Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Programmatic Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural: Jugdev does not appear to respect the consensus judgment of three other editors that this particular paragraph is both irrelevant and misleading. He repeats arguments he has made before (many of them generic rather than specific) and which have been answered before. He flatters his own contributions as "technical" and questions other editors' literacy. In general, he acts as though he owns the article, presuming that if he feels his concerns haven't been addressed, there is no consensus. He deploys absurd arguments, like "Are you suggesting that Yale University [Press] would allow the publication of inaccurate facts?"[1]; not only are presses generally not responsible for the contents of books they publish, but the issue here is his (mis)interpretation of the text.

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

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

• Jugdev's response to the above

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

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

That article is a mess. How advertising networks and intermediaries decide what ads appear on a displayed web page is important and complex. The article does not provide much understanding of the process; there's real time bidding, multiple layers of intermediaries, and tracking going on behind the scenes. Here's a Gizmodo article which does a far better job of explaining this.[2]. The article tree which starts at Online advertising addresses the subject better, and has links to over 40 other articles about the details of online advertising. Those links do not include the article in question. This is almost an orphan article; it's linked from Online Target Advertising, which itself is an orphan article. Deletion is starting to look like a good idea here. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Boomerang Topic Ban for OP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Harvest of Sorrow

I am notifying User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes. This two editors are looking for any excuse in order to delete all my edits to the article. I tried to find a solution, but it came out they are just excuses, they just want to delete everything. Please check Talk:The Harvest of Sorrow to see the relevant facts. Here are the diff [3], they always roll back to a stub article. Also Volunteer Marek is going under all my contributions in order to delete them, as it is evident in Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow and Warsaw Pact.-- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Iryna, until the other users assume bad faith towards me, I'll just repay them with the same money, if they are not going to change this attitude of theirs towards me. Until now, they had only demonstrate that they simply wanted to cancel my edits since the beginning, as well put out by MasterCell comments [4].

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

For example, in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is written clearly:

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

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

(And that's in fact why you were able to check on copyvio, because the sources were real, verifiable and reliable indeed, as these are: wikileaks PLUSD [5] (search "Robert Conquest"), official biography of Henry Jackson [6], official biography of Margaret Thatcher ([7], it can be easily found on libgen if you want to check it), and, Conquest's "Reflections on a Ravaged Century", chapter 7 and 9).

WP:NOTHERE is something that you can apply more correctly to people who are reducing articles to a stub, instead to people like me who worked to improve the same articles adding new facts and sources. Also I see you have a long record here in this very ANI thread, as you are involved in many present and old incidents like these ones [8][9][10], because of that it is very hard to consider you a "neutral" contributor to wikipedia. It seems to me you spend more time in the Administrator noticeboards fighting with other contributors than editing the articles, is this not WP:NOTHERE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed as I read better the sources used for the Jeff Coplon part in Denial of the Holodomor, I can say not only we are in front to a huge WP:OR with the conclusion that Jeff Coplon is a "Holodomor denier" never being present in the primary sources reported [11] [12]. In fact, Coplon never denied the famine but instead only denied that it was a "genocide" and that it was "planned/premeditated", as most sovietologist historian do (for example R.W. Davies and S. Wheatcroft [13], and even the later Conquest himself! [14], [15] pag.3 note 6), but also, it is not clear at all what is that makes different a "holodomor denier" journalist denying human premeditation in the famine, from a respected historian denying the very same premeditation!

In "Rewriting History", Jeff Coplon cites historian J. Arch Getty so that it's apparent his conclusions are the same of Getty. Coplon writes "Stalin and the Politburo played major roles" and then cites Getty: "[Responsability for the famine] has to be shared by the tens of thousands of activists and officials who carried out the policy and by the peasants who chose to slaughter animals, burn fields, and boycott cultivation in protest." (see also: [16]) Is this denying the 1932-33 Ukraine famine?

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

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

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

Well, according to Cathy Young, [17],

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

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

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

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

Soapboxing/Edit Warring on the Uncyclopedia Article

User Shalir Salim (talk · contribs), has been edit warring on the Uncyc article. They claim that Uncyc is not a part of Wikia anymore, and has removed any reference on the page of there being two wikis, despite the fact that UncycloWikia is still active. Despite being reverted by multiple editors, Shalir keeps trying to claim that there is only one site. In addition to this, they don't seem to take a hint that they're in the wrong, and goes as far to accuse another editor of vandalism. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dittoes. Bottom line (which can be studied on Talk:Uncyclopedia), there is the original website, operated by Wikia and administered in part by me; also a fork begun in January 2013 favored by DSA510 who posted above. The Wikipedia article, after several rounds of drama and discussion, documents both websites and the schism with a careful effort to avoid favoritism. Shalir Salim has recently edited this article to remove all references to the original website. I have told Salim on his talk page that this view is counter-factual. It can be argued that the fork is the "real" Uncyclopedia based on the personalities that assemble there; it can also be argued that if the patrons of Joe's Pub rejoin in the basement of one of them, it is not Joe's Pub. In any case, the Wikipedia article reflected a careful balance of these perspectives, which has been broken for reasons I presume are self-serving. The facts have not changed since that balance was struck. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

PS--Shalir is back on with a new round of revert plus warning/threat on my talk page, while deleting my response from his talk page. Shalir created the account 4-5 days ago, evidently for the primary purpose of vandalizing the Uncyclopedia article in order to promote the fiction that his preferred fork, of the two forks, is not just the better website but the only one. It is annoying having to continue revert the page to the consensus reached earlier, in the aftermath of a new editor who is spending a remarkable amount of time joining and generating drama versus factual editing.

Shalir's account had few other edits (usual Summary: "Improved"), but did find time to edit Wikia, inserting a paragraph containing: "Wikia has also received condemnation for forcing unwanted features on their community." The controversy is chronic and is one reason the editors there parted ways, but the declaration that something is unwanted is subjective and would at least need citation, and the edit reveals a motive: an animus against the (PS: host of the) Uncyclopedia fork to which Shalir is removing references. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor has cited me at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, comment removed by Materialscientist citing "unactionable." Edit summary of my edit of Uncyclopedia as "spam" was reverted by Clpo13 with a request to take it to Talk:Uncyclopedia, which with luck Shalir will read in its entirety before posting. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue is resolved. Theres nothing wrong with the Uncyclopedia aritcle. It refers to Wikia site as a fork of main site. All social media links and official Uncyclopedia links link to Uncyclopedia.co not Wikia. I think a topic ban is in order if it carries on. Mr Salim made the good edit himself. 5.151.197.195 (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Anon, the issue is not resolved by reverting to one of the two alternatives that favors one website over the other. Spike-from-NH (talk)

The fork is branched off of Wikia, NOT the other way around. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 17:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a topic ban for DunegonSiegeAddict510 and Spike-from-NH is in order if this keeps on. They are clearly favoring the Wikia branch. Mr Salim added references to Wikia and maintained it was an alternative site but Spike and Dungeon keep removing them. Mr Salims edits were neutral. 5.151.197.195 (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa, David Biddulph, Jayron32, and GiantSnowman:request oversightMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• What do you want me to do? --Jayron32 17:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

None of the 4 people whom you have pinged here are oversighters. The criteria for oversighting are very strict, see WP:Oversight, and it isn't clear why you are requesting it in this case. In general requests for oversight should not be made in public, because that further draws attention to the problematic material. Use one of the methods explained at the top of WP:Oversight. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: please stop pinging us, unless it's something we're actually involved in. GiantSnowman 09:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32, GiantSnowman, and David Biddulph:admin can block unblock user, protect page, topic ban so ping admin past time. pinger apologizeMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, please STOP pinging us! GiantSnowman 16:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at MEDRS

Hello, recently there was an RfC that was closed with a consensus reading that stated a particular change was warranted. However, there have been a couple of editors who objected to the reading and have been disruptively edit warring this change off completely, User: Alexbrn, User: QuackGuru and User:CFCF. See diffs 1 2 3 If they have a problem with it, there are other routes to take, but it appears they have chose disrupting and edit warring. LesVegas (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The closer was not clear how it should be worded and is it clear there are specific countries where journals are of low quality such as Chinese journals. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Country_of_origin for current discussion. Without context LesVegas continued to add "country of origin" to the MEDRS guideline page.[18][19][20][21][22] LesVegas claims what he added was the "best compromise". See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#User:LesVegas for previous discussion involving LesVegas. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

One thing the close was clear on is country of origin is not a valid reason to exclude high quality sources.[23] Its the wording afterwards that some want to use to create a loophole. I think it is possible that the simple "country of origin" could have been added to MEDRS list of things that dont disqualify high quality sources and the remainder could have been worked out. Simply removing things that have a consensus close isnt a good idea. AlbinoFerret 21:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It is qualifying low quality sources such as Chinese journals when "country of origin" is added [24][25][26][27][28] without any context. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats part of what I was refering to. The "country of origin" wording is clear in the RFC close. The rest is not. Taking that out with the rest is tossing the baby out with the bathwater. AlbinoFerret 22:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

During the RfC evidence was shown that Chinese journals are low quality. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was asking if we should add "country of origin" to that particular sentence. The consensus read was "yes". By the way, the closer came back to answer QuackGuru's objections with a reply stating you have an odd interpretation is utterly nonsensical. Get the point. Discussion closed. And for everyone's information, QuackGuru was also recently topic banned from a topic related to this discussion and his presence on this current discussion might be an attempt at border lining, the same behavior that got him topic banned in the first place. LesVegas (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you think Chinese journals are low quality or high quality? QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's off topic. But the consensus reading clearly said that the high quality ones shouldn't be rejected based on country of origin. That this addition has been removed, is disruptive and is the only purpose of this thread. LesVegas (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This is germane to the topic. Do you think journals from China are low quality or high quality? What you added was claiming there is no problem with country of origin. There is publication bias from certain countries. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I go along with consensus and therefore, I believe that the high quality ones shouldn't be rejected based on country of origin which was a problem that was occurring on a topic you have been topic banned on. LesVegas (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats a tangent QG, the RFC was about high quality sources, the section the edits are in is about high quality sources. Bringing up low quality sources is besides the point. AlbinoFerret 22:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone think it is possible that there is publication bias from Chinese journals?

Please read "The outcome of the RfC is not constrained to be binary. It's intended to gauge consensus, and the closer found consensus to include 'country of origin', but with the caveat that it might be a legitimate consideration where "hard data" demonstrate a concern about biased literature." Including the phrase "country of origin"[29][30][31][32] without the caveat was a direct violation of the close IMO. LesVegas, do you think you had consensus for your change after reading the comments by others? QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

QG, we are waiting for the closer to clarify, bringing it up here is starting to look like forum shopping the question. AlbinoFerret 23:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It may–but QuackGuru was not the one who started this discussion. CFCF 💌 📧 23:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No, QG did not start this section. But LesVagas did not ask for the language or RFC to be reviewed or make suggestions of what it should be, that is not the purpose of AN/I. He came here because some editors are reverting contrary to consensus from a RFC close. AlbinoFerret 05:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE The closer of the RfC has just responded on the talk page for clarification, reiterating that these editors modifying and rejecting this close are out of line. To recap, there was a RFC at WP:MEDRS the question was "to address only the addition of high-quality sources into the guideline." If "country of origin" should be added to the list of things that dont disqualify high quality sources. The RFC ran 30 days the result was YES, it was closed by someone who was not involved. The closer said consensus was that "country of origin" should be added. There are a group of responders who wanted to comment on the RFC and mentioned low quality sources. But that was not the question. The closer made a policy- based close and mentioned WP:RS and WP:V and that we cant override them, meaning that low quality sources would not be allowed anyway. It appears some editors here still don't understand this fact and are blindly going against a policy based consensus reading. It is a waste of everyone's time to have to put up with edit warring and disruption. If the editors here can agree to not only cease going against consensus readings at MEDRS, but also such readings in the future, then I suggest they be warned and let's move on. If they aren't willing to do that then blocks may be necessary. LesVegas (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes

ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. If anyone here wants ANI to deal with a user behavior issue, please post evidence in the form of diffs that establishes the behavior in question. Otherwise, this should be closed and referred to one of the content dispute resolution venues listed a WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, one editor here is trying to turn this into an off-topic content dispute so I can understand your confusion. This matter is purely behavioral with editors disruptively edit warring a phrase that had consensus to be added following this RfC. The closing reader also was asked to clarify and stated that the discussion was closed, yet some editors persisted in changing the wording to their liking or removing it entirely 1 2 3. That's why we're here. LesVegas (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is the upshot of RfC is not clear: the "behaviour" problem lies with axe-grinding editors falsely saying it is and trying to ram home their preferred text in support of such misrepresentation. And that would include you. Probably better this is discussed further in Talk, we shouldn't be trying to decide our WP:PAGs through edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, there is a clear finding, and a unclear part. The closer will probably clear up the unclear part. But there is already consensus from the RFC for adding country of origin to the list of things that should not be considered when looking at high quality sources. The close can be found here. [33] The words of the closer are "There was consensus however that "country of origin", per se, is not a valid reason to reject a source (and no more valid than "funding sources") hence for the change." This isnt a case of a content dispute, this is a case of some editors not liking the close of a RFC and reverting contrary to consensus mentioned in a close. I will grant that some have added things that are unclear, and that should have been removed, but not everything. AlbinoFerret 05:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear; you are oversimplifying it since nobody is arguing that country per se should disqualify a source. The point at issue is how to deal with sources when there are material grounds for supposing their national origin compromises them (so not "per se", but based on distinct evidence). But this is all better discussed in Talk rather than trying to "win" through misrepresenting the situation here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually in the section above this one QG is very clearly saying "Chinese journals" = "low quality", and he links some examples of papers that supposedly prove this absurdly sweeping claim to be true.Herbxue (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If QG is linking to papers in support of the claim then it is not an objection "per se", but per external evidence. There are well-known issues with Chinese research into Chinese medicine, are there not? Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

QG did not say anything as simplistic as that. QG posted this link a couple of times to show that there is good reason to be wary of certain studies. I don't see a response. RS issues always involve a balance of various factors and it will never be possible to apply a rule that country-of-origin is always relevant, or that it is never relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User deliberately provoking arguments at Talk:Jews

The article Jews and its talk page is a sensitive topic even at the best of times, permanently semi-protected and under WP:ARBCOM-protection. Given this, it's highly problematic that No More Mr Nice Guy treats it as a battleground and repeatedly violates WP:SOAP and WP:AGF with multiple comments only directed at provoking other users and not even an attempt to discuss the article. These are some of the most recent comments by No More Mr Nice Guy:

• "It's news to me" says the one-stater. What a joke. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% WP:SOAP) [34]
• Another self-serving anecdote about Jews? What a surprise! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% WP:SOAP) [35]
• That is all very obvious. Why do you think all these "anti-Zionists" have suddenly shown such an interest in this article? Check out who's participating in the NOR board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% violation of WP:AGF) [36]

As a previously uninvolved user, I already removed these obvious policy violations once, and informed the user about the policies and warned them about this behavior on their talk page [37]. The user's response was to immediately revert me to reinsert all the above provocations once more [38]. It's obvious this user is only here to treat WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Already the name (No More Mr Nice Guy) is indicative, and repeatedly inserting (and reinserting) numerous comments only meant to provoke other users on the of the more sensitive talk pages shows that this user is WP:NOTHERE for the right purposes. Jeppiz (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Kindly note that Jeppiz did not find any fault with another user telling me to "try not to be an idiot" or calling other editors' comments "useless" and "stupid", not to mention the general SOAPboxing my comments above are directly responding to. I'll leave the obvious "why would he focus only on one editor?" question open. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the whole dispute, but I left a notice to all users to discuss the article, not each other. No More Mr Nice Guy was by far the most disruptive. The comment above is of course irrelevant as a defense, as the fact that other users may violate a policy is never an excuse. While other users also used inappropriate language at times within comments about the article, No More Mr Nice Guy seems to be the only user with several comments that only are aimed at other users. Jeppiz (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me help you out here: my "It's news to me" comment was a reply to this comment. Kindly explain why you thought the comment I was responding to is relevant to the Jews article, why you don't consider it SOAP and why you didn't remove it and warn the other editor on his talk page, like you did with me.

My "self-serving anecdote" was in reply to this comment. Can you see the self-serving anecdote (SOAP) in there? Can you explain why you didn't remove it or warn the editor on their talk page? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain it. I read it, considered it, didn't think it added much of value, but thought it at least addressed the topic. I never remove talk page comments unless they are obvious violations, like yours. The whole reason I, as an uninvolved user, filed this report was because I noticed you treat WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and you deliberately seek to provoke arguments, as shown in the diffs I posted. Your repeated insinuations here that I have some hidden agenda only strengthen that impression. You're reported here not because of your views ( the last two users I reported related to the Middle East were Pro-Palestinians so I really think I'm neutral in this matter) but because you're behavior is disruptive. Worse, it's deliberately disruptive, you continue to engage in it even after being warned. Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? The "it's news to me" comment addressed the topic? How very interesting. I think we've gone about as far as we can go here. Let's see what other editors think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a sensitive topic. What ARBCOM protection? Not seeing any indication that this article is under any sanctions, general or otherwise.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Due to the content of the discussion it would seem that WP:ARBPIA would apply to the discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG's antipathy to Nishidani is widely known and long-standing. Even in unrelated discussions, he will bring them up. Nishidani has at times snapped at NMMNG but the vast majority of their comments are content based. If Nishidani is not involved, NMMNG can be sometimes reasonable. Otherwise, all reason goes out of the window, with WP:ABF being the default. I see that editors on the WP:NORN page are being referred to by NMMNG as "all these anti-Zionists", which probably refers to me, since after Nishidani, I wrote the most number of comments there. Apparently, suggesting that the lead should summarize the article, in particular that the definition of a Jew should summarize the section "Who is a Jew" can only be done by someone with an ulterior agenda of destroying Israel. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kingsindian; WP:ABF seems indeed to be the default option, which I find problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Three days on ANI, not one admin commenting, and the problem goes on

I find it surprising that a report can be on ANI for three days without even one admin commenting. If the situation had calmed down, fine, but it just goes on. As I pointed out in my initial report, and as Kingsindian confirmed, No More Mr Nice Guy is constantly going after Nishidani with endless comments that are just snide remarks in violation of WP:SOAP. I posted some in the original post three days ago, here are some further diffs from today. [39], [40]. Just as with the diffs I first reported, these comments have nothing to do with how to improve the articles, just one user endless commenting on another user. Jeppiz (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Consider the topic, and the intractable history of the I-P dispute both IRL and here. Compare and contrast with an IP scrawling profanity on an article. This will be on the final.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Long-term disputes in a contentious area with the unclean hands defense being deployed? Far fewer are willing to touch that compared to a nice open-and-shut IP vandal case. WP:AE is probably a better venue for this. I predict the result being all parties enjoined to grow up, but I can see a case being made for an interaction ban. Rhoark (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm not involved, I don't claim to know their history, I just saw a user being entirely focused on another user rather than the subject, and across several articles. I'd say it's a rather clear WP:TPNO. Jeppiz (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask again why you aren't reporting the obvious SOAP and personal attacks I'm responding to. Your concern about TPNO seems very one sided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Three things. (1) I don't find anyone else violating TPNO even close to as much as you're doing it. (2) Even if others were violating it just as much, it would still not be an excuse for you to do it, so it's completely irrelevant here. (3) Your repeated insinuations I have some hidden agenda only underlines the WP:AGF-accusation Kingsindian made against you. I've answered you're "why" already; I reported you because of your frequent violations of policies, I didn't see others violate it nearly as much. That's why. Do you have anything to say about your behavior? This is a report about you, and this far you've only confirmed it. Jeppiz (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't make your case any stronger. You seem think the fact I said "yawn" at someone's SOAP+NPA violation is more a TPNO violation than the actual SOPAboxing and personal attack. I disagree. I really don't have anything to add at this point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

So you think your behavior is correct and you intend to continue with the same behavior? Jeppiz (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this report is deliberately one sided and that you're now following my contribs to articles you never edited before, which is a form of harassment. Like I said above, I think you and I have gone as far as we can go on this subject. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been editing I-P related articles for years, nothing to do with you. I notice you did not answer my question about whether you will continue, nor did you address your own behavior. You just keep avoiding the subject to discuss me, just as you discuss other users' on article talk pages instead of the topics there. Thanks for so vividly illustrating the problem! Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'd close this, but as I commented, I had better not. Could someone else please oblige? There's nothing useful being generated.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review my block

Please can I get a quick review of my block of Blethering Scot (talk · contribs) - partly because I was the one of the subjects of his insults here and here; and partly because I will not be around that much over the last week and don't want to be seen to be 'blocking and running.' FWIW he's probably attempting death by admin and has also tagged all of his sandboxes/usrpages for deletion. It all stems from a dispute he has had at 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season. I've not been involved in that but I have been involved in a subsequent discussion (which is where the insults were made). GiantSnowman 22:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like 36 hours was warranted, the language was pretty unacceptable and seemed to stem from a very minor dispute. From my experience of the editor it seemed quite out of character so a cooling off period would probably be for the best. To be honest I'm not sure how genuine the requests are given how quickly this seemed to escalate so I declined the speedy of the main space article on the grounds that it was difficult to assume genuine good faith given the way wider related discussions had progressed. Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently a discussion on OTRS regarding this. Amortias (T)(C) 23:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm logging off for the night, will try and come back on tomorrow morning. GiantSnowman 23:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I support the decline of speedy. It's a deletion request - doesn't mean we have to abide by the demand. As all contributions are released under CC BY-SA 3.0, there's no requirement that we abide by a G7 request, only that we consider it. In this case, as 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season is well sourced and is widely linked, I see declining to be perfectly acceptable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the decline. Also we might need to revoke TP access looking at the threats(with or without merit) as it may be they're planning on releasing personal information but I'll leave that to someone with a bit to decide on. Amortias (T)(C) 23:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note, the user is also insisting that User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force be deleted. In all fairness, this template should have been moved to be a subpage of the related Wikiproject long ago. As all edits to Wikipedia are released under CC BY-SA 3.0, they have no ownership of it - but they have the right to disappear and not have the template lingering in their userspace. By moving it to a subpage of the Wikiproject, the users in that project can just update the usage on their userpages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Barek that moving the template is a good idea. BMK (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The userbox was moved by someone else into a subpage of the Wikiproject. So I have updated all of the transclusions to point to the new location, and deleted the redirect from the userspace location. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If anyone needs a wider explanation of my involvement in this, it can be found here. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• A bit of general advice: if you are unsure of a block, it is better to ask for outside input before rather than after blocking. Perhaps what you really wanted to say is, "I made this block and the user might appeal, but I will be away. Feel free to amend as you see fit." Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Do you come here for reassurance, GS? We can pat your hand or something but in the meantime we're down a content contributor who is a human being. What are you doing to ensure content doesn't suffer because of your actions? The reader doesn't care about our conflicts, he wants information, information, information. You have helped ensure he won't get it. Well done (pats hand).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

De-prodder

• 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:F07A:973D:2CFD:EEE6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A1D2:FA71:366F:B03E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This SPA has de-prodded about 20 articles in 15 minutes (as of this moment), the ip has no prior editing history... Vrac (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I know anyone can remove a PROD for any reason, but I think mass-removals like this should be considered vandalism, especially since they haven't justified any of their PROD removals. clpo13_(talk) 01:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I had already asked them on their talk page, but it doesn't look like they're gonna respond. Vrac also reverted one of their edits, and they immediately reverted it without comment. Rchard2scout (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Now they've moved on to adding {{old prod full}} to the articles they removed PRODs from. clpo13_(talk) 01:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This SPA doesn't look much like a SPA. Deprodding has a set of requirements. One of which is giving a reason for your objection either in the summary or on the talk page. Absent this it can't be considered deprodded I feel.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting which says, in part, "You are encouraged, but not required,..." It may be annoying but there is nothing wrong it what they are doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Technically, they're not breaking any rules, but that doesn't really matter. Removing PRODs from such a high number of articles without any explanation is clearly disruptive. And while we're on the subject, I strongly disagree with the fact that an explanation is not required. Just like you can't place a PROD without a reason, you shouldn't be able to remove one without a reason. JDDJS (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 48 hours for disruptive editing. Since the removals of PROD were not in good faith, in my opinion anyone who believes the PRODs were justified can restore them. A brand-new IP who knows how to use the Template:old prod full is presumably a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The user hasn't been active since the question was first put to them. They're clearly an experienced user, but there's no evidence that they're a sock, rather than just a user who doesn't use an account (which is not required). This block is wholly baseless in policy, and appears to be vindictive. The user isn't doing anything, and hasn't been online since questions were first put to them. Absolutely inexcuseable. WilyD 16:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The user did over fifty-prod related edits after the question was put to them and they were informed of this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I was confused by the timestamps in the userpage posts being in a different time-zone from the edit history. My rhetoric in the first place should've been somewhat toned down (although the block is still bad, and re-adding PRODs is still unacceptable.) WilyD 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I remember back when the Prod process was first implemented, a number of editors went around mass deprodding articles because they opposed the entire process itself. Nothing was ever done to those editors dispute repeated reports to ANI as those editors were within their rights dispute any prod. So why should this be any different? What evidence is there that the deprodding wasn't done in good faith? —Farix (t | c) 16:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That thing you describe seems very very WP:POINTy to me, and the fact nothing was done back then doesn't necessarily mean it was right, or that circumstances haven't changed due to the fact that PROD is now a much more established process. LjL (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: While it may seem POINTy at first, the rational for not issuing blocks for mass removes for pods was that it was simpler and less disruptive to start an AfD using the same rational rather than arguing over whether a prod removal was valid or not. Also, a disputed prod is still disputed no matter what the circumstances are. The only exception were cases of pure vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 21:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion explicitly states that even bad faith removal of prod tags is allowed. Any editor who reads Template:Proposed deletion/dated will quickly discover Template:old prod full. I do not see any policy-based reason for this block. —Kusma (t·c) 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Proposed deletion can say what it wants (although condoning things done in bad faith seems like a very strange policy), but how does that make admins suddenly not allowed to block someone who's disrupting Wikipedia in bad faith? WP:Proposed deletion merely states that the template can't be re-added, anyway, not that administrative action can't be taken if it was removed inappropriately. LjL (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One, is the removal of prod tags without giving any reason allowed? Yes. Two, can editors simply ignore good-faith concerns from other editors and simply continue on their way? In my view, no. Some response, however brief, is needed as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've undone the block per objections here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that there is an ARBCOM ruling that says making mass edits against consensus, or when you have reason to know that they are objected to and do not discuss them, is itself disruptive editing. (I would have to search to find the exact ruling.) Other than that, I think TheFarix and Kusma are correct, there is no evidence of socking here, and not much of bad faith, IMO. But that ruling might be the basis of a block. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I note that not so long ago, a user who dePRODded articles in a particular subject area with no explanation or with a clearly spurious explanation, was allowed to continue. The editor disagreed with the applicable SNG and was attempting to disrupt the deletion process to frustrate enforcement of a consensus guideline. If that was OK, there shouldn't be a block here. There is a prehistoric ARBCOM case that said that you could be blocked if enough editors disliked your dePRODding criteria, but that goes back to the days when ARBCOM was infested with sockpuppetteers, impersonators, and other bad actors, and should probably be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think that this shows we need to have a discussion about the current policy dePRODing articles. It does not make sense to even have PROD if an IP address can just massively remove them from articles without offering a reason. You can't PROD an article without a reason, so you shouldn't be able to de-PROD without one. Can somebody steer me in the right direction to start this conversation? JDDJS (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, but I wouldn't be surprised if a similar discussion is buried in the archives. clpo13_(talk) 20:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe the logic of being able to remove PROD tags is that PRODs are supposed to be for uncontroversial deletion. If the deletion is contested, the discussion has to go to AfD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Define "contested" though. One thing is "contesting", as in, being against the deletion of a particular article; another thing is "contesting" the idea itself that articles can be PROD'd; yet another is mass-dePROD'ing likely so that you can grab popcorn and watch admins and others wikilawyer over policy at ANI. LjL (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing PRODs for no reason is usually fine, but mass removing is clearly disruptive. Good block. GiantSnowman 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block- a quick spot check satisfies me that most, if not all, of the deprodded articles are completely hopeless. The IP can not have done any kind of actual evaluation on these articles before deprodding them. This is just pointy nonsense. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps instead of arguing over if the block was legit or not (under current PROD/DEPROD it is clear and unambiguous that no reason is requried to DEPROD at all.) people should do something useful and go change PROD/DEPROD so that it states a De-prodder is required to leave a reason. If you can get consensus for that change, then you will have solved the issue. Then you can all get started on what constitutes a valid reason for deprodding of course... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be much easier and less disruptive to simply start AfDs on the individual articles rather than argue over whether a deprod or series of deprods are legitimate or not. —Farix (t | c) 21:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your statement. The entire purpose of the PROD process is to lessen the burden on editors and admins when it comes to articles that are obviously deleteable. Given how few editors are even involved in AfD discussions these days the burden is even heavier for the few active there. There is nothing "easy" about creating and administrating a significant uptick of unnecessary deletion discussions should one editor take it upon themselves to start stripping the PROD template from articles with no explanation or discernible concerns raised. If there is a loophole allowing for this type of disruption then suggestion the process be reviewed is sensible.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Another IP editor (2602:30A:2EFE:F050:E52A:8C67:E2A2:B864 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has cropped up. This time, they're linking to WP:CONTESTED and notifying the original PRODder. Still removing PRODs faster than they could possibly evaluate the article. clpo13_(talk) 09:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There really isn't anything actionable here. While the prod removals may be seem "unfounded" to some, the editor are well within without the policy to remove them as the prods removals are not blatant vandalism. If an article truly fails the inclusion criteria or WP:NOT, then removing the prod tag merely delays the inevitable instead of preventing it. That really isn't disruptive at all. —Farix (t | c) 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone is spamming the name Gautam Mrinaal in Bollywood pages.

First it started in Prem Ratan Dhan Payo (check my reverts) and the next revert by Peppy Paneer. After that I found it exists in many pages. This is not a website that can be added in spam blacklist.1 2 , All Ips start with 182.66/ range. 3 , 4--The Avengers (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding [5]. The Avengers (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Today , second. --The Avengers (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers, the IP range is way too wide for a rangeblock. The best we can do is block and protect some favorite targets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:AF? DMacks (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User Unbuttered Parsnip

Hello. Unbuttered Parsnip blanked large section of Ryōtarō Okiayu which I reverted on AGF. Despite warnings, he then engaged in edit warring and I cautioned him accordingly. This user has a history of disruptive editing, edit warring and has been blocked previously also. User has a track record of not leaving edit summaries and has been warned several times. His talkpage and it is full of warnings, notices and then hostile comments by the user: here he used term "f**k off. And now, in response to my comment here, he responded with quote "Already stuck this shits in the pan were it be looks...." unquote. Several other aggressive comments can be found on his talkpage. Several edit warring notices have been issued to him but he does not seem to be slowing down. Incidentally, he was attempting to delete filmography from this page in discussion, and in Apr 2015 he was issued a 3RR warning for exactly the same reason (but for Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards). Not only is he abusive, he refuses to learn too. Please check here. This user appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE and his userpage reflects that. Kindly consider a block on this user. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about this edit, I'd consider the removal entirely correct. His language could be better, but it's understandable to occasionally lose your cool when you're trying to uphold Wikipedia standards and someone keeps edit-warring with you. ‑ iridescent 19:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• iridescent, help me understand this. Are we advocating abusive nature of someone (that too with multiple people on several occasions)? I have edited more that him and not once have I abused anyone. What about Wikipedia:Civility? Don't tell me you are encouraging bad behavior? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 20:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

AKS.9955, what is the difference between your edit warring and Unbuttered_Parsnip's edit warring? You both have reverted 3 times now and neither one of you have made a single edit to the article's talk page. You have been warned before about edit warring also. Your response to Unbuttered Parsnip's edit warring warning was wrong. You are edit warring also but your response is that Unbuttered Parsnip was just out for revenge. Take it to the talk page. -- GB fan 20:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are both edit-warring and before I placed a comment on the article talk page, it hadn't been used since 2008. The filmography on this article is ridiculous and needs serious pruning. As for Already stuck this shits in the pan were it be looks, I would not be offended as I find it completely undecipherable gibberish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Even gibberish can be insulting and offensive, Liz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Kumquat allopecia nickoldeon pork sausage hat trick, Kemosabe. BMK (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone revdel this egregious assault? Admins plz. clpo13_(talk) 21:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone revdelete what? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Lemon curry!! BMK (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Morning folks. Here are my final comments on this matter (unless specifically asked for comments by one of the users).

1. Yesterday, whilst working on STiki I reverted a mass blanking with inapt comment that obviously did not support the blanking.
2. User Unbuttered Parsnip reverted the changes without bothering to provide edit summary, leave alone discussing.
3. I again reverted his blanking and issued him two different notices.
4. User ignored both the notices and reverted the changes - again without any edit summary and discussion.
5. I then posted a detailed (and personalized message) on his talkpage, advising him what my objection with his blanking was and what next steps we need to take to perform the edit. If you read here, you will be able to see that I requested him for a discussion and also advised him in advance that I will be reverting the changes so that discussion can take place.
6. I had no intention of bringing this to ANI till I saw his reply here. Upon checking, I noticed that this user has a history of being abusive, not providing edit summaries and engaging in 3RR. I hence opened a discussion here.

What I did not expect was that being non-responsive, hostile, and being abusive will be totally ignored or taken lightly in this forum. This is very discouraging. I have enough experience to understand that edits can be disagreed upon but then there is a civil way to go about it. On similar lines, I had two (other) similar instances yesterday when the original editor reverted the changes made by me but in both cases the myself and editors communicated with reach to a conclusion, which in-turn improved the articles under discussion. See talkpage of ChoudharyPrerna and her comments on my talkpage here. She attempted to update (twice) death of a politician which was reverted by me twice and later when the sources were found, it was me who went and updated the page. Also, please see this (word "shit" was used in the article which was reverted by me originally). In both case, all editors communicated with each other (without being abusive) and discussed the issue (unlike in the case we are discussing where only one party communicated and other abused). If someone gets frustrated so easily and starts abusing, then perhaps that person should not be editing on Wikipedia at all.

Dear GB, you asked for the difference - I hope my reply above explains the difference. WP:3RR looks like a double edged sword to me where the person not erring gets cut more than the person erring. If we are strictly going by number of reverts, then there is no need of 3RR notices and discussions and a bot can simply do the job by issuing notices to anyone reverting any edits 3 times + also block them for sometime. The very reason that does not happen is there is always a different reason behind two people reverting the same edits. Now my point is, rather than blindly looking at the revert count (like a bot), lets please also look at the reason and the approach (plus the abuses) behind the reverts.

In any case (and as I wrote above), the primary reason I opened this discussion was the perennial abusive nature and non-responsiveness of user reported. Whilst we all discuss this here, there is not a word from the user anywhere and ironically there are attempts by senior editors to justify his abusive history & present (and encourage bad behavior).

I thank everyone for their time on this matter. Have a good day / evening. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Talking about non-responsive, have you responded to the substance of the first reply in this thread (by iridescent)? I see the comments about CIVIL and so forth, but what about the substance? By the way, it can be very irritating when someone uses semi-automated tools to revert edits and issue warnings with meaningless edit summaries. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Both of you were erring in your approach. Someone needs to stop the edit warring even if it does not leave it at their preferred version, neither one of you could do that until you both got to three reverts and it ended up here. You say that "there is always a different reason behind two people reverting the same edits", I have to disagree with that. Usually both sides of an edit war have the exact same reason for what they are doing, they think their edits are correct. That appears to be what both of you thought. Neither one of you were correct. As others have said above the material needs pruning, but the edit war was all or nothing, no middle ground, no compromise or discussion on the article's talk page, just warnings and reporting. -- GB fan 13:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hrrmph.(Uninvolved) I'd like to note that Unbuttered Parsnip does seem to have a somewhat disturbing habit of blanketing sections instead of fixing them, apparently without even bothering to check the results. First I had to clean up this one [41], which left the refs in smoking ruins, and now I've just stumbled upon this [42], which just excised the refs altogether. Both of these could easily have been fixed with a little thought, but they decided to just nuke the entire section instead. So yes, I'd suggest some tender criticism might be directed their way.-- Elmidae (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• AKS.9955 (talk · contribs), I understand where you're coming from, but I can't possibly see how you think you're helping by blindly reverting and templating a regular and then reporting them here. This user has difficulty communicating due to a stroke and I can only imagine how frustrating it would be to have to explain why you're removing a bloated, severely-excessive, unsourced bullet-list. As you can see by the current re-work, it needed a complete refactoring and severe pruning just to be acceptably retained. I can't see any particular reason you would jump into this conflict during the course of vandalism patrol, but you're not doing it right. I fail to see where they habitually blank sections. Maybe we can stop harassing them for working productively here. Swarm ♠ 00:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've rebuilt and sourced the filmography. But the complaint still stands that the editor in question has used a WP:BATHWATER approach. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a constructive approach to this edit-warring, AngusWOOF. Your efforts are appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Variety of issues with editing

I had a look at the Fritzl case, checked a few refs and found they all did not contain the info as claimed. I tagged the ones I'd checked as failed verification, and tagged the article accordingly. I left a note on article talk explaining that the refs I'd checked were all wrong, and that I'd marked those before giving up in disgust (this is the worst article I've seen for a long while). User:Harry the Dirty Dog seemed to be the main named editor of the article, so I checked his other contributions. The first two articles I found he'd added text to were pure copyvio [43] and [44]. Then I found that (just minutes later) he'd already removed all of the tags from the (very long) Fritz case article, with the "explanation" on talk diff (edit sum "What exactly is wrong with it?") and diff. This example edit by Harry the dog (reverting an edit) restores wrongly cited info, with the somewhat ironic edit summary "Not what the refs say". I would guess this editor's history needs looking into. Cheers zzz (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I explained on the article TP. You don't tag a whole article because of a couple of duff refs. One of the tags was incorrect. Some refs have multiple pages, e.g this one [45]. You need to click through all the pages before you decide something isn't there. It took a few minutes but I was already going through and fixed the unsupported assertions. If there are any more errors, please tag them or better still fix them. Thanks. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 06:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I just counted, it was five refs that I tagged individually. As I explained on talk, those were just the ones that I happened to check. Not "a couple". zzz (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And two of those tags related to the Spiegel article were incorrect, as the information was on page three of the article. So that leaves three which I have fixed. Feel free to look for more, but as I said, you don't tag a whole article as being factually dubious because of two or three duff refs. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 07:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming (for the sake of argument) you're right that 2 out of the first five refs I randomly checked were actually correct, that indicates a problem: a BLP that is at least 60% wrong. I have no idea why you would remove failed verification tags before correcting the content. As if the tags are the problem. zzz (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No assuming needed. Look more closely at the refs. In any event that's three out of 65 (and one of those, the Spiegel ref, was actually accurate in two of the three instances you tagged). You cannot extrapolate that 60% of all the refs are problematic based on your sampling. As I said on the article's TP, there will inevitably be slippage in refs. Links go dead, and the content of refs can change since they were first used. So it is good to be vigilant. In removing the tags I have fixed the issues that you highlighted. If you find more, either tag them and someone will look at them or better still fix it yourself. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 07:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That is precisely how sampling and extrapolation work. 60%+ out of 65 refs. You do the maths. Tagged refs should at least be fixed before tag removal, without the need for ANI, as a matter of courtesy. The copyvio is another issue: 100% of a sample of your last two content additions. zzz (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I simply restored the article to make it easier to work with. You need a representative sample to make an extrapolation. If you had found problems in all the sections then I would say that is representative, but as I said, a few problems in an article that old is not unusual. To tag a whole article you need to be sure there is a major problem, not extrapolate from a few duff refs that as I say are not uncommon in longer, older articles and I am grateful that you spotted the errors in the refs so they could be fixed.

As for the copyvio claims, there is nothing wrong with using a small part of a ref verbatim (or nearly verbatim) especially when you are quoting a public statement that is itself quoted in the ref. And I wonder how you can claim that:

In July 2015 Asker was found guilty on all charge and was sentenced to over four years in prison and ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution. The other four pleaded guilty. Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Two franchisees were given prison sentences and a third received three years probation.

is a copyvio of:

Happy Asker, president and founder of the Farmington Hills-based Happy’s Pizza chain, was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison Friday and ordered to pay $2.5 million restitution for tax fraud. Asker, 38, of West Bloomfield was convicted of more than two dozen crimes, including filing false federal individual tax returns aiding and assisting the filing of false returns and engaging in a corrupt endeavor to obstruct and impede the IRS code. Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Yaldo, a franchisee, was sentenced to 18 months and ordered to pay $314,078. Summa, also a franchisee, was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay $199,847. Tagrid Bashi, a franchise owner, was sentenced to three years’ probation.

The one sentence that is verbatim a) comes under fair use and b) is simply a statement of facts. My addition is otherwise a rewrite of what the source says. But again, if you feel that the whole sntence is a copyvio, why not just rewrite that one sentence rather than a wholesale removal of sourced information that is pertinent to the article. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 08:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

First diff:

Your text: "On 24 October Talk Talk issued a statement saying that the amount of customers’ financial information stolen by hackers was “materially lower” than first thought and would not allow money to be taken from bank accounts."

Ref:"Firm says customer data stolen ‘materially lower’ than thought and would not allow money to be taken from bank accounts"

Second diff:

Your text: "In July 2015 Asker was found guilty on all charge and was sentenced to over four years in prison and ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution."

Ref: "...was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison Friday and ordered to pay $2.5 million restitution"

Followed by:

Your text: " Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Two franchisees were given prison sentences and a third received three years probation."

Ref: "Maher Bashi, the pizza chain’s chief operating officer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay $620,297. Yaldo, a franchisee, was sentenced to 18 months and ordered to pay $314,078." zzz (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Talk Talk quote is from a public statement so perfectly OK to use. The Happy Pizza addition is a fundamental rewrite of the source with one small part quoted verbatim, as shown above in the block quotes. As I say, both fall under fair use as they comprise a tiny part of the text in the ref. If you disagree, rewrite the text rather than deleting wholesale sourced pertinent information. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 08:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with all of what you just said. I disagree with everything you've said, in fact, here and on the article talk page. These are just your last two content additions, I haven't checked any more. I'll leave this for admins to look at. zzz (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this strait. You found two edits that may have copyright issues on one article and a possible source issue on another. So instead of fixing the issue, then opening a talk page section saying you fixed it, and explaining the problem, you open up an AN/I section? I will point out on the Happy pizza talk page there is not one discussion. [46] On the Fritzl page you made one comment and when the other party responded, nothing from you. [47] Looks like a fish is headed your way. AlbinoFerret 16:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• I should have been more specific: I'll leave this here for administrators and not AlbinoFerret to look into. zzz (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community commonly respond to sections here. I am uninvolved with either of you or the topic. But we will wait for others to chime in. AlbinoFerret 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Uninvolved": 24 October 2015, 25 October 2015. (This page, this week) zzz (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I didnt know you made those posts. They happened long after I stopped paying attention to that section. AlbinoFerret 19:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you opened a new section and then immediately stopped paying attention to it. Fair enough. zzz (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The section was just getting out of hand, and looking at it now, the lack of community involvement shows that I was right. AlbinoFerret 21:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly confused what "The Talk Talk quote is from a public statement so perfectly OK to use" means. The fact that something is a "public statement" doesn't mean it was released under a free licence that is compatible with the CC. If it isn't under a free licence that is compatible with the CC, then copyright concerns arise. (And even if it is, you need to make sure you comply with any possible terms, such as attribution.). If copyright concerns arise, then you need to be very careful with copying verbatim. If you believe the content can't be reworded, while it may sometimes be acceptable to leave it, you should consider whether direct quotation is a better alternative. Note that whether or not the content comes from a public statement or something else is not that relevant to copyright concerns. If you didn't already know any of this, you probably should take a more careful read of our copyright policies and guidelines, and any parts you don't properly understand, try asking somewhere appropriate. 19:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A public statement is de facto in the public domain. Also many articles use small parts of the source verbatim. You cannot copyright facts. I am sure that somewhere you can find a source that says "Barack Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States". That does not preclude the Wikipedia article from using exactly those words. Because it's a fact. And fair use: "Non-free content can be used on Wikipedia in certain cases (for example, in some situations where acquiring a freely licensed image for a particular subject is not possible), but only within the United States legal doctrine of fair use, and in accordance with Wikipedia's own non-free content criteria as set out below." wp:Non-free content

In the Happy Pizza example I have shown how I created a substantial rewrite of the source text. A single phrase appeared as it did in the source, but it was a factual statement. In the Talk Talk article, as I said, because what was quoted was a de facto in the public domain as a public statement, the same way an open letter is, I saw no problem using it. In any event, both cases were very minor excerpts from the sources and easily covered under fair use/no copyright over facts.

My concern is that having identified what he believed to be copvios zzz simply deleted sourced content that was pertinent to the article and opened this AN/I rather than fixing it and/or contacting me or putting a note on the article talk page. In the mean time, I have fixed what people feel is a copyvio and in future I will put all such direct quotes from sources in quotes if there is no practical way of rewording the text. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 19:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Those two flagrant copyvios above are just your last two additions to articles (I have no idea how many more there are). Apparently you don't recognise them as copyvios, and you expect others (me) with no interest in the subject to "rewrite the text rather than deleting". zzz (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As noted, Wikipedia does allow for use of non-free content, including fair use which I believed this falls under. You disagree. I have no particular interest in either Talk Talk or Happy Pizza but in reading the articles I saw gaps that needed filling and sought refs in the interest of building an encyclopaedia. If you didn't feel like fixing it, a note on my TP saying "Hey, I think there is a copyvio in what you added to that article" would have been a lot more constructive (and collaborative) than simply removing a block of text and returning the article to a different kind of unsatisfactory state. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. "Hey, I think there is a copyvio in what you added". I suggest you go back through all your contributions and fix them. Unless you think they are all "fair use", of course, in which I suppose case someone else will have to. Or failing that, just delete them. zzz (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• General comments: A public statement is not automatically assumed to be in the public domain. If it was delivered from prepared remarks, then there's a copyright on the sheet he read from, and if you watched a recording of the statement, there's a copyright on the recording. It is true that you cannot copyright facts, but if a factual statement has creative elements of presentation, which can include word choice and word order, then the statement can itself have a copyright. Since WP's copyright policy is deliberately tighter than copyright law, the best approach to take is to assume anything is copyrighted unless you can find a positive release under a free license. Crow^Caw 20:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough but under Wikipedia policy an article will only be deleted "if substantial content is duplicated". That means it is acceptable for a small portion to be duplicated when re-writing would result in convoluted prose. Credit is given by citing the source. As noted the problem phrases have been rewritten to alleviate the concerns and I will be more careful in future. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 21:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Out of the edit "On 24 October Talk Talk issued a statement saying that the amount of customers’ financial information stolen by hackers was “materially lower” than first thought and would not allow money to be taken from bank accounts.", the 2-word phrase “materially lower” is a direct quote from a public statement, and is fine. The remainder is just words copied verbatim from an article in The Guardian. zzz (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Yes, the article will only be deleted if there is so much copyvio that it is unsalvageable. And also yes, if the content cannot be worded any other way without venturing into absurdity, that suggests that the text in question was not creatively worded. "A is the first letter of the alphabet." Not much you can do there. "Among all letters, only the majestic A stands alone atop the list." Well.... you get the idea! I do agree with ZZZ that the Talk Talk statement could have been paraphrased without losing any meaning, and equally without extraneous circumlocution. Crow^Caw 21:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Granted but in the context of both the Wikipedia article and the Guardian article that phrase does not constitute "substantial" duplicated content. WP:Non-free content only prohibits "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts". So it is acceptable to quote verbatim. My mistake was not to put it all in quotes. As noted, I have now rectified this. The Happy Pizza excerpt is clearly a substantial rewrite of the sources with one factual statement which I didn't bother to rewrite as fair use. Again fixed. As I said, this hardly needed an AN/I. A simple heads up from an editor who felt I had not sufficiently respected copyright on a given edit would have been sufficient. I am sure that if any admin has any other problems with my specific edits they will let me know. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 21:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

When discussing whether someone is a regular copyright violator or nor, often the best method is to look at some large article contributions they made, obviously. So, looking at Harry the Dirty Dog's contributions, I noticed this from 30 September.

Added text:

"Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham on 28 September 2015 referring to Saudi media reports that say have no official record on the entry of Ghazanfar Asl Roknabadi to the kingdom, described the reports as "incorrect" and "hasty", saying the ministry has documents showing that Riyadh had approved an ordinary Hajj visa for the missing diplomat."

Source ([48] given in the article):

"Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham on Monday described as “incorrect” and "hasty" reports claiming that Saudi authorities have no official record on the entry of Ghazanfar Asl Roknabadi to the kingdom for performing Hajj rituals, saying the ministry has documents showing that Riyadh had approved an ordinary Hajj visa for the missing diplomat."

A clear and obvious copyright violation. The fact that they added the source indicates that this is probably more caused by not understanding our copyright rules and/or laziness, and not malice. A final warning to change their approach to using texts is sufficient. Fram (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I clearly changed the word order there, but again facts are facts. so of course there may be the odd matching phrase, as the phrases used in the source are the best way of stating those facts, and are indeed quotes. I doubt you'll find many longer Wikipedia articles that don't have some matching phrases from sources. It's pretty unambiguous that "have no official record on the entry of Ghazanfar Asl Roknabadi to the kingdom for performing Hajj rituals, saying the ministry has documents showing that Riyadh had approved an ordinary Hajj visa for the missing diplomat." is a quote not from the source but from the ministry spokesman, so if it is a copyvio here then it is a copyvio in the original source. In any event I have now rewritten it a bit to show good faith. We all work in a hurry sometimes and we have lazy moments (as the editor who opened this AN/I did when he didn't read sources properly and decided that they didn't support what was in the article on at least two occasions when they actually did) so it's good that other editors are vigilant. As I said, I will put such future quotation in quote marks to ensure that they are not seen as copyvio. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 11:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Probable trolling

User:Jamiebijania has a history of leaving nonsensical notes and warnings on people's talk pages (I got one before in 2011), and s/he appears to be at it again: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]). It may also worth checking if this user is a sock; I've been back on Wikipedia for only a week, and am surprised to again be this user's first target. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not quite sure what to make of it. WP:AGF seems to be unclear, as is WP:DEADHORSE, but giving someone a barnstar can hardly be called trolling. WP:NOTHERE is not applicable, since the users history includes quite a lot of useful contributions. All that remains are two (civil) requests top refrain from vandalism, which is odd, since there's no history of that, but not really actionable. Simply ignoring him/her seems the best policy. Kleuske (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the user previously received a 48-hour block for leaving fake warnings on others' talk pages, and then created a sock to continue doing so. But s/he appears to have gone silent following this report so perhaps no action is needed until their next appearance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jamiebijania has a strong history of trolling, as such, it surprises me that User:Khazar2 is making a mountain out of a molehill. Apologies, grain of sand into a mountain. This user has also made several constructive additions and edits to Wikipedia, and has made no unconstructive edits to Wikipedia pages for a period of 5 years. Jamiebijania (talk)

Jamiebijania, the positive contributions you made between your last block for trolling and this round of trolling are appreciated. That said, I'd appreciate it if you didn't ping me again or post further on my talk page; we don't seem to have any real business with each other, so let's just get back to building an encyclopedia... -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Khazar2, thank you for your kind words. Here's wishing you and your family good health and a great year ahead. Would like to award you a barnstar one day. Jamiebijania (talk)

User:TX6785 appears obsessed

A quick look at Special:Contributions/TX6785 will show a pattern that can be considered unusual at best. When asked about his obsession with creating redirects to Schutzstaffel, TX6785 responded by querying whether there was a limit on the number of redirects. Now, I know that redirects are cheap, but this seems excessive, and might simply be a ploy to up his edit count. Most of the redirects appear to be rather useless. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's where you and I disagree. I think they are all plausible search queries. We're talking about the most notorious organization that ever existed. Could you please give an example of one that is "useless"? You didn't really talk much on my page before resorting to a report. - TX6785 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@TX6785: To pick just one, I'd go with Heinrich Himler's Nazi Shutsztafel. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Himmler was sort of the head of it. I think that a German surname and a German name are often misspelled in the English-speaking world when searching for the most notorious of organizations. - TX6785 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@TX6785: I find it extremely unlikely that a user would search for an article about the Schutzstaffel under the specific search term "Heinrich Himmler's Schutztafel". And if they did, lacking a redirect, Wikipedia's search function would very likely suggest Schutzstaffel as the first result anyway. You can argue all you want for the usefulness of these redirects, but with the excessive number, it just looks like your gaming the system for some reason. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the user asked for the limit to the number of redirects to one article, the answer is 586. The user has created 587. (Seriously, this is really excessive and not constructive.) General Ization ^Talk 19:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There was an editor last week who had created over 200 redirects to the article they were working on...I thought that was a record but I guess not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the third episode I have seen this week about redirects that include every conceivable phonetic, grammatical or typographical combination of linking. I'm thinking that WP:Redirect could do with some additional guidance and explanation about how the search system picks up the vast majority. Nthep (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This, Special:Contributions/TX6785, is really insane. I think it's crazy to have that many redirects. Can they be mass-nominated to RfD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: It's not clear that the redirects need to be deleted. As pointed out at WP:CHEAP, a deleted redirect actually takes up more disk space than an existing redirect. I just think TX's motives need to be examined in creating so many redirects. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that TX is highly misguided. Firstly, as a corollary to Assume good faith we should not assume that our readers are idiots and that we need to predict and accommodate every possible misconstruction of a search term, or that this accommodation is really helpful in the long term versus using consistent naming conventions and training new users how to search properly. Secondly, even the correctly spelled "Heinrich Himmler's Nazi Schutzstaffel" makes it sound almost like a theatrical production (think "Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine" or "Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles") rather than the murderous criminal organization it was. I think this is highly unencyclopaedic. General Ization ^Talk 20:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's a lot but at least we aren't seeing "Heimlich" for "Heinrich". JohnInDC (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That's actually one redirect I might support (though not with this target), but even without it if you search for "Heimlich Himmler" the correct article Schutzstaffel is the first listed in the results (though currently by way of one of TX's redirects). General Ization ^Talk 20:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A look at User:TX6785/sandbox indicates that TX has many more redirects in mind before they're done. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• This behavior is nearly identical to another recent user. Compare: [54] Crow^Caw 21:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It reminded me of this case, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Programmatic_Media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: In what way did it remind you of that other case. I see no similarities. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably in that the editor there had created a couple / three hundred redirects to that one page. JohnInDC (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, JohnInDC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've now cleaned up their excess redirects to the best of my ability, leaving articles and plausible redirects alone. -- The Anome (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• User:TX6785 has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyrusThomas4lyf/Archive. Rgrds. —64.85.216.248 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

CFCF gaming changes to MEDRS guideline

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

CFCF (talk · contribs) took it upon themselves to edit the guideline towards their preferred interpretation[55][56] while discussion on this exact issue was ongoing, and consensus was completely unclear. I have asked him to self-revert these changes,[57][58] to which he has not responded.

He has, however, since gone on to quote the text he had just changed[59] in support of his position in a content dispute at Talk:Domestic_violence_against_men#Wikipedia_policy. Per WP:TALKFIRST this should be considered WP:GAMING. I am not asking for any specific outcome, but my hope is that greater attention from the community will at least convince CFCF that he may not act unilaterally in this matter. Rhoark (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The change from medical to biomedical was made in July of this year and seems to have snuck under the radar [60]. The recent changes were merely restoration to the original interpretation of policy, and are not intended to do anything beyond clarify the position of the guideline. Of note is that the essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information has been present in the lede for the entire duration of this discussion. Consensus is clear, and I have responded to requests by this user by stating that the changes are fully due and supported. Multiple discussions can be found, notably at WT:MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 18:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, With respect, the change in July was from medical to biomedical[61]; the change made in this edit[62] is from biomedical to biomedical and health - a significant expansion on the scope in July - and the locus of the current dispute referred to by Rhoark above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, I invite editors to examine the differences[63] between the July version & the most current. I note numerous removal of biomedical, and corresponding insertion of health where it was not present in July. Given that "health" is being proposed to cover all aspects of public health, not simply "medical information", I suggest that this is a sufficient expansion of scope. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call for administrator intervention

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

User:Aj8815647

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

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

Disruptive editing and further harassment by user Iryna Harpy

User Iryna Harpy (IH) [64] has made this disruptive edit here [65].

User IH has also continued to harass me by falsely claiming that I was engaged in soapboxing here [66] when I was not, and also falsely claiming that my talk page edit was not within the Wikipedia talk page guidelines here [67] when it was within those guidelines. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything disruptive in the first two edits, nor in the warning. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're calling user IH's edit to my talk page falsely accusing me of not being within talk page guidelines a "warning" then that explains why you're also not seeing "anything disruptive" in their first two edits.96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the edit made by the OP that started this sequence: [68] GAB^Hello! 22:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

96.24.75.223, talk pages should be focused on ways of improving Wikipedia content and not used as a forum or for soapboxing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz:, I was using that talk page for improving Wikipedia content and not as a forum or for soapboxing.96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, I think the IP was objecting in their original edit to what they saw as a "disimprovement" of the article by inclusion of the content they mentioned. I don't agree, for the reasons explained by another editor in the linked Talk page discussion, but even so I think the accusation of soapboxing by the IP is misplaced. However, I don't see that the IP has made any real effort to discuss with IH and I don't think there is really any issue to be dealt with here at ANI.General Ization ^Talk 23:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

removing a tag is arguably less disruptive than inserting a POV tag without much justification. Legacypac (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac:I specified the necessary justification on the talk page. Removing a POV tag without much justification is disruptive.96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

General Ization, you don't think this is soapboxing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I think the IP was objecting to what they thought (mistakenly) was soapboxing by another editor. General Ization ^Talk 23:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: So can you explain objectively how you think this is soapboxing?96.24.75.223 (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that the editor has actively edited the article before (see this, this, this, this, this and this labouring under the illusion that their changes made to the content were WP:NPOV), I find myself unable to assume good faith to a piece of WP:ADVOCACY posted on the article's talk page and trying to turn this into a personal vendetta against me immediately after a two week block for being disruptive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What is are "alleged Palestinians" in those edits? Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked for an objective explanation of the accusations against me, I got back a new bucket-load of accusations. This is not how Wikipedia should work.96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Please note that the IP is carrying on a vendetta against me as I was responsible for a WP:BOOMERANG coming back at them after a previous ANI accusing me of harassment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It is true that I have been blocked by various admins sympathetic to IH in retaliation for my previous ANI report regarding IH. However, IH was not really responsible for that block, as it would not have happened if Wikipedia had enough fair and honest admins. I was actually glad I was blocked, as that only exposed the proliferation of biased Wikipedia admins. I do not have a personal vendetta against IH, just against their harassment, which is mildly annoying. The biased admins are the much more serious problem, and I'm doing this as part of my research project into the viability of Wikipedia as an unbiased source of information and how its systems could be improved to minimize bias.96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Would that be your own independent project? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has repeatedly been shown as a poor source of accurate information. It should be treated as only a starting point for finding good information. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

For IP 96.24.75.223's edification, it's known as WP:WINARS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

IP, my problem with that explanation is that if you are engaged in any kind of scholarly research project, you do not engage in activities (such as posting on the Talk page, and here) that have the potential to influence the results of your study. If you are engaged in a study, you are doing it the wrong way. General Ization ^Talk 00:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call IP's edits soapboxing per se (that to me would entail much more verbiage) but there's little doubt they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If it keeps up, a WP:ARBPIA topic ban would be more than warranted. Rhoark (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In all honesty, given the IP's editing history, I believed myself to be courteously assuming good faith when I left the simple missive under his/her comment on the article's talk page, plus left a gently worded template on their talk page. I don't know how the comment can be read as being constructive as it's an assertion that the article is evil and the product of calculated bias that no one should trust in any shape or form. If the comment isn't intended as a call to arms against corrupt content, I'm stumped as to how it's designed to improve the article.

As regards the IP's research project, I don't of any institution that would even consider such methodology for gleaning data viable. No Ethics Board would give it so much as a look in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't read through this entire thread, but I'm having a bit of a deja vu. Less than a month ago the same IP brought Iryna to ANI over the exact same article. Drmies ended up blocking that IP for two weeks. Is the IP a glutton for punishment? Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The IP has basically admitted they are not here to build an encyclopedia. They are here to experiment with editing, gather some sort of damning evidence about Wikipedia, soapbox and edit war over their preferred POV version of one article, and argue endlessly on talk pages and noticeboards. Out of approximately 43 edits, I see exactly three NPOV edits to article-space. I think it's pretty obvious this disruption has got to be stopped somehow. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow! The more I try to defend myself against all these unfounded accusations, the more they are trying to twist my own words to use them against me and to throw more dirt at me. They are obviously not here to be fair. They are accusing me of not being here to legitimately contribute, but their own hollow arguments show that whatever they contributed to, it wasn't to the articles about the Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials, or the Communist purges. Maybe these people are good at fixing punctuation, but it is yet another tragedy that they ended up as admins. Thinking about how many more "witches" these "do-gooders" will burn at the stake before they're finally stripped of their power makes me angry. And any other decent person out there should be angry too.96.24.75.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that Softlavender (the person you replied to)) is not an administrator, but they do appear to be an experienced and trusted editor. See User list. --  Kethrus |talk to me  21:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kethrus for the observation regarding the fact that Softlavender is, indeed, a long time, trusted and respected editor. In fact, all of the editors who have commented here are long time, experienced, trusted editors (possibly myself included). For the purposes of this ANI, however, the issue at stake is that the IP has demonstrated ongoing behavioural patterns identifying their POV editing as being WP:NOTHERE. This is someone who adopts a battleground approach towards anyone who deigns to revert their WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because their only objective is to WP:WIN.

How many more times is this IP going to tell us that Wikipedia is corrupt; that admins are agenda-driven conspirators; that s/he is suffering at the hands of corrupt bullies and fools? I think Rhoark has hit the nail on the head with his suggestion of any repetition/continuance of this behaviour as meriting a WP:ARBPIA block. In the meantime, I think it would be wise for someone to pop an ARBPIA notification template on their user talk in case they're not aware that their area of 'interest' falls under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I would have done so myself were I not convinced that the IP would overreact to anything instigated by me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Rhoark (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDHT

Having a problem at the Kyle Abbott (The Young and the Restless) page. User:MrKing84 really likes that character and is known for coming to the page whenever he logs on to wikipedia and, if he doesn't like something, regardless of being told where the conversation happened that what he doesn't like is the correct way, he just reverts and reverts until we end up here or somewhere else.

His newest thing is not liking the characters last name in the photo caption:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

It's silly, really, but... it's not going to end. That page has had to deal with him before.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done, especially since MrKing84's talk page contains related warnings from various other ediots. But Cebr1979, be careful; both of you have exceeded WP:3RR. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we haven't.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have two reverts for today, one from two days ago, and, prior to that, I hadn't been to that page since July.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't "really like" the character. I made edits to this character's page in the past because his last name needed to be updated and a few other editors (Cebr1979 being one of them) for whatever reason didn't what the characters last name to be updated. After a long process, the name was updated because of Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy. Now Cebr1979 for whatever reason seems to have a bad attitude (from looking at his history he's attacked other editors and left snide remarks on the talk pages of other editors), and now tells me I have "a problem" apparently and that I need to "deal with it." Now I ask is this the proper and civil way for an editor to act? Telling another editor that they have "a problem" and they should just "deal with it" (it being Cebr1979's edit). Cebr1979 is attempting to cite some "decision" made on some other page. But he gave no link to the page where this "decision" was made. I went to Talk:Phyllis Summers and found no discussion about the name underneath a picture on another character's page. Plus if you look at the picture itself it is listed as "Garrett_Ryan_as_Kyle.jpg". So the picture in dispute here doesn't even have the character's last name on it. --MrKing84 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you go to that page's talk page, I was actually on your side for the whole last name thing and... what a picture is named, does not a caption make (and you know that). If you go to the page's edit history, I also agreed with you about the caption. However, a decision was made and we have to live with it... including you. That's just how things work.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It was in the Phyllis edit history, not the talk page (and if you really wanted to know that, you could've asked). Go look. It's right there.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You said "the Phyllis page" not "the Phyllis edit history". How am I supposed to know what you're talking about? When somebody says go look at a discussion on a page on Wikipedia, it's only natural to think that this discussion happened on the talk page. But why is it even necessary to have the last name in the picture's caption? Especially considering there was much dispute about the character's last name as a child when Garrett Ryan was playing the role. --MrKing84 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a content dispute with you. The fact is, others have deemed it necessary and just because you don't like that, doesn't mean you get to throw your edit wars around and try to make the page your way. Can I go put it back now and we can call this done or do you need this to be dragged out longer?Cebr1979 (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2015

There is nothing in that discussion about the character's name in the caption of the picture. Which is why we are here. That discussion is about the relevance of the photo itself. Again that discussion says nothing about why the caption on the picture must have the last name and not just the first name. So I will be reverting it back, just so you know. Again there is no discussion about the character's last name being part of the picture's caption. Which is what the problem (and a ridiculous one at that) we have here. --MrKing84 (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. Guess I spoke too soon about you giving up. The edit summaries at both the Phyllis and the Kyle pages state, "caption should match the common-name to avoid confusion within article."Cebr1979 (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother looking at pages and pages of edit summaries on the Phyllis page, it's irreverent and they are two different characters with two different histories. The edit summaries on the page at issue here say nothing about picture captions last names. Now when it comes right down to it, to "avoid confusion within the article" the picture of Garrett Ryan should be removed from the article all together. There is no reason for it to be there anymore anyway. And the discussion on that only ended on the talk page because the editors on the page who wanted to get rid of the Ryan picture dropped out of the discussion. But we can continue that discussion about that (removing the Ryan photo) over there as well. You know, in an effort to avoid confusion within the article. --MrKing84 (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There are no "pages and pages" of anything: you're just being difficult because you don't want to look. Here and here. Both were easy to find, I even gave you what to control-F to get to them. As for your starting over a conversation just 'cause you think it's gonna upset me, go ahead. There were no "editors" who wanted to get rid of the picture: there was one. Myself and the other one both agreed the picture should stay... and we both still will. But, if you wanna go and start something just 'cause you're mad that I won't let you continue to own the page (like always), start it. It'll end... again. And please don't re-hash this "it doesn't say anything about the last name" nonsense... it says it should match the common name and the common name has the last name. You know that.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the only one here making this personal (for whatever reason). You're constantly referring to me, but this has nothing to do with me. I will say though that your personal attacks and snide remarks against the posters at Wikipedia should really stop. You appear to be the only person around here that takes edits that you don't like personal. It would probably be in your best interest to relax and take your personal feelings out of your edits. For someone who is accusing somebody else of trying to "own the page", maybe you should ask yourself if that is what you are trying to do. --MrKing84 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to be asking myself anything. I'm stopping you from having your way because your way isn't the right way. It's time to drop it.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again this isn't about me, or about somebody "having their way" as you put it. No you are making this too personal and attacking another editor (again). The only thing those links you provided show is you in an edit war with another editor (again). It doesn't show any official Wikipedia policy. You can't really cite a previous edit war you were involved in as a reason why the last name should be listed in a picture's caption. Nothing in those two links gives a reason why the last name has to be in the caption. Your own words are not a credible source.--MrKing84 (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhm... first of all: there was no edit war between me and anyone else? I agreed with that other editor once he explained himself. It's you who now doesn't agree. Second of all: you really need to read Wikipedia:Consensus, especially this section where it states: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." When myself and that other editor came to an agreement while editing, we reached a consensus on the matter. Your edits have been disputed. So... I actually can "really cite a previous edit I was involved in as a reason why the last name should be listed in a picture's caption." Everything "in those two links gives a reason why the last name has to be in the caption." Like I said, it's time to drop this.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

See what you are not getting is those previous disputes you are trying to use as examples do not apply here. Which last name (Jenkins or Abbott) is not what is at issue here. The reasoning as to why the last name is needed in the caption at all, is what is at issue. You continuing to bring up that "consensus" you had with that other editor has nothing to do with the topic here. There is no reason why the character's last name has to be in the caption. The character's first name is sufficient. Just like the first name is sufficient in the Hartley Sawyer caption. Again just to make in clear for you, unlike in the Phyllis edit history and Kyle edit history you cited. The issue is not what the characters last name is (that's been resolved). The issue is the relevance of the the last name being in the caption. --MrKing84 (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Here you go with more of your "*insert whatever suits you today* doesn't apply heres." Everything always applies and you've been told that before. I've never said anything about the Jenkins last name. I've told you what the current consensus is and the current consensus is that the caption should include the common name and the common name is Kyle Abbott. First and last name. Quit changing things to make the conversation say what you want it to say. The only one "not getting" anything: is you.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You really need to stop with the personal attacks. It's really uncalled for. I can't explain it any better than I already have. Nothing you have shown is a real Wikipedia policy stating that a picture's caption has to have the last name in it. Kyle is his common name. Believe me I know the common name policy. I was the one saying it was the reason the page's title should be changed. When you and others disagreed. His common name is Kyle and that is in the picture's caption. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There have been no personal attacks. You're attempting to create sympathy by attempting to create drama. It's an old tactic and most see through it. I've shown you what the current consensus is and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus is reached. I've also mentioned stopping with the "nothing you have shown is a real Wikipedia policy stating that a picture's caption has to have the last name in it" nonsense. I've shown you what the caption consensus is and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus is reached... making it a real wikipedia policy. Couldn't be more real, in fact. I've also stated you need to quit changing things to make the conversation say what you want it to say. You haven't, though. You're still doing it.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No attacks? "Stop doing that! This discussion was had at the Phyllis page. You weren't a part of it, that's your problem" also A decision was made, deal with it. So those are the condescending remarks. Your constant claims that I'm trying to do this or that are attacks. I've said before that this is not about me, but yet you continue to try to imply that I'm trying to "own the page". That isn't necessary. Now you are trying to say I'm am trying to create "sympathy" for myself. That is just a ludicrous accusation and is beyond ridiculous. Why would I even care if somebody here had sympathy for me. You are REALLY making this way too personal and I wish you would stop. The consensus you and the other person came to was which last name was the correct one, NOT whether it belonged in the picture caption. It's just not there no matter how many times you want to claim that it is. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going around in circles with you. I've shown you two different links where the current consensus for photo captions is to use the character's common name. I'll show you again: here it states "Captions should mirror the common-name for consistency" and here it states "caption should match the common-name" and I've shown you where it states that is how a consensus by editing is reached. A consensus that you are refusing to follow because you don't think you have to which is an example (a BIG example) of attempting to own a page.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes and as I've said before that you came to consensus on which last name was the common name (Jenkins vs. Abbott). NOT on whether the common name was "Kyle Abbott or Kyle". THAT is the problem here. The common name is in the caption. But there is no reason why it is relevant to have the last name in the caption. There is no dispute over the common name being in the caption. The dispute is over whether the last name is required and needed in the caption. The last name is neither required or needed. This is not me "changing the conversation," that is what I've been saying from the very beginning. I've been consistent on this from the beginning of all this. --MrKing84 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to ask: Are you trolling? Is that what's happening here because there's no way a reasonable editor could be making these arguments you're making. What the character's last name is... whether it's Jenkins or Abbott... is not what we're discussing. That's not what we were discussing when we were discussing photo captions. That's not what was being discussed in the consensus links I gave you. His common name is Kyle Abbott. We know that. You spearheaded that campaign! The consensus for photo captions is to use the character's common name and the character's common name is KYLE ABBOTT! First and last name!!!! I have said that... I don't even know how many times now??? Do not make a personal attack claim, that's not what I'm doing. I legitimately want to know: are you trolling? Because there just is no way a reasonable editor could continue making these ridiculous statements! I show you this, I show you that, and you just come back with nonsense. Every time. I'm just at a loss. You say, "there is no reason why it is relevant to have the last name in the caption..." The last name is part of the common name and the common name needs to be the caption! You answered your own question and then you still come back with nonsense! Cebr1979 (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No from looking at some other edits you've made, you appear to just like to argue with people and try to use Wikipedia as a forum to do so. Now you want to imply that I'm trolling. Really? I've been here for almost 10 years, but apparently I've just been a troll in reality and waited 10 years to become one. As I've said before and I'll say it once again, there are multiple articles all over Wikipedia where the last name is NOT in picture captions (like in the Hartley Sawyer picture for example). So once again, there is not a policy that states that the last name must be in a person's/character's picture's caption. I don't know how you can't understand that after all this. This is beyond ridiculous now. --MrKing84 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you've been here ten years, you should know that what happens at one page can't be used to influence another. I've shown you the Kyle Abbott photo caption consensus. That's what it is. It applies. It's real. And I'm not going around in circles with you. I've shown you everything you need to see. Everything. So continue on with your "such and such doesn't apply here" and whatever else. I've shown you everything. That's it.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You have shown nothing but the discussion about which last name was the correct one NOT if the last name needs to be there at all. You just want to argue (yet again) that is really what this is all about. You can talk about that "consensus" all day, and I will continue to point out there is nothing in there that says the last name needs to be in there. Kyle is his common name. Other pictures (on that article and many others all across Wikipedia) have just the person or character's first name. You just want to make a big deal out of keeping the last name in there.--MrKing84 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

K, so it's been a half hour and he's disappeared so I'm gonna go put it back (which still won't put me past the 3RR, Erpert) and I think this can just get closed (hopefully not) until next time.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeking indef ban of User:Second Dark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What consensus?[69][70]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jobrot wants Second Dark banned for adding a POV tag here.[71][72][73][74][75] That is the "disrupting", "not here", "disinterest in community, policy and consensus" etc that Jobrot refers to. Adding a POV tag to a POV dispute. Again, recommend BOOMERANG. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Main page: Frankfurt School Talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main article: NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive edits by User:Walter Görlitz

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

1234

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MariaJaydHicky's sneaky IP or user behavior

The banned user is possibly from the UK as on the talk page of Beyoncé: Platinum Edition which posted by his/her sockpuppet user Rihanna-RiRi-fan. He/she contributed four years so far and focused on Mariah Carey, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Jennifer Lopez, Kanye West (notably 808s & Heartbreak), Stevie Wonder (notably Hotter than July), and others. His/her currents IP was 86.158.65.115. Has everyone call the police or lawyers? If he/she would release from bail (and again, and again...), may the same behavior repeatedly. 123.136.111.27 (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I was following you until the last two sentences; what are you talking about there? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Implied legal threat by 24.235.196.182

24.235.196.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Made an implied legal threat on their talk page. Anon stated here s/he is a paid employee and a student at Trent University and is editing the Trent article. (The edits I reverted as unsourced.) Hence my COI / Paid editor notice on the Anon's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

So where is the NLT, violation? John from Idegon (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see a legal threat. Can you provide a diff? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The "My mother is a lawyer so I understand fraud"[76] part is what Jim1138 is probably referring to. Right? I can see how that could be construed to be a possible implied legal threat, but it doesn't seem like an actual threat to me. Doc talk 10:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's a legal threat, then since my dad's a mechanic, I'm going to win the Indy 500. John from Idegon (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Borderline. Context would be important. Like if he's responding to someone saying he doesn't know what fraud is - vs. - if he's claiming someone else is committing fraud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I was also getting rather upset by the Anon's apparent misinterpreting most of my fumbling advise or whatever you might call it. Jim1138 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the IP's attempt to censor this section[77] is probably sufficient reason to give him the boot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Re creation of Vadym Troyan

This time by Konsyltant (talk · contribs). BLP page is aka Troyan Vadym (WP:SALTED), Trojan VADIM and TROYAN Vadym , maybe others.

• LOLI-ANA111 (talk · contribs) (blocked for sockpuppetry) created one version, and
• Иванов Олександр (talk · contribs) has been indeffed for recreating this page under several variant of the current name.
• Lilka 777 (talk · contribs) also recreated it.

FYI. 220 of ^Borg 09:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: I have taken the article to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vadym Troyan) to be able to use G4 for any future name variations after it's deletion.--Crystallized C (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:RHaworth saying redirect creation is not constructive

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

---

I recently created a series of redirects which could have been seen as implausible, which I have stopped doing. RHaworth deleted several of these, without tellimg me which ones, and replied a day later to my queries telling me to look at his deletion log, which I do not know how to do. He is now telling me to stop creating redirects completely. I failed to notice the section in WP:Redirect which says not to create redirects. Frankly I haven't got time to waste on this and am unsure of how to deal with such blatant misconduct from an administrator who refuses to cooperate. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Frankly I haven't got time to waste on this", but creating ~30 redirects per article isn't wasted time, gotcha. To check an admin's deletion log, visit their contributions page, and click "logs" right at the top. It works for any user but for an admin it'll list deletions as well. For the admin in question, here is their log history, here is it filtered to show only deletions. If any of them seem like actual misconduct, do come back. GRAPPLE ^X 13:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Thanks for the links. He told me, specifically, not to create redirects. In what way is that correct? Furthermore, creating redirects clearly improves the encyclopedia. When constructive contributors are insulted, mocked and never thanked it's no wonder so many of them leave. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I find this admin's attitude to be nothing more than appalling. He's very bitey and terse. Here's a previous encounter I've had with him recently. Looking at his RfA this was done more than 10 years ago when the threshold for admins was much, much lower. It's not up to him to judge if your redirect is worthy or not or telling you to "find something more constructive to do". We have redirects for deletion if any of them need a challenge. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It is unaccceptable to tell somebody not to create redirects. Where is the part in WP:redirect that says "Do not create redirects"? Perhaps he should delete every redirect on Wikipedia. Fair enough deleting implausible ones, though. There's no "Oh, but thanks anyway for all the work you put in here for hours every day". Again, I see why people leave, and unprofessional, insulting responses like Grapple X's aren't helping. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Without evidence, there's no way for anyone to informatively opine on this. Excessive redirects can be misleading, obtrusive, spammy, prejudicial, etc. I've definitely seem all of the above happen. So please provide a list of which redirects were deleted, and what they were re-directing to. And provide diffs or links of the various pertinent communications to and from RHaworth. These are all things that are required for an ANI filing. Softlavender (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I don't disagree with the deletions. In this diff, Rhaworth says I should stop creating redirects. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The redirects were List of people called Nancy Sullivan, List of people called Nancy, List of people called Albert Thomas, List of people called Frank White and List of people called James Robinson Junior, as far as I can see. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if those were redirects, I agree they should have been deleted, per what RHaworth said in the conversation on their talk page which you still haven't linked to (you haven't even linked the username for us). And I happened to count the redirects you've created recently -- approximately 4,000 in the past 30 days alone, which does seen extremely excessive and downright unnecessary and potentially problematic. So if I were you I'd take a self-imposed break (aka voluntary topic ban) from creating redirects for the foreseeable future. I think that would solve everyone's problems/issues. Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, here is your own deleted contributions, which will show the redirects (and any other edit you have made) that has since been deleted. As to the "Please stop creating redirects" comment, I don't read that as a command or order from RHaworth, but as a rather strongly worded request to cease creating unnecessary redirects. As Softlavender notes, you have created an excessive number of redirects, most of which carry negligible value. For example, six distinct redirects to Tim Collins (baseball). Not a single one of which was necessary or aids navigation, and would only create a lot of clean-up work if a second notable baseball player named Tim Collins were to arrive - as instead of modifying one page title to improve disambiguation, we would instead have to modify seven. I would personally ask that you take a step back and contemplate whether it is useful to create redirects to any permutation of a dab you can think of. Resolute 13:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Small note to Resolute: Only admins with their magic glasses can see what's on that page of deleted contributions. Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Umm, I knew that too. BRB, need more coffee. Resolute 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Short answer RubbishComp is that no other admin will step up to say anything bad about Haworth. You'll be made to look like the bad person in this and this will be closed faster than you can say Cumbrian taxi driver on a shooting spree. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Long answer is that I (and other admins) have a long history of saying bad things about other admins when they deserve it, but not simply to please another editor. Fram (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Now go and close the thread. Chop, chop. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Will they even give RHaworth a chance to talk here? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, as I fully expect the token "closed" box any moment now. You're basically wasting your time. The admins wont allow you to bad mouth another of their kind. Haworth is in need of some social skills, but no other admin will even bother addressing this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: "Stop creating redirects and do something more constructive". Absolutely no way of twisting the meaning of that, and closing the discussion will never change that, although this activity does drive away constructive contributors in their droves, and with reason. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't want you to "say bad things about RHaworth", as such. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects should be logical and unbiased. In particular, they should be things that people are likely to enter in the search box. Most of the redirects I've created (which aren't many) are alternate spellings of words that I'm more likely to use. "List of people called Nancy Sullivan" is not likely to be a phrase someone would just come up with out of thin air. More likely they would simply enter "Nancy Sullivan" in the search box, and be led either to a unique Nancy Sullivan or to a disambiguation page for multiple Nancy Sullivans. "List of people called Nancy" is not even an appropriate article, let alone a redirect, as there are gazillions of Nancys. There is an article Nancy which discusses the name in general, and which might have a few notables named Nancy. Redirects are fine, but there needs to be some reasonableness behind a given redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, he didn't say that redirect creation is not constructive, he said that your redirect creation is not the most constructive to do. When you create about 37 redirects to Tim Collins (British Army officer), 26 to Tim Collins (politician), and so on, then you shouldn't be surprised when people start asking questions and don't believe this to be constructive. Most of these aren't needed, as the search box (or internet searches) will pick up the right result long before you are at the end of your search string, while other ones are highly unlikely anyway (like Tim WG Collins CBE, he doesn't seem to ever be adressed or mentioned as Tim WG Collins). Fram (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::"Stop creating redirects" does not mean "stop creating unnecessary redirects" or "be more careful about creating redirects: make sure you avoid implausible typos", it means "Stop creating redirects", and no way of twisting it changes its meaning. As I have said before, which resulted in an administrator openly mocking and insulting me here, rules do not appear to apply to administrators; it seems they can single-handedly decide Wikipedia policy> I suggest Fram Resolute Softlavender RHaworth you open a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Redirect, proposing that no redirects be created and all existing redirects be deleted, which is exactly what you are all implying. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Or, maybe, just maybe, it was a direct request for the person being addressed (you) to stop creating redirects, not for the project as a whole to stop. Or is hyperbole definitely the order of the day here? GRAPPLE ^X 14:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, I see the point about having to modify redirects but I already categorise existing redirects as I find them and create disambiguation pages where they are needed. In case you are wondering, I just go to Special:Random and go to a dab if the title disambiguates. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Rubbish computer, that is not what we are implying. Please take a step back from all of this and answer me a question: Why are you creating up to 37 redirects to individual articles? I don't think any of us - even RHaworth - is actually saying "don't create any redirects", but we are asking you to consider whether the redirects you do create is valuable. As basic examples, creating a redirect like "2015-16 foo season" to point to "2015–16 foo season" is useful, since few readers are going to type in the endash. Creating a redirect that points a person's name without diacritics to the version with diacritics is useful. Redirecting "Tim Doe" to "Timothy Doe" if they are referred to as "Tim" is useful. And if you created such redirects, nobody would have a problem. But the issue that Rhaworth identified and which a few of us here agree is that your creation of dozens of redirects to single articles covering every remote permutation of a search term, disambiguation, post-nominal, etc, is only going to create unnecessary work. It's not a good use of your time, and it will only increase maintenance. Resolute 14:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what I think RHaworth is asking, and certainly what I would ask, is this: if you can't make a better distinction between useful redirects and redirect overkill, then it would be best in your case to stop creating redirects alltogether and stick to more constructive edits. No "everyone should stop creating redirects", not even "all you redirects are unconstructive", just that the signal-to-noise ratio of them is unsatisfactory. Oh, and "drop the stick" is not a personal attack. "Trolling" is an uncivil way to describe your editing and could better be kept for the real trolls though. Fram (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Resolute for talking sense and responding professionally and politely. While this may not be what you are implying, it is exactly what Rhaworth said, which you cannot change the meaning of. Thanks, though, I will refine my redirect creation to the more likely search terms. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: As an example, for 2004-05 Foo seaston, would Foo Season 2004-05, Foo Season, 2004-05, Foo Season of 2004-05 and foo Seasn (2004-05) be plausible redirects, and if not which would and which wouldn't? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have to ask, you probably know the answer already. Resolute's comment above is an excellent summation of my opinion on this. -- The Anome (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

None of those would be necessary in my view. In all of those examples (I used variants of "2004-05" and "Calgary Flames season"), the search engine produced the correct article high up the results list. In general, I would suggest limiting redirect creation to the most common spelling issues, which I outlined above. We don't really need a "Calgary Flames season, 2004-05" redirect, even if there is a slim chance that some singular reader might choose to use that search term. The search results page will capture those really extreme searches. Resolute 16:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Rubbish computer, I personally don't think you're taking on board what some people are trying to say or point out here. It's not just those "List" redirects that were problematical. I (and others) don't believe that the majority of the 4,000 redirects that you created in the past 30 days were either helpful, necessary, or appropriate. And they are potentially problematic for various reasons even beyond those already mentioned here. You seem to be a capable Wikipedia editor. I for one feel that your skills can be much better used doing something other than creating unnecessary redirects. At best it's starting to feel like blatant WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, which you seem to admit to on your userpage. For instance, yesterday you created four redirects to I Want to Spill the Blood of a Hippy, which couldn't possibly even need one redirect. I'm concerned that if you do not modify your behavior and change course that you will be hit with a boomerang here, which would be unfortunate and uncomfortable. Better to be proactive and prove that you can edit Wikipedia productively doing something else. Softlavender (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Amen. I suggest to you that you should drop the WP:STICK now. -- The Anome (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And admins throwing (pardon the pun) the boomerang card. Ladies and gents, we have the full set. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Lugnuts expressing anti-admin sentiment part of the set?--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If combined with a low-level lurker's sycophancy, then, yes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No shortage of sycophants if you are the cut-off point.--Atlan (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. There was really no need for The Anome to chip in with a personal attack when I was asking for clarification. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack?--Atlan (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Atlan: I consider "drop the stick" to be a personal attack, as regardless of how respected the essay is it is clearly an insult. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Drop the stick" is not an attack, personal or otherwise. It's merely good advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of WP:GOAD, to which I will not be replying.--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This case seems eerily similar to the case I opened above about User:TX6875. There seems to be a rash of users creating mass quantities of redirects lately. Is this a new way to troll Wikipedia? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: Are you seriously calling me a troll? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: I'm saying it's odd that there are three simultaneous cases open at WP:ANI all involving excessive creation of redirects. An odd coincidence. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. I've just mass-deleted User:TX6785's redirect farm. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- The Anome (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @WikiDan61: I blame the obsession with an edit count, as if the sole purpose of Wikipedia is to "score" as high as possible. It's not a viewpoint I personally subscribe to, but it is one which has begun to affect me. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears Rubbish Computer has retired from editing, at least for now. I've cleaned up the most implausible of their most recent redirects, hopefully leaving all the more reasonable ones in place. As far as I can tell, they were editing in good faith, and genuinely thought they were helping. But we can't inflate the database with every possible conceivable redirect. -- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, well done, admins! Big pat on the back to all of you. And a big fuck you to WP:AGF! We couldn't have done it without you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You do realise that OP was just as willing to throw AGF out the window as anyone else here, don't you? GRAPPLE ^X 15:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Anome, in the 11 months since Rubbish Computer started editing he/she has created 16,516 redirects. I would imagine most of them went under the radar, e.g. The January 2014 Rawalpindi suicide bombing. Like that one, there are literally hundreds of them which simply added "The" to the names of various entities, buildings, and even people. It's a pity it wasn't noticed sooner, as some friendly advice several months ago might have prevented it getting out of hand. Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap, I didn't even know there was a counter. Thanks for that, VDT. That's nearly half his edit count. Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I can have a look at tidying some of the worst ones of those up, but it would be a massive effort to track down and delete every single one by hand without over-deleting. Which is one of the reasons why creating them was such a bad idea. -- The Anome (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Anome, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Programmatic_Media, specifically, all of the redirects to Programmatic media? I've already deleted the most implausible but I don't think 197 redirects to an article that is at AfD is warranted. I think there were originally around 230 redirects to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Anome, it's definitely one of the reasons why creating them was such a bad idea, and I don't think its worth trying to fix Rubbish Computer's redirects, frankly. I was just pointing out the scale of the problem which only came to light now. In most cases, they also created talk pages for each redirect and redirected them as well, doubling the work. Voceditenore (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Guys, Rubbish computer is (was?) a new-ish editor but one of our most active at redirects for discussion; it's natural that they take (took?) an interest in creating redirects. If some of them were inappropriate, well sometimes that's what happens with inexperience, the best you can do is learn from it and carry on. We can try to educate the user to do better, or we can come down on them like a ton of bricks until they get pissed off and leave. Which one do you think we did here? Hint: [78]

Regarding RHaworth, if you have even a basic look at his user page you can see he deals with a lot of angry, clueless users whose pages he's deleted for perfectly sound reasons, who come to him to whine about it. His page is busy enough, and the arguments always weak enough, that I don't blame him for being short with most of those users. Especially when they're rude to him in the first place.

And regarding the redirects, yes the advice is not to needlessly create them, but equally once they are created not to needlessly delete them, because someone may find them useful even if you don't; Wikipedians browse in different ways. If you'd like to mass-list them at RfD, we're happy to offer opinions. Indeed it's pretty much all we do.

Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Much as I loathe this website and hate to come back at all, I can't just sit and let false accusations be made about me yet again. I redirected the talk pages of about 5 redirects: I also never added "The" in front of a person's name. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe Voceditenore was referring to your creating lots of "The Reverend" and "The Honorable" redirects, plus adding "The" to some animal names. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Softlavender, that's what I was referring to. As for the talk page redirects, my sincere apologies, Rubbish computer. There were only about five that were previously red-linked. I should have checked this list much more carefully. Voceditenore (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually Voceditenore I was just getting angry with you about nothing. Sorry! --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the redirects, but Ivanvector, this is a user with over four times as many edits as you, who as of yesterday was the 1416th most active editor in Wikipedia's entire history. When in your view does someone stop being a new user? ‑ iridescent 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Never. We're all n00bs. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Rather, we're all at a point of experience where we can occasionally benefit from an assumption of cluelessness. If anyone has interpreted "new-ish" as an insult I will happily re-word. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: You are completely right. I simply think I didn't get taught which redirects were and weren't valid, which I should have asked about.

If I ask here I'll be accused of not "dropping the stick", an excellent non-argument to avoid helping anyone involved in a dispute. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Guess who's back? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very glad about that, Rubbish computer. It would have been a pity to lose you over a kerfuffle like this. Voceditenore (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Thanks: I'm kind of addicted now. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Anome (Plz don't bite me) Is this okay? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well is it? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it is totally superfluous. If you type "Spring Township" into the search box, the fourth entry in the dropdown list is Spring Township, Boone County, Illinois; no-one in their right mind would continue after that to type the full name with brackets rather than commas. RolandR (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that you should quit creating redirects altogether, and find some other, more productive, way to contribute. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect spam - why is this suddenly popular?

Right now, there are three open incidents on AN/I involving large numbers of redirects:

• WP:AN/I#Programmatic Media
• WP:AN/I#User:TX6785 appears obsessed
• WP:AN/I#User:RHaworth saying redirect creation is not constructive (this issue)

This hasn't been a common problem in the past. Is there some commonality here? All three incidents are in totally different areas; it's not subject-matter related. Is there some new tool for creating bulk redirects? John Nagle (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

With my cynical hat on, I'd say this is the likely suspect. Redirects aren't counted, but I suspect a lot of people don't realise that. ‑ iridescent 20:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, God, no. The 5M page can't be a redirect. They aren't counted, are they? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's clear either way it's a form of editcountitis. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal: I'm going to request again that Rubbish computer take or agree to a voluntary topic ban from creating redirects. This has obviously gotten way out of hand and it's very clear he lacks perspective on it. If he does not voluntarily agree to this, I think we are going to need to come to a community-agreed-upon sanction. As I mentioned before, RC is a skilled and valued Wikipedia editor, and it's clear he can do a variety of things on WP besides create redirects. In fact, I have to say from personal experience that the more varied one's editing gets, the more rewarding time spent on Wikipedia becomes. Perhaps mentorship from someone, if desired, might also give him ideas and increase his awareness of the options open to him. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Yes, I will stop making them. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 01:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: "Skilled and valuable Wikipedia editor" Utter poppycock, token weasel words. I apparently lack perspective now, and need mentoring, as well as being called a troll, a spammer (thanks Nagle!) and somebody who needs to do something constructive (by an admin, the irony.) Why don't you push to get me blocked, along with everyone else with "editcountitis"? --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 02:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What did I do to cause you all to have a grudge against me? --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 02:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the link to WP:NOE with "DO MOAR EDITTINGG" piped over it was a light-hearted joke; apparently everything on my user page is going to be put under a microscope as evidence. Perhaps you'd like to search my other WMF user pages? Or Uncyclopedia, I've got an account there: why don't you make up a reason to get me blocked there as well? --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 02:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this reaction came from, or why you are assuming bad faith. Yes, you lack perspective on redirects, but you have editing skills and I've seen you do good work elsewhere. Thank you for agreeing to avoid creating new redirects. Yes, it's aggravating and painful when our wiki editing gets challenged or corrected (we've all been there, believe me), but no one here has assumed bad faith about you; we're just trying to do what's best for the project. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Apologies, everyone else assumes bad faith, especially in the entire of the above thread about me. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 02:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I realize you are frustrated, I would be too; however you're taking words out of context and misinterpreted people's meaning and intention. "Redirect-spam" is just a shorthand for mass redirects; it obviously does not and could not refer to spam as it's usually meant. Perhaps redirect-cruft would convey the meaning better but I guess it doesn't have the ring of massive excess that is happening lately around redirects. Everyone on this thread agrees that mass unwarranted creation of redirects is not constructive and is in fact the reverse. And nobody has called you a troll; WikiDan explained that. Please try to get perspective on terms that are being thrown around as slang and not specifically referring to you -- this thread has turned into a discussion of a site-wide problem concerning redirects. Yes, it's dreadfully painful when a thread on ANI starts to boomerang, and I can understand your venting .... however no one has or has shown any ill-will towards you or assumed bad faith. We've all had to adjust our editing behaviors regularly ... join the club. Best of luck, Softlavender (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish, I suggest you listen to Softlavender. You're going to fall into ANI's vicious circle: the more people accuse you of being disruptive, the angrier you get; the angrier you get, the more disruptive you get called. The only way to escape it is to walk away. You said you won't create mass redirects any more. That's good enough for me. I don't think we need a formal topic ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Leaving this discussion per WP:GOAD: it is safe to say I now have a more thorough understanding of what kind of "enyclopedia" this really is. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 03:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has been so stressful for you. Though the redirects don't strike me as particularly useful, I think you're a constructive editor who creates articles in good faith, and I don't think a boomerang should have been brought against you. But, seriously, no more about cabals, please. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop trying to perpetuate the discussion. --Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 06:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Issue with user behavior

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

---

I've encountered an issue with Some Gadget Geek (talk · contribs), and would appreciate someone else trying to resolve. To the best of my knowledge, my only direct interaction with the user has been in my userspace. I ask that another editor notify the user of this ANI discussion - I have no interest in continued contact with them myself.

It began with their placing a templated warning with a snarky addition at the end on my user page (I had reverted vandalism, but not warned the IP as I viewed it as stale - all this can be read in my discussion with the user at User talk:Barek#October 2015). After a brief discussion, I finally posted on my user page "stop posting to pages in my userspace - any further edits by you to this page will be reverted". (emphasis added here).

They stopped posting to my main talk page, but then edited my alternate talk page - which I reverted stating that further such action would be reported as harassment. They then edited that alternate talk page again (again reverted), as well as blanking User:Barek/index2 - a page that is no longer linked from anywhere (until this very post) - meaning they had to be actively searching my userspace or past edits just to find it (the text they blanked was added in February 2012 and simply read "blanked - no longer used" because Wikimedia software prevented me from deleting the page due to the long edit history on it - a restriction that no longer exists, so I deleted the page today).

The other user needs to drop the stick - leave my user-space, and just move on with other editing activities. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done: notified user for you Barek samtar ^{t} 15:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I commend your self-control in not blocking or TP-warning the user outright. Perhaps if he comes here with a distinct promise to avoid your userspace altogether he will avoid that fate. Softlavender (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Browsed their talkpage. They have a history of less than constructive edits to other editors userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And it continues ... my browser bookmark opens a page showing edits in my userspace. When I opened the page a few minutes ago, I saw the disruptive behavior continues.

Well after being notified of this ANI thread - Some Gadget Geek managed to find another page in my userspace which is not publicly linked in any way (User:Barek/index1‎) and this time tagged it for deletion (I do not want it deleted at this time).

I do not know why the user is obsessed with me and my userspace - but they need a serious talking to, if not a block for harassment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: I was just informed that about two hours prior to their most recent edit within my userspace, both Liz and samtar had posted at User talk:Some Gadget Geek#AN/I and had attempted to assist the user in understanding the issues brought up at this ANI thread. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have given @Some Gadget Geek: a 48 hour block so they can consider their talk page messages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Myo007 violation of WP:V

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

---

User:Myo007 edited the article Visa requirements for Australian citizens. He added some unsourced information (diff) and I thought it's just an ordinary troll (as the Visa requirement articles are under immense pressure by trolls and vandals) so I undid the edit because there were no sources provided. But he reinserted the information (diff) saying that he has "been to these countries". As that had shown me he has zero understanding of the WP:V I reverted for the second time but this time I tried to give a lengthier explanation and I also posted one of those welcome-warning templates on adding to the articles without a verifiable published source on his talk page. He didn't get the message but just added the information that lacks a source once again (diff).

I can't act on this anymore or else I would violate the 3RR rule so I seek administrator intervention. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Might be one for WP:AIV as disruptive editing? samtar ^{t} 18:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I assumed the user had been warned multiple times and continued. samtar ^{t} 18:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Australians can enter into Singapore with Visit pass for 90 Days, that's is true. 2. Myanmar Business Visa on Arrival or eVisa Business both 70 Days are also true.

• • Those Cites web links all are from Government websites, those are immigration Laws that currently Legal and easy to find out reliable and verifiable sources.
  • I did NOT violate anything in editing except i point out the truths about entry Laws and also that is not a troll but i just helping people with on good faiths only. If you won't accept it then be it , i won't edit that again and it is unfair to brought the matter here and complaining things and clearly wrong accusations.

i showed you one government website on each is enough and more info pls find yourself.

On Singapore visit pass: that's from Australian Government site from Australian High Commission for Singapore Look at below on the page at: http://singapore.embassy.gov.au/sing/home.html

it has mentioned that Australian passport holders do not usually require a visa for visits to Singapore of up to 90 days.

It is by Subject to Immigration Regulation . 12 (7) of Singapore Immigration Law that's Australian passport holders are entitled to get Visit pass for 90 Days on each entry, it will be just stamped but no sticker unless one was granted eIACS then (30 Days limit on each Visit)

I have been entry into Singapore for 8 times already with Aus passport and same type of pass each issued for 90 Days.

Depend on government and immigration policies , Laws may be changed time by time, those are up to date Law today and current happening.

For Myanmar Visa issue:

http://mecanberra.com.au/visa-on-arrival

That's announced from Myanmar Embassy at Canberra, Australia, those arrival Business Visas are really issue 70 Days for each entry. Those are real strong evidences, do you have any Cite better than mentioned from Government websites?

You can discuss in talk page for the matter if you have an issue until meet true answers and solutions and don't bring this Admin page for unnecessary without having proper researched about those Laws, everyone has to share their previous times for that act and we have things to do too.

Australians can have 90 Days Visit Pass to Singapore, that's truthful information.

It is really unfair to accuse me for violation and warned for my editing, it was just good faiths editing and helping.

• I will not Edit that article again. Myo007 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Below are more about 90 Days Social visit Infos if you want more reliable cities.

https://www.austrade.gov.au/Australian/Export/Export-markets/Countries/Singapore/Visiting/Visas http://www.expatarrivals.com/singapore/visas-for-singapore http://www.ausbt.com.au/how-to-get-fast-track-passport-clearance-at-singapore-s-changi-airport

Please note both Australia and Singapore are commonwealth countries, normally rich commonwealth each other easier to enter and longer stay permit granted more than 30 Days and we have good Diplomatic relationship ties, also a lot of Australia products are transporting into Singapore, Australia is one of major overseas trade country, As per Visa waver program for Australian passport Social visit pass 90 Days is current ongoing Law and also as being special there has been introduced with eIACS pass system for Australian passport holders already.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/how-to-get-fast-track-passport-clearance-at-singapore-s-changi-airport On above link: " As you can see on that page as together with photo for both 90 Days visit pass stamp as well as eIACS pass stamp after that". The Stamps Photo and web link are clearly shown for solid evidence by proving that with Australian passport can remain as 90 Days.

You can see the stamp as " PERMITTED TO ENTER AND REMAIN IN SINGAPORE FOR NINETY DAYS FOR SOCIAL VISIT ONLY FROM DATE SHOWN ABOVE. "

• • Note: He must have been 3 times visited in within 12 months then he was eligible to apply eIACS pass and then he went to apply eIACS in same day after entry and it will valid for 2 year once granted but entering with eIACS from another gate only limit to 30 days in each entry. And the one who wants 90 Days pass then go for normal long queue in Changi airport and get it.

As for Myanmar Visa it was direct proved from Myanmar Embassy, Canberra site so you no need to seek any further for cite.

• • • Please remove that warning notice from my talk page since i did all with good faiths and good soul to share knowledge on people.

I have been proved enough verifiable sources as per above. Myo007 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Portals & Templates

Portals & Templates (talk · contribs), an account created today, has repeatedly (four times) reverted my edits on Portal:Rihanna and Portal:Rihanna/Topics. I have told the user multiple times to discuss the issue instead of edit warring, but so far this user has refused to discuss. This account does not look like a WP:NOOB. Admittedly I am new to portal editing, but I looked at portal guidelines and did not find anything opposing the use of navboxes (correct me if I am wrong), and this portal is seriously out of date (looks like circa 2010). What should be done in this situation? sst✈^discuss 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Templates do not belong in Portal sections. That is what templates are for. Don't believe me, check out other portal topics. Changing it back as above editor needs consensus for brand new changes like this. --Portals & Templates (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been here 4 years and didn't know that. One has to be curious as to how you got here today and do. John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to point to an existing policy, I would see the use of the template as beneficial more than detrimental, as it means changes to it are reflected in the portal automatically, stopping the latter from growing outdated. GRAPPLE ^X 19:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If this is what the community wants, go ahead and undo my edit then. I will not interfere on the matter anymore. --Portals & Templates (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)--Portals & Templates (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ßlaïsi Furstqurzel

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

---

I've indefblocked ßlaïsi Furstqurzel (talk · contribs) without giving a warning, in light of this edit and the fact that the entire contributions of Special:Contributions/ßlaïsi_Furstqurzel consists of trolling. If anyone thinks this is out-of-process, feel free to undo it. ‑ iridescent 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Jumping right to WP:RFA as a new account? I'm curious who's sock this is. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As Huon said in an unblock request response: "Obvious troll is obvious". Good block. BMK (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Rkaplan

Rkaplan (talk · contribs) insists on adding a pseudonymous ("Tyler Durden") blog post as a source to Elizabeth Holmes, in addition to his/her personal commentary on why that source should be considered acceptable.

The user previously made similar changes from three different IP addresses (not sockpuppetry: the user has acknowledged that it's him/her). I undid the change, citing WP:BLP and WP:RS issues. But s/he is bent on adding the content back.

I'm posting this here, because of the WP:INVOLVE / edit warring concerns; and also because this is a combination of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:OR issues (not sure which of these noticeboards should I select; posted at WP:RSN, but no response there).

Can someone please intervene?

utcursch | talk 22:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions on how to edit this more neutrally. Wiki rules ask that references be reputable "in context." The problem is that the usual "credible" financial references (Forbes, WSJ, Bloomberg) may have made a huge error - WSJ itself broke the story about potential fraud at Theranos. In that context, a hedge fund analysist is a valid quote - that may be the canary that hints Theranos is another Enron. How do we include that information in the Wiki article? It's a truly valid viewpoint that should be possible to share. rkaplan | talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a long article on this subject in the New York Times yesterday, "The Narrative Frays for Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes".[79], and another in the Washington Post today.[80] Using those as a source, rather than something from a blog, would be a clear improvement. Both Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos might be tagged with a "current event" template; this is an ongoing story with active press coverage in major media. As for the net worth issue, Forbes gave a figure for a moment in time, and that's cited. Next year, that figure might be quite different. Remember WP:NOTNEWS; we don't have to track a controversy day by day. (I looked at this from a WP:COIN perspective, but this doesn't look like PR spin control. If you're getting intensive press coverage in the NYT. WSJ, and Washington Post, Wikipedia editing is somewhat irrelevant.) John Nagle (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the article already includes that NYT link as a reference. It also cites WSJ to say that the valuation is questionable.

But Rkaplan is not happy with that. S/he is bent on mentioning "$0" as a possible valuation, citing ZeroHedge as a source (actually even ZeroHedge doesn't mention $0 as the valuation; it says the investors will not invest any more money in Theranos whether it's valuation is $9 billion or $0).

Anyway, I've received a couple of responses at WP:RSN, and they all agree that this is not an acceptable source, especially for a BLP. utcursch | talk 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review this block of a teacher

This block I did was considered "ludicrous" by another editor. The user Wangenra (talk · contribs), whom I blocked is a teacher who periodically makes test edits to show her students how easy it is to vandalize Wikipedia, and she states she will do so again. I've explained and I stand by my block, but perhaps I'm being a bit draconian. Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am the other editor named above. Her stated reason was to show students why Wikipedia is unreliable. I had engaged her prior to the block to direct her to other uses of Wikipedia in the classroom. Think that will go far now? There are better ways to handle the situation. Valfontis should have engaged her, although I am not convinced Valfontis's position reflects the values of the community. I am asking for an immediate reversal of the block. This block does not do anything to advance Wikipedia in the world, nor does it do anything to protect Wikipedia. It is worth noting that the only page she has ever done this on is the page of the high school that employs her. Her statement that she had the principal's permission is a bit troubling, but that would have been better dealt with with words, not buttons. John from Idegon (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What stops her from showing them what she did before? Doing it live seems a bit dramatic. Maybe refer her to the people who oversee the school and university programs and let her have it out with them? Not saying one way or another whether an unblock immediately is a good reason, but certainly if she agrees to be guided by their advice, no need for a block after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here are Wangenra's contribs. This would normally be considered a vandalism-only account. It may also be a case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Does WP:AGF cover exceptions to these guidelines or is there another one? Valfontis (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

She can still appeal her block. Also, she was templated with welcome, warning and {{welcome teacher}} back in the spring, so it's not like she lacked info about this. Valfontis (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good block - she has taught them how easy it is to vandalize, and has taught them what the consequences are. Vrac (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block - She can be unblocked when she agrees to stop disrupting live articles. - MrX 23:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Has anybody bothered to get in touch with the school itself to notify them that an instructor is disrupting Wikipedia as part of their curriculum, and that it is not acceptable at all? --w^{L<speak·check>} 23:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The WMF has paid employees, who have official status. Suggest they deal with school bureaucracy, they might be listened to, whereas we might not be.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone has made her a sandbox copy of the school article. I'd absolutely support an unblock if she agrees to use that instead. Valfontis (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. But ball is in her court. The school does not own its Wikipedia article. We cannot have her doing this on a live article. I'd rather she did not teach kids to vandalize Wikipedia, a teacher doing it sends a certain message I don't like. A school for vandal we do not need.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. Only edits are disruption to prove a point, no indication of being here to write an encyclopedia. If the teacher wants to show how easy it is to vandalize then they can also teach that the result is getting blocked. The teacher can asked to be unblocked once they agree not to disrupt out project. HighInBC 23:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I support the block. Teachers vandalizing Wikipedia to "prove" that it's unreliable is highly counter-productive, and it can't be said to be in good faith. GAB^Hello! 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think she should be unblocked. She has done it only on the article about her school, and each time she reverted herself within a minute. There's no harm done. Sarah ^(talk) 00:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• This looks like "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point", and begs for a block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wangenra is a teacher at Aloha High School. At issue are eight edits she has made since May 2014 to the article about the school. She changed some names and reverted herself within a minute to show the children how easy it is to edit, and distort, Wikipedia (see her explanation here). What matters is that she's immediately undoing the edits, she's not doing it often, and she's sticking to that page only. I can't see why we would need to interfere. Sarah ^(talk) 01:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Getting blocked also teaches the kiddies something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand SlimVirgin's point, but intentional breaching experiments are still not acceptable, particularly when the user indicates an intention to continue. Still, I think an indef block is too much for 8 edits. A week, or perhaps a month, with a warning that repetition of such edits would result in a longer block, would be sufficient. I urge modifying the block, plus an attempt to engage on this user's talk page. DES ^(talk) 01:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If Wangenra agree to use the provided Sandbox? then we should unblock. Otherwise, keep blocked. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I support keeping the block until this editor makes an unambiguous promise to stop vandalizing encyclopedia articles forever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel, I regularly see new accounts or IPs vandalize and immediately revert themselves. Someone is experimenting, dipping their toes in the water. Of Wangenra's eight edits within 18 months, only four were "vandalism" and the others self-reverts. There's no reason to block her. Sarah ^(talk) 02:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Superb block. If the teacher wants to demonstrate the potential for vandalism on Wikipedia, there are thousands of available page revisions available to support her point. Vandalizing Wikipedia herself is both disruptive to the project and a bad example, verging on academic dishonesty, to her students. If vandalism is as much a problem as she seems to be saying, there should be (and, in fact, is) ample evidence available for her to draw attention to. There is absolutely no excuse for her to be creating more of it. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Bad block. Thiskind of thing happens dozens if not hundreds of times a day, by actual vandals who want to get their preferred text into article history so they can show it off to their friends, or embarass people they don't like. 99+% of the time, nothing gets done about it. Blocking somebody whose purpose is legitimate, whose statements are honest, and who inflicts no more than utterly trivial damage just makes Wikipedia look like an idiots' game to reasonable outsiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

Is she here to build an encyclopedia? And showing kids how easy it is to vandalize (presumably as part of a lesson, don't use or rely on Wikipedia) is an incomplete lesson because we more and more efficiently react to vandalism. Exhibit A.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, she was showing the children how easy it is for anyone to change text and insert false material. Not only how easy it is to vandalize, but how easy it is to create something that looks authoritative. That's a lesson in critical thinking, not a lesson in vandalism. Sarah ^(talk) 02:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

At the teenage level, the difference may be purely, er, academic. We have channels through which Wikipedia may legitimately be used for education. There is some chance a reader may happen on it at that moment and rely on it. She needs to work through us. It's our playground.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

At what point did using Wikipedia for legitimate educational purposes without getting permission in advance become a blockable offense? Doesn't blocking someone under WP:DISRUPT require some likelihood of actual disruption, if not actual disruption? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, she chose the school article and inserted her own name as principal. [81] That's not something a casual reader is likely to rely on in those 60 seconds. If it were a BLP or high-traffic article, I'd accept your "someone might rely on it" point. But this is too minor, and was only done four times in 18 months. Valfontis, it would have been better to let her get on with it, or simply ask her to stop. Sarah ^(talk) 05:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've lessened my block to one week. I'd like to know that she understands why she was blocked before lifting it sooner, but I won't contest a consensus to unblock here. Valfontis (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that what this teacher was doing fits with the spirit but not the letter of WP:IAR. Isn't that ironic? Anyway - unreasonable block. Rhoark (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is ridiculous; If the lesson to be taught here is we're collectively a bunch of self righteous assholes, this is the way to go about it. Of course test edits aren't allowed, but it's hardly a crisis that couldn't stand some action -- actual human interaction / conversation, for example, as opposed to robotic template messages. Did it ever occur to ya'll that "test edit" isn't exactly standard English and it may not have been registering that's what the wiki-jargon templates were yakking about? Or explain why permission from her principal isn't applicable here? So let's lessen the block to zero and actual like real world human beings. NE Ent 03:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please try to understand this.....she was not teaching kids how to vandalize. She was demonstrating the inherent unreliability in Wikipedia. There is a huge difference. AGF??? I see little here. Look anywhere above this section. We can debate for three weeks and not figure out what to do about something that is obviously a problem, but for this non problem, we block in two seconds flat, in the midst of an uninvolved editor trying to work with her. This is appalling. That this could even be a debate is massively disappointing. John from Idegon (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she was teaching kids how to vandalize, whether it was intentional or not. And a block teaches the lesson that there can be consequences for vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, in the same way those damned sex education classes teach high school girls to go out and get themselves pregnant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• (non admin observation) Clearly WP:NOTHERE and while the purpose may be different than the effect, showing kids its easy to vandalise WP is a problem in itself. Its like teaching kids how to make a pipe bomb and then telling them this is only for instruction. I doubt she could rely on that excuse if something was destroyed by one made by a student. That she got banned completes the lessen she should be teaching, the consequence for actions taken. Good block. AlbinoFerret 04:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• I can see a number of aspects to this:

• The teacher was showing her students that Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source, because of how easily it can be changed. That's a good thing -- as we know ourselves since we disallow it being used as a reliable source as well -- because kids should be discouraged from using Wikipedia directly in their research.
• However, the teacher appears to be missing the fact that Wikipedia is very good for getting a quick handle on a subject, which can help guide the student in their research, and that many articles also provide good reliable online sources that the students can use to further their investigations.
• Unfortunately, by showing them how easy it is to alter Wikipedia, she is also showing them how easy is to be vandalized. However, most students who have any interest in valdalizing WP will find that out for themselves very easily, so I'd say no harm, no foul there.
• The teacher made a tactical error in making her changes to a live article, instead of to a sandbox or a draft. I presume she probably didn't know that these things existed - now that she does, I would hope she would choose to use go about her mission using them.
• Many, many new editors make test edits in which they change things and then change them back almost immediately. Nothing much happens to these editors, except perhaps a uw-test warning. They certainly don't get blocked for it. I'm not even sure an editor who did a number of them would get blocked without a series of warnings, since the edits essentially did no damage -- no more than the "damage" done by a long-time editor making changes who has to go back and fix typos etc. in their previous changes.
• Given all this, I think a block was an over-reaction, and that the situation should have been handled with a more delicate hand - a block is a very blunt instrument, after all. Clearly the blocking admin had concerns about the block, or they would not have brought it here for comment. I wish they had thought through their concerns before making the block.
• Despite this, I don't think the blocking admin should be sanctioned in any way.
• My suggestion would be to unblock the teacher, and allow interested editors, such as John from Idegon, to interact with here and get her on the right track. After all, if they're unable to do so, and she insists on doing what she was doing before, she can always be blocked again - although this time it might be a good idea for the admin considering a block to ask for comments on it before blocking, rather than after. BMK (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would sanction them, even had they done anything wrong. But I imagine the teacher's gotten the message loud and clear at this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• The short block, after the escalating warning templates on the teacher's page, is an excellent example to students of what happens if you try to vandalize Wikipedia. This is a teaching moment. The teacher now understands how Wikipedia resists vandalism. Before, they were misleading their students into thinking anyone could put anything into Wikipedia. Now they know better. Good job. There's policy on this, at Wikipedia:Student assignments. John Nagle (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• That is also a good point. BMK (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Given the immense quantities of crap I've removed from articles, I'd say this position is significantly more misleading than the teacher's is. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Small point of order: For future reference these types of discussions/reviews belong on WP:Administrators Noticeboard, not ANI. AN is for "General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices" (emphasis mine). ANI is for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". Softlavender (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• We require someone to intervene and unblock the teacher. NE Ent 12:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Presumably without consulting with the blocking admin? Bits, and if not that, reputations, are lost for that kinda thing. To unblock an account which has not been used properly, and will be unblocked in less than a week? I don't think it's worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• The editor was self-admittedly engaged in WP:POINT, so the block is justified. Let the block be an example to her students that repeated vandalism and other forms of disruptive editing will eventually lead to a lose of editing privileges. —Farix (t | c) 12:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Y'all do understand, without putting too fine a point on it, that at some point we will all stop editing Wikipedia, right? If you would like to see what you've started continue, we need to be recruiting new editors younger than ourselves. Demonstrating to a high school class that we put rules over people, treat minor accidental trangressions as something to be punished rather than gently corrected is detrimental to that effort. (This is where someone unblocks the teacher.) NE Ent 12:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that she's being punished. What's been asked for is a reasonable undertaking to conform with the terms of use and policies, as she has not to date. If that causes her some mild embarrassment among colleagues and students, well, it may head off the next twelve. We've kibitzed a lot about teaching methods, but all we are asking for is her word. Kids are familiar with "promise me you won't do it again, and that will end it".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Why was warning #3[82] and #4[83] issued 1 minute apart for essentially the same test edit... and then the account blocked indefinitely five minutes later after the account had made no further edits at all?! That's quite a heavy approach to take. Doc talk 13:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The above is tl;dr before I've had my coffee so forgive me if I'm covering something that's already been covered. Look folks, I'm a content editor who doesn't spend much time on ANI. Maybe I made a bad block. You don't have to consult me if you unblock, it won't hurt my feelings.

Here is what I did: Warned the user last spring about test edits. Issued a 2nd level warning about test edits yesterday, noticed they'd actually done the same thing (vandalized and self-reverted) a second time in the same day, so issued a level 3, then I read their statement on the talk page that they intended to vandalize again and keep doing it. Based on that, I blocked them as it seemed pretty clear they weren't here to actually contribute to what we do here: build an encyclopedia.

Someone called the block into question (a bit rudely but apparently they felt strongly about it so I listened) so I immediately brought it here. If this was the wrong place to report it it could have been moved elsewhere earlier.

I understand that my actions may have been hasty and bitey, but honestly in my years of work on the project, I've only seen one editor who started out as a teacher using Wikipedia in class become a productive member of the encyclopedia (and a damn good one at that). I wish that were not the case. I'm glad John from Idegon (talk · contribs) (who initially protested the block) works in the realm of encouraging teachers to work with the project.

I notice there is talk of sanctions. This conversation has been very instructive in how good faith admin actions are handled so thank you all for that. If someone wants to drop a note on my talk page pointing me to which guidelines and policies I need to read up on, I'd be grateful. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to go back to improving the high school article in question, so ping me if I'm needed here. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend some time working WP:AIV cases. Normally after the fourth properly applied warning for vandalism, if there is continued disruption, you then block to prevent further damage. If an editor had filed an AIV report on this account it would have been dismissed since "the vandal has been insufficiently warned or has stopped after the final warning". Doc talk 14:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Stupid, meaningless block. For all the reasons stated by NE Ent, Sarah, and John from Idegon. I'm a rule follower by nature, but the reasons for staying the block in accordance with named policies by various editors actually made me laugh. They are all about punishment and teaching the teacher a lesson. Which ends up being that Wikipedia is full of self-righteous assholes. It seems most of you are pissed that someone from the "outside" dared to come here and defiled what you see as a sacred cow, therefore, they must be punished. The edits did no harm whatsoever. This is a clear case of over-the-top if ever I saw one. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Observation If the teacher wanted to give a lesson on the use and influence of WP, why not find a site that needs improving (I think there are some out there!), and make a good faith edit that does not need reverting. Surely that is a more positive message to send to the kids. What she has done is teach kids about negative editing/actions. The lesson needs to be finished with her accepting the consequences of her actions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just my opinion when I stumbled across this issue. I personally think the block is appropriate simply as a means of showing the way Wikipedia can respond to those that vandalize or insert incorrect information. Sure, she is showing how easy it is to edit Wikipedia, but the lesson should also include the consequences to misusing Wikipedia. This is not a punishment but a useful addition to the lesson that demonstrates how Wikipedia works. We have means of defending or protecting against what she is demonstrating, and there is no reason we can't show these means to her. It is only a week block right now. Scarlettail (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how WP:Test edit links to a certain section of WP:VAND, namely [84]. "Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism... Editing tests are only considered vandalism when a user continues to make test edits despite receiving numerous warnings." The warnings escalated too quickly and a block was issued too early - disproportionate to the damage being caused. This woman is teaching her students how to edit Wikipedia, not actually encouraging them to vandalize it! Why would she immediately correct the "mistakes", with edit summaries, if her intentions were negative? I haven't seen a lot of vandals do that. Why wouldn't she just randomly vandalize the site and not correct it if she truly was showing them negative editing/actions? I can't see an admin blocking this account were an AIV report filed; a process which should be some sort of standard for dealing with vandals for the vast majority of editors. Doc talk 15:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Bad block. For all the reasons stated by NE Ent, Sarah, John from Idegon, and WV. On the other hand, I really can't find fault with the admin who blocked her as s/he did what seemed to him/her to be the right thing to do and s/he was more than willing to change his/her mind if there was a lack of support for the action. But I find some of the advise s/he received nothing short of astonishing. One editor that agreed with the block thought it was good "punishment" even though it may cause "some mild embarrassment among [her] colleagues and students." Embarrassment!? The only people that should feel embarrassed is the Wikipedia community that thinks changing the principal's name for one minute equates to vandalism so severe that the teacher needs to be blocked. I actually thought that it was a great way to help the students understand how and why one should never trust what they read here but rather to look up information on their own. Of course, I now know better and understand how my thinking threatened the very integrity of this encyclopedia where I have spent so many hours trying to make it better. *Gandy shakes her head in wonderment* Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Gaudydancer. As you quote me, and I have not used the word "punishment", yet you put that word in quotes in the same sentence you use a quote from me, I will ask you to withdraw that. That material misrepresents what was said. Please understand that the style of argument used may well fly well on comment boards, it is not welcome on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Oops, meant Gandydancer.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the entire quote is: "I don't see that she's being punished. What's been asked for is a reasonable undertaking to conform with the terms of use and policies, as she has not to date. If that causes her some mild embarrassment among colleagues and students, well, it may head off the next twelve. We've kibitzed a lot about teaching methods, but all we are asking for is her word. Kids are familiar with "promise me you won't do it again, and that will end it"." Your way of characterizing it is totally misleading.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct and I am sorry. I should have been more careful and thanks for correcting me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. And I will say what I said may come across as "it serves her right" and I regret that and it is not fully what I intended. But can we please understand something here? Despite the title of this section, there is no teacher blocked. If she edits, she is as free to edit as she ever was. The only thing that is blocked is a demonstration account that isn't used for anything except what is discussed above. And yes, what she did was minimal and it is unlikely that anyone was misled. But we have no good way of drawing the line. So I'd rather argue that it shouldn't be done by anyone, than have to argue that Case B is worse than Case A, where we tolerated it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the teacher was using Wikipedia to teach about its unreliability, the bottom line is that she vandalized an article multiple times and has given no indication that she would not continue to vandalize Wikipedia in the future. In fact, she stated that she will continue to vandalize the article in the future to illustrate her point.[85] She has yet to receded that statement. In order to protect Wikipedia from further damage, there is no other choice but to block her until she recognizes that her behavior is not acceptable. —Farix (t | c) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism, per se. She edited it to add unreferenced and incorrect information while leaving an edit summary and self-reverting. I'm not condoning her behaviour, but I refuse to label it in extreme terms as well. I do believe that a block was in order though, just to round-out the lesson that she should send her students. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a woman. Feel free to use "she/her" or "they" pronouns. Valfontis (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block - If you're going to show a classroom how easy it is to vandalize then I guess you're also showing them how easy it is for your arse to be blocked!, Clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute, Had she been willing to drop the moronic testing and actually contribute constructively here then I would perhaps reconsider but as it stands she deserves blocking. –Davey2010^Talk 16:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block, the teacher is evidently not here to build the encyclopedia. --  Kethrus |talk to me  17:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether a vandalizing edit that is quickly reverted is malicious or altruistic it is WP:DISRUPTIVE and is not useful in article space. In fact there is a warning Template:Uw-selfrevert for just this kind of thing and blocks can be issued for ignoring it. There is no reason that the lesson that she is trying to teach cannot be done in a sandbox (as has been mentioned be others) and an agreement to do that should allow the block to be lifted. MarnetteD|Talk 17:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. I suggest the next one should be indefinite. There are other ways to demonstrate how to use our resource than by vandalising it, even briefly. This person is not here to help so blocking is the best course of action. --John (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. Anything else sends the signal that it's perfectly acceptable to play around with articles so long as one self-reverts within a minute. Stick to a rule. Why is it acceptable to allow this to happen on a seldom visited site that still has the potential to mislead the reader who accesses the article during that critical minute, yet it wouldn't be acceptable to allow it on a highly visited article such as President Obama? A mischievous edit has the potential to mislead, no matter how many hits the article gets. Akld guy (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Good Block - The sandbox exists for this very reason. Disrupting live articles is not an appropriate way to demonstrate to others that articles can be edited. It would be like demonstrating that an admin can delete a page by simply deleting a live article. Not appropriate. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. If the vandalism was intended for some educational purpose, then the consequences of said vandalism, such as a block, are perfectly in line with the intended lesson. Giving particular groups, such as teachers who are doing so for demonstration purposes, a free pass for intentional and repeated disruptive editing, especially when they state they intend to continue doing so, sets a bad precedent. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. The teacher can point to their own diffs and edits to demonstrate the exact same point. There's a page listing the oldest vandalism that exists, point out vandalism that stayed for years here if it's an actual teaching lesson planned. Otherwise, there's nothing ot stop an actual vandal from claiming it's a breaching experiment next time (WP:BEANS). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment To add a further comment, while the recent edits are very clear with edit summaries stating the intention and are corrected within the next minute, the first vandalizing edit (back in May 2014) was done without an edit summary and is frankly not that obvious to anyone and was fixed but after an hour and fifteen minutes. While this is a minutia amount of time, people shouldn't be told to go on the assumption that if she wants to make her point in May 2016, that she will fix it when she fixes it and that the rest of us should let it go. Frankly, if anyone here saw this edit, no one would know what to do except probably revert it. No one would keep it there on the guess than someone is going to return to fix it because it's a teaching lesson. On that basis, we shouldn't be saying that someone who is teaching someone else to make a point gets a free pass to create more work for other people. She could have made the same point with the front page article and I doubt many people here would have been so ok to let that go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good block. - Somebody needs an object lesson, and it is not the kids. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block To prove that you can die from jumping off a building, you do not go and do it yourself. To prove that Wikipedia can be vandalized, you do not go and do it yourself. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ill advised block. The lady is doing this site a service, because she is teaching her pupils source literacy. Vandalism of the type she has demonstrated to her students occurs quite commonly and regularly misleads not just children, but even high-ranking officials like Lord Justice Leveson (see [86] [87]) as well as journalists and scholars ([88] [89]). Wikipedia has a problem with circular referencing and citogenesis. We tell people that checking references is vital, to mistrust unsourced statements in Wikipedia, and so forth. That's just part of exercising social responsibility for this project. If Wikipedia is committed to spreading knowledge, then that teacher is an ally and should be welcomed as such, because spreading knowledge includes spreading knowledge about Wikipedia. That it was done in good faith is evident from the fact that she used the article about her school, and self-reverted immediately. Andreas JN466 04:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good block. The teacher violated WP:POINT. The teacher also evidently does not understand that nobody WP:OWNs articles. sst✈^discuss 05:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• So many panties wadded over one tiny edit to an article no one reads. You know why the teacher didn't think it was a big deal? Because no one takes Wikipedia seriously except you. You waste hours of your of your lives, days, years! so you try to justify it. Tell yourselves it's "serious business." It counts for nothing. Maybe middle schoolers think it's smart. Certainly no one with any knowledge of the various topics you mangle. Go back to your knitting or dungeons and dragons or whatever else it is 20-something nerds with no social life do. At least you won't be as cranky. 107.107.59.160 (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  I don't know who the heck you are, but I must note that it's really sad that so many seasoned admins chimed in on this being not only a good block, but that the user should be blocked per NOTHERE. Absolutely pathetic. See WP:NOTVAND when looking to policy on vandalism blocks (esp. indefinite) for dangerously damaging editors like this. Doc talk 07:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  Cute from someone who obviously has the time and wherewithal to know this obscure little place. What if she tried to make the same point by blanking half the front page article? Difference is, that would have been reverted within a minute. Isn't the fact that it's a completely obscure article that no one even sees more of a concern? No one is going to know to fix that article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  So she's not only showing her students how to vandalize, she's showing them to be even more nefarious by editing the obscure articles instead of highly visible ones like the main page? So that they get caught less easily and the vandalism sticks around? How fiendish! That really is one bad teacher! I think her comment about how the students get a "good giggle" has been extremely misinterpreted into her commanding, "Fly, my pretties! Go! Wreak havoc on Wikipedia! <evil laugh>" Doc talk 11:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Guys, too late now, but WP:RBI. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good block - Vandalism is vandalism, and vandals will sometimes claim to be teachers. We don't know if the blocked user is a teacher or a troll, and it doesn't matter either way if that user is behaving like the latter. Vandalizing Wikipedia to show kids why it isn't acceptable as a source is like teaching racial sensitivity by addressing the kids by their ethnic slurs. I say this as a teacher. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  The woman gives her real name and place of employment as a teacher. Do you seriously think is an impersonation troll? This is supposed to be about this case only, not generalizations. But as you said above, it's too late. So please close this disaster. I agree 100% with this. It's a Bad block. Doc talk 13:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Bad block Val went from a level 1 warning to a level 4 warning to a block, all after the user's last edit on the page. If you look at the timestamps of Val's warnings on Wangenra's talk page compared to the timestamps of Wangenra's edits on the subject page, you'll see that all of Val's interactions with this user came after their last edit on the page. The first warning was sufficient; no further action needed to be taken in the absence of further disruption. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(I don't really like being called "Val".) I explained my reasoning for the block series above. My reasoning may have been flawed. Is it time to have an uninvolved admin perhaps summarize the discussion and close this? Because although it has been a valuable discussion for the community, I think we're beginning to spend too much time on this. If the conclusion and consensus includes an unblock and admin sanctions so be it, but I'm not entirely sure anything new is being said at this point. I for one have "learned my lesson". Again, ping me if I'm needed here. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You opened the thread not even 48 hours ago. People are still commenting on it. "Threads will be archived automatically after 36 hours of inactivity." Cheers :> Doc talk 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note to everyone See Wikipedia:Teachers can be vandals too; the intro is silly, but it discusses a real case. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've unblocked. See WP:DEADHORSE. Feel free to do whatever damage control you see fit. I'm done here. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat by IP, claiming to be author David Bret

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

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

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

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

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

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

MaranoFan

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

---

How many more times do we have to go through this kind of thing with User:MaranoFan? When he took a script-enforced break back in May 2015, he left this edit summary: "-F-U-C-K--Y-O-U--W-I-K-I-P-E-D-I-A-". This script enforced break wasn't his first, he took one prior to that when being brought to AN/I for a proposed topic ban (uploading unfree images) [90]. When shown leniency and reminded of his topic ban just a short while ago [91], he responded with this: "OMG!! HA GURL< YOU AINT SLICK grrrrrr. byrolbdohfjdbfmdnd.ksyiudgdfzcbb such a b*h"; and this: "F-UCK YOU ARMBRUST, -b-itch" and once again taking a script enforced break to try and beat the "heat" (as he has done every time he gets in hot water). So, my question is: how many times does MaranoFan get to come back after a script-enforced break so as not to be sanctioned or blocked for violating his topic ban and not facing the music for personal attacks and destructive behavior? It's getting pretty tiresome. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to just ignore the editor instead of continuing to give them negative attention. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The wikibreak expires on January 1, 2030. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

resolve edit-reedit war

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

---

"Theredpenofdoom" is not letting me to add an important aspect of "Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh "s life .

check the following link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurmeet_Ram_Rahim_Singh&action=history

Zqxwcevrbtny (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

OP is forum shopping. This is at ANEW, already, and I just reverted yet again a BLP issue edit by the OP. TheRedPenOfDoom has reverted BLP issues repeatedly by OP all day. Suggest immediate block for OP to stop disruption. Btw, no notification was given by OP as required here. Will do so. John from Idegon (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, definite forum-shopping after being repeatedly and exhaustively advised of policy on their talk page. Time for a goodly block. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way here's the ANEW report: [92]. Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by Kitatom (talk)

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

---

This isn't really one of the most serious legal threats in the world, but they seem to have something against the subject of the article and seem to dislike the subject of the article. The AfD is here. I wouldn't normally post here because I prefer to avoid ANI etc, but I'd rather it not escalate. I do have a sneaky suspicion that Kitatom may be a sock of ElNuevoEinstein but I'm doubtful it's enough to take it to SPI. --  Kethrus |talk to me  16:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kethrus: It would be helpful if you link the diff of the specific threat. But I believe it is this one that you are referring to. Not sure if I would call it a legal threat, but it is very much a borderline case. What is clear is that the editor is attempting to push a particular POV that isn't represented in the sources on the article and hasn't presented any reliable sources to back up their POV. —Farix (t | c) 16:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: That's the diff, thanks for linking it. It's a bit borderline, and does have the potential to escalate. It's a bit borderline - I agree, but it seems they're wanting to push it in some form of legal manner (although I'm unsure how they'd succeed as the only source is that video on Vimeo). It's clearly a SPA created after the AFD was opened, too. --  Kethrus |talk to me  16:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Briefly looking at the previous AFD discussion, there apparently was an issue with sockpuppets making similar arguments (specifically Ebcidic and Grockeds). Based on behavior alone, it is very possible that this editor is just another sockpuppet. Suggest taking it to WP:SPI. —Farix (t | c) 17:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done: I've taken it to SPI, I wasn't aware of the blocked user so I opened it up with Grockeds as the master. --  Kethrus |talk to me  17:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Request to stop WP:HOUNDING by editor

Hello, under the advice of [[93]] on my [page] I am starting a request here (*note...not at all urgent/an emergency) to ask that [[94]] refrain from WP:HOUNDING. This began when I ran-into her initially on 28 October editing the "Council of American Islamic Relations" page, wherein we had a disagreement on my editing addition. Since this point she followed me to this page [[95]] (although she had not visited it for years prior), then finally went to a page I created personally [[96]] here. She would never have known this page existed had she not been following me/WP:HOUNDING. She has undone edits, specifically regarding a photo which has already been deemed as an unsourced photo uploaded by a wikipedia user [[97]] She continues to undo my edits (on the photo as a specific example) regardless of the fact that the issue was already settled on the talk page here [[98]] It is not at all a fair or pleasant experience to be stalked or WP:HOUNDED specifically on pages I am just starting. I welcome additional opinions, but in the case of this user it is obviously meant to be counter-productive and harassment.Trinacrialucente (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I will spare other users the time commitment by pointing out that I have been a frequent editor on Council on American–Islamic Relations and Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community for years. Trinacrialucente's claims of hounding are - at best - lazy and paranoid, and at worst, intentional lies. In general, the user doesn't really seem to understand how Wikipedia works, eg. insisting that no one could revert his/her edits while s/he was waiting for "third-party admin" intervention [99] and slinging around all sorts of abuse to see what sticks [100][101][102]. If the user is willing to change their behavior from what it's been until now, and accept guidance, it's possible that s/he could be productive in the future, but that's entirely dependent on their good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Trinacrialucente has now asked ArbCom to look at the case.[103] I think a mercy block is needed. Rhoark (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Exchanges with Epeefleche: [104] [105] [106] [107]
• Carl Henderson left a detailed explanation trying to help and provide guidance, which Trinacrialucente did not take kindly to.[108]
• accuses Laszlo Panaflex of stalking [109]
• [110] Floquenbeam creates section with title "I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time here if all you're going to do is be aggressive with every single person who disagrees with you", which Trinacrialucente responds to by "empt[ying] the trash"
• In these and most of his/her other talk page edits are accusations of pov-pushing, racism, bias, stalking, and general claims to persecution accompanied by a pervasive aggressive tone and sarcasm. Most, if not all, of the accusations look to be exaggerated or based on an incorrect understanding of policy (e.g. the present section, which seems to be based on an overlap of two pages in an area Roscelese frequently edits).
• Trinacrialucente looks to be very passionate about the subjects he/she works on, and it's possible that enthusiasm could be used to improve the encyclopedia -- but Trinacrialucente, please take the advice of all of these people to heart regarding the way you interact with people or it's quite likely you'll be blocked from editing (and at very least you invite additional scrutiny of your own edits/behavior). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

References

Not sure how to deal with this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism on Georgia TV and radio articles

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

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

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

Diego Grez-Cañete, yet again

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

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

That editor, active on Wikipedia since 2006, has now "retired". See his final, frustrated, edit comment.[111] Certainly there's a COI, his non-admin closure of his article's AfD was out of line, and he's had similar problems before over the years. The real problem is that he puts up articles related to a small town in Chile, and, of course, there are few third party reliable sources on those subjects. So his material gets thrown out of Wikipedia, and he gets frustrated. He added many articles related to Chile, some of them good, some of them not so good. A prospect for WP:Editor retention, perhaps. John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonfree logo posted to dozens of talkpages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright violation by Ritsaiph

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

---

Ritsaiph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user persists in adding a copyrighted photo of Jesse Ventura to pages associated with Ventura. The photo has already been deleted from Commons here. The recent upload of the file to Wikipedia appears to be a backdoor attempt to add the image despite its copyright status. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The user has now attempted to remove this report. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User has been blocked per persistent copyright violations. This thread can be closed. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

remove admin rights

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

---

• Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.107.226.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 112.17.242.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

can someone please block Ian.thomson help? i am asking for some admin to remove his admin rights or block him--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: why? samtar ^{t} 10:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• he made unlawful block [112]--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• he deleted two times articles that i created [113] without consensus or even talk like Origins of Abrahamic religions--Usvruefktpi (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect - each deletion was explained, such as "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Abrahamic religions -- again." samtar ^{t} 10:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, those WP:POVFORKs were nominated for speedy deletion by another user (and rightly so). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This very new user knows how to look through the public logs? Odd.. quack samtar ^{t} 11:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:PRECOCIOUS applies to a number of his responses and actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• he used a sock here [114] and again accused me of doing so--Usvruefktpi (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• plus i do hear some serious quacking here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usvruefktpi (talk • contribs)

That doesn't even begin to resemble my phone's IP. Still, it does locate to Hangzhou (though there's the issue that if I was going to do that, why I wouldn't use one of the many VPN servers I have). I mentioned you to some new friends to explain why I was late for lunch, guess I'll have to give them the rundown about watching me. Course, since it was reverting you while you were evading a block, it's kind of a moot point. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Background: OP edit warred at Abrahamic religions, technically skirting WP:3RR by engaging in different edits against consensus instead of direct reverts. After he was reverted several times and warned about edit warring by three editors, I blocked him. I later unblocked him on a technicality, even though he obviously socked under this IP (which hasn't responded to my messages since OP logged in), including reverting one of my edits while calling it vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like it was a good block from my pov, especially with all the quacking I can hear samtar ^{t} 10:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Appears to be a good block based on what Ian is saying, and what I've taken a look at. --  Kethrus |talk to me  10:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Unlawful block"? Is there such a thing? GoodDay (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've restored the article to the last known good version before the edit war and requested page protection of the article. Usvruefktpi previous block should be restored if he reverts again, either through his main account or an IP. —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the block was justified. This ANI thread has no case whatsoever to assert that the blocking admin was in the wrong. I'm going to mark this ANI as prematurely resolved. Please remove the tag and ping me if I overlooked anything and jumped the gun too soon. Otherwise,

Resolved

. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) With multiple attempts to remove comments from this discussion,[115][116][117][118][119] Usvruefktpi has clearly WP:NOTHERE and very much deserving to have the block reinstated. —Farix (t | c) 11:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Bazonka and spelling changes

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

---

User:Bazonka is mass changing licenced to licensed across thousands of articles. Examples [120][121][122]. This is generating some stiff opposition at User talk:Bazonka#WP:ENGVAR. Bazonka has been reverted by multiple editors, but simply edit wars the change back in [123][124][125][126]. I think the user should be stopped until a consensus is established to do this. I cannot block myself as I have become involved in the discussion. This would also seem to be something that requires WP:BAG approval. SpinningSpark 11:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism on Cannabis (disambiguation)

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

like to make a complinet about a user

Moved from AN as an incident. BMK (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

there is a user who has been reverting my stuff I had an Assyrian census on the page and images of Assyrian kings on The Assyrian people page and this guy kwami I believe has reverted it and has called me a fraud on the Arab people page when I have brought evidence and sources that are reliable he has called me incompetent and has started stuff before with me this is not Wikipedia user behavior we need this to be resolved im tired of my work being reverted on the Assyrian page I work hard sometimes hours on it this isn't acceptable to meArabAmazigh12 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And your apparent inability to write in standard English, with proper punctuation, is not acceptable to me for a person editing English Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you're referring to User:Kwamikagami, I do not see any discussion with him on his talk page, nor do I see any notification from you about this thread. BMK (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: ArabAmazigh12 has a long history of falsifying data. It's perhaps due to incompetence rather than anything malicious, but regardless few of his edits pass muster. Every once in a while I review his contributions to see what damage he's done lately, and end up reverting a large chunk of them. Sometimes he may have made improvements together with the misinformation, but I'm not going to try to winnow the wheat from the chaff. (E.g. I could care less which pictures of Assyrians are in the info box, and have no basis to evaluate his choices anyway. Besides, in a controversial article like that where people have had difficulty reaching consensus, it's probably best to discuss them on the talk page to see if others even like his changes.)

A lot of his edits involve population inflation, a perennial problem on language and ethnology articles. Today he added 100,000,000 to Arabs with no source or edit summary. (I don't often use edit summaries either, but that means I have no way to evaluate the basis for the number.) One of his figures was reverted by another user citing a source that contradicts him, and I just now reverted the other.

Please ping me if this goes anywhere; I once got in trouble for not paying attention to a thread I thought too trivial to follow. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on basketball pages

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

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

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