Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:05, 3 November 2015

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

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

1. Joseph, Turow (2011). The Daily You. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-300-16501-2.

Not an administrator. Used one (1) expletive. And for the last time stop copying my signature. Jbh 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 Misplaced Pages 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 would allow the publication of inaccurate facts?"; 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 Misplaced Pages 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.. 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 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media Jbh 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 20:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Changed to support site ban. Jbh 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 .

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 (search "Robert Conquest"), official biography of Henry Jackson , official biography of Margaret Thatcher (, 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 , 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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 . 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 , and even the later Conquest himself! , 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: " 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: ) 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, ,

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 Misplaced Pages's voice that it is indeed so, without any source at all. Not to mention that even the source you give does not state that Coplon engaged in Holodomor denial. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

He has, however, since gone on to quote the text he had just changed 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages: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; the change made in this edit 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 07:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, I invite editors to examine the differences 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 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment: CFCF is correct; like I recently stated, he was simply restoring the guideline to the WP:STATUSQUO. Like I also noted at the WP:MEDRS talk page, to MastCell, who recognized the same thing, "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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages reader can reasonably be expected to use our site when deciding whether whether to accept a doctor's advice to take cholesterol-lowering drugs. Because of this, any information we give out on cholesterol-lowering drugs must be referenced to the higher MEDRS standard. Readers can not reasonably be expected to use our pages on safety, refrigeration, car wrecks, discrimination or poverty to help them to make medical decisions, even though, as WhatamIdoing correctly pointed out, they all have major effects on public health. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Call for administrator intervention

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

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

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

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)

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

Disruptive editing and further harassment by user Iryna Harpy

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

User Iryna Harpy (IH) has made this disruptive edit here .

User IH has also continued to harass me by falsely claiming that I was engaged in soapboxing here when I was not, and also falsely claiming that my talk page edit was not within the Misplaced Pages talk page guidelines here 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: GAB 22:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

96.24.75.223, talk pages should be focused on ways of improving Misplaced Pages content and not used as a forum or for soapboxing. Liz 23:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz:, I was using that talk page for improving Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages had enough fair and honest admins. I was actually glad I was blocked, as that only exposed the proliferation of biased Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

"...How many more times is this IP going to tell us that Misplaced Pages is corrupt..."

Now that I think about it, this problem is not specific just to Misplaced Pages, but a problem that typically occurs with any kind of a centralized authority. In fact, had things turned out any different, it would have been very surprising.

At least these people aren't running an actual country, and don't have an army of stormtroopers. But "the pen is mightier than the sword", so they're still indirectly hurting lots of people by passing inaccurate and / or misleading information as the de-facto central "truth" that scores high in search results, because today there is no better alternative.

In any case, I'm looking forward to the age when hopefully there will be a decentralized global encyclopedia system, on which the edits would be evaluated solely on their merit rather than on who made them and the POV of the people for or against. Obviously such technology does not yet exist because of the numerous non-trivial technical issues, and it's going to take a long time to get there, but it is good to see the exciting developments in the distributed blockchain technology which might serve as a cornerstone for such a system. I'm glad I experienced this unpleasant incident as it gave me this insight.96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So in this decentralized model, who decides their merit? NE Ent 00:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps each concept would likely get split-up into numerous sub-concepts, and each sub-concept would be independently evaluated for its validity by a random user, and in such a way that the evaluators would not know what the "parent" concept was. So the human tasks would be divided-up and crowd-sourced. The results of independent evaluations would be stitched together by algorithms using logical and linguistic formulas to generate the wording of the actual articles. So the readable text of each article would just be the surface of a big matrix of underlying supporting data and logic. Some portions might even have parallel passages for issues on which the system was not able to determine a general consensus. Perhaps the underlying data could even be used to generate a "probability of accuracy" rating for each sentence. Something like that...96.24.75.223 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like Semantic web, which documents some of the criticisms of the concept. NE Ent 01:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec} Er, the ombudsman/ombudswoman representing the socialist-anarchist hierarchical structure that should obviously be developed in to accommodate a rational devolution of any centralised state... I mean encyclopaedia... Um, what does the IP actually mean? Is the point of this ANI supposed to go WP:OFFTOPIC in order to accommodate the fascinating(?) theories of an IP who's evidently ready to nominate himself as the ombudsman for all Israeli-Palestinian related issues? The IP is WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Valid point, probably time to close this. My talk page is open if anyone wishes to continue the conversation. NE Ent 01:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I think there are issues with this closure as you've failed to address what the ANI was about, plus you haven't provided an ES in the 'status' parameter as to the closure. I've left details on your own talk page as to why I believe it should be reviewed. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking indef ban of Second Dark

Hello, I'm seeking to have the user Second Dark (talk | contribs) indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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?

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.... Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages should take, and what should be done as this specific user has been lingering and displaying poor conduct for some time now. Do not let it fall into the category of WP:LONG, this user has already been overlooked once for a banning (and now we're back here), don't let it happen again. There are no redeeming features. --Jobrot (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• The user is now edit warring. --Jobrot (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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 Misplaced Pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Please review this block of a teacher

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

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages is unreliable. I had engaged her prior to the block to direct her to other uses of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages in the world, nor does it do anything to protect Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages as part of their curriculum, and that it is not acceptable at all? --w 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 Misplaced Pages article. We cannot have her doing this on a live article. I'd rather she did not teach kids to vandalize Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages to "prove" that it's unreliable is highly counter-productive, and it can't be said to be in good faith. GAB 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 00:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• This looks like "disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point", and begs for a block. ←Baseball Bugs 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, Misplaced Pages (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 01:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Getting blocked also teaches the kiddies something. ←Baseball Bugs 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 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. Cullen 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 02:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Superb block. If the teacher wants to demonstrate the potential for vandalism on Misplaced Pages, there are thousands of available page revisions available to support her point. Vandalizing Misplaced Pages 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 02:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

At the teenage level, the difference may be purely, er, academic. We have channels through which Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages directly in their research.
• However, the teacher appears to be missing the fact that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. This is a teaching moment. The teacher now understands how Misplaced Pages resists vandalism. Before, they were misleading their students into thinking anyone could put anything into Misplaced Pages. Now they know better. Good job. There's policy on this, at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 and #4 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages can respond to those that vandalize or insert incorrect information. Sure, she is showing how easy it is to edit Misplaced Pages, but the lesson should also include the consequences to misusing Misplaced Pages. This is not a punishment but a useful addition to the lesson that demonstrates how Misplaced Pages 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 . "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 Misplaced Pages, 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 colleagues and students." Embarrassment!? The only people that should feel embarrassed is the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.--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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages in the future. In fact, she stated that she will continue to vandalize the article in the future to illustrate her point. She has yet to receded that statement. In order to protect Misplaced Pages 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 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~ 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 /_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 Misplaced Pages can be vandalized, you do not go and do it yourself. --I am k6ka _{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 ) as well as journalists and scholars ( ). Misplaced Pages has a problem with circular referencing and citogenesis. We tell people that checking references is vital, to mistrust unsourced statements in Misplaced Pages, and so forth. That's just part of exercising social responsibility for this project. If Misplaced Pages is committed to spreading knowledge, then that teacher is an ally and should be welcomed as such, because spreading knowledge includes spreading knowledge about Misplaced Pages. 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✈ 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages! <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 Misplaced Pages 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_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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 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~ 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 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 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~ 23:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Request to stop WP:HOUNDING by editor

Hello, under the advice of ] on my I am starting a request here (*note...not at all urgent/an emergency) to ask that ] 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 ] (although she had not visited it for years prior), then finally went to a page I created personally ] 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[REDACTED] user ] 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 ] 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 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 Misplaced Pages works, eg. insisting that no one could revert his/her edits while s/he was waiting for "third-party admin" intervention and slinging around all sorts of abuse to see what sticks . 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. I think a mercy block is needed. Rhoark (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Exchanges with Epeefleche:
• Carl Henderson left a detailed explanation trying to help and provide guidance, which Trinacrialucente did not take kindly to.
• accuses Laszlo Panaflex of stalking
• 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 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 \\ 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[REDACTED] staff for behavior. I personally do not find that relevant as I am only interested in THIS incident here. But if you are going to "go there" then I would think it would apply to both of us. The tone here is absolutely not meant to be sarcastic or persona, I'm simply stating facts and my observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 20:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked until they show an understanding of Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. --NeilN 17:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#I_am_being_stalked.2Fhounded_by_a_user_.28talk.29._She_has_been_undoing_my_edits_and_following_me_even_to_pages_I_created_.28which_she_has_never_visited_prior_to_my_initial_interaction_with_her.29._Evidence_is_in_her_history_as_well_as_on_a_page_I_created_Anglican_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Trinacrialucente#Regarding_your_arbitration_request
3. ]

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~ 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages since 2006, has now "retired". See his final, frustrated, edit comment. 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 Misplaced Pages, and he gets frustrated. He added many articles related to Chile, some of them good, some of them not so good. A prospect for WP:Editor retention, perhaps. John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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  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 Misplaced Pages:Twinkle/Preferences. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Bazonka and spelling changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism on Cannabis (disambiguation)

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

Thank you

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

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

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

Anyone smell socks? Lugnuts 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on basketball pages

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

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

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

IAR article restoration against CSD G5?

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several issues to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CENSORSHIP WITH NO POSSIBILITY TO DISCUSS

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

I would like to have an answer,

Why the administrator Eumolpo blocked my account and erased all my contributions after I added a video-critic about Italian ´Political Religious Economical business´ organization called "Comunione e Liberazione"? I have contacted him but I didn´t get any reply. Is it not legitimate to add links to videos on Misplaced Pages maybe? His reasoing was simply: ´...vandalism´ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keilchattiero (talk • contribs) 22:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't help you with events that happened on the Italian wiki. They're totally separate. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

IP vandalism at Fred Thompson in the wake of the individual's death

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

The IP address 71.54.172.153 is making persistent unconstructive edits to the Fred Thompson page in the wake of Thompson's recent death. Specifically, the IP is undoing all efforts to update the page to reflect that Thompson is deceased. I made a request for page protection but am also posting here as the issue is immediate and ongoing. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved thanks to a block of the IP. Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There were sources provide that proved the institution exist.

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

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

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

Hmains and AWB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stable version:

• Version from 1 October 2015: "any biomedical information in articles"
• Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"
• Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"
• Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"

Original edit:

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

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

Edit warring:

• 14:40, 31 October 2015: Minor4th reverts (1st revert)
• 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (1st revert)
• 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (2nd revert)
• 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (2nd revert)
• 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (3rd revert)
• 00:12, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (3rd revert)
• 00:27, 2 November 2015: Guy Macon reverts (1st revert)
• 00:30, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (4th revert)

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Doodles, George Boole

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

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

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

INCORRECT AND BIASSED INFORMATION ON PAGE - LIVING PERSONS

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

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

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

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

I look forward to your response.

Regards

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

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

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

User:Owxbyktav

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are not enough admins, and no one is willing to do anything to remedy that problem. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

IP legal threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

When someone starts throwing "First Amendment" around, it's important to advise them that there is no constitutional right to edit Misplaced Pages. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'll believe it when I see it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:RANGE, anyone? Erpert 20:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

IP has closed a contentious AfD Improperly

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

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

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

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

AFD close reverted. Topic banned editor blocked. --NeilN 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppetry

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

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

Attack against User:Doug Weller

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

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

FYI: The IP was blocked over 3 hours before you posted this. But thanks for posting. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

HughD

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

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

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

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

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

Tunisian Arabic

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

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

I feel sort of uneasy about this

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards