsequent five year redirect rampage call for firm action. Jusdafax 08:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support -- there is no lack of other editors to create useful/plausible redirects, and Neelix losing the right to do so will not impede the development of the encyclopedia. In addition, Neelix should be de-sysopped and only allowed to re-apply for the admin bit after a period of showing constructive contributions as a normal editor. -- The Anome (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, you consider requesting him to undo the mess his did "draconian" (I'm referring to this amendment)? Initially, that was the very first basic things that people were asking of Neelix: to start undoing the mess. Why should other people be taxed with the pretty monumental job? Neelix showed he can do the monumental job by doing it in the first place, now he can undo it too. LjL (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Draconian, and more to the point, futile, as I can't see that it's likely he would ever finish, and we have no power to force him to do so, and once de-sysopped, Neelix would in any case be unable to help. Neelix should be (a) de-sysopped, and (b) topic-banned from making redirects, but seems on balance to be a useful contributor otherwise. We can do the cleanup with automated tools. The aim of these processes should be to improve the encyclopedia, not to punish. -- The Anome (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: what's emerging over time (though "nobody noticed" for years) is that the bogus redirect-making goes back to before 2010, when he was blocked for it; then, more recently, he "retired" because some of his other misbehaviors (including misuse of admin tools and arbitrary WP:INVOLVED blocking of users) surfaced to the press, but in reality, what he did was move to Commons and continue the bogus redirect-making there; then he came back to Wikipedia, and here we are. He should be indefinitely blocked. If he doesn't want to be blocked, the least he could do is undo the mess he created: it's not about punishing, it's about not burdening editors who weren't the ones causing any of this. LjL (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My comments are purely pragmatic, and should not be taken as a defence of Neelix's actions; in fact, they're quite the reverse. If you think Neelix can do it, you might be right. But cleaning up and de-sysopping are mutually exclusive, and so far Neelix seems to have deleted a couple of hundred redirects, then stopped. I would prefer the de-sysopping option at the moment, with due process, in the knowledge that an immediate block will follow if any further problematic edits occur. -- The Anome (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support I'm sorry, but at RfD I've just seen too many bad redirects by Neelix, and this crop is just especially egregious. I'm not opposed to a very small daily limit, like one or two. No doubt some of his redirects have been helpful, but to borrow RfA language, I simply don't think they're a net positive. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support complete ban on redirects. This is the very minimum that needs to be done. The 2010 block proves that he knew it was wrong, though he must have known it before that with all the experience he had. This wasn't an innocent mistake. Kelly ^hi! 19:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Neelix provided a valid reason for his creation of redirects. Whether or not we agree or disagree with his reasoning (I happen to agree), it was clearly done in GF. Further, he's already volunteered to stop making redirects so imposing a block simply becomes punitive. This reads like a kneecapping effort. LavaBaron (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed additional topic-ban

I have to admit that in my nine-plus years on Wikipedia, I don't believe I've ever seen a case like this. Neelix is an editor and administrator whose dedication to Wikipedia are obviously substantial. I don't believe I've come across him before, at least not memorably, and so I just took a look at his userpage. He's an experienced editor with a well-developed wiki-philosophy, significant roles in 10 FAs and lots of other articles, an ambassadorship, and does a lot of solid editing.

And yet, we have all the bizarre redirect-creation and other odd behavior that has been described in this thread. The mind, as the saying goes, boggles.

What to do in terms of Neelix's editing rights and particularly his adminship is certainly a valid topic for discussion. But if he does continue editing, in addition to any restriction on redirect-creation, I think we need to seriously consider a topic-ban on the topic of (or perhaps better still, a clear voluntary promise to stay away from the topic of) human breasts or perhaps more generally parts of the human body. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, because this is a sensitive topic for some users, however I don't think Neelix shows a particular obsession with this topic, only that he happens to have created more of these redirects recently and that is what got him noticed. If you go back past about August, the mass-creation of redirects follows other topic lines just as much. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I defer to your analysis of the longer-term trend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from reporting IP: The concern has been raised about how this would play in the press, which suggests a degree of worldliness here. Is anyone aware of how not blocking and de-sysopping will look to the outside? In this case, the editor's future is not your primary concern; it's Wikipedia and, alas, its image. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, but we can't go and block people to make us look better. This kind of creation of redirects, that's not going to happen again. I'm concerned with the lack of judgment, and I like my admins with more than a little judgment. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not about making us look better. It's standard action in a functional workplace environment--a lot of this was offensive in several ways. That a long term error in administrative oversight was made ought to be discussed, but I'm seeing a double standard that's unacceptable--that's becoming the story. To openly admit here, as some have done, that a non-administrative account would be blocked without hesitation seals it. Let the press hang--equivocating looks bad to me. Dr, you know I've been editing here for a decade. At this point I'm far more concerned with the deliberation as an avoidance of what's necessary, than with the offending account's actions. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      • "that a non-administrative account would be blocked without hesitation" Still not buying it (well, yes, if you came to a trigger-happy admin initially). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      • [ec with NeilN, with whom I agree.] I'm not cutting him any slack for being an admin (quite the opposite, in a way), and I don't agree with some of the editors in this discussion. One factor, as NYB pointed out, is that Neelix has been here for quite some time and has done much without getting into too much trouble. It's the "vested contributor" thing, if you will. And we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, at least in the long run, if we block an editor for past behavior that I think will not be repeated--if only because if it will, he'll be blocked on the spot. I dig where you're coming from, believe me, and I can't thank you enough for getting this ball rolling (this thread is a mighty return on your investment!), but I firmly believe in the "not punitive" part of our blocking policy. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia isn't a workplace. I never like that comparison; the baseline motivations and incentives are completely different, making the "what would the HR Department do?" question largely irrelevant. That said, if there were a topic ban, this is the topic to focus on. I don't really think it's useful to do things like redirect ceasingness to cease and desist, and the page views agree with me, but it's harmless enough. Concentrate any attempted remedies on the actual problem, which is the creation of links that are immature and often somewhere between insensitive and offensive. Since he's not actively doing that at the moment, I don't see a need for an Official Memo about it before we hear from Neelix about how he plans to fix the problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Propose requiring Neelix to be required to use WP:AFC/R for any future redirect creations at the minimum. Steel1943 (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban on 'breasts' - I don't think that this is necessary. Sure, this incident involves human breasts in that many redirects were created regarding them, but does Neelix have any other issues, sanctions, warnings, blocks, or a long-term history of issues specifically regarding "breasts or breast-related pages"? I think that the answer is no - he doesn't. This issue appears to stem from a long-term history of issues with inappropriate redirects, not "breast-related" articles. I honestly think that he ran into this topic area, saw that there were many different ways to refer to human breasts, and (for some crazy reason - haha) thought that creating a gigantuous and crazy amount of redirects would.... I don't know, help? :-) Smiling faces aside, I think that this topic ban is a little too much. Am I wrong, or am I crazy and missed something? Please let me know. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I clarified my vote statement to remove some ambiguity and clear up any possible confusion. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, you're wrong. Glad I could help you there!

  Neelix has been creating these pages for years. If you don't think it's part of an obvious history of violations you should probably read the bit of the thread discussing his block for this kind of en-masse, inappropriate page creation in 2010. The actual trivialising, disturbing and frankly creepy redirects started in at least 2013 and have continued ever since. Smiling faces asides, if you don't see a problem with his behaviour meriting keeping him away from this area, you haven't read his creation log or the discussion on this page. Ironholds (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ironholds - I was referring to the topic ban on 'breasts', not the topic ban on creating redirects, which I supported above, as well as added a comment regarding this incident's escalation to ArbCom. I think that the ambiguity of this vote is what (might have?) caused your (possible) confusion. Also, yes... I did read the discussion and do my due research. Ya jerk (just kidding) ;-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So you're opposing a topic ban on breasts because the user hasn't got a history of misbehaving, even though they've been consistently doing this since at least 2013-14 and evidently at no point went "wait, maybe this is an incredibly weird, disturbing and pointless way to be spending my spare time"? Because that sounds like a history to me. You know, multiple years of consistently doing something. Ironholds (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait, now I'm confused. Are you talking about his history with creating redirects? Or his history of making contributions to "breast-related" articles or topics? I just want to verify that we're on the same page so that we can discuss using accurate responses. You obviously disagree with my vote; I am absolutely 100% open to talk about it - if anything, I'll realize that I'm wrong, apologize for being a complete idiot, change my vote, be shamed as a belligerent fool by the community, and forced to go into hiding in order to stop the pain. I just want to make sure that our statements don't confuse one another, and that I reach the right decision that is beneficial to the project. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The latter. Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Support 'breasts' topic ban and anything to do with human anatomy, physiology, clothing or nudity broadly construed. I think this was the result of general cluelessness rather a disruptive fetish. Jbh^Talk 03:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Changed to support after the 'Commons' material was brought up below. Whether they are problematic or not, to me it speaks to the intent and mindset that resulted in the problem here. Jbh^Talk 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to be amusing, User:Jbhunley? Surely. AusLondonder (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Based on the massive number of weird redirects he has been doing for years and, as far as I know, no other strangeness cf editing articles, surrounding 'breasts'. I do not think this topic ban on 'breasts' accomplishes anything meaningful. I doubt he will do anything with 'breasts' or their synonyms/slang again. What I worry about is the next puerile topic he goes redirect happy on.

There are certain, call them mindsets, that do not understand the connotation - or the social implication - of words or how their use might affect others. People with this 'mindset' tend to only look at the denotation, the dictionary definition, of words. My AGF in this situation is that something like that is in play ie "general cluelessness". Any other explanation also makes this sanction useless as well because in that case he should be indeffed. I hope the general prohibition on redirects I proposed above addresses the matter going forward. Jbh^Talk 04:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Struck material per my support !vote. Jbh^Talk 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Well, I've deleted over 300 of them (manually...) tonight, and there's hundreds more, starting on 4 September with Tittyfucks. As far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned up stuff from September 2015, where the breast-related redirects were. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC) I deleted around 2200 (mostly breast-related) redirects that he added in September. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed both sets of deletions; looks good. — Earwig ^talk 06:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have restored tittyfucks and titty-fucks, at least. Like it or not, the (vulgar) common name for mammary intercourse is "tittyfuck", and each of these variations is a well-attested plural/first person singular form. bd2412 T 13:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Those are potentially good restores, because Google searching on those terms is not a productive way to access information on the topic, because there's so many porn sites. However, when I type "titty" in the Wikipedia search box I am offered "titty fucking" as the second selection, so I think there's not much point. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Would you be opposed to listing those at WP:RFD? Perhaps as a test case. But also if we're saying that some vulgar redirects are ok based on the results of Google searches, then aren't we really saying that all of these redirects are ok? I utterly, strongly disagree with that rationale, but that does seem to be the point that Neelix was trying to make way up above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Look, when you're talking about mammary intercourse, which is a sex act, of course you're going to find vulgar terms synonymous with it. I completely agree, however, with the premise given above that "titty" and "booby" are unlikely to be used in combination with medical conditions. There is a principled distinction to be made, and frankly I think that the existence of real-world examples (i.e. Google hits) can be instructive. I would add that searching for terms in the search box is only one of many ways people navigate Wikipedia. I'm not going to think about how people might reach this (frankly unintuitively) named article through such searches, but these redirects do represent terms in use in the real world. bd2412 T 15:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• It's not practical to assess each of 80,000 redirects on a case by case basis. I deleted (with a few exceptions for potentially viable search terms) the breast-related ones because they are offensive, and combined slang terminology with medical terminology in a way that real people are unlikely to use as a search term. For example, titty surgeon is not an occupation. The page got three views on the day it was created, and none since. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I do agree with the deletion of redirects combining vulgar terms with medical terms. bd2412 T 16:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Topic ban should extend to: Prostitution, sex work, and anything related to human sexuality, broadly construed. See this article on Neelix's agenda: [154]. He's far from the admirable editor you make him out to be. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed. I remember that WPO exposé. Biographies too. The debate here shouldn't be over desysop, it should be over whether to block the account entirely. Amazing that these redirects flew under the radar for so long. How do we prevent others from potentially doing the same in the future? We should have had edit filters catching stuff of this magnitude. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Question Do admin. edits go through the edit filters? (my impression is that it depends on the individual filter)— Ched :  ?  11:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I see, Wikipedia:Autopatrolled explains it: The autopatrolled (formerly autoreviewer) user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers. Over 4,000 accounts, including all admins, have this right. Perhaps certain filters should be in place that all edits, including those of admins, must pass. The type that would only be triggered under extreme conditions. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A topic ban from anything even vaguely sex-related seems appropriate at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per above. Seems to be an unhealthy fixation of the type that embarrasses the whole project. Kelly ^hi! 17:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose When an argument for blocking or banning someone is "if we don't, how will this play in the media?" I will always register Oppose. LavaBaron (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support this part of the proposed topic ban, as there's similarity to the edits that led to the 2010 block; the other redirects were similar to those created just before the successful Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neelix. Peter James (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion

Notifying here that I have posted a motion proposing that Neelix be desysoped. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that's very appropriate. BMK (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Dismissing a block as punitive is faulty logic

A block in this case is in no way punitive. If an individual lacks the common sense to understand that behavior such as this is inappropriate on so many levels, then we have an obvious CIR case here. The lists of terms he has used is frankly disturbing and raises questions about not just competence, but mental health. I am not a doctor, but if a naked man knocked on my door on Halloween and said, "Trick or Treat for UNICEF", I don't think anyone would expect a degree as a prerequisite for saying "That fella is not right." C'mon, here, ladies and gentlemen. There isn't anything to debate. Let the arbs take his mop, and then show him the door and lock it quick. I don't care to be associated with this kind of behavior. I am having a problem understanding why this is complicated. John from Idegon (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that CIR is seriously in question here, as is the future of his behavior, and on that grounds I would support a block. Softlavender (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think a block is justified here, if only because of the childish, sexist, and offensive nature of many of the redirects. Neelix can explain themselves in an unblock request if necessary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for opening this sub-heading, it's one of the points I wished to make above. A few hours after bringing this to Drmies's attention and starting this report, I checked out in exasperation that this rationale didn't seem abundantly clear to more administrators. It really surprised me to return from dinner last night and learn that the account belonged to an administrator, to read of the scale of the redirect history, and observe a hesitancy in blocking. One may debate the editor's intent or frame of mind, but doing so is unnecessary--he may be no more, nor less, tightly wound than are you or I. But what can be determined quickly is the content and quality of these edits, the ramifications of those edits to the project, and the editor's competence. 2601:188:0:ABE6:8C40:C684:713F:6378 (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I too support a block. For both the editor's own good and the best interests of the encyclopedia. The redirects and hatnotes are bad enough, but the issues with this editor extend beyond just those. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Per this thread. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been lambasted on this board before for commenting on a user's state of mental health. Please be careful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to note somewhere in this discussion that today Neelix is actively deleting some old redirects and that's a positive sign. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, he did about 150 or so, and they weren't even the most egregious ones. When you've made 80,000, cleaning up 150 is not much of a contribution. I really expect to see Neelix making 'no edits of any kind which aren't connected with cleaning up his mess. BMK (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. At the moment, I can't see any evidence that Neelix is in the process of, or likely to, clean up 80,000 redirects, nor will he be able to do so with the admin bit removed, which I now see as inevitable. This is a job for the community, with the aid or automated tools. I would imagine that almost all of the 80,000 redirects can be deleted, with a little bit of database filtering to find the perhaps (at a guess) 1,000 or so that might be useful, which can then be reviewed by hand. (By the way, note that some vulgar terms are valid for redirects, for example common vulgar names for sex acts. But these are few and far between.) -- The Anome (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Community Admonishment

I propose a community admonishment for Neelix with respect to the creation of unneeded, and in some cases offensive, redirects. Neelix should only create redirects that strictly comply with WP:REDIRECT, and not to create any unless their validity is absolutely certain. On the understanding that if this is not followed, a community ban from all redirect creation, other than those from page moves, may entail.

I feel this is the appropriate response, given that he has responded "I have stopped. I have promised to stop. I would be glad to delete whatever the community wants me to delete. " and "I have not been using any automated processes or bots. I am simply a fast typist. I apologize again for my creation of these redirects. I promise not to do so again. I do not believe any of my non-redirect-related edits have been offensive. Please let me know if you would like any further comment from me." and "I apologize for creating unusual redirects. When creating them, I did not think the community in general would be against them. Again, I am very sorry." Meaning that any block, bans or desysops would likely be punitive rather than preventative.

• Support as proposer. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support -rayukk | talk 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support As editor is now patently aware of community disapproval and that any further creation of these types of redirects would be considered disruptive.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 16:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as as a complete resolution of this matter. bd2412 T 16:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Other issues such as admin tool misuse and possible POV pushing have come to light as well. See the discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Jbh^Talk 16:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, with bd2412. Some of Neelix's redirects have started coming in at WP:RFD. I'd appreciate the community working together at RFD to come to a consensus on which redirects are helpful and which aren't. Yes, it might "flood" RFD for a time (less so if they are bundled by subject/theme), but this is the correct way to go about it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Noting that the other "solutions" may be more draconian than useful. Collect (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally. Enough issues have come to light at this point that a full ArbCom case seems necessary, maybe even likely. I also believe that formal admonishment is somewhat silly. Community admonishment is evident in the 165,000-ish bytes already devoted to this here and at ArbCom (not counting other talk pages), we don't really need to put a stamp on it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The point of it is a formal warning not to repeat this behavior. It's exactly the same reason that ArbCom admonishes editors. If there was a repeat, and this community admonishment was passed, then a ban from redirect creation would feel a lot more justified. A ban from redirect creation would feel less justified, as no community warning, to my knowledge, has been given. See above for arguments against a community ban at this time. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose on first principles. Community admonishment is a useless think to propose or vote on. It doesn't actually enact or change any permissions or rights, and doesn't remove any tools, block, protect, or impose any bans or restrictions on the user's editing. The admonishment is implicit in the participation in the thread, and such a vote is meaningless. It's readily apparent there is a problem, there does not need to be a formal process confirming that. Proposals for action should cause a substantive change in something. Formal admonishment is worse than useless. --Jayron32 17:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support if ban proposals do not achieve consensus and are not enacted. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - a topic ban will formalise his promise not to do it again, and this whole ANI thread is admonishment enough. Neelix is a good editor, we don't want to drive him away by putting him in the stocks and pelting him with rotten fruit. He's done wrong, we'll introduce a topic ban (hopefully temporarily), we can all move on. GiantSnowman 18:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Good idea. There is way too much formalizing going on in Wikipedia. A formal topic ban is appropriate if admonishment fails, which I doubt that it will. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support for whatever this is worth (not much). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support The truth is if this was a non-admin, they would have been indef'd a long time ago. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I just want to make sure I'm understanding your point. The proposal at hand is that the only procedure here be an admonishment, and nothing further -- no action, no topic/redirect ban, no de-sysop, no block, etc. Is that non-action what you are supporting? (I'm asking because the wording of your support is a bit confusing and implies sanctions are warranted.) Softlavender (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ivanvector. I reject the "if they were an admin/a non-admin ..." arguments as classist and plain illogical. Alakzi (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. He's been abusing his admin privileges for years ([155]), agreed not to mass-create more vulgar redirects after being blocked for it in 2010, and yet has created 80,000 more of them, in addition to boneheaded articles like Pantlessness complete with revealing nude female image. This actually however is just the tip of the iceberg on the Neelix case, which very few people seem to have taken the time to look into. He needs an immediate de-sysop and probably an indef. We can't have an out-of-control admin with this level of puerile fixation on sex and vulgarity and this inability to control his impulses despite promises to do so. Softlavender (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a clear case of abuse of the bit and policy as well as his agreement to stop this nonsense when he was blocked for it in 2010. I agree a desysop is in order because he has abused his position as an admin as well as the community's trust, but I do not agree he should be indeffed. Sanctions and/or a topic ban after being desysopped with monitoring for 6 months or so is more appropriate than an indef block/ban. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not enough, we are beyond hand slapping. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose because of the wording that this would be the only sanction. As I said, an admonishment is necessary, but not sifficient. BMK (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Support, but only because ArbCom seems to need more proof that the community has lost trust in Neelix. The adminishment is necessary, but not sufficient. BMK (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. He was blocked for this exact same thing in the past and said the exact same things you're citing above. Yes, it was five years ago, but I think that there are clear WP:CIR problems. Given the sheer tenacity and scale of this behavior, and given that he ignored a previous block (despite promising to stop), I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that he will resume this behavior the moment he thinks he can get away with it (or the moment whatever urge makes him doing it hits him again.) And given how long it took to notice these among his huge number of other automated-looking edits, I'm not at all confident that the community would spot it within a reasonable timeframe if he resumed this behavior a few months from now. A block in extreme circumstances like these would be preventive, not punitive, and I feel it's silly to suggest that just "he promised to stop (again) and this time he really means it" could change that. --Aquillion (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Tara Teng. The creepy behaviour surrounding her is enough for a block. AusLondonder (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  That article is the electronic equivalent of a collage of celebrity pictures taped to a bedroom wall. Kelly ^hi! 03:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Begin the cleanup

Anomie has created a list of redirects created by and only edited by user Neelix. I modified it so they are numbered (50,072 of them!) to make it easy to reference them if needed. So, whenever cleanup starts, this is the place to begin. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Goodness... the page hardly loads. Well, I'll get started. Also, do we want to create other batches for his dab creations and other potentially problematic things? — Earwig ^talk 00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the page takes a while to load, even on a blazing fast fiber optic connection. I wonder if it might be good to add section breaks every 2500 entries or something? As for the others, we can get to those as we get to them. This list ought to make it easier to use WP:RfD to get rid of any useless ones. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Reformatted Anomie's list on Labs; should hopefully be easier to load if people are having trouble: toollabs:earwig-dev/neelix/all.html. More to come. — Earwig ^talk 02:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we split this into subpages? Much easier to work with. bd2412 T 02:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, working on that. Trying to do it smartly rather than just a bunch of arbitrary cuts. By the way, this one seems to be chronological. — Earwig ^talk 02:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: See toollabs:earwig-dev/neelix/chronological.html for now. Still more to come. — Earwig ^talk 03:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously as a non-admin, there's nothing much I can do to help, except to say "thank you" for undertaking this huge task. BMK (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I just can't figure out where this guy is coming from. I mean Climactic, Climactical, Climactically, Climaxing, Climaxed, Climaxes, Climaxer, Climaxers, Climaxingly, Climaxedly, Klimax?!? BMK (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, YES, there's a lot you can do as a non-admin! Find redirects of questionable utility and nominate them at WP:RFD. We haven't gotten consensus here to delete all of them (and I doubt that'd happen, there's too many useful ones), so it's going to have to be done by WP:RFD. We need to start somewhere so find a topic/theme, and get nominating!! -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Things like the above aside, the vast majority of the redirects created by this editor are perfectly fine. bd2412 T 03:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

There are 80,000 of them, bd2412. Have you gone through all 80,000? Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: I have gone through several thousand of them. Some of them are unconventional, but well within policies for the creation of redirects. For example, Frozen Face and Miss Ice Glacier are nicknames referenced in the subject's article. Many of them are useful, such as Oliver Burgess Meredith, Bradford Claude Dourif, and Sarah Kate Silverman (we routinely redirect full names to shorter common names). Some seem to be overly specific, such as Caitie, Cathee, Kaytie, and Kayte pointing to specific articles when they are arguably potentially ambiguous, but none of these should be red links. Mass deletion will do more harm than good. bd2412 T 04:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that there's no consensus to delete first and ask questions later, and RfD would be overloaded if we dealt with this situation one by one. You can't deal with 80,000 candidates like it was a couple of hundred. BMK (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We better get started then. RFD can handle it, trust me. I'm a regular there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll consider helping out by nominating at RfD, but first you've got to tell me: How may redirects RfD handled in total in the past 12 months. BMK (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We've had a single nomination of 14,000 redirects before. It's all about bundling smartly and remember that discussions with no objections default to delete. That way you can nominate a lot at the same time, and the only real burden is on the closing admin. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated toollabs:earwig-dev/neelix/chronological.html a bit. Includes redirect targets now; that was the main thing. Also shows redirects that have been deleted since Anomie built the list (not updated live). — Earwig ^talk 04:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I looked at a few thousand now, and I don't have a problem with many of them. I think we've done a pretty decent job taking care of the offensive ones (see my block log and Iridescent's). I have no doubt many of these will start showing up at RfD and that's fine; prompted by RfD discussions I've deleted a couple of obviously unlikely permutations. One of the problems with RfD is the paperwork: there's a neat little button now that goes directly to "delete", but closing them is another matter. I noticed that Ivanvector closed one for me--thanks, I just don't know how to do that easily. So, Beyond My Ken, the sheer volume as well as the...eh...not-so-easiness of closing those discussions probably means this is going to take some time. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thus the point of my asking how many redirects RfD normally handles. There's also the question of "double handling" (stagehands hate doublehandling). If an admin examines the list and sees an obvious problem redirect, they can simply delete it. On the other hand, if I see one, not only do I have to nominate it at RfD, where it's subject to discussion, but then an admin has to delete it anyway - so the entire process takes at least twice as long and potentially more. I don't see that as a particularly efficient way of dealing with the problem, rather than having an organized task force of admins attack the list. BMK (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Drmies, Tavix, I'm still not convinced leaving it to RFD is the way to go. Just cleaning up the redirects to this one tiny sub-stub would create more discussions at RFA than it usually handles in a week; plus, even if only 1% of the 50,000 are deemed potentially problematic, that will mean Neelix will wake one morning to find 500 RFD notifications on his talkpage. ‑ iridescent 09:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Iridescent, I didn't mean to suggest that RfD is the best way to go. BMK, you can always ask an admin to delete some list of them, I suppose. But it would be so much easier if in a list like this one I could select what I wanted deleted and then delete them with one click and one edit summary. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Only one discussion per group like that should be necessary. RfD is no stranger to mass nominations. — Earwig ^talk 10:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• @iridescent, I don't see any redirects in this list of 94 that would require deleting. Overkill? Probably, but "redirects are cheap" has long been a meme here. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, nothing's free: server space costs electrons costs rainforest and low-lying countries. And why all the permutations with words following "Domotor-Kolompar"? If you type in those two words the rest (of the article title) follows automatically; are we making those terms for cutting and pasting purposes? If you paste in "Domotor-Kolompar criminal family" and there were no redirect, you'd go to the "regular text" search which tells you that the topic is already covered in Domotor-Kolompar criminal organization. I mean, there's something of a purpose to those redirects, but it's oh so minimal, and "Domotor-Kolompar criminal family" had only seven visits in the last 90 days. Surely that's not what the dinosaurs died for. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• RFD will work if you do it right: You just have to be smart about WP:BUNDLE. Divide his redirects first into "good" vs. "bad" (yeah, I know that's subjective, but there are some that are obviously not good). Then, take the "bad" ones and categorize them by a certain theme. I'm going to begin to do so once this dies down, and I encourage others to do the same. The key is that discussions on RFD with no other discussion default to "delete," so no one else has to chime in on something unless there's an objection. That way, the only burden lies with the deleting admin (which would be the case anyway). -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• RFD can do mass nominations very efficiently, here's a thread dealing with 357 redirects simultaneously, the mechanism would be similar for a few thousand. The rationale for either keeping or deleting many of these redirects is likely to be the same, so it shouldn't be a big deal to nominate all of them at the same time. We could even copy the list to a subpage of the RfD log and refer to it, rather than listing each and every redirect on the log page, or a bot could do it, or I don't know. It's do-able, is my point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@The Earwig:, would it be possible to take the raw output and produce a list of targets with numbers of redirects for each? The ones that have most redirects might be the ones with the most superfluous (or worse) redirects, it might be easier to produce RfD bundles by target, and the sheer size of the list might be a little more manageable - I'm guessing about a tenth or less of the full size. NebY (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@NebY: Good idea. I'll have that in a bit. — Earwig ^talk 21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@NebY: See toollabs:earwig-dev/neelix/targets.html. 399 redirects to insulated glazing. Oh dear. — Earwig ^talk 03:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• A simpler solution to BMK's point could be to create User:Beyond My Ken/Redirects to be deleted and list only the titles from the 50k odd ones you think are delete worthy and alert Drmies who can check and perform a batch-delete on that page using Twinkle. I think the maximum pages that can be handled like this is 500 or something (though I doubt any individual is going to look through more than that at a time), but I could be mistaken on that. —SpacemanSpiff 17:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, Spiffsterix, if you'll tell me how to do a "batch delete". It'd be great for my edit count. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone for these suggestions, which I will probably follow at some point. Right now, to be absolutely honest, I am so utterly dispirited by the way ArbCom is handling this issue, one of the most obvious loss-of-trust desysopping issues I've seen in my 10 years here, that all I want to do is forget that I ever heard of Neelix. That will pass, although my faith in ArbCom may not return for a long time, and when it does I'll see where we stand and join in, but at the moment I'm more inclined to want to nuke every edit Neelix ever made -- not just the redirects -- and indef him for life then I am to engage in a lot of hard slogging grunt-work to undo his damage. BMK (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Double standard and partiality shown towards new editors and IP editors and administrators are given unfair advantage?

If some kid comes and create an auto-biography three times, they are indefinitely blocked. If a new user creates useless pages, they are indefinitely blocked. The IP who started this has made this comment in his talk page and i very much agree with him. An editor with six month old account gets friends, so an administrator will get so many supporters. Some people are coming with a conclusion "Nelix has stopped", "he has been warned" and kind words "Desysop is punitive".

Warning is for new users, not for administrators. Neelix won't do it again, is not a valid excuse. Are you people aware that this is about thousands of redirects, not even a few hundred? This is rarest of rare case. Even New users and vandals haven't done anything as such in my knowledge. If some phrase exist in internet, then Neelix is innocent. In the arbcom case, users are coming with ridiculous arguments to save Neelix. Seriously, Wikipedia is not urbandictionary.com. Wikipedia is not a fetish site. Wikipedis is not a random collection of nonsense stuff.

I suggest 1-Desysop, 2-one year block and 3-indefinite topic ban related to Biology, Female fashion, Zoology topics. Administrator was aware what he was doing. Even he doesn't repeat it still action must be taken. If his first block in 2010 was due to similar behaviour, then most likely he will do it again after five years, and at that time 80% of the users aware of this will become inactive or retire.182.66.53.95 (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes we are aware of the number, very well aware as a matter of fact. Blocks still aren't punitive, and the suggestion that Neelix has somehow been protected by friends--well, I think was the first admin to respond to the IP's hunch, and I think it's clear that I am neither a friend nor a protector, even though I do not support a block (yet). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"Blocks aren't punitive" and yet dozens of IPs and new accounts get blocked every day for less than 5 instances of vandalism, without necessarily any definitive proof that they'll do it again; Neelix did it before being blocked, did it again after being blocked, retired after being "outed" on the press, but really continued doing it on Commons, then after a while came back here, and did it again. What exactly are we still waiting for? LjL (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• We block vandals quickly, sometimes very quickly, based on the presumption that they did something wrong and will keep on doing it until they're made to stop. Many vandals might have stopped anyway the moment computer class in their high school is over, or the moment their mom yanks them away from the keyboard. But we block them because we think that a. they're likely to commit more of it, b. what they do needs to be cleaned up again, taking up resources, and c. what they're adding is wrong and an embarrassment. Those things don't apply here--hence, in my opinion a block would be punitive. If Neelix creates one more offensive/inappropriate redirect they'll be blocked, but they haven't done that. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I thought all three applied, based on what I summarized just above. a) Neelix is likely to commit more of it because the past times he said he'd stop, he hasn't; b) thus it'll need to be cleaned up again and with Neelix, contrary to the random school vandal, we're talking thousands of things; c) please tell me you aren't saying that the redirects that have often been mentioned here aren't, in your view, "wrong and embarassing". Please. LjL (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny? I'll see if I have witty response after the RSI has worn off. You know, there are lots of ways in which one can help Wikipedia. Removing (manually) hundreds of offensive redirects is one of the. Barking up the wrong tree on a noticeboard, not so much. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Not just here, at Commons too

At first I was trying to think of an innocuous reason for all these strange redirects - was this just a way of grinding his edit count higher, like a score in a video game? Under his real name, David Mark Purdy (it's at the top of his user page), Neelix has given interviews to the press as one of Wikipedia's "top 50 editors" and highlighted his edit count of 130,000[156][157] (were a majority of those silly and puerile redirects?) Was he just wanting attention and accolades and thought a high edit count would do that?

After I saw this thread, I also went to look at his Commons contribs. Apparently back in January, Neelix retired for a couple months after he came to the attention of offline forums, including Wikipediocracy, for the creepy shrinelike nature of Tara Teng and related articles. While he was inactive here, he went to Commons. His contribs there had been previously limited and routine, but in January he began to create hundreds, if not thousands, of odd categories involving nudity. The list is here, just keep scrolling. His first one in this vein was "Blue pasties", soon progressing to "Topless women wearing panties", "Topless women with nipple piercings", "Topless women with closed eyes and opened mouth", "Nude women drinking", "Nude women with pianos", "Men touching nude women's breasts"....it just goes on and on and on continuing up to this month.

There's something very wrong here. Neelix made a small effort to start cleanup and seems to have abandoned the whole thing. I frankly would not be surprised if we have seen the last of him here. But I'm thinking the bit should probably be removed soonest in any case. Kelly ^hi! 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Remind me again why we are against an indefinite block please? Because it would be punitive, was that it? Not because it would stop him from doing utter crap after he was blocked and even come to press attention for it? Do we really want the press to do a better job of vetting not even just editors, but administrators, than we do? LjL (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Kelly, are they discussing this on Commons? I can't work their system; have you brought it up over there? I doubt they'd care much, and again, it may be that some of those categories are useful. But that's an awful lot of naked or imitation-naked women someone was looking at, and while a category may be useful, a thousand such categories for women (not for men) suggests we're in the cattle business--that women are such objects who can be categorized by men for their viewing pleasures, like Commons is a porn site (well, to a great extent it is) where you can grab a box of tissues and pick your fetish. I wonder if Commons gets the bad rep we do. Thanks for looking into this and, if you know how to do it and it hasn't been done, please get folks over there to take it up. Sheesh, a sexual obsession--the gift that keeps on giving, thanks to the internet. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I've raised it here. I don't know if anything will happen, Commons is very badly staffed for admins and the ones that are active are heavily occupied with copyright violations and other "urgent" stuff. Kelly ^hi! 15:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kelly. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@User:Drmies—I wonder if Commons gets the bad rep we do? I take it you've never tried typing "electric toothbrush" into the Commons search box? ‑ iridescent 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Good god. Kelly ^hi! 15:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to wash my eyes with soap now, Iridescent. But on that point there are editors who go searching for cleavage pictures of private people that are accidentally licensed as CC-by-sa on Flickr and go on to upload here and it's quite difficult to get them deleted. —SpacemanSpiff 17:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You're so innocent, Spiff. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix active again

Neelix is currently active again on Commons, making scores of automated edits and this edit regarding his conduct. He doesn't seem to have returned to help clean up his mess here though. Kelly ^hi! 17:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I've messaged them on their talk pages, both here and there. Let's see if they respond. -- The Anome (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Neelix is distressed by these events (see this diff), and I personally have no desire to chase them any further on this matter. They have emailed the Arbcom, and I think we should leave this matter to them now. I don't think there's much point in chasing Neelix. Let's work on tidying things up here. -- The Anome (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"It is very emotionally draining to read through the constant criticisms of me and my editing" Awwww, bless him. As emotionally draining as creating tens of thousands of useless redirects? The last refuge of the damned. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Being distressed is, I dare say, the very least one could expect in his reaction. He has every reason to be, but are we going to fall for the same "trap" as when he "retired"? LjL (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

At least on commons, some very minor progress seems to be being made. I suggest we regard their edits on commons as being separate from the situation here. -- The Anome (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Anome, your faith in human nature inspires me. Unfortunately (and I've been here a few years) in my experience once one of these obsessive-type admins go bad, they never become good again except temporarily. It just results in more rounds of drama and endless work before they are inevitably relieved of the tools and often banned. I'm thinking of folks like Ryulong, Will Beback and Jossi. Kelly ^hi! 18:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What Neelix does on Commons does not fall under the jurisdiction of AN/I on en.wp. 823510731 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's relevant as part of his pattern of behavior. Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly BMK (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed block

I am at this point going to propose an indefinite block for Neelix, despite some previous objections to that. This is on the following grounds:

• He was blocked in 2010 for making inappropriate redirects; however, he resumed that behavior.
• He has additionally misused admin tools by, at least, blocking editors when he was involved.
• He has come to Wikipediocracy's attention as having furthered his own agenda, possibly including the aforementioned misuse of tools.
• After that event, he ostensibly "retired" from Wikipedia, but in reality simply moved his dubious redirect-creation activity to Wikimedia Commons and turned it into dubious categorization (are things like "topless women with snakes" desirable categories to have?).
• He came back to Wikipedia, to make this further large batch of unacceptable redirects, including things like (I shall remind) Tumorous boobies, A trip down mammary lane or Run-or-rape games.
• Once asked to give up his admin privileges and delete his bogus redirects, he did neither thing, except for a proportionally small number of redirects; instead, he went back to Commons to do more automated-looking edits.

This shows that misbehavior and poor judgement is a long-term and ongoing problem, and involves both admin-specific and editor-specific circumstances. Evidence shows he is not furthering Wikipedia's goals, and despite quite laconic "apologies", he isn't showing an understanding of the issues at hand and what he should fix. The fact he "retired" after press attention and then the problems surfaced again shows that he knows how to wait for the spotlight on him to go away, and then start again with troublesome behavior. This is why a block would not be "punitive", but in my opinion, the only way forward. LjL (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The ArbCom Motion to de-sysop has faild because a majority of the Arbs think a full case is required. It would probably be better to take this material to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and fill out the 'paperwork' there. Someone, sooner or later, will need to do so. I doubt there is stomach for an indef here considering the number of editors who thought an "admonishment" is all that is needed. Jbh^Talk 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be careful not to assume that simply because someone supported admonishment, it automatically means they opposed harsher measures. I think there was a bit of confusion on the matter. You can support something in case something else you'd prefer fails, that even has a name in jurisprudence (although I don't remember what the name is). As to "filling out the paperwork", if anyone wants to add anything to my above recounting of the events, I will be happy for them to do so, and then maybe it can be used for the ArbCom case. LjL (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. I think Neelix will not be returning immediately. The de-sysop process will now slowly work its way through Arbcom, and will resolve itself whichever way, and that's fine. In the meantime, we can block Neelix at any time, indefinitely if necessary, if they re-start this sort of editing or otherwise go against policy. However, if other editors support an indefblock, I won't vote against. -- The Anome (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neelix is not currently doing anything on en.wp that needs to be prevented, and has agreed to stop his problematic redirects. Should he restart, then a block would be preventative and justified, but a block now would just look vindictive. 823510731 (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What if he restarts, then agrees to stop again? Would blocking be vindictive again? Because that's exactly what happened this time. It's not the first offence, that's pretty clear by now. For how long will the start-and-(promise-to)-stop game will be played? At this point, I actually do hope the media pick up on this story and shame "us" for not having taken any actual action yet. LjL (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No, blocking would then be preventive, not punitive. Neelix is on a final warning now. -- The Anome (talk)

Exactly. One more inappropriate redirect means a block. What is called for now is calm heads, not jerking knees. 823510731 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You guys are too funny! When do tickets for your stand-up tour go on sale? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

<drops mic> -- The Anome (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, free backstage passes are in the post :-) 823510731 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

One more, or 80000 more in the span of 5 years, like last time he was warned by means of being blocked? I really hope the people who now oppose blocking will keep his future behavior under tight scrutiny. LjL (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we're in a bit of a holding pattern because the ArbCom motion has neither passed nor failed at this point. If it fails I have no doubt someone will draft a case request (I'm willing to help). Kelly ^hi! 20:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"One more, or 80000 more?" is a perfectly reasonable question, and the answer should one. If an agreement made years ago was not followed up, then the fault is surely distributed and if the subject got no adverse reactions for so long then it is surely not unreasonable for them to think what they were doing was acceptable. The onus was on the editor to not create inappropriate redirects, but it was surely also on the rest of the community to review those that were made and offer some feedback? And if no criticism was forthcoming in five years, it's surely reasonable for the sanctioned editor to think things are acceptable, isn't it? What it is important to remember here is that what we are looking at is a lapse of judgment rather than any deliberate attempt to cause problems, and no matter how big a lapse it is (and I think it's pretty big), a community simply cannot succeed if it does not make allowances for the blindly obvious fact that there are many different mindsets that contribute to that society. To my relatively small mind, Wikipedia's biggest challenge is to work out a way to assess other people's potential contributions without judging them by our own individually relatively small mindsets. Or in other words, to avoid turning things into management by outraged mob (because that really is what I'm seeing here). 823510731 (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral, my feelings are exactly those of The Anome above. Kelly ^hi! 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - In the absence of any meaningful action from ArbCom, and the lack of a community-based desysopping procedure, this is all that the community can do to deal with this person. I understand the "preventative versus punitive" argument, and I do not find it convincing in this context. A person who has been doing a certain behavior for many, many years will sooner or later return to doing it, or some variation on it, and an indef block will prevent that from happening.
  I doubt that this proposal will succeed, but in the wake of the revelation of problems on Commons as well, and of ArbCom playing totally unnecessary procedural games, I, as a member of the Wikipedia community, feel that this must be done, despite the opinions of editors I respect highly who oppose it. BMK (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per BMK. This is a no-brainer. The ambivalence of other editors on this issue could be a greater problem than Neelix's disruption. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I look forward to your dragging said ambivalent...enablers? off to ArbCom. Good luck with it. Aren't you the master of the little sneer, coming by a day or two afterward to see what you can piss on. I see this is exactly your first contribution to the case; I'm sorry if me and some other ambivalent editors, the ones who in your opinion are the real problem, have already done the real work for you. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per BMK - As I said above I'm all for giving second chances but an admin causing disruption of this magnitude deserves indef blocking, Had this been a normal editor or even a troll/vandal they'd be blocked in a blink of an eye so I don't see why he shouldn't be just because he is (or atleast was) an admin!, In a month or so I honestly feel he'll restart the redirects I really do, I don't believe blocking here is punitive either. –Davey2010^Talk 21:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  And if he does, block him then! 823510731 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Beyond My Ken. It seems clear that this person has lost the confidence of the community and should no longer be an administrator. An indefinite block is the surest way to prevent the obsessive and clearly inappropriate redirect creating activity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  What has an indef block got to do with loss of confidence as an admin? Those seem to me to be two different things, surely? 823510731 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  I believe that these are two highly related things and not at all discrete, EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne. Simply desysopping him, (which I support), does not stop him from mass creating inappropriate redirects. I see him as a net negative and believe that it is best for the encyclopedia if he is blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support per BMK. Since the behavior has occurred more than once a block would prevent it happening again. MarnetteD|Talk 21:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Arbcom's failure to act makes this necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  Have you requested an ArbCom case? 823510731 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and I can probably include nine editors that support community admonishment above. I mean seriously, this thread is starting to resemble a lynch-mob. (a) Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. He has apologised profusely, and this is just not necessary. (b) Having looked at some of the redirects he's created, a great many have logic to them. People type in inaccurate search terms, and guess what this will help them find the relevant article. I would like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not censored, and maybe some people really are going to refer to breasts as titties etc. (c) The presence of these redirects are not greatly disruptive. They are just waiting for someone to type something inaccurate in the search bar. It's not like he's vandalized articles or anything. This whole thread has been blown out of proportion to a great extent. Come to your senses. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support one-year block for semi-automated editing which was disruptive in a major way. They need some time to get a life outside of Wikipedia, and refresh their approach to life and encyclopedia editing. There is evidence that such a remedy can be successful, per a former administrator who ranks in the highest tier by edit-count, and who has returned to editing in a most positive way. Now you want to talk "vindictive", after over three years the Arbitration Committee is still standing in the way of allowing even any limited form of automated editing, "broadly construed" by this generally well-respected high-profile editor. Now. that's vindictive. That's punitive. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  What semi-automated editing did Neelix do? Serious question, as I've seen no evidence of such. And if there was any, was it the "semi automated" nature that was the problem? 823510731 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• One year for now. There is still a chance that that user may come back as productive user. But not before a long break.--Müdigkeit (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite". It just means that the length of the block isn't pre-defined. He could be unblocked at any time for various reasons (including an unblock request that convinced the reviewing admin that he had really understood the issues that led to the block). LjL (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - given the obsessive editing behavior (continuing even today at Commons while this discussion was going on), I'm 100% certain there are going to be socks. Should be easy to spot though - just make Tara Teng moderately less fanboyish and he will show up to protect The Precious. Kelly ^hi! 00:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I originally thought GW's motion to desysop might be the right way to go, given the workload at Arbcom and the possibility it would be a straightforward vote. However in the time following the initial motion, a number of facts have come to light, including evidence which might mean admin tools were abused, so I think the current expectation that the motion will fail and a full case will ensue is the right way to go. Given a full case, evidence will be provided, some of which will relate to how Neelix has contributed to cleaning up the problem. If he is blocked, he will be able to say "I was perfectly willing to help but because I was blocked I could not". For that reason alone, I am opposed to a block, so that he has the physical capability of contributing to the cleanup, and failure to do so will be relevant. Should a single new redirect be created, I would support a block.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is more or less my thinking too. Kelly ^hi! 02:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Not Colosseum. We should wait for Neelix to comment before deciding anything. Given many of these redirects are obviously offensive why are so many folks posting links to them here? Making them red -- and therefore make stand out really well -- does not make en-wiki a better place. See WP:Widget. NE Ent 02:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per BMK. Should be blocked at least a year. A serious breach of community trust calls for protective measures. I am sorry to say I !voted for this character for admin, so my taking the time to correct this situation seems especially appropriate. Opposers are unconvincing. Jusdafax 03:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - What? Why? What edits has Neelix made since this ANI began and after he promised to stop that warrants the proper use of a block? ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per BMK. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment There is now a cast request open at RFAR. Jbh^Talk 10:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

List of the original redirects

Since people have been !voting on what should happen to Neelix, I've realized that his most egregious examples of "bad" redirects are only to be seen mentioned in this thread, as single examples. I assume a lot of the redirects have been deleted (either by Neelix himself or by others). Many redirects I'm seeing now in his contributions list are either okay or simply redundant, but not "terrible". I know that administrators can see the full list of created redirects, but I reckon the rest of us can't. I think to appreciate the extent of the "damage", everyone should be able to see the full list, even as the worst culprits get deleted. Can someone please provide it? LjL (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

These are what I found through viewing admin deletion logs: [158] [159] [160][161] and I think get the worst 1000 or so. This is a link to Neelix's deletion log [162] where it is possible to he how much help he has provided - very little to date - in cleaning this up. Jbh^Talk 22:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Diannaa got a lot of the really bad ones. Who can forget such timeless classics as Booby surgeons, Titty waist hip measurement, Milks boobies, and Titty physics? And, apropos, Booby fetishism and Titty fetish. Thank God he apparently never heard the term "jugs" or "rack" or other similar slang or this would have been many times worse. Kelly ^hi! 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Links appear elsewhere on this page, but the thread is so huge, it's worthwhile to repeat them in this section: The complete list is available at User:Anomie/Neelix list. If that page is too large for you to load, you might go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/earwig-dev/neelix/chronological.html. Items that were deleted by me and Drmies on Friday Thursday night (before the lists were prepared) are not included. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You can also check Neelix autopatrol log. --79.233.121.48 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Legendswillneverdie

Can someone check the contribs of Legendswillneverdie (talk · contribs)? I'm nearly asleep, but I have a strong suspicion that they are purposely introducing incorrect dates and info into articles. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Offhand I see that this edit, which changes the date for The W to November 21, seems to be correct per this PopMatters review and the Amazon listing. I'll check to see if there's anything else, though, since this was the first edit I'd looked at. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• This edit was unsourced, though. So far I'm getting the impression that this might not be done maliciously, but he does need to make sure that he sources everything with a RS. I notice that he's been warned about this on his talk page, but I don't see where it's been explained why he needs to source things. I figure if he continues to do it after that point, then a short block may become necessary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Tokyogirl79: I dunno, I saw edits like these all over with edit summaries like "fixed typo" ... these are not typos. [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] It goes back farther than this. Either we had a lot of incorrect dates, or these are being deliberately changed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• The main method to my madness right now is that I'm giving him a little WP:ROPE. He's officially been warned that this isn't acceptable without proof and he knows the reasons why this is unacceptable. Basically, giving him a warning will give him one last show of good faith and one last chance to shape up and edit within policy. After this point if he continues on then we can block him much easier because we'll know that he's been warned about this and he cannot use "I didn't know" as an excuse. I could have just blocked him, but he could have contested the block by saying that everything was unintentional because of ignorance. Now he doesn't have that excuse. I've left him a warning about properly labeling his edits as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Checked 3 of those diffs above ("Duets: The final chapter", notorious B.I.G.), he changed it from Dec 2 to Dec 20, google gives Dec 2 but www.cduniverse.com, www.amazon.com, www.allmusic.com all give Dec 20. Ghetto Commission: he changed it from Nov 18 to Nov 10, Amazon says Nov 10. Comin Out Hard: changed from Aug 1 to July 6, amazon gives July 6. With the one Tokyogirl checked that's 4/4 correct edits. Google’s "knowledge box" always gives the other version, but google based their DB on wikipedia, so... Ssscienccce (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Joanna Gunadi

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

---

The user Joanna Gunadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had over 100 disruptive editing notices placed on his talk page since joining in May 2014. He is currently at the last stage of {{uw-afd4}} and will not listen to any attempts of reasoning. The main issues I have encountered with the user are: Persisten removal of AfD notices, removal of copyright violation tags, and uploading copyrighted images with no information as to the original author or a fair use rationale (example). I feel as if keeping him here any longer would not result in anything good. -rayukk | talk 15:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This last edit occured just seconds ago and after I notified him of this discussion here! - rayukk | talk 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rayukk: Part of the problem may be that you are warning the user for deleting AFD templates from the page, but that's not what they're doing. They're removing maintenance templates, which is a lesser (although still annoying) problem. However, since the template in question points out copyright violation, you should really just tag the page in question for {{db-copyvio}}. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Just as a guess, I'd think Joanna is a she, not a he. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @WikiDan61:. I have placed the corresponding template on her ;) talk page (section). What are your thoughts on how to proceed, since the other issues still remain and keep piling (there is a new unfree file entry on the user's talk page)? Also, the user has removed the copyvio template again (diff). I would recommend a temporary block, but then again, I'm not an admin.. --rayukk | talk 16:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I just removed several paragraphs of material lifted directly from a newspaper article and will appropriately comment at the article and user Talk pages. Reinstatement of the material would call for a block, IMHO. JohnInDC (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I quickly found additional copy / paste copyvios and likewise blanked them - with 2100 edits and 195 pages created, this looks like it may be a bigger problem that I can (am willing to) address. The problem is compounded by the editor's complete lack of communication - not one of those 2100 edits is to a Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to say this is just a case of a new editor making newbie mistakes, but the 2000 edits tell another story, likewise, I don't think blocking should be the answer, as I firmly believe this user can learn. Weegeerunner (1 year of foolishness)^{chat it up} 17:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The user may be able to learn but in order for them to do that they need to engage in conversation, with the shear number of warnings and issues and continued defiance of all advice given. A short block may be warranted to hopefully encourage them to engage in the conversation. Give them some time to stop look at what they are doing and hopefully take some advice.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

When you put it that way, maybe a block is going to help. Weegeerunner (1 year of foolishness)^{chat it up} 17:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) JohnInDC, there may also be translational copyvio problems here – compare, for example, this new page with this Google translation. It looks as if all contributions by this editor will need to be reviewed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I pretty quickly found 3 or 4 film synopses that had been copied and translated from existing foreign language sites. I've blanked those and added the templates to the User and article Talk pages. I also asked the editor to please comment on the potential scope of this problem. If she evidences her presence by continuing to edit, and doesn't respond, I plan to head over to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations and get the ball rolling there. I suspect I've just id'd 5 of quite a few problem articles. JohnInDC (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly; you just got there much faster than I did! Sorry to be telling you what you already knew. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No harm, and at least in my case, sometimes what I don't know is not always obvious. Input is welcome. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and request an investigation - there's a lot of material there, and the odds that the rest of it is clean are quite small. I would suggest that we wait 24 or 36 hours and see what happens. Really the only thing for an admin to do here would be to impose a block if she keeps adding copyrighted material after all the new warnings on her Talk page (plus of course the notification of the CCI matter). JohnInDC (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey JohnInDC, I thought you were an admin. Perhaps you should do something about that? :) -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh goodness, then for sure I'd have to get a user page! (Flippancy aside, I do appreciate the comment - thanks!) JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I will watch the user for further copy vio and will block if I see any. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you, I believe this is the right procedure since the user has been sufficiently warned. For the sake of accuracy, I'd also like to point out the user has been blocked twice for removal of tags. (block log). --rayukk | talk 08:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

She did it again, adding back copyrighted material to Haji Backpacker. --rayukk | talk 11:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Indef blocked. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Alexis Ivanov's POV-pushing and battleground behavior

The account Alexis Ivanov appears to be an single purpose account with the sole objective of pushing a Muslim point of view. Across numerous articles, the account engages in apparent vandalism by removing sourced content with no explanation, for example removing a sourced sentence about a massacre [171] , or repeatedly deleting references to Muhammad accepting slavery [172], [173], edit warring to claim a region was [Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] [174], [175], [176], [177], edit warring to keep in positive opinions about Ali despite these being tagged for 1½ year [178], [179], [180]. In addition to all of this POV-pushing across the board, efforts to discuss with the user on article talk pages just result in personal attacks ("You need to stop lying through your teeth [181] and "You need to stop lying" [182]) in return.
In short As the user is not here to contribute, just to push their POV, I propose either an indef block or a topic ban for articles related to Islam and Muslim history. Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The first three edits/diffs are against policy. But: The edit on Cossack Hetmanate is backed up by two cites including a JSTOR article which can be checked. On Non-Muslim view of Ali, you are the one at fault, for gutting and article rather than doing what the tag said: "Please help improve the article by editing it to take facts from excessively quoted material and rewrite them as sourced original prose." Unless you're going to do that, leave the quotes as they are rather than gutting the article. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I respect your opinion (and you're welcome to talk part in the discussion I started at talk:Non-Muslim view of Ali but it's not about the content issue. Jeppiz (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you must notify a user when you file an ANI case about them, and you haven't done this. You must do so, and you can use the template at the top of this page. You haven't provided any evidence that the editor is a SPA or is only here to push a Muslim POV. You have provided evidence that he has added sourced material and has replaced sourced material. You have also provided (only) three instances where he deleted valid sourced material, but you have also provided three instances of where you deleted valid sourced material. So I'd say it's a draw, and there is no case here. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC); edited 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, I notified the user one minute after posting this discussion [183], so your accusation against me is entirely false. The diffs I posted clearly show the use deleting, not replacing as you claim [184], [185], [186]. Yes, I removed material that had been tagged, I explained why in the edit summary and in the discussion. As for providing evidence that a user is a SPA, I showed that virtually all edits are in one single area. How else do you show a user is a SPA? Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I missed seeing your notification; I've striken that. The rest of my point stands, and there is no case here. You provided seven diffs of the user adding or replacing sourced material. The material you mass deleted (83% of the article) three times was not "tagged". There was a tag at the top of the article that suggested converting the material into prose, which you did not do. As far as showing the user is an SPA, he has made 550+ edits to 150+ articles. You have shown exactly three problem edits by him and three problem edits by you. There's no case here. Softlavender (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Three times"? I removed it two times from the article (and explained why), after which I've tried to engage both Alexis Ivanov and you in a discussion. Alexis's answer was "You need to stop lying through your teeth [187] (something you apparently didn't have a problem with), your answer was to give me your permission to edit Wikipedia [188]. Neither of you have bothered to even discuss the undue issue. So that's falsely accusing me of not notifying Alexis, falsely accusing me of deleting material three times from the article I did remove similar material once from another article and refusing to discuss. Not a great display of admin intervention. Jeppiz (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected -- You gutted the article twice, and someone else did it in between. I'm not an admin. The three restorations were correct per WP:BRD. I have already discussed your claims of UNDUE on that talk page. If your only valid claims against the user are three deletions, and two talk-page posts which contain the word "lying", I'm afraid there's still nothing really actionable here; all of the article issues have been cleared up and if you want any changes to the Non-Muslim views of Ali article you are free to add to it or change the quotations to prose but not to gut the article without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: If someone appears uncivil or uses words like "lying", it's best to ignore that and focus only on content and policy. Often editors who are upset use less than civil language; confronting them about it generally only increases their upsetness. So it's best to work collaboratively with all editors, even those with whom you disagree, and focus solely on article content and Wikipedia policy, avoiding using the word "you" or specifically referring to the other editor. Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• After the exchange above, I realize I may have expressed it badly. The problem, in my opinion, is that the user does not seem to care for policies, gladly removing sourced content or deleting tags across several articles, and I gave some examples; I should point out I have not been involved in most of those exchanges. The user has been warned for this repeatedly but to no effect. While it's true I removed duplicated material twice from an article today, I also explained why and started a discussion about it. I don't really think it's the same as repeatedly removing material from several articles, deleting tags, and only discuss in terms of personal attacks. Jeppiz (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Again this guy is lying again and again to push his won views and REMOVE a huge portions of the article, I never pushed any POV content, why you lying again through your dirty teeths, stop putting out again and again, the Cossack article was provided with SOURCES, the Muhamamd Slavery edit was taken after a user complained in the talk page and was backed sources from the same place the sources were taken and the issue was resolved at a user's talk page with no edit war. Your filthy attitude in Wikipedia is not welcomed and your failed attempt at bureacrcy and your petty blocking warning, not only are you willing to remove huge portions of the Ali's page you are willing to sneak up at me and stab with a knife at my back and undo all my edits in various articles, which as you know I will undo them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Alexis Ivanov sums up the problem. Calling me "scum" and accusing me of lying once for the third time today [189], as well as removing the same sourced content for the third time (I only restored it once) [190], and promising to continue in the same way. Does anyone seriously believe the user is here to build an encyclopaedia? Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And on it goes [191]. The fourth time the user refuses to discuss, just lashes out at me (and others) for disagreeing. We've really tried to discuss, but all we get are vile personal attacks in return, over and over again. Jeppiz (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>The problem, in my opinion, is that the user does not seem to care for policies
The problem in my opinion is a user like you deleting huge portions of articles, because it doesn't meet his 50% positive and 50% negative quote and accused of undue weight and cherry picking without bring any evidence, it seems you are talking out of your ass and then you claim you are doing this and following policy?
>gladly removing sourced content or deleting tags across several articles, and I gave some examples
>I should point out I have not been involved in most of those exchanges.
But you are involving yourself right now and not only that you are willing to lie about me and accuse Muslim POV, those non-Muslim scholars that I backed up in the Cossack article that you lied through your teeth must be pushing Muslim POV, what an embarrassment
>The user has been warned for this repeatedly but to no effect.
Those articles have reached a resolution, what warnings you are talking about, please go be a creep and dig deep as much as you want
>While it's true I removed duplicated material twice from an article today, I also explained why and started a discussion about
Only after you removed a huge portions of it and now you acting like a good boy, pathetic lies, why not start discussion FIRST, especially when you try and remove a whole page and now you are aiming to delete a page that discusses what is suppose to discuss.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So that's four accounts of calling me a lier, one of being a creep, one of being pathetic, one of talking out of of my ass. In just one comment. And that's the response I've got on every talk page when I've tried to address the articles with this user. Jeppiz (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>Calling me "scum" and accusing me of lying once for the third time today
Yes because you are lying when I see liers like you I point them out.
>as well as removing the same sourced content for the third time (I only restored it once)
Again you are lying, I removed and EDITED and ADDED content, can you please stop lying to push your own POV content
>Does anyone seriously believe the user is here to build an encyclopaedia?
Yes let's ask someone like you who is ready to delete articles and remove huge portions ? My record is out there in how I built Wikipedia and add content, you can always cherry pick what you want and accuse people of cherry picking Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Calling editors "scum" and accusing them of lying is unacceptable. Please stop that. Dr. K. 01:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will refrain from using that word Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Alexis. I appreciate your efforts. Best regards. Dr. K. 01:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov's promise to Dr.K. of refraining from such persona attacks did not hold even two hours, I'm afraid. [192] Jeppiz (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Where was the personal attack, when I see lies I say the way it is. or do you want me to back of and say you are telling the truth. I refrained from personall attacks like SCUM, Son of a B and many more, Dr.K recommended me to refrain from such things and I'm doing it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Those wouldn't even just be personal attacks, those would be personal attacks and vulgar insults. You certainly should refrain from that sort of name-calling. It's not just a matter of using specific words, though: "attacking" doesn't just mean "insulting", and accusing an editor of lying deliberately (nevermind "through their teeth" or with "pathetic" lies) could certainly be seen as an attack. I, for one, am not getting a good impression of your attitude from what you've said here. Make of that what you will. LjL (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>Those wouldn't even just be personal attacks, those would be personal attacks and vulgar insults.
And that is why I refraining from them.
>(nevermind "through their teeth" or with "pathetic" lies)
That is exactly why I refrained them. I don't want to hurt his feeling.
>I, for one, am not getting a good impression of your attitude from what you've said here.
How can I earn my good boy points back? I don't want you to get angry at me.
>Make of that what you will
YES SIR!! Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

While I was not involved in the above dispute involving Jeppiz, I and several other editors had a similar dispute with Alexis Ivanov last month, here, which illustrates that this is a pattern of behavior. The user similarly engaged in personal attacks against every other editor who contributed to the discussion. He, in fact, displays utter contempt for all others, with an aggressively WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Mind you, this was all over an image that merely required some adjustment to fit properly in a section. Alexis Ivanov wanted the image to be removed, noting that it overlapped into the following section, and due to its content. Consensus was clearly for retaining the image, and the overlap was fixed with a minor adjustment. Yet his vitriol toward other editors was appalling. This is disruptive editing that discourages valuable editors from participating, and utterly against the collaborative objective of WP. Laszlo Panaflex (talk)

>While I was not involved in the above dispute involving Jeppiz
Well it's not the same dispute so you don't have to lie about it.
> Mind you, this was all over an image that merely required some adjustment to fit properly in a section.
What can I say I'm passionate about the Ottoman Empire.
>Consensus was clearly for retaining the image, and the overlap was fixed with a minor adjustment
It was fixed because we reached a resolution.
>Yet his vitriol toward other editors was appalling
Did you expect me to give a kiss?
>This is disruptive editing that discourages valuable editors from participating, and utterly against the collaborative objective of WP.
Well you can stop beating the dead horse anytime you want. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Along with this contemptuous response, Alexis Ivanov has also placed a message on my talk page, as well as reverting a edit I made yesterday removing unsourced gibberish from an unrelated article. As stated above, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>Along with this contemptuous response
How is it contemptuous?
>Alexis Ivanov has also placed a message on my talk page
I want to know if there is a problem you have with me that is personal, can't a man ask a question
as well as reverting a edit I made yesterday removing unsourced gibberish from an unrelated article
You didn't bring your case to the talk page to remove a source content, you simply cut it out. Now you are crying foul??
As stated above, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia.
I'm here to build wikipedia, and my record speaks clearly. I have contributed to my fair share and won't have the likes of you, discarding it, your only excuse is the Ottoman article and now you are here to throw your low jabs, looking for your opportunity Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And now Alexis Ivanov is edit warring over an incoherent edit that I removed. As I explained in edit summaries (1, 2), the addition is incoherent, ungrammatical, improperly placed in the intro, and unclearly sourced. Alexis Ivanov re-added the passage without explanation, then reverted and demanded I discuss on the talk page, when my reasons for removal were clearly stated. He offers no defense of the passage, simply re-adding as retaliation for my comment here. This is in no way constructive, and again illustrates his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

>And now Alexis Ivanov is edit warring over an incoherent edit that I removed.
It's not an edit war, why you are going to assume bad faith, I'm trying to collaborate and discuss your problem with the name, or am I know allowed to edit your pages? let's discuss this as Wikipedia editors in the talk page, we can fix this article me and you.
As I explained in edit summaries (1, 2), the addition is incoherent, ungrammatical, improperly placed in the intro, and unclearly sourced.
Can you explain more in the talk page?
and demanded I discuss on the talk page
It's not a demand, it's being collaborative enviroment where we can discuss in the talk page why you want to remove the material and searching for better quality statements if you want to re-modify the statement.
when my reasons for removal were clearly stated.
You need to explain your reasons in depth in the talk page and I have started a new section in the talk page to talk with you.
He offers no defense of the passage
I did all you have to is clean the tears from your eye and stop crying and whining in here and go to the talk page, as I have explained Procopius of Caesareamentions the word Moors in his books. That goes back to the 6th century C.E.
simply re-adding as retaliation for my comment here.
There is no retaliation, please assume good faith.
This is in no way constructive, and again illustrates his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.
There is no battleground attitude, it's a dispute resolution attitude and reaching a consensus and understanding. All you are doing is assuming bad faith Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The reported user has aggressive behavior and battleground mentality. He abuses edit summaries and talk pages [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199].--61.197.140.93 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As the user continues to edit war, and violating 3RR, just as they continue with their repeated personal attacks at several others users (I count at least 20 recent WP:NPA violations, I've reported the edit warring [200]. Jeppiz (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Naqsh-e hJahan

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

---

Naqsh-e hJahan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This very new user has become abusive and threatening on their talk page. Several messages have been deleted leaving a polite conversation I had with him earlier plus the threats mentioned. I do not think they are aimed at me but at those who notified the user of speedy deletion of pages they created (messages deleted). However, the language etc. is entirely inappropriate. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Since I started this section. it appears that the user has already been blocked. Apologies for any confusion. Eagleash (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eagleash: No need to apologise at all, thank for taking the issue here. I'm sorry you received that abuse, which nobody deserves. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

More IP attempts at harassment

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

---

User_talk:107.150.94.2 claims to "know something" about me. Relates to the above incident, #IP-editor trying to determine my IP address (diff) Otherwise pretty self-explanatory. This is the same proxy server as the other IP. Is it too wide for a range-block? Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the individual IP as well as the range 107.150.94.0/28 (covers only 16 IP addresses, so I wouldn't be surprised if they come back). -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

New sock of User:Futurewiki

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

---

Please see 104.243.169.127 (talk · contribs). Other socks have included 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs), User:Futuristic21, User:Dragonrap2, User:Futurewiki2, User:Mega256, User:Futurewiki The Third, User:Mega257, User:Mega258, and User:Futurew.

As with previous socks, the IP address is located in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Very disruptive user

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

---

A user, Pitcroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been very disruptive on the Spectre (2015 film) and Talk:Spectre (2015 film), edit-warring, deleting content and unnecesdarily adding maintenance tags. He has been doing it as he has not been getting his way; he wanted to move the article from "Spectre (2015 film)" to "SPECTRE (2015 film)", but when it was rejected by a community consensus, he started disrupting the article. Pitcroft has already received a short block for his previous actions, but it has clearly had no effect. Here is some of his recent activity:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689359407
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689361313
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689364591
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689375803
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689391544
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689362113
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689373153
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/689373494

SchroCat can probably provide more insight. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Pitcroft was already previously blocked for this same thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, he promised to return from his block and carry on, and that is exactly what he has done. The diffs above show him edit warring, deleting sections of the talk page tagging the article and being disruptive. His deletion of this thread this morning shows his contempt for anyone's actions or opinions above his own, and I think this is only going to get worse. – SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Indef Block - So then he tries to delete his ANI thread to boot? Indef, enough is enough. Jusdafax 10:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• His edit warring in removing sources continues. (And on the talk page too. – SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the user. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible sockpuppet

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

---

I know that the above discussion is closed, but a possible sockpuppet has emerged, SolentMan has started posting on the talk page almost as soon as Pitcroft was blocked. He's playing the "hey guys, I'm new to all of this" card, and he is being as civil as Pitcroft was aggressive, but the substance of his comments thus far is almost identical to Pitcroft's contributions. SchroCat has already voiced suspicion about it on the article talk page. Given the disruption that Pitcroft has caused, I thought Sarahj2107 and Supdiop might need to know sooner rather than later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Worth noting that Pitcroft keeps deleting his talk page - including the block notice and review request. – SchroCat (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you for your concern, but I wouldn't interest myself overly with petty disputes over a fictional story. - SolentMan (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• And yet your first edits were all on the same point as the blocked editor.... – SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Must be a coincidence. - SolentMan (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: & @Prisonermonkeys: from an outsiders POV, is this ongoing or is it worth going to WP:SPI? It looks like a pretty obvious sock though samtar ^{t} 14:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Samtar: — thanks for the tip. I completely forgot about SPI. It's been ages (years, maybe) since I have has cause to go there. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• No this is not an ongoing subject and is going nowhere at all. It seems to me a fruitless discussion anyway, as no consensus has been reached between the participants. A majority perhaps is in favour of one view, but the discussion is certainly not a unanimous consensus. - SolentMan (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oddly playing the same broken record as the blocked user.... – SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• From what I can discern reading the pages, that was a general problem! I must admit I'm very impressed with the way you all closed ranks and bludgeoned this poor guy into silence! You all have very good computer skills and a good knowledge of Wikipedia mechanics! -- SolentMan (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, actually there was an established community consensus until Pitcroft showed up and started trying to delete references and add maintenance tags to try and misrepresent the state of the article. And then weirdly enough, you showed up within hours of being blocked and started making exactly the sane argument, and have displayed an unusually detailed knowledge of wiki markup for a new user ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• The usage on the film's official website indicates that both the movie and the organization are styled as "Spectre". Its capitalization on the movie poster is an oft-used mode for movie posters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Aryanprince

• Aryanprince (talk · contribs)
• 37.122.177.152 (talk · contribs)

The user (one user, does not sign himself) continues, despite warning, to restore an older unstable revision to the article Serbs. Compare revisions. On 20 September the IP restored a section on the ethnonym of Serbs, which includes various theories (see Names of the Serbs and Serbia), a section on DNA results (see Genetic studies on Serbs), a section on "identity" but which does not include such information (I have since created National identity of Serbia), in place of the summarized "ethnology"-section (from March) which includes interlinks to each article for further information, as the unstable revision included claims and data which has no academic concensus, but is still included in the respective articles. In my subsequent reverts, I used the summary and commented "unconstructive", "disruptive".

I reverted when I noticed it on 7 October. The user reverts it on 13 October, I then revert on 19 October, welcome and noticed, without a word from him, he then contacts me today 23.20, reverts 23.22, I message him 23.25, then revert 23.25, awaiting to initiate a discussion, he contacts me in 23.31.

Here comes the incident. In Serbo-Croatian, specifically Montenegrin, he says "I am telling you (more like English "You, listen to me", an order, which marks his language), the Genetics must be at Serbs as it always has. That links exist does not matter, many things have their own pages then they exist in specified size in other articles. That which is linked there nobody reads, only that which stands in the main article. And don't you tell me nothing for the last time because Wikipedia was not left to you/inherited from your grandmother (insult) so that you may establish order here. Don't in any event undo me once more that which is nicely referenced because I will make you a "party" here have you understood me? (threat)

He then reverted again in 23.32 (2RR). After this, I started tracing him. Apart from this "conflict", the user (IP) has earlier made uncivil comments, such as:

• "... (English translation: "Shame on you and you should be ashamed of yourself for everything you do, you found yourself here to cover up the name of Novak Djokovic. You are worse than these from the Serbian Wikipedia") ... you are lier. The only reason here is Djokovic's homeland. Western facists can not stand the fact that a Serb from "nowhere", as they say, is winning their tournaments ..."
• "-Nationalistic speech- ... I don't want to sign to Wikipedia because I don't want to participate to your mass media encyclopedia and propaganda. Your Wikipedia is nothing but the written word of the USA and GB imagination of the how the World should look like, and everyone knows that their World is twisted as their minds."
• 95.155.24.199 (talk · contribs): "but don't worry nothing lasts forever nether will you and your propaganda."

So to summarize, as I've understood it, the user has a nationalistic agenda, trying to use the unstable revision (the theories on ethnonym and DNA results) as "proof" that the neighbouring peoples are Serbs, and that the Serbs are an antique people. That is why he insists on the unstable revision. He is simply WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 02:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote many times you translated wrong and you didn't translated it correctly only to accuse me for what I didn't wrote. But to make it easier for you I will write it on English here and now. Yes, Wikipedia is propaganda when it comes to Serbs. A simple example is the two you mentioned. Novak Djokovic is the sole article which name is not written on native language (special characters). A sole tennis player, sole human being whose name you didn't wrote with the special characters. And guess what, he is a Serb. Another thing is Serbian genetics. 95% nations on Wikipedia, in their articles they have Genetics sub theme where their Genetics is written. Serbs had them too until few months ago. Then someone came and in two clicks removed Serbian genetics in their main article. I have to tell you that this genetics research was done by European Union, it is on their Official Website. Everything was referenced, written correctly (not by me, by someone other, long time ago). Then one day I saw someone removed it, and I undone the removal. Since then this started. And I will tell you why that happened. The research proves that the Serbs have the most Haplogroupe I2 (Illyrian genetics) in Europe. Variating from minimum 30% to maximum of 60% in Herzegovina. Someone does not like this fact. That is why they delete it. Things like this are standalone proofs that Wikipedia is Serbian antipropaganda. In addition I have to tel you that I don't expect nothing from this what I wrote. The decision has already been premade. My account is going to be banned because I am Serbian. But I couldn't care less, only thing that matters to me is my pride and arrogance. You see, I am arrogant even in this situation. This is what you will never feel. My battle is about to start after I get banned, and trust me you will have to lock meny articles. --Aryanprince (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Aryanprince, do I understand you correctly? If you are banned you will return using other accounts or editing from an IP address? Doug Weller (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like a declaration of intent to me. The comments about Novak Đoković appear spurious, as there's no attempt to whitewash either Djokovic's Serbian nationality or the native spelling of his name; Novak Djokovic is the common English-language spelling of his name, and he uses that spelling of his name in his professional life, see [201] -- The Anome (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Harassment from IP address regarding another user

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

---

I'm bringing this up on behalf of @Angeldeb82:. The user recieved a strange message from an IP address (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.48.227.216) about her editing habits. Here's the quote:

• If you even dare go to the video games talk page and ask help from mommy and daddy, I will be VERY angry at you. Seriously, do you really need that talk page to guide you through everything? No, you don't. Don't rely on it ever again

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SSX&diff=prev&oldid=689416406

Angeldeb82 posted on the talk page on Wikiproject Video Games about this message. I wrote this post as soon as I saw it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#SSX_is_getting_more_messed_up_and_convoluted_than_ever.21)

I cannot be humble at this moment if I know that another user is at personal risk. I would like to say that this is a serious message, and something I can not stand for. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked the editor and semi-protected the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Content removal

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

---

The User:Dharmadhyaksha removing well sourced content and addind peacock words like "well known". The lead of the article is well writed as per MOS:LEAD and the content is well sourced by RS, include "International Business Times, and also removing television awards as "non-notable" which is not a "internet polls" award. He also tagged fairuse images for deletion as WP:NFCC#1, when it passed in WP:NFCC#8. Sukriti3 (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any attempt to discuss this at either the article or the user's talk page, let alone evidence that you left a {{ANI-notice}} message on the user's talk page as is required (I did that for you). Further this seems to be a content dispute, which is not within the scope of ANI. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user & personal attacks

All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User disruptive on article Cate Blanchett, repeatedly restoring maiden name of non-notable mother of subject, which has been removed per editor commentary (e.g., Dwpaul's) on talk page, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPPRIVACY, and WP:ONUS. Also restored implication that mother is deceased when she is living per sources in article talk page.

User has engaged in personal attacks in article edit summary, article talk page and on my talk page. I ignored the first on my talk, since he reverted himself 5 hours later and on article talk, but he has continued: -- Lapadite (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• article edit summary: 07:44, November 7, 2015
• article talk page: 07:52, November 7, 2015,
• my talk page: 00:47, November 7, 2015; 07:46, November 7, 2015; 07:48, November 7, 2015.
• also, his talk page: 09:02, November 7, 2015. -- Lapadite (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Enough. Enough. This guy Lapadite77 watched Inside the Actors Studio (someone should revoke his TV privileges). The following exchange occurred:

Cate Blanchett: "My father was American..."

James Lipton: "What was your mother, she was Australian"

Blanchett: "Yeah"

Lipton: "Way back?"

Blanchett: "Way back, of convict descent I think"

Cate Blanchett's mother's name is June Gamble, as established in this reliable source that no one has disputed. However, based on the television exchange I just mentioned, Lapadite77 decided that Cate Blanchett's mother's maiden name is "Wayback" ("Way back") and made that change. Now he wants to remove the name altogether.

Now, we all make mistakes. Even really stupid mistakes. I have no problem with Lapadite77 making a mistake. In fact, when we first discussed this, I was very cordial and polite. However, after that point, any sane human being should have realized their folly, laughed at their own mistake, and moved on. I find this a reasonable and rational reaction.

This guy Lapadite77, though, can't let go. I guess he thinks he never gets anything wrong, ever? And now he's decided that if we can't have "Wayback", we shouldn't list any name at all! He says that per BLP, we shouldn't list her mother's name at all, even though we list the names of parents of almost all reasonably famous people. Well, obviously, he doesn't actually believe that, he just doesn't want a non-"Wayback" name in there. We know this because he added the name himself, so apparently it was OK then.

So how am I expected to react? Why are we having this conversation? Why? Why do you I have to explain all this? It's such a nonsense issue, spurned by a silly mistake. Just because Lapadite77 misunderstood something on TV, we have to waste all this time? Really? If he doesn't expect personal attacks, what does he expect?

Again, We're having this discussion because Lapadite77 confused the question "Way back?" for someone's maiden name being "Wayback". So what do you want from me? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User does not mention that my good faith addition of "Wayback", after watching the cited interview, was made a month before he reverted it and I then started the discussion on the talk page. Editor commentary there agreed it was best to leave maiden name out because of ambiguity, and BLP was also cited (which says in the lead, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy"; moreover the aforementioned policy sections (WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPPRIVACY) strongly recommend not including such insignificant info of non-notable family members. I'm not sure why All Hallow Wraith strongly pushes for its inclusion. More personal attacks from user: "fuck you" in his talk page edit summary. Lapadite (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You made a silly error, you were wrong, it's over, the page is back to normal (back to the reliably sourced version, by the way). The end. Stop talking about this. Why on earth are you still pursuing this? I just don't get it. I repeat, We're having this discussion because Lapadite77 confused the question "Way back?" for someone's maiden name being "Wayback". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to close this as "no shit", but I'm afraid that this may not be enough for Lapadite. I would like for other editors to look at this; as I get older my ability to separate the absurd from the real is seriously declining. I guess this began when I started reading The Onion, and it's not helped by the recent discovery that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've requested full protection here due to the edit warring. Content not withstanding, no matter how frustrated a user becomes with others, there's really no valid justification for making personal attacks on Wikipedia. If one must release tension, it would be better to do so offline. The fact that All Hallow's Wraith has shown no remorse for such personal attacks is also worrisome. Suggest blocking user if this incivility keeps up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'd laugh at this, if this situation weren't so indicative of Lapadite77's editing behavior and attitude to dealing with other editors. He wants his own way, misuses BRD when he doesn't get it, then resorts to ANI's and RfC's when his filibustering doesn't eventually wear his opponent into submission. While I agree with @SNUGGUMS:'s point above, Lapadite77 has a tendency to bring this out in people: because if an admin doesn't step in, you're liable to get months and months of this and this and this. While this topic may seem completely ridiculous, I'd strongly suggest we all use this chance to determine whether Lapadite77 has the civility and competence to continue editing Wikipedia. He has been massively disruptive to several articles in his short time here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Homeostasis07, you really bothered to comment here? Drmies was on a past ANI discussion in which you, an involved and biased user with prior conflicts, made personal attacks against me and your own PA thread was deleted. What a joke. Please, stay away from me. Lapadite (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Snuggums, right, the reason I reported him was because he continued his personal attacks after he reverted himself, both on my talk page and the article's talk page, and he clearly has no problem with it. The content dispute itself (which is just him wanting the inclusion of the maiden name of a non-notable family member, against recommendation from BLP policy) would be settled at the BLP noticeboard. Lapadite (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Case in point. Lapadite77 is referring to this ANI, which was not "deleted" — merely archived due to inactivity, presumably because the ANI which he started blew up into a hitstorm. @Drmies: was never involved in any way whatsoever. This is just the latest in a long string of examples of Lapadite77 trying to tarnish the name of any user with which he has ever had a content dispute or some form of disagreement. For the record, I've not had any communication with Lapadite77 for the past year. I hold no ill will against him, but I must admit that I've seen him make edits to articles on my Watchlist which made my head shake. And it always ends up the same — if he doesn't get his way, he resorts to Badfaith accusations, filibustering and unnecessarily protracted ANI's/RfC's. As far as I can tell, he has never once accepted a consensus – he just bitches and moans and badmouths other editors wherever he can until all descent is lost in a mirage of filibustering. This thread here should be the straw that broke the camel's back. It is beyond ridiculous. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You know very well the separate PA thread you opened because your then ally was reported was removed from the active project page by an admin not long after you opened it. Another hypocritical, prejudiced, and fictitious diatribe from you speaks for itself. Another time you involve yourself in a discussion in which I am participant, and has nothing to do you, to laughably trash talk. It's harassment by now. Carry on please, and do support another user making personal attacks, but I've nothing else to say to you. Lapadite (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Lapadite77, please stop contributing to this thread or I will block you for disruption. I've seen enough of your personal attacks here to warrant a block--and that this stems from, ahem, a particular misreading would be funny if you weren't so serious about it. SNUGGUMS, I don't have much of a problem with the occasional "fuck off", especially in a case like this, when someone has basically been baiting another editor. I'd still prefer it if another admin look over this and close it, if it needs to be closed--the sooner the better. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry? Personal attack? Where? And what stems from a misreading, the content dispute? It actually doesn't, as it doesn't concern the original discussion of "wayback" on the talk. The report is not about content dispute, that's for the BLP noticeboard, it's about personal attacks, which I assume you don't mind then? "when someone has basically been baiting another editor" - What in the world? Again, where? Drmies, I wonder, why in the world are you telling the editor who reported another on clear personal attacks to stop contributing to the thread (and threatening them with a block if they do so), make unwarranted accusations about them, say you don't mind the personal attacks against them, and you say nothing about the editor who just imposed himself here making personal attacks, which you know, from past discussion here, has done so before? If I remember correctly, if you distanced yourself from that aforementioned ANI report I made because you considered yourself involved (yet closed the thread), why exactly are you personally involved here again (and not in very good-faith manner), especially after this? Intentionally ignoring personal attacks and threatening a block on the user who reported it, I mean, really? Lapadite (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you move on? Is winning so important? Judging by this section and a quick look at some of the diffs it is obvious that All Hallow's Wraith is not in the habit of doing bad things. Why would you think that inserting the mother's name was ok when you did it, but is WP:ALLCAPSVERYBAD when someone else does it correctly? Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq. Lapadite, BOOMERANG. What those old cows you're dredging up from the canal (as the Dutch would say) are doing in here, I don't know. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Page protected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw in an uninvolved comment, as I've seen everything that's been going on from a distance, and I understand that it's not my business. In my opinion, this has all been blown out of proportion, and what's been happening is really not as bad as Lapadite is making it out to be. From my point of view, it's obvious that AHW is just expressing his displeasure of being reverted all the time, and I can understand that. Additionally, Lapadite made a mistake, it backfired, and he changed tack (opting not to include the name at all when it is done everywhere else), which caused the conflict with AHW when he was trying to be civil. Lapadite is out to come out on top. I've seen it – beginning with the first proper edit that I made to the page, which was reverted by him. I think you need to let this go, mate. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

4TheWynne, you asked me to clarify revert on my talk (though I'd given an edit summary). And not sure why you even bring up some irrelevant past revert on the page? Is there a grudge held over it or something? I wouldn't have presumed that from the discussion on my talk. Anyway, I don't know why a content dispute is being discussed and whose wrong or right in it, while the reason for the report (personal attacks) is sidestepped, since ANI isn't to settle/argue over content dispute; that can be discussed elsewhere (talk, BLPN, etc). @Johnuniq:, what's this shoddy claim about winning? The report is about the personal attacks from the user reported, evidenced by the diffs provided. If I was "reporting" AHW for some content dispute regarding PAG I would've gone elsewhere. So why are these comments only about the content dispute? Should one ignore repeated personal attacks and never report them? To answer your last question, Johnuniq, if the time of the diffs (given), the article talk discussion (linked), and what I'd stated in the OP is actually noted, one can see I hadn't inserted a maiden name, i'd "corrected" the one in the article after watching an interview with the BLP subject where I understood she gave a different one. Like I already stated above, that edit I made, changing the maiden name, was reverted by AHW a month later and then it was discussed on talk page, where I agreed it was ambiguous and where User:General Ization made a good point, and i'll quote: If there is ambiguity about Blanchett's response in the Inside the Actors Studio interview, as there obviously is, the Biography of living persons policy requires that we err on the side of not including the information in the article on the basis of this source. Find another source that resolves the ambiguity, or leave the content out. Later, I found a couple more sources that don't state "Gamble" (the maiden name originally in the article), which i'd posted on the talk discussion. AHW ignored that and still went on about "wayback" which had already been settled. The irony. The BLP policy, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPNAME, recommends against such inclusion, and WP:ONUS is also relevant, ergo, (as I already stated in the OP) per that and User:General Ization's point, I removed it. I couldn't care less about some maiden name, I do care if there is misleading information on a BLP and do uphold the BLP policy in its entirety. I'm curious why no one questions why AHW is so intent for so long on including such info; he hasn't let it go, even after "wayback" was settled and wasn't brought up again, still talking about it. The irony. On a slightly different note, I'm loving accusations from users who've disagreed with me in the past (and apparently hold some sort of grudge for it), and loving the passive embrace of personal attacks. Lapadite (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

user:CCL-DTL

Not sure if this is the right place, but would an admin mind looking into this user? Using vulgarities, not once, but twice, thrice and many more, threatening other users, spaming user talk page, telling people to get out of the wiki etc. Any disputes should be resolved peacefully, but not in these manners. -115.66.225.183 (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Notified user of this discussion, warned user samtar ^{t} 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @NeilN: - if you're not too busy could you possibly weigh in here? samtar ^{t} 16:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

CCL-DTL has not edited since they was warned and notified of this thread. I agree that some of their edit summaries and talk page posts are unacceptable but let's see if they take the warnings to heart. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN samtar ^{t} 17:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS

Troubling development at article Schutzstaffel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A quick glance shows that the article is slanted toward a certain point of view, with a barrage of unsupported statements that have nothing to do with historical facts. I'm not interested in edit warring with Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs). My new reference to Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals was removed by Jonas Vinther ten minutes after it was added, with equally preposterous edit summary: "this is not the historical concensus".[202] I have no idea where this user is going with his frenzy of edits painting the SS very grandiose. His reply to my comment at the talk page of Schutzstaffel indicates that he either does not ... or pretends not to understand what the problem is.[203] Those familiar with the subject of Forced labour under German rule during World War II are well aware of the scale of the war crimes committed by the SS. Meanwhile, our article speaks of it this way: "the SS frequently hired civilian contract workers to perform such duties as maids, maintenance workers, and general laborers." Really?! User:Jonas Vinther constantly adds new material with no references. Nobody say anything about that I guess because nobody likes to be bullied into submission. Just look at his sourceless edits, the guy is on a mission: [204],[205],[206],[207]. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the above example is just another example of this persons actions. They have recently tried to start a edit war on the D. B. Cooper article and on my Talk page, claiming that You Tube/ABC is a reliable source, whilst slating ABC (and the BBC) on there user page. I believe an admin warning is the least that should be applied. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What a complete load of bullocks! Not even going to waste my time replying to this. If I'm such a horrible editor, ban me and Wikipedia becomes a better encyclopedia. GO SUCK IT! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonas, please do not tell others to "GO SUCK IT". Highly inappropriate remark. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool it Jonas. This is not the board to freak out on. Strike it mate. Quickly. Irondome (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

While I don't want to make this a content issue, I will comment that (probably) most historians would disagree with the added content that Barbarossa was a "preventative surprise attack" on the USSR. This has actually been the source of some controversy -- in other words, if Stalin intended to strike first. In my (worthless) opinion, Jodl is perhaps not the best source to comment on whether this was the case. While I'm certainly no expert on the SS, I will add that the links provided don't necessarily show a positive light towards the organization -- calling them ruthless, fanatical, and so on is hardly positive. Regarding the forced labour edit, I'm not sure what the exact diff is in that case. Jonas, please, don't inadvertently bolster their case. GAB^Hello! 20:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This case is not about the use of a single word "preventative" originating from the Chief of the Operations Staff of the Armed Forces High Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or OKW) Alfred Jodl, which may or may not be accurate (and can easily be redacted) even though any reference to a singular author David M. Glantz about the quote-unquote "most historians" allegedly disagreeing with it is ridiculous. This case is about bullying, and about removal of major source of judicial data about the SS history as well as not properly acknowledging the fact that Schutzstaffel committed massacres in Soviet occupied Poland... long before they reached Russia in Operation Barbarossa. I spoke about it in talk, but the evasive and incomprehensible reply from Jonas Vinther was for me the first sign of something more troubling going on. Poeticbent talk 21:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

There was an issue two weeks ago regarding this article. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#User:TX6785_appears_obsessed. Related? John Nagle (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, as this has nothing to do with redirects. GAB^Hello! 22:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonas Vinther has retired. GAB^Hello! 01:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Block of DHeyward

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

---

DHeyward (talk · contribs) was blocked by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) eight hours after posting comments at [209]. The comments were deleted by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). HJ Mitchell did not contact DHeyward, nor did Gamaliel...but nevertheless, the block was implemented as an arbcom enforcement discretionary sanction and logged. Since this was never reported to AE, this has all the appearances of a behind the scenes enforcement action. I have been told that there may have been no arbitration violation as no one was named. HJ Mitchell has been unresponsive to notes and email.--MONGO 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

There was enough information in that edit to make the target clearly identifiable. There is no question in my mind this was a topic ban violation. Gamaliel (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So you emailed HJ Mitchell to do the block?--MONGO 22:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is a oneway interaction ban imposed by you. I can't see the deleted posts so waiting for neutral administrators to chime in and clarify if this was indeed a breech of your sanction.--MONGO 22:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It's actually a topic ban. I wanted them to be able to interact on the subject of edits; since they are editing a number of the same articles I thought an IBAN would cause a thousand new reports at AE. They simply can't talk about one another. It's a simple restriction that DHeyward has repeatedly violated. Gamaliel (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I cant see the edits, and never thought your ban implimentation was well thought out, so all we're left with is your overly strict misrepresentation of the facts.--MONGO 22:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Any admin can go and see for themselves if they think he was violating the ban or not. It's not an ideal ban I came up with, but it has turned down the volume quite a bit in my opinion. Anyone can suggest something else at AE. I'll gladly cancel it to make way for a better solution. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a terrible failure to assume good faith. The lack of use of AE is not an indication of "behind the scenes" anything. I suggest you get some evidence before making accusations. AE is not mandatory, it is generally used when the result is not obvious. HighInBC 22:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. Its an opinion made by the admin that implimented the topic ban and another that previously blocked DHeyward and had his block overturned.--MONGO 22:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And which part of that is beyond administrative discretion? Both implementing a topic ban and previously blocking someone are administrative actions and don't make either of them involved. How does that justify you suggesting a hidden agenda by suggesting "behind the scenes" activity without evidence? The block may need review but your baseless accusations are not acceptable. HighInBC 22:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Block performed based on hidden edits eight hours after the fact by now unavailable admin=an issue. If admins can't be around to justify their actions shortly after they make them then that's an issue.--MONGO 23:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• As much as I am loathe to agree with MONGO, my arch-nemesis (:-), I would like to see DHeyward treated with more respect. If there was a breach, it was minor and the block should be lifted for time served. If I had to guess, MB probably inserted himself into another discussion making it more difficult to avoid the sanction. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and disruptive edits by User:Malaylampur

From the day that Malaylampur was created, he/she has done nothing but reverting edits and attacking other editors (ok I admit: minus 2 edits in creating his/her User and User-talk pages). Malaylampur seems to hold a particular grudge against MezzoMezzo: UT MezzoMezzo, UT Malaylampur and the latest 10-ish "contributions". MezzoMezzo has warned Malaylampur about this almost single-purpose behaviour (not in the most gentle manner, but the message seems clear), to which Malaylampur responded unregrettably. And then there is this little "threat" addressed to me.

Additionally, none of the article namespace edits have been constructive, sometimes (bordering?) edit warring: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, and diff5. - HyperGaruda (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit at Cosmo Wright

I'm asking for additional review of my edit at Cosmo Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). because I reverted an edit due to the BLP concern, then also protected the page due to the apparent edit warring over the BLP issues.

It appears the subject has legally changed their name. However, several statements are being added which are unsourced or only link to the subject's own website (which require interpretation). From what I can see, the claims being added are likely accurate; but without reliable sources, there are unresolved BLP concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced BLP content like that and then protecting (or vice versa) is standard practice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse revert and protection. The reverted edit was to the effect that a named person "came out as transgender" with ^{citation needed} included in the edit, and no source. That's an edit that obviously must be reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Mostly agree, but why full protection rather than semi-protection? Looks like the edit warring was coming from IPs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request for Felt friend

I'd appreciate opinions on whether this edit on Felt friend (talk · contribs)'s own user page warrants an indefinite block without warning. The blocking admin, @Rklawton: considers it to be an attack on transsexuals. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

That user page history certainly seems to warrant an instruction to get their derriere out of WP:NOTHERE territory fast, or else (whether for the bong or the "real girls"). As for blocking - can't tell, admin's call.-- Elmidae 10:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have commented on the page of the blocking admin. Granted that the post in question is wholly inappropriate as a Wikipedia entry, it is posted on the user's own page; had it been posted on the page of a user who had identified as transgender, or on the article page of a transgender subject, than the offense would have been unarguable. But posting on his own page means that the chance of any other editor seeing it is quite small, and also means that there was no overt intent to bring it to any other editor's attention. The comment was made without context, elaboration or follow-up. I would have taken the view that a warning, perhaps a final warning, or as an extreme reaction a short block would have been adequate.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:The bypass is open

Resolved

Reporting vandal The bypass is open (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can someone please remove talkpage access of the trolling sock of Evlekis and revdel the personal attacks. Thank you. Dr. K. 07:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Max Semenik (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Max. All the best. Dr. K. 08:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Brewcrewer

I was editing History of the Jews in Jordan and suddenly User:Brewcrewer shows up, places 'Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement' template on the article's talk page [210] and then leaves a warning on my talk page claiming I violated 1RR [211]. First of all, the article is irrelevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict, its talking about History of Jews in Jordan. And when I tried to tell him so on his talk page User talk:Brewcrewer#Hi he gave a short irrelevant response and refused any discussion. --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

user:Telsa

Telsa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Telsa Gwynne, wife of Alan Cox. Telsa is, alas, no longer with us, having died a couple of days ago ([212], [213], [214]). We had numerous mutual friends, I am confident this is accurate. 86.28.97.168 (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)