For over a year and a half User:Bob Henshaw's only purpose on Wikipedia has been to add census information to articles on English villages and parishes. I've seen him regularly pop up on my watchlist and have never interacted with him prior to today, but a few months ago I saw him add blatant errors to a couple dozen of Hampshire villages that I watch. I thought little of it at the time and quietly fixed his errors. However, a cursory glance through his contributions reveals that he doesn't just add nonsensical statements, mangled sentences, and incorrect population figures to just a few stubs, no, he's been doing this every day for every county in England since January 2015. Hundreds of unseen edits. While I think he's been doing this in good faith and don't want to discourage him from adding population figures from the 2011 census (which is useful), the fact is that does more harm than good and most of his edits are disruptive. The problem is much larger than I can put in diffs, but I'll highlight several I've pulled out from his recent contributions at random as examples:

• After I left him a message on his talk page pointing out his errors, he ignored it and made two more errors to Antony, Cornwall, completely breaking the infobox template twice and not bothering to fix it
• Adds nonsensical sentences like "At the 2011 Census the population was included in the civil parish of" which makes no sense gramatically and is just fluff. He does this to almost every article he comes across. He also very rarely adds full stops[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
• Lately he's been adding the same horrible construction to villages in Cornwall[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. These are only just a few - spot the missing brackets, full stops, and typos.
• According to the Post Office the population at the 2011 census. According to the Post Office? This is just one diff, but a recent one. "According to the Post Office" is a commonplace phrase in his editing. No idea what it even means. That and "at the 2011 census", not "as of the 2011 census", which makes grammatical sense
• [19] According to the Post Office again
• Durford Wood, 14 Dec: Adds that it is in the the civil parish of Rogate. No it isn't, Rogate is in Sussex, a different county. The post town is also incorrect[20]
• Bentworth, 31 Jan: Adds that Woolmer is in the civil parish of Bentworth. No it isn't, Woolmer is 20 miles away and isn't related at all. Where does he get this from?[21]
• Flexcombe, 27 Dec: One of the countless "(where the 2011 Census population was included)," sentence again. Flexcombe is not in the parish of Liss, it is in Steep[22]
• Froxfield, Hampshire, 18 Dec: "At the 2011 Census the hamlet had become a civil parish in its own name".[23] What the hell. It has had its own civil parish for centuries. It wasn't suddenly created in 2011. Where in this source does it say that? He's making it up
• Finchdean, 16 Dec: The Post Office does not tell you what civil parish a hamlet lies in, maps do. At least he got the civil parish right this time, but still adds in the fluff[24]
• Another thing he does all the time is adding in the 2011 population figures in an infobox whilst keeping in the 2001 figures.[25] (only one diff, but there are likely hundreds more). I think this clutters the infobox because there's no need to keep an outdated figure
• At the 2011 census, not "As of the 2011 census". Rare full stop
• Isington, 21 Dec: " At the 2011 Census the Post Office confirm that the population". The post town is not Alton, it is Farnham.[26]
• Idsworth, 21 Dec: Another "the Post Office confirm that", but at least the post town is correct this time[27]

The diffs are the tip of the iceberg. You just have to look through his past 250 contributions to see that he is adding these nonsensical sentences and false information en masse in almost every edit. I know that he does this in good faith his editing is very problematic. I would like to propose a topic ban if the gross errors continue. I'm sorry that I can't list more diffs, but I invite you to just look through his contributions and pull out an article at random. JAGUAR  21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a few unreferenced population changes but there are many hundreds, it's getting VERY disruptive, the vast number of poorly edited, unsourced changes. Theroadislong (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get why you found it necessary to leave two level-3 warnings and one level-4 warning hours after he had stopped editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like he's ever used a talk page. A short block might get his attention. --Tarage (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's used his twice so he know it's there. I'd rather wait and see if he starts editing without responding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to bet on how poor his unblock request will be? No points for "I dindo nuffin" 01:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

When I saw the heading of this section I thought it was something serious, like use of inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information. Biut these are minor errors in wording and grammar. They do not confuse the sense. I think all that is necessary is for them to be silently corrected, and the standard wording explained to him. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same section? There's an entire list of "inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information" just above. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was literally about to say the same thing. There's almost nothing accurate about this person's edits. Putting towns in the wrong county is very serious, let alone not being able to write a simple sentence. Capeo (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem is much larger and more serious than I had previously thought. I went through his contributions a minute ago, skipped 100 pages and pulled one a diff at random. On St Anthony-in-Meneage he has changed the population figure from 178 to 168.[28] According to the source which he got it from, the population is 178 as of the 2011 census, not 168. He changed it for no logical reason. The sentence in the lead now reads "In the 2001 census the parish had a population of 171, increasing to 168 at the 2011 census". Increasing from 171 to 168. Pretty much every edit I'm pulling out either has an error in it or contains a mangled sentence. The list of errors above were mostly from Hampshire, and I could tell right off the bat that the post towns and civil parishes were wrong because I know the local area well. I have no idea how many hundreds of errors he has made nationwide. JAGUAR  12:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised similar issues with this user in the past and been ignored as well - the user talk page has a section from 2016 when he was editing Suffolk articles en masse (my area). Others have added similar concerns as well. I don't think I ever got a response or saw a change in editing style or content. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the few editors that Bob has interacted with on his talkpage, and I don't think it's his intention to be disruptive, though I agree that some of his edits are unclear or a bit slapdash, and need adjusting or tightening. For example, in this edit, which Theroadislong reverted as not being supported by the source, if you look at the Neighbourhood Statistics page for Manaccan, it can be seen that the figure tallies with what Bob changed it to. Unfortunately Bob didn't change the source. (There remains the question of which source is accurate - it might be that the figure on the Neighbourhood Statistics page includes another unnamed parish in addition to Manaccan - a quite common scenario - whereas the the genuki source does not). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly and he is making hundreds of similar edits which might be accurate, but are unsourced or are now cited to the wrong source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered Bob elsewhere on the net. Without wishing to out him, he's an intelligent and knowledgeable chap, but computers aren't his forte. Obviously blocks are not punitive, but I really hope it doesn't come to that as I'm not sure he'd be able to file a convincing unblock request. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he's doing this in good faith, and I don't wish to antagonise him, but the majority of his edits are either incorrect of malformed. I'm in the process of doing a cleanup of all the Hampshire settlements he has edited, and already found a couple of errors in the first minute. "At the 2011 Census the population was included inb the civil parish of King's Somborne"[29], "According to the Post Office the 2011 Census population was included in the civil parish of Langrish"[30]. I really don't want to see him blocked but the problems are very widespread and I dread to think of the hours of cleanup that is going to be involved. I hope he can change his approach to editing. JAGUAR  17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more the case that some of his edits are not clearly written or explained. In the example given above from the Little Somborne article, I think what Bob meant was that the census information for the parish has been lumped together with that of King's Somborne, as can be seen from the map at the Neighbourhood Statistics page for King's Somborne (and also from Bob's edits at the King's Somborne article). I suspect many of his other 'errors' are similar. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Any idea how to reach out to him? He's edited without acknowledging this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I've blocked. I've not used the template, but a personalised message trying to explain as best I can that we're not punishing him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have to go through AWB and do my best to remove his awful constructions but I'm worried how many errors there are that people won't be able to pick up. I looked through his user talk page on the SABRE wiki—it seems that he caused the same level of disruption over there as he did here. It's a shame as he could have been a productive editor had he just stuck to updating population numbers themselves. JAGUAR  21:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like the post-town and census changes got all mixed up. Perhaps we could just apply the correct data to the articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Is there any way to mass rollback somebody's edits through AWB or a bot? I have never seen anything this bad before. It has taken me over two hours to fine-tune AWB and yet I had to remove 200 of his malformed sentences manually. I still can't pick out his errors. Every edit of his I have been through so far has had the wrong civil parish in it. So far I've been through over 300 of his 11906 remaining edits and it just screams "nuke from orbit". I can't begin to explain the extent of this problem. JAGUAR  15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to post this here (and note that I'm not an administrator). If it is not possible, perhaps that a hidden category and a temporary census-update WikiProject may be in order? Software algorithms are often weak at merging old diffs into new revisions; a backlog of cases that couldn't be done would usually still result for human manual fixing, except if completely reverting to an older revision. But I actually don't know much about the current software Wikimedia has, except for the database backend of an old MediaWiki version that I had to port to another database as a job, years ago... PaleoNeonate (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really doubt it's possible to merge old diffs or rollback one's edits, but it would be a quicker way to get rid of the errors... JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is is a potentially usful bit of info, but in the wrong place. Saying that the population for a hamlet was included into the total for a larger nearby village is a useful comment, but the way he's done it is odd to say the least. He added the text "(where the 2011 census population was included)" in the middle of the introductory sentence so that it now reads "Darite is a village in the civil parish of St Cleer (where the 2011 census population was included), Cornwall, England, United Kingdom." (diff) Why didn't he add it as a separate sentence? - X201 (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His nonsensical statements are everywhere. I reckon three in every four of the articles he has edited has a mistake like that in it. JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bob hasn't edited anything since his block. L3X1 (distant write) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but ... this sounds kind of like how blocks are supposed to work... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just combed through every single one of his 11,000+ edits through AWB. To accomplish this I split the articles he edited into several lists so it would make AWB load the pages faster. It wasn't that difficult considering he has only made two non-mainspace edits! I managed to rewrite most of his mangled and nonsensical sentences through the "find and replace" function, but I definitely missed some. Every now and again I rollbacked some of his obvious errors if he was the most recent person to edit the article in question. I made almost 2000 corrections in total, but of course AWB didn't fix the errors themselves. To do that would require going through every article, checking the census information and looking at a map to see if the civil parish is correct or if the population figures check out. Cornwall, Northamptonshire and Hampshire were the worst affected, and Kent, Manchester, Somerset, most northern counties and all Welsh counties were almost untouched, although he had edited them. It was astonishing to see that he went through every county in England and Wales in the space of one year without anybody noticing his errors. I'm not sure how to proceed now since AWB is quite limited and many of the errors can only be found by fact-checking. It's a pity that Fram didn't get to this first... JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hear ye hear ye. When the above user is one a mission, steer clear. Half of this week's edits they did in 24 hours. L3X1 (distant write) 23:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: The more I think about this case, the more I think that the best course of action is to put every potentially affected article in a polluted hidden category to keep track of them, and then start the slow trudge through them. - X201 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect almost every edit he has made either has a subtle error in it or an ungrammatical/broken sentence somewhere. I'm sure I didn't fix all of the issues through AWB, but a process like that would take a very long time. It does seem to be one option though... JAGUAR  11:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am slowly correcting those articles on my watchlist as I spot them - mainly Bracknell Forest settlements, all done, and Lincolnshire villages. But I haven't had time to check the 2011 figures he has added. The number of edits he has done is huge. Dsergeant (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG has been doing wholesale deletes on any footnote citation to a thinktank. about 50+ in the last hour or so. Most of theese are solid rs -- including two I added after studying an issue on food supply. user Rejects using talk page and gives a very poor explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=prev&oldid=772281822 Rjensen (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been removing large scale link spamming, in this case notably including think tanks. The paid editing of user:Vipul and associates added large numbers of links to libertarian think tanks (Vipul is an associate of Bryan Caplan and added numerous primary sourced sections of the form "Bryan Caplan said X, source, Bryan Caplan saying X on his blog"). I have also been removing references to anti-vaccination propaganda sites, predatory open access journals and other sources we should not be using.

There's been discussion of a very small number of these removals on my talk page, most have been uncontroversial. And when I say most, what with the predatory journals it must be well into the thousands by now.

And every now and then someone doesn't like it and complains. Welcome to the list :-) Guy (Help!) 11:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there is also talk at User talk:Rjensen. This has not excallated to a point where it needs discussion here yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this edit [31] by the OP is supposed to be a "fix" for my "bias", claiming that he'd checked the sources. A website called "Farm Policy Facts", of no evident authority, a 404 link to farmland.org, and primary sourced references to someone the OP says he has personally decided is reliable (good job, well done). So this is perhaps not entirely as straightforward as the OP makes out. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some think tanks are considered reputable and neutral sources of information about a particular center that they specialize in (e.g. Pew Research Center), others are simply providers of opinion from a particular political perspective. In dealing with think tanks of the latter type there needs to be some kind of indication that their opinion on a topic is notable, and generally it should be explicitly attributed to them as their view. (i.e. not "Charles Murray is a White Nationalist" but "The Southern Poverty Law Center have described Murray as a White Nationalist"). It seems reasonable to remove information based on political-opinion type think tank sources if they do not clearly identify the source, if the view they express can be considered controversial, or if there are more reliable sources available about the topic. When information is challenged and removed, the person who wishes to include it must make the argument for why the source is admissible and the material neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile Rjensen has claimed that WP:NPOV requires the use of biased sources, which is contradicted by the NPOV policy which says " Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Links to Library of Economics and Liberty http:// econlib .org/ is one the of think tanks affected. Is it considered unreliable, with no useful information? I know it has a libertarian bias, but some of its content could be valuable.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Econlib definitely has good content and pieces published by it have often been quoted or cited in reliable secondary sources. Many of its authors are AFAIK professors of economics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if there are articles which are good, then they will be published in the peer reviewed literature. The issue here is somewhat analogous to the many SCAM-specific pseudomedical journals: when your peer review consists solely of people who have the same ideological biases, then it is not effective because ideologically consonant bullshit, or mischaracterisations of competing ideologies, are much less likely to be detected. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim appears to be WP:REFSPAM. That policy seems to be about deliberate insertion for some gain other than providing reliable citation. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think tanks have an interest in being linked from a site like wikipedia, so I would tend to agree with Guy that if a another source is available for the same information it should be preferred (unless of course the opinoin of the think tank is itself notable).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, a lot of it was deliberate refspam. Vipul blogs at econlib (or rather, econlog, which it econlib's blog), and virtally every article he edited where any ref could be crowbarred in, there it is, loud and proud. He also expanded articles on a number of other econlib associates, and added self-sourced opinions by Caplan, especially, to dozens of articles on high level subjects.

Second, a lot of it was subtle refspam, such as online copies of books by historical figures like Mill, presented as being published by the "library of economics and liberty". This is basically no different to linking to a book source via Amazon: the website is selling something (in this case libertarian ideology, more than product, but that's not a difference that is actually important). Out of copyright books should be ported to Wikisource or linked on Gutenberg or some other neutral source. There's a second more subtle bias too: if we only have online full text for the books that the libertarian think tank likes, are readers more likely to drink of that well, rather than look up dead-tree books with a different perspective? That question answers itself, and is a large part of the reason I think these links have been added.

Third, the "library of economics and liberty" is a libertarian think tank, and in many cases its publications were presented as if they were authoritative and neutral sources. That is an NPOV problem. And I wuld have exactly the same issue if it were the Fabian Society, and in fact I have removed a lot of links to a Marxist equivalent as well.

Vipul's paid editing ring was all about SEO. Removing these links is just undoing that damage. If any of this content is published in scholarly journals, it can be cited from there. We should not use partisan primary sources, and we definitely should push back when people associated with those sources have engaged in years-long efforts to boost their presence on Wikipedia, as is unquestionably the case here. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links/refs are no-follow, so the SEO argument is invalid. Using a primary source (partisan or otherwise) is dependent on the topic and the content. Morphh ^(talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that can be stated categorically. Consider a recent paid-editing job "we are looking for a strong signal from Wikipedia Page to our website" [32]. – Bri (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a refspam problem as what's being described here though. That's an article notability, self-interest problem. We also can't speak to that advertiser's competency on the matter. No-follow was added on all external links in 2007 at the request of Jimbo. Morphh ^(talk) 16:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single SEO article I have read that mentions Wikipedia, notes that fact, and then goes on to say that it's still extremely important to promote your website and brand on Wikipedia, including through reference links. These are dark arts, and the people who do it for a living appear to have no morals. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I also have problems with the way Guy is going about this. This appears like a one-sided machete approach of search and delete for sites he doesn't like (free market think tanks). I've been in organized campaigns to remove econ ref-spam for Austrian school - this is not how it is done. I've not see consensus to remove these sources, no review of the sourced content, no review of the source itself. I've never even heard of Vipul. It's a blacklist and if the article references something in the blacklist, it's bias and needs to be removed. Take a look at this ridiculous tagging of an FA article that has received considerable peer-review and been stable for years. I think this has moved from a well intentioned effort to remove ref-spam into something else. Morphh ^(talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I inclined to agree with this. It has been with good intent but a bit heavy handed. I'm all for finding better sources, but this takes time. Perhaps it would be better to remove questionable reference and initially put in a citation needed tag, rather than chopping whole paragraphs.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, rather than delete, add, for example, ^{[dubious – discuss]}.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That FA hasn't been reviewed for ten years, and I strongly suspect it might fail if that was to happen now. It's 33K bigger, there's a whole unsourced section in there, and it's full of weasel wording ("Critics say...", "Supporters claim..." and similar). It does need a good clean-up. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite The unsourced section is due to Guy removing the sources as described in this ANI. I haven't reverted it. The large increase in size was likely the last section recently added that lists all the sponsors. Again, I didn't revert it and it hasn't been discussed - it's more of a list than content. That's not to say it couldn't use cleanup, but those are things we can easily discuss on the talk page. Morphh ^(talk) 18:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source for that entire section gives you a 404 error. Regardless, even if it was fixed you can't source an entire section - in Wikipedia's voice - to "Americans for Fair Taxation". Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. My point wasn't a rebuttal - I also agree that it would probably fail. I was just explaining the current state. At one point that section had several sources but I haven't kept up with it. That's actually one of the edits that I agree with Guy on, so it's a bad example. Morphh ^(talk) 19:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly edits like this or this aren't too clever. Nor is the edit summary remotely accurate. Here and here we see a link to an out-of-copyright textbook being removed because the website hosting it somehow contaminates it as "refspam" (but we keep the ref because it was always relevant, now just without easy access to the online text). Or even valid ELs from elsewhere that are simply in the same EL section.

I have an inherent distrust of any single-issue crusades like this. They rarely give rise to well thought out edits. This batch seems to be based on econlog.econlib.org (which I can't even add) being seen as so non-RS that it should be in the edit blacklist, bulk-removed (and of course BRD then conveniently no longer works, as it's blacklisted from the pleb editors) and then any associated articles AfDed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling Now I can't immediately justify that Kling is notable, or that economists (he's clearly an economist) shouldn't just be removed because they play for the wrong team. And certainly not when that involves facing off against an omniscient, omnipotent admin over a content dispute. But bulk removals with an agenda behind them so rarely give rise to positive editing. Maybe these do need to go. Maybe as a "socialist cuck" my personal agenda agrees with Guy's here, I just don't use mine as a guide to editing. Re [33] I have absolutely no idea what "think-tankery" is and why it justifies summary removal of references like this. I don't like right wing fruitbats any more than anyone else, but sometimes the contemporary fruitbat position on a theory such as hydraulic macroeconomics is still worth knowing. Certainly right wing fruitbats are commentators on the naming of fruitbats. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of your diffs, I would have removed the first one straight away as well - that's just original research (at the very least, it needs an "According to..."). The second one is a blog and whilst not terrible, I'm pretty sure if that's a notable theorem there will be better sourcing than that. The third and fourth are just unnecessary - the cite is already there, I don't see the need for the refspam especially as the online book is available from non-contentious sources. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the first one is a "good edit"?

Read it again.

I'm not disagreeing that, "Econlib must go!!": that's both above my pay grade and also a bit pointless to try and debate when it's such a fait accompli. But this sort of crusade (and I use the word deliberately) makes for bad, careless edits, and these are just some of them. As to the sources, then if they're so widely available then why couldn't they be fixed cleanly and fully at the time? This sort of crusade has regularly been carried out by editors (and I'm not including Guy here) doing Serious Bizniz so rapidly, because the world would end if these awful years-old links stayed there a moment longer, yet at the same time doing things like losing links to online copies (which have a tangible value to our readers). Then the poor bloody infantry are expected to clean up the mess afterwards, restoring links from hopefully acceptable sources - a task which is always far harder to do that way round, than in the right order. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That first diff sources the phrase "Mainstream macroeconomics is hydraulic. There is something called aggregate demand which you adjust by pumping in fiscal and monetary expansion.", but the source actually says "Mainstream macroeconomics is hydraulic. There is something called aggregate demand which you adjust by pumping in fiscal and monetary expansion. I wish to reject this whole concept of macroeconomics." So it's actually being sourced with something that not only is an opinion piece, but actually disagrees with it! Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, read it again.

I'm not making subjective judgements about the meaning of the sources cited. I'm just talking about basic editing, where Guy shouldn't leave truncated sentences lying around. And as for your, "(at the very least, it needs an "According to...")", then read it again: it did do just that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Andy, you're just doing what you always do: stoking needless drama. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then be more careful with your bloody edits and don't be in such a rush that you leave obviously broken stuff like half sentences. There is no excuse for this, not even when someone as hugely important as your illustrious self is out righting great wrongs against Gotham city. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the problem at first either, in the first one, but when I did, I fixed it. Andy, be more explicit, less elliptical, to be less dramatic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a few admins here want to appoint themselves as Judge Dredd, being the sole law as to whether some content is permissible or not and protecting the pages from any plebs who disagree, then it's not the pleb's job to do their proof reading for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikt:melodramatic TimothyJosephWood 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The perennial problem

I am seeing above the beginnings of a repeating issue that I have encountered when removing links to predatory open access journals. I will remove, say, a hundred of these, and I will be challenged on a handful. The people challenging me will demand one or more of the following:

1. No source be removed, however problematic, unless I personally find a better source.
2. Sources be removed but no article content, i.e. replace the deleted source with {{citation needed}}
3. When removing sources, also remove all contentby that source.
4. How dare you remove X type of source, it's perfectly reliable, you're just trying to suppress Y kind of activity or viewpoint.

My usual approach is to read the text, deciode whether it's likely to be challenged without the source, and then remove either just the source, or the entire sentence if it looks dodgy. So, WP:SYN type claims such as "Anarchists believe this is wrong, source, anarchist blog", I will remove the sentence. "Unemployment is where people have no job, source, partisan think tank" I just remove the source.

And yes, I sometimes get it wrong, and the result is usually that it gets fixed and we all move on. In some cases, though, I have had two or three people demanding mutually exclusive combinations of the above, usually because the article or content in question basically has no other source. Of the three, the last is a problem because it does not self-resolve.

Check my talk page for a list of the kinds of crap sources I am removing. OMICS Group journals and other predatory publishers, insane conspiracist websites like Natural News, whale.to and the National Vaccine Information Center, sales pages for self-published books, self-promoting spammers. I'm also active at the blacklist.

This is not some out-of-the-blue agenda against libertarian think-tanks, it's part of a long term personal project to review and improve sourcing. This particular one hit my radar due to conflicted promotional editing by user:Vipul. The problem is partisan, promotional or commercial websites which go out of their way to create a veneer of authority, used as sources on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a collaborative project, so can collaboration assist?

How about: Discuss first, get agreement (probably not that hard), agree the scope of how far to prune (is a notable fruitbat still WP:N, or do they have to go too?) and then identify the tasks.

What is the difference between removing Econlib as a source, removing content sourced to Econlib, and removing subjects discussed by Econlib? I think this might be harder. Yet many editors, and I am one, feel deeply uneasy about removing content or topics simply and only because it has so far been sourced from Econlib.

Then there is the issue of the PD texts, with copies available from Econlib. These are a far lower priority to remove. They also add value. Per the SEO argument above, it's hard to show that they are damaging or convey prestige. So should they be removed at all? If they are to be, then there is clearly no reason to cut off our fruitbat muzzle to spite our pointy little fruitbat ears. So don't just remove them: tag them first (a 'bot task), identify the canon of texts sourced (probably not that many), find alternative and acceptable free sources for those texts, then text-by-text go through by 'bot and replace (not remove) them. Nothing is lost, the problem is fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for still being active on the Vipul front, Guy. The workload you're taking on is appreciated. El_C 03:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The pollyanna approach starts with "let's not bite the newbies" (that is, we should encourage Vipul and friends), then continues with "omg someone is reverting refspam without spending an hour to polish each turd". Instead of enabling refspam, those commenting here should be trying to improve JzG's edit at Hydraulic macroeconomics (I can't think of anything better than clicking "thank" myself). Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how does one improve hydraulic macroeconomics? This is an old theory, largely superseded as being too simplistic. It's attractively easy to explain, but it doesn't seem to match how reality actually behaves. Now the right wing is talking about it again. So is it relevant to that article that the right-wing has re-adopted it? Have they? But with the recent blanking, and the admin-only lock on these articles, it's impossible for other editors to work on that. That is using admin privilege to strong-arm a content issue, and it's far from the first time that we've seen Guy using his privileges to do such a thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question, but actually not specific to this topic. Wikipedia has people who add content and people who curate. This is a curation issue: the content that was added, is poor. Someone will be along real soon now with some better content - especially since this is a hot topic for right wingers (check the talk pages on climate science topics). The right does currently seem to have decided to collectively re-enact the 1980s, when simplistic notions could be asserted without serious challenge. I think this is one of the reason the centre is struggling right now, because you have many complex problems and, as Mencken would have put it, each has a solution that is neat, simple and wrong. The extremes at both ends don't worry about that, the centre does. Moderate Republicans were part of the reason Trumpcare failed to make progress last week, but those same moderate Reupblicans have basically no voice in framing a better alternative, the strident soundbytes of the House Freedom Caucus drown out all other voices. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As a partial counter to the headache these occasional complaints cause, let my add my thanks to Guy for working to clear out bad sources. I especially appreciate the removal of citations to predatory journals, but removing the paid-to-have-a-particular-opinion pieces from think tanks is also a very valuable service. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• What where the reasons for blacklisting econlib, was it its libertarian bias, its association with refspam behavior or something else? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming. Its POV is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if POV has an influence though. There doesn't seem to have been much effort to search for sources onWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling before nominating it for deletion. Maybe I don't understand what "unique" means in the context of "Google finds fewer than 150 unique hits for this name," but I get 91,400 Google hits for "Arnold Kling" in quotes[34]. Even if "unique" means some kind of limited search, there are 32 results in the NY Times alone [35], so I don't see how it's plausible to think there'd be 150 only in the universe of web pages. How does an experienced editor fail so completely to find sources? --Jahaza (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the direction of the POV is not relevant. The fact that the POV is non-mainstream is relevant (as it would be if it was anarchist, say), but the fact that its non-mainstream POV is free market fundamentalism is not relevant, it just happens that this is the POV of the person doing the spamming. If they have been an Occupier then the problem and the fix would be exactly the same. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that the POV is non-mainstream is relevant" and "Its POV is irrelevant" are contradictory. You've also not explained at all what happened with this AFD.--Jahaza (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your misunderstanding. The issue here is WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ASSERT and a side order of WP:REFSPAM. The REFSPAM was the flag to review the content, but the core issues are the first three. If this was a mainstream scholarly economics journal then there would be no issue, because we can rely on their peer review, but n this case we're talking about think tanks and fundamentalist free market websites masquerading as independent scholarly sources, and that plainly is a problem. So: the direction of the POV is irrelevant, it's the magnitude that's the problem. It would be the same if it were Occupy or a Marxist site. POV think tanks are not neutral sources, however fervently they might believe otherwise. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin view) Econlib is undeniably biased in favor of laissez-faire capitalism. This alone isn't a problem, since WP:BIASED says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." You claim they are fundementalist and masquerading as an independent scholarly source. Have they actually advocated for fundementalism, or is this your personal analysis of their views? I don't think they're masquerading anything. They acknowledge on their about page that they want to advance people's knowledge of liberty. As far as I know, they don't claim to be unbiased or representative of mainstream economics. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already discussed cases where these links have been misrepresented as an authority they are not, and deceptive titles have been used. The "library" is selectively curated and only ideologically consonant articles have been promoted here, so the problem is pretty obvious. As to fundamentalist, I think it's pretty clear here as well, not least from their characteristically fundamentalist free market title, replete with Orwellian overtones. A bit like the House "Freedom" Caucus. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully support Guy's cleanup of these low-quality WP:REFSPAM sites. Thanks for doing this work. Before any source is deployed widely and intentionally as it was in the Vipul effort, it is common sense (among experience editors anyway) to check it with the relevant editing community (like a WikiProject) first. If that isn't done, one can expect pushback, as has happened here. If folks who find these references valuable want to keep them, they should discuss them and get buy-in at the relevant WikiProject. This is very similar to what happened with the overall paid edit effort btw. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am surprised, disappointed, and dismayed to find Econlib on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org Spam-blacklist]. (Who added it?) This is a step well beyond RS analysis or discussion. Is Econlib mentioned on the WP:RSNB? Was there any discussion anywhere? Absolutely not. Instead we read that Econlib is an "agenda driven source"; therefore, a widespread campaign to remove all Econlib-linked references citing REFSPAM, SPS, PRIMARY, LINKFARM, agenda driven, polemical, libertarian, libertarian think tank, free market think tank, and other ersatz rationales to remove the links in undertaken. Never mind the fact that Econlib's Concise Encyclopedia of Economics contains original articles by highly respected professors, authors, and Nobel Prize laureates ([http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HumanCapital.html#abouttheauthor Gary Becker] and [http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Information.html#abouttheauthor Joseph Stiglitz]). The removals are not confined to Further reading or External links sections. Swept-up in the purge are in-line citations and material from Econlib and other sources (such as Cato Institute and Pittsburgh Tribune). The original motivation may have been to clear out contributions by Vipul, but was Vipul ever warned about spamming? (Yes, once in 2013 and again earlier this month.) Talk about "agenda driven" – the ideas and scholarship presented by Econlib are of secondary importance. Instead, agenda-driven objections about "dark money", "political activism", "conceal[ed] sources of funding", etc. are motivating this effort to censor WP. – S. Rich (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the discussion. It could be blacklisting is too heavy handed.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was the result of citation spamming by user:Vipul. It is one of a large number of sites he spammed for SEO purposes. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been told that secondary sources is what makes something notable. So if paper XYZ has a reasonable number of citations from non-spammy other papers in (say) Google Scholar, it's ok for Wikipedia even though the journal that it's in might not have the best possible provenance. Therefore, I'd ask people to check for inbound citations before taking out a reference that they have doubts about. I agree that links to public domain materials should go to repositories like Gutenberg rather than to partisan web sites, when possible. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In January I opened an ANI thread (archived here), concerning Carliertwo and their editing of articles related to the music group Siouxsie and the Banshees. My intention had been for the community to examine the whole approach of this user, but unfortunately the thread was closed after focusing on one specific incident (Carliertwo not respecting the result of an RfC). My concern is that this user is not interested in Wikipedia being a neutral and balanced source of information, rather they are using Wikipedia as a platform for echoing their own views as a Siouxsie Sioux fan. I write this as someone who owns several records by the group, so I am not a hater of the band seeking to attack them (quite the contrary); I am simply attempting to ensure Wikipedia's coverage of them is neutral. Currently this is not possible, because Carliertwo has a stranglehold over all articles connected with Siouxsie Sioux, and removes all content that does not chime with their own enthusiasm for the band. Comments made about this user at that first thread include the following: "it looks to me like ownership doesn't even begin to describe the contribution count: it is literally all for the band, like some sort of dedicate social media account to ensure that this group is always portrayed in a positive light" (TomStar81), "Carliertwo is not respecting the consensus outcome of the RfC and they are edit warring. The comment on your talk page does have the tone of ownership" (MrX), and "It is pretty damning evidence of being a SPA when all you do is edit on a specific band to achieve your specific POV" (TheGracefulSlick).

Incidents that have made me open this issue again are the following (the third example is the most revealing):

• 1) Although there had just been an RfC (that I opened) that concluded that the phrase "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website" should not be included in the Tinderbox article, Carliertwo immediately opens another RfC, this time asking whether the phrase "In 2011, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations" should be included in the article.[36]
• 2) In the article about the album Kaleidoscope, I adjusted a review quote so that it reflected the overall tone of the review (i.e. qualified praise) [37]. Carliertwo has reverted this three times ([38] [39] [40]), each time replacing the overall summary with cherry-picked praise of 2 particular tracks.
• 3) I found a very critical review, written by Julie Burchill in the NME, of the album The Scream. I found it remarkable that our article didn't have this review in the 'Critical reception' section, though it did contain long positive comments about the album made by other NME journalists, just not the actual official NME review. So I added a quote from the review [41]. Carliertwo reverted this, stating that I must have found the review on a fansite, and hence I couldn't "advance the veracity" of Burchill's article [42]. So, I added a link to a scan of the review in a copy of NME Originals [43]. Carliertwo reverted this and replaced it with an attack on Burchill's review that is almost hysterical in tone [44], at the same time denying readers the possibility of even reading a quote from Burchill's review.

I am very concerned about the actions of this editor and think that, while they continue to treat Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for reflecting their own views, it will be impossible for any Wikipedia article about Siouxsie Sioux (and related subjects) to achieve any kind of neutrality. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defense: reply of Carliertwo: Introduction

• Definition and difference between a SPA and a Stewardship. A "wp:Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter or an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter. The editor might also be an expert on the subject matter, or otherwise very knowledgeable of the topic, and able to provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. "
• 1) For your information, I almost entirely wrote a wp:GA for Join Hands. I have made a huge research to create section about legacy, finding the right quotes. All the legacy sections on these SATB related articles have been written by me, I let you measure the good work at Siouxsie Sioux article. [45]]. If you want to get rid of a good contributor who has historical content, you have to have this in mind.
• 2) A 2nd RFC on Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) for including a different sentence while using the same source was discussed a few months ago: my version was accepted with a wp:consensus [[46]]. Palecloudedwhite didn't mention I have a consensus, he wants a revenge apparently.
• 3) For The Scream (album) article, I have added secondary sources as Julie Burchill's review was seen as controversial by many critics. These secondary sources are by legendary John Peel DJ, biographer Brian Jones and I can add another one from Paul Morley who also highly criticized Burchill's review two months later in the NME. Julie Burchill is a journalist known for writing with venom about all the punk and post-punk bands, secondary sources are perfectly valid in this case. So, where is the wp:OR  ? Comment about Pale, Pale had initially used a reference from a fansite where he took the title of the review "Well, what would Edvard Munch have said.", which meant he hadn't checked back then the veracity of the review and didn't own the original (mistakes of sources are common on fansite). Yesterday, he found a reproduction of the article on a NME reissue which doesn't mention the title of the review anymore "well, what would Edvard Munch have said. So that's why he withdrew the title "Well, what would Edvard Munch have said" ffrom the source. I was right but Pale forgot to present you this important fact. Now, it is still said in the article, that in the same paper, Julie Burchill published a scathing review, later judged as this by her peers as I have explained it with sources in the article.
• 4) For Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album), I included a source with quote from the Melody Maker, Pale wanted to change it, I don't consider this idea better. Regarding The Scream (album) and Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)', there are talks to discuss.
• 5) PaleCloudedWhite is not far to be a group hater, I invite you to read the hysterical tone he used here [47] : on 1 February 2017 he wrote: "Boy George writes in his autobiography about meeting Siouxsie Sioux when he was youn of me and the bandger, and says, {{She was haughty, irritated by those attempting to brush with greatness. The new punk stars were every bit as puffed up as the seventies rock dinosaurs they despised", then presumably it's absolutely OK to add this, plus any other quotes I find in primary sources, to the Siouxsie Sioux article}}? ". It is his frame of mind.
• 6) Concerning the review, Pale also wanted to include this pure bashing "the sound of suet pudding" out of the blue which shows Pale's agenda. We never included pure hatred from critics inside quotes for wp:neutrality. Carliertwo (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I'm thrilled to see nothing has changed. I'm thinking editing restrictions (like topic banned, broadly construed, from anything remotely related to the band). Who be with me? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? Pale forgot to tell you he lost the 2nd rfc which ended with a consensus saying the source is valuable. Now, Is there a consensus at the talk of the Scream? The review is still mentioned and there are secondary sources from very famous people who criticized Burchill's work. see below . for TomStar81 You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TomStar81's proposal - I faintly remember this discussion in January and share Star's "thrill" that nothing has changed. Readers deserve the full story about the band (and their albums/singles) so it is terribly unfair to censor reviews just because they are contrary to one editor's personal preferences.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? Pale forgot to tell you he lost the 2nd rfc which ended with a consensus saying the source is valuable. Now, Is there a consensus at the talk of the Scream? The review is still mentioned and there are secondary sources from very famous people who criticized Burchill's work. see below . for TheGracefulSlick You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. The NME thing is blatant evidence they are incapable of editing neutrally in this area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See below. the review is still mentioned. for Only in death. You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet before your ban. Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt vote support because the review is/is not in the article, I voted support because you thought this edit was an appropriate response to someone criticising your pet band. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've just had to revert (most of) this editor's large changes to Mogwai, as well. Nothing ridiculous, but they'd merged sections in the article into one without any reason whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As someone who also listens to this group, I can say without a doubt that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and most (if not all) claims should be backed with reliable sources. The same goes for all articles. However, what I can also say is that editing a specific set of articles does not automatically make the user an SPA. Most editors stick to articles about their interests to begin with. DarkKnight2149 23:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So by not replying by an oppose, you let them ban me, and let these peoplewho are not aware of the agenda of this group hater, and don't care at all of all the massive work with sources that I have made on wikipedia, win de facto. Darkknight2149 Carliertwo (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way - If they're goal is to make the group look bad, they should not be editing Siouxsie articles. At the same time, if your goal is promote them, neither should you.

Also, sources are absolutely necessary, but it is possible to use them and not be neutral. I'm not going to "pick a side" (for lack of a better term) here since I don't have a history with anyone involved and don't know what is characteristic of their or your behaviour. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I have added secondary sources from John Peel and a biographer but apparently you haven't seen them at The Scream (album). Do you mind clicking on this link or is it too much to ask [48] ? He doesn't have anything to prove that I am not neutral whereas I have one against him as he included the non neutrality quote "The sound of a suet pudding". Darkknight2149 Carliertwo (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Editor is wasting all of our time here with this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Tarage has never contributed to any historical content on wikipedia apart discussing banning on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and writing on talks, their voice is more than measured. Carliertwo (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adorable. I'll look forward to seeing your block log then. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is rich, you wrote that my contributions are nonsense whereas I wrote a GA and the valuable content/good sources of these articles were written by me. Judging people without knowing their work is a speciality from you. Thanks for confirming that your pleasure is seeing good contributors being banned. Carliertwo (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop the personal attacks and digging your hole any time now buddy. --Tarage (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Important CommentSurprisingly, three users had already given a ban without even reading the defense, without even seeing I have added secondary sources and the Julie Burchill's NME review is still mentioned in article. Carliertwo (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• as this ANI is canvassed, could well known users of the SATB articles write their point of view about my work and the umerous volume I have added on wikipedia ? Gentlecollapse6, Greg Fasolino, Woovee, J Milburn, LessHeard vanU, SilkTork, If you want to get rid of a good contributor because of a witch hunt begun by a group hater who is against my person and refuses to swallow that he lost a 2nd rfc against me by a consensus, it is your choice. Carliertwo (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carliertwo this ANI was not canvassed. He was quoting us so it is appropriate to ping us when our edits are mentioned. You, on the other hand, did just canvass a group of editors. You also keep called PaleWhite a "group hater" just because he added a review from a somewhat controversial, but notable, critic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you explain us why people who know all my good work, could not write here whereas Pale's first RFC was cancelled by a 2nd rfc with a consensus for my version which means that his first ANI was retrospectively abusive and was just a witch hunt. He thought to include bashing from Boy George about this group (see the quote in green above) and now in the article about The Scream, he wants to include bashing such as "the sound of a suet pudding" where is the neutrality? Have you read my secondary sources from legendary John Peel and biographer of the group? No you didn't obviously. All the Burchill's quote he added was a manoeuvre to include this derogatory term about the album "the sound of a suet pudding", no neutrality. TheGracefulSlick --- Carliertwo (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick failed to address anything about the following points: the fact that there are secondary sources for Burchill's review and the fact that Burchill's review is still mentioned in the article. Carliertwo (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlietwo I'd be happy to as soon as you address the multiple non-neutral ANI notices you sent to friendly users calling PaleWhite a "hater". Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGraceFulSlick doesn't even know what a wp:stewardship means. I note the refusal to discuss'and reply about why the reason of banning is justified whereas Burchill's review is still included in the article and widely commented by secondary sources with experts such as John Peel. TheGraceFulSlick also supports the idea of including a bashing of Boy George towards this group by Pale, which is trivial content and she also supports the inclusion of a non neutral quote by Burchill such as "the sound of suet pudding". Carliertwo (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carliertwo please do not put words in my mouth or question my competence. I have edited much more music articles than I can count so I think I know a thing or two. I said I'd be happy to discuss when you address why you think it is okay to canvass editors.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me to be a SPA and you don't even know that the rfc for which the previous ANI was created against me, was later cancelled by a new consensus. Are you sure you are of good faith ? without mentioning that you hadn't even waited to get my defense before voting for a ban. Read my wp:GA about Join Hands, and read the first comment of Darkknight2149 above and ponder. Then when you'll have thought about this, I will be happy to discuss. TheGracefulSlick. don't worry people have a brain and the users that post on SATB related articles will not take for granted my subjective comment. They will judge facts and the content of articlesCarliertwo (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have got a lot of difficulties to believe that contacting you, an user who accused me of being a SPA in an ANI opened for a RFC which has been cancelled, is not canvassing. Knowing that you don't know anything of my edits of the SATB related articles. But you said, that contacting people who do contribute on articles about music and who didn't take part to the previous ANI concerning me, is canvassing. This is rich. TheGracefullSlick. Carliertwo (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoy when an editor accuses me of competency issues, lack of good faith, and insinuates I do not have a brain: all without a single diff! I'm just going to wait for other editors to jump in (hopefully some you didn't canvas) because this is no longer very productive.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I said that the people I contacted on their page won't take for granted that I consider Pale close to be a band hater and wanting to take a revenge for losing a 2nd rfc against me. People will take a look at the edits, they are users of music related articles. However you can't denied accusing me being a SPA, the quote is above, and you can't denied voting for my ban far before I posted someting here today. Whatever I post, you don't mind. All the things I have said are wrong according to you apparently. I was just asking which point of my defense reply you agree with and which one you disagree.Carliertwo (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick I have just read what canvassing was really about, and withdrew all my edits at the talks of people who edit at music related articles and replaced the message by another short neutral notice. I'm new at ANI. Anyway, you're gonna win and could feast your victory with a cup of champagne in a few days. Congratulations. Thanks for your kind messages and at least admitting well accepting to admit a bit that Burchill's review was "controversial". I guess it is a satisfaction for me. I presume you're gonna let Pale erase all this part and let him doing what did he say earlier "denying readers the possibility of even reading a quote from Burchill's review", well in this case "denying readers the possibility of even reading from Burchill's" peers who were skeptical of her work. Carliertwo (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. You are mistaken, I'm not here to "win" anything. You're continued attitude at article talk pages [49] and your sarcasm with me suggests why you need a topic ban. By the way, your comment in the diff I provided mischaracterized PaleWhite for no reason whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Which diff you provided" are you talking about ? I disagree with your attitude. If banning a good contributor without any warning is normal, I don't think this is measured. Carliertwo (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh...the diff in my last comment. And here is what I was pointing to specifically: "Pale's will to include a derogatory term such as 'The Sound of suet pudding' shows how his frame of mind. Be ready to see him post plenty of negative, things on SATB articles shortly and in the forthcoming years". I guess I also need to ask you to stop "thanking" me for my edits which you know pings me like an actual ping.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ban+block NPOV, edit warring, bludgeon, and attacking other editors for their lack of brainpower. This editor clearly has a boen to pick with others over anything. That attack on Tarage was pretty poor. A few weeks perhaps? L3X1 (distant write) 03:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ban from what, do you want me to never edit again on SATB related articles knowing that I have been adding all the good quotes, content and sources from 10 years, and seeing that I entirely wrote a GA ? In a limited time or endlessly and is being a stewardship allowed ? When there is war editing on an article The steps are usually, request demand for a third opinion, discussion, rfc and then if a rfc is not respected an ANI. Canvassing is when you contact people to get support. Pale contacted people from the previous ANI to support him, so I asked neutral people to write their point of view. Another question, will the secondary sources be erased whereas they are comments from John Peel who is the number specialist of music in England ? for L3X1. And have you read all my defense reply above the comments Carliertwo (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The canvassing continues. Blackmane (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• note I just read what is canvassing, I thought it was contacting people. I am a newbie at ANI, never been interested by banning attack judging, people. So I'm gonna erase the messages at pages of people I contact to only post a neutral note. Carliertwo (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading through the examples given, and Carliertwo's general editing, I can see the reason for concern. Sadly, Carliertwo's story is fairly common - we are urged to look out for paid editing, but I find our main weakness is unpaid editing by subject enthusiasts who seek to praise their subject a little too much. Yet the bulk of Wikipedia is built by such enthusiasts. The majority of articles on certain popular subjects, be it video games or pop music, have a positive bias. Putting in the neutral balance is the job of neutral editors who come along after the fans have created the article and provided the bulk of the material. And it is the responsibility of all experienced editors to explain to the fans what is happening and why we need to do this. Mostly this is accepted. In Carliertwo's case it seems it is not. Fighting to put back in a trivial, non-encyclopaedic and undue sentence that Brett Anderson liked Tinderbox is not the sort of behaviour we wish to see. On the other hand, the edit warring in Kaleidoscope is two sided. Carliertwo did not completely revert the adjust - the phrasing "Paulo Hewitt gave the album qualified praise" was left intact. During the edit conflict PaleCloudedWhite did not attempt to discuss the matter on the article talkpage or Carliertwo's talkpage, but continued to edit war. I don't think topic banning Carliertwo is an appropriate solution, because I'm not seeing sufficient reason for that. I do think though that it needs to be stressed to Carliertwo that we are not a fan website, and that what we are trying to do is write neutral, balanced and informative articles on Siouxsie and the Banshees for all readers, which means including the negative and the positive in appropriate amounts; which means that we don't cherry pick reviews for the bits we like best, but we aim to give an accurate summary of what was written' which means that if another editor adds material or questions what you are doing, you engage in a discussion as to the best way forward. But this also applies to other editors as well. As experienced editors it is our role to reach out to and explain things to newer or less experienced or knowledgeable editors. We don't shout at them, ban them, or block them, we assist them to understand the Wikipedia way. That way everyone wins. If any editor continues to misbehave after advice has been given, that's when we come in with the heavy stuff. Looking at Carliertwo's history, he has made mistakes, and been given advice. That happens to all of us. There has been a few comments regarding ownership of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles, but not to the level of a ban or a block. I think what is needed here is to let Carliertwo be aware that the community wants cooperation from all editors, and that articles must be neutral in tone. Any concerns are to be discussed rather than fought over. If Carliertwo can acknowledge that he now understands what the issue is, and promises to be more collegiate going forward, I think this matter can be closed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur generally with what SilkTork' said and their recommendation. As an additional note, as someone who was worked on the Scream article in question, I would say that simply quoting a sourced review is sufficient. We do not need, and should not, add in an entire additional set of sources commenting on how a particular sourced review is invalid. It's irrelevant, for example, whether John Peel thinks Burchill's review was bad. That does come across like a "defense" of the band/record. If it hasn't already been edited down, it should be.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Carliertwo's bias continues to show on his talk page. He also, again, accuses PaleWhite of bad faith without any proof whatsoever in the same edit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I too am getting sick of this. If the user is only going to use their talk page as a means to attack other editors, I request that it be revoked for the duration of the block. They have provided nothing of substance to the argument since getting blocked. --Tarage (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial sentence in SilkTork's comment above is "If Carliertwo can acknowledge that he now understands what the issue is", because at the moment I see no evidence of this. In their most recent post on their talkpage they state that they do not wish for a certain part of the above-mentioned NME review to be used because it "looks like an useless cherry on the cake used as a weapon by PaleCloudedwhite". A weapon? How is it possible to discuss additions to articles if these additions are regarded by this user as weapons? In the same post this user also advises another to "beware of Paleclouded's attitude and check his edits. I think that he has got tons of edits ready and once I'll be gone, he's going to present a pile of edits in the same vein." Oh, thanks for filling in my Wikipedia diary for me - I had been wondering what my future involved, and now I know. It seems to me that this editor regards editors who challenge them over SATB articles as enemies, and all sorts of nonsense ensues because of this. Just look at how my comment about Boy George became mangled; in the second Tinderbox RfC, I tried to illustrate the undesirable logical consequences of Carliertwo's argument by using a quote Boy George had made about Siouxsie Sioux, [50], but at the top of this thread Carliertwo throws this quote back as an example of my "frame of mind"? What? At the start of this thread I state clearly that I have records by the band and am not a hater of the band. Carliertwo's response? To canvass several editors, informing them I am a "group hater" and that "he wants to let us believe he is not a SATB hater and and doesn't have an agenda on wikipedia, waiting me to be banned and then adding negative critics and erasing good reviews". How is it possible to discuss articles - as SilkTork advises - with an editor who has such a bad-faith attitude? It would be great if blocks and bans can be avoided, but what is the alternative? Unproductive contorted stalemate situations with a user who from the outset regards people such as myself as enemies using 'weapons'? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world we would all get on with each other, agree all the time, and meet up for cherry pie and coffee, but sometimes there are awkward incidents, awkward individuals, and disagreements - that is the nature of Wikipedia editing. I understand your frustration, though there isn't a huge history of problems with this user. There have been minor mistakes made, and advice given. Most users have made mistakes. There has been some edit warring, but generally it takes at least two users to make an edit war. I'm not seeing that we have given this user sufficient guidance regarding the concerns with their editing and behaviour, nor am I seeing that their behaviour is sufficiently damaging to warrant a ban. While I agree with you that it was inappropriate to call a second RFC so close after the first one, and while I disagree with the outcome of that RFC, this is not a banning incident as this sort of thing happens all the time. Calling the RFC was not evil, and there were enough who supported not only the premise of the RFC, but also that it was called. Having an editorial disagreement is not evil. This happens all the time. We work through it. Sometimes this is tiresome, sometimes we learn that we were wrong, and most of the time the article is strengthened. I note that through all these problems that Carliertwo has worked toward a compromise. I find that encouraging rather than cause for a ban. We tend to only ban those who consistently refuse to listen to reason, and who make little or no attempt at compromise. Carliertwo is not perfect, but none of us are, and he is working in the right direction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to implement a topic ban

Its been 24 hours since this thread was opened, and there does seem to be consensus that something more needs to be done about this problem since rattling the saber didn't work last time. Therefore, I propose that we move to adopt a measure that stating that Carliertwo is hereby topic banned from all articles on or related to Siouxsie and the Banshees, broadly construed, and that the topic ban shall be in place indefinitely with an option for Carliertwo to appeal the topic ban after a period of one year by petition for a review of the topic ban at ANI. @MrX, TheGracefulSlick, PaleCloudedWhite, Only in death, Black Kite, Darkknight2149, Tarage, L3X1, and Blackmane: You were either pinged here when this opened or have opined above that this is the best course action, so I am recalling you here to get your input on this proposal. Gentlecollapse6, Greg Fasolino, Woovee, J Milburn, LessHeard vanU, and SilkTork you were pinged here at Carliertwo's request. As it would be irresponsible of me to disregard Carliertwo's earlier insistence that you also be involved in this matter, I would like to invite you to weigh in this matter as well, in the spirit of AGF. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support Enough already, we need to end this disruptive behavior. If Carliertwo isn't going to change then this option is the next best thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to make it clear here that I am not advocating for anything being done while Carliertwo is blocked, that would be unethical. I am merely moving forward with a proposal here to gauge the interest in topic ban. We will of course be patient and wait to hear back from the accused, as AGF necessitates. In the mean time, though, it would be beneficial to here back on the proposal insofar as its points relate to the case. It seemed we were agreed above that a topic ban would be a good idea, but I'm uncertain if an unblock condition would be a good idea. I'm also uncertain if it would be wise to debate the merits of revoking the topic ban at ANI. These points we can discuss without needing to wait for Carliertwo, as they are simply a matter of weighing the needs of the community against the allegations here. If we all agree on the points than the proposal then if the topic ban does turn out to the favored option we will be on the same page. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've just looked and note that Carliertwo is under a 48 hour block so is unable to respond here. If Carliertwo is able to reflect on the concerns raised, and give an assurance that he will discuss concerns rather than engaging in edit wars, that he will take on board that Wikipedia by the nature of what we are includes negative comments on subjects, even Siouxsie and the Banshees, and that he will abide by consensus, then a ban is not necessary. We should wait until Carliertwo is able to respond. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with SilkTork and would like to see Carliertwo given a chance to show they understand why their approach was wrong. If they cannot learn to be more neutral and less defensive of this band/articles, and continue to express conspiracy theories about PaleCloudedWhite's motives and editing biases, then yes, a ban is necessary. But perhaps Carliertwo can learn. Yesterday I tried at length to explain these problems to Carliertwo, perhaps it will sink in. I think, considering that this editor has in fact done much good work on the SATB articles, they should be given one more chance to learn how to be a more neutral WIki editor.Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Neutral) - Whatever the result is, I think we should wait for the user's current 48-hour block to expire before making a decision and closing the discussion. We should see what their response is. Their response and/or defense is important, even in the hypothetical situation where the user shoots themself in the foot (not to outright predict that they will). DarkKnight2149 14:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If they can explain why their approach was incorrect, tone down the snarky retaliatory comments, and follow-up through with a more neutral mindset, then I would see no reason to implement a topic ban. Let us see what Carliertwo has to say when they are unblocked and we can decide.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fine waiting till the block expires. Carliertwo is a 10 year veteran here, while not as prolific as other editors with the same tenure, they have nonetheless been a solid contributor and that warrants consideration. Blackmane (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And given that one of the articles they created currently has Good Article status (in addition to what you just said), I'm inclined to agree. DarkKnight2149 20:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply of Carliertwo: After reading advices and explanations, I realize that I've made a mistake of judgement. I shouldn't have withdrawn this review (quote + source) and only let her name appear and a simple mention of her review. I had done this because I've read many times she's a controversial writer, and as none of her articles is available on Rock's Backpages, I took it as a sign that maybe her work was not accepted by all of her peers. With the benefit of hindsight, I recognize, I was wrong as the only criteria that matters is the reliability of the source. (Her review was supervised by an editor in chief before publishing). I understand now very well the concerns of NPOV that my revert has raised. The next times, when I disagree with an edit and when one of my edits is reverted, I will use the talk, will try to find a compromise and in the end, abide to the consensus. I will also work to be more civil when I have a criticism to make. Carliertwo (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I really hope you have learned something Carliertwo but I apologize if I'm skeptical. For all we know, you are just saying this because you were faced with a legitimate possibility of being topic banned. During the ANI, you acted terribly hostile toward others (especially with me for some reason), casted aspirations, canvassed, and made excuses for your behavior. None of these factors bring about much confidence. Please note, however, I will agree with the consensus and I expect you to as well. That's even if it's not in your favor because, you must admit, your ability to be neutral is still at question.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the editors who said they would comment when Carliertwo replied: Blakemane, Darkknight2149, Greg Fasolino, SilkTork, TomStar81. Anyone else of course can also respond.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Carliertwo has been advised and cautioned and has taken on board what has been said so there is no need for a ban. It may be worth stressing to Carliertwo that in situations like this, if there is a repeat of inappropriate attempts to control an article, and another ANI is called, that it is highly likely a topic ban will be the result. The best form of stewardship is seeking consensus when there are causes for concern. No editor should take it upon themselves to be the sole arbiter of what appears in an article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Oppose I would be willing to give Carliertwo rope in the event that they apologize for all of this, and under the understanding that if it happens again, there won't be a second chance. --Tarage (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for his appology... --Tarage (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm going with AGF on this given Carliertwo's statement above. Sanctions are only to prevent ongoing disruption and not for punishment. Blackmane (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not going to vote either 'support' or 'oppose', because I brought this issue here for the wider community to assess. If Carliertwo is not topic banned but has learned that editors other than myself view their conduct as unacceptable, I am content with that, and I hope that neither myself nor any other editor has to raise this issue here again, for it is wearisome. I would add for the information of Carliertwo that I really do have records by the band - three SATB vinyl LPs, three SATB CD LPs, three SATB vinyl 45s, and two Creatures vinyl LPs - but it should not be necessary for editors to have to establish a fan status before they are 'allowed' to edit the SATB articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional oppose - I've been neutral so far but, when a user apologises for their behaviour, I take it as a sign that they themselves realise that they did something wrong. I oppose this topic ban, as long as they don't repeat what they specifically apologised for. This does not include accusations that they did not apologise for. DarkKnight2149 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Conduct issues aside, the criticism of Burchill's review is certainly as noteworthy as the review itself. I don't disagree that the review and quote be included, but not without giving the reader a reasonable idea that the reviewer had a overt dislike of punk music, was notably controversial and disparaging in her reviews and her words attracted rebuttal from other noteworthy people, like many of her deliberately provocative reviews did. She's a somewhat 'special case' and it would disingenuous to present her opinion as representative of popular consensus on the subject of the punk movement. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the review is currently included as the sole negative perspective among a mass of overwhelmingly positive comments from other journalists, so in no way could including it be referred to as presenting her opinion as "representative of popular consensus on the subject of the punk movement". Some people don't like punk music; that doesn't make their views any less valid. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is notable pretext and addendum to her conclusion that ought to be included. And some people don't like curry - not sure I'd be asking them for a critique of Indian restaurants in my local area. But if I did, its probably right I know they throw up on cue at the thought of a Jalfrezi. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the same reasons as others stated above.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc James removed on article on Heart failure medications that was properly cited with highly credited sources obtained from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. He claims there was a copy and paste issue for a couple sentences, but everything was put in my own and my collaborator's words except for a few minor sentences that my collaborator copied and pasted with proper citations that could have been removed or changed without the deletion of an entire article. Additionally, he claims that the same article already exists; however, this is not the case, for the article on Heart failure medications described very detailed animal models, mechanisms of action, and indications for heart failure drugs that are very important for researchers like myself investigating the said drugs. I ask that the administrators undo the delete with the exception of the few sentences that must be re-edited and look into User:Doc James, for he does not know or understand how useful this information is for pharmacologists, cardiologists, and electrophysiologists, yet persists to make edits that are detrimental. Thank you! Sazhnyev (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been making some strange edit.

Here he links antiarrhythmic agent to his newly created page. When we have an actual article on that topic.

Here he links the term "medication" on cardiac arrhythmia to his newly created page.

And he does this all the while well claiming that this new page was not about "cardiac antiarrhythmics".

Part of the text that was copied and pasted can be seen here and is at least 227 words.

On my talk page they claim the copyright issues were his collaborator's and he just copied them into Wikipedia.

The piece was mostly based on primary sources and we already have an article called Management of heart failure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned to User:Doc James, those link edits are not strange because my page consisted entirely of antiarrhythmic drugs, which would not have been too hard to understand if User:Doc James was experienced in this field. As far as the copied and pasted material, it can be very easily removed and re-edited with sabotaging an entire, very useful article. Sazhnyev (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over two hundreds words is too much for a copypaste. El_C 18:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes exactly. That page you created consisted almost entire of antiarrhythmic medications so why was it called "heart failure medication"? And why were you not working on the article we have already on antiarrhythmics? The page you created was a co tract and a "copy and pasted" one at that.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My article contained many more words than 227. Me and my collaborator can work on rewriting the 227 words, but this article is of high importance for researchers who are experts in the field. As for the page on heart failure that he is talking about; it is absolutely useless in regards to the research that my article presented Sazhnyev (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for his claim that I simply used my collaborators information, me and my collaborator were working on this together right next to each other, and it was overlooked that their few sentences or so were copied and pasted, which is again something that can be easily fixed without deleting and article. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More copied "Verapamil binding is voltage-dependent with affinity increasing as the vascular smooth muscle membrane potential is reduced. In addition, verapamil binding is frequency dependent and apparent affinity increases with increased frequency of depolarizing stimulus." from[51]

And this "adrenaline induced ventricular arrhythmias were examined in halothane anesthetized guinea pigs... Arrhythmogenicity was significantly increased with vagotomy and higher concentration of halothane. After injection of diltiazem at 0.5 mg/kg, the arrhythmic ratio (the number of ventricular ectopic beats divided by the total heart beats) was significantly reduced compared with the predrug control value (0.69 vs 0.04, P0.05)." from [52] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The table assembled on the new page I created was different from the existing article on antiarrhythmic agents. It provides detailed animal models that other pages don't offer. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's intertwined with that much copypatse content, the onus is on you and your collaborator to redact those from the article. There has to be no copyvio. El_C 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm willing to fix the mistakes, but I am unable to access the source code for my article. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To restore the article we would need to revert to a version without any copyright violations in it. There is a version available, the very first one (admin only). If we did that it would then be eligible for deletion under WP:A3 as there would be no substantive content in the article. ~ GB fan 19:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@~ GB fan could you provide me with the source code for that version by adding it to my user page? I am unable to access it because it says that the article is restricted to administrators. Thanks Sazhnyev (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, but I doubt it will be much help. El_C 20:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Is there a way to access the source edit code for my entire article so I could work on it? It contains 45 references that I've compiled, which are essential for my edits. Sazhnyev (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe via email, if you have it enabled. El_C 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Glad to see people who actually know what they're doing. Sazhnyev (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you want to go down that route? Doc James is a doctor and a long time Wikipedia admin,. You, on the other hand, appear to be a rude and obnoxious person with an agenda and a hearing problem. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not collaborating with other individuals is an aspect of being rude - he heedlessly deleted an entire article with valuable information for researchers in the field of pharmacology and cardiology without considering the possibility of promoting improvement in the article. Thus, before you attack an individual's intent, know both sides of the story and approach things objectively. Even if he really is a doctor, his actions aren't justifiable by the carelessness of assuming that what he doesn't find useful is such for everyone else - that's just being disrespectful. Sazhnyev (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please evaluate if this article, which appears to be based on one specific paper (?), is in violation of WP:OR? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sazhnyev: It appears you have not read this discussion, or have not understood it. Different people above have explained the problem—copying text from other sources is not permitted, and that is the only reason the page was deleted. Clicking the red link Heart failure medications shows a pink box with a very clear explanation of why the page was deleted. It was a copyright violation. If unsure about anything, try clicking the links in the message and reading them, then ask at WP:HELPDESK whether it is really true that people are not allowed to copy text from other sources to Wikipedia (answer: yes). To collaborate, it is first necessary to read messages from others, then take the time to comprehend them. Any reply should engage with the issues raised. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq, you have misunderstood or completely missed my point. He could have only removed the few sentences that contained some cited copyright material added by my inexperienced collaborator. The entire article did not have to be removed because it needed a few minor fix-ups. Any decent person would understand that. Sazhnyev (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A decent person (El C) put the article without the copyright violation on your talk page (diff). Did you notice that El C also commented "It's blank, there's nothing there"? Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sazhnyev: If you're suggesting that the article could have been kept with the copyvio sentences removed but the history kept, no this isn't generally allowed. This has already been mentioned before above, and really after this blew up you should have read WP:Copyvio. We can only keep the revisions without copyvios. This means if the copyvios were inserted very early on, there is basically nothing to keep as was apparently the case here. If there is some non copyvio content amongst that copyvio content, then it's possible that content could be re-used but you should take great care in doing this. As mentioned above, if you are re-adding the content the onus on you is to make sure it is completely free from copyvio. Often when an article is new and there is substantial copyvio concern it's better to just started again rather than trying to salvage anything. In any case, the content was emailed to you, something you could have requested earlier rather than complaining about the correct removal of copyvios. If you have any complaint, it's the person who created this mess by inserting the copyvios in the first place, something which is a very serious issue on wikipedia, and not those who wasted their time fixing it. New editor or not, people need to understand our copyright policies and requirements as it's a fundamental part of wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing disruption by User:Sazhnyev

We have an article called antiarrhythmic agents which is exactly the same topic as the cardiac dysrhythmia medications this user has created. This has been explained to Sazhnyev both on my talk page and above. This is a Wikipedia:Content forking and he has been trying to get around this for some time (see his creation of heart failure medications). Rather than working on the existing article using high quality sources they continue to persist and continue to use small primary sources. At this point I am wanting to propose a topic area ban from health care widely construed for one year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support At first I thought this was a new user given the WikiEd tag on the top of their page but it turns out they've been editing for almost a year. If after all this time they haven't learned about copyvios, medical sourcing, and haven't learned to listen before lashing out then a stronger measure needs to be taken. Capeo (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• user was a student editor (Spring 2016 course page) last spring who came back to do more on their own time, which is nice, but their conduct here (their first significant foray back since the class ended per their contribs) has been horrible; they have added weird/bad content, ignored every bit of input from other editors that they have been given here and elsewhere, have tried five ways from Sunday to force this content into WP, and been insulting in the meantime.
  • odd obsession with animal models; content based on old/primary sources added to several articles about antiarythmic drugs: dif, diff, diff, diff
  • their contributions are apparently "important" per their edit notes: diff, diff, diff
  • in response to feedback, just removed Doc James initial response from their Talk page, and wrote these lovely things on Doc James' talk page dif (please read, starts with What do you think you're doing?); diff (includes Why do you feel the need to do what is not asked of you?); diff (includes How is that so hard to understand?? The article on Heart failure medications went into a much greater detail describing animal models and indications that researchers use in their studies! If that's beyond your understanding, then editing Wikipedia articles on antiarrhythmic heart failure drugs is not in the realm of your expertise!) and see above.
  • On this specific content, first added it here to Cardiac arrhythmia, edit warred to restore it here, tried to create it as a new article here, and ignoring several warnings about where it should go, and about COPYVIO and then again tried to create a new article here.

Seems like this person is an EXPERT (they noted here that the information is related to a research project in their lab) and could contribute a lot but they need to get grounded on how WP works. In addition to difficulites that academic scientists sometimes have adapting to WP, they seem to have some hangover from student editing, where students are actually taught to create some block of content and to dump that into WP, rather than trying to improve existing content and think about things like WEIGHT in a given article and meta-editing across related articles (that is a whole other kettle of fish)

A year seems weird. I would support an indef with the standard offer, which could let them back in 6 months but they would have to show that they understood how they have acted completely wrongly. I think a lot will depend on how they respond here. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, it seems we have a case of Mad On The Internet-ism. I'm all for encouraging new editors and I have reservations about dragging newbies to ANI when they screw up, but I think this contributor needs to calm down and settle into the idea of collaboration. Oppose ban for now, but I recommend that they run their ideas and drafts past WP Medicine from now on. Blythwood (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So User:Sazhnyev has the content including the COPYVIO since the 28th on their userpage dif) and also in a sandbox this diff. And they are not responding here. Persisting and not talking are not promising. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently all the ‘terrorist incidents lists by country’ pages in WP including the master list – List of terrorist incidents do not use the term ‘non-state’ in page titles. However user:Obi2canibe is insisting that the List of terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka should contain the term "non-state" in its title, going contrary to the other lists of terrorist incidents. I have discussed this issue at the talk page of the article with him before, but he is not accepting the definition of “terrorist” accepted in WP for these kind of pages. He has reverted moves done by my self and user:Kristijh (in August 2016) to remove the word non-state from the title previously. Hence I would like to seek administrator intervention to solve this issue that has been going on for some time now. ---LahiruG ^talk 11:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss this but here goes. This is an old dispute which first arose in August 2015 when LahiruG refused to allow state-terrorism incidents in the list, reverting several times any attempt to add state-terrorism incidents (e.g. 1; 2). A discussion ensued following which LahiruG himself re-named the article List of (non-state) terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka. Eighteen months later LahiruG wants to resurrect this old dispute for some reason.

Calling an article "List of terrorist incidents in..." and then excluding a particular type of terrorism from the list is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISION. The fact that there are few other articles like this does not make it right.

Frankly, this article should be deleted - it just repeats content found elsewhere: List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, List of attacks on civilians attributed to the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, List of massacres in Sri Lanka.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: From the beginning I have clearly stated in the lead section of this page that this is the list of 'non state' terrorist incidents of Sri Lanka 1.You first tried to delete this page by naming it for deletion but after failing to do so, then tried to add incidents from the List of attacks attributed to Sri Lankan forces to frustrate me 2. As I have said earlier WP currently do not categorize incidents that are attributed to any government forces as terrorist incidents. However at that time, the master list of terrorist incidents had the term "non-state" in the page title within brackets and considering that I have once renamed this list as "List of (non-state) terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka". However recently and administrator has renamed the parent list as List of Terrorist Incidents. Hence I have moved this list to the earlier title to sync with other terrorist incidents lists including the parent list.

It seems that you need to challenge the policies of WP such as RELART to delete this article first. This is the standard terrorist incidents page of Sri Lanka which follows the similar terrorist attacks by country lists. All the pages that exposes the crimes of tiger terrorists should be deleted according to you while, only the articles that can be used to show the attacks attributed to Sri Lankan government forces have to be expanded. But in Wikipedia editors have to follow the basic policies such as NPOV and other accepted standards of WP irrespective of their edit counts. Considering your stubborn behavior and unwillingness to accept the standards of WP that are used elsewhere in-similar kind of pages, I have decided to report this incident here.--LahiruG ^talk 11:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stating in the lede that it's only for "non-state" incidents does not mean it complies with WP:NPOV or WP:PRECISION. Would it be OK if List of international cricket centuries by Kumar Sangakkara only included test centuries if the lede stated so? No, the article would have to be re-named List of test cricket centuries by Kumar Sangakkara. Wikipedia has not made a decision not to categorise incidents that are attributed to any government forces as terrorist incidents - only a small number of editors like yourself have. Why are there several articles on state terrorism?--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC at Talk:X-Men (film series) was tainted by an editor who did inappropriate WP:VOTESTACK canvassing to rally other editors who agreed with him. When I pointed this out, editors in favor of the now biased and tilted responses began leveling arguments against me and in favor of the editor who cheated. Despite the inappropriately canvassed editors brought in to bias the results, the RfC is still roughly evenly split. Yet the same editors who supported the canvassing now are claiming consensus and suggesting they themselves declare the RfC closed in their favor — one more in a string of improprieties.

When I pointed out here, "Be aware that Wikipedia allows WP:Move review in case of closing improprieties," editor User:AlexTheWhovian threatened me here that, "Any move review that is submitted by yourself in question to this discussion, after the page has or has not been moved, will be reported as harassment against the editors of this discussion...."

Pointing out policy/guideline violations that tainted an RfC is not harassment. Reporting an improper close, if one happens, also is not harassment but following the rules that were established precisely for such occasions. What I believe is harassment is an editor threatening another editor simply for wanting to make use of a mediation venue, for goodness' sakes. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I did apply the required notice to his talk page, but he immediately removed it here. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you forgot the rest of the sentence. "... given how close you already are to this issue over your inappropriate actions here"[53]. I tried to warn you of WP:BOOMERANG, but you didn't listen, so I'll list your heinous acts against the editors of that discussion, and the invalidity of this report, when I'm free. I have no need of the notice on my talk page, I am aware of it, obviously. -- Alex^TW 22:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the sentence was subjective opinion and a falsehood. But by all means, feel free to include that additional uncivil and false accusation. And by the way, trying to deflect responsibility for your threat by arguing that "he asked for it" is an old and not very good debate trick. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexTheWhovian: The Doctor would be disappointed in you.--v/r - TP 02:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Lol k. -- Alex^TW 02:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The RfC still has a way to run, but I'm going to close it now as "No Consensus to move" not because of the canvassing, but because of its ludicrous premise. You've got a load of supports for moving to Title A, Title A or B, Title A or B or C, Title B or D (etc. etc.) and a load of Opposes. Nothing is ever going to come out of this. It needs to be restarted with a much shorter list (preferably one or two) titles to move to. Otherwise you're never going to get anywhere - which this RfC has proved. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the RfC closed, this discussion is moot. I'm withdrawing it. User:AlexTheWhovian can continue with his own claims in a separate ANI if he wishes. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a spate of editing of members of Congress articles by different editors including text which appears to qualify as RECENTIST (I am personally aware of Claire McCaskill, Peter Roskam and John Faso, although there are probably others). Please see [54], [55], [56], and [57] for starters. My own opinion is that the articles constitute recentism, perhaps for partisan purposes, but these edits are vigorously contested and some admin insight will be appreciated. There are various editors involved but I have only notified Klkl3000 as I was only directly interacting with him/her. Quis separabit? 00:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that WP:RECENTISM is neither a guideline nor policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, well no, but a lot of editors think that it is a good enough reason on it's own to revert edits for some reason. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @ThatGirlTayler -- just curious where you stand on the issue based on your edit here. I mean congresspersons should be treated equally. If McCaskill's town hall policies are unwarranted for inclusion then surely all congresspersons' handling of this recent phenomenon should be treated consistently. Thanks. Quis separabit? 05:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: That was before I knew WP:RECENTISM wasn't actually part of WP policy. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This really looks like a content dispute to me... Tazerdadog (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, at least on my end. I just believe that there needs to be consistency on the town hall issue. This townhall phenomenon is not going to go away any time soon and should be addressed sooner rather than later. If McCaskill's town hall policies are not worthy of inclusion then neither should those of Faso, for instance. Quis separabit? 06:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what you think about the need for consistency, Rms125a@hotmail.com, this is a content dispute that does not belong here at ANI. Administrators do not use their toolkits to intervene in content disputes. And your notion that we must somehow be consistent concerning biographies of politicians who are members of the U.S. Congress is incorrect. Some are first termers and others have served many terms. Some stay out of the limelight while others crave national publicity and it comes to them. And so on. We summarize what the range of reliable sources say, and if they emphasize "Issue X" regarding one politician far more than another politician, then our biographies should reflect that. Now, take it to the various article talk pages, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV Pushing is a behavioral issue; it is not a content issue.--v/r - TP 02:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quis separabit? - Lets meet at the talk page and work this out Klkl3000 —Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there is a substantial recent history of the Talk page for the article Terry Bean being "sanitized" (really, vandalized) to repeatedly remove commentary in that page. Further, the article itself has been protected to prevent edits. My recent edit hasn't yet been vandalized in that way yet, but no doubt it will be soon. 71.36.114.245 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's adorable that you've had numerous editors tell you what you are trying to do is a BLP violation, and your first thought was to run to ANI to get even more eyes on it and make it even less likely that your vandalism would stick. You aren't very clever are you? --Tarage (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tarage - Lets not engage in uncivilized responses like that :-). It's not needed, and it doesn't resolve the matter in a positive way. There's no reason for it -- if what you're saying is right, we need to deny recognition. Making responses like that give trolls exactly what they want. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean at all. Removing commentary and content that isn't written in a neutral point of view is not vandalism. You added a discussion to the article's talk page here, which is fine. I just fail to see what the problem is here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a sock has been going on (and off) re: child molestation for many many moons. Their comments were deleted because they are a sock, not because of content. Involved editors should be contacted for an explanation of their deeds. L3X1 (distant write) 13:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, sock or not, they have somewhat of a point. Their wording, making a direct affirmative claim, is a BLP violation but their source is good. WW is renowned for their investigative journalism and actually nabbed a Pulitzer for it. I would say the story deserves a properly attributed sentence or two. Capeo (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we ask editor Ebyabe why he did it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerry_Bean&type=revision&diff=760363427&oldid=760349355 Curiously, Ebyabe does not appear to have ever before edited the article Terry Bean, at least back until June 2012. Are there people on WP who simply randomly find articles, or Talk pages, find text, delete it, and then don't bother to explain what they did? They must have had a reason, right? 71.36.114.245 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a rambling comment that contained no constructive input for article improvement. Almost three months ago. Does that help clear things up? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 05:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's comment has not been deleted. I have offered a suggestion on how they may resolve their issue. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 05:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's your definition of "rambling"? That editor merely complained about how text was being removed from a Talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerry_Bean&type=revision&diff=760349355&oldid=758262610 And you referred to "their issue", as if the deletion of the only material on a Talk page is somehow ONLY one person's issue. That text was not libelous or irrelevant, and it was obviously not vandalism. And it was clearly intended to spark a discussion. And you still didn't explain why you, with no prior involvement in the article Terry Bean, just happened to show up to delete what was, at that time, the only comment on an otherwise-blank Talk page. Who asked you to do that? That's the only explanation I can see. Also, you mislead by claiming that "The IP's comment has not been deleted". You said, on a comment on my Talk page, that it has been ARCHIVED. Archived is the approximate equivalent of putting this month's utility bill into the attic, in a large box, piled high. Who, do you expect, will bother to look for that archived material? How will they know it exists, in the first place? And, please note, I notice you did that within TWO HOURS of the other editor's addition. Sounds like you considered it an emergency!! Can't allow others to speak their mind? 71.36.114.245 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some more WP:BLP issues from the article talkpage. As a general comment, everyone should feel free to discuss potential edits to the article there, but please don't insert personal opinion on guilt or innocence, or waste time disputing the court outcome. Everyone is welcome to their views but an encyclopedia article talkpage isn't the place. And because it seems necessary to say: I'm not an American, don't care about US politics and have never previously heard of Terry Bean. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint has gone pretty much as I expected: A heaping dose of blame-the-victim/blame-the-complainer, add some "let's ignore the complaint", mix in some "the complainer must be a bad guy", and then they ignored what amounted to an admission (by lack of objection) by user Ebyabe who failed to explain why he just happened to show up and erase the only text in the Talk Page. There has been absolutely no study of the history of the Terry Bean article, since November 2014, and a pattern of people removing well-sourced material that happens to be embarrassing to Bean. Can we actually address the problem here? No more "blame the complainer", okay? 71.36.114.245 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that multiple experienced editors who are well aware of applying Wikipedia's BLP on articles (and talk pages) have to keep removing information from the article and the talk page because a particularly persistent IP wants to slant the article to indicate that someone who has not been convicted of a crime is in fact guilty. Wikipedia is not a soap box, we don't care about some random persons opinion of their guilt. We are not here to discuss their guilt or innocence. And we are certainly not going to slant an article of a living person by implying wrongdoing. So I suggest you take the hint and find something else to occupy you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For many months, OJ Simpson was accused of the murder of two people. Ultimately, the jury found "not guilty", but that does not mean that the events before and after the indictment, the trial, etc were not notable in OJ's article. Follow me? Did anybody have the gall to try to remove that material on OJ's article "OJ Simpson Murder Case", based solely on the claim that he was found "not guilty"? I conclude that if anything, the slant in the Terry Bean article is that some people have been trying to remove well-sourced material that might lead a reader to believe that Bean was in fact guilty. Nothing wrong with that, at least if you're not a Terry Bean fan. So, think again: Let's include the full, well-documented events, even if there was no "guilty" verdict. And remember, there was no "not guilty" verdict either: The charges were dismissed solely because the victim in that case refused to testify, staying away from the state of Oregon to avoid a subpoena. Bean and his attorney negotiated a $240,000 payoff which ultimately wasn't approved by the judge. That was well-publicized. Does that sound like Bean was truly innocent? 71.36.114.245 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to judge whether a person was innocent or not, period. Claiming a person was guilty, when in fact they were found not guilty is a direct violation of our policy on living people. You need to stop and drop the stick now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – user was blocked, block has come and gone, hopefully lessons were learned. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGF issues. It seems constructive encyclopaedic editing of this page results in unwarranted accusations of "disruption" and vandalism. There are clear errors in the article including misuse of sources, synthesis, and OR. The same editor responded to a merge proposal with language such as "bunch of dogshit" and "crap Wikipedia users." Editor assumes they have the authority to undo edits because they created the article. Acousmana (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the editor in question has some issues with civility, but I would love to see more of an attempt from you to try to talk about your edits on the talk page. What I can see is you making a bunch of edits, him reverting it, you reverting his revert. You should have taken this to the talk page instead of here. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, isn't bold editing warranted when there are errors in an article? Anyone who checks the sources against the article content will issues, do I literally have to evidence them point for point on a talk page to make improvements? Who has the time for that? Acousmana (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The typical cycle is edit, revert, discuss. You skipped the third part. Either way, now the article has more eyes on it for sure. --Tarage (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acousmana: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I have done so for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• sighs* Well, I guess I should've seen this coming. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not sure how this string of insults is indicative of the type of communication Wikipedia should be fostering: "your comphrehension [sic] skills are the problem"; "stupid fucking edits";"your crappy comprehension skills";"sick of your stupid nonsense";"there's no fucking original research."

• For the record, I've been editing on and off for 10 years at this point, time was this kind of hostility and profanity would not be tolerated. Acousmana (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking a position on the underlying facts about the article content, @EditorE: can you address why you felt it necessary or usefully to report Acousmana to AIV and insult him like that on the article talk page? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: Acousmana's edits were unproductive and cause by lack of comprehesion of the sources cited to say the least. Since you guys are never gonna learn your lessons despite providing evidence on the Hardvapour talk page that his actions have ruined the article, I guess I might as well let the article get ruined by you people. People like Acousmana. User:AldezD and User:Catlemur are an insult to the Wikipedia community because of what they've done and what I've tried to stop them doing. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna stop leaving comments on this discussion BTW editorEهեইдအ😎 00:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna block you, btw. The edit warring is one issue, but you've been warned about personal attacks and civility before and clearly have not brought that on board. Take 31 hours off and don't act like that again when you come back. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorE: That is just sad. I hope the ban gives you enough time to find enough rare Pepes for you to incorporate them into Wikipedia.--Catlemur (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorE: You need to grow up. Pinging me in this ANI—a dispute about something completely unrelated to my activity here—is absolute nonsense. Apparently you still hold a grudge over a discussion at Talk:Judith Barsi#Recent edits and WP:NOTMEMORIAL from FOUR YEARS AGO. Hopefully this ban will allow you to focus your life on something far more meaningful than Wikipedia. AldezD (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: I would not normally engage in this activity, but perhaps you should reconsider a block longer than 31 hours for EditorE per WP:AGF and WP:CIR. AldezD (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunate behavior when edits like this demonstrate that @EditorE: knows exactly why certain content was tagged, would have been simpler to address the issues than attack an editor. Acousmana (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC

• Comment... It's sad, but calling people names (e.g. "fuckwad" is tolerated on Wikipedia, as evidenced bythe many links returned in that search. I'm betting the American editors would say it is just free speech, but I cannot see how calling another editor a fuckwad, for example, generates any benefits for the encyclopedia . Maybe the person doing the calling feels better for three seconds... but the encyclopedia gets another little metaphorical dent in it.104.163.140.228 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff1911 was blocked one time on October 7, 2016, and he never again edited under that account. Instead, the articles that he was interested in have been edited by an array of IP addresses from the same area of Pennsylvania.

• Glenside: 216.162.93.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.52 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Ambler: 107.1.239.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Fort Washington: 68.238.243.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Fort Washington: 50.251.33.241 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Doylestown: 98.115.219.127 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Northampton: 207.172.54.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Bryn Mawr: 96.245.54.204 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This guy is especially interested in the articles Josh Groban (a BLP), Bad Santa, Angry Grandpa (another BLP), and High Hopes (Frank Sinatra song). He adds trivial, unreferenced stuff that was apparently observed by him, for instance this series of additions which shows a big problem with WP:NOR and of course undue emphasis which falls under WP:NPOV. He often adds more detail to film plot sections in violation of the 700-word limit set by WP:FILMPLOT. This person's disruption has caused the Angry Grandpa article to be put into protection several times.

So what do we do to stop the disruption? A rangeblock on 216.162.93.30 to 216.162.93.60 would catch the most frequently used range, and of course we can block single IPs that show up. If anybody has other solutions I'd be glad to hear about it. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is he currently evading any blocks? That would make this a bit easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend hiring a checkuser to see if either of these involved IP addresses link to the user who was blocked. SportsLair (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsLair: Sorry - as per our checkuser policies, CUs cannot connect accounts and IPs. GAB^gab 18:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually our checkuser policy does allow checkusers to connect blocked users to IP addresses in some circumstances. It's probably best to read all of Wikipedia:CheckUser #IP information disclosure if you want a fuller understanding of when it might be appropriate. Anyway, in this case, it's not terribly relevant whether the blocked user and the IPs are the same (and the account's CU data is almost certainly stale by now), because the disruption by the IPs is grounds for a range block regardless. Just find a friendly admin who will check for any collateral damage on the 216.162.93.0/26 rangeblock and then perform the block. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole /24 range is one that is pesky and belongs to a school district. Note the 3 year blocks here, here and here. After looking, the /24 range could be blocked for 3 years as a school block. NeilN placed the latter block and may be able to help here on the range. Regarding the other IPs that Binksternet listed, Cliff isn't hopping within those ranges.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a 216.162.93.0/24 rangeblock for one year. This will leave the three year blocks untouched but shut off the others for a year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Bratland has four times [58] [59] [60] [61] decided to merge two articles because he thinks he owns them. I've asked him to discuss and use the merge procedure at WP:PM [62] but he refuses. Why does he think he does not have to use the discussion Proposed Merge procedure like other people? Amisom (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you both start making use of the empty article talk page. I fully protected the entry. El_C 08:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK but my understanding is that WP:PM is a mandatory. He can't just edit war to refuse to discuss something which requires consensus. I want an admin to consider the WP:OWN issue here please. Amisom (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utter hypocrisy. I revered 3 times. Amisom reverted 3 times. I did not start a proposed merge. Amisom did not start a proposed merge. When he tries to get his way, that's acceptable. When I try to get my way, that's "ownership"? His behavior is identical to mine. We have an essay on this kind of hypocrisy: Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start a proposed merge because I didn't want a merge. Don't be ridiculous. Amisom (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's ridiculous, then why have you gone and done it now? If you had done that instead of reverting, there would be no edit war. An edit war begins with a single revert. That revert was made by you. You didn't post a single word discussion until you had made 3 reverts in a row and had no other choice than come to the bargaining table. The system forced you there. There's no grounds for any further admin action, other than I'd like the personal attack against me removed from the merge discussion. I tried removing the off-topic personal attack but (surprise) Amisom reverted. There should not be one discussion of my behavior over on that talk page while a second one is going on here.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What have i 'done now'? Proposed a merger? No I have not, Amisom (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:RFC and WP:PM you'll notice that they have different words in and are actually different pages. Amisom (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of trivial semantic differences, you yourself have demonstrated that you didn't need to wait for me to start the discussion you wanted. Are we done here? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: Yes, as long as you understand that if someone objects to your merge and reverts it automatically becomes controversial and it's up to you to then propose a merger on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @NeilN: my point exactly. I hope @Dennis Bratland: gets the message. Amisom (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over at WP:REFUND I came across this request to delete a page (I'm fairly certain the IP in question is Teo Mora (talk · contribs) herself as the IP belongs to a research institution), based on "[...]I assume to have the right to pretend oblivious in the form which is available" [sic], which I assume is meaning Right to be forgotten laws. I'm not inclined to remind her that Wikipedia is not exactly subject to EU laws, though I did remove the G7 speedy that was placed on the article in question (there's two significant contributors, which contraindicates G7).

Could I get some more knowledgeable-in-these-sorts-of-matters users to communicate with User:Teo Mora and doublecheck the article to make sure it's in apple-pie order? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the request comes from me, Teo Mora; by the way I am a "himself"

Without entering into legal aspects, yes what I want is to remove this page.

--Teo Mora (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, there is no legal aspect to enter. Wikipedia is based in California and thus not subject to any current "Right to be forgotten]] laws. Now, whether the article should be deleted for other reasons (such as lack of notability) is a different story. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...well... I'll leave an obligatory link to Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects for Teo Mora for future reference. There's really no more high-profile forum on the project than ANI, but the information can be useful if at any point this should take place in a bit more private an area than a page with 7,000 watchers.

I don't think the article qualifies for speedy deletion. We could try to take the article to WP:AfD, but honestly I really have doubts that it would get deleted, since Mora appears to be pretty exceptionally well published in their field, in addition to what non-scholarly and editorial work he's done.

Wikipedia doesn't really have a "right to be forgotten", and we are generally well within our rights to create and maintain articles on comparatively public figures, which includes public-facing and widely published authors and academics. Although the content of those articles comes with all the protections of our policies on biographies of living persons. Honestly, the best option here may be to try to find some motivated volunteers from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and help fix what is ostensibly wrong with the article by including neutral and well sourced information. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I knows personally Teo Mora (since more than 35 years), and this is me who has informed him of the existence of a recent article about him. He immediately reacted strongly against the existence of this article. Thus, I can certify that he is the author of the request.

IMO, it is a matter of WP:BIODEL, which says Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. He is clearly a non-public figure, and, although he undoubtedly satisfies the criteria of notability, he is relatively unknown, as in a few minutes, I have found more than five searchers in the same area that have a similar of better notability, and do not have a Wikipedia page. I'll thus open an AfD over this basis. D.Lazard (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary author of the article, I support deletion of the article; Particularly I agree with the argument that it is a matter of WP:BIODEL. Nanuvutpanther (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Then we can probably close this since it's up to AfD at this point. TimothyJosephWood 03:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if someone with more experience than me could look at recent edits at the article Middlesex University. The dispute is around a professor named in the media, and there is edit warring around this. See diff concerned, also diff which maybe an issue also. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, let's see...WP:NOTNEWS...WP:BLPPRIMARY...perhaps others. Biographical material (like everything else) must be based on secondary sources, not primary sources like the latest reports from The Telegraph. This must wait until it's covered in a reliable secondary publication: a printed history of the university, an academic journal, a retrospective from the Department for Education, etc. Until then, it belongs at Wikinews if anywhere. Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Nyttend: I'm getting confused here. Isn't a newspaper article about an event the author wasn't part of, a secondary source? To be sure, that tidbit has no relevance for the article in question, but still. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is a reliable secondary source. It is, ironically, the Dept of Ed that is more likely to be the Primary source. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Primary sources are those published during or immediately after an event, or published later but drawing upon the author's memories of those times, while secondary sources are ones produced afterward based on primary accounts. [68] and [69] give basic explanations; you'll note that news reports are included. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no need to start adding crap like this to show how bad Middlesex Uni is. The record speaks for itself. Stick to things for which the place is actually responsible, like its abysmal standards. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Damien2016 has been plundering the definition of Bahun and Chhetri at Wikidata, even after I had warned him at his talk page. Please provide serious reprimand to the user for preventing such in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airkeeper (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your definitions because they're unsourced and very subjective. You posted pictures on my Wikidata talk page to prove that the specific group is "Aryan". This is not how you source information. We may also have an issue with communication as it's clear that English is not your first language. Damien2016 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non Admin Comment You didn't provide the {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ template as you are directed to do here. I did this for you. Also, should this e taken to Wikidata noticeboards? L3X1 (distant write) 14:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it should be at d:WD:AN. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jablonskyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) – On Harry Andrews (diff): vandalism after final warning. Continues to change "British" to "English" in violation of BLPLEAD and UKNATIONALS. (Note: user has never engaged fellow editors or acknowledged repeated warnings. He may make several edits, then nothing for several days, then more. Request at least 1 week block.) (Moved from AIV.) —ATS 🖖 talk 20:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 20:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's never edited a talk page and 99% never used ES. I doubt' we'll ever see him again, which is sad as I want an explanation. L3X1 (distant write) 20:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So did I. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ATS The explanation I want is why he doesn't use the talk page, not about his actions. I see many gnomy-type editors who rarely if ever use their own or an article talk page, and never give any sign of communicating with other editors (like conversing via ES, which demonstrates that they know how to find a pages' history). I wonder if many editors never get a chance to learn about the functions of wikipedia, so as to improve themselves. I guess this is stems from the Bob Henshaw incident. (entry #2 on this page). He was editing when the block dropped, so he must of noticed that he couldn't edit, but we have no idea what he did afterwards, or if he saw his block notice. Now, Bob had edited his talk page of two prior occasions, in February and October of 2015. It is possible that he could of forgotten about, and not seen the block notice. I wonder if Wikipedia could be improved so that editors will be made more aware of on-Wiki communication methods so as to prevent confusion and retain good editors. L3X1 (distant write) 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant as well, L3X1—as in, is he oblivious to the page? Oblivious to edit summaries? Contemptuous of other editors? There's no engagement of any kind, anywhere. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience dealing with editors like this, if they aren't replying to anyone, then they will almost certainly never explain why. Users who don't reply to anyone tend to be users that are warned for disruptive or questionable editing. These are users that never had any intention of collaborating to begin with, which is why they usually don't last long. DarkKnight2149 23:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason they have no Block template on their TP? L3X1 (distant write) 01:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El C forgot? —ATS 🖖 talk 02:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddya talkin' about? Admins never forget to dot the i's and cross the t's. Nuthin' to see here. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilN (talk • contribs)

{{pp-protected}}! El_C 05:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN: please tell me the irony was intentional ... —ATS 🖖 talk 06:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ATS: See previous message :-j --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

92.12.209.70 seems to have spent the day creating dozens of articles on the theme of "East Pakistan relations to nation X" and is still going strong. The majority of these they are creating on the talk page, which would be annoying but can be cleaned up (indeed someone seems to be mopping up behind them in this regard, incidentally erasing the editing history in the bargain - not such a great idea); but if short, they are entirely unreferenced, if long, blatant copyvios (example [70]). I don't think they are aware they have a talk page. Could someone please apply some brakes before the already necessary cleanup balloons even further? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for 3 days, but it seems to me that this could be easily lifted with the right unblock request. I wouldn't have even blocked that long except the IP just got off a prior block for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'm off for now but shall try to sift through the goods on the morrow (and hopefully they'll see the necessity for improvements themselves). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate Should we be going through the articles created by the blocked IP, and CSDing them? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what to do with unsourced articles created on a talk page, but the copyright violations definitely need to tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate Alright. I'll go through, and see what I can find. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody from the area of Kent, UK, has been making a bunch of little changes to music articles for years. Many are okay but a large percentage of the changes include violations of Wikipedia's manual of style. The problem is that there seems to be no way to tell this person to stop it, since they use an IP address for a only short period. He doesn't use edit summaries and he never touches a talk page.

Here are some examples of negative changes

• Changing to upper case "The" in violation of WP:THECAPS and WP:BANDNAME, for instance "The Who" or "The Kinks". [71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80]
• Adding italicised Magazine after Rolling Stone. [81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]
• Linking common words in violation of WP:OVERLINKING, for instance studio album and rock music. [93][94][95][96][97][98]
• Removal of wikilinks to likely articles in violation of WP:REDLINK. [99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107]
• Section blanking, NPOV violations. [108][109][110]
• Removal of reliable sources. [111][112][113]

This person's edit warring has repeatedly put the biography John Deacon into protection over the last two-and-a-half years. Recently, the editing behavior is less about edit warring and more about making lots of little adjustments. Some of these are good, but taken together, all the little changes are wearing on page watchers, and they are not always useful.

I would like to see two rangeblocks set in place to stop this guy temporarily; an attention-getting block. 2.97.160.000–2.97.174.256 would catch one range, and 92.20.114.000–92.20.125.256 would catch the other. If anybody can think of other solutions, I'd be happy to hear them. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought these would be too wide for rangeblocks and have too much collateral damage, but they're - surprisingly - not. 2.97.160.0/20 and 92.20.112.0/20 blocked for 3 months. Let me know if an extension is needed. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Black Kite. I will keep an eye out for this person finding a workaround, and I will let you know what happens in three months. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt about it, that's a LOT of IP addresses. Just posted an ANI notice on every one of them. Talk about workaholic. But hey, it's all part of life. SportsLair (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That's almost as obsessive as my posting them here! Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw that all those IPs had a talk page, I wondered if al they had was an AN/I notice :). L3X1 (distant write) 01:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. I hate to push my concerns to the front of the line but the first admin who reads this needs to semi-protect Paul Joseph Watson immediately. CityOfSilver 03:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we go back to our secret admin cabal soiree now? The champagne is getting warm. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had to go get ice. El_C 05:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you use frozen grapes. Won't dilute the champagne that way. Blackmane (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^[1][2] both the constitution and reliable sourcing say no other parties are allowed but Acroterion is pushing his unsourced editing and calling my editing "personal anaylysis" while i present sources and he dont have any sources suppporting his view 194.68.94.68 (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if someone is reverting you, using poor grammar doesn't help your case. Wikipedia comes in other languages, if that helps. DarkKnight2149 14:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-admin comment - Uh, administrators... I think we have a serious WP:CIR issue here. Check this user's contribution history and you will see what I mean. DarkKnight2149 14:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

194.68.94.68, looking through your edits, I see things like this that suggest you have not read and understood our most basic polices, such as writing from a neutral point of view. Antandrus (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

suggest you have not read and understood our most basic polices That's definitely one way to put it, but I think most would look at something like [122], [123] and [124], and simply call it vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment I believe we have a serious WP:CIR issue with this IP, who does not seem to understand Wikipedia policies or plain English. Just look at their "editing" history. Acroterion is a much respected contributor and admin and is not pushing any unsourced editing. David J Johnson (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You read my mind. DarkKnight2149 15:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has become axiomatic that we need to look more closely when we see the word "truth" in an edit; the same applies to "fake." While it may be worthwhile for (other) editors to examine the practical existence of Cuban political parties and to enlarge upon their viability by reference to sources, just putting "fake" into articles isn't acceptable. 194. is warned and will be blocked if they keep putting their opinions in articles. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24.178.29.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 24.178.2.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 66.169.145.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Somebody is using multiple accounts for disruptive editing in rap related articles in recent months. They don't seem to have any concept of proper grammar or Manual of Style, and they are continuing to be disruptive and change the prose on articles, such as Hurricane Chris (rapper), if you look at the edit history of this article, these IPs keep coming back changing the grammar all over again as a sandbox. I believe these edits are made by same editor because their grammar is terrible, and their changes are disruptive as they keep making them and add nothing constructive.

Here are the examples of these IPs edits on other articles in the past months.

• [125]
• [126]
• [127]

These IPs also have a bad habit of linking common phrases like "rapper", "recording artist", "producer" or any other common words to articles, especially in the lead section, it doesn't really need to be linked because a majority of readers would already understand the basic concept. Linking common words are a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:OVERLINKING), please look in to it. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert with an edit comment and maybe a talk page comment. I looked at 24.178.2.82's talk page and didn't see any attempt at discussion there either (just a bunch of templates). I see good copyediting from that user so I think it's just a matter of communication. Just explain that we generally don't use multiple links to the same term nearby to each other, since that distracts the reader. I wouldn't put it in terms of the MOS directing us to do anything, since most people don't care about the MOS. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@50.0.136.56: What did you mean you're didn't see any attempt at discussion. I try to get a response from this editor in 24.178.2.82's talk page right here but didn't get a response, I try again but still didn't a response. And I did left an edit comment here at Finally Famous (Big Sean album), after 24.178.2.82 has unnecessary changes the contents of the article in February this year. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing, substituting "British" for "English" in multiple articles, also removing valid information from infoboxes. I have begun reverting, perhaps a more experienced editor could take the appropriate action on user's talkpage and whatever else is required? Example diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R._L._Holdsworth&diff=prev&oldid=773645473 Captainllama (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a major issue. "British" and "English" are both correct in the article; as long as they don't change the nationality in the infobox, because "English" (like "Scottish" or "Welsh", isn't a nationality). Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits aren't disruptive and your claim is false as I haven't removed any valid information. I was merely changing categories to more specific (and accurate) one (if they weren't supposed to be used, they wouldn't be there) and updating description in the lead to reflect. I haven't moved any incorrectly, and have moved some to Scottish explorers too. Interesting though, that I remove a superflous "Scottish" nationality from an infobox, but this user reverted that back in - when it's fairly obvious that if there is a nationality in the infobox, whether English, Scottish or Welsh it should state British.

Qomppp (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please to investigate the situation^[1] and consider blocking user Gikü. This Wikipedia user countless time deleted my contribution to the article Vladimir Plahotniuc. His first argument was "such bold statements have to be cited from other sources than massmedia owned by the subject". In accordance with his recommendation I sourced the affirmation with several/various references not owned by the subject. After what he deleted again the statement and argued "You're not trying to perform original research, are you? I am tired to say the same thing: Wikipedia gives the information, the reader decides on who is the good guy" Wikilaj (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds does Giku need to be blocked. It appears very clearly the paragraph you want included was removed according to consensus. Regardless, this is a content dispute and there are other venues to go to before coming to ANI.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was reported to ANI in June 2016 for blanking articles. In closing the discussion admin Fences and windows stated that Spacecowboy420 had "taken on board that blanking articles, or large parts of articles, can be disruptive and should not be the first option". Unfortunately Spacecowboy420 has resumed blanking entire articles.

On 21 March he blanked (1, 2) two articles, Ragging in India and Ragging in Sri Lanka, removing more than 40k of content. Much of the removed content was not found in the article he redirected the two articles to, Hazing, but Spacecowboy420 made no effort to add this to the Hazing article. I have twice tried to undo his edit, asking him to discuss before making such radical moves, but on each occasion he has reverted me (1, 2, 3, 4).

It is clear that Spacecowboy420 has not learnt. Could an admin please review his conduct?--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing troubling behavior on both sides. On your side, I do not understand why you immediately went and reverted him on a separate article unrelated to either of these. --Tarage (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean this. Ragging in India, Ragging in Sri Lanka and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are on my watchlist and as Spacecowboy420 edited these article in succession on 30 March (1, 2, 3), when I reviewed my watchlist on 1 April they came up one after another. FYI, I have made dozens of edits over many years on Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Spacecowboy420 on the other hand had never edited this article prior to this. His edit on this article was simply a childish attempt to get back at me.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem possibl that he edited it because you did, but his actual edit contained easily sourceable facts already in evidence elsewhere in the article. On the other hand, just wiping out entire properly sourced articles and redirecting them without any attempt at merger, and then not following WP:BRD when you are reverted is most certainly a problem and if Spacecowboy420 doesn't speak up here in a timely fashion I'm prepared to consider administrative action without their input. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. @Spacecowboy420: you need to explain your thinking on these repeat blankings. They appear to be contrary to merge policy etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected the ragging article to hazing on March 21st without complaints/reverts/etc. There is no need for such region specific articles such as Ragging in Sri Lanka when any region specific content could be included on the main hazing article. We don't need details of every single legal code related to hazing in one region, neither do we need every single case detailed on the article. I don't consider much of the content on those articles to be relevant to building an encyclopedia and it benefits Wikipedia to be a little more succinct, so that people can discover about hazing on one article, rather than bore them to death with 100s of different articles about hazing in each different nation. I do have to admit that I wasn't really considering merge policy when I merged the articles though, I was just making a judgement based on what I considered to be common sense. I am still of the opinion that the relevant content from the two articles that I redirected would be far better served if they were included on the hazing article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that Obi2canibe has been stretching the boundaries of what is civil in his comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AObi2canibe&type=revision&diff=773693151&oldid=773600129 this comment, is not really acceptable. Remove my comments from the talk page? that's just fine. Hide them with a snarky comment? less fine. Using an edit summary to tell someone to grow up? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam&diff=prev&oldid=773278261 again, not acceptable. Calling my addition of relevant and sourced content "a childish attempt to get back at me" on an ANI report, again not acceptable. BTW - I edited that article because after editing the Ragging in Sri Lanka article, I jumped around a few Sri Lanka articles reading, came across that article and saw the need for an edit. AGF please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the above should not be considered when admins decide if to sanction me or not for redirecting those two articles - I would like that to be based purely on the my actions, and not consider if the other editor is acting civilly or not. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an FYI for everyone involved in/interested in this issue; I have started a merge discussion about the two Ragging articles at Talk:Ragging in India#Merge with Hazing?. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So here's the thing: When you redirected each of those articles, you simply removed large swaths of sourced content. And no, you were not immediately reverted, but later on Obi2canibel did decide to revert you, and in both cases left the entirely proper edit summary Please discuss before making such a move. Up until this point, I don't see either of you doing anything particularly wrong. It is often better to discuss redirecting articles with significant editing history over a prolonged period of time before just deciding for yourself that we don't need them, but it is not required and WP:BOLD editing is encouraged.

So what you did after that is where we see a problem, you were reverted, and asked to discuss on the talk page, and you just reverted back instead. That's not ok, regardless of what mildly snarky comments may have been used in subsequent edit summaries. And I would also point out the previous ANI linked above in which you seem to understand that just wiping out entire articles without a consensus to do so is generally not ok. Whether you are right or wrong about the actual content issue is irelevant, this is just not how things are done, edit warring to "stealth delete" two entire articles is not ok. As you've claimed to understand this before, we're going to need something a little better than "ok I get it now" or "but look at those edit summaries" in order to feel this is really understood.

I would therefore ask that you voluntarily agree that for a period of no less than six months you will not redirect articles without prior discussion, and will follow a WP:1RR restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Discussions in User talk:173.230.176.176 and Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Steve Munro

173.230.176.176 has expressed very strong personal opinions against a certain source (Steve Munro) used in articles, and seeks to discredit that source by modifying articles mentioning his name.

Two editors recommend that I ask an administrator to block 173.230.176.176; see the last remarks in Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Steve Munro. Thanks.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP advances an argument: "deliberate attempt to promote Munro as an authority on transit"—what's there to be worthy an ANI report, to mention an AIV one? El_C 02:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has a whole two edits to its name—but the holder of the account still deserves to be informed of this ANI report (I have gone ahead and done this), as the directions at the top of the page instruct. I would be concerned with WP:BITE on the part of the three of you. El_C 03:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This IP editor has been frequently editing the current events portal, adding less than neutral wording, unsourced content, etc. Any editor who reverts them is subsequently reverted by the IP editor, who claims that anybody who disagrees with their edits (regardless if the editor has reverted the IP) is a either a vandal, or a sockpuppet. [130][131][132][133] Administrator intervention is needed, as this editor obviously does not the meaning of civility, nor verifiability. This behavior also led to a 72 hour block by Oshwah, per edit warring. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 04:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're already at 3RR, so a block could be levied. I've dropped a warning on their page to see if that gets any notice. If not, then, well, there's only one thing left to do. Blackmane (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the editor above you is clearly a sock of an indefinitely banned user - to be clear it is a violation also of wiki policy to assist a banned user--2600:8800:FF04:C00:D571:F7F5:8413:7AE9 (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior is exactly why I filed this ANI case. Do you care to explain who, or how any of the editors you've accused are indeed so? You're digging your grave, and I'm warning you to stop. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been blocked for 2 weeks by Bbb23. Blackmane (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric (talk · contribs), whom I do not know, has gone around to troll and disparage me on several talk pages where I posted a request for an A-Class review: [134], [135], [136], [137], [138]. This is neither deserved, because I put much effort in the things I do, nor reasonable. In fact, it is exactly the kind of destructive attitude that is driving people away from Wikipedia. --Edelseider (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does indeed seem a quite unnecessary exercise in well poisoning. What purpose does Eric think is served by slopping this onto multiple requests for article review? Their complaint can have no bearing on article assessment and seems purely personal. I suggest they strike these little barbs.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I've AFAIK never had any contact with either party before, it's worth pointing out that this incident didn't take place in a vacuum. I'd advise reading the FA review of the article in question (which was one of the triggering incidents for the decision being made to start moderating FAC discussions) for a little context here. ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent:, you are certainly right that there is always an origin story somewhere (and if it can't be reconstructed, it can be speculated). However, here, it is about a new start, about turning a page. The FAC is history and I want to move on with a lower aim, the A-Class. What Eric does is trying to prevent that new beginning. As I said: that is destructive and serves no one. --Edelseider (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't strike me as an excuse to go about trying to screw up the next attempt preemptively by setting prospective reviewers against the proposer. Personal dislike != justification for making the next review more acrimonious right from the start. If there's any practical purpose to these comments, I'd like to hear it.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that point, @Iridescent. @Elmidae: You might find a glance at the edit history of the Palais Rohan article and at the contentious editor's contribution history to be informative. These three links will provide the extent of my "interaction" with the contentious editor:

1. initial contact: a polite encouragement I left on his talkpage in January 2016,
2. his subsequent post on my talkpage (which I deleted without comment),
3. his post on my talkpage today.

I hesitated to post here at first because it adds to the contentious editor's principal accomplishment here on Wikipedia: the wasting of other editors' time. But I thought I had better weigh in. Eric ^talk 14:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's abrasive-verging-on-douchy behaviour, and it would put me into a resentful mood as well. But do you really think you have to sabotage a proposed article review because of that? To my mind, you are damaging the process and the encyclopedia in an attempt to get even. - However, I'm bowing out here; I don't wish to be caught up in defending one set of non-collegial acting against the other. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I'm sorry to hear that my action might come across as a sabotage attempt--it was not. And it certainly wasn't to get even--I wouldn't engage in such a mismatch, as I would hope one might deduce from the above-linked interactions. I simply wanted to make sure that all concerned took note of what a tedious mountain of clean-up work the contentious editor leaves in his wake. I find the mess and the time-wasting to be far more deleterious to the project than my bringing the problem to others' attention. Eric ^talk 15:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was also this in January, where someone corrected Edelseider's German and he told them to lick his arse. I withdrew from an FAC review because of the rudeness. Edelseider, you're complaining as though it's all one way. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...okay that's pretty indefensible (quite inventively malicious in German, actually). I stand by my point that the process shouldn't be made into a battlefield before it's even started, but if I'd been at the receiving end of this, I'd probably have snapped. Sheesh :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite funny to hear from @Eric:'s mouth that I leave this or that in my wake since he has never, ever been in my wake; as a matter of fact, I don't know what articles he edits but it has never been any of mine, ever. He seems to take offence in the fact that I create articles, maybe I should have asked for his permission first? And paid a hefty fee, too? Is that how it works? Because he doesn't know a thing about the content of what I do - he just randomly attacks me. Is that nice? Is that good? I haven't asked for it. As for the German language, I am sorry that I got upset but the "correction" wasn't one. The user assumed that my German is poor (in fact, it is my mother tongue) without regard for the fact that the "poor grammar" in the article was not mine, but History's. As the article itself actually made clear. But he didn't read it because he jumped at me for my supposed incompetence. Which he didn't care to check by asking me if I speak German. I just hate it when people assume, like Eric does, that I am a worthless piece of feces and shouldn't tread on the same Wiki-path than them. It is not only insulting but also entirely gratuitous, because, I repeat, Eric has done absolutely nothing to improve my contributions. I will stop here. Edelseider (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is anyone else just thinking two-way interaction ban here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Iban' for at least 62 days. And a refresher couse in NPA, CIVIL, and LETITGO. L3X1 (distant write) 02:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Re L#X1's edit summary "fighting amongst yourselves is a sign of weakness" and the above "refresher course" suggestions: I would be interested to see any evidence of me "fighting with" the contentious editor, or any evidence of personal attacks, incivility, or obsessiveness on my part. Eric ^talk 03:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

At 04:31 today, Wtmitchell blocked Auslondoner for 12 hours with a block log comment Blocking ato stop series of edits flouting WP:ENGVAR. May block indefinitely if this resumes.

I see no sign of any interaction at all before this block. Wtmitchell reverted none of AusLondonder's edits, made no comment on AusLondonder's talk page (let alone an attempt at discussion), gave no warning of impending block, and left no notofication to accompany the block.

I have unblocked AusLondonder, replying to the unblock request with the comment Bizarre block. No discussion, no warning, not even a block notification, even though AusLondoner's last edit was 16 hours before the block was applied. This was a very bad block.

Non-admin User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi had commented on the block before I spotted it, asking if it was a belated April Fool's.[139]

Comments in support of my unlock have been posted on the talk page by admins @Boing! said Zebedee [140] and DoRD [141].

Please can Wtmitchell urgently explain what is going on here? On the evidence so far, this looks like a very bad block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a diff of where you raised this and discussed it with your fellow administrator BEFORE reversing the administrative action? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy requirement to do that - I'd have unblocked had User:BrownHairedGirl not acted first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw the blocking admin had not been replying to other editors. They've made no public edits since 02:10 UTC. This was first raised by another editor at 09:01 with no reply and by me at 11:08 with no reply. AusLondonder (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Only in death does duty end: Boing is right. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking.

And in this case, Wtmitchell had not edited for 10 hours. I saw no reason to keep an editor-in-good-standing blocked while we awaited the return of a blocking admin who had made zero attempt to communicate with the editor who had been blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I was ready to unblock prior to either BHG or Boing! posting on AusLondoner's talk page had I not been short of time at the moment. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OID, there was a discussion on User talk:AusLondonder which began 09:01, 4 April, in which WTM was pinged multiple times. However, WTM's last edit was at 02:10, 4 April. So they've had a six hour window to respond since the conversation started, but they appear to be offline. Also, the unblock came eight hours into a twelve hour block. So waiting for discussion before unblocking would have been a defacto endorsement. TimothyJosephWood 13:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAAA and pings are neither considered notification by any wikipedia process, nor are they an attempt at discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAAA: "administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged." The reversal of the block seems to have been done with good cause and careful thought, and the blocking admin was not presently available, so all conditions of RAAA have been met. Fram (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This certainly was a surprise drive-by block and I hope that the rationale behind it, not to mention the bypassing of community norms relating to the exercise of administrative functions, can be explained by Wtmitchell. Thanks to BrownHairedGirl for starting this thread. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• On the question of compromised accounts (or otherwise),, they have made only two edits today, before this block- and, mind you this is one of the first ever blocks this admin has made that didn't consist of a canned block-reason using Huggle. The last fifty blocks they made have all been made with huggle, and with auto summaries. Completely different to this one...? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]