text:
a consideration here. Just because an editor can't license someone else's copyrighted work, doesn't mean they can't license their own copyrighted work. Our disagreement is merely about the manner in which they may do that. An uploader who agrees to a CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence never gave up their intellectual property rights by that act; they simply allow others certain freedoms with their copyrighted work, and the copyright remains with them. I say Giano agreed the licence when he saved the page; you say he didn't. Fine - we disagree. But you've adduced no more policy or law to your argument than I have to mine. I don't believe either of us can be authoritative on the matter. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (When all you have is a hammer...) Whenever they get back, have them do something like this, and we're fine. If they don't then we delete the images. The only thing this needs is a close. They've uploaded a few hundred images, and a lot of them seem to be fine, unless I'm missing something. Everyone misses a step sometimes. I've done it plenty of times. Plus... that's not an editing restriction... everyone is required to properly license their uploads.  G M G  talk   18:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mjroots: The issue is not really that Giano isn't licensing his uploads correctly. That looks like an honest mistake which probably can be fixed (provided that Giano responds), and we don't impose editing restrictions because someone makes an occasional mistake. The issue is that RexxS's contributions to the file information pages resulted in a long discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is completely ridiculous. I haven't a clue what I am supposed to do with all these stupid time-wasting forms. If I spend hours and hours making a 3D plan, and then say I am releasing it into the public domain, that should be good enough for anyone. Rather than mounting a barrage of criticism by mindless bureaucrats, simply rectifying an obvious shortcoming is the answer. Anyone who has ever glanced at the horrible plan (also my work) currently on one of Wikipedia's most viewed pages, Buckingham Palace would realize the importance of what I am trying to do here. When one has limited free time, a plan this size takes years to complete, and it is essential I can see on-screen what the finished produce will look like. However, I am frequently reminded why I have almost turned my back on this rule-bound project.  Giano    (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * We can probably button this up now. Giano has given the nod to using the 3.0 license on their talk page, which is all this really needed to begin with. We can all probably stop arguing over the details and maybe... go figure out exactly which barnstars to give them for uploading many higher quality images than probably most of us have managed to do ourselves.  G M G  talk   10:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There now, you can all relax, reduce your blood pressures and cease hyperventilating, I have plastered this: Cc-by-sa-3.0 all over as many images as I could find. Let's hope that suffices and none of you ever experience a really serious problem in your lives. Giano    (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As long as you have one license on all your images in the future (either PD-self, Cc-by-sa-3.0, or any number of other appropriate licenses), you're good to go; the images that already had PD-self had no issues). This is a legal requirement, so there's little getting around it. We can't accept images that haven't been formally licensed without it constituting a copyright violation. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Mad about Indiegogo funding perks – misleading username
We have a single-purpose account,, who is apparently angry at the Indiegogo funding effort for Hardcore Henry, and angry at a certain Inga Smith who has managed the film's Indiegogo campaign. The Indiegogo campaign updates posted by the real Inga Smith say that she "sent out the bulk of signed BluRays" along with hats and posters. Our Wikipedia user named IngaSmith contradicts this by writing "In May 2017 Hardcore Henry producer's Inga Smith announced the shipment of some of the perks to the backers around the World, however after several months from that announcement, and years from the crowdfunding campaign, no backer yet has publicly confirmed to have received any of the awaited merchandise, not even the digital copy of the movie." The contradictory text is based on the unreliable reader comments section of the webpage.

To me, it appears that our registered IngaSmith is attacking the real Inga Smith. The username seems to have been chosen to falsely represent the real person. The real Inga Smith would not likely post a self-contradiction in this manner.

The SPA IngaSmith is joined in the edit warring by a sock or meatpuppet friend. I think both accounts must be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Both blocked as attack account, impersonation, abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Fast work. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

First day registered user Chrag Lay Fong removing content from 200 pages

User:Chrag Lay Fong user contributions show that they have removed Arabic/Xiao'erjing script from approximately 200 articles pertaining to Islam in China, mainly articles about Hui people who use this script. They have never provided a rational for doing so, and they never provided any edit summaries. Could an administrator mass-revert these edits or should there be a lengthy discussion first? - Takeaway (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not qualified to judge whether the edits in question were helpful or not, but because it was mass editing, without an apparent consensus, without explanation (not even an edit summary) and from a brand new editor, I have rolledback the edits that were accessible to rollback, and advised the editor to come to this discussion and explain why they made the edits, as wellas to ask where is the best place to go to get a consensus to make mass edits of that type. Any established editor who feels the edits were legitimate and should not have been rolled back may reinstate them without the need to check with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While it would have been preferred to use a mass rollback tool that allows you to provide an edit summary, I agree that this should have been done. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I provided a rationale on the user's talk page. I don't generally use many automated or semi-automated tools. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * These notices were given on 25 September. Since User:Chrag Lay Fong continued to remove Arabic script from more articles on 26 September, I have blocked them for 48 hours. They have never left a talk comment or an edit summary. The affected articles that I've checked all have some connection to Islamic people or culture so the presence of Arabic script has some logic. I have no objection if anyone wants to do a further rollback. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Glamping
There appears to be some edit warring, spamming, and COI concerns at Glamping. I think an admin should get involved because there is an WP:OUTING attempt in an edit summary that should probably be hidden. Deli nk (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit summary deleted, both SPA blocked for adding spam links. Alex ShihTalk 13:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * What spam link did add? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I may have blocked in haste, and I would gladly correct my mistake if this was an error. The concern was the insistence on having this link included 3 times while protesting here in edit summary that removing this link means removing those of competitors. This is not taking the posting of personal information (which is being continued at the current unblock request) into consideration. Alex ShihTalk 13:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Outdoorsy did not add that link, it was added on 30 September 2016 by  diff].  Are you claiming Mewasevasr is Outdoorsy? If OUTING is an issue, can you please show me the specific diff where Outdoorsy was advised of this policy? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Outdoorsy may not have been the original editor to add the link, but the behavior in restoring the link and otherwise strike me as pretty questionable. Also, I don't get why it's relevant to know whether Outdoorsy was notified of the outing policy. Ignorance of such a core policy doesn't excuse its violation. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * No, but it is in the Terms of Use: Terms of Use/en under "Violating the Privacy of Others", which is presumably read before creating an account. Alex ShihTalk 14:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * And that's something you could certainly point to when warning him to desist. But we don't block every new user who breaks our interpretation of those rules, immediately and without warning or explaination, the very first time they break them. That's why we have warning messages. But right now Outdoorsy is blocked for "adding spam links" he didn't add, and for breaking the outing rule in a way that a perfectly reasonable and good faith person might well do. Right now no-one has advised him of that rule, of this discussion, or has addressed his unblock request. He erred, certainly, in identifying a user's affiliation publicly; you erred in reading a (complex, sure) diff list; and Deli nk erred in not informing him of this discussion. I don't see any evidence, after some time of asking, that this is in any way someone other than a good-faith user reverting spam, and on that basis I think he's been treated rather shabbily. With a warning about WP:OUTING, he should be unblocked. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * They certainly added the spam link - they may not have been the first user to add it to that article, but they restored a commercial link that had zero informational value, repeatedly, while proclaiming that it was "unfair" that it had been removed. (It is worth mentioning that links to that domain were added by a couple of different accounts to several different articles last September, in what was apparently an undetected spamming effort.)  If the account is unblocked, the user needs to be given a strict warning against adding inappropriate links, as well. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * It was just refspam of a business. Outdoorsy added a ref to an already referenced statement which merely linked the landing page of a glamping business. Generally speaking, it's rare that it's appropriate for a business landing page to be used as a reference, particularly where that landing page would violate the external link guidelines, as it would in this case (specifically WP:ELNO). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

False accusations of incivility & vandalism
On Talk:Malta Convoys, my comments on an edit were called "incivil" by User:Keith-264, with whom (AFAI recall) I've had no previous contact. Following a content dispute, he demanded "discussion" of the contested edit, but refused to actually enter into any discussion, & when I rv'd (following his rv of the contested edit), he described it as vandalism. (I believe that also puts him in violation of 3RR...which, I confess, I may also be.) I don't appreciate abuse. I don't appreciate false accusations. I don't appreciate being held to a standard nobody else is actually being held to. I expect this complaint will produce just another excuse to air my past bad behavior, however, & provide yet another opportunity for people hostile to me to call for an indefinite block. At this point, I might welcome it. It beats harassment by User:Keith-264, & stalking by User:Andy Dingley, all hollow. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  22:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Trek has taken umbrage despite a considerable effort by several editors to accommodate his point of view over the last week. He has reverted good work by defining it as not relevant to the article, refused to heed contrary opinion by two editors and arbitrarily reverted it again tonight, yet again according to a personal view of the motives of others. A quick look at the talk page shows that I have made a considerable effort to seek consensus and am not the editor in a minority of one. Calling me a harasser is a bit rich.Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * WP:BOOMERANG. Trekphiler, I don't know what your childish whining is about today, but either post some diffs or leave me out of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Both User:Trekphiler and User:Keith-264 have violated 3RR. Interactions between these two editors at Talk:Malta convoys have been strained for going on a week now. In this time, I have attempted to moderate discussion and provide a third opinion to try to keep things running smoothly and to find a consensus but this has become increasingly difficult. My most recent offer to continue stands but any prospect of success appears to be increasingly unlikely unless there is a significant change. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * My error. There have been three reverts by each in less than 24 hrs (if I got the maths right), not "more than 3", so this is not a violation of 3RR. My apologies to all for my error. It is; however, nonetheless, a situation that requires admin intervention. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "considerable effort"? I've seen you whining about my attitude & calling me a vandal, but not a lot of discussion of the substantive issue--& agreeing discussion with me is "a waste of time".
 * "leave me out of it" Right after you stop inserting yourself into discussions that have nothing to do with you.
 * It seems to me Keith-264 has been hostile to my edits on the Malta Convoys page from the start & has been trying to provoke me into saying something genuinely incivil. I believe that's called "baiting", & I understood there was a penalty for that. Presumably it only applies if I do it.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  20:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one making wholesale reverts without consensus, jumping to conclusions about motive or ignoring third party mediation.Keith-264 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you're claiming vandalism, incivility, & ownership, despite edits like this. Who's got a problem with ownership? And who, evidently, wants me to just shut up & go away?  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  23:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Trekphiler, you brought this to ANI. As is well recognised, ANI isn't a place for content disputes. Now if you have a concrete ANI-relevant reason for a problem with some other editor(s)' behaviour, then say clearly what that is. Otherwise withdraw this ANI filing, because a fatuous ANI filing against others is not an acceptable use of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This has become disruptive at the subject talk page/article. There has (IMO) been a clear case of WP:GAMING, which I have reverted for this reason. Beyond this, I make no comment regarding culpability. However, if all of the allegations being made here are problematic to sort through, then, I believe it would be appropriate to at least take interim action to minimise further disruption. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * On the matter of an allegation of WP:GAMING, I rely on the edit summary for that particular edit in the first instance. On the nature of disruption beyond that, I have been silent - as to both what and by whom (singular or plural). Similarly, on the matter of interim action, I have also been silent on the nature of such action and against whom (singular or plural) such action should be directed. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * "take interim action to minimise further disruption" I was right. You do just want to shut me up. Accusing me of vandalism for making an edit one editor disapproves of is okay, but any edit I make, even one that is allegedly acceptable to him, is "gaming the system"? So much for fair treatment. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One other thing crosses my mind. Isn't an accusation of vandalism, when it's not a fairly clear example (& not just a dispute over content) a violation of AGF? (Oh, wait, I forgot--no, since I didn't do it...)  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And after saying on the talk page he wouldn't oppose adding calibers, this, more evidence of WP:OWN issues.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  00:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * When you add repeated nonsense like this, " 15 in-gunned battlecruiser " it's no surprise you're getting reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did think it was reductio ad absurdum. When I reverted Treks second mass delete, I chose Reverting vandalism or test edit because it seemed the most accurate description, given all that had passed since his first one. Pity trek didn't ask why instead of jumping to conclusions. It seems to me that Trek is defining the nature and purpose of the article in such narrow terms that he felt justified in cutting the lot rather than questioning it edit by edit. Since I don't agree with his definition of the article we are fundamentally at odds. That's why I've downed tools; I don't want a third day's work going down the Swannee. Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:CCC24243 talking to themselves and creating disruption
Could someone please block this user indef per WP:NOTTHERE? It was created to participate at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation to support an IP and create an illusion of consensus. They talk to each other and say that I must "chill out" and that the "discussion is settled", ignoting policy-based arguments. The only edit of this user outside of the talk page is in the article where the IP also edited. This is really becoming annoying, especially since I can not directly block them for disruption. The text of the article, which is in a highly contentious area, reflects a long-standing consensus which the IP is apparently unhappy with. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alex ShihTalk 12:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hacked articles redirect to a Youtube livestream
Hello. I've just identified at least two pages (Snoop Dogg and Xerox) that have overlaid on top of it, the size of that image seems to be changed to 7000x7000 px. Basically, wherever you click on the article, you're redirected to the livestream of l0de (, though now it's offline), who is a youtuber that has less than 300 subscriptions.

There must be something shared by these two articles, because not all articles on Wikipedia are affected. I must admit that I've never seen something like this before.

Pinging if he wants to add something. Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I found the cause. See. Have asked that be blocked immediately. This exploit affected every page that used Currency. General Ization Talk   04:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I reported him to, who has blocked him. – Nihlus (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The offending edit has been revdel'd, so unfortunately (I suppose) can no longer be seen at the diff above. But hopefully someone will consider how to prevent a similar exploit in the future.  General Ization  Talk   04:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Think one slipped through the cracks
I believe a sysop should probably rev-del this revision, it appears to contain BLP violations and the "source" is completely unrelated. Home Lander (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite correct, and done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive account
PLease the talk page (User talk:Biplabbala33498) and edit history of. Disruptive account. Has just created an article Dion Siluch with '...' as the only content. Tagged it for speedy deletion, and see it's been speedied three times in recent days already, and jsut re-created. Hasn't WP:COMMUNICATED or heeded previous warnings. Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now blocked for 31 hours, thanks . Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave them an explanation as to why they were blocked as well. They seem to be eager to edit here, but creating multiple throwaway articles isn't the way to go about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Constant vandalism on the page "Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017"
Please check this guy activity, he's been constantly vandalizing the page, I'm just reverting it but he never stops, please check the situation.

The page: Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017 (check the edits) His IP address: <IP_ADDRESS> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phospor (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * They seem to have stop editing for now, about two and half hours ago, but they really do need to be warned if they make unconstructive edits - they have had no warnings. I've left a first general caution as they have been edit warring. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Looking further back, I see RickinBaltimore blocked a very similar IP address on 16 August for block evasion by User:Carsten11. to me so I've blocked for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Tonmoypaul.71 pagemoves
Not too sure what's going on here, but has been moving pages in long chains. It appears he is trying to move Datta High School to Dutt High School, but has created a whole mess in the process. Could someone clean it up? (note - before a few days ago, the article refered to the school as Datta, then some IP's changed it to Dutt - may be the same person) – Train2104 (t • c) 00:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The external links, when run through Google Translate, give "Datta High School" and not "Dutt High School". Google Maps shows a location for "Datta High School" but none for "Dutt High School", although it does show a "Dutta Girls High School". Current, the article is at "Dutt High School", but this appears to be incorrect.  Someone who is proficient in the language should look this over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be "Datta" in English, but it would appear that it is known as "Dutt" in English. In languages that use Latin script   usually represents "ooh"-like sounds.  Due to the fact that English orthography basically preserves the way English was pronounced 700 years ago or so, it also represents "aah"-like sounds, like the   in the previous name of Kolkata. It also appears that we may well have a young person writing about their own school, as often happens, so be gentle. Remember What the Thunder Said. (Admittedly I wrote about the main administration block at one of my (four) alma maters, and made it the top google hit for "Sydney's ugliest building" for some time.) --Shirt58 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Tonmoypaul.71 has moved the page and Talk page yet again - this time to Dutt High School. (please note stop as part of title) - suggest article needs to be move protected to stop even more multiple moves - but after so many moves, by multiple editors, when does the music stop? - Arjayay (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I considered move protection, but it seems like overkill when there's only one person who's being disruptive. Tonmoypaul.71 blocked 31 hours and warned that further disruption won't be tolerated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Smitty Smitty
I am involved in a dispute at 2017 Presidents Cup. I started a thread on Talk:2017 Presidents Cup to discuss it with the other user (User:Smitty Smitty), and with this edit informed him of the discussion. Another user (User:Nigej) commented on the talk page, agreeing with me. Smitty Smitty reverted my edit. Nigej then reverted his edit, pointing to the talk page; Smitty Smitty reverted again. He has not once provided any reasoning for his edits. pʰeːnuːmuː →  pʰiːnyːmyː  →  ɸinimi  →  fiɲimi  20:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I made the edits because the schedule is set. They just don't like the fact the golfers have yet to be decided for that day. They have provided no reason the edits shouldn't be made, they just don't like the fact I made the edits first.
 * We have provided what we feel is sufficient reasoning, and you have continued to be disruptive. pʰeːnuːmuː  →  pʰiːnyːmyː  →  ɸinimi  →  fiɲimi  20:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Smitty Smitty blocked 24 hours for edit warring, but,, you're edit warring, too. It's good that you're trying to discuss this on the talk page, but you can't just indefinitely revert someone simply because they won't discuss their edits.  Some people would say that you should be blocked for fairness, too, but I think your attempts to discuss the matter mitigate your edit warring enough for a warning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was aware of that possibility. I should've started the talk page discussion sooner, but I knew that I'd have backing from other users that are heavily involved in that article and similar articles. pʰeːnuːmuː  →  pʰiːnyːmyː  →  ɸinimi  →  fiɲimi  20:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Verification
So I made this edit, thinking it would improve the page but  reverted it for "vandalism" when if you look at that it has NO elements of vandalism. I then undid it and then he redidit it. He probably did that so just so I would break the three revert rule and get blocked. KNOCKX X  22:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems you may have clicked on the wrong link, when what you intended to click on was Talk:Verificationism.  G M G  talk   22:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see Knockxx's self-reverted edit to Knowledge despite the page notice about editing the initial links. WP:BOOMERANG.-- ☾Loriendrew☽   ☏(ring-ring)  22:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I never checked the talk page. KNOCKX X  22:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See that's your issue KNOCKX. When you have a content dispute, the talk page is always the first place to go. If that doesn't work, then try the dispute resolution process, and if that doesn't work, then come to ANI.  G M G  talk   22:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * K then. And I'm pretty sure you meant Talk:Verification. KNOCKX X  22:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Close plz. No upside down ranged weapons needed.  G M G  talk   22:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also please note that the OP's next edit immediately after their edit to Knowledge and two other articles related to it, and, was . This tells me the editor is WP:NOTHERE. General Ization  Talk   22:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am here to build an Encyclopedia. I was aware of WP:GTP, but I didn't do it because of that. KNOCKX X  23:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

After reading this editor's user and talk page, I think it's possible that this may be a WP:CIR issue. For whatever reason, it doesn't appear to me that Knockxx is currently competent to edit Wikipedia, or that he will develop that competency in a reasonable amount of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Mea culpa. I should've checked his contribs, which would have made it clear that he was NOTHERE. My bad. Thanks, Bbb23. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * NP. Subsequently blocked as a sock of, which user on review is clearly not 16, or 18, or a new user, so claims of in/competence or innocent ignorance were beside the point anyway. General Ization Talk   19:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible indef'd user editing anonymously
appears to be indef-blocked user editing anonymously, as the IP is constantly changing genres on country music song articles, usually to "bro country", often with no source at all, dubious sourcing that is either patently unreliable or synthesis, or an edit summary of "look at the lyrics".

Sample edits by IP here:   can easily be compared to similar edits by Jack Gaines

Can I please get some eyes on this IP address, if not a block? Likewise, if you see "Bro country" in any infoboxes, nuke it on sight. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * . Blocked for 3 days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Presently 43 instances of "Bro country" in articles - put insource:"Bro+country" into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=50&offset=0&ns0=1 - most look genuine, but easy enough to keep an eye on. --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So far, the only inbounds are from the Country music template, and from linking valid instances of the term being used in context (e.g., quoting the phrase when a reviewer uses it). So long as it stays out of the genre field in the infobox. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * TIL that Bro country is actually a thing. Wow.  Anyway, if there's usable sourcing that a song is in that genre, it sounds fine to say so in the article and (depending) in the infobox. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * TIL that Bro country is actually a thing. Wow.  Anyway, if there's usable sourcing that a song is in that genre, it sounds fine to say so in the article and (depending) in the infobox. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Danish Shakeel creation and recreation of articles
I can seem to look objectively at this issue, so I'm posting this here to essentially wash my hands of it. (Essentially, having put it up for two separate speedy deletions, I am assuming the topic isn't notable. With sources in other languages and a topic well outside of anything I know anything about, I'm wimping out and passing the buck.)

The user in question is a SPA apparently creating the same article multiple times under several variations of the title: Samad mir}}, [[Samad Mir, Kulyaat-e-Samad Mir and, for all I know, others. The articles seem to have been deleted for a variety of reasons: copyright violations, no assertion of notability, inadequate sources, etc. The version up for speedy right now is/was a copypaste from a blog. While it has been somewhat rewritten (better English, some reduction of peacockery), at least some of the sources are clearly blogs. (I haven't checked the others.) I'm thinking a block is in order for the editor.

The other article, Danish Shakeel is clearly the user name. As it is gone, I don't know if it's autobiographical or somehow related to the other article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * There's also some socking here: User talk:Danishshakeel17051999, Sockpuppet investigations/Iamdanishshakeel/Archive, etc. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Add User:Shakeel513, another SPA, to that list. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm assuming there is a connection to Moti Lal Saqi, the only article linking to Samad Mir, and the SPA who created it, User:Naveenraina. That article is also a copyvio, up for speedy. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The deleted article at Danish Shakeel certainly appears to be an autobiographical vanity page, and was deleted twice by the same admin. The URL from which it was taken is currently offline, and that's a common pattern when vanity pages are deleted as copyvios, as a Wikipedia article is more prized by many than a personal website. Andrewa (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated removal of user talk page content without permission

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

Recently, has been removing content from my talk page. Under WP:TPG, "users are free to remove content from their own talk pages". However, GeoJoe10000 has not requested that I remove this content, and he has moved to revert any content that I have restored.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/802902891 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/802902952 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/802902965 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/802904175 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/802904322

It appears that he done this because I have been critical of his behaviour—and that of his previous account, —and he wants to remove any evidence of it. He never asked permission to remove these comments, and had he sought it, I would have agreed to it as a show of good faith (although given this behaviour, I would be less inclined to remove it now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisonermonkeys (talk • contribs)

 * Don't know about all that, but I do know this is totally unacceptable. John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And so is all this -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 06:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * It is not the first time he has done something like this, as evidenced by these personal attacks on —attacks which GeoJoe10000 has since deleted. GeoJoe10000's talk page claims that I am only on Wikipedia to bully him, though it appears that anyone who disagrees with him is a bully. He has a long history of conflict with other editors, and aggressive and disruptive editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, he has been blocked as a sockpuppet of his old account, so the problem has been solved. I suspect that his intention was to retire the old account and turn over a new leaf, so to speak. It might have been a new account, but it was the same old attitude. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

FC Steaua București - CSA Steaua București (football)
This one is a little bit complicated. CSA Steaua București is a very popular sports club in Romania. In 1998, the football department separated from the sports society and became FC Steaua București. CSA Steaua sued the football club becaue it used their Steaua brand without permission, so the football club changed its name to the acronym FCSB in March 2017. The sports club refounded their football department, which started to play in the fourth league this summer.

The problem is that some fans who chose to abandon FCSB and support CSA Steaua claim that the team from the fourth league has the honours and the history of the FCSB. Altough FCSB can't officially use the name Steaua, this hasn't changed the fact that the trophies are attributed to them. They currently play in the UEFA Europa League and both UEFA and the Romanian Football Federation confirm that they continued Steaua's history and own the honours.

There are certain users such as TPTB that keep transferring the honours of FCSB to CSA Steaua's article! FCSB's page is protected (or it was, I don't know for sure now) and I think the other article should too. Indefinetely, because this is an edit war which persists since FC Steaua changed its name in March.

Thank you!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again with the goddam Romanian football?  E Eng  14:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, no wonder there are less and less fans on the stadiums!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 07:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that these things keep popping up on this noticeboard with monotonous regularity when the appropriate place to discuss them is [a] the article talk page, for content issues, [b] WP:RFPP, for page protection issues, or [c] probably nowhere, and certainly not here, for endless, repetitive, uninteresting arguments about the name/status of a football club. -- Begoon 08:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

CSA Steaua București (football) - FC Steaua București
This issue was discussed here and I see that the user 8Dodo8 has lied and manipulated you all. The truth about this issue is this. Fotbal Club Fcsb was founded in 2003. The team took over Steaua Bucuresti's first league place illegally and it also started using the Steaua Bucuresti name and brand although it had no right to them. Gigi Becali, Fotbal Club Fcsb's shadow owner, <BLP violation redacted> CSA Steaua Bucuresti, the real Steaua Bucuresti, the team who won the European Champions Cup in 1986, sued Becali and his team and won. Fotbal Club Fcsb is now forbidden to use the Steaua names and brand. They are also forbidden to pretend they are Steaua Bucharest, but <BLP violation redacted> they don't care. Currently, Fotbal Club Fcsb and Steaua Bucharest are involved in several other lawsuits. In one of them, Steaua asks for Fotbal Club Fcsb to pay 38 milion euros in reparations. This lawsuit will probably end next year and will lead to Fotbal Club Fcsb's demise. Becali has even announced that if he loses the lawsuit, he will file for bankruptcy and simply erase his team, so that he won't have to pay the 38 million euros. He has provided no proof that he owns the Steaua honours. He uses them because UEFA and the Romanian Football Federation have not yet issued official statements regarding the matter. On their websites, fotbal club fcsb is still credited with winning the ECC in 1986, but that information comes directly from the club. It's not official information and should not be used as such. All this information is known in Romania. The user 8Dodo8, who is in fact the supporter of a rival team and who probably hates Steaua, has lied to you all. He's using the state of confusion in the Romanian press and Becali's propaganda to deceive you and to destroy an honest page, created with the right information, and that is not based on lies. If you check the history of the CSA Steaua București (football) you will see that what 8Dodo8 did was the same exact thing as what the other vandals did. Some of them had registered accounts, others didn't. But they all made the exact same changes to the page. Some of them even created accounts just to vandalize that page.

The CSA Steaua București (football) page was created by SupervladiTM. He is a Steaua supporter and one of the people who helped create the FC Steaua București page. That was in the mid 2000s, when no one really knew what becali did and that his club is not Steaua. Ask him why he created the CSA Steaua București (football) page and you'll see that the information he added there was correct and that people like 8Dodo8 are just vandals.

I asked for aministrators to protect the CSA Steaua page. Seeing this, 8Dodo8 went to an administrator friend of his and asked him to vandalize the page for him. That's why I ask that his account be deleted and that all his modifications to the CSA Steaua București (football) page be undone.

Please keep in mind that this is the only team that can use the Steaua name and brand. It is the only team with the Steaua honours. There are no others that can use it. Soon, Fotbal Club Fcsb will be closed down and the FC Steaua Bucuresti page will be either deleted or modified to present the correct information. The Romanian justice system has decided that Fotbal Club Fcsb is not Steaua, and there's no way the Romanian press or Becali's propaganda can get around this.

Thank you.

-TPTB (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks by
I got an advise to "fuck off" from  (for the context, I am the blocking admin). Could someone please teach them manners? Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP and extended the block on to two weeks (pretty clear WP:DUCK unless anyone disagrees?). WJBscribe (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're going to call WP:DUCK on Cathry (assumedly in Russia or somewhere Russian speaking?), because some random, with zero similar style, on a mobile carrier in a completely different country said something? Where are all these VPN's terminating over 4G that you speak of? Some quality justice you've got handing out there. Amazing that Cathrys original block decision didn't even take into account evidence from the person who's edit she was undoing deletion of (mine). Even more sad that you don't even care less about how terribly broken Wikipedia is and let admins get away with the rubbish in that WP:EW claim, for her single undos they didn't like. Zero objectivity or accountability. Way to teach Cathry about helping a stranger there. You should be ashamed and Wikipedia should respect a modicum of privacy, instead of discriminating against people without accounts. Anyway, signing off for 48hrs. Or maybe for good. You can guarantee you've kissed away any donations EVER again from me too. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * p.s. That's also a security vulnerability. You're teaching people to play duck to DoS others. You should think that one through a bit more.
 * You should probably have disclosed your own connection on the Russian wiki (apparently) too User:Ymblanter. To anyone who was watching (like me), it just had some strange stench of vendetta and likely COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs)
 * Since you are explicitly evading a block, I just reblock this IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Will no one think of the bastards?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS> Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked by Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  19:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Deeply thinking about bastards.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Man, that was quick; the block appears to have come in after I'd opened their talk page, but before I'd pasted the ~ Anmccaff (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article history, I expect they will be back soon from a slightly different IP-address. Kleuske (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I protected Tamils for two weeks as a clear-cut case; the other two I would possibly decline if they show up at RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

deletion of legitimate article that uses correct WP:MANUAL and WP:COMPANY and accusation that i work for said company.
User:Seraphimblade has deleted the page Webster Public Relations and claimed (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) there was no promotion NOR advertising at all in the article, the article used well-known news and media sources/refs and the company is even cited for having 16 clients that are in the 100 greatest country artist of all time. This company is legitimate and is widely known in the entertainment industry. Notability standards for this company is a big ole "duh", any google searches done before deletion would have shown.

Although User:Seraphimblade may not like PR companies, the company Webster Public Relations or some of its current pr, that is NOT a legitimate reason for deletion if the company's article abides by the wikicode of notability, non-advertisement and has appropriate ref links.

not all of us like or believe in the values of the KKK article for example and yet it is a factual and cultural existence in our world and thus its article will not be deleted either.

just because the subject of this article is a media/pr company it has every right to be treated with the same wiki code of respect as other notable public relations companies and organizations on Wikipedia like Public Relations Global NetworkPublic_Relations_Global_Network who is not accused of "advertising" in its wiki article.

The press is not automatically the enemy because wikipedia has plenty of notable pr and press companies listed.

The 2nd thing I would like addressed is the accusation by User:Animalparty that I work for the company Webster Public Relations WP:PAID and WP:DISCLOSE, which I do not. I simply do not. I also work in Nashville in the entertainment industry and have many high-profile clients, I am not a "pr agent" as User:Animalparty has accused me of. and I only have unique access to good solid factual information because of my position. So I am not connected to Webster Public Relations in any sort of conflict of interest.

they, Webster Public Relations have done good things for the country music community and the country music business and they deserve to be listed in an article simply because they are a household name in that world. that's it.

I don't work for them neither did the article have any advertising in it whatsoever.

 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

Carey James Balboa (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No company has any "rights" on Wikipedia, least of all the "right" to have an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was gooing to comment that I couldn't evaluate the article because it had been deleted, but you've recreated it, which you shouldn't have done, and will probably get you blocked from editing. But now that you've done so, I agree with the deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Page has been reposted in full. I'll send page Webster Public Relations to AfD as a procedural solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Post-script
The article's been deleted at AfD, and the editor blocked as advertising/promotional only account. This is the post I was working on when all of that occurred, which I'm putting here to be on the record if and when this editor re-appears with a new account:

"User:Careyjamesbalboa's user page had on it, until it was tagged for speedy deletion, a link to Carey James International, a 'A Private Boutique Intelligence Agency' which provides 'Premium technology, intelligence and consulting for elite businesses, artists, firms, and creatives.' The site has a client list which makes it clear that Carey James International is a PR firm.  The editor is the creator of Webster Public Relations, which lists among its clients  Dolly Parton, Lifehouse, Kenny Rogers, and Kid Rock.    Careyjamesbalboa has made edits to the article about all of these artists, primarily to add the name of Webster Public Relation's principal, and images of that person with those artists.  I have reverted all of these edits.Clearly the editor behind this account had been paid for those edits, and is therefore a paid editor who has not acknowledged being paid."

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

FleetCommand and their harassment
Over the past couple of years, FleetCommand, has made it difficult for me to make contributions to Wikipedia. It has come to a point where he now wishes me dead!

Here is the one that really has gotten to me: 1 In this case they:
 * called me "our most stupid editor"
 * wrote "every time I read his name, it is bad news"
 * said I "pulled stupid stunts"
 * and stated "When he dies, I will certainly celebrate"

Other examples:
 * 2 3 failed to state what I did wrong, reverted redirect, and did not address the ambiguous issue. Yes, the dab page wasn't perfect, but TV (software could refer to apps on TVs
 * In this diff 4 he failed to assume good faith, and stated "Oh, great. WikIan contributing more crap" and "his person doesn't know why we do things when we do them." as if WP:ABF and WP:OWN were rules to live by. All I did 5 was add an image. I did it through the Visual Editor, so I did not know that it caused a mobile issue.
 * Next was the issue with Microsoft's branding 6 Initially he attacked me for finding sources for Outlook on the web was the name of two services, in fact MS changed their mind, but he blatantly reverted my edits multiple times without backing up his sources
 * Previously this year he stated 7 I was "wrong in every dispute so far"

I was hoping s/he would accept that I make mistakes, but all is in good faith. I've been editing for awhile, but this person seems to think I'm a kindergartener editing Wikipedia for the first time. This has gone way too far.  WikIan -(talk) 02:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the content dispute or editing competence, stating that When he dies, I will certainly celebrate is completely unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blackmane, with the caveat that that particular part of the comment could be an extremely off-colour joke (that should nevertheless be blanked and possibly rev-delled). Did you mean that in sincerity? You should, at the very least, strike it -- almost any admin would readily block you for a remark like that, regardless of whether you were right about WikIan's content edits. As to whether you were right about their edits -- they appear to have a clean block log, so if you have tried to bring their "disruption" to the attention of the community before this point you should probably provide some evidence. If it's just your opinion, then you should shut up about it because accusations like that are not acceptable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia community necessarily requires a collegial operating environment. This means that we should not be calling other editors stupid or hoping for their deaths, whether or not it was said in jest or in a moment of anger. Such comments should not even be made towards confirmed trolls or the truly disruptive. FleetCommand's comment is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia as a matter of policy. It should be removed per WP:NPA, among other policies. I do not believe a block is necessary based solely on that comment, but there may be other misconduct that I have not seen which indicate that a block is necessary to prevent further disruption to the editing environment. At the very least, FleetCommand should consider himself sternly warned that further such comments can and will result in a block. Pure NPA blocks (as opposed to ones for vandalism, NOTHERE, etc.) are rather rare in this day and age, but I can see one being issued in short order. As to whether further sanctions should lie, in my view this should be based on whether there is a pattern of disruption. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I have notified FleetCommand of this thread. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment by the talk page holder, Codename Lisa: Hello, earthlings! I am away for one day, and you start a war on my talk page! Tch, tch! You naughty, naughty people. Has someone here been a baaaaaaaaaad boy? Joke aside, there is a lot of bad blood between FleetCommand and WikIan. Back in 2016, WikIan tried to merge Outlook.com and Outlook on the web articles into a new Outlook Mail article and had a clash with yours truly, Jeh, ViperSnake151, and FleetCommand. Ever since, I have had a feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the auditor.
 * On this certain occasion, WikIan has made 61 edits involving renaming articles whose titles ended with "(software)", a direct violation of ArbCom ruling highlighted in MOS:STABILITY, a deviation from our naming scheme, a violation of WP:DAB on at least three accounts. After being in Wikipedia for 7 years, does he not know that disambiguation pages end with (disambiguaiton), not (software)? JE98 found it suspicious and tried to notify me. In reponse, WikIan said something that looks highly inaccurate to me, perhaps even dishonest. He more or less denied having done anything dramatic. The provocation theme comes to my mind. At worst, he is engaged in deliberate disruption of Wikipedia and harassment. At best, he is engaged in unintentional disruption rising from lack of competence.
 * Then again, feel free to dismiss all this as conspiracy theory. I think the solution is still the same: WikIan must accept that he has room for improvements (acres of it, actually) and he is late doing it by seven years. He can't just push everyone's button and come here crying that people whose buttons were pushed didn't treat him well. At one point, someone will come to the conclusion that it is him who must stop button-pushing.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Codename Lisa. So, FleetCommand's comment was completely out of line and should be stricken as a personal attack and they should be cautioned about civility and told to read over NPA again, and we should either sanction or sternly warn WikIan for their own misbehaviour? I am sorry, but I have very little patience for people who deliberately goad and provoke other editors, and then immediately play the victim once the other editors are pushed over the brink. is Codename Lisa's outline of the events leading up to the edit you link accurate? Specifically, can you disprove her feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the [other e]ditor? Under normal circumstances, per WP:AGF, I would not place the burden of defending yourself on you (it's FC and CL's responsibility to substantiate their own accusations), but technically in this case you came here asking for sanctions against someone who posted a comment that looks provoked, so you really can't expect the rest of us to simply assume your side of the story is completeky accurate. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way: The fact that the OP has opened three ANEW reports, one on FC which resulted in a two-way warning, and never been reported himself makes me somewhat inclined to believe Codename Lisa that this is a bellicose user trying to trick other users into getting into trouble. Two-way edit-warring that one party chooses to forum-shop to ANEW should send up red flags, and the fact that the edit linked by the OP shows an intent to report them on ANI makes me very much think this thread was opened in an attempt to get FC before FC got them. I'm sorry if I'm misreading something, but the more I look into this the more I think a BOOMERANG should be coming. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not just that. Please see this:
 * "2 3 failed to state what I did wrong". Well, that's outright dishonest. The following sentence seems not only a good-faith attempt to explain but also an accurate and conscise one:"Partial title matches and items without link are not allowed. If you don't want to read WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, at least read WP:DDD." WikIan is insulted directly; I understand that. But that does not justify lying to us.
 * "but TV (software) could refer to apps on TVs". No! It could not. Everyone knows that parenthetical suffixes are for disambiguation only. Furthermore... (Sigh!) Oh, my! There is so much to explain. Yes, WikIan, please study WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, or at least WP:DDD.
 * —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw those too. I think WikIan wants us to interpret all of the previous, at-worst-slightly-uncivil, remarks in light of the later When he dies, I will certainly celebrate, when in reality WikIan has not seven diffs of FC harassing them but one diff of FC overreacting to WikIan harassing them. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever your view of the underlying content, "Oh, great. WikIan contributing more crap" is an extremely uncollegial way to approach editing and the first diff cited above is completely unacceptable. Per NPA, It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user.   I really hope you're going to refactor/strike those comments when you come back online.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Unacceptable is the word. I've already removed the whole "unacceptable" thread, so there is nothing for FC to do.
 * As for my view of the matter, we have two unacceptable things, neither of which justify the other. Both should be addressed for the good of Wikipedia. We must make it a point that we tolerate neither. I think it would be best for both editors to shake hands, one promising no future insults and the other promising a sincere attempt to improve self and learn from our veterans. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said. GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think FC should apologize, but there's no tradition of forcing people to apologize for off-colour remarks that have already been blanked, unless they actively try to restore them. There is the problem, though, of WikIan's behaviour; I think if this thread gets closed as Offending comment has been blanked. Nothing more to be done. (read: implying the disruption was one-sided) that will just embolden them and encourage more disruption. That said, unless more evidence is forthcoming I'd say a strong warning, specifically a promise of a block next time they make another of the offending edits, might be enough. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am thinking a little beyond that. My role in this is what I must not neglect. (There was a reason all this happened in my talk page.) For now, I have disengaged from all Apple-related software articles and have removed them from my watchlist, except for two cases where my involvement was a matter of the elephant in the room. (I participated in one before noticing this dicussion. I also granted a template edit request; monitoring the aftermath in Apple Wallet is simply my responsibility.) Still, 14 less items in my watchlist should help WikIan see less of me and de-escalate matter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * First, I don't edit Wikipedia for a living. Yes, I make mistakes, but I do think my positive contributions have outweighed those. is the only user to specifically target my edits and either revert them or challenge them on a regular basis. CL and others have reverted edits (this is natural due to WP:BRD cycle), but not in a way that personally insults me or aggressively challenges all edits because they may do drastic changes. There is no guideline against drastic changes if they improve Wikipedia.
 * Furthermore, I am not super involved as CL or FC are in Wikipedia's guideline or ArbCom rulings. Furthermore, I have taken CL's advice on many of my edits. I checked the backlinks to make sure the page moves didn't break anything. This is when I ran into a problem with the double redirects, which logically seemed to be solved with dab pages.
 * I have had a feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the auditor Yea, why would I do this? I was wrong (though not at the time) for the Outlook.com/OOTW debacle. I'll admit that was due to Microsoft not knowing themselves. And who, might I add, have the time to specifically target a single person unless they edit a lot? If I was targeting FC, I'd be all up in his watchlist and ONLY editing whatever he edits with vandalism.
 * If you want to know my thought process this time around, I (as usual) was looking for Article Title Consistency according to WP:CRITERIA and also don't you guys realize we are violating WP:NPOV by favoring Apple with the "software" redirect?
 * The fact that the OP has opened three ANEW reports I'm sorry... but now I'm a fault for reporting people? I'm pretty sure others have opened up reports for me too. Check the logs. For both WikIan and my old username. Whatever I bring to the Administrators attention is within Wikipedia guidelines. There is no fault in doing so. Also, isn't this an admin noticeboard? I'd like an admin to handle this actively as well.

 * , why do you think I haven't read WP:DDD? Shall we read it together?
 * Target link at start? Check. All of my links were at the start (except one, TV (software)). Whoops, but that doesn't that aside, TV (software) is obviously what someone would look for if they are researching apps for their TV. (read: ambiguous)
 * Keep descriptions short. Check.
 * Sections. Don't need.
 * Primary topic: well, TV (software) is incredibly ambiguous. Talk:TV_(Apple), see that discussion. I mean come on, seriously, this is just ambiguous. Yes, it was a change, but many of the other Apple articles used (Apple) parenthetical disambiguation. that user had to ruin it according to the talk page. Yeah? So what? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you WP:OWN Wikipedia. As also stated "Too many apps/services" is subjective Emir of Wikipedia, not me. CL and FC, your prejudice against me also opposes other editors.
 * Wiktionary and incoming links weren't needed, and I didn't think it needed cleanup. There were not multiple blue links, (there was one piped link), I didn't add an entry w/o a blue link or w/ a red link. I didn't include EVERY article containing the title.
 * I also didn't include any dictionary definition or external links.
 * No! It could not. How so?
 * implying the disruption was one-sided If you wish me off of Wikipedia I will leave. I don't want to go, but if you are turning this against me, I will. I haven't caused disruption, except to those editors who are just used to the way things haven't changed, even though they directly violate WP:NPOV, and then turn around and yell I'm violating WP:DDD
 * Good day to you all,  WikIan -(talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Yea, why would I do this? I was wrong" Very well. Let's say I believe you, as Hanlon's razor says. But understand this:
 * It does not matter how you assess your level of activity; given your level of participation in Wikipedia, length of service, and the troubles in which you have been (mentioned above by yourself, I and Hijiri88), your knowledge and understanding of our rules, guidelines and practices is insufficient. Improve it. Pretexts save you once, not twice.
 * Your recent changes in the Apple software area was wrong. Make it you mission to find out why.
 * Feel free to ignore all I said or protest. Time is a cruel mistress. She will see to it that you will learn the hard way in due course.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not trying to "play dumb" here. If I were, I'd say that I didn't know WP:DDD existed. My interpretation of what I did (for the reasons above), though not perfect, is that it contributed in a positive way to those articles. Tell me, is Health (Apple) more ambiguous than Health (software)? If not, I'd like to know if that's what you are referring to in the case of Your recent changes in the Apple software area was wrong.
 * Again, looking at WP:DDD, which I did in the above list, I don't see what I did wrong, except not put a blue link at the start of the entry. JE98 said (paraphrasing here) "there were too many entries to list in the DAB page", which led me to believe I made a mistake. However, according to the guideline, you don't have to list every entry with that title.  WikIan -(talk) 06:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lesson one: Stay on topic. The topic of this thread is "harassment", you, and "FleetCommand". To begin your learning, drop me a note on my talk page. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Regarding the underlying (article title) content dispute, there are open move discussions at TV (Apple) and Wallet (software). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I just had to remove an attack on FC by WI in this thread. FC's previous comment was completely unacceptable as well. Both of you cut out the personal attacks or you'll be blocked for a month (this is my go-to solution to feuds, and it has had some minor success in the past). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait ... I agree with Floq that blanking that was a good idea, but ... well, look at it. The image has apparently been taken down, but did WikIan just admit to "recruiting" people (his real-world friends?) to harass FleetCommand off-wiki? That's way more serious than saying on-wiki "I wish he were dead". WikIan claimed on his talk page that he did not support or condone the posting of that stuff that he linked (whatever it was), but the fact that it disappeared at apparently the same time as Floq told him off indicates that either he was the one who posted it or he was in contact with them. It might be my own history with off-wiki harassment (which literally included posting images of me on a website similar to tinypics and linking them on-wiki) biasing me, but this certainly feels like the worst thing that has come up in this discussion so far. WikIan, Floq let you off very easy by not blocking you; most admins would not be as kind. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Off-wiki harassment is a serious matter, because it can easily misfire at the wrong person. During the time that FA was pressuring me to bring FleetCommand out of retirement, I discovered that the user accounts of "FleetCommand" registered on @hotmail.com, @gmail.com, Wikia (it is "Fleet Command" with a space), SourceForge, GamesFAQ, GameSpot and a couple of other place (I've forgotten) do not belong to our FleetCommand. These people even have the same avatar because that certain avatar is originally distributed by Relic Entertainment. If the harasser is lucky, the person harassed is a high-ranking official of the United States Fleet Forces Command and he just laughs – unlike in the films, where he calls CIA black ops.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. Okay. I think FleetCommand's statements make a bit more sense, even if they're still contrary to policy. I don't quite understand what WikIan posted, but the pivot away from the properly objectionable matter (the comment) to more grey policy questions gives me the impression of someone who grabbed hold of something in order to bring a tangentially related dispute to this forum. I'm not to the point where I think a boomerang is appropriate, but I'm definitely becoming less impressed with WikIan's participation in this thread as it drags on. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , you seriously need to stop implying things. You're almost becoming like FC, assuming I did things for bad intentions. The image was a screenshot (privately linked) to a screenshot of what could be considered vandalism, so I removed it because it was in bad taste. As for what he assumed I did wrong, may I remind you all WP:BURO. If I believe my content contributes to Wikipedia, then I have the right to do so. What happens next is up to consensus, not one user targeting another.  And to quote the topic of this thread is "harassment", specifically my case against FC's rude comments and request for multiple administrators consensus. Not Hijiri88's. Floq let you off very easy by not blocking you, if I posted vandalism or doxxing content to a publically accessible, non-removable website, this comment would make sense. But again... I did not do that. I simply screenshotted what I saw here on Wikipedia.
 * someone who grabbed hold of something in order to bring a tangentially related dispute to this forum Perhaps, I provided evidence of FC's aggressiveness to other users. It was in bad taste (screenshot of resulting vandalism), that's why its gone. WikIan -(talk) 22:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So... you admit that it was you who posted the image (whatever it was)? Have you engaged in any other off-wiki discussion of FleetCommand? Because you should know that, if this is a recurring problem as User:Codename Lisa implies, while it doesn't excuse "When he dies, I will certainly celebrate", it does mean that if FleetCommand gets a block or any other editing restriction out of this, your own will likely be harsher. I agree with User:Mendaliv that it still is not necessarily at that point. You could strike everything you've written here, apologize to FleetCommand, request that this thread be closed, and get back to building an encyclopedia. Or you could let the discussion drag out and see what happens. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There you go again, implying I had contact outside of Wikipedia... I have not, that was a screenshot of something HERE on Wikipedia, and I don't even know who FC is. What you're saying is that I was doxxing him, and as I already said I didn't. Stop implying bad faith again. The recurring problem is that FC is targeting my edits and insulting me directly. If this community chooses to ban people who report offensive language to the people who can handle it, why should I want to be a part of this community? If this community chooses to follow its own guidelines, and punish inappropriate behavior, and disregard any prior bias, I will proudly remain an editor here. I'm not sure why your own will likely be harsher would ever become a reality. I have never EVER posted anything that is outside the scope of Wikipedia anywhere else.  WikIan -(talk) 22:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You posted an image of some kind on an off-wiki forum, then linked it on-wiki, explicitly claiming that it had been posted by someone else (And, no, I did not create those entries/accounts. A bunch of people know about the borderline hounding) and that you condemned them for it (I support absolutely no harassment or vandalism of any kind. You were then forced to admit that you were the one who uploaded the image (whatever it was) onto tinypics when I pointed out that the image had disappeared as soon as Floq called you out for it. Forgive me if I am missing some key component of this that makes posting an image to tinypic.com -- with the apparent intention of attacking, demeaning, intimidating or otherwise harassing a member of the Wikipedia community -- not exactly what happened here, but you don't appear to be able or willing to deny that. You are instead focusing on attacking me with strawman arguments: I don't know what the content of the image was, nor have I "implied" that I do know, and I don't even know what "doxxing" is, so how I could have accused you of it is beyond me. If something about what I actually said (rather than what you think I "implied") was in some way inaccurate, please explain. Remember, I was entirely on your side here until Codename Lisa told her side of the story, so I'm definitely willing to change my mind if some aspect of my assessment of the situation is wrong. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see Floquenbeam's comments below. If you are inclined to believe CL, I want you to know all that facts. While I respect s/he as a dutiful editor, as stated they br[ought] FleetCommand out of retirement and have interactions in an IM chat off-wiki not to mention CL and FC come in paris. CL is not in question here, as I have never been directly insulted multiple times by this person.  WikIan -(talk) 04:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I am so tired of people at ANI assuming they know what they hell they are talking about when they don't. I actually dealt with it yesterday, so don't need people suggesting things that should be done to address their imagined problems, but to prevent the inevitable question on my talk page: WikIan took a screenshot of on-wiki personal attacks on FleetCommand by other people over the course of several years, posted the screenshot to an image hosting service, and said he thought it was funny and evidence of how FleetCommand angers people.  No off-wiki harassment, no recruiting others.  Now, that was a real dick move. But not, IMHO, as bad as saying you'd be happy to see another editor dead (and, to be fair, it was done in partial retaliation for saying that). The image was removed by WikIan from the hosting service, I issued a warning, and we're done.  As I said before, if this doesn't stop I suggest 1 month blocks for either editor at the next hint of personal attacks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I never assumed anything. I asked a question and WikIan's repeated dodging of said question and hurling nonsense accusations back at me was beginning to incline me to believe the worst. And collecting screenshots of people attacking him from over a multi-year period and posting them to an image-hosting site is still harassment, and it is technically off-site. The only real difference between that and what happened to me is that there was apparently no on-wiki outing involved (and I never said or even implied that there was). Everything I said still stands even now that I am no longer "assuming [I] know what the hell [I am] talking about when [I] don't", and WikIan's evasiveness (or, rather, deflectiveness) is just as disruptive whether the assumption I wasn't acutally making was right or wrong. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, screw it. I have better things to do with my editing privileges than get blocked for expressing an opinion in a dispute I'm not even party to, and I've seen such things happen too much lately. Put more poetically, that's not the hill I want to die on. I guess I'm in for another month-long self-imposed ANI PBAN. If this dispute does continue any longer than it already has (and I agree with Floq that this should have already ended), the closer can feel free to either ignore everything I have said or read it and take it for what it's worth, but I would appreciate not being pinged anymore. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 * More evidence | back in 2015 FC called my edits "hostile", when in fact through consensus, the infobox stands closer to what originally was there, than the changes that FC made and reverted my "hostile" revert.  WikIan -(talk) 05:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Diffs from two years ago are not generally actionable, and if you want to convince us that he was wrong to call your edits hostile, behaving in the very hostile fashion you have in this thread is not going to help. Calling a fish a fish is not a personal attack, and it's not harassment (unlike going back over someone's edits from years ago desperately looking for "dirt" on them). And even though this is not about your content disputes from two years ago -- yes, you were wrong to blankly revert an edit to reinsert bad changes as well as good, and claiming that consensus later decided that some or even most of your revert was good completely misses the point. You should learn the law of holes: if every piece of "evidence" you post makes your own actions look worse (in this case, you apparently don't understand that consensus retroactively deciding to reinstate a lot of your edit doesn't conflict with FC's saying that while a lot of your edit may be good, it reinstated bad material as well), then you should stop posting said evidence. And only about half of your edit related to the infobox anyway. On top of that, you reverted FC's edits with an edit summary that solely cited BRD, as though BRD was a blanket rationale for reverting any edit you don't like without explaining what you thought was so "bold" about the edits, when ironically you have been freely making large unilateral edits to that page consistently. And the talk page discussion has been pretty inactive ever since November 2015 when this "incident" occurred, so it seems very much like "consensus" means you waiting for FC to get tired of reverting you, then coming back and unilaterally reinstating your edits. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See above. The "not being pinged anymore" is in reference to WikIan's repeated/uninvited pinging of me further up the thread, in case it isn't clear. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Participation here is not compulsory. Please consider whether engaging further has any benefit before clicking save. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88 seriously needs to stop contributing to AI. Once again he has waded in to something which doesn't concern him, failed to understand the issue properly, issued poor advice and spammed the page with screeds of waffle which he inevitably ends up having to strike, and has only escalated things. Why is he consistently allowed to do this? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Avaya1 disruptive editing
was a subject of Arbitration Enforcement in the past with result: "Avaya1 now subject to 0RR on articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.", so initially I posted my complaint at WP:AE. Admin decided that the edits at issue are not in the WP:ARBPIA topic area and took no action, so I'm moving it here, with updates.

On 14 September 2017, a consensus was reached on Talk:Israel to remove an image from Israel article, with three in support, one neutral and no oppose. First, Avaya1 cited a year-old consensus regarding the issue ignoring the new consensus. Then, on the talk page he stated that I am forcing the change and no one else supporting it, although clearly it's another user who initiated the request. Now he's telling lies there, that I implemented the change before the new consensus was reached.
 * , I removed the image, citing talk page.
 * , Avaya1 reverted me.
 * , I reverted Avaya1.
 * , Avaya1 reverted me.
 * , I reverted Avaya1.

Also, I added photo of IDF soldiers instead of photo of a beach, that Avaya1 earlier this year to the military section of Israel:

 * , I added appropriate photo with explanation.
 * , Avaya1 removed it with summary "rmv aggressive img" (although this is perfectly non-controversial photo showing soldiers in the military section of the article) ...
 * , ... and added back photo of a beach.
 * , I reverted Avaya1.
 * , Avaya1 reverted me citing "No consensus to include this img", although there's no consensus to include his image, either.
 * , and then he added another photo without explaining.
 * , which I reverted.

Overall, for a user, who's on Wikipedia for over 10 years with 20,000+ edits, Avaya1's behavior is very unprofessional and disruptive. He's often ignoring other editors, leaving no edit summaries, and making technically clumsy edits like a newbie. I went through some of his latest contributions:

In Kurds, he blatantly ignores other editor, like he did in Israel:
 * , Avaya1 made series of edits
 * , other user partly revert him, with summary: "restoring more recent cited figures to box"
 * , Avaya1 perform full revert, with summary: "removed for some reason"

In Valerie Plame, he made 75 (!) edits in one day, most are without summaries. Look how insignificant the result is, and keep in mind that there's almost no changes by other users in-between: --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Comment Triggerhippie4 has copy and pasted his arbitration request which yesterday was closed down as not actionable.  I will copy and paste my comment on the matter from yesterday's arbitration request.  Triggerhippie4 ignored the only kind of consensus in the talkpage about the image, and removed the image. He has deleted the image and without yet gaining a new consensus at the time of his edits. The image was re-inserted according to and after we had got explicit consensus that is on the talkpage, which is within the 0RR restriction. The 0RR restriction states that there needs to be consensus for the revert- and there was. I'm not sure how Triggerhippie4's write-up about unrelated articles and edits on Valerie Plame or Kurds is relevant to the dispute, it appears more like border-line wikistalking. I used edit summaries for any notable edits on the Plame article, and likewise for the Kurds article. The image of Oz is included in the Israel article - again, only because it was according to the only consensus in the discussion page we yet have about it and because there is no new consensus yet. Also I am not sure how Oz (or the Kurds or Plame) is directly relevant to Israel-Palestine conflict. Avaya1 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The full discussion was viewable here. Avaya1 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * On the off chance that somebody is actually interested in looking into this—and nobody could blame you for wanting to turn away—I recommend that she or he review the edit history of, where these two editors have been engaged in a slow-moving edit war since March 2016. Remarkably, it has nothing to do with the Arab–Israeli conflict, just two editors who have different visions of how to "improve" an article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * No, Malik Shabazz, it's about Avaya1's conduct. Did you actually look into this yourself? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The article has been on my watchlist for more than eight years, so I'm very much aware of the cat-and-mouse games the two of you have been playing for the past 18 months. I recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Explain with examples, please. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about 8Dodo8's use of rollback
Earlier today I got a notification that my edit to remove deprecated image syntax was reverted by 8Dodo8. Upon looking further into who 8Dodo8 was - I discovered an unfortunate pattern of 8Dodo8 using the tool to give themselves an advantage in a content dispute on FC Steaua București. There seems to be a disagreement on what to use for the name of the football club between User:GrizzlyBear2002 and 8Dodo8 - both editors have been edit warring at the page.

Regardless of who's "right", using rollback on multiple occasions doesn't help settle the content dispute; let alone when coupled with an all-caps edit summary early on in the dispute.

In separate occurences, 8Dodo8 has used rollback to revert constructive edits that they disagree with.

Given the several occasions where the 8Dodo8 has misused the tool, I do not think the user is fit to retain access to rollback. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree. User has already been informed of the purpose of it at Special:PermaLink/775775488. I also don't see them using it for anti-vandalism efforts. Misuse of rollback is probably my biggest pet peeve, so I fully support removal for both the lack of need and misuse of the tool. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 22:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * 1. I reverted your edit because all the big football clubs use the 190px or something like that for their club badges.
 * 2. I used the rollback tool many times on the FC Steaua page because GrizzlyBear and multiple users are constantly vandalasing the page. The name of the club is Fotbal Club FCSB as seen in the source I provided, but Grizzly kept changing it. I also used it because many vandals change the content on the page, as there isa division betwen its supporters. I actually requested for the page to be indefinetely protected so we could avoid this issue.
 * If you guys animously consider that I used the tool in a right way, I will understand and you can remove it from my account.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is misuse of the rollback tool. Both of these are content disputes. WP:NOT VANDALISM. – filelakeshoe (t / c)     11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Well I incorrectly considered the second issue as vandalism and I also thought the tool can be used for other thinkgs other than vandalism. I should have read the policies more carefully.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * 8Dodo8, are you aware of the policy now, and can you tell us if you'll abide by it? If you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you think you can use the tool and use it properly you might could keep it. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I am aware of the policy now and I always wanted to abide by it, it's my mistake that I didn't pay attention. I will only use it when there is a clear sign of vandalism, not good faith edits or anything like that. You decide if I deserve to keep it.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * And yet more Romanian football silliness.  E Eng  15:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed move based on personal opinion
I would like to report that editor moved the article 1991 uprisings in Iraq to 1991 Iraqi coup d'état attempt without discussion, just a month after finding no support for his previous move attempt on the article's talk page, nor providing any sources for the move. Also, in the previous discussion, the editor expressed a desire to move the article based on his personal opinion of the conflict and ignoring what sources were most commonly naming it. He also has a history of making undiscussed and unsourced move attempts based on his personal opinion, like with Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), where he was reverted two times and found overwhelming opposition on the talk page to his actions. He has also moved Hawija offensive (2017) to Battle of Hawija (2017–present), again without discussion and despite sources mostly referring to the operation as an offensive and not a battle. Both moves should be reverted and the editor should be made aware that he should rather engage in discussions on the talk pages instead of making unilateral moves, as well as providing sources for any future moves. I have also made aware of his actions. DrStrauss reverted him one of the two times before when he made his unilateral/POV moves that were against consensus. DrStrauss also closed his previous move request for 1991 uprisings in Iraq with the result being not moved. also previously reverted him and warned him of his actions, but apparently to no effect. I have notified the editor in question of this discussion as well, however, I should also note during previous discussion attempts he showed no desire to engage. EkoGraf (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Being bold is fine but being unconstructive is not. I believe WP:CIR is the appropriate thumbrule and his refusal to engage won't get him further. -- QEDK ( 愛  •  海 ) 17:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLPPRIVACY violation by
This user disclosed a phone number in their at an NFL player's article. -- (Radiphus ) 19:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I revdel'ed the edit as it contained personal information (someone's private phone number). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your finger slipped and you got the edit summary instead of the text. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it's been suppressed so....RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 * A gentle reminder that reports like this shouldn't be further advertised by posting them here. Either quietly contact your friendly neighborhood admin, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>.  E Eng  19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have thought of that. -- (Radiphus ) 19:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Single purpose account for mass adding articles by a number of PhD students for paid experiment on Wikipedia
Had already been warned.. Continued. This is what they call science... (I know it does not belong here, but read the article, one author is at MIT, and the quality is laughable, just as the encyclopedic quality of many articles added here - which is why so many were deleted.) User_talk:Carolineneil. Antimanipulator (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * hasn't edited in three months, blocking here would be punitive - I'm interested how a new editor came across this though -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would assume they came across it by way of this paper which they linked on the user's talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Blocks should encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". An account used by a group of PhD students with a poor understanding of encyclopedias (hence bad citations, lemmas) and no respect for rules on disclosure of paid contributions, single purpose accounts, and conflicts of interest should be banned. Antimanipulator (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The paper suggests that the project had the WMF's blessing (it credits Dario Taraborelli), so presumably the implications of what they were doing were considered... Yunshui 雲 水 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Paper may suggest whatever it does, the project blatantly violates Wikipedia rules, and contributions were poor, hence many articles not even created: Draft:Conjugation in ultraviolet–visible spectrometry, Draft:Tethered Intramolecular (2+2) Reactions, Draft:Generation of Carbocationic Synthons, Draft:Use of pi,pi, CH-pi and pi-cation interactions in supramolecular assembly, Draft:Substrate Control: Asymmetric Induction By Molecular Framework in Cyclic Systems, Draft:Glucose Chain Shortening and Lengthening, Draft:Stock Sampling (Stock of Data), Draft:Reagent Control: Addition of Chiral Allylmetals to Achiral Aldehydes, Draft:Reagent control: chiral electrophiles, Draft:Heteroskedasticity and nonnormality in the binary response model with latent variable... - sorry, but who could even think that some of these are suitable lemmas for an encyclopedia? - and many nominated for deletion. One commenter could not have guessed better: "*Ultra specialized with little effort to contextualize. Reads like a essay from an student who is being forced to contribute to Wikipedia but the supposedly supervising faculty member has not bothered to read or understand policy and standards." This account drew hundreds of administrator actions, reminders to choose adequate lemmas, discussions about deletion, reminders to improve poor referencing - to no avail, and they are academics!
 * I think a formal reprimand to the poor supervisors Neil Thompson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Sloan School of Management; MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL), and Douglas Hanley, University of Pittsburgh, is in place.Antimanipulator (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to provide some additional context about WMF's involvement in this research. This is an independent study conducted by academic researchers, and is not endorsed or sponsored by the WMF. It is also not a formal collaboration with WMF or with Wikimedia Research, subject to WMF's collaboration policy. As a general rule, the Foundation is not in a position to "approve" or "decline" individual research proposals, unless there are security or legal reasons to escalate them. Editorial decisions about content, in particular, are not an area the Foundation has any say about. The authors reached out at the time of the proposal to ask about best practices to follow in setting up the proposal and two WMF staffers (Aaron Halfaker and I) advised them on discussing and documenting it in the appropriate spaces. We have been offering this support on a volunteer basis for a few years, and on an ad hoc basis, to help researchers follow best practices around participant recruitment and understanding community norms and expectations. As for outreach initiatives involving students and professors creating or expanding Wikipedia articles, which some comments in this thread brought up, you can read more about Education program if you're not already familiar with the program. --Dario (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I've indefinitely blocked the account as that of an undisclosed paid editor. As all edits from the account were paid, this is preventative in the sense that it prevents future paid edits before such a disclosure is made. (And as a side note, the quality of research here is downright awful.) ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And as a side note, the quality of research here is downright awful Honestly, I think that's an insult to the word "awful". According to their introduction, they checked scientific papers from 1995-2001 (in addition to later papers, but still) to see if those articles stole text from Wikipedia... AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY DID!!! My guess is that you won't see this work showing up in Nature anytime soon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe they have time travel. It's MIT, after all.  E Eng  16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Time travel, robotics and artificial intelligence? We may have to take them out before they cause the singularity, though I'd be wary of any bikers with Austrian accents we encounter on the way to do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is a mass delete of the articles in order? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just getting my head around this, but who is alleged to have paid the editor to create the articles? - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The authors of this paper. Who shall forever be known as the creators of possibly the worst experimental structure I have ever encountered in my entire life. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, these are in no way promotional, right? The editor was simply paid to contribute a number of science articles? I'm seeing some sort of need for disclosure, but I'm having a hard time seeing justification for a mass deletion of non-promotional and supposedly accurate articles on scientific topics. And yes, it looks like an oddly formed methodology to me as well. - Bilby (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * 2 cents: I see junk like this all the time from students. I can see the temptation for teachers and professors to have students do a Wikipedia article(s) as an assignment (got to admit it's good practice), but all the results I have ever seen have been uniformly bad, and I've never seen anything good come from a homework assignment. I am strongly opposed to homework assignments getting anywhere near being posted on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * This was raised in the past, but ignored: Concerns about the user were raised twice at ANI- here and here- so before blaming any potential WMF involvement, we should probably look at why the case of this editor was raised here, and just ignored. This line from Robert McClenon was particularly prescient: "either she is a human, but isn't trying to pretend to be either a human or a bot, or it is a bot, and isn't trying to act like a human. At this point, I recommend a block, in order to get the author to make an unblock request". jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Bizarre.  As is noted, I thought that there was something peculiar about the account in June.  Am I to understand that the conclusion is that the account was conducting an experiment involving Wikipedia?  We don't have a policy that explicitly prohibits conducting experiments with Wikipedia; maybe we should, because such accounts are not here to improve the encyclopedia as a collection of knowledge even if they do improve overall human knowledge about encyclopedias.  I will add that, when I understood the articles, which I usually did, they appeared to be good science, but they needed improvement, in particular in the addition of links to other articles, and I repeatedly tried to request that the drafts be improved.  If my understanding is correct, the account should be blocked (as it is), but for the subtle reason that they aren't here to improve the encyclopedia but to experiment on the authors of the encyclopedia.  So I think that I was right in expressing puzzlement about behavior that didn't seem exactly either human or robotic, but something in between.  Am I understanding correctly?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As to why the concerns were raised and not acted on further, I think that is clear, that it is because the behavior didn't fall into any of the known types of bad behavior. For instance, even if the author (if there was a single human author) was being paid, it wasn't paid editing in the usual sense, which means paid editing for promotional purposes.  (One type of "paid editing", which is editing by a professor about their field of knowledge, is good.  It is promotional paid editing that is bad, and this wasn't promotional paid editing.)  This really was a sufficiently strange type of misconduct that there is no way we could have expected to recognize it immediately.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not directly promoting their supervisors but indirectly through producing results that they use to promote their career. Paid editing is always bad because it makes the editors edit for reasons other than providing knowledge. In this case, the students just wanted to get a job done and did so by chosing ridiculous lemmas and not caring for proper citations or relating theirs to existing articles. Antimanipulator (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Antimanipulator - You say that paid editing is always bad because it makes the editors edit for reasons other than providing knowledge. In that case, we need to clarify the definition of paid editing.  Professors editing in their subject areas are good because they are only sharing their knowledge.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The single purpose account here is Antimanipulator – an account created just today to complain about this and which doesn't seem to have created any articles at all. Why are we punishing the content creator in this case?  Do we really prefer having complaints at ANI rather than articles about advanced chemistry? Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone is criticizing User:Antimanipulator. At least, they shouldn't be.  They should be thanked for reporting this again.  Thank you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I just clean up the mess left over by the misguided PhD students. Have you looked at those articles? It caused a lot of work to many administrators and other users, and they never even bothered to properly cite. I can only write again, their supervisors and their institutions' ethics comittees should be informed about this. (Also about the fact that they only report the positive results in their summary and that they suppress information on how most of their articles were not even accepted here for poor quality). Antimanipulator (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Agree that their supervisors and their institutions' ethics committees should be informed about this. If it is thought that  students need to become familiar with how to edit a wiki, MIT can install one on one of  its own servers – rather than allow and invite its students to cause disruption on WP.  MIT would probably blow-its- top  if another educational institution was found  to be experimented on MIT servers. The MIT governors should be able to quickly acknowledge that   this behavior has brought  MIT into disrepute in the cyberworld. Especially as it was by young hopeful PhD's guided buy a MIT employee. Aspro (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, : this was led by two young professors who write they use articles of the publisher Elsevier. The article Mesembrine that was largely written by the PhD students has nearly only Elsevier citations. I am trying to check if this is a pattern. If so, this is a much more disturbing case than I already thought initially. Antimanipulator (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit lost on where you are coming at on this. The ethics committee would have had to approve this research, and ethically it seems sound - add a number of accurate and useful articles to Wikipedia, then look at how those articles are used elsewhere. This wasn't a breaching experiment, the content was accurate, and the disruption seems fairly minimal. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hell, I think their frikkan parents should be informed of this. My 4 year old could structure a better experiment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Think we ought to have a 48 hour hold on this before going further. It will  allow other editors to get up to speed. Something is amiss alright but this needs more eyes because there maybe a third and unseen  party at play and trying to pull our strings. Aspro (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a very odd case. The single purpose account here, as Andrew Davidson points out, is Antimanipulator who may or may not hold some personal grudge with the researchers.  The research was conducted ethically in consultation with WMF staffers as outlined by Dario (WMF) above.  The experimental design was interesting and very sophisticated. The block on Carolineneil should be lifted.  And we should encourage well-planned and ethically conducted research to continue on Wikipedia's impact on the world. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The experimental design was interesting and very sophisticated. So examining papers which were published before WP even existed and concluding that some of them had copied text from WP is "sophisticated"? There's another S- word that seems more appropriate to me. That being said, I agree that there's something fishy going on with the filers, and that the "experiment" seems to have been done ethically (they weren't creating fake articles, or anything of the sort). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They actually did several analyses. The fact that their experimental design was interesting and sophisticated, doesn't mean that their results were as good as they claim. The effect sizes (R^2) were so small that it is difficult to believe that Wikipedia is having much more than a negligible influence on the words used in scientific publications.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, "sophisticated" in this context suggests things like "not being completely ignorant of the concept of time", so I still disagree. Perhaps the germ of the idea behind it might charitably be called "innovative", but sophistication generally requires some, well, actual sophistication.
 * Though I haven't mentioned it before, I will say now that I noticed the small size of the effect as well. Small enough that it might be nullified or even reversed if you were to, maybe... Remove about 6 years worth of papers from the published science data set. It seems far more likely to me that WP articles would have taken text from pre-2001 papers than the other way around, but then just because I don't know anyone who's built a time machine doesn't mean no-one has... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether the reporter of the issue has a personal motive in reporting it is irrelevant. The problem report is legitimate. The PhD students' SPA's work on-WP was terrible, and wasted a lot of other editors' time, and the off-site work WP is also terrible; WP was abused to make a WP:POINT, with unsound research methods, and with on-site fallout.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Comment--Don't see any need to nuke.I was checking the accuracy of 4-5 org-chem drafts and not much was wrong.I also fail to get why this is described as unethical support in describing this as unethical. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Edited at 11:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As a side-note, the block seems to be good. The accounts were after-all paid SPAs. And obviously, as MPants said the research is a dis-service to the word awful. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Could you clarify? Those two statements appear to completely contradict each other: "I was checking the accuracy of 4-5 org-chem drafts and not much was wrong" but "the research is a dis-service to the word awful"? And "I also fail to get why this is described as unethical" but "The accounts were after-all paid SPAs"? Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely.That their method of research was seriously flawed and utterly _______ has hardly to do anything with the quality of the info they have put at the drafts that they have written here.Whilst they doesn't have a ssnowball's chance in hell to be mainspaced, I personally thought about using selected info and add them with copyedits and referencing et al to a few articles.That being said if consensus is to nuke, I won't stand in the way. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As to the second point, I don't know how I used the exact antonym of what I wanted to describe!Oops! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, . However, please do not alter a post after someone has replied to it. Please instead WP:REDACT it by using strike-outs, etc. and adding a second time stamp (using five tildes) to indicate when you altered it. See WP:REDACT for details, and please return and re-add the original wording you had (that I quoted). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I know:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly perplexed by a lot of criticism of the paper above. I mean I'm not saying the research is good, I only skimmed through the paper so I have no idea. But people seem to be making a big deal over the 1995 thing yet AFAICT, this info wasn't used. The authors specifically note AFAICT they didn't actually use pre 2000 data at all. I'm not certain why the authors mention 1995 at all, but I think it's because it's the data that Elsevier provided them so they just mention what data they had, and then later explain what they used, how they chose it (including how they decided the publication data since some are just Spring 2009) etc.  Of course looking at data from before wikipedia is not necessarily wrong. There is an obvious reason to look at data from before wikipedia namely to rule out false positives. The primary reason I even looked at the paper was just to see if that's what the authors were doing but it doesn't seem like it. However they may have used some data from before wikipedia I think. If I'm understanding correctly, their methodology was actually a bit like what I was thinking and they chose papers from 6 months before an article and 3+6 months after an article, with the hypothesis that the the papers after will be more similar to the wikipedia article in the 3+6 months after (because they were influenced by wikipedia) than they were in the 6 months before (since they obviously couldn't have been). This of course means they may have looked at some papers from before wikipedia itself existed.  So have I missed something or is this specific criticism of the paper completely off base? If I am right, should we now start to discuss what to do with content from anyone who made this criticism. Particularly since as I said, I only did a very, very basic skim through the paper to uncover this. At least it seems the logical conclusion to me if people are suggesting we remove content from the PhD students just because the people who hired? them may have published a poor quality research paper. Note I'm specifically not commenting on any other criticism of the paper, I'm not really that interested hence a very, very basic skim. I'm not even saying the before/after thing was good methodology, simply that it doesn't seem to me to be the case that the authors assumed papers would be influence by wikipedia before that content existed on wikipedia.  Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(EC)There are certainly a few questions on whether they violated our rules, but I consider them to be minor. Please check out the FAQs for the Terms of Use change at How does this provision affect teachers, professors, ... It states that "These requirements shouldn't keep teachers, professors, or people working at galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM") institutions from making contributions in good faith!" and "For example, if a professor at University X is paid directly by University X to write about that university on Wikipedia, the professor needs to disclose that the contribution is compensated. There is a direct quid pro quo exchange: money for edits. However, if that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by their university to contribute generally without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose their affiliation with the university."

So the rules regarding researchers are pretty loose, like those for Wikipedians in Residence and other GLAM contributors. Perhaps the major question is whether the authors of the paper told the grad students what to write in the articles. I suspect not - as I understand it the grad students were PhD chemistry students and the authors are management profs. Best to let the experts write the articles. The second question - and I consider it to be definitely minor here - is whether the students used a joint account rather than individual accounts. As far as criticisms of the paper itself goes - that's not really relevant here is it? But a review in Nature gives a description from an outside researcher calling it “ingenious”. I do find some of the criticisms of the paper on this page to be rather amateurish. In particular, those that cite the low R-squared are way off base. Perhaps they are mistaking the authors' hypothesis to be "Wikipedia is the only source of terminology in scientific papers." So we have experts (PhD students) writing on the subject they know, apparently without direction on the content of the articles. The editors were probably new to Wikipedia and made some newby mistakes. What's the big deal? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * To explain the methodology problem to those who don't get it, they had subject matter experts write Wikipedia articles and then found that the language of those articles matches the language of the scientific literature. You know, the literature written and read by the same subject matter experts. There's crazy reverse causality there. Further, they created only 43 chemistry articles, posting half of those. Their sample size is inflated up to 664,790 because each paper they compare the articles against is an observation, but this ignores the possibility of random variation in how closely the Wikipedia articles they wrote mirror existing terminology in the literature. With a treated group of only 22 and a control of 21 articles, the variance in how closely the articles are written to mirror existing terminology in the literature between the two groups is fairly high. The underlying assumption of their model is that there is no difference in how closely the Wikipedia articles they wrote match the existing literature, but they offer up no evidence to support this. Their p-values are completely invalid as a consequence. This is a horrible study, and MIT in particular should be ashamed. Berkeley Haas should be as well for allowing someone who thinks this is robust to get a PhD. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to accept the views expressed in Nature on scientific matters over the views expressed on this page. Nevertheless, I think we all have to accept that whether you like the research and its methods or not, that that's irrelevant to whether they broke our rules.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't relevant to whether this broke our rules. (Based on the design of the experiment, which did say the researchers picked the topics, this did break our rules.) I'm just rather offended that someone with a PhD in a field related to mine is publishing this crap. There is a reason they haven't published this in a journal. They're missing basic robustness checks, and given the background of the authors, they know they're missing basic robustness checks. I must presume they ran them and the experiment didn't hold up. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What rule was broken by researchers asking people to write on particular topics where we had gaps? I can't see where the problem lies. - Bilby (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I didn't see that text you quoted, but even if it is there, it only minimizes the problem, not eliminate it. Papers published in 2000 were all almost certainly written at least 6 months and up to 2-3 years prior to publication. Also, see below where I point out some other problems.
 * The qualities of the paper matter because it's a powerful indicator of the qualities of their interactions with WP. If they set out to prove something (which they certainly seem to have done, instead of setting out to disprove their hypothesis), then their entire methodology is suspect. That is a strong indicator that we should review the articles they created. Whether we find problems or not, we have no reason to trust the folks who wrote them.
 * As to whether or not someone called it "ingenious" in a column (not a peer-reviewed article, nor even an editor-selected letter) in Nature; it doesn't matter. The author is free to have his opinion, and is no more qualified than I to give one. I can even see where Zastrow was coming from; the hypothesis could very well be described as "ingenious" and the most fundamental basis of their experiment design could be referred to as "innovative" without me contesting it. But the methodology they used was shit. This is pretty clearly a sociology/psychology-of-science experiment by a couple of guys who don't have any expertise in that subject. The lead author was part of the schools of management and AI. The second author is an economist.
 * Tell me; how could that methodology have possibly shown a negative correlation (that scientific literature influence WP's language)? Even in their creation of articles and subsequent search for matching text in later peer-reviewed articles, did they account for the fact that to make those articles, they needed pre-existing sources to begin with? How does one eliminate the possibility that their sources influenced the literature, instead of the WP article? And finally, how does writing a WP article and not publishing it help? They "withheld" half of the articles they wrote. How is that functionally different than only writing half as many articles for the purposes of this experiment?  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hard as it may be to believe, BU Rob's and MPants' evaluations are far too charitable. It's not a matter of questionable assumptions, because questionable assumptions implies you understand what the assumptions mean in first place, even if you make a mistake in evaluating them. Numbers were blindly plugged into formulas, and statistical machinery set into motion, with no apparent understanding of their function or the meaning of the results. The paper is a complete joke. David A. Freedman, in his elementary statistics textbook, describes his hopeless attempt to enlighten the authors of a similarly meaningless paper: "We went... to discuss these issues with the investigators. They insisted that they had taken very good statistical advice when designing their study, and were only doing what everybody else did. We pressed our arguments. The discussion went on for several hours. Eventually, the senior investigator said, "Look. When we designed this study, one of our consultants explained that some day, someone would arrive out of the blue and say that none of our statistics made any sense. So you see, everything was every carefully considered.""

That was fifty years ago, when people committing statistical suicide had to use mechanical calculators and books of tables; as seen in the instant case, today the internet allows statistical nonsense to be performed on a vastly larger scale almost effortlessly. With respect to Mark Zastrow's (unrefereed) review (in Nature) of this (unrefereed) article – well, standards are slipping everywhere. Zastrow writes short, uncritical pop summaries of other articles taking their assertions and conclusions at face value.  E Eng  17:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC) P.S. to MPants: Keeping half the papers back actually does make sense. It's just that nothing else about the design makes sense, so there's no point discussing it.
 * then what was the point in writing them? Why not rely on something that already exists, but which scientists are almost certain not to cite, such as brand-new textbooks? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why can't school projects, homework, students and instructors be limited to sandboxes or create a "homework" namespace instead of live articles. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That would completely defeat the purpose of the experiment, knuckleheaded though it is.  E Eng  18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's difficult to discuss because the rest of the design is so confused, but I'll give it a go. We're trying to test whether new released WP articles (R) cause the literature of chemistry (L) to become "more like" R. But L is evolving anyway, and maybe it would become more like R anyway, just because the R articles are on things chemists today are interested in (I), and meanwhile L tends to gravitate toward things chemists today are interested in -- in other words, maybe it's not R affecting L so much as I affecting both R and L. By having a set of new unreleased articles (U), we can try to check for that, by seeing whether L becomes more like U in the same way it becomes more like R. We can't use a textbook instead of U, because the authors of the textbook – their interests, their attributes as writers – might be quite different from the authors of the R papers. Drawing R and U randomly from a single pool "assures us" (omit side discussion) that the R articles and the U articles are similar. Does that help?  E Eng  18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points there. I concede the point that writing the unpublished articles conveyed a benefit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most people find that following this advice saves time.  E Eng  19:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your evaluation as well as anyone else's evaluation (including mine) is irrelevant to the discussion. The issues for Wikipedia are whether the research was conducted ethically, which it was.  Were unacceptable articles created in doing the experiment, which appears not to be the case. Another reason to leave out the merits of the research is that unless one is familiar with the rapid development in statistical approaches in big data social science, such work does appear mysterious and very difficult to understand.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrap-Up
I think that the discussion of the "experiment" either is finished, or its discussion at this noticeboard, which is for administrative action, is finished. We do need a policy or guideline that states clearly that the use of Wikipedia as an experiment is inappropriate, because the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize human knowledge, not to play around to produce new knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking some time. I looked at some of the draft articles and could not find more examples than Mesembrine where Elsevier journals are cited more often than what seems reasonable. In total about 100 draft articles were created in chemistry and econometrics, and I do not have the time to look at all of them. I find that one example very worrisome and hope someone with expertise in the subject can take care of it. I do not have any relationship with the authors but find it an insult to economics that they do a randomized controlled trial claiming that they found what they were looking for when they only (think they) found it in chemistry while they did not find anything in econometrics and just leave that out in in their abstract and title and media campaign, as does the Nature news author who seems to be a natural scientist without any expertise in the methodology. I also find it an insult to Wikipedia that PhD students of highly prestigious institutions are paid to write (without disclosure) such poor articles with ridiculously specialized lemmas and continuously poor citations in spite of many attempts by volunteers to give advice. This is a waste of our time, and violations of ethics, especially the undisclosed paid editing, should be pointed out to the ethics committees of the institutions in order to prevent future violations and in order to stop reckless researchers from making a career out of their recklessness. That being said I think there will be some valuable content in the drafts and added articles (those that were originally held back were added after the conclusion of the experiment but no care was invested in actually getting them to become articles, so most of the drafts were rejected and the work so far was just lost) but I don't have the time (and regarding chemistry expertise) to work on it. Antimanipulator (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Communication problems with IkbenFrank
seems to be one of those editors who doesn't seem to talk much. His talk page is full of unanswered complaints and he never uses edit summaries. I've had a go at getting through but it's fallen on deaf ears. I wonder if anyone else can succeed? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, have tried before, even left a final warning before I went into semi retirement but he just never listens or learns. Think it’s time we blocked him to be honest, most of his edits are non constructive as it is. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * +1 - He has no interest in communicating or discussing and no amount of warnings will change that, Personally I'd support a 2 week block and if it carries on then the block would get longer and even indef if need be. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. This isn't just a communication problem but also WP:COMPETENCE, apparently. – filelakeshoe (t / c)     17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Could please explain what Ikbenfrank is meant to have done wrong? The guy's quiet but is he actually disruptive? I should mention I was canvassed by Ritchie because I reverted one of IkbenFrank's edits three years ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know the answer as well. Yes he's not using edit summaries, but I'm not noticing anything in his edits that's disruptive. And there's nothing recent on his talk page to indicate there's a problem. If there is then no one has engaged with him. Canterbury Tail talk  18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see complaints about unconstructive editing on Gloucestershire and Cheltenham, original research Rail Safety and Standards Board and Southern Railway strike (2016-2017), alleged hoaxes on Glastonbury, plus this earlier ANI thread. Individually, there's not a lot, but put it together and it all seems to boil down to him not discussing things during content disputes. Anyway, at least here provides him the ability to tell his side of the story. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd not be neutral on this. And I'm not perfect and have made several errors dealing with user, including raising the aforementioned ANI thread.  A typical problem issue might be revision 801553383 on Paddington (This is Paddington the area of London - the station has its own article) for example.  Now within the context of the Paddington area article it may be (just) relevant to mention Paddington is the London railway terminus for Fishguard the and ferry to Rosslare (though there are no longer direct trains).  However the actual edit made is over the top with regards to detail in my opinion;  and the article will likely need to cleaned up sometime.   Some edits by user are useful but the over-emphasis on e.g. railways can mean articles are in my opinion disproportionality railway orientated.  Newtownforbes would be an example of a useful contribution.  It feels like the user pops up every 2 to 4 weeks, does some minor edits that will be passable and does others that seem how far his pet interests can be pushed into articles;

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965