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

Moving discussion from wikimedia research mailing list

I'm bringing this to ANI from the wikimedia research mailing list; the thread is at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2016-August/005324.html I've taken enough positions on the mailing list to count as an interested party.

Summary

Researchers used a bunch of accounts to create a bunch of articles using natural-language understanding techniques to attribute every sentence to a web page. Many of the web pages are unreliable and/or not useful for encyclopedia building (i.e. definitions of specialist terms in general-purpose dictionaries). They published the research results at https://siddbanpsu.github.io/publications/ijcai16-banerjee.pdf The pages may need an uninvolved eye over them.

Reported usernames

• Brownweepy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theatremania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bhopebhai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicdac123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My take

Other than any potential cleaning up of the articles I'm not sure that any action is warranted against the editors, since they were acting in good faith. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I just picked four new articles from three of those usernames at random, and they all looked okay if just a little weird. Do you know whether they have had offending articles deleted yet? 184.96.133.183 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

All appear to have article and content-related discussions on their talk pages, but the line where normal editing stops and the research starts is unclear. Some have clearly been deleted, see for example Mazaua, Miss Tourism Queen International, Buddhism Today, Mobile Marketing Association, New York Model Management and Johnny Klimek. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just WP:PRODd Talonid, which appears to be medical information. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's so bad, that I've just deleted it as G1, nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've PRODd Sonia Bianchetti Garbato, Formula Opel ‎, Randy Stradley and Amiens International Film Festival . I think I've now looked at all the recent stuff. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am deleting some of these, in whole or part, with the edit summary "created by irresponsible machine editing by sockpuppets of a researcher [1]" Any admin who wishes may restore them without asking me if they want to take responsibility. I am not yet blocking the sockpuppets, but I encourage any admin who wishes to do so. And, the experimenters should note that their program used as sources several Wikipedia mirrors, well know n a such to all experienced human editors. Most were already removed by the time I got there. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

their results

The authors say "We also created several articles using our approach in the English Wikipedia, most of which have been retained in the online encyclopedia." They claim if one looks more closely "The entire content added by our approach was retained only in 12 articles, "

They have no statement that their work has been approved by our research committee, and I do not see any statement that it has been approved by their university's research committee. Tbe presumably think they have dealt with any objections by their statement that the articles "are constantly monitored".

I consider this irresponsible editing, They admit they did not attempt to find our rules. That they thought there were no rules about this is no more a defense than a sockpuppet claiming that they did not know of rules about sockpuppettry. True, the only rule we actually display to people is about copyright. We could put a mandatory link to a list of policies or even to a page containing the key policies, but this would only be seen by a contributor as the usual click-through boilerplate.

The real problem is what it shows about our own failures. Not just that the articles were not detected, but that many dozens of bona fide editors worked on these articles without realizing their nature. This matches what anyone can see in the history of articles at AfD, that too many people make cosmetic fixes or fill in references without looking at the context. Some are of course explicitly bots, bot some are humans doing bot-assisted work who have the responsibility of checking what they do, and a depressing number are purely manual edits. As a positive note, the first WPedian to see the article I just deleted did very correctly add a template for "cleanup|reason=Poor grammar, unprofessional tone, better sources needed" . DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I regret to say I am one of the humans who performed inadequately, for I accepted an AfC with weirdly written but decipherable content at Faustus (Mamet play) and merged it into Faustus (play), without even fixing the weirdness. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the main problem concerns the research ethics of these researchers. Their computational approach to creating articles clearly failed, generating obvious nonsense. Yet, they uploaded these nonsense articles and took advantage of the often long time it takes for us to find them or that instead of deleting such articles, we try to fix them. They then use these issues with how we respond to claim their research was successful when in fact it was an utter failure.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am one of the usernames associated with the incident. I removed one of the userlinks as I realised that it was not used in this experiment. We made some edits using that username but most were as-is content , hence there was copyvio, which a reviewer had reverted in most cases, and we edited manually in a few cases. We did say that several edits were retained on Wikipedia in terms of quantity, but quality is still a problem as evident from the text. Moreover, we did use a human eye to check the content generated before posting it on Wikipedia. We did not want to use a bot to randomly go and create articles. Also, we ccould have deleted the articles after creation, but we saw several edits being made to multiple articles to improve them and it seemed they were adding some value. Furthermore, the rules were unclear -- however, as we are not conducting anything else now, I will make sure that I inform all researchers in this area about what's acceptable. I agreed to give away all the usernames I used such that the cleaning can be done. - Brownweepy (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a clear attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia for the researcher's own aims. I think that a site ban is the appropriate response.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a misrepresentation to say that their aim was disruption; the disruption was clearly just of incidental concern to them, which is problematic enough. In any event, I also support site bans in this instance, without reservation. Further, in light of their apparently complete lack of effort to engage with the research community or the WMF and approach their research process through proper channels, their research institution definitely needs to be informed of their behaviour here, and the disruption it has caused. They clearly used this project as a testbed for their work without the consent or foreknowledge of the community, creating a mess our volunteers will now have to spend numerous editorial hours attempting to clean up.

Frankly, I find garden variety vandals markedly less offensive than this. The professional ethics of these researchers need a serious check; their efforts to explain above, while apparently honest, are seriously lacking. Any experienced researcher should know better than to leverage (and potentially disrupt) an open project in their research without first clearing it with the institution managing that project. This is seriously amateur hour and might be comical if not for the work created out of their fumbling. Let's make sure this gets addressed at every relevant level. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, as I have mentioned earlier, disrupting was never the goal. I am trying to address this with everyone of you from the Wikipedia community. The thing is previous work on this: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P09-1024 was done long back by other researchers. Given that they worked on critical categories such as diseases, nothing about such research was mentioned on Wikipedia. Moreover, our similar work was covered by Wikimedia newsletter earlier [2] and nothing was mentioned as to get things checked about this kind of work. We would definitely have involved the wikimedia research community had we seen any related information on such issues. We definitely did not want to do anything of this sort which this research (https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/127472) claims to do by forcibly randomizing content. I completely understand that the articles would need edits from editors, but we tried to keep the number of articles to bare minimum level. I am just gaining experience now as a researcher (doctoral student), but want to make sure these things do not get repeated. Most of the things mentioned here have been covered in the research mailing list, I would request to please keeping it there, so that I can get an entire set of information at the same place and bring it to the notice of the research committee (the committee to whom I presented my proposal to conduct this work). My advisor would also be posting on that thread within a few days as he is travelling now and he would provide his thoughts on the same. Brownweepy (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should hack into your dissertation the night before your defense and add some facially reasonable-looking garbage to the footnotes and bibliography. What in the world is wrong with you? EEng 07:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently, "disrupting was never the goal". Brownweepy, this masterpiece was one of the gifts brought to us by this exercise. Approximately how much volunteer editor time do you think it would take to fix that, if it is fixable? What would you say the threshold for being disruptive is? Was any consideration whatsoever given to the volunteer hours this exercise would waste or the trouble it would cause? Don't feel you have to be too detailed in your answers - the questions are largely rhetorical. Randy Stradley is a real person, by the way, was that a consideration, at all? --Begoon ^talk 07:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Brownweepy, I am just an ordinary Wikipedia editor who has tried to improve this encyclopedia pretty much every day for the past seven years. I only have a 35 year year old bachelor's degree and am far from the exalted status of a PhD candidate. I am surprised that a PhD candidate like you writes in such a muddled fashion and would set out on a "research" project that would end up disrupting the #6 website in the world, creating really poor content and making extra work for volunteers who will get no academic credit for cleaning up your messes. Your "research" seems to be both without value and actually counterproductive. Ponder this, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)l

• Brownweepy, there seems a general view that (a) your machine-generated articles are below the minimum acceptable standard for Wikipedia contributions, and (b) you don't seem to care that your "research" is predicated on other random strangers cleaning up after you. So we can move forward, will you and your fellow researchers agree not to create any more machine-generated articles, and to go back over your previous creations to fix the more nonsensical parts? -- Euryalus (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Euryalus Yes, I have mentioned this that we did not add any content after Feb 2016 (6 months before) and we will not add anything new. If we do anything on generation. we will get it evaluated thru a diff crowdsourcing technique and not 'disrupt' content on Wikipedia. I will go over the old created content (already have edited many when earlier reviewers said content has issues) and fix them as far as i can. Also, if content that seems totally garbage, I will request deletion of entire articles.If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I understand that content was below acceptable standard, and I do care that time was needed to fix the content in several cases by editors. Edit: I made small reverts to the content that was added from our machine generated content in 3 articles. Could you please check if the changes seem fine with the reasoning? I will proceed with the others in that case a few hours from now.Brownweepy (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Brownweepy: thanks for the assurances; if you could review and rectify all the content created as part of this research, that would be great. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: I have corrected the issues for the first account, removed content in several cases, fixed grammaticalities and also validated info from sources (removed if the source ceases to exist where the information was not relevant). I will continue working on the other accounts. If you see anything wrong with the edits I made recently, please let me know. Brownweepy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Brownweepy, I recognize your desire to attempt to rectify this situation, and it is appreciated, but you must understand that you've put the volunteer community in a bit of a spot here. The problem is, for someone doing research on how to generate content on Wikipedia, you seem to be remarkably unfamiliar with the project's procedures and policies. You've said a few times now that you didn't realize you were violating any guidelines by conducting this research as you did. But that's a pretty wild assumption--it doesn't seem you applied even cursory diligence in exploring what our rules might be on such matters. Did you contact so much as a single person at the Wikimedia Foundation or our volunteer community before coming to this conclusion and then bowling through with generating and adding large amounts of junk content through multiple accounts? That's a pretty basic step to ignore in conducting research in an ethical and effective manner and in failing to make that effort, you not only denied the community the opportunity to decide whether we wish to allow/participate in this research, you precluded any efforts we might have made to minimize the disruption and affect a quick clean-up of this machine-generated nonsense material.

This is all the more galling for the fact that you clearly anticipated that you would be generating work for editors here; part of your metrics for judging the success of your process are predicated in whether editors retained or removed the content added. Which, by the way, huh? The fact that you felt that you could draw a strong empirical correlation between a) whether an article was retained or deleted and b) the coherence and general quality of the generated content, is just further evidence that you are woefully unfamiliar with the topic you are conducting research on; otherwise you would have understood the vast number of procedural and systemic issues that make drawing that conclusion from that result a ludicrous assumption. And it's clear that drumming up this "evidence" of the success of your process (when compared against other methods for creating machine-generated content) was the only reason for adding the content to Wikipedia, as otherwise you would have just analyzed the results of your content by applying your heuristics, without uploading the content at all (which, if you weren't going to reach out to the community before adding that material, is exactly what you should have done).

So, again, this all puts us in a tough place. You violated both multiple behavioural and editorial guidelines (and the trust of the community broadly) and have created a lot of work for our volunteers, most of which probably could have been avoided if you'd done basic diligence in reaching out to the community before rushing forward. Even with your willingness to engage with the material to remove that which is unsuitable, there simply has been/will be a lot of effort to sort all of this out, both in article and talk space. So if we don't address this situation, we risk inviting a repeat with the next researcher working on computational approaches to natural language who wants to use us the site as a testbed without working with the community to minimize disruption.

Now, in light of the fact that you genuinely seem to want to eliminate the consequences of your previous approach here, I expect you'll avoid a ban (though it's hard to say; some may take a very dim view of the socking). And despite the above, I'm leaning towards this option, if only because we can clean this mess up faster with your help than without. And who knows, maybe we'll even get a new regular editor out of the whole mess. But I would be prepared for the community to also see the need to examine this whole matter in detail and to observe this as an obvious example of how not to conduct outside research on this project. Because researchers and institutions need to realize that this project is not a laboratory for their work, not unless they make an effort to work with the community. Sorry to be so hard-nosed and blunt about all of this, but in the event that this gets more community attention than you were hoping for, I think you should be told why, so that you can appreciate that this is about fixing the broken content and preventing future disruption, and not about punishing you for mistakes you already recognize. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Snow Rise: Snow Rise, thanks for your note. I understand what you have written here.I would request a delay in the ban such that I can clean up all the mess (should not take more than a couple of days as most of the articles in the usernames have already been deleted). I agree that it is necessary to fix this from a research perspective. I am planning to write a summary of all the learning in the research mailing list and would request you to please add anything that I might miss. I want to bring it to the notice of everyone somewhat related to my research (university, research committee, advisor) and also to other researchers I know who work on similar areas. I admit that the community was involved unknowingly and it is important from an ethical point of view. While we tried to post minimal articles, other researchers might try generating a lot more and this certainly needs to be addressed and stopped. While no justification can be provided in this case, our assumptions (based on our prev work being written about in an initial research newsletter and also existing work in this area cited above) kind of made us believe in things that were inappropriate. It is important to decide with representatives from WMF on what can be /not done. The premise of this kind of work(even the previous ones) rests with the belief that if content can pass on as written by humans is a success, which is a highly invalid claim. I think a major section in the upcoming newsletter would help get better community attention on these aspects. Brownweepy (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is the list of accounts at the head of this thread complete? EEng 16:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• @EEng: Yes, it is. There was one extra account that I listed earlier, but it was already fixed long back to resolve copyvios. I fixed contentin all articles from brownweepy account. Will proceed with the others. Please let me know if you find anything wrong with my recent corrections. Update: Second username articles checked and errors corrected. Brownweepy (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have made corrections and removed several content that looked garbage in the articles from my above mentioned accounts. I was not sure during the start of this discussion whether I should go and edit it myself as people in the research list were actively participating in a discussion. Thanks to a couple of notes yesterday, that made me go and change/revert/correct the edits. Also, several of the articles from such users have already been removed by other administrators. In some cases, the references that I used did not seem reliable and I have removed content and such references. I have gone through all the articles. I would request people of this thread to take a look if possible to the recent corrections I did and if anything looks wrong, please let me know. As I have mentioned earlier, my advisor will participate in the discussion in the mailing list. But I want to summarize all that came up in the discussion and I will post that experience on the mailing list soon -- starting from multiple account violation to the lack of informing the Wikimedia research community. Brownweepy (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

there's something else you should realise that was mentioned earlier: One of the article subjects you chose was a living person. We make special efforts to verify information and ensure accuracy for articles on living human beings, because of the possible damage that could be done. They are written in the WP:BLP policy, which is of our fundamental rules, and one that we enforce with particular rigour. Of all the possible Wikipedia material to use for experimenting, this is the most out-of-bounds. If your university's research committee had realised you were going to machine-edit such material on our live site, they would not conceivably have given you permission. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi DCG, I understand what you mentioned here. Had we considered informing the Wikipedia community before, probably everything would have been discussed at the very beginning and such things would not have happened. I have tried to address all edits and verified the information, although I agree it might be too late. The Univ committee probably also might not be very conversant about the rules and policies, but that could have been tackled had a conversation with someone from the community would have been done at the very beginning. I will discuss all of these with the committee members (will be back to school next week) as I think it requires major attention from everyone's perspective. When I see the first work in this area (http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P09-1024), they worked on category of film actors, which might have/had similar impact. All the information, if summarized at a common place, would help us (and other researchers) to fully follow the rules and also prevent future instances of such disruption. -Brownweepy (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What Univ is this? EEng 06:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Brownweepy. EEng 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

EEng Penn State. Sorry I saw your msg now. You can see the discussion on the mailist list too. My advisor will write over there by end of this week. Brownweepy (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This needs further cleanup. I just deleted Wube Haile Maryam as, even after all the nonsense was removed (and this really was a dreadful article), the remainder was wrong. I also corrected Adriana Roel, which was already revisited by Brownweepy but his edit did nothing to solve the problems he created. The same applies to Oceania Cycling Championships which was a nonsensical article with copyvio problems ("attracted members of the public eager to see high calibre international cyclists." in the source vs. "attract members of the public who are interested in watching high calibre international cyclists." in the article). Considering the bad history, the lack of content now, and the errors still remaining in those few lines, I have simply deleted it as a test page, and someone can actually write a real article about the subject. I also deleted Robert Lortac, also corrected by Brownweepy but still a mess of copyvio sentences and wrong information. I fully support a ban of all four accounts, this really isn't acceptable. Fram (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent behavior by Ghoul flesh

Editor Ghoul flesh has been making personal attacks in his edit summaries.

1. 20:54, August 14, 2016 (UTC)
2. 23:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Side note - An investigation for this user, is also under way for edit warring here.

Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

I've left ANI notice on their talk page. — RainFall 06:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The second item is stale and not all that bad. The first, though, is fresh and a clearcut personal attack. This editor seems to misunderstand the principle that Wikipedia is not censored. Yes, we have articles about highly controversial topics. That does not mean that an editor is perfectly free to call another editor a "moronic fuckface". I suggest a block until the editor agrees to abandon such disruptive behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Definitely think the first diff is a clear cut personal attack but as Cullen328 stated above, I don't think the second one is as clear cut. I think that the user is clearly not assuming good faith on these edits as well. I have some concerns as well based on the edit warring discussion about the users ability to maintain a neutral point of view, but I will reserve those concerns as they have not yet proven to be an issue. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• I have issued a 31-hour block for that first example, and I'm prepared to escalate should anything like that be repeated once this one expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• It seems like Ghoul flesh has also demonstrated WP:NOTHERE behavior, as he/she made this aggressive comment questioning his inclusion on WP:AN3RR, even though he/she has made comments ([3] [4] [5] [6]) on it before making the aforementioned post, so he/she should already have an idea why he/she is on WP:AN3RR in the first place. Parsley Man (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I have to agree, this is a relatively light ban. Hawkeye75 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• But is it suitable, since he also demonstrated the WP:NOTHERE behavior? Parsley Man (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm very surprised it wasn't either much longer or a NOTHERE indef. GAB^gab 01:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Same here. Parsley Man (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Upon getting out of his block, Ghoul flesh has failed to assume good faith on my part, demonstrating WP:NOTHERE behavior on Malik Shabazz's talk page ([7]) and making baseless accusations of bias ([8]). Not sure what kind of punishment this requires, but I for one am not convinced he learned much from his 31-hour block, let alone annoyed by his behavior. Parsley Man (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with this assessment, Ghoul flesh has definitely exhibited further WP:NOTHERE behavior. Parsley Man notified prior editors so they could review the changes and good faith should have been demonstrated. Boing! said Zebedee placed the original block; pinging to notify of the new concerns. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• I would like to clarify that the editors I notified were those who would've disagreed with the material I was contesting. But this did not give him any right to exhibit that kind of reaction. In fact, I would say that he was perfectly free to do the same with editors he would've trusted to even the playing field. I certainly wouldn't have held it against him. Parsley Man (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not the only one that accused you of bias. I find it hilarious that you're gonna report me for that. Quis separabit? was exactly right. You're oblivious to the fact that WP:POV goes both ways. You should be blocked if anyone else, for your tireless reverting of information on the article that you simply don't like. Ghoul flesh talk 03:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• The difference is that you have been warned about this kind of aggressive, WP:NOTHERE behavior a couple of days before and got blocked for it. Now you return, and clearly there's still a problem if someone (me) reports you again and another user backs up this report. Parsley Man (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Days after article unlocked, OWN behavior began again

The WP:OWN behavior at Superman by User:BaronBifford has started again, days after the article was unprotected. Numerous editors on that article submitted evidence to the ANI whose last comment I believe was here. Today he is edit-warring here.

I'm not sure if we need to fully protect the article again, but that may be necessary. Editors commenting on the ANI referenced above were suggesting a topic ban. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So much for the 3 revert rule. Now I guess it's just the 1 revert rule. BaronBifford (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not limited to violating 3rr. Edit-warring can be one edit. Where the article was locked primarily due to your previous edit-warring, going straight back to the same pattern of editing is generally not going to end well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, WP:3RR states The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. clpo13_(talk) 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that the behavior with the edits resuming shortly after the article unlocked is a violation of WP:OWN and potentially WP:EDITWAR. -- Dane2007 ^talk 17:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I almost blocked the Baron, but I got distracted by a glaring redundancy in the article and removed it; probably nobody would complain, but now I don't want to take any action for fear of WP:INVOLVED objections. I'd suggest, however, that someone else block the Baron; when you're blocked for something, the block expires, and you quickly resume the actions that prompted the block, it's time for a significantly longer block. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BaronBifford is aware he's on thin ice. Before we reach for the kryptonite, can we see if he sticks to the talk page like I suggested here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note: As an uninvolved administrator, I have reverted the article to the version that appeared when it was last fully protected. It would seem some positive contributions were reverted in doing. Unfortunately, this appears necessary for the editors to discuss how to move forward without engaging in an editor war. Hopefully someone can restore any positive changes endorsed by consensus once the immediate issues are resolved. As to the fate of the individual editor, I agree that there needs to be an additional step taken than simply just protecting the article and allowing the edit war to continue. Mkdw^talk 20:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've read through the previous ANI and Talk:Superman. It's taken hours but here are my observations:

• There is a consensus among the editors at Talk:Superman that BaronBifford has exhibited WP:OWN: 1, 2, and 3. The last ANI also came to this conclusion.
• BaronBifford has knowingly ignored consensus, sometimes waiting weeks or months to pass, to implement their changes: 1.
• BaronBifford has occasionally resorted to WP:ATTACKs: 1, 2, and 3
• BaronBifford can work as a collaborative editor when they choose to do so. As seen this statement which led to Talk:Superman#COIE. The proposal was positively received and introduced here.

BaronBifford was already given WP:ROPE and warnings will only serve to waste more of the community's time. Their contributions do not exceed that of the need for collaboration. Despite their open distain bureaucracy, I recommendation that WP:PROBATION be placed against BaronBifford in lieu of a block/ban and be given these guidelines:

• Prohibition in editing any section currently under discussion (not archived) at the talk page except for changes that receive consensus at the respective talk page.
• Any content that has received a prior consensus cannot be changed without a new consensus being formed. Consensus must be determined by both a reasonable amount of participation and elapsed time.
• WP:1RR

TLDR: Specific prohibitions be placed against the editor in lieu of a topic ban or block. Otherwise a block under WP:DE and WP:IDHT per this. Mkdw^talk 01:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's unfair to lock all editors out of the article because of one edit warrior. Support unprotection, and blocking BaronBifford for the next two weeks. If he tries to continue the edit war with sockpuppet accounts, semi-protection or 30/500 protection can be used. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As an involved editor in this and as this will most likely be my last edit on Wikipedia for the seeable future as I have had it with this kinda stuff I wanna make sure I'm heard before I leave. The article already had an Admin NeilN involved on the talk page who was making suggestions to Barron when another admin decided to lock the article down. Why? Why lock out other editors when one is the issue? The history shows the OWNISH behavior by one editor, one. Now I'm sure I'll be told how I'm wrong, won't be the first time but the rest of us should not have been penalized when we have tried to work with him several times only to have the article locked down because he refuses to work with other editors.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• @DavidLeighEllis and WarMachineWildThing: I understand you're frustrated at the whole situation. The problem is that there is no clear consensus on how this should be handled. We've had calls for protection, blocks, editing restrictions, and more discussion. The article can be unprotected at any time but clearly unlocking the article before the situation is resolved does not work as evident the last time the article came off full protection. No one likes that the article is protected but unprotecting the article without having the edit war errupt again is completely contingent on blocking BaronBifford for which there is no consensus to do so. At least not yet. It does way more harm to the encyclopedia to allow the edit war to continue while we await an eerily quiet ANI thread to come to a consensus. That being said, they're clearly using this time to engage in the talk page. To what success, it's hard to say, but in the very least, I would like to see from them an acknowledgement that they will continue to do so for before making any contentious edits. Mkdw^talk 17:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No consensus for a block? Of course, there's (equally) no consensus for full protection, but it seems that you don't need any. I'll just wait until the article has been under six months of full protection, then file a request for Arbitration. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not even remotely comparable. The protection was never implemented as a solution to the root problem. It is not permanent and it is not the outcome of this ANI for which a consensus is being sought. The protection was a continuation of the previous measure implemented at the last ANI to allow this discussion to move forward. Locks are routinely implemented to for consensus to form during an edit war and a permanent full protection will not be the seeming consensus of this ANI either. Mkdw^talk 16:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Mkdw, but I don't think another round of full prot was the best solution here as it's not a single edit war that's the issue here but the continual edits and reverts of a single user. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And I literally quote one line above, "The protection was never implemented as a solution...". It was to stop the immediate edit war. That's why we have Wikipedia:Protection policy. I also think you are misrepresenting the situation here NeilN. A single user?

• 20:27, 13 August 2016‎ TriiipleThreat (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,709 bytes) (+1,097)‎ . . (Undid revision 734362499 by BaronBifford (talk) not trivia, infoboxes are a quick overview) (undo | thank)
• 16:30, 15 August 2016‎ Tenebrae (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,730 bytes) (-672)‎ . . (Back to the same WP:OWN issue, with undiscussed wholesale removal of content, addition of contentious content, and no discussion beforehand on talk page. If this behavior continues, so must the ANI)
• 16:39, 15 August 2016‎ Tenebrae (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (138,730 bytes) (-672)‎ . . (Now you're edit-warring rather than following WP:BRD. I was about to discuss the issue on the talk page as you asked, but you edit-warred instead. I'm not spending any more time with back and forth. Returning to ANI)

Finding a solution is why we're here at ANI. Mkdw^talk 19:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I am misrepresenting the situation. The single user is BaronBifford. You might have missed this. [9], [10] In other words, the solution is WP:ROPE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I misread NeilN's comment and I'd like to strike a part of my previous comment. Mkdw^talk 02:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't miss it and they never even responded to you on the matter even after I asked them to do so. If more discussion or WP:ROPE is the consensus for a solution of this ANI, then I would naturally expect the protection to be removed. However, the fact that they ignored that direct inquiry and WP:ROPE had already been proposed in the past and demonstrated to be very ineffective as a remedy. I personally wouldn't support that recommendation as a solution because ROPE doesn't work if you keep feeding out more ROPE which is what we'd be doing yet again. We are essentially in the next step. Either prohibition on editing (such as using the talk page before making any edits to contentious sections -- which I think was already what you were asking them to do) or a block would allow editing to resume and known recourse to be applied without yet another ANI thread. Mkdw^talk 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Block I have held off on doing this in hopes Barron would finally get it but to be quite frank I'm tired of the article being locked down because one single editor refuses to work with everyone and go by the consensus that is reached or even try to get one. We wouldn't be in this mess again for the second time in a month if they would stop OWNING the article. They have been given enough WP:ROPE as far as I'm concerned and I quote "After all these years, I'm fed up. Fed up with hearing my professors joke about how shit Wikipedia is"[11]. They clearly do not care what anyone else thinks and after 2 ANI's for the same issue in just 1 month, something has to be done. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate Reverts of Discussion Closure by User:SchroCat

In an attempt to resolve another issue at the ANI noticeboard, I took the action of closing a discussion that started several years ago and was recently active again and moving it to RfC using the principle of being bold. All the comments supported moving to RfC. User:SchroCat has reverted my closure twice now and threatened an ANI discussion. I believe my closure was valid and followed guidelines of WP:CLOSE. In good faith I notified all parties in the prior discussion of the move to an RfC, including SchroCat at their talk page. SchroCat did not bring issue of closure to me and simply reverted my closure with a threat in the edit summary. The actions are now disruptive and clearly in violation of how to contest closure per WP:CLOSE. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Notification Reverted Notification of this discussion was made here and reverted, FYI. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You are not the guardian of Wikipedia, nor are you an administrator or administrator. Your 'power' to close discussions is as equal as any other editors. My 'power' to re-open that is as equal as yours is to close. My revert was because you removed my comments, an extremely disruptive step to take. If you wish to close again, that is entirely up to you, but not with the rather tendentious removal of my valid comments. – SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop removing my comments. If you continue to edit war and remove the comments of another editor, your behaviour will face examination. - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverts: Revert 3 Revert 2 Revert 1 - I advise you to review WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as I have not asserted any power. I simply attempted to close the discussion and you added comments following that closure in the incorrect venue. To add your comments into the RfC is not my place and they did not belong in a closed discussion. I will not revert again as this is now a back and forth. I will allow the administrators to review this and proceed. Also, I have not removed any of your comments besides the ones placed after the closure. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Next time do not edit war and do not remove comments. At least you have clarified that you are not going to edit war further, although that is rather moot, as the thread was closed five minutes before you posted that. – SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The user has now closed the discussion again with my closure comments only after adding back their comments and yet another threat for ANI. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really see the point of closing an existing discussion just to start it again as an RFC. Why not just elevate the current one to an RFC? Obviously editors who have spent time debating the issue don't want to start the discussion again from scratch. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

  I already commented in the new RfC, but have no problem with my comment in it being refactored into a merged RfC. It's not really important exactly where on the page the RfC is located. I may no speak for every RfC respondent, but I prefer "clean" RfCs that make reference (with links) to previous discussions, rather than burying an RfC in the middle of a discussion that has turned into a mire. The principle purpose of RfCs is to get a fresh set of eyes and minds on question, not for the same couple of parties who've been at each other's throats for a long time to brow-beat and lobby for "votes" for their "side". A clean RfC is usually a good step toward short-circuiting an ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND problem. I'm not going to wade into the interpersonal dispute above, other than to observe that three reverts documented by Dane2007, followed by a fourth, seems to be a WP:3RR problem. They're not even just within the same day, they barely span more than an hour and a half.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• If only it were true. Could you provide a diff of the fourth revert that you've claimed? – SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. - From WP:3RR. Not sure that 3RR applies but definitely toeing the line. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  He did reverse his third revert so I'm not sure there is an issue here that requires admin attention. As an aside I'm not even sure your close is valid anyway: if you close a discussion you need to clearly indicate whether a consensus has been reached or not. If you don't feel it has then the close summary should clearly state "No consensus". As it stands you haven't actually closed the discussion, you've just put a box around it and started a new discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP:CLOSE and my closure appears to be correct according to that policy. The closure appropriately noted the status and provided a result indicating where the RfC is. Since the issue was not determined here, there was no need to call out "No consensus" as the status was stating it was closed to gain consensus. I could be wrong or misinterpreting that policy though. Can an admin clarify if I interpreted that right? -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A "close" determines the level of consensus achieved in a discussion and you have not actually done that. How do we know if an RFC is even needed if the previous discussion was not analyzed for any prevailing arguments? If I had closed that discussion I would have summarized the key arguments and explained why I thought consensus had or had not been achieved. I also wouldn't have started an RFC either, and I would have left it to the opposing parties to decide how they wanted to proceed based on the close. Betty Logan (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I did review the entire contents of the discussion. I determined based on the contents of the discussion as well as the original ANI that a closure and move to RfC was an appropriate and necessary action to get outside opinion and comments as the discussion was becoming disruptive and irrelevant due to accusations of WP:OWN among others.

In addition to formal closes that analyze the consensus of a discussion, discussions may also be closed where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive. - WP:CLOSE; Granted I am not an administrator and I was simply looking to be bold and move the ball along, there isn't an explicit restriction on a non-administrator closure for that discussion. I believe that all of my good faith actions today complied with WP:CLOSE and WP:RFC. I will drop the stick here regarding this closure action and await administrator comment. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you acknowledge I have not broken 3RR, despite the untrue accusation made by another editor. Yes, you were bold in your close, as you are allowed to be, but there was nothing to stop me reverting that close either, as I felt it was inappropriate. Why you felt the need to edit war is beyond me, but I am glad you have finally decided to drop the stick. All that is needed is for mcandlish to acknowledge his accusation of breaching 3RR was not an adequate reflection of the truth. Time to do something useful - which is never the case of anything brought to this particular peanut gallery. - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious article creations - All new accounts creating pages about Australian academics

Was looking through the New Pages feed and saw a bunch of new pages created by new accounts. All pages are about Australian academics, all of whom fail WP:PROF from what I can tell. All users have only edited on the pages they created. All pages created today. Below is at list:

Will continue to look for more articles/accounts. Will notify all users linked here momentarily. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And I thought it was just me. Some of them are better sourced than others.--Savonneux (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, some are better quality (in terms of Wiki standards) than others too. But the pattern seems rather ... suspicious. I went back to 0:00 UTC on the NewPagesFeed and this is all I found. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There's one—Glenn Martin-Mackay—which seems to be about a graduate student, and is definitely a prank of sorts. That's the only exception to the 'academics of dubious notability' rule, however, so far as I can see. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Glenn Martin-Mackay doesn't fit the pattern and I've just speedied it, it seems to be a joke. For the others, is there an editathon gone awry? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that one. Was just collecting ones that were about Australian academics and made by new accounts. Thanks for speedying it. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, looking at the creation dates, which span just over three weeks, coupled with the fact that all of these articles were created today, I'm not too sure about the editathon. EvergreenFir, I've taken the liberty of adding the creation date for Kazoo1975. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I added Kazoo when I saw my CSD in log. >.> I think it's the only account that's protested a speedy, I replied to them on the article talkpage--Savonneux (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A responsive/interactive new editor? That's a possible hook for asking (gently and with massive GF obviously) about the larger situation here. I suspect a class based on the timeline. DMacks (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not much of an editathon person, but isn't that the usual advice - people are asked to create an account in advance and then they all get together to do the actual editing? The articles are all women and mostly (all?) scientists - a common topic for outreach type events. I suspect an editathon or a class that hasn't been organized too well. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I've found the reason, from Susan_Neuhaus I found a page and a catagory --> Wikibomb2016

“ The Women in STEM Wikibomb is a joint event between Microsoft South Australia and the Office for Women to increase the number of Wikipedia pages on Australian women who have contributed to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

Held during National Science Week, the Women in STEM Wikibomb aims to raise the profile of women in STEM, increase women's contributions to Wikipedia and provide technical skills and experience to participants.

”

(Is editing wikipedia a technical skill? Can I put it on my resume? :O )--Savonneux (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Savonneux: Wonderful sleuthing! That fits the bill pretty well (all women scientists, all in Australia, all STEM). Happy to see that my suspicions were incorrect and that this appears to be good-faith editing. I'll post some welcomes on the user pages and add some comments about article creation and WP:PROF. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Made sure all editors had a welcome template, added a section after the ANI notice welcoming them and offering to answer questions, and added a Tea House Invite. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, good. Meanwhile, I'll gear up to CSD everything they've done and crush their spirits utterly. EEng 07:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A similar case was mentioned on a noticeboard in 2014, and the home page was Wikipedia:Meetup/Canberra/2014-08-14-Wikibomb. Possibly Wikibomb2016 was intended to be similar, that is, in the Wikipedia namespace. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EvergreenFir for the welcomes to them all. EEng's spirit-destruction festival aside, it would be great if there was a way to encourage editing drives like this to focus more on expanding existing articles, rather than creating new ones and risking the usual GNG issues. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've declined a couple of these speedies. Some of the others look notable, or at least sufficiently borderline to merit AfD, to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that I kept Barbara Jane Howlett, but it was 90% copyvio.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Kerry Raymond is an editor who might have some clues who is behind this, I believe they've worked in this area before. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved in the Wikibomb in 2014, but know nothing of this 2016 one. But between the two, there have been at least a couple of other "wikibombs" (which seems to be have acquired the meaning here in Oz of an edit-a-thon to add more women to Wikipedia). Based on my experience with these events, they are always good faith and usually not a problem in terms of notability (although the citations might not be there initially to meet GNG). I don't think you need to speedily delete them - just prompt them to add the citations. Copyvio does tend to be an issue. Unfortunately in Australian university circles, bios from university websites are routinely copied for a range of purposes, which leads academics to (wrongly) assume that they can put this content onto Wikipedia too. When challenged, the usual response is "but the university doesn't mind" (which in my years working at Australian universities is entirely true, but nonetheless the university website is tagged as copyright usually in the footer of every page). Euryalus, the purpose of these events is to try to redress the imbalance in coverage of women on Wikipedia, so they are always going to create new articles rather than expand existing articles. When Wikimedia Australia becomes aware of such events, we try to get an experienced Wikipedian involved if we can, but it can often by very last minute or not at all depending on if/when we hear about them. In this case, I guess we didn't hear about it since I didn't see any call go out for volunteers to assist. Kerry (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Kerry Raymond: thanks for the ping - I think the Wikibombs are a great idea and I agree that anything that broadens coverage is worth encouraging. I suppose my point is there is space for work on article depth as well as breadth. Plenty of pre-existing articles on women, including of women academics, are still stubs and could do with concerted editing campaigns of their own. They'd also be more likely to survive the CSD attrition that follows new article editathons. But just an opinion, whatever works best in attracting new editors and addressing the gap in article coverage for prominent women. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WMAU wasnt aware of any events in South Australia, we will contact the group to help them in address the issues raised here and assist them in running successful such events in the future. As suggestion for editors here if come across these events suggest that you try contacting the local Affiliate or even post to project notice board for the country as this may help you resolve what is going on and also remind people of WP:BITE Gnangarra 09:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• If someone can find someone involved in the actual project (should we move Wikibomb2016 to Wikipedia space?) I'd suggest that the new editors consider moving the problematic pages to draftspace (I hate that AFD is kinda of the way to do it) and then otherwise encourage them otherwise. We don't want to discourage new editors but point out that the page the way it is currently written is not in line with what's appropriate so there is WP:AFC and other processes to help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've started a Requested Moves discussion to establish a consensus on what should be done with the page. Please see Talk:Wikibomb2016 for the discussion. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps tt wouldnt hurt to ask at the Australian noticeboard just in case an Australian editor other than Kerry might know something about what was going on? Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians notice board JarrahTree 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: (a) With all the talk about creating articles on women scientists, we should not be surprised if people actually go ahead and do so. (b) Just looking at the first two - both seem like they pass WP:PROF reasonably easily: Susan Wijffels has an h-index of about 38; Elizabeth Truswell is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science. StAnselm (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: It's often worth looking on social media when you see something like this. I remember some months ago seeing a pile of articles very like this - for a second I wondered if I was dealing with sockpuppets but I quickly found references on Twitter to an editathon at an astronomy conference. But this illustrates why it's a good idea to do this kind of event properly and ask users to put a mention of it on their user pages. (One disappointing thing I've sometimes seen with constructive but very low-knowledge/confidence accounts is that the second they get any sense that they're not doing things perfectly right they abandon the account and switch to an IP or another account, so they can look like an obvious sock even if their behaviour isn't actually in bad faith. Hard to know what to do with those.) Blythwood (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - to further this discussion, I'm going to ping @Salamanda14:, who created the article on the Wikibomb event, @Janstrugnell:, who I believe may have been involved in organising it, and @Adam (Wiki Ed): who I know manages some editathons for Wikimedia.
  I have to say, a superficial examination suggests that this event did a terrible job of supporting and training the people at it! I see all the classic mistakes: pages on non-notable people, simple copying and pasting of faculty biographies, failure to keep articles short (why don't we have a guideline to keep Wikipedia articles created at an editathon to under six sentences?), listing literally every article the subject has ever published, obvious mistakes like uncapitalised names, articles posted to article space without being finished, not telling the editors involved to put on their profile that they're at an editathon project, not very experienced and might need some help. And - yes - speedying/prodding of articles on potentially notable people rather than trying to fix them or asking the author if they can. This is exactly the kind of failure to support new editors that leaves people who might be very helpful contributors running away screaming and builds unhelpful stereotypes like this. Blythwood (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is this is the WikiBomb being conducted by a group looking to raise the profile of female arctic scientists, which I heard about on a podcast earlier this week? Guy (Help!) 18:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Folks, there are already guidelines at Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon, although I would comment they are highly idealised - e.g. one experienced Wikipedian per newbie! (where do you find so many volunteers?!). But these events are not usually organised by experienced Wikipedians and it doesn't occur to them to involve any experienced wikipedians and hence they will not know of any such guidelines. And why should they think differently? It clearly says on our main page "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"; there's no suggestion that you might want your hand held in the process, that there's a MoS, or policies etc on our main page. These people are doing what they believe Wikipedia welcomes them to do: hop in and add content. It might be more useful to have a set of guidelines for the community to follow if they suspect such an event is taking place, so the reaction is efficient and effective, e.g. where to notify that such an event appears to be taking place (such as the listi on the how-to-run page). Perhaps we could have a template {{currentevent}}, e.g. that is added to the articles suspected of being part of a cwhurrent event of this nature (dated obviously), again to alert the community as to what they are dealing with. The discussion above shows that a number of people duplicated effort in detecting the event, wasted time checking for sockpuppeting, that people responded in different ways to the content being created, that relevant projects were not notified etc. Let's think in terms of how to respond to events in ways that is efficient for the community and mindful of WP:NOBITE. Kerry (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree in principle, but I'm at a loss for a practical solution. TimothyJosephWood 22:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

People (us?) have figured out how to make articles and what have you without having our hands held. When you let your newly formed articles run free in the wild some of them are going to get eaten. This is the natural process. Finding solutions to non problems is one of the things you list as a problem.--Savonneux (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• As I see it, what matters most is that almost all these people are clearly notable (there was one article on a grad student, which is the one that is deleted, but that would have been someone not doing things right. ) This is considerably better results than some such editathons. But most of them are mostly not aware of WP:PROF.c ( talk ) 00:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone - I was involved in starting the wikibomb - all the people who have created pages on women in STEM were volunteers and many may have been new users. They were created in good faith and as you can imagine it is hard to get through to a large group the importance of appropriate citing and creating correct articles even though I had asked them all to undertake the relevant tutorials and provided them with instructions from Wikimedia. I have not had time to check through the articles created but will do so over the next few days salamanda14

• @Salamanda14: - Can you post the list of contributors and the pages they created? Also, I think that people were discussing moving the Wikibomb2016 article to a Wikipedia project page like this one so the details of it can be logged properly in future. Blythwood (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Some of these appear to be quite simple articles, but that is an argument to tag them for improvement, not to delete them. As others have noted, perhaps we need to provide better guidance for 1) new editors and 2) people interested in running Wikibombs and Editathons with new potential contributors. We also need to learn to be more civil and Assume Good Faith. It can be surprisingly difficult to demonstrate wikinotability of scientists compared to how easy it is for sportspeople and politicians. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

See also the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability re systemic bias. The above seems to be an attempt to counter such, apparently not consciously ? Aoziwe (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk: Ajax (play)

Persistent incivility by User:DionysosProteus at Talk:Ajax (play) § Sophocles' or Sophocles's?, in the form of: refusing to give details[12][13][14] about sources that the user claimed to possess[15], and which would help substantiate the user's claims, even after several requests[16][17][18]; responding to requests with ridicule ("these idiocies",[19] "this idiotic behaviour" and "nonsense"[20]); and various forms of condescension ("Try not to be stupid about it",[21] "use your head",[22] "get a grip"[23]).

After a message was left at user's talk page pointing to Wikipedia's civility policy and emphasizing the need to cooperate with other editors[24] (later amended[25]), user wrote a rambling message on the article talk page where the dispute originated, dismissive of the concerns I raised there, in which I personally was accused of various forms of impropriety ("you have belabored so preposterously", "little indication that you have any real interest in improving the article") as well as having my mental state questioned ("you were confused").[26] Further edits on user's talk page included personal taunting in an edit summary ("what is wrong with you?"[27]) and the inability or refusal to "get the point" about fragmented talk page discussions,[28] after a message was posted there pointing to the relevant section of the talk page guidelines.[29] —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reading the conversation you are rather pedantic. That's not really an excuse though I do understand their response to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Essentially you sealioned someone over a basic (as in, taught in secondary/high school) grammar issue which is already covered by the MOS. That someone was incivil to you is a result of you not dropping the stick and backing away from the horse... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you'd better check your definition of sealioning. As the talk page shows, I was the one who started the thread by asking for information. The user in question responded with a vague statement about what's "standard in most literature", apparently[30][31] using a duplicate account. When pressed for details, the user provided a link that didn't actually substantiate the claim. When this was challenged, the user got irritable and very quickly moved to condescension and insults. Also, what MOS says was made clear early in the discussion – this was a question about verifiability as much as punctuation. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You asked a question and I answered it. I wasn't aware I was signed in on that account at the time. You persisted, so I provided a link that answered exactly what you'd asked (the very first result of the search demonstrates it) and I invited you to do the work of satisying your curiousity about the absolutely minor and inconsequential point yourself, having seen how you'd wasted other editors' time previously. You insisted I do the searching for you. I wasn't prepared to do so, for the same reason. Verifiability doesn't apply for such an issue since no source is likely to be found for the question you were raising (it being so inconsequential). As explained on the talk page. At increasing length. As per your behaviour with the other unfortunate editors of that page. I suggest you review your posts to that page for the last couple of months and reassess the manner in which you attempt to resolve problems identified. It's not the responsibility of other editors to explain things to you that you can so easily confirm for yourself.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 04:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:143.159.18.55 mass "clean up" of others' comments on talk pages

See Special:Contributions/143.159.18.55. Per WP:TPO, The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Examples include [32], [33], [34]. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh really! Can I first request that you actually read my edit summaries - "fix template redirects, rv xs whitespace". And then can I ask you to actually check, and COMPARE the actual rendered differences between diffs.

For the record - I did NOT change or delete the comments of other editors or users, apart from any correction of indenting or similar minor format errors - which IS allowed under WP:TPO.

And if you do wish to complain about other users activities, perhaps you could consider getting your own house in order before criticising others. Your own edit summary wasn't exactly helpful, particularly when addressing "noob" IP editors!

You ought to first assume 'Good Faith', and then engage constructively with any user - BEFORE reporting them to administrators! Best regards. 143.159.18.55 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you mass changing project importance ratings? especially to go from "Top" importance to "Low". Are you working alongside these projects or are you arbitrarily changing their banners to suit your own measures of importance? also you've prevented the bots from archiving at least one talk page. Your very mild typo changes and spaces and apparently mild reformatting doesn't strike me as overly problematic (I struck my typo changes and spaces comment for two reasons, 1. No actual typo changes that I could see in terms of editors comments and 2. If there were, these are recommended against and should be stopped at an editors request). I think it's more the en-masse number of changes in a single edit that has caught the attention of another editor. Perhaps just accept the crude and unsightly format of comments that sometimes appear on talk pages and leave the headers as they are, its not an article and thus doesn't need to be subjected to MOS in such detail. Otherwise fixing links and those sorts of things, eh, it's not against any guidelines or policies that I know of, but, it's also not supported by any either. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC

Your claim	My response
Oh really! Can I first request that you actually read my edit summaries - "fix template redirects, rv xs whitespace".	Your edits are so extensive that it's difficult to verify that your edit summary is accurate. And no matter how you try to spin it, making extensive edits to others' comments looks suspicious and is highly likely to start disputes. Additionally, a WikiProject non-member changing the WikiProject assessments is also highly likely to start disputes.
And then can I ask you to actually check, and COMPARE the actual rendered differences between diffs.	Again, your edits are so extensive that it would take quite a bit of time and effort to do this for the volume of articles that you've modified. There is plenty of constructive work to do other than modify others' comments on talk pages and reprioritize WikiProject work to suit your personal taste.
For the record - I did NOT change or delete the comments of other editors or users, apart from any correction of indenting or similar minor format errors - which IS allowed under WP:TPO.	No reasonable person would interpret WP:TPO to allow such edits to dozens of articles with no end in sight. Even if it isn't to obscure vandalism, it's still highly likely to spark disputes and you really should not continue to do it.
And if you do wish to complain about other users activities, perhaps you could consider getting your own house in order before criticising others. Your own edit summary wasn't exactly helpful, particularly when addressing "noob" IP editors!	I think you would be alone in your complaint. "+ani" is something that 99.9% of editors would be able to figure out given the notice mentions "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Additionally, it wasn't a series of intricate modifications of others' comments on dozens of talk pages performed in a way that would take several minutes per article to verify hadn't changed their meaning.
You ought to first assume 'Good Faith', and then engage constructively with any user - BEFORE reporting them to administrators!	Not if it looks like high-volume vandalism that then somebody's got to clean up. In fact, I'd recommend a block if such editing continues.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• You should look more closely. The removal of empty paragraphs gives the illusion that huge changes have taken place, where in fact they quite minor. Try ctrl-f and see how much is actualy missing. Alright, my judgement was correct, now as to the complaint. The simplest resolution here, and, the most appropriate one is for the IP to cease and desist editing talk pages to improve format. It may make it look slightly better but it does indeed mean that an editor needs to go through and check that no vandalism has been intentionally hidden. Those edits are highly likely to be reverted on the spot by an editor on the grounds that it appears to be vandalism. Now, good faith/bad faith. Check at least one of the edits yourself and try to identify anything inappropriate, otherwise, assume good faith and let it go. If you see it continue and feel it may be bordering on the disruptive ping the IP editor and request that they stop (or slow down) and give a good reason for it; such as it bordering on disruptive editing. Finally, if that fails, then bring it to AN/I and have the admins look at it. The only unusual thing I saw in the edits was that they had changed the importance ratings for several wikiprojects, unless you edit for them or are in some way involved with them, don't just go around arbitrarily changing their settings. That's their choice, not somebody elses. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, I've gone ahead and completed partial reverts of the IP editors edits. The only portions I have reverted are the importance ratings that each article has as those are selected by the Wikiproject as they see fit. Other than that, I haven't identified anything else in need of reversion. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye75

Hawkeye75 is clearly NOTHERE and needs to be banned. They began their wiki-tenure with personal attacks and edit warring. Although warned and blocked for both, they continue their problematic behavior, particularly edit-warring rather than discussion, after each block. They fundamentally do not understand BRD and refuse to participate in finding consensus. They have filed meritless and vindictive admin noticeboard reports. They also have a history of claiming they have begun nonexistent talk-page discussions to avoid the perception of edit-warring. A cursory review of this user's contributions and talk-page history shows that multiple editors have warned this user to change their ways, but they continue to editwar. A previous blocking administrator directed my concerns here due to Hawkeye75's claims of bias. Additionally, they have repeatedly violated the non-free content criteria and edit-warred to keep their preferred NFCC-violating images in articles, in spite of being warned and asked by multiple editors to stop.

Pages where this user has and continues to edit war, or revert and ignore BRD requests:

• Napa Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Infobox Disney resort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A Bug's Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Disneyland Park (Paris) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Disneyland Railroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Cars Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 19:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - First off, that single personal attack was already dealt with as I got a 3 day block. Second, the admin noticeboard report was not meritless, it was just posted on the wrong section. Third, when you say I have a history of making non-existant talk page discussions you only give 1 example (which isn't true). History is more than one. My edit on the page was at 12:11, August 7, 2016 (UTC) and than I posted a welcome template on your talkpage 3 minutes late (here). I'm not sure what your accusing me of here since most of this stuff happened before my block and I have learnt from my mistakes. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Second Comment - Your list of my "faults" is invalid. The first 4 resulted well before the block. Disneyland Railroad is an attraction, so it doesn't deserve a "train" infobox. GOG Mission Breakout - my photo was more clear (but no way to prove since it have been speedy deleted). Roger Rabit Car Toon Spin- it's fairly obvious that a 3 word list is A, B and C instead of A and B and C. Hawkeye75 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the issue is not your justifications for your edits, but the fact that you continually revert pages to your preferred version instead of opening discussion after being reverted. That is not how Wikipedia works. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 23:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, may I ask why you would be posting a "welcome template" on the talk page of an editor who has been editing since 2005? That's not 3 minutes late, that's more than a decade late. MPS1992 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see enough to justify another block yet, let alone a ban. Having reviewed the edits since their block, there's some low-level problematic stuff and what seems to be a good faith competence issue regarding image copyrights, but I can't justify blocking from that. Hawkeye75, would you care to explain your thought process for this edit? ‑ Iridescent 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Their post-block edits show either no understanding or active ignorance of BRD. Even after explicitly being asked to initiate discussion ([35] [36]), they ignore and instead continue to editwar. Either way, they show no sign of understanding the fundamentals of finding consensus and cooperatively editing. See particularly their post-block edits at Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout!, Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin, and Disneyland Railroad. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 23:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also note that their post-block editing at Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout! violated 3RR: [37], [38], [39]. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs)

@Iridescent: Yes, I was just mentioning how kind James was for giving Anna the barnstar. Anna has been a helpful admin. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@James Allison: All my edits are good faith. All those edits were contributing to the article. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand the issue. I don't know how much clearer I can be. I again point you to guides on edit warring and consensus. At some point, competence is required. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• From my outside perspective I think that Iridescent has nailed it as good faith edits with some lower level problematic stuff. I would agree with James Allison that Hawkeye75 is exhibiting some lack of cooperative editing and issues understanding consensus. I think the key takeaway out of this is that Hawkeye needs to review WP:CONSENSUS and utilize talk pages more for content disputes. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - John from Idegon claimed I "edited" James's comment when all I did was fix the layout. James just broke WP:REDACT by editing his original comment when I had already replied. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I really don't see anywhere near enough for a site ban or a block here. I think this is an editor who is (for lack of a better term) salvageable (don't take it as an insult). These seem to be Good Faith Edits. They do need to work a bit on following WP:CONSENSUS but this doesn't reach the threshold for what I'd consider for "clearly NOTHERE". The thing is they are here to contribute. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)- I am having mixed thoughts about this proposal. Although I would agree with Cameron above that there is potential for the editor in question to BECOME an editor in good standing eventually, I have a problem with edits such as this and the response to the question put forth by iridescent above which is in no way indicated in the dialogue between Anna and Hawkeye75 which can be seen here Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong support banning Hawkeye75 The damage to volunteer contributor goodwill caused by this disruptive user greatly outweighs whatever paltry contributions he might make. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your text. I'm not sure if it breaks WP:MANUAL, but it's really hard to read. Also, I don't think it's very civil to call my edits "paltry", as I have made contributions to help Wikipedia. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You're doing yourself no favors with comments like this. That sentence is perfectly acceptable and you know it. As to your contributions, yes, you've made some. It's the quality of the edits that we're discussing, and their relationship to the problems you're causing for other editors. I think your intentions are good, but you really need to tone down the confrontational attitude. Katie^talk 01:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know it. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I had a moment of confusion when I saw this report because the reported user's name is way too close to that of User:Hawkeye7, who has been here for 11 years. I would suggest that a username change be made. To the crux of the matter, I would suggest that Hawkeye75 be warned they are skating on very thin ice. 3 blocks within a month of starting is not good. For now, I counsel to apply a little more WP:ROPE before enacting anything permanent. Blackmane (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have only had 1 block. I had 1 for 24 hours, than another 1 was added on during that. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I saw this and was about to wade in in defence of Hawkeye7 a long term contributor until I read user blackmanes comment about the near identical user name, I suggest that if this user is to continue they be asked to change their user name to something that doesnt conflict. Gnangarra 01:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• +1 - I too thought this was Hawkeye7 and came here to their defence, 75 should rename themselves as it's clearly causing confusion, That aside I don't see any behaviour that warrants a block or ban ... yet!, They should be strongly warned and should now know they're on very thin ice here. –Davey2010^Talk 01:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Suggestion Here is an analysis for Hawkeye75. Out of 457 edits they have made exactly 8 to talk pages. I think the Hawkeye75 will be a great contributor once they learn the ropes here and begin to collaborate with the community. I propose that Hawkeye75 be restricted to achieving consensus for all edit they make on the talk page of an article before making any edits to the mainspace for three months, and that they adhere to the bold, revert, discuss cycle at all times.--Adam in MO Talk 02:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the user's history of edit-warring, I would second this proposal as the very least that should be done. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure about this BRD stuff. Who should be the first one to start a section on an article's talk page? Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye75: you really want to be sure of it to succeed. Strictly speaking, in the BRD cycle, the person who made the original bold edit should be the one to justify their edits on the talk page. In the best case scenario, a person reverting would use the talk page, if the reasons for reverting are nuanced.--Adam in MO Talk 03:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You know, I have never seen an editor with less than 500 edits create dialog such as you will find on his talk page with Anna Frodesiak or on NeilN's talk page and go on to succeed. His incessant Wikilawyering, mostly incorrectly such as his comment above regarding REDACT, which was not on point at all, his blatant incivility which he received one of his two blocks for (referring to an openly gay male editor as she and then it) and his general DICK attitude (here, for example) lead me to one conclusion. This is a person my father would have described as a "legend in his own mind". And they never ever succeed in a collaborative process such as Wikipedia. AGF is not a suicide pact. IMO, wasting productive editor's time with infinite time sinks such as this fella is far more damaging to the project than any value to be gained by keeping him around until the time comes that he screws the pooch so badly we have no choice left but an indef. Obviously, YMMV. John from Idegon (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not in the same place you are John, but I am moving in your direction. It doesn't seem that a consensus to ban is growing. I'd think if we are going to let this go one that we should shorten the rope.--Adam in MO Talk 03:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me how this is civil? I just want this to be resolved and I got personally attacked. Hawkeye75 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75, there are at least three admins participating in this thread. If you had been personally attacked, one would have noticed and responded. You are not being attacked, you are being critiqued, with evidence illustrating it. Several have argued not to indef you, but not one person has stated that there is any fault in the evidence presented, nor has anyone said the conclusions editors have drawn were incorrect. The consensus is that you should be given another chance, not that your behavior has been acceptable. John from Idegon (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (Source:WP:WIAPA) Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wikipedia:Mentorship --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think the name is an issue, per those who have commented on it, especially if 75 is going to be showing up at AN/I (were they laboring away quietly in some obscure corner of the pedia, there would be less of an issue) Advise a soft block on account of the username.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Why should I get a block for my name? When I created my account I didn't even know anyone's username. I tried "Hawkeye7" and it was already taken. Besides I haven't even come across Hawkeye7 while editing yet. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What soft block means is that you would have to pick another username because we try to avoid usernames that are confusing, you would not be prevented from editing once you registered a new username. That there is a risk of confusion is evidenced by the number of editors who came here under the impression it was Hawkeye7. I won't insist, but be aware that people may assume you are Hawkeye7, possibly using an alternate account.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support a softblock requiring selection of another username. Hawkeye7 is a highly productive editor who has nearly 10 years of useful contributions here. That editor does not deserve to be confused with an argumentative new editor deeply involved in problematic behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What Cullen328 said. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I too was confused by this name issue, having seen Hawkeye7's contributions to Wikipedia I struggled to understand the description of "paltry". I think that a username change is a must here as it borders on impersonation, plausibly unintentional, but, sufficiently problematic as to be actionable. Right now I can suggest only that a name change is required and that a WP:NOTHERE block is far too much. Mentorship sounds like a good idea, if issues persist then it may be appropriate to take stricter action such as a longer/long block. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328 and Davey2010, et al - I suggested exactly that a while ago! I completely concur that a name change is in order if not a WP:NOTHERE block. Thanks, Zero^talk 14:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with this particular forum, and what I am about to mention may already be known by the admins involved in this discussion, but I have had some past interactions Hawkeye75 that I did not appreciate, it started with the "Social media note" discussion that I started on the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror talk page. I brought this to Anna Frodesiak's attention, and she gave me advice on how the handle the situation. Soon after, Hawkeye75 posted an apology on my talk page, but the next day, he made an edit to it, and instead gave me this response; [40]. Anna responded to that here; [41]. It is important to note that this incident occurred before he received any blocks. Hopefully he has learned by now that this past behavior is not proper. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• The editor continues to demonstrate their utter inability to work cooperatively. I believe they have been given more than enough rope. Enough is enough. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Did you mean this, James? John from Idegon (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was attempting to refer to that entire conversation. Thank you. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Hi James, that was already brought up by John from Idegon who also called me a "dick". Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
        • JfI didn't call you a dick, @Hawkeye75: . Such mischaracterizations could easily lead folks to doubt your intent. Folks have taken their time to lend you valuable advice on how to avoid problems; you really should begin to listen. Tiderolls 12:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
          • (Non-administrator comment) What Tide said above. There is a pile of editor experience involved in this thread and should 75 not begin to heed the advice given here, I'm afraid his career on this project will unfortunately be rather short. BTW, I also agree with the soft block re:Username. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No block, suggestion for moving forward: I've had interactions with the editor, most of which have been asking both themselves and another editor to stop bickering (1, 2). I believe 75 gets agitated easily, but this isn't helped by other editors responding in an equally combative manner. I agree with some of the suggestions above regarding gaining concensus for anything other than trivial edits to articles, and would like to see an editor agree to mentor 75. The idea of blocking at this time leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and guiding this editor should be our first step. Obviously, if 75 continues the above-mentioned negative behaviour, another block may be in order -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • But this ignores the "username" issue. I support Cullen328's suggestion for a softblock on the basis of that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I've included that in my suggestion on 75's talk page, thank you for reminding me IJBall -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No ban, no block The premise of the original proposal is preposterous and James Allison should, at the very least, be trouted for suggesting it. Bans occur when an editor has completely exhausted the patience of the community after multiple egregious offenses and no good faith is possible. Hawkeye75 is far from reaching that point, therefore, the non-AGF premise of banning and tone set for this report are out of line. I support mentoring as suggested by NeilN and support guidance per Samtar's comments above mine. Further, I say let him keep his username. There are plenty of similar usernames in Wikipedia. If experienced editors aren't distinguishing between Hawkeye7 and Hawkeye75, that's on them. What's more, if they aren't taking the time to notice the difference, then they probably need to slow down, take a breath, and pay more attention. Indeed, the sharks circling around this newbie editor need to be scattered. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• No block, definite username change, and some editors here need a trouting; Actually, Winkelvi, you are absolutely right. This is why our editors are turned away, because, we the regulars are like sharks spotting a lonely sea lion and thinking that it's dinner time. If I may up the recommendation that you have given to be; the users proposing a ban or block (aside from the soft block for a name change which is relatively reasonable and mild by comparison) against the editor being trouted and reminded that our community is diminishing and not growing exponentially with fresh meat coming in by the bucket load. The assumption of bad faith by a few editors here is quite extraordinary. Yes, Hawkeye75 is floundering quite a bit and has responded sub-optimally and crassly (in some instances) to this thread, but, I don't think that everyone's realized that the response by a few editors here is equal to or even worse than that (not for the language or civility, but, for biting a new editor's head off for not understanding Wikipedia yet, as if we're all paragons of virtue who've never made a mistake in our lives). Also, as I mentioned in my last comment, I support NeilN's suggestion of mentorship as that would help keep 75 out of the shark infested waters. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I hate to disagree but this user's behaviour, especially towards Anna Frodesiak and MorbidEntree is past the point where AGF can be applied. I am not getting involved in a suicide pact. As such, this user does need hard blocking. Zero^talk 16:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I applaud you all trying to give the benefit of the doubt here, but as Zero indicated, some of 75s behavior is destructive to the organization. Analogy. If a newer employee had a history of arguing with management and senior employees repeatedly even after warning, had sexualy harassed a coworker and gotten suspended for it, then upon return to work, blamed publicly the person they had harassed for the suspension, all the while continuing to argue with senior staff and management about any and everything, they would be terminated. NOT due to any legal issues, although those exist, but simply because an individual that behaves like that creates a toxic environment that drags the entire organization down. No we are not a company and editors are not employees, but don't you think we owe our fellow editors a less toxic environment? As I said above, I don't see a net positive in keeping people like this around. If he's arguing with Anna, one of the most understanding and patient admins we have, what makes you think mentorship is going to help. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. The least that should come out of this is mandated mentorship. John from Idegon (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Umm... to be blunt, John you're comparing sexual harassment to the behaviour of 75 here? are you serious? and if so, diffs please (or point me to it if it has already been posted) because that is one hell of an accusation to make, and I don't think its merely a part of the analogy as the rest of it is in line with the behaviour that I have seen (argumentative). I assume this is specifically regarding Anna Frodesiak, I haven't seen any diffs of serious misbehaviour on her talk page but will be taking a look at it (I assume that's where I'll find whatever it is you're referring to). Also, Zero, this isn't a suicide pact, if I had the evidence in front of me that had convinced me that this editor was not going to be a productive (or couldn't be a productive) member of the community, as is expected with WP:NOTHERE, then I would be advocating block. I'll remind you both that diffs are a necessity and not some vague attributions of misbehaviour. E.g. Sexual harassment with no evidence (if I've missed it point me to it) and also "especially" towards Anna Frodesiak, which I am inclined to believe, but, also MorbidEntree which is the first mention of them I've seen here with the exception of a single diff which indicates no violation of any policy honestly. Bickering in a mild form is not something that will draw my attention especially where the offending phrase is "cut it out" and "do something useful", a bit rude, but, not enough for a block. I haven't seen either of you post a diff that indicates WP:NOTHERE. I've seen a few diffs which are problematic, including a violation of WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS where the editor has made false accusations with the intent of having another editor reprimanded. I would recommend a short block based on that alone if not for the rest of this thread. Bear in mind, this editor has had two blocks total; one of 24 hours that Anna Frodesiak upped to 8 days while the editor was blocked. As such, I am going to treat as a single extended block. As it stands, I see big bites being taken out of the editor for transgressions that I don't see as being on par with the punishment. You claim WP:NOTHERE, but, your diffs indicate WP:CIVIL. An issue yes, but, not the same one as is claimed. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Tell me, that you are not referring to this as sexual harassment? it's a stupid thing to say, referring to a person as it, but, Anna Frodesiak came to the editor's talk page and threatened to block them because of the incorrect use of a gender pronoun that I don't think was made in bad faith per MorbidEntree themself saying so. I am honestly just seeing more WP:BITE the more I look. Hawkeye75 is tendentious and that's a problem, but, your responses (not literally meaning you two but in general) are not much better. Perhaps this has reached the point of serious frustration, but, I can't say based on what I've found or what has been posted that the blame lies entirely on Hawkeye75. Also, I'd like to add, Hawkeye75 stop quoting passages in policies you clearly don't understand. Especially not to admins and editors who have been here for years, it's not a good approach. If you have an issue with something an editor has said, bring it up and talk like a human not like a policy quoting machine. Person-person communication will get you far further than Machine-person communication will. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that the pronoun issue may not have been an intentional personal attack, 75 had a history of making personal attacks at that point. The NPA block was justified even if the pronoun incident was not a personal attack. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 18:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The evidence of NOTHERE is in the diffs I've linked above. 75 refuses to engage in finding consensus, even after explicitly being asked to do so. I would again emphasize that 75 violated 3RR after being warned and blocked for edit warring. Further, 75's comments above show no understanding that edit-warring is unacceptable. I see no evidence that 75 understands that what they did was wrong and will change their ways. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 18:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• No block or ban at this time I can imagine some confusion arising from the similarity between Hawkeye7 and Hawkeye75 - some have suggested a requirement that a rename be requested. If Hawkeye75 recognized that the concerns are valid, I would think they would welcome the thought of a rename, as a chance to start over without the baggage of the old name, but I'm not seeing any evidence that Hawkeye75 accepts that there is a problem. I hope Hawkeye75 will pause to think about the number of editors who have commented, not a single one of which has disagreed that the editing is problematic (the best that can be said is that some think a ban is premature), then voluntarily think about how best to move forward, which might include a request for a rename, might include a request for a mentor, might include a commitment to more (non-snarky) use of talk pages or some combination.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment So what options do we have here friends? We all agree that we have an editor needs some help. Hawkeye75 has left no indication here or elsewhere that they intend to take the suggestions from this thread or those on their talk page, to heart. Since the opening of this ANI they have reverted an admin action on an AN, accused a regular and an admin of socking, [42]left a trout-worthy warning on a admin's talk page, and has been combative to suggestions. So who is going to step up and be a mentor?--Adam in MO Talk 03:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have something against me? You posted the comment of me telling an admin to not revert edits, but right after, I replied to the user claiming I didn't know he was an admin (which you never mentioned in your original comment) (and that you saw). I have already started making edits to articles and it's users like you who drive me away from Wikipedia. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I like to say something as a fairly new user. I've only been here 6 months. In those 6 months I did alot of reading on Wikipedia policies and looked for other Editors and Admins for input when I wasn't sure. I found the help, With that being said I have read everything here and alot of 75's actions are not only ban worthy but disrespectful. They have commented on another user talk page that I read in one of the references above [43] that they are 70, I find that very hard to believe, that they later deleted. From my stand point no one is stepping up to mentor for these simple facts,75 shows no signs of change, shows no sign they care about the name issue, they show no signs that they care about this ANI, and show no respect towards Admins. In closing if someone does step up then great, I hope it works but otherwise from what I see Ban is the only other option. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That was well before my first ban... Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when it happened, your clearly not 70 and it should have never happened to begin with, none of it should have. Your are not owning up to your issues. You can only use the I'm new or that was before my ban as an excuse for so long. Not to toot my own horn here but 6 months of editing with no bans, never been brought to ANI, and over 1000 edits. You have to want to listen and learn, it's as simple as that. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you should be bragging about 6 months of editing with no bans, that is quite common. This section of ANI is for after my ban, so anything before it has already been dealt with. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Last Comment/Reply This will be my last comment/reply on this. I'm very proud I haven't been banned or been brought to ANI in my first 6 months because I listened, learned, and asked for help from other Editors and Admins. I showed respect and treated others with such. I listened to their input whether I was wrong or right and I learned what is expected of editors. You've been here 7 1 month, so clearly it's not that common. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually his userpage box says 7 months but he's registered 7/13/2016 21:28. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction/clarification Anna Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Mitigation

This whole thread is about whether he should be booted or given some ROPE. Booted, and Wikipedia sustains a loss. ROPE, I think we can all guess, would be suicide.

As for mentoring, I don't think it would work. Posts at his talk and this whole thread should have already spelled out the problem and provided sufficient guidance. If he doesn't get it by now, mentoring won't help. Plus, it would be a further investment of community resources even if somebody was willing, and nobody is willing.

The amount of resources wasted so far in terms of keystrokes and reads compared to his 214 mainspace edits puts Wikipedia in the red. I would love to see several thousand mainspace edits to put Wikipedia back in the black.

I suggest, considering that his mainspace edits are constructive, that he be restricted to the mainspace only, with 0RR. After a certain amount of good edits there, he would be free to govern himself as he sees fit, whether that is getting himself blocked for good, or seeing the light and becoming a non-disruptive member of the community. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I endorse this proposal. If we are going to give rope, it should be as short as possible. -Adam in MO Talk 05:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support restriction I must have missed where that could be an option but I think Anna has proposed a very good option because wouldn't that be mentoring in a round about way? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would support this proposal in the absence of consensus for a ban. However, I think this will only lead to a waste of time and resources. Even after many, many threads on Hawkeye's talk page and this entire discussion, they show no sign of being able to work collaboratively. They have continued their slow burn edit war at Napa Rose, and after being reverted multiple times at Shocker (hand gesture), they vindictively removed appropriate sourcing and made a meritless argument for deletion. Hawkey shows classic signs of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I am skeptical that they will be able to follow the proposed restriction. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Good points, James. So, there are three paths here: block (definitely a loss to Wikipedia), ROPE (likely a bunch more good edits and eventual block after another huge waste of keystrokes in discussion), or temporary restricted editing (a shot at a win).

• Support Anna Frodesiak's suggestion after some consideration, but under the same rationale as James Allison's suggestion - by which I mean if there is no consensus for a block, as opposed to a community ban. As for the pun, Anna, thanks for the laugh first thing on a British morning. :-) Zero^talk 08:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

So, what do we have to lose by choosing the third? Sure, it may not work out, but Wikipedia has a chance to get back what it lost.

If we could just think of a way to see him editing without conflict, that would be great. His problem is interaction. He makes good, constructive edits. His English is fine. He knows his subjects. I suggest we define editing that would be purely constructive and absolutely non-controversial? Then, he can get started while pouring through all those policies and guidelines and start to understand that they are mostly there for us to govern ourselves rather than cite against others. After 2,000 edits, the editor is free to do as he wishes. Wikipedia is repaid and the future is win-win.

‎Hawkeye75, what do you think of all this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If James Allison has a problem with me, than he can interact ban me. It seems as if he is the only editor on here that doesn't want me to succeed. Hawkeye75 (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutronium in Fiction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Good puns, and problem solved --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

---

There have been additions to the "In Fiction" section of the Neutronium article about a fictional material which is unrelated to neutronium. For context, the material in question is "element zero" of the Mass Effect universe, an non-chemical substance that emits a dark energy field. I tried to remove it as it was unsourced and demonstrably false (the material in question's only implied connection to neutronium is its name, which one of the game's writers has shown to be an in-universe colloquialism, and its described properties are vastly different to neutronium). User:Headbomb has reverted all of my edits, however, and I would rather not get into an edit war.

Some closure on this issue would be appreciated.

JohannSnow (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, unless you are looking to have another editor sanctioned, you are in the wrong place. You should try dispute resolution. If there are just two of you in the kerfuffle, WP:3O is probably your best bet. If you are looking for sanctions, specific evidence (generally DIFFs) are needed. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• Maybe consider taking this to the Neutronium Point of View Noticeboard. EEng 07:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Does this actually exist, or are you making a joke? Mr rnddude (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• You have to be extremely dense to go there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Good one! EEng 16:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

BLP violations by Alexandraprice29

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

---

On 26 July, Alexandraprice29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 1 week for violating BLP by changing the dates of birth on the articles of child actors, namely Jillian Ward (example), Goo Seung-hyun (example) and Mona Louise Rey (example), without providing reliable sources. On 15 August, they repeated these edits (diff, diff, diff), and I gave them a level 4im warning. Today, they repeated the edits again on the same articles (diff, diff, diff) and on Ekaterina Starshova (diff). Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 07:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Improper moves by User:Nicole Sharp

• User:Nicole Sharp executed a number of improper and incorrectly executed moves this morning. She was cutting and pasting content rather than moving pages. I have instructed her to cease and desist here, and fixed one of her moves at Zaza-Gorani languages, but she did this a number of times. These should be fixed by someone with more time and patience than I have or by someone who is skilled at using bots. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear: I see that she performed a number of copy-and-paste moves which need to be reverted, but is it correct that the titles should indeed by hyphenated and not dashed?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Judging from Nicole Sharp's comment here it would seem she's overgeneralising one of the rules for the use of hyphens. She might not be aware of our manual of style section on n-dashes MOS:NDASH. The MOS doesn't say anything specific on the use in cases like Zaza-Gorani languages and it's probably open to interpretation but at least it gives some reasons to make the use of n-dashes here seem reasonable. Uanfala (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the rest of the cut-and-paste moves from today. Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't personally care whether the titles have n-dashes or hyphens in language names (although User:Kwamikagami cares very much). The problem was the cut-and-paste method of moving articles. It's like Wikipedia Editing 101: Use the Move function, don't cut and paste. --Taivo (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I replied on my talkpage on the technical problem there: since both article titles already exist (a move was already executed with a redirect left behind), I can't move the page back to the original article title without the original article title's wikipage first being deleted by an admin. I can only copy and paste the wikicontent in those instances. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Please see the current discussion at "user talk:Kwamikagami#hyphenation" (@Kwamikagami:) and "user talk:Nicole Sharp#Improper moves." Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style (wikilinked above) and the Wikipedia entry for "Dash#Attributive compounds," as far as I can tell, the en dash is a correct usage for some language-family names (e.g. Trans–New Guinea, dashed) but not for all (e.g. Uralic-Yukaghir, hyphenated). However, if anyone has a citation for usage otherwise, I would defer to that. Most professional journals publish style guidelines for publication, so would probably just need to find a linguistic journal to confirm. Linguistic anthropology under the auspices of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) would be under the Chicago Manual of Style (the official stylebook for the AAA, which the Wikipedia article for "dash" mentions limits usage of dashes over hyphens). Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Account problem

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

---

I was in the process of performing an edit when I was mysteriously logged out of my account. Now I cannot log back in again. All I get is a message about 'session hijacking'. What gives and how do I get back into my account? (My account is Elektrik Fanne). 81.156.119.119 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not alone!! :( — RainFall 12:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

On trying again, the error message has now changed to "No active login attempt is in progress for your session". A meaningless error message. 81.156.119.119 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Finally got logged in, ANI is not the right place for this btw... — RainFall 12:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Same her. Obviously a glitch. So where is the right place? --Elektrik Fanne 12:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh good, I had the same problem repeatedly, I kept logging in and being thrown back out within about a minute. I thought it my problem alone. Elektrik Fanne, I would presume WP:Village Pump (technical) as this is a technical issue for which administrators are as unequipped as the rest of us to fix. Admins do have admin tools but are subject to the whims of Wiki bugs and the so forth as much as anybody else. I can't think of an official noticeboard for these sorts of things tbh, but, I would think there is one. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

VPT is the perfect place for it; at least I know I'm not the only one now having issues getting edits to stick (the server is throwing out SQL errors like a shot putter in Rio). Nate • (chatter) 12:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The Frankfurt School section "Cultural Marxism"

Hi, I'm just looking to get Last Contrarian banned from further editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory section of The Frankfurt School page. Having called an RfC on removing 'conspiracy theory' from the lead Last Contrarian soon found out there was a unanimous uninvolved editorial WP:consensus against their personal viewpoint that Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory. Regardless of this fact they've continued to edit war (barely avoiding 3RR) [44], [45], [46], [47], and they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits against consensus. Something must be done, and administrative action would be appreciated. --Jobrot (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

1. It seems you read my mind. I was just about to report you. You accuse me of a possible 3RR violation. I suspected a WP:TAGTEAM ( [48] [49] [50] [51]) between you and User:Ian.thomson yesterday but didn't report it because I forced myself to assume WP:GOODFAITH.

2. People are free to look at the discussion and RfC over at Talk:Frankfurt School. The page is absolutely plastered with long-winded comments by Jobrot which fail to address my original question.

3. Jobrot consistently reverted the NPOV template on flimsy reasons and by claiming a fictitious three editor consensus when most comments on the RfC there were votes without any substantive discussion.

4. Looks like Jobrot believes he owns the article, and content added using reliable sources that do not support his bias look like disruptive editing to him.

5. It looks like this issue was not urgent enough to be reported. Jobrot spent a better part of half an hour [52] leaving replies to comments not addressed to him before deciding to revert my reliably sourced "disruptive edit."

6. This is what Jobrot considers to be a disruptive edit: [53]. Well-sourced quotes and statements backed by reliable sources. Last Contrarian (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty common for the article: someone comes in, claims that we're relying too much on "leftist" sources that that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, further evidence is provided that it is a conspiracy theory, those sources are rejected as "leftist," and no counter sources are ever provided to show that anyone outside of the far-right regards it as a reality. However, it's usually new and/or anon editors who don't know how (or don't care) to nominally go through process. We have an editor going through the process, consensus isn't going his way, but there's one editor who is continually countering his arguments so that must be the problem. Seriously, though, is Jobrot handling things perfectly? No. But is he the one ignoring consensus here? Not that I'm seeing...

@Last Contrarian: I've only ever encountered Jobrot on this site, I've only ever really crossed paths with him at The Frankfurt School article and talk page, and his talk page isn't even on my watchlist -- so accusations of tag teaming would indeed go against WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Does the absence of a consensus mean I stay away from the article altogether (Barring substantive discussion from commenting editors, I still consider it to be a majority vote)? Have I added any batshit crazy stuff to the section to your knowledge?

Once the NPOV tag was reverted by Jobrot's and your actions, I continued discussions on the talk page. After discovering a WP:RS source (Gottfried) who had an opinion on the theory, I first added him to the discussion and then decided to improve the article by adding his views on the matter. If this is what you guys consider disruptive editing, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you assert ownership over the section and only certain wording and certain kinds of sources are allowed. And anyone displeasing you guys will be sent to the principal's office. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

--

I still consider the lede to be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't touch it though, when I edited the section. My plan was to eventually involve some unbiased editors. When three different sources (one of them an admin) have noticed biased editing on the article over the last two years, who am I to claim otherwise:

• http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misadventuring-on-wikipedia/
• http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html
• https://theconversation.com/cultural-marxism-and-our-current-culture-wars-part-1-45299 Last Contrarian (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As I'd mentioned on the talk page, and as can be found in the talk page archives - Gottfried is WP:UNDUE as he holds a tiny minority opinion (and especially can't be used for Lind's views), his inclusion in the lead violates WP:LEADCITE and you're only trying to include it there to further violate the strong editorial consensus produced by your own RfC that the mainstream view is that Cultural Marxism is a CONSPIRACY THEORY. Making the section subject to WP:FRINGE:

Main page: WP:FRINGE

"A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight"

Also; if I want to spend half an hour on Wikipedia refuting your claims via proper policy, editorial consensus and quality sourcing in line with policy, that's up to me. --Jobrot (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several mainstream sources were provided on the talk page that referred to the idea as a conspiracy theory. You didn't accept them. You were asked for counter sources that demonstrate that any moderates or leftists regard it as a reality. You've previously refused to even acknowledge the request beyond claiming that it's "proving a negative", but I will note that you have just now cited a Slate article written by someone who has WP:HOUNDed Arbcom, called an admin a "capo" on Twitter, and generally not behaved reasonably toward anyone affiliated with this site over something a single (and now topic-banned) editor did years ago. You have instead called for treating something that only the fringe right regards as reality as equally plausible as the mainstream assessment of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia scholar. I don't spend my days and nights following news about who attack Wikipedia and for what reason. That the "Cultural Marxism" article has seen heavily biased editing is a known thing. The New York Times may not care enough to write articles about it, but the fact than we are here (and someone like me who has spent 8 years on wikipedia without ever encountering an admin) is here and the pages and pages of debate pretty much proves it.

You keep bringing up WP:GEVAL as if it means something in this context. When you label a political belief a conspiracy theory, you need to provide evidence from sources other than their opponents. The section is a case of WP:NPOV violation and the lede is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS based on the views of purely left-wing sources. Left-wing academics and left-wing op-ed writers for left-wing newspapers might believe Cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't become one simply on their say so. There are right-wing sources that use the phrase in a non-ironic fasion all the time. There is an exceedingly well-known philosopher like Gottfried who has written a book on the Frankfurt school and who actually claims that Lind does not believe in the conspiracy theory but Jobrot is trying to have him excluded using WP:DUE in spite of him being a WP:RS. Last Contrarian (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As shown 2 comments above, WP:FRINGE requires independent reliable sources; I'd hardly call an article from The American Conservative in which the author specifically says he's friends with William S. Lind and is specifically attacking Wikipedia (albeit a 2 year old article on the topic that no longer exists); independent. Apart from that, you should be using Gottfried's book, but even then he is WP:UNDUE and including him in the lead violates WP:CITELEAD (as stated above WP:LISTEN).

There's no reason to include Gottfried's minority opinion, and nowhere in the article does it claim that Lind says Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory; it in fact says he's a proponent of the theory. And as I've stated on the talk page Lind repeatedly talks of unmasking the hidden agenda of the left to reveal old Karl Marx himself. Proponents of the moon landing hoax or NWO conspiracy theory ALSO don't state that they're conspiracy theorists. So no; WP:UNDUE opinions will not be included in the lead, and you WILL respect the consensus of your fellow editors. --Jobrot (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For people who would not bother to wade through the wall of text, this is what Paul Gottfried says [54]:

Neither one of us has argued that there is a Frankfurt School or Cultural Marxist “conspiracy.” Indeed we have stressed the opposite view, namely, that certain Frankfurt School social teachings have become so widespread and deeply ingrained that they have shaped the dominant post-Christian ideology of the Western world.

So, Gottfried is not claiming that Lind is not a conspiracy theorist, only that Lind does not believe that a conspiracy exists, which is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is claiming. Quoting Gottfried weakens the current lead paragraph. Perhaps that's why Jobrot doesn't want it there. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Gottfried also states in his book: "Nothing intrinsically Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society." going on to say; "The mistake of those who see one position segueing into another is to confuse contents with personalities." [55] and I wouldn't put that in there either (unless I'm pushed to cover his viewpoint fully). But I wouldn't put it in of my own accord because it's WP:UNDUE and in the case of your quote (due to where it appears and what else is said in that article) it's not an independent reliable source (as explained above and below) - we've already covered this on the talk page. Maybe you should WP:LISTEN to what people are actually saying rather than just making up the reasons they're saying it in your head. --Jobrot (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The depth, breadth and unanimous consensus formed in the very long and conclusive discussion on the talk page makes this a WP:DEADHORSE and WP:LISTEN issue, in which Last Contrarian is failing to regard policy or their fellow Wikipedia editors with any respect. Violating several policies and ignoring WP:GOODFAITH multiple times in the discussion. They've claimed that rabid left-wing editors are stopping them from resurrecting the previous article (which in fact was salted WP:SALT as part of closing the AfD to prevent this exact type of behavior), and they've also claimed they wish users to come away with a positive interpretation of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.

From the talk page: "This is pure WP:OR and you cannot finish reading the article and still end up with a positive interpretation of "Cultural Marxism." If that were not the case, one should be able to resurrect the article on Cultural Marxism easily without being attacked by rabid left-wing editors."

In short they're not WP:HERE for the right reasons, and instead seek to use Wikipedia as a personal political WP:SOAPBOX --Jobrot (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hang on a second Last Contrarian the accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I know I've seen editors blocked for such accusations against other editors in the past with out diff's to support the accusation per WP:NPA. Your lack of WP:AGF and automatically accusing another editor of something else in an attempt to deflect scrutiny from yourself is inappropriate. Regardless you do appear to be edit warring based on the diffs provided You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

accusations you've made against Ian.thomson seem to lack evidence. I don't care about thomson. He didn't revert my reliably sourced edit for being disruptive. The problem is Jobrot who is guarding the article like Cerberus guarding the Underworld.

You also need to begin to follow what the WP:CONSENSUS is at the article. Do you notice a consensus there? There are a couple of discussions. Everything else is a vote. All you see there are comments primarily by Jobrot that evade my questions, ignore propositional logic (thereby constructing ledes based on false syllogisms) and replies that are a wall of text to drown out any adventuring editor. Further, what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced if it happens to go against the articles current statement? Last Contrarian (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As stated above multiple times, as well as on the talk page; it's not reliably sourced as per WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:CITELEAD (WP:LISTEN, WP:DEADHORSE). "what does following the consensus mean? That I cannot add any matter to the article even if reliably sourced"; in this case the consensus means you should acknowledge that MOST PEOPLE don't hold your views, so you should check your edits against the consensus that Cultural Marxism is in fact; a conspiracy theory (regardless of the claims of proponents). If you'd wished to include Gottfried, you'd need something more independent than right-wing political websites (he has a book you know), and even then it's not WP:DUE and obviously it cannot be put in the lead WP:CITELEAD. You should have respected the WP:CONSENSUS you've brought upon yourself via your own RfC. --Jobrot (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Claim that Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory using purely left-wing sources.

2. Obtain a consensus using 1. Make things impossible so that Wikipedia admins have a massive headache and give up. Things deteriorate so much that new mdia across the political spectrum write articles on it.

3. Use consensus obtained above to bar reliable right-wing sources from supporting statements against the so-called "common" mainstream view by claiming they are not independent.

You think that convinces anybody? And you think you're not biased at all. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, this has gone on far too long and the article is a honeypot for ideologues even without this. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ideologues on both both sides. I'd like you to take a look at Jobrot's history and the history of the present conflict before coming to a conclusion. I know people don't have the time to do this, but this is how bias grows, by refusing to consider the possibility that the status quo is wrong. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. Oh, and law of holes. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This road has been trodden before by SecondDark, Kaffeburk, Achinoam, Ideloctober and various IP users. There's a reason decisions go against people who approach the article from a political perspective and violate WP:consensus. It isn't due to a conspiracy, admins being brainwashed, or other editors being rabid left-wing shills: It's due to the fact that The Frankfurt School were interested in analyzing Culture; not in taking it over. They'd seen the rise of Nazism in their own country; a force they had to flee from. They were anti-fascists more than anything else; not communists and not plotting the downfall of America - in fact members wrote AGAINST Soviet Marxism, they even helped determine the protocols at the Nuremberg Trials and worked for the OSS during the war. They even advised the US government during the Cold War. Their aim wasn't to take over or destroy; their aim was to teach what they'd learned from having to flee fascism; in order to IMPROVE democracy, not destroy it. Blaming modern progressive politics on The Frankfurt School makes no more sense than blaming it on Hitler. The whole world has changed since then - especially since the fall of the USSR. Politics needs to move on too. --Jobrot (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment It's nearing 3:30AM in India and I have to sleep. Will revisit this in about 18 hours. Hope admins take their time before coming to a decision. Last Contrarian (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I support a page ban. At this point the editor isn't listening. They've had enough ROPE and seem to be talking them selves into a page ban. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ban Jobrot already and topic-ban Ian Thompson and JzG from American Politics for defending him. He does act like he owns the page, he cannot tell the difference between the 1) school of Cultural Marxism 2) tactic commonly known as Cultural Marxism and 3) allegations about the use of the tactic, he judges the reliability of sources by whether they support what he wants the page to say, he takes a battleground stance against anyone who disagrees with him, he refuses to listen, he has never had consensus, he has his pet admins ban dissenters to maintain a false illusion of consensus, and now he shows off the severed heads of banned users to threaten another editor. Jobrot is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. How much more of this is Wikipedia going to take? 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd tag you as an SPA, but it seems more obvious that you're a sock of some editor who didn't get his way. Also, pretending for a moment you're not just WP:HOUNDing Jobrot over some past grievance, recommending that two administrators who've each been here a decade be topic banned from the very broad field of American politics would require some serious evidence of serious misbehavior all around that field. Assuming you're not just trolling or socking around some sort of ban yourself, either you're totally unaware of process here or you're throwing a politically motivated tantrum. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:RogerGLewis editwarring against consensus, possible COI

Help, please. To summarise (I can provide more detail on request): User:RogerGLewis added a set of endorsements for David Malone’s candidacy to Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016.[56][57] None of the endorsers added have Wikipedia articles. I deleted them as not being notable, as per common practice on similar articles and WP:CSC.[58]

RogerGLewis reverted.[59] We discussed on Talk page, during which RogerGLewis revealed some sort of direct collaboration with the Malone campaign ("I am awaiting a further list from David Malone"; later also "I have spoken to David Malone 3 times since the end of June I have also spoken with Andrew Williams who has been editing on this page we both had a conference call with David at the beginning of the campaign to discuss informally how social media works in the modern political process").[60][61]

I sought further clarification, pointed him to WP:COI[62] and then went to WP:COIN (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election.2C_2016; plus see User_talk:RogerGLewis#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion). RogerGLewis denies having a COI.

At WP:COIN, User:Only in death supported excluding non-notable endorsements.[63] At the Talk page, User:Brianhe supported excluding non-notable endorsements.[64]

Brianhe closed the COIN discussion. Feeling there were unresolved issues, I asked Brianhe to re-open it and he did. A couple of days on, no-one else has since inputted on the COI question. It seems to me RogerGLewis has had a small involvement in a formal campaign and thus a small COI, but I’m happy for others to rule on that and am more concerned about his disruptive edits generally.

On the Talk page, I discussed policy and practice around what endorsements to include.[65][66] I put to RogerGLewis that additional people had weighed in and they supported excluding non-notable endorsements. I re-removed the endorsements.[67] RogerGLewis re-added them.[68] Cycle then repeated over some days.[69][70]

[71][72]

RogerGLewis described approaching other people off-wiki for input;[73][74] I brought WP:CANVASS to his attention. He does not appear to be following its advice.

RogerGLewis has struggled with WP:AGF at times. After I raised COI concerns, he sought to link me to the rival Lucas/Bartley candidacy.[75] He suggested an IP editor might be part of a conspiracy.[76] He cries vandalism.[77] He talks of “natural justice” being denied,[78] etc. etc.

RogerGLewis has made other edits to the article. These have had some useful content, although notions of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS seem lost on him.[79] I’m afraid many of his edits are lengthy and simply hard to follow. [80][81]

Edit-warring against consensus. Difficulties with other policies and guidance. WP:OWN behaviour. Other examples available. Can an administrator please input. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I look forward to adressing these concerns with appropriate wikipedians. The characterisations made by Bondegezou are simply unsubstanciated and claims of disruptive or edit warring are clearly false. The Talk page entries discussing the conventions which are described regarding notability I have found to be contrary to Wikipedia best practice. I have set out the nature of the inductuive reasoning inherent in the approach for which Bondegezou claims consensus and there is no consensus as I have enumerated quite clearly. Inductive logic is not the most easily precised of concepts although I felt my approach setting out the relevant wikipedia policy related to it was actually pretty clear. Contrary to the claim that "notions of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS seem lost on him".[82] are not bourne out by my engagement with the arguments. I await further advice from other wikipedians. Thank you. RogerGLewis (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• The OP's post here is not very short. However, it pales in comparison, both in length and coherence, to the walls of text Roger has posted at the article Talk page. Here are a few examples of parts of those walls:
  • I am starting a new talk section on this matter and hope other editors will contribute to the question, preferably editors who are interested in STV AV voting and Flat structured organisational and collective Cooperative participative leadership models. I.e Matrifocal and not Patriarchal Hierarchical stuctures and institutions in political economy.
  • Ontology and language[edit] Hirsch interprets Hilary Putnam as asserting that different concepts of "the existence of something" can be correct.
  • Causation between actual entities is essential to their actuality. Consequently, for Whitehead, each actual entity has its distinct and definite extension in physical Minkowski space, and so is uniquely identifiable. A description in Minkowski space supports descriptions in time and space for particular observers. It is part of the aim of the philosophy of such an ontology as Whitehead's that the actual entities should be all alike, qua actual entities; they should all satisfy a single definite set of well stated ontological criteria of actuality.
• I might add that there is a good deal of disruption going on at the article, and although it involves both editors, at first glance, the more disruptive editor is probably Roger.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 (talk Hello thank you for looking at the article. I appreciate that there is quite a lot of ground covered in the discussion by my posts. This is because there are several quite difficult concepts to get across as to why the Notability of Politicians in the green party and what constitutes evidence of such notability is quite different to other political parties. Largely this is because The Green Party uses STV AV voting and in this election is fielding large numbers of candidates. The other reason is related to the FPTP voting system for UK elections which means the Green Party Has only one MP this issue also effects UKIP and the LIB Dems as well. MP´s generally have a Wikipedia Article and notability for all endorsements is satisfied as per the convention that is at issue in the Article in question, The Labour Party election has a seperate article for Endorsements and the Conservative leadership page is very heavy on the list front. Whilst the UKIP page is not troubled by very long lists , the Current position on the GP Leaderhip 2016 article does not seem over done in my view and does work well following the wikipedia guidance to have a lead before the list and after the title. The green Party does have a good number of county councillors and other appointed party officials far fewer of these people have a wikipedia article and this is what I have been distinguishing in the Argument for applying the Tests Wikipedia applies to questions of notability in lists. It is really only the Endorsements I think that have been presenting a dispute indeed Bondegezou fairly concedes that some of my edits have been quite helpful. On Canvassing I think the charge is not founded, although I have read the guidance in detail now and will act strictly within the guidelines. My Last post regarding Machine learning Code to assist with notability questions and source relevance is a serious invitation to help the project and colaborate with other wikipedeans to develop such tools. If it is the wrong place to make such suggestions in the talk page to that article I would be grateful for some guidance as to where I should post it. Linguists here will apppreciate the difficulty in being asked to prove a negative, it does take more explication. RogerGLewis (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

RogerGLewis's main argument as to why he feels he is not edit-warring against a consensus is that he's emailed his friend who will definitely support him when he's back from holiday.

I am not kidding. That's what he's said: [83]

User:Bbb23, sorry I wasn't briefer! Trying to give a fair and comprehensive description. Bondegezou (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou would you care to comment on whether you are a member of a political party , and have you ever stood for election for any political party WP:COI. would it be proper to edit on relevant party matters and further to participate in the article of a rival party if you had indeed sought public office for and are a current or former member of a rival political party? Please draw any potential conflict of interest to the appropriate authorities. I am happy to leave this question here, thank you. 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and have in the past stood for election at a local level, although I never came close to winning. Bondegezou (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou how would you like to proceed with the complaint I wish to make regarding a clear conflict of interest? Bbb23 (talk RogerGLewis (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:COIPOLITICAL. I see no problem. Bondegezou (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I note RogerGLewis is now accusing me of sock-puppetry with no evidence being presented.[84] I have never sock'ed. Bondegezou (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and have in the past stood for election at a local level, although I never came close to winning. Bondegezou (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou how would you like to proceed with the complaint I wish to make regarding a clear conflict of interest? edit warring or sock puppetry WP:COI  Bbb23  (talk  talk   RogerGLewis (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem under WP:COIPOLITICAL. I've never sock'ed. Sock-puppetry is a serious allegation: what evidence are you presenting? This all appears to be a ploy to distract from the fact that you admit to having been in regular contact with David Malone over his candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talk Your activity on the UKIP entry and this entry alone is highly questionable. This is not a ploy I am happy to continue to answer your allegations that is on going. This is a seperate matter and it is not for me to act as inquisitor. Other editors who have already commented could perhaps see what they think. On evidence here is the result of the 2010 election you stood as a candidate for the Lib Dems in this comment from you in 2006 seems to suggest you have been operating under a double standard since then. I expect inquiry into your editing activity in 2010 will be of some interest to others. Why are half the people working on this page also Doctor Who fans? Bondegezou 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Because many of those editing here are Liberal Democrats (contributing their expertise while trying to retain a NPOV, of course), and geeky LibDems tend, for some reason, also to be Doctor Who fans. --Whouk (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure what to make of that above comment, being a Lib Dem supporter myself. (Jamandell (d69) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)) Guilty as charged =) LibDem and Doctor Who fan. Also quite a fan of following boundary commission decisions...er.... doktorb | words 07:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC) I can't say how common this is, but I definitely fit the description of a 'geeky LibDem Doctor Who fan' :). Maybe it's to do with the sci-fi-like hope that the party will be Government? -UK-Logician-2006 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Well for balance I'm a Doctor Who fan but most definitely not a supporter of the Lib Dems! Timrollpickering 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC) I think this is ample evidence of gross hypocrisy, how it is dealt with is a matter for others, I am of course happy for you to turn yourself in as it were But with regard to our own dispute on this article your conflict is quite clear and you have not addressed the facts yet again but resorted to ad hominem with no evidence. At this point I think I am justified in claiming that you have acted in bad faith and cetainly not on good faith.08:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

I refer you to the answer I gave previously. Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talk Very well, I will initiate the formal procedures and prepare the full case against you, Meanwhile I trust you will refrain from Intervening on this or any other UKIP or Green Party Article until the formal process is completed. I will also advise the Green Party whose interests have possibly been damaged by your actions as have the tenets of electroal law. RogerGLewis (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)08:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Theedardanian

Theedardanian (talk · contribs) was warned for disruptive editing, after continued content removal and incivility. He now continues by targeting me. Asked him several times to support claims and tried to enter discussions, but to no avail (funny how when asked to support his claim in one of the "issues", he answers It isn't worth it. No matter what we say, no matter how much proof we bring here, you and your administrators will do whatever you agreed to do - which is to vandalize our history.. Examples of recent comments 1, 2, 3.--Zoupan 22:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like Theedardanian has been advised of the discretionary sanctions in this particular topic area. Perhaps a better venue would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Unless you'd prefer a community response?--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)