Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive924

Most of the Jim Morrison page is not sourced properly based on your criteria. Mary Werbelow is undisputedly Jim Morrison's girlfriend in Florida recognized by his bandmate Ray Manzarek in the quote "He was crazy about her" and Bryan Gates called Mary "The love of his life" referring to Jim. ^[1] Poofdragon (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The place to discuss the relative notability, or lack thereof, of one of Jim Morrison's High School girlfriends was on the talk page of the article, where you refused to engage. Now this is about your refusal to follow Wikipedia policies. Butler is not a credible source, fwiw, but that's not the issue here, your edit-warring is. You've also been reported for violating

☼

23:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to block this

☼

23:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Heck no, what he's posting , for example | this link you pointed to in your post above is referenced to a reliable newspaper, and he's accurately paraphrasing what's in that article, as he did in the Jim MOrrison article. I think a boomerang is due. KoshVorlon 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Does this constitute a legal threat? Regardless, user is part of a range of IP that have been disruptive on the talk for quite a while. For example, I have warned them previously against editing others comments, which they have continued to do, after a long hiatus and pinky promising not to. They seem intent on wasting the time of all involved, in addition to general disruption and vandalism.

Previous posts here have accomplished nothing ([20], [21], [22]). So...if something could be done that would be super.

• On the surface, there certainly is a problem but I'm out the door. I don't know that range blocks would work, it covers a few ranges. It may require protection on the talk pages and affected articles. It is an inconvenience to other IPs, but before doing it, someone would need to look at it how much of an inconvenience and maybe a subpage for IPs, plus a month worth of semiprotection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand the ip is continuing to vandalize the talk page in a "I wish I had rollback" kindof way. Can someone at least semi?

TimothyJosephWood

15:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the protection log, this problem has continued for a long time. I've applied two months of semiprotection. If another admin believes that any meaningful negotiation is possible with the IP, they can modify or remove the semi. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:IDHT when details are explicit in the article: [32] about the changes made and reasoning. I request all the editors involved in this ANI Notice to check whether there are any disruptions on the basis of the information seen on this comment and links provided or a through investigation (if time allows). I hope everyone included in this will consider the ip and the registered editor in equal weight and judgement will only be based on the actions of these editors.59.89.239.32 (talk

) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So yeah, this is pretty much the MO of the user. Long winded diatribes that don't really boil down to much. Perfectly able to cite multiple diffs as well as WP policy, but "oh please don't bite I'm new". Refusing to register an account while advancing an argument that any IP edit, no matter how obviously related, was someone else. They at one point got Diannaa to unprotected the page arguing that the disruptive edits were from a conference they were at (a conference of people in Kerala editing a single WP page?).

But the page for the past few months has just been a series of protections. Not sure what a more permanent solution is given the ranges of the IPs, but I have good confidence that a month semi is just going to see us back here in June.

TimothyJosephWood

17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay dear, let others please read the statement and reply they don't need your interpretations, do they now. They are also able to think and see for what it is. citing multiple diffs is a recent skill i found. But your claim that all ips are one is a bit obtuse. Dont attack users like Diannaa for your ends and yes the page social work was edited when irregularities where cited in a conference with the lead section and further viewing the talk page only confirmed those actions, I was there. Above all you are the one who has initiated this block using manipulated evidence any blind can see this fact.

• Attempt to resolve certain issues based on Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed:[33], this was done when redaction was not possible.
• Attempt to resolve rv game by following your example: [34]
• Two time rv attempt by you, one:[35]
• Talk initiated to solve the issue if your actions where based on policy: [36]
• Deceptive move by you to ascertain authority or your position: [37] and [38] and this done while we were talking and you didn't inform for giving a say when i was active:[39].
• Resultant block from misunderstanding and your abuse of good faith by trying to glory hog and seek favors of privileges: [40]

If checked every other blocks might also have certain history of deceptive tacts and this might be the MO used for the protections. Answer your actions and abuse of privileges, then we can talk about wonders of the world. I am certain if this sort of malpractice isn't stopped we will be seeing back here, if notified in the talk page. Either me(most probably) or others will be there to reduce disruptions.59.89.239.32 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have made significant investments in the rope industry, and stand to gain financially from this thread.

TimothyJosephWood

19:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, what is rope industry (https://www.google.be/#q=rope+industry%2Bwikipedia%2Bpolicy), I don't see anything if it is related to the policy. But may i note one thing if Timothyjosephwood is implying from gain and from this thread for winning the consensus of other editors involved: If the actions are not of an responsible editor then warning to not disrupt and notification on the user's page of the editor's actions for the see of other editors before handing privileges is enough. Thank you.

Note:This is not forum shopping, this is just empathy for the other editor.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a tongue-in-cheek reference to

TimothyJosephWood

22:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Good-one, :D 117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@59.89.239.32: You need to back off. You are working yourself into a position that could end up in a block. Take your next step very carefully. --TJH2018talk 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you for the threatening your actions are clear as the sky is blue. Others see FIMs talk page and [41]

For anyone in any doubt as to the extent of

^{Imperatrix Mundi}

19:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Imperatrix Mundi, we were talking about your actions in removal of AN3 I added and it is similar to that of Timothy Joseph added and you were clear you don't want to talk about it:[42] so which is surreal. After Floquenbeam statement:[43] I am not going to involve with you same courtesy would be followed by you I hope.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@59.89.239.32 Refactoring other's comments again, I see. Perhaps a minor move, but you have been through this repeatedly, so why won't you leave other's comments alone? Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Our Kerala friend has been asked not to comment on several user's talk pages, sometimes does so anyway Diannaa example. wp:Editor integrity is applicable on many points. The IP has alienated a number of editors and seems convinced that it is their fault and not his.

Is there a way to do a range block combined with a set of articles? i.e. IPs geolocating to Kerala, India and articles relating to social work?

Barring this, can this Kerala, India IP be declared

WP:DENY without comment? All of this has been a great waste of time and frustration. Jim1138 (talk

) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of racism Friendly Talk Jim1138 (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Kerala is way, way too broad - it's a city of more than 33 million people. That'd be like range-blocking Canada. AusLondonder (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Now there's an idea 😉

^{Imperatrix Mundi}

10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I do recall a recent suggestion to range block Australia.

TimothyJosephWood

10:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that Kerala is too large, and Kerala *AND* social work related articles is probably not implemented. Perhaps range blocking Pathanamthitta, Kerala, India. Population 37,538. As the IP's edits often geolocate (~75%) to Pathanamthitta, blocking that range might alleviate some of the problem. Jim1138 (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

THIS COMMENT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE RAISED AGAINST TIMOTHY.It is an reply to Jim's non-relevant ANI comment. Jim1138 actions are like a wolf in sheep's clothing their intent is very clear, I normally

wp:deny, it warrants when edits have reached to a level of absurdity as the editor have displayed in the social work article.117.248.62.212 (talk

) 11:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is also a thing: making inappropriate comments and then disparaging their own inappropriate comments as being from someone else. Doesn't pass the duck test...i.e. another random IP from a different person engaging in discussion on user talks related to disruption on Social work.

I wasn't a part of this when it originally started, so I can't speak to that, but for my part I put a bit of effort into assuming good faith. If you are being blamed for others' disruption, register an account and clear up the whole issue, voila. This has been suggested a dozen or more times. Their persistent refusal to do something so easy says to me either 1) they are avoiding registration purposefully to sew confusion, and/or 2) they are a previously blocked user and expect their account would be quickly blocked as evasionary.

TimothyJosephWood

12:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May I say that I partially concur with the Jim's nature to that of a racist and I guess it would might be right and why I too feel is explained in that comment. I am seeing blocks initiated in admin action page along with your request most of them were right like for deleting entire pages and adding silly words. injecting names in between the articles...etc. Most of this is done in a second. Mostly this also seems by having good faith with the editor who requests them, this is the loop hole you used. When such practice is present how can someone who witness' this register. But if you ask directly your question about the edits i would say it is mine or it is not. But is this the problem over social work page.-No. What is your comment on recent irrelevant shrine upgrading in the talk page. See my edit:[45] would have stopped this childish play. If your intentions were to solve the issue and not to express your dislike to ip editors work, this wouldn't have happened. Good luck and please don't drag the real talk to something-else to distract other editors.61.0.77.81 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well timothy's abusive actions seems to flyover with co-conspiring editors discussion for block.(probably a witch hunt) I hope the work here is clearly seen by other skilled editors. If timothy's actions are considered as a good practice those in the higher ranks please inform and with a patient valid reasoning, so that i may move on with understanding to other issues. If not, move with what should be done. By looking at the protection blocks don't be misguided those were initiated by abuse of good faith with the blocking editors.-But they did solve the indifference and hostility of all the other involved registered editors. Going through the both sides the issue is clearly seen. Even you can see the new player FIM who doesnt have anything to do with this page injects themselves to avenge because earlier my ip wasnt blocked and this made the editor possibly uncomfortable and there seems similar sort of history with others claims, the problem is not with edits or the actions but origin of edits and wiki-status as an ip-editor- this is what the registered editors are communicating in one way or other. In my viewpoint this is clear violation to what wikipedia stands for and for the same I try to fend-off this disruptive editors.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

One may think the abuse ends here see the history and unobstructed griefer behaviors:[46] now you know the intention behind the block.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me. Are we meant to believe that these two

That is pretty funny. It seems like these two may have previous WP experience...I wonder...TJH2018talk 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler, we've found the first documented case of

TimothyJosephWood

15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well nobody said this two ip's are two, is there a claim as such, if so provide where the ______ are you(@ FIM and TJH2018) getting these ideas. Not from this section I am sure or is this continuation of your unchecked pranks. Plus Timothoy we might have a dispute on your actions but grow up before joining with those two disruptors...I am this kind of person (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:22), but not upto 70, keep pushing the buttons to make your actions more clear. Above all a social worker should know how to behave, especially a disciplined(army brat you say) social worker otherwise you are showing lack of basic knowledge in the practice. If your lying-its o.k.-its your deal. If you really are a social worker go back to the books....so that it wouldn't hurt your clients. If the spoiler thing was projection do dial down otherwise which school taught you PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, ASSESSMENT and above all ETHICS. I should have picked it with the roping reference. 61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: Let me give you an advice any social worker requires to be fair, stick to values and truthful this is just a piece of the bigger picture and I think if you can follow these you can be a good wikipedian too. Values in the wikipedian sense means good practice and policies. Good luck.61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us stop this silly bickering too, if the raised issue is not looked or taken action by any admins there is a good chance that this will slip through so everyone negatively involved shouldn't worry about it. If any actions taken challenge it or ask the reasoning and move on. Plus, there seems nothing to explain about the issue everything is out here-who is who and what they did and do. I hope this ANI will be included in the social work talk page for the see of other Admins and editors.61.1.146.199 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's been fun folks. Looks like this thread too is not going to result in any permanent solution. I suppose we'll see you all back here in two months when the semi expires.

• Comment This is the fourth ANI on this matter. This is a repost of previous ANI tickets listed above.

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#IP-hopping, edit-warring, trolling, and_vandalism filed 3 March 2016
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Disruptive_editing, edit-warring, and_vandalism by IP-hopper from Kerala, India filed 2 April 2016
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive920#IP-hopping vandal/troll from Kerala, India still at it. Need a permanent solution. filed13 April 2016

Jim1138 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I regret bringing this matter here, but it appears I have little alternative. The article

I have to note in addition that the IP is very likely

talk

) 03:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty telling. Also, it's abuse of multiple accounts. Needs a block(s). Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

FKC has turned both

WP:BATTLEGROUNDS over the question of whether these individuals where philosophers. In the last couple months, he's made more trips to drama boards than most of us make in a decade. Yes, AcidRock67 is a newbie, a fact FKC likes to take advantage of by edit-warring (e.g., just the latest, [47], [48]) with him until he makes a mistake that can be reported, by repeatedly requesting the articles be protected, locking AC67 out of the article, and by intransigently asserting arguments that amount to little more than personal opinion, e.g., his opinion that an individual can only be a philosopher by occupation if one is employed as a philosopher. (It seems to me it should enough to occupy your time as such.) Realistically, FKC is very difficult to get along with and his behavior, turning everything into a battle and then tattle-taling constantly at one drama board after another, is a huge part of the problem. FKC knows the rules and he's using them as a weapon to eliminate a new editor with an opposing view. What he should do is seek common ground, compromise or genuine consensus. Yes, AcidRock67 is making mistakes, lots of them. But he's a newbie and he's being provoked into making those mistakes. This is a case where it takes and has ALWAYS taken two for a fight. Personally, what I recommend is that FKC take a time out from both these articles for a few months and I bet every problem with AcidRock67 will simply end. Msnicki (talk

) 07:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment from completely uninvolved editor: That may be so, but it seems like a separate issue. If AcidRock67 is still socking/block-evading with IPs, after he was recently blocked for doing so and now knows better, then he should be very strictly sanctioned. Socking is a very serious violation and must be sanctioned. If there are unrelated IPs disrupting the talk page, those need to be somehow dealt with too. Anyone who really wants to edit Wikipedia can register an account if need be. In terms of FKC's disruptions, if they are really problematical perhaps a completely separate thread is in order, and perhaps an at-least temporary topic ban could be proposed. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Msnicki, I have not. In the case of

talk

) 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Msnicki's complaints about me essentially boil down to "I don't like you." My response is that whether editors like each other or not is neither here nor there. Editors do not have to like each other per se; they do have to make an effort to follow the site's rules, however. Again, despite what Msnicki claimed, there is no edit warring over Leary being a philosopher or not going on at

talk

) 07:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• The account and the IP 2605:A000:1200:E013:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B have been blocked for two weeks. Please let me know if you should see a related-looking IP continuing the same disruption, because the range can be blocked if required. (Perhaps surprisingly, it's actually easier with IPv6.) Bishonen | talk 09:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC).
• I don't see any evidence of socking or block evasin on AcidRock67/IP2605's part. AcidRock67 was blocked for 24h on May 15 but that block had expired at the time of this incident, so there was no block evasion. The person then returned to editing without logging in, but with no attempt at deception or using multiple accounts afaict. I haven't looked more deeply than that but if AcidRock67 is an actual newbie then we should remember
  WP:BITE. Wikipedia's customs are quite different from other places on the internet and we're supposed to allow some room for acclimation when someone arrives here. 50.0.121.79 (talk
  ) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • AcidRock67 might not have been guilty of block evasion, but if he is the same user as the IP, then he appears to be guilty of logging out so that he could make disruptive edits without having them linked to his account. The IP might not have claimed to be a different person, but it did not admit to being AcidRock67 either.
    talk
    ) 21:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor has recently posted at the Teahouse to say that the subject of an article they have been drafting was contacted with an offer to approve the draft in exchange for money. Please see

At AfC we intermittently hear about scams targeting editors whose drafts have been declined. They have been less frequent since June 2015, when we added to several places the notice, "Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page." There was another incident a few weeks ago, however. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Wikipedia:Your first article. Voceditenore (talk

) 07:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. I had read about that scam, including in the Guardian, but not in much detail so was unaware that there was an AfC connection. I have suggested that our Teahouse guest forward the e-mail to that address. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

People actually fall for this? HalfShadow 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

If some people are already willing to pay for articles to be written, then that they'd pay for positive AfC review doesn't seem such a surprise to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspected stealth canvassing / meatpuppetry

This one is going nowhere. There's an editing dispute, that's all. AGF, take issues to article talk pages, and don't edit-war. (non-admin closure) Montanabw^(talk) 03:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My recent request as follows to User:Hchc2009 made to his talk page on 21:27 13 May 2016 [49] ("Editing patterns") has not received an answer as I requested:

"Your recent edits on

John Wadham (died 1578) (06:28, 12 May 2016‎); Manor of Orleigh

(11:17, 13 May 2016‎) display signs and edit patterns which might reasonably be interpreted as contravening certain of Wikipedia's policies. This message is not an accusation of any contravention, but merely a request for clarification of the position".

I should be grateful to have some admin oversight to this matter, which also concerns User:Smalljim. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC))

As a disinterested party- in that (I'd like to think) I get on with both Lobs and Hchc- I've got to say, I think this is a really bad idea.

^{Imperatrix Mundi}

10:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As someone uninvolved in the above-mentioned issues, and having looked them over, I must say that this request is preposterous. There are WP editors who are here to do good, encyclopedic work. And there are WP editors who are here to follow their every whim, and then generate time-wasting drama when their editing is checked. I think it's clear who's who. Eric ^talk 13:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can now address the specific matter I have raised? If you think the editing patterns I have raised are pure coincidence, say so. Otherwise let's at least make it appear that WP rules are there to be followed and sanctions applied where appropriate.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, I wouldn't have responded to your accusations if they'd been posted on my talk page. Despite the wording it does come off as quite stand-offish. You just threw out a bunch of accusations at the two users who seem to have been here a while. Even with the edits you are referencing I'm not seeing anything that is glaringly out of policy. If anything I'm seeing some

WP:OWN issues from the OP. And I don't think this quite meets the standard for Stealth Canvasing. But thats just me. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk)

19:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, it's so impertinent of me to raise a matter concerning two users who "seem to have been here a while", and one of whom is an admin. - who by the way has form in stealth canvassing. He has just brought to my attention an egregious stealth canvass he made on 9 November 2013 to a fellow admin who had closed a AN/I report not to his liking. [50] He immediately afterwards made a

WP:CANVASS approach to him (here), unknown to me until now, in which he asked him (Kim Dent-Brown): "Any chance you could reword the AN/I closure to balance things up a bit?", as he has now revealed in Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury (20:14, 10 May 2016), which he characterised as "a brief conversation". Is it OK for an Admin who has been ruled against in an AN/I to surreptitiously approach the AN/I closure admin and ask for a more favourable conclusion? This he did without informing me, which seems to be stealth canvassing. But, hey, I'm just a mere junior around here. I should have got the message when one of Hchc's mates posted on his talk page "You did like check out his background before slapping this message down, right? Hchc's got 54,000 edits - including bringing Henry I of England, Stephen I of England, and John of England to FA status. He's not a sockpuppet. He started editing in 2009 for the sake of the gods." I was under the impression that all are equal here and nobody is above WP policies. If I'm wrong on that, let's shut down this request and just put it down to the naivite of a greenhorn. I've cited 5 instances of prima facie evidence for a reasonable person to suspect that something is amiss, but that's just dismissed here as "throwing out a bunch of accusations". The two parties concerned (User:Hchc2009 and User:Smalljim) seem immune from coming here and giving their explanation, so it seems? They have been notified in the proper way.(Lobsterthermidor (talk

) 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC))

I have no idea what Lobsterthemidor is talking about; if you're going accuse someone of something a) say what it is, and b) post

"if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action" NE Ent

22:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2.25.129.11's disruptive editing

talk | history | links | watch | logs). They've been warned about their editing; and they have been reverted by other users besides me. They have not engaged in any conversation to build consensus. They only edit war by adding their edit on and on. If any diffs are required, please let me know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑

00:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)

Wikipedia:AN3 may be a better place to address these concerns. 172.56.42.13 (talk

) 03:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP has continued with their disruptive editing, such as here. Can someone please block them? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal refspam

I meant this to be added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Reference spam (I actually did add it, and had to revert myself after I realized it was an archive). @Doug Weller, Liz, SpacemanSpiff, Deli nk, DMacks, and David Eppstein: notifying those who took part in that discussion.

The original ANI complaint was about 39.37.116.188 (talk · contribs) and 119.158.13.23 (talk · contribs), but many more IPs have been involved—all, I believe, used by one editor.

Several of these IPs were reported at SPI, but I think it's clear that he's not any kind of sock; he's just editing Wikipedia anonymously, with each session a different IP. He may be hopping IPs to stay below the radar, but I have no way to know that.

I put together a table of his history, as far as I've found it. I was going take it to WP:Spam, but here seems more appropriate, and might get more eyes and skills into deciding what to do.

I've been checking every edit, meaning to hit them all eventually, working forward in time. I've been able to work through the first four IPs, but I have spot-checked all of the rest. During the hours and days I've spent looking at his edits, this is what I've found:

• Each IP has Most IPs have edits for one date, sometimes two some have more.
• EVERY SINGLE EDIT The vast majority of his edits have to do with citations to references by Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal; usually adding it, sometimes reformatting slightly, or updating a doi, or replacing his thesis with a published article.
• Except for one account, There is very, very little else (text or whatever) added to the articles edited. That one account is the oldest and has the longest history, though there's no way of knowing if it's the same person. Likely not.
• I have found ONE four edits that were not his that cited his work.
• Each editing session gives the appearance of looking for articles that might have anything to do with one of his subjects of "expertise" and planting citations in any spot that looks even slightly likely. (I'm aware this view is definitely not AGF.)
• Many of the citations are to articles he's written in encyclopedias while he was still in graduate school.
• The books are mostly(?) sometimes published by
  Mellen Press
  , which apparently has a reputation of being an academic vanity press.
• He is very patient and persistent, often re-adding a ref a few days or weeks after it's been reverted or removed.
• He has been spamming like this since at least March 2013.
• The total count of these edits is 627 705.

updated by — Gorthian (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think all his refs should be deleted; he should not be rewarded in any way for this behavior. I have no idea what else could be done to stop him. He hasn't replied to the few times he's been warned. — Gorthian (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE. Here at ANI there is this case, and there is one above that was just closed with a community site-ban. Academics refspam pretty regularly, cause disruption doing it, and folks find it... upsetting. I am not sure what to do with the kind of dedicated longterm spamming described here. What do you think? Jytdog (talk

) 03:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't just simple refspam, e.g. the grad student / now post doc is a contributor to this book but they have used it and added their name as a reference here where the problem is that the person is NOT a contributing author to that referred section. I came to this a second time courtesy of RegentsPark who started this discussion on my talk page, and it was then that I found out that DVdm, Oshwah, and Ogress among others were already spending their time cleaning up this mess. This has happened for over three years, longer than the average lifecycle of a Wikipedia editor and it's wasting the time of many. Owing to the single minded devotion of the IPs, an edit filter is probably required to prevent further disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a good candidate for an edit filter. — Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, preferably a smart one, as there's 4276 ways to come up with variations of the name. - DVdm (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This sounds similar (although different subject matter) to the persistent efforts of Krantmlverma (talk · contribs), who was eventually indef'd or some such across multiple projects. Dvdm is correct re: the spelling issue - Indic articles are routinely manipulated by persistent abusers who adopt alternate spellings to continue pushing their agenda. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it definitely te case that an edit filter won't help? Doug Weller talk 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. This stuff will end up flowing back into Wikipedia indirectly. For example this book on Azerbaijan uses Mughal as a reference but that's because they've lifted it from our Azerbaijan article. Someone else will cite Mughal indirectly through this book and, before you know it, we're going to be indirectly citing him as well. He's using Wikipedia to get his citation count up. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Until the capable folk who write edit filters do something I can block the IPs as they show up (which itself seems to be difficult to track). Or maybe someone could train Cluebot to revert this stuff as it shows up. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@DVdm: I doubt very much whether this guy would ever deliberately misspell, or even shorten, his name. If I understand edit filters correctly, it seems a good filter would be an effective solution. — Gorthian (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A good filter, yes, probably. - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm still finding more, and updating the table here (the edit count is now 734 705). Feel free to edit it for any more IPs you find, or to mark a set of edits checked. At least one editor has been using it to track down articles to clean out. I'm really grateful to all of you who have been helping! — Gorthian (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

for now. All the cites we could find have been cleaned out, except for the four articles where other editors cited his work (well, one was cleared out, and the creating editor hasn't objected yet). I gathered some numbers as I went: A total of 711 edits done on 43 different dates over a period of 3 years and 2 months using 50 different IPs. I will be requesting an edit filter so we can at least track him when he gets in a "citing" mood again. I created a subpage in my user space to record what's been done: Mughal empire. — Gorthian (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gorthian and everyone else working on it! DMacks (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Violation of

WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR

, nationalist pov-warring, and source misrepresentations

WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR

articles.

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 3 reverts in less than 24 hours [51] [52] [53]
• Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 4 reverts in less than 24 hours [54] [55] [56] [57]

Other problems of this user are that he continues to insert blatant source misrepresentations in wikipedia articles, which damages wikipedia reputation, through his editorializing of anything that doesn't confirm to a nationalist pov, like anything related to women's rights or minority rights of Christians. @GGT: @Attar-Aram syria:@LouisAragon:@GGT:@Shmayo: @عمرو بن كلثوم: Some previous discussions regarding this user: [58] *[59] [60]--80.254.69.43 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — 80.254.69.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I see user Ferakp is cited in an edit-warring case above. I would kindly ask the Admins to look at the contributions of

talk · contribs) closely. They are removing sourced material because it simply does not conform with his/her political agenda and definition of reliable sources. Please see the Talk page for Rojava for example. Another example for their negative behavior can be witnessed in their reverts of contributions by user @Beshogur:. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk

) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As I told admins many times before, Kurdish articles are 24/7 under attack of Arab, Turkish and Assyrian nationalists. I have had to clean almost from same users. Users Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, عمرو بن كلثوم and two other users which use random IP are clearly black washing Kurdish articles. I have used talk page in all my edits and called users to dsicuss. I have told them about unreliable sources,

talk

) 10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to add, the user

talk

) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins, in the absence of any sanctions against him/her, user Ferakp is edit warring again reverting edits in sevral pages. Please look into this. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit clearly shows the purpose and racist agenda of this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain whic part of my message was a racist?

talk

) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

In that edit you are implying that certain editors you disagree with have a certain nationality or ethnicity, and that this nationality or ethnicity is the only reason they are making the edits and wanting to include or exclude certain content. Even if it were true (which you have no way of knowing for certain) it is not a legitimate argument to make for or against article content. You could possible make a case for that argument being used, with care, when concerning sources, but you were not doing that in the cited example. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I said that "There are at least 21 users in Wikipedia who are cooperating and black washing Kurdish articles. They are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians." I just said that those users are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians. I didn't say anything against their ethnicity or nationality, I said users had those nationalities. I have checked their IP addresses and edits and they really are. Read a little bit what is a racism and then what to here comment. 86.50.110.79 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually find this report quite ironic. There may be reasons to report Ferakp, so far I didn't look very exactly at his edits. But all User:عمرو بن كلثوم is accusing him he is doing himself too. He is a clear POV-pusher against Kurds and the YPG.

Examples:

• Tell Rifaat (The source didn't say anything about a displacement of its population, in conclusion what he wrote there is partially is a lie)
• Al-Manajir (Removing without reason)
• Al-Shaddadah (Removing sourced edit without reason)
• Tell Abyad (POV-pushing)
• Kurd Mountains (Removing without reason)
• Azaz District
• Upper Mesopotamia

This is not a defense for Ferakp but rather a hint to the double moral standards of User:عمرو بن كلثوم. His arab nationalism is quite obvious and I actually don't know why he hates the Kurds that much, but his POV-pushing is inacceptable in my eyes.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you proving here? Every day you annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan. Is Azaz part of Syrian Kurdistan? Is there any neutral source that backs this? By neutral, of course I don't mean Kurdish blogs or "news agencies". The name Rojava itself is a big scam. No self-respecting news agency or international organization uses it. They all refer to the area as Kurdish-controlled area or Kurdish enclaves, or a similar form. It seems there is a pro-Kurdish Canvassing in Kurdish related articles here. Users Ferkp and emranrich continue their edit warring here and are removing sourced information, simply because it goes agains their POV. Here is one example, and I am ready to name several more . Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone here will be blocked, it will be you . Reporter User:عمرو بن كلثوم is clearly an Arab nationalist. He is vandalize Kurdish articles since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerfulman11 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم::First of all, I'd be really interested, where I took part in an edit-war in your eyes and where I "annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan" every day.

What I'm proving here is for example that you claim that the Kurds displaced all Arabs from Tell Rifaat with a source that doesn't even nearly mention such a thing. You can't argue seriously that any kurdish news agency (like Rudaw or ANF) is unreliable only because they are Kurdish. Of course, Azaz is not part of the Rojava administration. But in Germany, to take another example, the Sorbs also don't have any federal state (even if Germany is a federal Republic) or any other administration and still the towns where they live have German as well as Sorbian names: Cottbus is also called Chóśebuz, Bautzen Budyšin, Weißwasser Běła Woda and so on, even if Sorbs only make up 7-12% of the population there.

Also your view that Rojava doesn't even exist is somehow ridiculous. And I can talk here only about the German press, but the name 'Rojava' is used by almost every newspaper or -agency, when they it writes about events in this area.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ferakp is annoying and act as if he is in a marketplace for sources.. he bargins and his idea about a consensus is him writing on the talk page and think its enough to do whatever he wants .. its specially funny when he decide that something isnt reliable!!! Yet no, he shouldnt be banned.. he has some points about the black washing of kurds, yet he do the opposite and white wash them... all involved users should balance their opinions ... on a side note, ban them for edit warrying for like a day or two so they think twice before doing that again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 14:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

ADMINS, PLEASE do something here about user Ferakp. Look at this revert that goes against the consensus on the Talk page including user Ermanrich. This has been going on for over a week now, and I have been restraining for edit-warruing with this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add one thing here. You and Ermanrich should be very careful, at least 4 of your edits violated

talk

) 21:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin @عمرو بن كلثوم:, I don't understand why you don't block Ferakp, when dozens of other users have been blocked for the same offence here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Should not all be pov-warring warriors be treated equally?? --176.127.213.144 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note merged threads of same issue/u8ser (Feerakp) Will add examples of blackwashing later

Disruptive editor, massive vandalism suspicion, cherry pickings and sock puppetry

I had previously reported that the some users are black washing Kurdish articles. There is one user who has since last year vandalized and black washed all Kurdish articles. All his edits are clearly anti-Kurdish. Disruptive editings, massive copy pasting the whole section from the article to another and cherry pickings. This user and all his edits are related to the Kurds, FGM among the Kurds and Kurdish human rights. The user is using different IP addresses, so it can continue its sock puppetry and massive vandalism without problems.

Ip addresses of the user:
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
and god knows how many other IP addresses this user has used.

As you can see, I have lost majority of my time to edit, warn and neutralize his edits. All his edits have led me to add POV tags to many Kurdish articles. To be honest, his edits are clearly anti-Kurdish and as you can read talk pages of articles, he/she has edited, full of violations I have mentioned. This user is not only doing such edits, he is also continuously with other users trying to report me so I can stop neutralizing Kurdish articles. I tried to clean his articles, but I gave up after I realized he is copy pasting the whole sections to other articles. For example, he has copy pasted FGM texts from Kurdish women article to Women in Iran article. There are tons of cherry picking,

talk

) 09:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of the sock puppetry in the form of diffs, Ferakp? The fact that someone edits from different locations is unlikely to be considered evidence of sock puppetry without them. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 10:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Presumably they are at least from different computers (or they are dynamic). Using different IPs isn't in itself sock puppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, they are dynamic IPs. We can remove sock puppetry. Other issues remain.

talk

) 20:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

174.23.128.98

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 h. Materialscientist (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIV reports.[76] --Guy Macon (talk

) 00:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• 174.23.186.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 174.23.146.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), obviously evading the block on 174.23.128.98, have several times removed the above report. I've blocked them, but unfortunately I think the range is a little too big to block. What do you say, Materialscientist? I've semiprotected ANI for three hours. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I went ahead and blocked 174.23.128.0/18 for a day. The range is busy, but 24 hours shouldn't cause much collateral damage. Any admin should feel free to unblock if it does come to be a problem, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks, DoRD. I couldn't decide about the /18 range, it's right on the cusp of being too big — but I think you did the right thing. The angry vandal is very busy, not just on this page. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by user Pprcgi

(non-admin closure) blocked for 48 hours by Nyytend with warning Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Pprcgi (talk · contribs) ( who may also be 39.32.222.179), has engaged in disruptive editing of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor over the past few days by making repeated and massive reverts. He/She has been requested to be more careful about reverting edits because his/her reversions result in large amounts of sourced and researched being deleted, as well as hyperlinks to newly created wikipedia pages linked from the China Pakistan Economic Corridor site.

Further, he/she repeatedly inserts a POV section entitled "Indian sponsored terrorism to sabotage CPEC" in which the user has copied and pasted a sentence from the section "Indian objections to CPEC," followed by an unsourced and unverified POV claim that India is dedicating $300 million to sabotage CPEC. Again, no source was provided, and I have twice made clear on the talk page for the site that this is a major problem for being both POV and unsourced. The user instead continuously re-inserts the unsourced and POV claim, and has strangely pointed to an articled entitled "Pakistan's relations with militants" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict#Pakistan.27s_relation_with_militants) to somehow justify the insertion of his/her unsourced claims and the use of the POV terminology "Indian sponsored terrorism."

The Section he/she keeps reverting the page for states:

Indian sponsored terrorism to sabotage the project

In March 2016, Pakistan announced that it had arrested a suspected spy from India's Research and Analysis Wing, Kulbhushan Yadav, who Pakistan accused of entering Pakistan from Iran specifically to destabilise regions in Pakistan's Baluchistan province to hinder implementation of CPEC projects.[275] Later on Kulbhushan Yadav confessed all allegations on media.

India has raised objections to the project and has set aside US$300 million to cause disruptive activities both physical and political. India has lodged permanent representatives of most of self-exiled separatist Baloch leaders and provides them forum for venting anti-Pakistan sentiment within India and other countries. Gravity of the matter can be gauged from the fact that during the construction of M-8, there were 207 attacks on the FWO workers by miscreants that caused 26 deaths of its staff, while 18 from the helping staff also lost their lives.[276]"''

It's also poorly written, but thats beside the point. I tried to compromise by writing a section entitled "Allegations of Indian activity against CPEC" in order to address his/her concern in a less biased fashion, and only wrote factual material backed by sources. He/she completely deleted this to re-insert his/her POV instead.

User Diannaa (talk · contribs) has rightfully pointed out that the last sentence uses a quote from a copyrighted source (see [276]), and so removed the quote. 39.32.222.179 (talk · contribs) quickly made yet another massive revert, and thus re-inserted the copyrighted source. I suspect that 39.32.222.179 is indeed Pprcgi as the sort of edit made is suspiciously similar to the sorts of reversions made by pprcgi, but of course, I cannot prove this.

We are also having a debate about his/her insertion of an article entitled "central alignment" too, but I'm trying to negotiate with him/her to expand the section before creating an entirely new section for his one sentence. Negotiations in that regard are ongoing as I've urged him/her to offer more in depth information in line with sections dedicated to "western alignment' and "eastern alignment" etc.

Here are the diffs of disruptive edits: [77] [78] [79] Willard84

1. Sign your posts. 2. Notify the person involved... --Tarage (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

1. My mistake. 2. User notified [80]Willard84 (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, with a reminder that recidivism will produce longer blocks. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Return of Indian cinema sock (and now personal attacks)

(non-admin closure) indefinitely blocked and talk page access subsequently denied by Nyytend. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page India at the Cannes Film Festival has been (re)created by Chimpidshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initially at Cannes Film Festival and Cinema of India before being moved). This page has been created under a variety of previous names by confirmed socks and raised at ANI before. Here are the previous ANI reports from Last April and September. This new sock has been around for about a month and has created an indentical copy of the previously deleted material. I'd appreciate if this could be looked at too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not a sock. And what is your problem Mr.User:Lugnuts, when some one has created a exhausted work on Indian films which won awards, and which were screened at the cannes film festival ?. On the other hand, If you suspect some one as sockpuppet, why dont you edit the article? what is your problem and why ru attacking new editors recreating content from previous sock puppet. This article is very essential. So you tell me where we can provide me this information in wikipedia about Indian films at cannes. Why are you against Indian cinema at cannes film festival ? You dont want to know which Indian films won awards at cannes? If you suspect a sockpuppet is creating the article, why dont you create a new article. what non sense is this? Chimpidshi (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And now this sock is harrasing me. I asked them not to post on my talkpage at 13:22 and they've added the same nonsense three times since being told not to. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Make that four times by reverting my removal of their comments on my talkpage! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've lost count now of the times he continues to post on my talkpage (someone take a look...) and it's now gone to personal attacks... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP breaching BLP

Blocked for 31 hours for an obvious breach of

WP:BLP. Credit to Eagleash for reaching out to them on their talk page, but the IP's claim was a) a serious allegation against a living person, b) so demonstrably contradicted by the links they referenced as to strain AGF beyond breaking point. Have advised the IP of how to appeal if they disagree with this assessment. -- Euryalus (talk

) 22:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP has been posting inappropriate and BLP-violating information on the talk page

Talk:Joseph J. Romm, accusing Romm of being a holocaust denier. The IP has been told in edit summary and on their talk page about the BLP policy, and told that Romm isn't a holocaust denier, but instead made the connection between climate change denialists and holocaust denialists. After the warning was posted to their talk page, the IP re-posted the accusation on the Romm talk page and deleted the warning on their own page. – SchroCat (talk

) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP alleges there are many sources. The proper retort would be, "Name one." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The immediate retort to the IP's edit was my edit summary, "remove WP:BLP violation without any reliable sources or proposals for article improvement" – if the IP wanted to support allegations, it's up to them to provide sources for discussion. They were advised to "actually read the results of the Google search you insist people do: although the terms both appear in the same article, at absolutely no point does he deny there was a holocaust". The IP's response does not show any willingness to name a source. . . dave souza, talk 15:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Then it's time to block that yoyo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel at this stage that a block might be a little harsh. The IP seems to have misinterpreted (AGF genuinely) what was said. Romm's analogy (as I understand it) was that denying climate change was a bad thing, as denying the Holocaust is. But, they (IP) have made a huge leap to taking that to mean denial of the Holocaust. Blocking may stabilise the article, but I believe it also important that the IP understands what they got wrong. Eagleash (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

But that has already been explained to them. The explanation was subsequently removed and the statement "Please leave this page free of your racist bollocks" left: they obviously did not read what was explained to them that time, but given their behaviour so far, I'm not entirely sure they will read a second or third explanation! – SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a block should be made. (1) The IP has put in the BLP violation three times and has ignored the edit summaries referring to

WP:BLP; (2) The IP *deleted* the first warning from his page; (3) no reasonable person could believe from a Google search what the IP wrote. But even if a block is not made yet, an admin should leave a clear last warning on the IP's page. BTW, just in case anyone wants to know, what Romm actually wrote was this, this and this. -- Ssilvers (talk

) 19:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Louise and Charmian Faulkner disappearance

Not an issue that requires administrator attention (non-admin closure) Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This was brought to my attention. I have to agree with the comment on the article's talk page - The Faulkner family or friends of the victims created the article as a way of bring attention to their campaign for justice.

Whoever created the article has used it to brand a named person as a double murderer with no trial or conviction in a court of law. That is legally defamation.

Nuke the article?

talk

) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to go through the linked references and verify the article per

WP:BLPCRIME). clpo13_(talk

) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was begun 8 1/2 years ago, and even then the case was 27 years cold. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Can someone with better wiki skills than me just nuke it or take it to AfD?

talk

) 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is this 8+ year old article suddenly a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the case would easily pass notability...certainly at the time (notability doesn't deteriorate, true?) and even now...a lot of the sourcing are likely in newspaper articles from the time (I'm sure there was huge newspaper coverage)...but there's still enough stuff on the web...article may need to be altered, but not deleted...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

the Faulkner family seem to have been happy to use Wikipedia to brand a person a double murderer without a trial or conviction. The fact that this went unnoticed does not change the fact that it could have got the wiki in hot defamation water.

talk

) 18:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Bloody lot of good it did them, if the mystery is still unsolved. Is the case notable by itself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely notable, the more I look at it...just deal with any content problems the article might have...http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/letter-points-finger/story-e6frf7kx-111111431770468.48.241.158 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I've filleted it of all its cruft, promo, unsourced OR, trivia etc, leaving the sections that remain with an opening summary statement. Suggest the mentions of the George character are revdel'd, and the article is rebuilt from scratch. it's obviously got a lot of potential; but not with Melissa or whassname in charge.
  ^{Imperatrix Mundi}
  19:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what I call a stubbing,

Paul Benjamin Austin for reporting and to Doug Weller for quickly removing the egregious BLP vio. Bishonen | talk

19:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC).

If this is still a problem, please take it to

WP:AFD. No admin action is required here. The Rambling Man (talk

) 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Noel McNamara created by one of the main contributors. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and if this, like all the other dubious material, was created years and years ago, then it can be sent to AFD. No admin action is required here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I've seen advertising of products get treated nicer than this was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harssment by SPA

Janitorial close - blocked indefinitely by KrakatoaKatie. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

reliable sources, and should also be blocked for harassment of other users. Their conduct is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk

) 09:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yscambridge should be indefinitely blocked pending a retraction of this. It's 450 words of legalese intimidation that, even if stopping short of saying ‘‘I will sue you’’, is clearly in violation of the spirit of NLT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

They've posted very similar legalistic intimidation against me and Edwardx at User:Yscambridge. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Joseph2302. This sort of behaviour is unacceptable, and a waste of our time. Plus there is nothing to indicate a willingness to learn or improve. Edwardx (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is pending deletion

WP:UAL could close it out? NE Ent

11:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that she is likely to win the by-election, after which the article would be restored, and judging by the persistence of this SPA, this issue seems likely to resurface. Edwardx (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If she wins the by-election won't more reliable sources surface to resolve the issue? If they don't, then clearly the subject still couldn't meet GNG. If the SPA is

"right" in their assertions then once the subject is covered in enough detail in enough third-party reliable sources, they will start to back up the SPA's assertions; if not, and the SPA still persists, then just block them again. This assumes they are blocked for the NLT violations, apologize/retract, and are unblocked. At present, they are just waiting to be blocked per NLT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 12:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If she wins the by-election it won't matter, as she'll automatically be notable as a member of the Houses of Parliament. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait, that's a thing!? If she meets that criterion but still doesn't meet GNG, doesn't the article still get deleted? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, per

WP:GNG. Laura Jamieson (talk)

13:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not if we couldn't write a decent independent biographical article on her without mentioning a certain fact and the simple news reporting on her election either didn't mention it or didn't focus enough on it for us to quote them on it and meet the very stringent criteria for BLP. I still like to cite this AfD on this point. To be fair, politicians are not like actors, in that invariably the most notable thing about them is their political career and such is almost always covered in the majority of RSs that cover them in any detail. Anyway, none of it really matters to this case, which appears to have been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, my attitude to "borderline" NLT-violations is the same as it was here. Neither Joseph nor Edward explicitly said that they suffered a chilling effect from Yscambridge's legalistic attacks, so the two-way AGF issue does not come into play quite as much, but the principle is the same, as it looks very much like a chilling effect was the intent of Yscambridge's posts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Now a

no personal attacks policy. Joseph2302 (talk

) 12:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyone bid a fond farewell to Yscambridge, as they are clearly

not here anymore. Katie^talk

12:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerning behaviour and username Cartoon Network (CN) Master