Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904

There is currently a dispute at

He has, however, since gone on to quote the text he had just changed[7] in support of his position in a content dispute at

The change from medical to biomedical was made in July of this year and seems to have snuck under the radar [8]. The recent changes were merely restoration to the original interpretation of policy, and are not intended to do anything beyond clarify the position of the guideline. Of note is that the essay

CFCF 💌 📧

18:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

'c.s.n.s.'

07:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, I invite editors to examine the differences[11] between the July version & the most current. I note numerous removal of biomedical, and corresponding insertion of health where it was not present in July. Given that "health" is being proposed to cover all aspects of

'c.s.n.s.'

11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, note that, despite

talk

) 12:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• Comment: CFCF is correct; like I recently stated, he was simply restoring the guideline to the
  talk
  ) 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Your assertion that I am "the one pushing sources that do not meet MEDRS recommendations" is incorrect.

talk

) 02:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And this thread is a complete waste of time. CFCF will not be blocked or sanctioned for restoring the guideline to the WP:STATUSQUO. And this noticeboard is not for such disagreements.

talk

) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Needless to state, my view contrasts Guy Macon's view. He is yet another editor from the contentious group trying to get CFCF sanctioned. I invited him to report me here at WP:ANI, but, alas, no such report was filed.

talk

) 07:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And as I keep reminding Guy Macon, WP:MEDRS is a guideline; it is not a policy.

talk

) 07:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

My main concern about applying MEDRS to "non-biological medicine" or "anything related to human health" is that MEDRS was written to cover subjects like whether cholesterol-lowering drugs improve lifespan. It was not written to cover basic

car wrecks (bad for your health!), discrimination and poverty (both of which are also bad for your health). When we say "health", some people then misunderstand it as being the primary guideline for all of these subjects. When we say "biomedical", they are more likely to get it. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 16:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

WhatamIdoing, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the scope of the WikiProject Med, and artificial line is being drawn between different approaches to addressing health.

systematic reviews. It is most important for national guidelines, and people making organizational level decisions to use evidenced based content when writing these policies and guidelines. And Wikipedia articles need to reflect this high standard, too. So, MEDRS is relevant in public topics, too. For example Cochrane has a research study group called Work

whose scope is to study "exposure at work to agents adverse to health, working behaviour adverse to health, occupational and work-related diseases or disorders, occupational disability or sick leave, occupational injuries and health promotion at the workplace. These interventions can be labeled prevention, treatment, management or rehabilitation."

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

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

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

Nothing in those two articles would need to be excluded, since all of it can be replaced by WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. For example,

talk

) 22:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In practice, most of what's in those articles would be excluded, because several of MEDRS' enforcers have difficulty understanding how that sentence applies. There is also a persistent misperception that the sentence which begins "ideal sources include" means "you may only use the following types of sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree there since I can't imagine any WP:MEDRS enforcer removing most of the content from those two articles. Doc James is a MEDRS enforcer, for example, and I don't see where he's hacked away from the Physical exercise article in a ridiculous fashion.

talk

) 04:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, though, that "There is also a persistent misperception that the sentence which begins 'ideal sources include' means 'you may only use the following types of sources'." I've seen that.

talk

) 05:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

The whole case is an attempt to missinterpret consensus by users engaged in pushing questionable content at

CFCF 💌 📧

12:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

I have warned all involved here. What I am wondering is why this has been broken up into two section? Also "health" was used in the guideline before and someone took it out with a lack of discussion. So it is sort of murky what is the long standing consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The last time I checked, the word "health" was still in the guideline—about twenty-five (25) times. Having the word on the page 25 times is hardly the result of "someone taking it out". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Lord & Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 74.76.148.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - previously blocked
• 2600:1017:b015:e37b:a452:1444:94e:2b31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - current issue
• 70.209.133.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another IP
• 2600:1017:b02b:deaa:e9fc:aea3:3e82:9891 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another IPv6 address.
• Previous AN/I history: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Lord_and_Taylor_COI_editor_-_various_IPs
• Previous AN/I history: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive902#Lord_and_Taylor_COI_anon_editor_is_back.

The Lord & Taylor COI editor's IPv4 address remains blocked, but they now have a new IPv6 address. Compare [12] ("The Fall 2015 campaign includes collections by Givenchy ...") with [13] ("The Fall 2015 campaign includes collections by Givenchy ..."). They've also been editing Crossgates Mall (which is "anchored by Lord & Taylor") to remove negative information [14]. The edits aren't that bad, but they're all happy talk PR, and trying to do via IPv6 what you were blocked for on IPv4 is clear block evasion. John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: another IP, 70.209.133.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with exactly the same edit.[15]. Also another related but not too bad edit from a new IPv6 address.[16]. Suggest semi-protection on Lord & Taylor, since they seem to have a large supply of IP addresses. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Semied 4 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

notability works here (in which he is far from alone among editors here) and is understandably concerned about the BLP of which he is (or claims to be) the subject. An AfD is in progress on David Bret, and I don't see any admin action needed here until that is ready to close. DES ^(talk)

15:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

How people feel about articles written about them is not our problem. If someone has a problem with a policy-compliant article, they need to take it up with the sources of the article. And if the article isn't policy-compliant, it should be fixed regardless of the wishes of its subject. Bobby Tables (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bobby, screw those people whose lives are affected by our inaccurate articles about them. They should take it up with someone else, and stop bothering us. We are, after all, infallible, and incapable of doing harm, inadvertently or otherwise. Sheesh... I do so hope that sort of attitude is now very "last century" here. Shame on you.Begoon ^talk 12:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• talk) - This user continually adds information without sources, removes sourced information, implements original research, baits other users, aggressively attacks others. They have been warned multiple times on their talk page, and even blocked in the past. Examples include removal of cited and accepted info and implementation of original research for the Lana Del Rey page. When met with rules by other users, this user becomes incredibly aggressive and projects onto others. Past incidents include vandalism on art rock, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Axis: Bold as Love - which resulted in a ban after repeated incidents. Ilovetati91 (talk • contribs
  ) 17:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Interested users might want to ' see this, it looks like ILovetati91 and GentleCollapse16 are edit warring on genre, there's already a discussion on the talk page about this, and it looks like GentleCollapse16 is being reasonable. I recommend this be closed at forum shopping. KoshVorlon 18:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable, yet users' valid points are constantly deterred through personal attacks and evasion? The page's vandalism needs to be addressed, and it's not limited to the genre. Please see the page's edit history. GentleCollapse16 has been banned multiple times due to this exact type of editing patterns and it has extended to a page in which a significant amount of prior work has been put into reversing vandalism and original research already. ilovetati91 (talk) 18:16 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have checked some of GentleCollapse16's edits and can find no vandalism or personal attacks. Can you please provide examples of where both of these occurred? Also, I have made a formal notification that this thread has been opened (you should have done this yourself). Also, GentleCollapse16 has not been "banned multiple times", the editor has been blocked once only, for 31 hours, in August 2015. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, I agree. I think, also, it would be reasonable to expect ilovetati91 to provide an answer to your questions. Bringing a user to ANI is serious, and upsetting for the "accused". ilovetati91 should withdraw or apologise, or support this with diffs. Begoon ^talk 12:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• History of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Arman ad60 (talk · contribs)

Apologies for bringing this here, but this appears to go beyond a content dispute, and involves ownership of a major and potentially contentious article. The above account is persistent in removing sourced content, often adding unsourced and possibly original research text in its place. They are, in effect, eviscerating a major article without seeking, let alone establishing, consensus. Thanks for any insight that can be provided. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Concur with OP's assessment. I requested temporary pending changes protection of the article to at least try to slow things down. Request declined. General Ization ^Talk 02:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've also brought this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam since History of Islam is a top-priority article. Arman ad60 appears somewhat willing to use the talk page, but large-scale changes like this should really be backed up by consensus. clpo13_(talk) 02:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm being tactful in my report. I suspect the endgame will be a mass reversion to a 'last good version', but would welcome a discussion that integrates thoughtful revisions. Not my bailiwick, but I've edited here long enough to know when
  WP:OWNERSHIP is an issue, especially on a major theme. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk
  ) 02:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Very tactful. Requesting some form of page protection if the edits should continue would certainly be one way to bring more discusion to the talk page. John Carter (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Arman ad60

I have made the article History of Islam. Well I have to say here something :

1. I want to change the entire article. For this obviously I have to remove a huge part and I have to do this rapidly. I have not changed the entire article altogether. I am removing all the materials part by part. So I dont think I have violated any law.

2. This article is not really a good one. It is a class-C article. So I dont think I have done any harm to this article.

3. You are speaking about source. It needs time to go to the webstie and bring back the link. It is really a strainious job to write the articles, make tables and the sources. I havent given the maps, tables and sources yet. I need some more time. You have to wait for some time. Please be patient.

4. I have removed sourced materials? Well if I remove some thing there will obviously be some source.Well I have removed something , then I will add something. When I will add something I will add sources with them. So just be patient.

5. You have accused me of not talking properly. I have talked enough in the talk pages. I have given every kind of logic for all my changes. You have not given any proper logic and are just accusing me of ruining the article.

6. You have not clearified to me which part I should change. You are only takling about rules and regulations, sources and consensus. You should tell me which empire of mine has problem, which empire I should remove or which empire I should improve.

7. You may be anxious about my removal of huge part of the article. I will add something with this later.I have already removed many parts from the article and added many parts later. I will fill in the vacuuam created from my removal. Dont worry at the end of my editing the size of the article will be the same.

8. There are many Muslim editors in this article. They have written in this article. They are watching everything. They have not complained about anything. So I think you should not also have any problem with that.

9. Those people I have talked with here are all Christians. I dont think they have such a great idea about Islam. Well if any Muslim guy comes forward and tells me about his problem I will accept it.Arman ad60 (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup: those last two bullets are rather alarming signs of ownership misconceptions.-- Elmidae 06:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly a problem. But the main problem is that I don't think Arman ad60 understands the article or what he is doing. I've just restored a section discussing the early sources that he removed on the grounds that "Because early sources are not considered reliable. there are hundreds of modern sources in the end. It will take time to remove this section." It seems very appropriate for an article on history to discuss the earliest sources on the subject, whether or not they are now considered reliable. I don't understand his language at times - how can a table be 'dirty'? And removing sourced material and saying "Why not if I'm going to add new sourced material" isn't a good reason either.Doug Weller (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the earlier version entirely as I can see that much of the new material is copied - probably from our own articles (I'd need to check to see that the copied text wasn't copyvio also) but without attribution this is of course copyvio. Doug Weller (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You are free to create a draft of the page in your user space, like at

WP:WEIGHT and similar. John Carter (talk

) 11:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Holy mackerel, the user has done nothing on Wikipedia except repeatedly remove mass amounts of material from History of Islam. A topic ban is certainly indicated. In fact, a block, even an indefinite one given the TP warnings that have been posted, would probably be even better. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Arman ad60, you did not make the article History of Islam. The article was created in 2001, 14 years before you started editing on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You're off by 10 years. I suspect due to a typo. Nice to know: the second edit in the article is by Jimbo himself... Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No empires should be removed. The article is a History of Islam, not of a particular branch or caliphate.

Secondly I am concerned with the editor's grasp of English. This level of ability is fine for writing non-contentious articles which can be rapidly cleaned up by a copy-editor, but not so good for working on an established core article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose topic ban, neutral-but-leaning-support on short block Softlavender &co may well be right on the substance. But TBANning an
  WP:CIR when a user is repeatedly told their edits are disruptive and they make no attempt to change, but in this case ANI seems to have been treated as a first resort. If they are POV-pushing or the like, giving them warning that their edits are disruptive, then giving a 24 hour block next time they violate the warning, then we will know once the block expires. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
  ) 13:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

But for the record, I do find several points in the user's above "statement" to be very problematic, especially the last point. Making assumptions about other users' religious affiliations, and those users being in some way "biased" based solely on their religious affiliation, is completely inappropriate -- whether it is a radical atheist assuming that users who consider Jesus of Nazareth to have been a historical figure are all "Christians", a Christian fundamentalist assuming that users who think the word "mythology" can be applied to anything in the Bible are all radical atheists, or anything else of the sort. The user should take this back and apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the material added by the editor (and in his sandbox) is copyvio. He denies copying any of it but I've spent far too much time documenting it on the talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Formerly i think i've undergone an admin's misuse NE Ent 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

hi everyone, i'm here because i think i've undergone an admin's misuse as you've read in the title. the situation's this: this morning i've noticed that my ip address was blocked because it had the same range of another user who was blocked 5 days ago for edit warring. you've got to know that the ip range 151.x is largely common in all 8 regions of northern italy, where i live, and thousands of persons use this very ip range. i've made an unblocking request at 9 am explaining what i've just explained here and i think i've been polite enough. after 3 hours no answers yes, so i've made another request with another ip of the same range, since it's a dynamic ip or we weren't talking about ranges, and after almost 3 more hours the 3rd request with one more ip. now, and i admit this was my fault, i checked for an answer about 20 minutes before making my 3rd request, but didn't check again right before sending the request: in fact, i'd received an answer by User:Ohnoitsjamie, which was this: "You'll need to find another IP range to edit from if you wish to edit constructively.". i felt teased when i've read that answer, so i've added some text to my last request. how am i expected to find another ip range? seriously, how? have i got to crack one of my neighbours' wi-fi? i could use open proxies, but i know it's against rules, and the last think i've ever wanted on wikipedia is going against rules. in order to explain better why i thought my, and not only my, ip range should've been unblocked i've also looked for the user who was first blocked searching in pages, talk and contributions of the admin who made the block, User:MSGJ: the user was blocked for edit warring on the page Mafia which... had already been protected for 2 weeks! honestly, i believe that under these circumstances keeping that range block is totally wrong, there's no reasonable point to prevent thousands of italians from making constructive edits to wikipedia just because of one stupid guy who's now not able to make edit wars again on that page even if he wants. i quote from Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks: "the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption" (the page was protected); "that your conduct...is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range)". but that's not the reason why i'm writing here. the reason is the answer to my 3rd request: "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses.". where on wikipedia is written that a block can be extended if i've repeated an unblock request??? and i've repeated it not because i've read the answer "no" and didn't agree with that, but because after 3 hours first and then after almost 3 more hours i hadn't received any answers. indeed, when i've finally read the answer, i didn't made a new request, i just added some text to my last request, luckily with the same ip. i'm convinced that what i've undergone because of admin ohnoitsjamie it's a misuse, or even an abuse. not only for me, but also for all people who share this ip range. i'm appealing to you, admins, and your common sense and goodwill to at least shorten the block back to what it was before ohnoitsjamie's intervention, please. i had to create an account to write this, but i won't use it to edit anything, just to eventually discuss here if there's anything to discuss about. i trust wikipedia and i want to go on trusting it. thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centocinquantuno (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the username! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

Am I understanding this problem correctly? User wants an ip range unblocked so that he can edit as an ip, when in possession of a perfectly good username. Seems daft. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Too long, difficult to read, except that maybe User:Roxy the dog has it right, in which case the request is silly. Robert McClenon (talk

) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Centocinquantuno (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Centocinquantuno, there is a bright yellow box at the top of the page when you post a complaint here that says you must notify the editor you are talking about. You didn't do so, so I've informed Ohnoitsjamie of this discussion. Perhaps he can provide some answers to you about your situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the contributions on the /17 that is blocked and it appears to be a necessary block. Multiple IPs on the range have been making disruptive edits to not only Mafia but other articles related to the subject. There are very few productive edits by IPs on the range in the last two weeks. --Versageek 20:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My analysis of the edits on the /17 was incorrect, that will teach me to examine larger samples before drawing conclusions. --Versageek 23:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You could say that about almost any IP range over a given two week period. A range block here is too broad, block the individual IPs. What's the point, we all know how this will play out:

• The editor (who only created their account to report a genuine problem) will be blocked for block-evasion
• the IP range will remain blocked, disadvantaging the encyclopedia and discouraging new editors
• We'll all pat ourselves on the back "good job, good job"

Just a normal day at wikipedia. 107.107.58.249 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the OP seriously suggesting that thousands of users are blocked because the entire range 151.x is blocked? Akld guy (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Liz: i'm sorry for not reading the box, i'd never written on this page before, thank you very much for informing him already, i want to listen to what he'll say, so far the only things he told me were "You'll need to find another IP range to edit from if you wish to edit constructively." (thanks for making fun of me) and "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses." (not provided by wikipedia rules at all).
Versageek: i didn't look at every ip within that range on the page about mafia, actually i didn't think about it, but you were right to do so, and i've just do it too. i haven't found any other disruptive edits in the last 2 weeks but the edit warring about mafia, and the only related edits were made on both mafia and users' talk pages, not disruptive anyway, but if you've really seen disruptive edits involving other articles related to the subject i'm asking you to please tell me which ones, i may say that you're right but i'd like to see them before.
107.107.58.249: thanks for supporting me, i really hope that's not the way this story'll end, i've always had a good consideration of wikipedia, let's hope this was just a misunderstanding.
Akld guy: excuse me, sincerely i didn't understand what you mean, thousands of persons share the 151.x ip in italy, if it's blocked they're all prevented from editing everything because of one stupid troll who can't even keep on edit warring any more, this is a fact Centocinquantuno (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this edit by the IP account that User:Centocinquantuno admits is him: [17]. Note the similarity in this edit from the IP troll on Talk:Mafia: [18]. The writing style is similar, especially in use of quotation marks to separate a clause from the edit to which the user is replying to. I'm fairly certain that User:Centocinquantuno and the Mafia troll IP are one and the same. That being said, I think this 2 week range block is overkill for the problem and suggest that it be overturned now that the page in question is protected -- Samir 01:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Centocinquantuno, if all IP's starting 151.x were blocked, then there would indeed be thousands blocked. But I can't imagine an admin blocking such a wide range. My first reaction was that you were misrepresenting the extent of the block. My apologies if that was a wrong assumption. It is possible, but not likely, that the admin made a mistake. But in that case, how did you know the range blocked was far wider than it needed to be? Akld guy (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Samir Akld guy: thank both of you for your answers. let me clarify your doubts:

• i'm not that foolish troll and i'd like not to be likened to the cause of my problems, i don't know why you think i could be him comparing our writing styles, i've just had a look and, for example, he uses the "br" between a line and the following unlike me, he quotes each sentence before replying "like this" not “like this” (check, please), and his english is better or at least visually cleaner than mine; the only similarity i've found is that he doesn't use the ":" to reply a single interlocutor (you didn't say this, if i'm saying it myself it's because i'm not the troll we're talking about) and i don't use it because i reply to 2 or more persons at a time, but how many normal unregistered users do the same because they're not used to talk in pages like this?
• the ip range which was blocked is a /17 range, which means more than 32000 potential users blocked. i've checked just now, i wrote an inaccurate ip number, it was 151.20.x actually, thanks for making me notice that! anyhow in this discussion i've been no longer contesting MSGJ's block (just 24 hours or so to go), which i may not agree with because of its exaggeration and futility but is perfectly legitimate, i've been contesting this block's extension by ohnoitsjamie because such a penalty isn't provided by wikipedia for making 3 unblock requests in 6 hours due to lack of answers and because his "wasting people's time" isn't even a reason for a block...

i know he's a human like me, he may have just been tired or in a hurry in that moment, i don't think he's a bad guy or someone who likes abusing users, not at all, but he's done something he shouldn't, exceeding his authority. what about the "assume good faith"? i'm doing this with him, but he didn't with me from the beginning. Samir wrote: "I think this 2 week range block is overkill for the problem and suggest that it be overturned now that the page in question is protected"; that's what i'm asking for: please, just restore the previous block ending tomorrow! i'm asking both for me, who didn't go against rules, and for the 32000 and more persons who won't be able to edit wikipedia for 2 weeks, please Centocinquantuno (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Notes to
  walls of text. (2) No one is prevented from editing Wikipedia just because an IP range is blocked, any more than you were prevented from editing. All they have to do is create an account. Softlavender (talk
  ) 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Centocinquantuno (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note to blocking admin(s): If the problem is now seen to be confined to merely one article (and I see no one now denying that), please just semi-protect that article for as long as necessary. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(i'm gonna try my best to write in the most proper and comprehensible english)
I am summing up the matter because the original block is going to expire in a few hours:

• Thursday, october 29, Administrator MSGJ blocked the 151.20.x IP range because a troll was edit warring on the article "Mafia", which was protected the next day.
• Yesterday morning I realised that I could not edit anything because my dynamic IP range was 151.20.x, which is a very common IP range in Northern Italy.
• At 9 a.m. I made an unblocking request; at noon I had received no answers and I made another identical request; after waiting 3 more hours I made the third identical request.
• Administrator Ohnoitsjamie answered a few minutes before, but I became aware of that after making my last request, so I answered on that page.
• His answer was this: "You'll need to find another IP range to edit from if you wish to edit constructively."; how can a user with a 151.20.x IP range use a different IP range?
• He read my last request and answered: "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses."; that is why I am writing here.

First: I have broken no Wikipedian rules, I have just been waiting for an answer to my unblocking request, almost 6 hours to be precise.
Second: I have made 2 more requests just because I did not receive an answer, and such requests were neither invalid nor disruptive.
Third: "...your talk page access may be revoked which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking..." "...you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired..."; rules are clear, not being blocked but being unable to access to one's own talk page.
Last but not least, more than 32000 persons who have already been prevented for a week from editing en.wikipedia (because of a single troll who could no longer continue his edit war on an already protected page) are now being prevented from editing for two weeks because of an admin's hasty or not enough ponderate decision about me (who did not break any rules as I said).
I am just asking admins to restore the previous IP range block, cancelling its extension. Four of you have already said that the block has no reason to be any more and/or it is exceeding, the first two responders had a different opinion because I wrote a "wall of text" and I did not provide sufficient nor sufficiently clear information. Please, remove the last block concerning 151.20.x IP range. Centocinquantuno (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note to blocking admin(s): If the problem is now seen to be confined to merely one article (and I see no one now denying that), please just semi-protect that article for as long as necessary, instead of rangeblocking, as everyone seems to agree that would be the best and obvious and normal procedural solution. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Since there is no-one disagreeing with Centocinquantuno, Softlavender's endorsement seems sound. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC).
    
  • I agree. Centocinquantuno, I'm sorry that you feel frustrated but it's not unusual for these cases to take a few days to resolve themselves as more admins read over the comments and someone decides to take action. I'm not familiar with setting range-blocks so I can just affirm that they should be as narrow as possible and if the vandalism is limited to one article, it is better to protect the article than have collateral damage of preventing other editors from editing from those IPs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you everyone, now all we need is a willing admin who physically clicks the "unblock-button" :) Centocinquantuno (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have unblocked the range. If disruption resumes please feel free to handle as you see fit. --Versageek 18:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Versageek: thank you, you've acted adultly because you made a misjudgement and then changed your mind! 32000+ thanks ;)Centocinquantuno (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet still no explanation why Centcinquanteetun cant edit. This is an encyclopaedia my friend, not a social network. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, i didn't call you "Rossi de dogghe" or anything else, why did you cripple my name? however, there were 32000+ persons who couldn't edit, last week for a single troll and this week for an admin who exceeded his authority because of "assume bad faith", and i couldn't create an account since my full range was blocked, as i said yesterday i had to ask a friend to create an account for me so that i could log in, how many of the 32000+ potential users could do the same?Centocinquantuno (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Involved admin comment I agree with Samir's suspician that we are dealing with the same IP user who was targeted in the original block, and no one else appears to be affected by it thus far. See my comment to original blocking admin here. I'm not planning on taking further action on the IP range, but I'm not going to wheel war with another admin who does. The problem at Mafia can easily be handled in the future with page protection extensions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

oh, look who finally showed up! and just after his block was undone, not before. i'm answering in MSGJ's talk page since you've already written that there and the issue discussed here's already been resolvedCentocinquantuno (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This concerns edits to multiple parts of

Stable version:

• Version from 1 October 2015: "any biomedical information in articles"[19]
• Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"[20]
• Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[21]
• Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[22]
• Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[23]
• Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[24]
• Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"[25]
• Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"[26]

Original edit:

• 11:01, 31 October 2015: CFCF changes "biomedical information" to "biomedical and health information"[27]

This change to the guideline was to support his claim that "Any health related information is covered by MEDRS"[28] and his claim that "The guideline takes the most general application of biomedical possible, which includes anything health related."[29] -- claims that have received a huge amount of pushback from the other editors on the talk page.[30][31][32][33][34] Other editors kept saying that the guideline clearly said "biomedical information" and not "biomedical and health information", so CFCF simply changed the guideline to agree with him.[35]

Edit warring:

• 14:40, 31 October 2015: Minor4th reverts (1st revert)[36]
• 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (1st revert)[37]
• 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (2nd revert)[38]
• 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (2nd revert)[39]
• 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (3rd revert)[40]
• 00:12, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (3rd revert)[41]
• 00:27, 2 November 2015: Guy Macon reverts (1st revert)[42]
• 00:30, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (4th revert)[43]

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

Comment

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

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

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

Comment: Like I noted at the WP:MEDRS talk page, Guy Macon has neglected to mention the other stable version that was involved in this dispute. The stable version he is far from eager to support. There is edit warring on both sides regarding this guideline, and I fail to see why CFCF should be the only editor sanctioned for it. And this second thread on CFCF is completely unneeded, considering that there is already the

Nonsense. I simply picked the first edit made in January of 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, and 2015, the first edit in July (mid year) of 2015, and the first edit made on the first day of the last three months. I correctly identified the consensus version that was stable for at least five years. CFCF announced[44] that he was changing the guideline to support his position in an ongoing discussion.

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

"Wikipedia's articles are not intended to provide medical advice, but are important and widely used as a source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that any biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current knowledge."

both before and after the edit, and Flyer22 himself herself had no problem with "the biomedical information in all types of articles".[45]

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

No nonsense. I showed that "health" was already at various parts of the guideline, and that this was also a stable part of the guideline. You, however, clearly do not support that stable version. And I am female, by the way (in case you didn't know). And I indeed had an issue with the "biomedical" change, which is why I stated, "If we are going to stress '

talk

) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We are discussing changes to the lead paragraph. If you wish to discuss changes to some other paragraph, make a list of when it was changed and by who and post it on the article talk page (if you think it needs to be changed) or here (if you want to accuse an editor of wrongdoing) Changes to other parts of the guideline are not evidence that there is consensus to change the lead paragraph of the guideline -- which has been essentially for at least five yeas -- in the middle of a heated discussion about the lead paragraph of the guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What I pointed to also concerns changes to the lead of the guideline, and they are most assuredly relevant to this discussion. "Health" has always been a part of the guideline, in the lead and lower; and CFCF was attempting to restore the WP:STATUSQUO. That is my point.

talk

) 07:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits are strongly supported by the consensus on the talk-page, and have been so far only opposed by two editors who came to the discussion after trying to push questionable quality evidence at

CFCF 💌 📧

11:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Strongly supported by the consensus on the talk-page"? See [46], [47], [48], [49], and [50]. I can post a couple of dozen more if required. Or you can do as I suggested at the start and post an RfC to see if the community supports your changes. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment Guy Macon has a history of reverting way back to an older version where he thinks it is a stable version.[51] Guy Macon thinks his edits are allowed and is reasonable[52] to revert way back to 21:48, 28 May 2015. His reverts also reverted improvements that were unrelated to the reverts.[53] So far editors do not agree with reverting way back to an older version.[54][55] See Talk:Domestic_violence_against_men#Article_restored_to_last_stable_version_before_edit_war. According to User:Kevin Gorman, there were concerns about copyright violations. Guy Macon also reverted at the MEDRS guideline page.[56][57] QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

I don't need to start another thread. Do you still think it was appropriate to revert back to an earlier version[58][59] or are you going to stop doing things like this? QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am going to ignore you and keep doing what I have been doing, which has resulted in a ten-year, 30,000 edit record with zero blocks so far.[60][61] You are roughly half a dozen accusations on random talk pages away from being reported yourself for harassing me. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

As I pointed out the guideline already links to

WP:BIOMEDICAL

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

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

CFCF 💌 📧

21:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

talk

) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

@Doc James: That is a bit misleading. The first edit adding "and health" was added by CFCF here on October 28 with the edit summary "per discussion". There was no discussion supporting such a change then, and this was immediately objected to. CFCF claimed next that the phrase is "longstanding consensus". CFCF uses "per consensus" and "per discussion" in highly idiosyncratic ways,, which recalls the famous line by Inigo Montoya in Princess Bride. Obviously edit-warring requires usually more than one editor, but the locus of the dispute is clear. All people are asking is to get explicit consensus before making the change, and now the RfC has been opened after more than 3 days of edit-warring. Was that so hard? Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover?. This, of course, means that everyone will immediately stop discussing the content dispute on ANI and focus on the user behavior issues, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha...I mean, of course. clpo13_(talk) 06:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the dif that looks at before CFCF edited the article back in June 2014. What we missing now is "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article" I do not have the energy to dig around and see who exactly removed "health related" but it was their before and is not now. "reliable content about health" also changed to "reliable biomedical content" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This ANI report is not about edits to other parts of the page. this is specifically about CFCF improperly editing the lead in the middle of a discussion about the lead. If you are implying that CFCF was on the right side of the content dispute, there is no "but I was right!" exception to the policies that were violated here, and ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That diff is from June 2014 to the present (59 edits) and includes CFCF's edit. Looking specifically at the page on June 14 we find "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles" [62]. AlbinoFerret 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything?

CFCF 💌 📧

15:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

First you proposed a change to the lead paragrraph on the talk page, then you changed the guideline to agree with your interpretation, then you edit warred to retain the changes, and most recently you falsely implied your desired change to the lead paragraph isn't a change from the version that has remained stable over the last five years. The editors above were simply correcting that last claim. Not that it matters; what you did was against Wikipedia policy no matter which side is the right side of the underlying content dispute, and ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. Nice try deflecting the conversation away from your changing the guideline in the middle of a dispute about the guideline though. It almost worked. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that is just a repeat of the exact same arguments as before, which have already been proven to be false. Repeating your position isn't going to make it stronger.
It doesn't even come close to answering the question posed to a different editor of why it matters that I edited some entirely different part of the guideline.

CFCF 💌 📧

22:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason it came up is because you and flyer22 keep bringing it up The reason it matters is... it doesn't. This ANI and the RfC you recently posted are about the very first paragraph of

WP:MEDRS what you did or did not do in the third or thirty-third paragraph is irrelevant. You were reported for changing that first paragraph, not some other paragraph. Are you ever going to attempt to explain your behavior? --Guy Macon (talk

) 17:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

He changed more than the first paragraph of the lead, as seen here and here. So stating that we should only focus on that first paragraph is insincere, especially since he was attempting to restore the lead to the

talk

) 21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do get to tell you to focus only on the first paragraph. This is ANI. ANI is where you report editors for engaging in disruptive behavior. I reported CFCF for disruptive editing of the first paragraph of MEDRS. I don't know or care whether his edits to other paragraphs were or were not disruptive, not having bothered to look at the history of his edits to those paragraphs. I reported CFCF's edits to the first paragraph of MEDRS, and the evidence is clear that CFCF's edits to the first paragraph of MEDRS were disruptive. CFCF has to answer for the specific behavior he was reported for, not some other behavior that you would prefer to talk about. As far as ANI is concerned, what he did elsewhere is irrelevant until someone reports it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Per my "21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)" statement above, you do not get to tell me or anyone else to focus only on the first paragraph. And the sooner you stop repeating yourself, the sooner others will stop repeating themselves.

talk

) 01:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Call for administrator decision and close

This has gone around in circles long enough. Either CFCF changed the first paragraph of a major guideline from the state it was in for the last five years while in the middle of a heated talk page discussion about making his change or he didn't. Either he edit warred, restoring his preferred version five times, or he didn't. Either this behavior is acceptable or it isn't. May we please have an administrator examine the evidence, decide whether the evidence supports this report, and take appropriate action to stop further disruption? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The page and section isn't dealing with "communist philosophies" in general - and the key proponents of this conspiracy theory are specifically claiming its aim as "destroying Western culture and the Christian religion" - the conspiracy theory is associated with Breivik as he championed it in his manifesto as reported in various

WP:RS

.

"Second Dark.. ...is not breaking policies." ignoring

WP:HERE for the right reasons (in this case, comming here only to break policies) are all policy violations. Besides which Second Dark is a repeat offender and has already been warned several times in several ways by several different admins as well as users. Their time here is over, and they have proved their disinterest in community, policy and editorial consensus. --Jobrot (talk

) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What consensus?[63][64]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jobrot wants Second Dark banned for adding a POV tag here.[65][66][67][68][69] That is the "disrupting", "not here", "disinterest in community, policy and consensus" etc that Jobrot refers to. Adding a POV tag to a POV dispute. Again, recommend BOOMERANG. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(Above post formatted by Softlavender for ease of comprehension in this overlong thread.) Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Main page: Frankfurt School Talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is all from the bottom quarter of the talk page, making it some of the most recent discussion on the page. The stuff you've pasted is from the top half, and those discussions CONTINUED until the other participants either saw reason, or saw enough reason to cease their line of argumentation. THAT is the purpose of talk pages - to DISCUSS editorial changes to the page - NONE of the threads you quotes accomplished consensus. Hardly ANY of them were even suggesting editorial changes, and many of them were going against

WP:NPOV

guidelines:

Main article: NPOV

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

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

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

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

And those people have provided NO EVIDENCE, and NO UNDERSTANDING of the topic. As I've just made clear at the bottom of the

The Frankfurt School was ever part of any organized movement to overthrow Western Civilization, and it's a poor reflection on Wikipedia that I'm having to go to this much repeated effort to re-iterate this simple yet obvious fact about The Frankfurt School. No academic nor any reliable sources have EVER made this claim of them because it's a RIDICULOUS claim to make about them and goes against their own writings and beliefs. --Jobrot (talk

) 09:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of
  WP:LONG, this user has already been overlooked once for a banning (and now we're back here), don't let it happen again. There are no redeeming features. --Jobrot (talk
  ) 10:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• The user is now edit warring. --Jobrot (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Do you even know what the term "consensus" means? I've linked to the consensus I'm talking about, and there has already been

WP:LISTEN. This arduous and repetitive cycle must stop. This user fails to accept policy or even recognize consensus (as you can see in their own statements). They need to be banned to stop this madness. --Jobrot (talk

) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Please - feel free to go to the talk page and cite an academic source and quote the text you think should be included. That would be a LEGITIMATE use of the talk page! Which we could have a legitimate editorial discussion around! PLEASE DO THIS! I'VE BEEN ASKING YOU TO DO THIS SINCE MAY. Instead you've been failing to

WP:FORUM to discuss your personal views on the matter - which I frankly don't care about at all (as I've now made clear to you on multiple occasions). --Jobrot (talk

) 20:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:deadhorse --Jobrot (talk

) 05:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you just try to ignore this editor, and the anon ips who continuously push this conspiracy theory. That is the reason I reverted the

talk

) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Your initial revert to the talk page was probably the correct direction to go in. The user in question hasn't been on the talk page since PublicolaMinor and Aquillion showed up. So I suspect my presence there is their problem with Wikipedia. I'll try to stick to

WP:LISTEN to policy should probably be removed from causing everyone else problems... and policy/consensus has been quite clear on this topic Talk Page consensus, AfD consensus, MfD consensus. --Jobrot (talk

) 06:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• Comment: It's too early for anyone to be
  tendentious editing. Softlavender (talk
  ) 08:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but none of the ip's were me. I submit to an investigation if you don't believe me.Second Dark (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

tendentious editing, on top of their long lineage of other violations, uncooperative behaviours with multiple editors and unwillingness to comprehend policy when directed should have earned them at least that by now. I'd hope that would also act as a warning to others considering going down the same path. --Jobrot (talk

) 00:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Second Dark, it's pretty obvious after the IP went for a block of Dave Dial for making an observation about you that the IP is you or someone you called in. If I were you I'd desist in all of your disruptive activities immediately, including editing the

The Frankfurt School article and talk page, before you get indef blocked. Softlavender (talk

) 05:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Dave Dial called me a conspiracy theorist. That was a personal attack just like that 900FootJesus comment. If requesting a block is out of line, look at the title of this section. And nobody called me in. Did Jobrot call you in? 71.198.247.231 (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You've never made a single edit to Wikipedia except for this ANI thread, so you were either called in or you are Second Dark socking. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Because you're psychic? Or you cannot imagine any other reason that two different people could agree that the page fails NPOV so badly that it made the news and you are

pretending not to have seen the quotes of others agreeing that you formatted. 71.198.247.231 (talk

) 17:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The author of that article

GamerGate to this discussion somewhat reveals their position (which as noted, does not have the sources on its side). --Jobrot (talk

) 03:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

None of that justifies Jobrot's persistent refusal to approach the subject in a neutral manner and throwing a salad of aspersions against anyone who suggests the slightest change in wording in a transparent attempt to

Jobrot still pretends that never happened. Jobrot refuses to allow quotes from Marcuse and Gramsci on their own beliefs and won't allow Lind to be cited for Lind's own opinion in the section about Lind's opinion that credits Lind with popularizing the term. This is a clear case of page ownership by someone who is on a mission to modify Wikipedia's content for political reasons and not to build an encyclopedia. If Jobrot is doing this to win internet points in this gamergate dispute then that is all the more evidence that the problem in this area is Jobrot. 71.198.247.231 (talk

) 15:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Jobrot refuses to allow quotes from Marcuse and Gramsci on their own beliefs" - I've never made such a refusal. Also, Gramsci wasn't part of The Frankfurt School.

and won't allow Lind to be cited for Lind's own opinion in the section about Lind's opinion - I was the one who put in the Lind citation (of course his work is completely

WP:OR

claiming things like "when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality... ...They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual" and "Political Correctness is intellectual AIDS" - so naturally I made sure to include a secondary source that puts Lind's views in context).

If Jobrot is doing this to win internet points in this gamergate dispute then that is all the more evidence that the problem in this area is Jobrot. I've never edited the GamerGate page (nor the talk page), nor do I intend to.

Your claims are demonstrably false, and are thus most likely damaging the case you're attempting to make. --Jobrot (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I retract the claim about Gramsci since I was unable to find anyone quoting him in a quick browse of the archives. Marcuse and Lind are two of the citations from the original article that Jobrot just said were inappropriate for inclusion. As for the claim that Gramsci had nothing to do with the Frankfurt School and is not relevant to a discussion of cultural marxism, that is not what Jobrot was saying at a4d.

... this particular subject isn't covered or defined in any sense other than as directly synonymous and interchangeable with the views of The Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci... --Jobrot (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The academic use refers to Gramsci and The Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The academic school of cultral marxism is defined by Jerry Watts in The Socialist as Ostrich: The Unwillingness of the Left to Confront Modernity from Social Research vol. 50 No. 1 (1983)

Cultural Marxists are all of those who consider themselves the theoretical descendants of Gramsci, the early Korsch, Sartre, Lukács, Lucien Goldmann, and the "Frankfurt School."

When Jobrot rejects sources that discuss these subjects and their application of marxist critical techniques to culture just because they don't use the then-obscure term "cultural marxism", Jobrot is throwing out good sources.

Regarding the modern use of "cultural marxism" to describe the general tendency of marxists to attempt to change culture, a different subject worthy of a different page and what Jobrot wants Wikipedia to call a conspiracy theory, George Waskovich in The Ideological Shadow of the U.S.S.R. (1950) describes this tendency as obvious, well known, and hardly needing mention.

To one familar with Marxian ideology and the political purposes which rest on it, it is no surprise to know that the ultimate purpose of the present Soviet leaders is inexorably to transform the neighboring states into economic, social, political, and even moral counterparts of their own state, nor that certain means and measures must be used to achieve this objective. Indeed, the technique of revolutionary change has become all too clear...

Waskovich follows this with descriptions of marxist attacks on the cultural traditions of eastern Europe that the USSR used to strengthen its hold on these countries. Or as Jobrot calls it, a wacko conspiracy theory.71.198.247.231 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a much more recent, much more relevant quote from me: "This is not a space for re-hashing the unanimous AfD"

I've always argued that the radical-left used the term prior and in a different way to the radical-right (that it originated in the radical left of the 1970s and was intended as a criticism of The Frankfurt School - I now own my own copy of the 1973 Trent Schroyer book it was first sighted in - which is critiquing The Frankfurt School for having departed with their Marxist origins), this usage came from the radical-left and was extremely rare and informal (being at least twice removed from the theorists in question as "Cultural Marxism" is a term based on "The Frankfurt School" which its self is an informal term/grouping (as is mentioned on

Non-Notable

(just because a private author publishes an uncorroborated opinion doesn't make it notable for the creation of a whole Wikipedia article).

More vehemently I'd like to point out that people can change and flesh out their views within 6 months (the time it's been since your quotes of me), especially if they've spent far more time researching the term since then. As I have. So to dredge up and paste out of context comments from 6 months ago as if opinions are all static, unchanging and unaffected by time, reason, and research is frankly an incredibly pathetic attempt at agenda pushing.

WP:DEADHORSE. I'm right here giving you my opinion - you don't need to desperately dredge through my logs when I can give you my most current opinions immediately and with great strength. --Jobrot (talk

) 05:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa, David biddulph, and JzG:admin able see if ip sock not accusation true false so ping adminMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please all calm down and settle this like adults, it seems like all this discussion had gotten is people angry. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block with
  WP:deadhorse, others are free to try to corral this user into understanding and accepting Wikipedia's policies but at this point and with their repeated bad behaviour and policy violations, I have to give up. --Jobrot (talk
  ) 17:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)