Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Proposed site ban for representatives of OMICS Publishing Group

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

---

Proposal: a site ban for Joinopenaccess (talk · contribs) and any other editor representing OMICS Publishing Group -- mainly on grounds of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive, which shows long-term and on-going attempts to use sockpuppets for promotional purposes and to remove well-sourced negative content. In addition, implied legal threats e.g. here (with emphasis on alleged "defamatory" editing by other editors). This disruption has been going on for many years now -- see this section of the OMICS talk page, giving other sockpuppet cases, as well as the archive indicating the nature of the "participation" from representatives of the company. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Nomoskedasticity is making a fair request. A sympathetic perspective of the other side is that seemingly, a series of staff have been hired by this company to promote it. The company seems to be in India. Perhaps they employ 1000 people - they say this. I expect that they are hiring educated academics. At the level of the individual, I have sympathy for the scholars who work for this academic publisher with good intentions. At the level of the company, OMICS actions seem to have little regard for Wikipedia volunteer time, and seems to not support the paid contributors who are being directed to make heartfelt pleas to Wikipedia.

Companies can change over time, but OMICS does not seem like they are here to make an encyclopedia. I have not seen evidence that staff of this organization wish to learn or consider Wikipedia community guidelines. They have an agenda. I cannot summarize all conversation because there are years of exchanges, but in brief - OMICS has not ever offered to give what Wikipedia requires in Wikipedia:Competence is required. I wish that OMICS could repeat back what has been told to them to demonstrate that they care about what they are being told. Maybe they have had 10+ staff engage Wikipedia - who knows. It is rough for volunteers to give this organization the time it requests, and they request a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support (to be clear I did suggest this in the first place). They've been given many opportunities to contribute constructively but have repeatedly tried to deceptively manipulate the article and we have to draw a line somewhere and ban them from contributing here any further. Most recently, several editors have been arguing that they are listed in pubmed when as User:Randykitty has pointed out, only very few of their papers are included there due to the work being published by NIH funded authors rather than the whole journal being indexed. User:Goattender started advocating changes, but as I explained here and here it became obvious that they were also being paid to represent OMICS, despite not being related to the Scholarscentral group of socks (not that they edited again after I confronted them). It's gotten to the point where they cannot be trusted to even suggest changes and a ban would stop us wasting even more time. (Just in case anyone is wondering this source is the most recent RS, published in August, and confirms that the current article is still accurate). SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is an unsavory company publishing very-low-quality academic journals and organizing equally low-quality conferences. Given the sources, our article is treating them lightly... The OMICS editors keep insisting that we include information about handwritten notes, make claims (like their journals being included in PubMed) that are demonstrably incorrect, etc. Just as in real life they don't seem to be interested in delivering quality products, they don't seem to be here to produce a good encyclopedia either. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, after having seen the sockpuppet investigation of Scholarscentral, the continuous unjustified de-defamatory edit( request)s on OMICS Publishing Group, and a quick verification in the NLM catalogue. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as there is only so much good faith you can give before you've run out of patience. Seeing the sockpuppet case, this is a no-brainier at this point. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support re assume good faith. If this is areputable company acting in good faith then they are incompetent. If they are not then we don't want them any way. Op47 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support If the behaviour of Joinopenaccess is indicative of the behaviour of representatives of OMIC group, then a site ban is definitely due. Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The master account User:Scholarscentral is already de facto banned with a long history of spamming/whitewashing OMICS articles, sockpuppetry and copyright violations, but a ban on any editing on behalf of this company is needed to prevent proxying as was threatened here by a recent sock. January (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It is an unacceptable move, i never edited the main article OMICS Publishing Group, I Only kept comments and asking permission to do editing at talk page. My question is why few editors are interested in this article from last three years. Any way I respect the decision of editors and administrators. Joinopenaccess (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: User:Joinopenaccess has been indefinitely blocked as another OMICS sock. ChemNerd (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: After looking at some the relevant talk discussions and that massive sequences of SPIs, I have nothing but sympathy for the editors who have had to wrestle with this company over the years. That being said, I have serious misgivings about the solution being suggested here and question whether a handful of editors on ANI are empowered to employ a sanction of this scope against an ambiguously-defined and potential large class of contributors. It's possible I am unaware of a relevant instance, but to the best of my knowledge, a siteban has never been instituted against all editors, present or future, associated with a given organization. That's a huge leap from the normal processes accepted under community consensus and any such move would require extensive and broad discussion in the community at large, especially when there are other more conventional oversight/administrative procedures which have not even been discussed as yet; for example, why was this exceptional action been deemed the best approach before the notion of taking the matter to ArbCom, which is ideally situated to deal with this manner of issue?

As a matter of longstanding and overwhelming consensus, editors are generally treated as individuals and their actions accordingly judged on an independent basis rather than by the company they keep or the associations they have, on or off the project. What would happen if, for example, the company hired a non-SPA, experienced editor to try to rehabilitate their image here within the framework of policy? This sanction would have such a user mechanistically site-banned, regardless of whether they knew about this ruling going in. For that matter, its not outside the realm of possibility that the company might send some of its employees here as SPAs and that one or more of them might make an honest study of WP's protocols and work within them. Regardless of whether or not that is likely, this proposed ban would judge and ban those individuals before their first contribution to the project, an action that is manifestly against some of Wikipedia's most deeply-held and critical open-collaboration principles. For the present time, paid editing is not cause for censure. Nor is the conduct of editors judged solely on the basis of the the span of topics they edit upon or their reasons for choosing them, even be they closely related to said topics. I understand the frustration of the above editors and others who have had to reign in what seems unquestionably to be a dodgy company here to manipulate process to its own ends--believe me, I've been there with regard to such editors. But I just don't see how a solution such as that proposed above is within the purview of a handful of editors on a noticeboard to institute, in seeming defiance of some of this community's most extensive and important consensus, especially prior to pursuing all available conventional administrative channels. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. English3023523 appears to be another OMICS spa. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Note. English3023523 not belongs to OMICS or its spa as per [1].
• The post from Snow-Rise is unfortunate. No one is proposing to be unreasonable here. If someone from OMICS decides to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly, then we can discuss rescinding the ban. To object to a ban because such a thing is possible is entirely beside the point -- because years of experience have shown that this is not what we should expect. The behaviour we have seen is the behaviour we should expect. It's thoroughly disruptive, and we should use the tools we have to deal with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound contrarian here, but I think it's indicative of a profound confusion about how consensus building proceeds on this project that you would describe another editor raising their concerns as "unfortunate", especially when we are talking about the possibility of making a huge departure from pre-exisiting policy and process regarding community sanctions. Either those concerns are superfluous, in which case they can be easily addressed or else they are well-founded in policy and community consensus, in which case it is manifestly a good thing that I have raised them. But it is in no event "unfortunate" that an editor chooses to provide their perspective, except for those instances in which comments are made with intention of offense or otherwise in bad faith.

So let's review those concerns, none of which you substanaitvely responded to, and consider your own assertions, and see which is consistent with our community standards and practically beneficial in this context. You say that "we should use the tools we have to deal with [the disruption]". But if you review my comments, you'll see that one of my principal points is that we (meaning the handful of editors who happen to be engaged on this one thread on ANI) do not "have" such "tools", in that this would be an entirely novel sanction, without precedent and extending well beyond existing community consensus on the scope of sanctions and the conditions under which they are to be applied. And all of this before actual existing tools and processes have been substantially explored, not the least of which is ArbCom; and frankly I can't remember the last time I saw a case that was better suited for ArbCom, which is the one collection of users who actually are empowered by the community to extend sanctions in the manner being proposed. Implementing such a decision independent of existing conflict resolution guidelines would require much broader community discussion if we ever expected the administrative corps to enforce it. Frankly, I think it's highly unlikely that any experienced admin would effect the action being proposed here, no matter the proportion of "support" votes, exactly because of how obvious it is that this "solution" would only complicate matters further. But let's presume for a moment that one would; I can almost guarantee that the first time a user is blocked for suspected association with OMICS, even though they have not violated an existing policy, there will be at least one admin (indeed, almost assuredly a great many) who will unblock them on the basis that they actually haven't done anything wrong under existing policy and community consensus. So if you were to prevail here, all you would accomplish is to drag more admins and more users into the contention surrounding this topic, amping up the disruption to the n-th degree.

But let's even put all of that aside for a moment. Let's consider if this solution you are proposing is even in any sense workable in practice, because I can't see how it could be. For our actual and existing policies on community sanctions we have methods for establishing when a user has engaged in disruptive behaviour. If a user has violated one of our behavioural or content policies, we provide diffs to show where this misconduct took place. If a user is suspected of socking, we have checkuser and other technical tools to investigate the matter. And note that the standard for evidence in imposing sanctions in these cases is, by design fairly high. If the "misconduct" you suspect is that a given editor is associated with OMICS, how are you going to prove that? Will you just move to have every relatively new user who edits the article to reflect a positive view of the topic banned as a presumed agent of the company? You don't see it as problematic to have "the suspicion of involved editors" be the standard of proof for this new class of misconduct you would have us create here, on an ad-hoc basis applicable only this namespace? And again, you expect this to decrease disruption on the target page, even though it would certainly lead to a constant block/unblock cycle with accompanying AN/ANI discussions and who knows what other kind of voluminous community discussion on the appropriateness of these actions within the framework of our existing policies? And if this company is really determined on side-stepping policy, making a statement by banning their overt involvement isn't going to stop them; it's just going to stop them from ever having their employees reveal their association with the company when operating here, making it more difficult to track their efforts with regard to the article and leading to yet more argument on trying to determine whose actions constitute evidence for a block. How is that an improvement on the current situation? I just don't think you've thought this approach through.

And all of the above can be weighed without considering the broader questions of whether the proposed action is consistent with our principles of open collaboration and never judging them on the basis of who they are but rather solely on the nature of their contributions to the project. Those issues are of massive importance, and entire discussion and of themselves. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Snow Rise You are raising fair points that need to be acknowledged.

One thing that OMICS does in compliance with Wikipedia community guidelines is use paid staff to request support from the Wikipedia volunteer community and engage in discussion. At a glance, it seems likely to me that this group has requested and received not less than 100 hours of volunteer time. While it is allowed to request volunteer support, it is extraordinary to request so much over so many years and all to seemingly come to no resolution or even progress.

An expectation of contributors to Wikipedia is that when they engage in Wikipedia, they find a way to productively contribute in accord with community norms and guidelines. Considering the amount of volunteer time donations this organization has been willing to accept, I think that it would be fair to do accounting of what OMICS has given back. May I ask you to please make a short list of the positive contributions that OMICS has given in exchange for the volunteer resources which it has continuously consumed for these past few years?

A normal exchange on Wikipedia is that someone needs about 15 minutes of an experienced Wikipedians time to be able to contribute several hours of their own time productively. This balance seems far disrupted in this case. The coverage of OMICS in this article has a lot of community review and consensus behind it. The article may not be perfect, but Wikipedia community process has settled on this version and I am comfortable saying the article is a product of Wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and not anomalous as unreviewed fringe content. Still, after all that OMICS has been given, they have the same requests without acknowledgement of the huge investment of attention which they have already received. Staff and consultants who over the past few years have demanded volunteer time have demonstrated no interest in supporting Wikipedia. I feel for OMICS, but protecting volunteers here is the priority. If you have seen positive contributions from OMICS then please share. It would be extremely helpful to have a list of the good things which have come from this organization, and you seem to be one who might have seen these things if anyone has. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I had no experience with this article until I saw this ANI discussion, so I'm not in a position to make such a case for the net value of OMICS' contributions to this project. But more to the point, I'm not trying to make any such case. Indeed, I made a point of introducing my comments here by noting that I am sympathetic to the editors who have had to wrestle with the company in many instances. I think you may have profoundly misunderstood my comments here and if that's the case, all I can suggest is that you go back and read them in detail, because I've already been, if anything, excessive in detailing them here. But in brief, I'm not making an argument for the cost-benefit value of OMICS-backed editors relating to the article or the project at large. By concerns are solely related to the solution being proposed here, which A) is well outside the scope of community consensus and policy on sanctions, B) would require broad community discussion well beyond a handful of editors on ANI, C) is being considered well before normal dispute resolution and oversight procedures have been exhausted and before the case has been proposed to ArbCom, D) is probably unenforcable as a practical matter, and E) attempts to address a problem that is already better resolved through our existing procedures for socking and disruptive activity.

I happen to agree that OMICS seems to be obviously intent on getting its way and, from the evidence I've seen so far (the SPI records in particular), seems to have often tried to brute force its preferred vision of the article into existence. Their socks can and should be banned on discovery. However, Wikipedia has never banned an entire organization nor a class of editor defined as being associated with an organization. That is a radical move that would need to be discussed broadly and, frankly, I can't fathom (per my comments above) how that would work on a practical/technical level. I'm sympathetic to the non-SPA volunteers who have dealt with this family of articles and that's why I've been volunteering some time the last few days on the OMICS Publishing Group talk page to try to iron out some matters.

But the solution being proposed here is, if I am to just be perfectly blunt, a hysterical and irrational one which not serve to stabilize the article but rather just introduce more battleground mentality. Contrary to your proposed ratios, there is no community rule (firm or rough) about how many hours or how much vaguely-defined benefit an inexperienced editor has contribute in order to validate their being taken for "legitimate" users by "more experienced" editors. Everyone is volunteering their time here and, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, they can choose when to disengage with the project in whole or with a particular topic, at will. But the flip side to that is that when and where they do opt contribute they don't have the right to leverage those lost hours as an argument against the value of others they voluntarily engage with, UNLESS it can be proven that the party in question is behaving in a manner that is defined as WP:Disruptive under our policies. To the extent that OMICS continues to send people here as sock or meat puppets or otherwise flaunt our rules, I have no objection to those accounts being blocked. If ArbCom wants to take up the case, they might even consider the extreme action of range-blocking OMICS' offices for a time--and for those who are really concerned about the influence of this company on WP, I really suggest you consider an ArbCom filing. But as for blacklisting an entire organization, that seems to me to be completely incompatible with WP's ideals and mission statement and, in any event, it would require broad community discussion.

One last point that is not directly connected to the above but which I think is worth stating here since I have had to go on at length anyway. While I think the OMICS-backed editors deserve "credit" for the lion's share of the adversarial atmosphere that now gripes that article and its talk page, it's clear that they are not the only ones who have adopted intractable positions as a result of the prolonged contest of wills. It looks to me from observing that TP the last week that at least some of the editors who have had to keep the company in check for years on end may now be over-correcting in how they look at the content and consensus building in that namespace. With respect, your absolutist back-and-forth with Tiptoethrutheminefield below is pretty indicative of how little either side is willing to budge; one camp says that the article is ideal and perfectly (or at least "acceptably") neutral, while the other insists that is a POV-ridden mess of an attack page. Having come to this debate as fresh set of eyes in the last few days, I feel fairly comfortable saying that I don't think most experienced and previously uninvolved editors would classify it as either. The article is not an attack page and does attempt to distill the essence of reliable sources which are generally quite critical of the company. However, there are also not-insignificant problems with consistency with policy in the way those views are written in the article which undermine its encyclopedic tone and neutrality. And there is huge resistance amongst the non-SPA editors there in making even small changes in these areas, even where policy is unambiguous (see the current discussions on SYNTH and PIPE issues for example), simply (I believe) because they are used to dealing with SPAs and have become overly defensive of maintaining the status qou there.

But no article is perfectly formed and there is always room for improvement. As there are now more eyes on the article and hopefully the socks will be caught out quite rapidly (and while we are on the subject, a thanks to bbb23 for his attention and alacrity in this regard), I hope that users will begin to let down their guard and begin to actually work on improving the article, rather than feeling they are defending it from the barbarian hordes and accordingly demanding the maintenance of its exact current wording, because ti certainly can stand from some adjustments. In any event, as I feel I have exhausted just about every last thing I can say on this topic, I hope you will not be offended if I do not respond further in this thread. I do, however, hope that you will join me on the talk page in trying to diffuse the situation there and iron out the kinks in the content! Snow ^{let's rap} 03:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Snow Rise I think that I understand you, and I feel comfortable in addressing you directly to disagree. I will respond to your lettered point -

A) The community is free to protect Wikipedia. In this instance it is doing so in the least disruptive way that anyone has imagined. All alternative courses of action that anyone proposes would be considered. Alternatives have been tested over years for many hours and everyone has had time to speak up. Even after this action there is time for people to propose alternatives.

B) There are enough community members here to make a decision. The case can be escalated, perhaps to WP:ArbCom, and you are correct to say that an organizational ban is an extraordinary measure. I hope you also would agree that the organization being discussed has extraordinary bad behavior, and has with dozens of accounts continually for several years.

C) I disagree that obvious alternatives remain. They have been used.

D) OMICS is interested in articles related to OMICS. Right now there is only one of those on Wikipedia. Routine oversight of that article combined with dismissal of staff engagement with is is a plausible remedy to the problem.

E) A huge amount of volunteer time has already been consumed on this matter and continues to be requested. There is no routine option left to try.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A) "The community" ≠ eight random editors (none of whom are an arb, a bureaucrat, or an admin) on a random ANI/talk page discussion which has been advertised in exactly zero additional community spaces in which a radical, highly problematic and demanding sanction are being propsed.

B) Yes the company seems to have acted in extreme ignorance of basic policy and often outright bad-faith. It's nowhere near the worst group we've had to deal with, and the project survives. And again, and maybe more importantly, our existing policies already do a better job of handling this manner of disruption without creating more disruption.

C) WP:DRN, WP:MEDIATION, WP:ARBCOM.... I'm looking at the archives right now and there's not even a single instance of an RfC.

D) It's not plausible because there are no such things as "OMICS-detecting" tools. We have checkuser to look for the socks of those who have previously been banned for disruptive behaviour (and our intuitions to know when to employ them), and we'll use them as necessary. But on an article where hostility to any change between two extremes has taken hold, how can you think it's a good idea to allow people to ban for "suspicion of being in league with the devil"? That's going to achieve the exact opposite of stabilizing discussion there. Look at the recent talk history on that page. You don't think that's problematic? Anyway, we do not blacklist organizations on this project; if you want that to change, you are going to need a huge community effort to make it happen.

E) WP:ARBCOM...WP:ARBCOM? WP:ARBCOM, WP:ARBCOM, WP:ARBCOM? I mean, I don't mean to be rude friend, but I'm beginning to feel like I am typing into a void. You (and others) keep making this assertion that all conventional alternatives have been pursued, and yet you never respond to the references to the actual conventional procedures that have not been availed of that prove that assertion to be patently false. Even if you argue that mediation and DRN would be a waste of time because the company operates in bad faith and always will (and that's a leap in itself), you still have ArbCom, which exists to handle exactly these problems. It is composed of highly experienced and skilled individuals elected by broad community vote and thereby empowered to do exhaustive investigations and consider the possibility of exceptional sanctions. We, a random of collection of editors who happened to be around to see a given ANI discussion, do not have such a community mandate to allow us to consider actions which go deeply against community standards on the scope of sanctions. Especially when the proposed solution is potentially so ill-conceived that is unlikely alleviate any disruption but rather likely to create more. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Snow Rise Probably the reason that you feel that you are "typing into a void" when talking to me is that we are starting from different premises. You seem to believe that OMICS is a rational actor and would be responsive to mediation. I believe that most mediation options are unavailable in this case, because mediation can only be used in contexts without overt maliciousness. OMICS presents only malicious behavior. It is not possible to accidentally get 50+ blocked accounts in the context a good faith effort to learn to use Wikipedia. To clear the void and make it easier for us to communicate, could you please give your opinion about the likehood of OMICS staff intentions being anything other than achieving their self-promotional goals without regard for the wellbeing of Wikipedia or its volunteer contributors?

A) January is an admin and DGG is an arbitrator, so you are mistaken in saying no admin or arbitrator is here. I think you are further mistaken to call the people commenting here a random sample of editors because highly experienced Wikipedians (judged by edit count and contribution quality) are commenting here and this is the noticeboard for discussing issues like this one.

B) Do you agree that this organization has many years of history of sending many paid staff to subvert Wikipedia without regard for Wikipedia or its volunteer community? That is the problem I would like to address, and I think the remedy being discussed here is fair for that problem. How would you frame the problem? If you would frame it as I do, then how would you address it?

C) DRN and mediation are for content disputes. This is a behavioral dispute, and should not be brought to those places. Arbcom rules on disputes when there are two perspectives in the Wikipedia community. In this case, OMICS' position is that they should be able to break Wikipedia community guidelines. Since that is not a defensible position, there is no need for Arbcom, and this can be resolved without them. Arbcom is not the place for all serious disputes - it is only the place for resolving difficult ones.

D) Yes, anyone who edits OMICS in a promotional way should be presumed to be "in league with the devil", as you say. This is a small Indian company with very little Wikipedia traffic and yet it gets more attention than other major Indian companies, and far out of proportion to the attention that low-traffic Wikipedia articles should get. Anyone fanatically passionate about this article and who makes a WP:SPA to edit this Wikipedia article in an inappropriate way can safely be presumed to be a paid affiliate of the organization. Previously editors have WP:AGF, but this discussion is about ending that assumption for this article.

E)I asked you in the beginning what good things OMICS staff have done on Wikipedia, and you said "I'm not in a position to make such a case for the net value of OMICS' contributions to this project. But more to the point, I'm not trying to make any such case." Yes, you are the person making the case for the value of OMICS' contributions, and now is the time to do your accounting if you have any. I will help you file a case at Arbcom if you draft out the worthy things OMICS has done and excuses for their bad behavior. There is no reason to go to Arbcom if no one has anything nice to say about OMICS and no one to defend their actions. Arbcom is based on an adversarial process and there needs to be two sides to argue. Arbcom is only a judge, but the power to execute is left to the community.

You have the power to execute here too. There is no assertion anywhere than there is more left to say, and I am not seeing any proposed arguments or remedies which have not bee considered. What is your perspective on OMICS' behavior? What more do you think there is to learn about it, and what information are you lacking that is a barrier to your making a decision on what to do in response? Based on what you know, what remedy would you propose to protect Wikipedia? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"You seem to believe that OMICS is a rational actor...To clear the void and make it easier for us to communicate, could you please give your opinion about the likehood of OMICS staff intentions being anything other than achieving their self-promotional goals without regard for the wellbeing of Wikipedia or its volunteer contributors?"

Again, it seems as if you are not really reading (or at least not digesting) my comments before you respond. I think I've made it overwhelingly clear what I think of OMICS' behavior on the project. I prefaced my very first post here by noting my sympathy for those who have to deal with. I've referenced unacceptable behavior on the part of the editors working for them in I think every post I've made in this discussion (in any, I've done so in every comment I've made in response to you). I've used terms like "bad faith", "disruptive", and statements like "unquestionably to be a dodgy company here to manipulate process to its own ends". I just cannot fathom how, using human language, I could more clear as to this point.

I've run out of variations on the very simple statement that I can think this company's agents are not acting appropriately and still thinking the solution you are proposing does not make sense! I really think you could benefit from reading our article on the logical fallacy called the false dilemma, because you seem to think the only choices available to us here are the two myopic ones you've constrained your vision to. I can think the company is WP:NOTHERE and not operating in an above board fashion and still think the solution you propose is ill-conceived, unworkable in any practical sense, contrary to Wikipedia's core tenants, in conflict with all explicit policy and community consensus on how sanctions work, liable to be exploited by editors on that page who have adopted a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, certain to cause more disruption rather than alleviate it, and just an all around awful, impractical, nonsensical notion that does not jive with Wikipedia process! I can and do believe all of the above without any of it being logically inconsistent with the rest. So can we please, please, please move past you trying to tell me that I have to defend OMICS' conduct in order to find fault with the action being purposed here? Because those are not the choices here and never were....

"Do you agree that this organization has many years of history of sending many paid staff to subvert Wikipedia without regard for Wikipedia or its volunteer community? That is the problem I would like to address, and I think the remedy being discussed here is fair for that problem. How would you frame the problem? If you would frame it as I do, then how would you address it?"

Please read my posts above. I can't be any more clear as to how I believe those activities should be dealt with and contained than I already have been, at great length.

"Arbcom rules on disputes when there are two perspectives in the Wikipedia community. In this case, OMICS' position is that they should be able to break Wikipedia community guidelines. Since that is not a defensible position, there is no need for Arbcom, and this can be resolved without them. Arbcom is not the place for all serious disputes - it is only the place for resolving difficult ones...There is no reason to go to Arbcom if no one has anything nice to say about OMICS and no one to defend their actions. Arbcom is based on an adversarial process and there needs to be two sides to argue."

No, ArbCom does not require exactly two perspectives in order to take up a case. I think you need to review WP:ArbCom and observe some cases. ArbCom frequently deals with disruptive issues that are immensely one-sided. Besides, as an outside party who has come to OMICS article/talk page through this discussion, it doesn't look to me as if OMICS editors are the only ones who have adopted battleground behaviours there. And the entire basis upon which you are arguing for this extreme action is that it is a very difficult one.

"Anyone fanatically passionate about this article and who makes a WP:SPA to edit this Wikipedia article in an inappropriate way can safely be presumed to be a paid affiliate of the organization. Previously editors have WP:AGF, but this discussion is about ending that assumption for this article."

First, the fact that you have framed this issue in terms of doing away with WP:AGF reflects exactly what I think is problematic with the solution being proposed here, no matter how narrow the context. Second, WP:SPA's are not against policy, nor is paid editing. WP:SOCKING certainly is, and that's the tool we'll use to get these guys again and again, just as every one of their accounts has been banned so far. And we can do that without compromising our principles, policy, or creating witchhunts on the the talk page, violating community consensus on sanction and the burden of proof for disruptive behaviour. You also seem to be missing the obvious fact that solution being proposed here: "[ban] any editor representing OMICS Publishing Group" is very vaguely worded and would apply to more than just SPA's....

"I asked you in the beginning what good things OMICS staff have done on Wikipedia, and you said "I'm not in a position to make such a case for the net value of OMICS' contributions to this project. But more to the point, I'm not trying to make any such case." Yes, you are the person making the case for the value of OMICS' contributions, and now is the time to do your accounting if you have any. I will help you file a case at Arbcom if you draft out the worthy things OMICS has done and excuses for their bad behavior. There is no reason to go to Arbcom if no one has anything nice to say about OMICS and no one to defend their actions. Arbcom is based on an adversarial process and there needs to be two sides to argue. Arbcom is only a judge, but the power to execute is left to the community.

Uh, no, that's not how process on Wikipedia works, by even a mile. You are the one seeking action against OMICS here. You have three options on how to utilize the community process here: 1) you can be satisfied with the steps that have been taken under our existing policy (and let's note that blocking the socks has so far sufficed to contain literally every editor OMICS has sent her so far), 2) you can take the behavioural matter to ArbCom (you're patently wrong that they cannot consider this case because there are two "adversarial litigants" involved) if you want a more comprehensive sanction, or 3) you can go to the talk pages for WP:BAN or WP:BLOCK, start a discussion on making a new principle for blacklisting organizations, promote it widely in the community, and try your luck. You wouldn't stand a chance on either of the last two, in my opinion, but those are your options. Neither I, nor any other editor here, is required to be your foil and to make the case for OMICS' value in order to point out that what you are proposing does not sync with policy and long standing community consensus. Again, please see false dilemma, and then review WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:BAN, WP:BLOCK, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Because, again, I genuinely do not want to be rude here, but you have some huge gaps in your understanding of how sanctions and the consensus process work on this project.

"Based on what you know, what remedy would you propose to protect Wikipedia?

I propose that we do exactly what we always do in cases like this. We use our blocking and socking policies to contain the SPA's. The action being proposed here wouldn't change the need for an admin to be involved anyway, so how do you think it would be more efficient? All it would do is embolden people with a battleground mentality to call for a block on there mere suspicion instead of going through the very simply process of testing that presumption. That and it could very possibly lead to non-SPAs being caught up under its wording if they voiced "pro-OMICS" perspectives. Look, the article clearly does not say what OMICS wants it to say, so this hand-wringing about protecting the project is alarmist to say the least; this group is not nearly the most entrenched, disruptive, or problematic collective of editors that Wikipedia has had to deal with, and we've never before found the need to compromise our community standards to the point of blacklisting entire organizations. Every SPA is being caught. Relax, we've got this, under normal protocols. The sky is not falling; we do not need to rewrite our policies on blocking to deal with this. But even if we did, you would actually need to be making these arguments on TALK:BAN, not here.

• Support A ban should make it easier to avoid the need to repeat obvious stuff on the talk page, and easier to block editors who mention words like "defamatory". According to the article, OMICS are seeking $1 billion in damages from a critic, so it is unlikely they will ever understand Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I find a lot of troubling editing and troubling content on OMICS Publishing Group. However, some of it has been done by the proposer of this site ban, Nomoskedasticity. The wording in the lede that he has been supporting has discarded all semblance of reasonableness and the type of content that a lede would normally contain. A lede should summarise the article's content. "The United States government have questioned the validity..." we are told boldly in the lede. Yet nothing in the content backs up such a claim. What we actually have is a trademark violation complaint by the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of the National Institutes of Health [2]. That is not the "United States government"! Yet not only is Nomoskedasticity insisting this wording is correct, he is claiming here that an objection to this obviously faulty wording amounts to an "implied legal threat". A lede would normally state what the article is about, then some undisputed facts, then what the subject of the article says it is about, and then third party opinions about that subject. But the current lede mixes everything up, mixing facts with opinions. The article is full of vague "it has been suggested" and "some observers" wording, and appears to be solely intent on piling up as much criticism of OMICS as it can find, regardless of the quality of that criticism. Any site ban for representatives of OMICS should be accompanied by an article ban for Nomoskedasticity. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you are suggesting misbehaviour on my part, I think you'll need to provide diffs for the assertions you make about the editing of the article itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Here [[3]] is a revert that restored the "United States government" wording, and that went back to a version created by you. The edit [4] which was cited by you at the start to be an "implied legal threat" specifically complains about that wording. Here you inserted an opinion into the lede, and presented it as if it were a fact: [[5]]. You have done this many times - here is an identical revert done some months earlier [6]. You did not originate that content, but by reverting you are taking ownership of the content you restore. This was the edit that did originate it [7]. Despite this content being added by an anonymous editor, and its content going completely against Wikipedia norms, multiple editors allowed that unsatisfactory wording to remain for almost a year and some repeatedly restored it when it was removed (including Randykitty [8], [9] and Joel B. Lewis [10]). This, to me, raises questions regarding their ability to edit this article impartially. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm perfectly content to have others assess whether that edit constitutes misconduct on my part. Thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Then extend the same courtesy to others. You are wanting editors site blocked for misconduct they have not done but MIGHT do. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And who is to decide who is "representing OMICS Publishing Group", and how are they to decide it? What does "representing" mean? Why propose something that is impossible to enforce correctly? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It is impossible to enforce such a blanket ban since it is impossible to know who is "representing OMICS Publishing Group" other than by using evidence from an editor's actual edits. If such edits are at fault, there are already plenty of Wikipedia procedures in existence to deal with such problems. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Would some of the supporters of this proposal answer my points made above. How exactly do they envisage this site ban being enforced? Can they cite any past examples of such a ban proposal being accepted as an appropriate solution? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: By their very nature bans are to some extent unenforcebale because a banned user can create a new account. It's a matter of whether the community is happy to continue the cycle of socks and paid editors complaining about the article or draw a line in the sand and say that we've had enough. There have been at least 3 unrelated groups representing OMICS in the last few months. It's not exactly the same, but there is a precedent in the banning of scientology back in 2009. As with that case the decision to block would be reliant on behaviour - it's not hard to spot them. SmartSE (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's just the point though--if someone is socking, then they can (and should) be blocked for that. It's an action which the community broadly recognizes as inherently disruptive and, in contrast to most other kinds of disruptive behaviour, we generally don't even give warnings before banning in cases of socks. However, paid editing is not a blockable offense; this is a clear and unambiguous matter of consensus arrived at after considerable debate amongst the community and the WMF. So users cannot just be automatically banned for their association with a company. They can face sanctions, as individuals, if they operate in a disruptive fashion because of the fact that they are paid to contribute here, but that cannot be blocked for that reason alone.

Notice that this distinction is completely consistent with the ArbCom scientology case you referenced; the Arbs in that case blocked specific accounts for specific disruptive activities. They did not suggest that all people associated with the church of scientology had become persona non grata on Wikipedia and would be blocked upon discovery, which is what is being considered here, so that case clearly does not present precedent in the sense of validating the overreaching solution that some editors have asked for here. There is the possibility of range-blocking the offices of OMICS as was done in the scientology case. Perhaps that's an intermediate solution that those who are most vexed with OMICS would consider beneficial. However, that action is in itself extraordinary and would need to be validated by ArbCom rather than us, the random collection of editors who happen to be presently contributing thoughts to an ANI thread. Still, it's a notion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you had a read about Wiki-PR and the Orangemoody case? That is far more insidious than what those affiliated with OMICS are trying to do, but nonetheless a ban was levied on the company. Blackmane (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note. Wikipedia should publish the truth from reliable prominent sources, not the opinions by competitors/representative from companies engaged in similar business. Yes OMICS Employees about 1000+ employees, there are all educated academics mostly from India, please don't highlight the nationality and criticize. There is no ban on OMICS Publications as explained, US Government never questioned OMICS about quality, the letter is about trademark infringement. After receipt of letter from DHHS/National Institute of Health OMICS rectified the error and later OMICS Published 2000+ [11][12] articles from last three years funded by DHHS/National Institute of Health , it is a clear evidence that there is no ban of OMICS Publications. We request the redrafting of first paragraph OMICS Publishing Group as there is a clear evidence that few Wiki editors framing sentences to make OMICS Wikipedia page defamatory The word predatory should be kept at controversies section only, as wiki editors following for other Academic publishing companies like Bentham Science Publishers, Dove Medical Press, Libertas Academica, MDPI and recently added Frontiers Media etc. Wikimedia should publish the truth then only people respect if it is becoming a platform for defamatory content for competitors then no one is going believe wikimedia content. Please don't spread lies through wikipedia, Please respect the truth. Refer the links for proof [13][14] Joinopenaccess (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Related note: an AfD has been created about the OMICS Publishing Group, apparently in response to an OTRS by the subject. LjL (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's clear the article will be kept. So this is still a live issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Part support a topic ban, normal COI applies. A workable prevention of the disruption would help - SNOW keep further AfDs etc, and if continues a measure like this. Widefox; talk 08:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support I am shocked to see that even in this discussion the organization uses socks. I can only trust the checkuser process that socks were used. If socks were used, there seems to be no end to the demands on volunteer time. Wikipedia volunteers need protection from never ending demands to bypass Wikipedia community guidelines. This organization seems to have money to hire staff to indefinitely and continually seek to circumvent Wikipedia's community review process. Banning the organization and keeping protection on the page seems like a fair option to protect volunteers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For those suffering from the heat of demands on volunteer time, better to get out of the kitchen for a while rather than knock holes in its walls. I think that a securely written article would be the best defense against those seeking to influence its content using illegitimate means. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield Thanks. The OMICS article is fine as it is and would not be easy to criticize with comparison to any other published source. It has been through a lot of community editing and been thoroughly reviewed especially for an article which gets such low traffic. I think anyone would have trouble finding a less read article which has received this much attention from experienced Wikipedia editors. This is a securely written article that has been stable for a long time and I expect that it can remain as it is, which is good enough. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is NOT fine - it is a pov-riddled mess of an attack article, a status supported by longterm editors of the article (for which it has got personal), that gives to it an open-door for OMICS representatives to edit war. This seems to have gone on for years. Rather than propose an extreme one-off sanction that is unworkable, the article should be fixed. Then there would be no openings for those reps to exploit, no extremes for them to protest about, and when they offend they could be easily dealt with using existing sanctions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield The article is "fine" in the sense that it is the kind of content which Wikipedia tries to produce. When you say the article is "not fine", my thought is that you must not like Wikipedia's usual editing process, which is to summarize the existing published sources giving fair weight to sources according to their prominence.

Do you feel that Wikipedia is not summarizing the available sources? Do you see some better review of this topic other than this Wikipedia article? If there is something better, then Wikipedia can summarize and mirror the better source. Is Wikipedia citing sources that do not meet WP:RS? What problem do you see here? I think the article is rather good and wonder what you are seeing that I am not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support the site ban. The simplest way to handle this is to think of them as meatpuppets. People with direct COI have a right to contribute only if they do it reasonably; The continual advocacy that has marked their contributions is unacceptable. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Note I just blocked Peak2015 (talk · contribs · count) for mass canvassing relating to this. Do what you will with the posts. —SpacemanSpiff 09:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted all the canvassing. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Detrimental to the Project, since WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Note -- the article has in fact been kept at AfD, so again this is a live issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• This case is now 18 days old and as there has been no movement for 4 days I'm closing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Widefox

The above-mentioned user criticized my conflict on Irvington, New York, and then began hounding me on issues of my conflicts of interest (see his talk and COIN). His recent tricks include editing Wikipedia's policies, directly, with very little discussion, and then telling me I'm not following those policies he just created. He's also making up his own interpretation of the Terms of Use to mean that every single edit I make to any talk page, main page, or sandbox should include that I'm an editor with a COI and that I should link my disclosure. That's ridiculous, something no COI editor has ever done or should ever have to do. They should only need to disclose it on their userpage, once on the COI article's talk page and whenever editing the COI article directly (discouraged). He's also been changing the rules to ban putting your disclosure on a subpage of your userspace, something I saw no problem with, as long as it's well linked. Please help me out here. Please address his hounding as well, I feel he should be penalized for that as the policy suggests, his harassment of me over all my work is overbearing and simply awful. Thank you.

My work isn't perfect, if you want to bring that up here, go ahead. It's impossible to cross every 't' and thus Widefox has pointed out a few places where I could do better in being a COI editor. Please note that I'm still very new to this, as bound to make mistakes as a first-year prep cook. However note that I've been involved on Wikipedia for a relatively long time. I've gotten to know most rules, except maybe not as many as others of similar age; I try to stick with content creation. I like writing Good Articles, and I'm honestly very proud to have written two FAs. That's where my enjoyment in Wikipedia stems from, not these tendentious discussions or editing under conflicts of interest. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am uninvolved in any article or dispute, and initially just warned both edit warring parties.

The accusation of hounding was made here User_talk:Widefox#Your recent edits and was challenged to provide evidence three times, even pointing out that it can't be hounding per my "concerns over your editing" in WP:DWH. Just now another editor said to remove that warning from Ɱ as unfounded [15].

Ɱ should be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG of paid editing disclosure. Summary at WP:COIN#Ɱ - it would be much simpler if User:Ɱ just disclosed per the WP:TOU, as laid out in the best practice WP:PAID#How to disclose (and links).

Latest summary is [16] at WP:COIN#Ɱ (where yes I even state that as I've emergency edited the policy to make it comply with the ToU, I'm quoting other editors about Ɱ's compliance level, not mine - which is characterised by other editors - as outrageous to hide it.)

Background is the with need to disclose "all contributions" (we are only talking about paid editing) "any paid contributions" per ToU Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:COI declaration (Ɱ's misguided use of this outdated essay is helping us prevent others be misguided by it - by deleting it), Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Disclosure contradiction, WP:COI#Paid editors (history of WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY, specifically [17]), Template_talk:Connected_contributor_(paid)#Drafts etc,.

There's agreement from others (will ping them only if needed) to ensure WP:PAID complies with ToU with no dissent, and scrutiny of several creators/admins/other editors (see those talk pages).

In summary, yes the policy is more explicit, but [18] summarises what others say about Ɱ's old (and current) collapsed (hidden) disclosure. Widefox; talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate a more cohesive answer; it's very hard for me to follow. The evidence that you are hounding me is simple. Look at the edit history for my talk page. Look through all of it; I removed most due to your illegal harassment over my work. You first criticized my handling of the Irvington issues, and then went on to criticize my handling of my COI articles. That is hounding. Read the definition, especially at the bottom where it says it could lead to blocks. The editor who called it 'unfounded' had no involvement in any of these issues, was not directed to where the discussions were taking place, and simply was stating my warning to not include details backing it up. Also don't tell me to follow rules you and one or two other editors decided and published yesterday or the day before. It's not right. There are dozens if not hundreds of COI editors. Hound them for not following your new PAID rules too. Yet I object; edits to policies should only be made after a sincere and concise proposal is made, discussed, and voted on with a strong turnout of editors. Even if all of that doesn't happen, at least some of that should in order for a fair and agreeable consensus to be met. Yet none of that has happened here. I am disgusted by your wording "emergency edited the policy". That should be ban-able behavior. The policy WP:POLICY backs me up on all of this, especially WP:PGLIFE. Cease and desist.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. It would be appreciated if there was a bit more clarity about the problem. The COI issue was raised at WP:COIN with regard to edits by User:Ɱ to Interactive Brokers, an article which read too much like a brochure. I removed some promotional material (a list of features) from that article, added some material about some litigation, and considered the problem solved.[19] That was four days ago, no one has objected to those edits, and that does not seem to be the issue. Over at Irvington, New York, there's been some edit warring there over bold text vs. headings between Ɱ and Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs).[20] Widefox has only one recent edit to that article, and it's trivial.[21]. Ɱ is drafting a paid article about some musician in a sandbox, but that only becomes a COI problem if they try to publish it. There's lots of argument on various talk and noticeboard pages, but few diffs. I've been reading notice boards and talk page histories for ten minutes and still can't figure out the underlying issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nagle: I can clarify. The original list of features was in the article long before I started editing the draft. I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable. You're incorrect, I had objected to those edits similar to how I am now. I'd like to reiterate that the Irvington conflict was not 'edit warring'; I explained this in great depth to Widefox on my talk page. Widefox was involved in the Irvington issue on the Irvington page, as well as on Beyond My Ken's talk and my talk. He was pretty thorough in scolding how I handled the conflict, and went on to criticize my COI work, also in great depth. I honestly won't be surprised if he starts to criticize some of my volunteer article writing here too. I haven't been providing diffs because most of this is talk page discussion, most of which is still live on the talk pages; therefore it should all be follow-able. Also most discussion has involved several edits making up one reply, so it's much easier to direct you to the relevant pages (here, COIN, my talk, Widefox's talk, and WP:PAID (Widefox, am I missing some?)). ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 07:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think some of my comment got lost here; I'm going to restore the comments on my talk page for everyone's ease of access for assessment. I removed them (within user rights) previously due to harassment; they consisted of Widefox's repeated criticism of several different works of mine. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 07:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ɱ, I repeat John Nagle's comment - what's the actual hounding. Do you have any evidence at all - diffs? I've asked that 3 or 4 times on my talk and I'm still waiting an answer, days went past and another editor said to remove your unfounded hounding accusation. Ɱ, further you still haven't answered that as this is just my "concerns over your editing" per WP:DWH, so it is not hounding. (John Nagle - just to inform you, the ToU state that "all paid contributions" must be disclosed, not just articles.)

Nobody has edited the ToU, hardly "tricks". But, a paid editing disclosure that isn't visible (hidden in a collapsed at User:Ɱ) is exactly that - WP:LAWYERING. Other editors agree that disclosure is unacceptable. So far, I've resisted a call to take Ɱ to ANI over this [22].

"illegal harassment" really should not be used above [23] per WP:LEGAL. I'm increasingly concerned that User:Ɱ has attempted to contact me offwiki - I've asked what for and don't have an answer. What for Ɱ? Now there's legal accusations. I'm just a volunteer, and Ɱ should not hide their paid editing disclosure on their user page. It's that simple. My concern over Ɱ's editing is not a LEGAL issue per WP:LEGAL#Conflict_of_interest. Attempts to get me "banned" are just that - all heat and no light.

Do I have to put up with this [24] ? That is specifically WP:LEGAL combined with unspecified offwiki communication [25]. Please can this be addressed as it now sits uncomfortably with me. Widefox; talk 08:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "contact me offwiki"? Is there a specific comment that makes you believe Ɱ attempted something offwiki? If so, please link to the section and quote some text to allow it to be found. Re Ɱ's "illegal harassment" remark above: that is probably just clumsy English. The claim appears to be that Widefox harassed Ɱ, and harassment is not permitted = against the rules = illegal (incorrect terminology). I don't see any evidence to support the claim of harassment other than the sweeping claim that inspecting the history of User talk:Ɱ will reveal all. That history shows Widefox posted 15 times on the page in just under 24 hours, starting on 6 November 2015, and with no other edits in the last year. It is hard to see how that isolated burst of activity could be regarded as harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Johnuniq Ɱ did attempt offwiki communication - email. I don't know what for - I asked "You tried to contact me offwiki - why?" [26], Ɱ refers to the offwiki attempt here "how is 'attempted off-wiki communication' not allowed?..." [27]. Widefox; talk 09:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Again I repeat: "Widefox was involved in the Irvington issue on the Irvington page, as well as on Beyond My Ken's talk and my talk. He was pretty thorough in scolding how I handled the conflict, and went on to criticize my COI work, also in great depth." These aren't normal concerns over my editing. Right after getting into a confrontation with me, you specifically looked through my work, found I was a COI editor, and proceeded to attempt to have me conform to your wishes, with you going so far as to write policies to accuse me of not following. "Illegal" is a word that means "not legal" or "not following legislation"; "not following the rules". Therefore harassment is illegal here on Wikipedia. I did give you an answer about trying to contact you off-wiki. I'd like to sort things out, and better methods of communication usually help. There is nothing against me doing that, so stop pretending there is. You've made an issue of that as if I'm breaking some terrible law a few times now. As for "hiding my paid editing disclosure"; for so long, any user could so easily find it on my talk page, so prominently linked. Nobody's ever had a problem with that. Now I've got it on my signature and main userpage. When is enough enough? Would you like me to bold, italicize, and highlight it in red in font size 80 at the very top of my userpage? Johnuniq - as I said, read my (now restored) talk page. After he criticized me for Irvington, he's now WP:HOUNDING me over the COI pages and my disclosure. I feel harrassed. There's no written textual or other evidence to that, unless you'd like to read my thoughts of "I really want to quit this whole project, I try really hard to do good solid work and this user keeps 'assaulting' me with different policies, guidelines, essays, and even the ToU that I'm apparently breaking. I'm sick of this". Please read the details of hounding. Such pursual of criticizing me and my work is a bannable offense. It's written right there, why can't anybody follow Wikipedia's rules and at least look into Widefox's widespread accusations? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 09:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Harrias (talk · contribs) stated "As you have accepted, you [Widefox] have been instrumental in recent changes at WP:PAID, to tighten the guideline, and Ɱ does appear to fall short of the current text. However, as that has only been in place for a day or two, and by your own admission (here), "we've got limited consensus here", I think it is over the top to expect Ɱ to have been adhering to those guidelines, particularly as you are referring to events that occured before you even changed them." "until your edits to it on 6 November, after the start of this discussion, it was not explicit that it [the COI disclosure] must be visible". Please read through these statements. Don't tell me to follow rules you and one or two other editors decided and published yesterday or the day before. It's not right. There are dozens if not hundreds of COI editors. Hound them for not following your new PAID rules too. Yet I object; edits to policies should only be made after a sincere and concise proposal is made, discussed, and voted on with a strong turnout of editors. Even if all of that doesn't happen, at least some of that should in order for a fair and agreeable consensus to be met. Yet none of that has happened here. I am disgusted by your wording "emergency edited the policy". That should be ban-able behavior. The policy WP:POLICY backs me up on all of this, especially WP:PGLIFE. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 09:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note I am very busy right now in real life. I'll have limited replies here over the next day or two.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 09:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has edited the ToU. Why all this heat, when you can just fix your hidden disclosure on your userpage? I'm waiting for an answer from Harrias (talk · contribs) "it was not explicit that it must be visible" - factually correct yes, do you really believe an invisible disclosure is OK? Want to get another opinion on that LAWYERING?! [28] . As you bring it up here, that's waiting for a reply from Harrias. Widefox; talk 10:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) What's waiting for a reply. Never stated you edited it. Don't want to, and I should have the right not to. And yes, having a drop-down (in your words, "invisible" (huh?)) should be just fine! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We go by consensus here - what have other editors said about your hidden disclosure? This is WP:BOOMERANG as nobody agrees with you that this is harassment, and everyone who's commented agrees your hidden disclosure is not acceptable and should be fixed. You were unwise to bring here, rather than the slower pace of COIN. Widefox; talk 10:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Um, I count zero uninvolved editors here who are telling me to remove the drop-down. I count zero uninvolved editors who have even looked into this hounding issue in depth, as you keep steering away from it. What all of this shows me is this conversation still needs an abundance of third parties before we go around declaring who should change what. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Case in point, this is an administrator's noticeboard and yet not one administrator has commented yet. Hold your horses.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Indignant walls of text are very hard to follow. To show harassment, just post a couple of diffs. I don't know where the comment by Harrias occurred so I can't see the context, but taking a wild guess, the comment appears to miss the fact that the Terms of Use are not something written on a page at enwiki, and certainly were not written by Widefox, nor were they written a day or two ago. As a rule of thumb, someone with a COI who has complied with the letter and spirit of the ToU would post a very short note saying the information is clearly on their user page, so there is no problem. Did that occur? Was there any (claimed) harassment after that? Or, is the situation that compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step, where each step required significant comment by others? Please stop talking about "illegal"—one of the very few places that term arises in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is at WP:NLT which says that editors who hint they may pursue legal action against another editor are indefinitely blocked (people take legal action because they believe something "illegal" has happened).

Re the comment by Widefox at 09:50, 12 November 2015 above: Ɱ is obviously correct that the "email this user" function may be used (if each party has enabled email); if "contact me offwiki" means you received an email sent by that function, I fail to see the problem because responding to it is entirely voluntary. Please don't use code words suggesting some nefarious activity if what you are talking about is "email this user". Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What the terms of use actually say is:

"You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."

I have statements on the talk pages accompanying. That appeases (for lack of a better word this late) the Terms of Use. So my user page statement (and signature link) is a bonus, a goodwill effort on my part to tell users of my affiliations. I could blank all of my userspace right now and still be okay under the Terms of Use. I don't think Widefox or Johnuniq got this earlier, so I hope this explanation helps. Wikipedia's policies should not have been adjusted any stricter than the above statement. Widefox is out of line.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I second what Johnuniq said. Please provide diffs that show Widefox has committed "illegal harassment." —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Diff 1 (of Widefox warning me for "edit warring"). Diff 2 (him starting a discussion on my "edit warring"). Diff 3 (me informing him I wasn't edit warring). Diff 4 (him further reprimanding my "wrongdoing"). Diff 5 (him completely changing topics, after seeing my COI disclosure wasn't on my main userpage). Diff 6 (me telling him this unprovoked and unrelated criticism is unnacceptable per WP:HOUNDING). Then the conversations went on, on that talk page. And spread to the above-mentioned pages, to here.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 11:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, he added tags to these three pages that I believe constitutes hounding. It's also a completely inappropriate use of the tag, as he put them all on the articles immediately as a notice that I'm involved (even though I already 'tagged' the article talk pages) and never even critiqued their content once. He was simply putting a marker on the articles I contributed to, which reminds me of the barbaric historical marking to indicate a lesser entity, as was done to several groups in the 1930s and 40s.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 11:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq yes technically, but just because I had left my email on accidentally (to get library permissions) doesn't mean I'm inviting COIs to email me. I choose not to interact offwiki - e.g. would you want this COI [29] in your email? I'm still waiting for Ɱ to say what they wanted to say offwiki. And yes, it is "compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step" - moving the disclosure to the userpage - but it was still collapsed (I see only after ANI it had been unhidden), initially stating drafts weren't covered and then in protest disclosing them on the draft talk (while still stating it wasn't needed). ToU is clear "all paid contributions". I double checked with others and they agreed it covers drafts. Ɱ has consistently tried to close down discussion of their disclosure. Part of that is reasonable, certainly the timeframe is, and our wording was a mess which needed emergency repair as it was weaker than the ToU (which we are not allowed to do). I fixed that in passing. Ɱ was following an outdated essay. I MfDd that. At all places I've pinged the authors etc. This can all be handled at COIN, rather than here. I've consistently said I consider Ɱ good faith. In fact, I felt for Ɱ in the initial edit warring, but treated both parties equally. I welcome scrutiny as I am proud of fixing these things, but have only done them in passing as they fell short of the ToU. The ToU is clear. Is an hidden (collapsed) disclosure allowed by the ToU? There's agreement that it must be visible, and that should be explicit in our guidance. Ɱ brought this here, before doing that, and didn't reply to my request to provide harassment evidence until ANI.

Note that Ɱ's disclosure can't be seen in the history of User:Ɱ as the disclosure is still not on the user page, it is in User:Ɱ/u (and conditionally displayed at the user page depending on date or something from looking at the code). I hadn't even realised this until now - technically it isn't "a statement on your user page," more like "a statement that may (or may not) be displayed on the user page Ɱ". (or ‎Widefox; talk 12:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Widefox leaving you the edit warring warning, and then trying to explain it to you. Reverting someone twice indicates you are in an edit war. Some people do not know of the 3RR rule and a template warning is perfectly appropriate. I fail to see any hounding or harassment. Often if you see suspected problematic behavior from an editor, further problematic behavior is discovered when you take a look at the account. If Widefox looked at your account and saw something he felt violated guidelines, that does not qualify as wikihounding. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, and I used the correct edit war template rather than 3RR template (and explain that difference Diff 4 adding "the incivility on the other edit war party is unacceptable but that's not for your page"). Checking a COI while seeing problematic editing is due diligence in my book. Ɱ - did you even read how none of this is harassment per WP:DWH "civil and appropriate" like I've told you several times? Widefox; talk 13:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The COI tags on 3 articles are easily explained - I was concerned about them, but the amount of volunteer time it's taken to get Ɱ disclose meant that I didn't get back to those articles! The COI tags were removed within minutes [30] and I wasn't going to edit war over them...the next edit User:Nagle [31] added advert tag, so hardly controvercial. Scrutiny was good. COI editing here was promotional, and I'm finding reaction to that normal message agressive. Fix the issues, not complain about the messenger! COIs are allowed to remove the tag, but they really should refrain from directly editing articles when uninvolved editors object. Nagle's cleanup was objected to, so this borders WP:OWN. Widefox; talk 15:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) Respectfully, I'll wait for an administrator to tell me you were within rights at such investigation and inquisition. It's too unreasonable; I still haven't even fully resolved the Irvington issue, nonetheless all of this! Widefox, if you're still waiting for me to tell you what I wanted to say off-wiki, then it's pretty clear you're ignoring my comments. I stated it twice already, I'm sick of explaining myself over and over. The Terms of Use describing contributions only pertains to the mainspace, the live area that readers will see. Anything else would be ridiculous and unnecessary. However you disagree and already enacted on that, but seriously, a formal discussion and vote must be made. You cannot serve as sole arbitrator here. Stop calling my work promotional, I didn't even add the products section. I hardly touched it. Some neutral editor probably thought it was a good idea and I'm not a deletionist, I'll respect that editor's decision. Look at the article's history, it's existed in some form since 2006, long before I even started editing. People were okay with it for almost 10 years. Also, the idea of my COI disclosure not being on my userpage is garbage, sorry. I use a mirror so vandals don't edit my userpage. Common practice. The text always is the same, "a mirror never lies". The content may not be in the edit window, but it's on the userpage for all to see. I'm so sick of you trying all these loopholes and workarounds on me. Though your language is civil enough that everyone else has overlooked it, your bugging me over every issue, your twisting of policies and manipulation of a few select editors to seeing your vantage point; it's all far too overbearing. Even if an administrator thinks it wasn't hounding before, they really should know it is now. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the edit warring at Irvington, New York is over a formatting issue of bolding vs. a subhead.[32]. This is petty. Please drop the stick. Someone else will clean it up if necessary. As for Interactive Brokers, Ɱ writes above "I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable". So after the admitted paid editor consults with the people who pay him, he can put an edit request on the talk page. Is there anything else? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes John, I'd like to see this action:

1. consensus (and wording) is ToU covers "all paid contributions". Ɱ's claim above "only pertains to the mainspace" is against consensus. This issue will not go away as it is a legal requirement to edit on WP. (excuse bold, but this is bold if ever there is a use of bold!) Ɱ's statement above attempts to diminish the scope of the ToU (which we are not legally allowed to do), and indicates that Ɱ doesn't feel bound by the ToU or consensus. As such a normal escalation process should start when going against consensus or refusing to abide by the ToU until agreeing to comply with both. (we are seeing this WP:IDHT with several paid editors, and warning templates are currently being written). Per WP:PAYTALK this is disruption, so:

1.1 suggest L3 or L4 warning to be given to Ɱ for disruption (not including wasting everyone's time here over a bogus ANI) and refusal to be bound by full terms of ToU. If not agreeing to fully comply with ToU within a reasonable time, suggest next stage would be 24 hr block etc. I do not rule out an initial 24 hr block due to simply stating they don't feel bound by the legal terms of ToU (which must at some point be enforced by volunteers, then WMF).

2. The userpage User:Ɱ does not have a disclosure on it. Fact. Userpage was last editing 8 March 2015. There is a disclosure on User:Ɱ/u which is sometimes (but not necessarily always) programmatically displayed when viewing that userpage (no popups, no history, no indexing, with the right browser, and other limitations and dependencies such as the right date/other files?!). Ɱ has no disclosure on their user page

2.1 The ToU states one on any of three places so as long as there's disclosure on "all paid contribution" talk pages, that isn't a problem per the ToU. However, best practice (policy/guideline) states to additionally put a disclosure "on" the "main user page". Suggest holding Ɱ to best practice, in a reasonable timeframe (not urgent).

3. Agree with John Nagle suggestion, Ɱ abides by COI best practice - does not directly edit articles with a COI, and uses (paid) COI edit requests. Widefox; talk 11:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

None of these three (five) points requires administrator action. I think this can be closed at ANI now: Widefox is pursuing a COI issue, and there is a relevant thread at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Widefox's actions, while dedicated, don't cross the line. Ɱ has made clear efforts to adhere to COI requirements, though there are some areas in which things have not been as clear as they should, but I don't believe a block is warranted. Harrias ^talk 11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Harrias, WP:PAYTALK does require admin action IMHO. This is a hundreds of lines of PAYTALK (multiple venues), and we are specifically not meant to do this, and I'd like to see a warning for disruption be given before thread is closed, else due to the legal implications above, I will feel obliged to start a new ANI thread, and I'd really like to get off ANI. Widefox; talk 11:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Warnings do not have to be given by administrators. Nevertheless, can you provide diffs for the PAYTALK issues; I would suggest doing so under a subheading of this thread for clarity, and ease of reading! Harrias ^talk 11:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, will do. (Also, the ToU enforcement, unless I'm mistaken is a new responsibility for volunteers (admins, non-admins). WMF is not policing unless escalated to. My logic is - if someone is explicitly stating at ANI that they are not bound by the letter and spirit of the ToU despite consensus at multiple locations, then what is the suggested escalation path? A procedural issue due to it already being here at ANI (rather than being at the right place of COIN) Widefox; talk 12:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) I could argue so many points here. Harrias and Widefox are wrong in so many ways. I'm tired of addressing them. If another editor or administrator wants to address faults in the above statements, feel free. Apparently I'm not violating any guidelines or policies, so I'd like Widefox and Harrias to stop any accusations. I would like an administrator to step in. Regardless of the wording at WP:HOUNDING that editors like Widefox can always weasel their way around, as Louis CK was known to say: "When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." I would also like recent edits to WP:PAID reverted as they lack widespread consensus, which is essential. See WP:PGBOLD. Not a single COI editor was involved in these decisions, making the discussion rather one-sided (not consensus). ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 08:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is WP:IDHT / WP:PAYTALK with the ToU scope, and not having any disclosure on your userpage (it is on a subpage) is not best practice. Consensus about this was over a week ago. When requesting changes to WP:PAID be aware that per WP:COI (and now WP:PAID) you should disclose your COI / paid COI respectively. This WP:PAYTALK just goes on. As for providing diffs, the discussions are linked above and at COIN. I will post the many diffs... Widefox; talk 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your insertion of links everywhere in the above message is muddling your meaning. Regardless "best practice" sounds like an opinion-based statement. I will follow policies and guidelines, I will not follow what a random collective of editors wants to impose upon me without clear consensus and without establishing a formal, written rule. Written rules were historically established so people would be able to know when they are and are not following them, and what the punishment is for not following them. An unwritten rule like a "best practice" does not have that given. Thus, if you want to change things, request edits to policies and guidelines through the proper channels. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

PAYTALK

• Disruptive editing: WP:PAYTALK.
• WP:PAID has been editted by the paid COI editor User:Ɱ without disclosure in the edit or talk [33]. It was undone by another editor. This is against WP:COI and WP:PAID (and possibly WP:TOU). Widefox; talk 13:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect. As I disclose in my disclosure I am only paid to write the article on Shiner and improve the IB articles and Thomas Peterffy's. My edits anywhere else are as a volunteer, and thus have absolutely no relevance to WP:COI or WP:PAID, and do not need a COI disclosure!--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

People who have a financial interest in a policy or guideline should not be editing that guideline ever. To do so without noting they have a financial interest is inexcusable. In this case the edit was to make a change in the disclosure requirements for discussing changes in that very policy. Based on what I read about Ɱ's issues with disclosure at WP:COIN I can not AGF here and presume they are here to advance their own and/or others' financial interests. Jbh^Talk 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an opinion that may be valid and agreeable, however it is an opinion. Please cite a policy. It highly disturbs me that you "presume [I] am here to advance [my] own and other's interests". I have been editing as a volunteer longer than you. I have created Good Articles, Featured Articles, and Featured Lists. I have a TFA. I have many DYKs. I have researched endlessly about topics I've later created articles on. I've written templates. I've removed so many cases of vandalism. I've taken hundreds of photos and uploaded them to Commons. I've scanned archives into Commons. I've served as an active Wikipedian in Residence. I've been to and even organized and hosted Wikipedia events. Most of that information should be evident if you do enough digging. So for you to plainly state I'm here to support some company I worked for two summers ago or one artist I wrote a page about, both of whom paid me, is pure ignorance. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is all quite wonderful, you should fully understand why volunteers want to know if someone has a financial interest in policy discussions or in edits being made to either articles or contributions to discussions. Even if all of your edits are perfect in all ways we are writing policy and enforcing guidelines for those who are not all sweetness and light. From the behavior I have seen from you here I do not see a Wikipedian who has spent years building the project I see one which is trying to do the absolute minimum to comply with the disclosure requirements when we are just getting a handle on how to keep people from exploiting this project for financial gain. That behavior from any editor is something I will condemn. Jbh^Talk 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Ɱ Removed their paid editing disclosure completly from being visible on User:Ɱ (by removing it in User:Ɱ/u [34]), then an hour later
2. Ɱ Edited WP:PAID without disclosing they are (or have been) a paid editor [35], undone [36] per WP:COI / WP:PAID. This is highly improper that a paid editor 1. edits the paid editing policy, 2. doesn't disclose a COI, and 3. worse of all made an edit to reduce the disclosure when editing the policy itself - the exact thing they are doing! This is a COI editor reducing the need to disclose a COI on a COI policy. It's past bold and reckless, past AGF, it is subverting policy. Widefox; talk 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• • Ɱ has removed all paid editing disclosures from their user page User:Ɱ with this edit [37] (the one that was actually never put on their user page but on a subpage User:Ɱ/u, but was sometimes visible from the user page). This is against best practice per WP:PAID WP:COI and (although if technically meeting ToU) is WP:POINT disruption.
  • Hundreds of lines of ANI, COIN, PAID talk pages this is not best practice<-->outrageous = consensus. Per WP:PAYTALK."Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. ..."
    • "...WP:Tendentious editing...": Yes editing WP:PAID
    • "...WP:Disruptive editing...": Yes editing WP:PAID, attempt at minimising review of drafts [38], ad nauseam claiming ToU doesn't apply to XYZ, COI doesn't apply to XYZ, not abiding by best practice and consensus about disclosure at PAID, COI x2
    • "...WP:WikiBullying...": Unsubstantiated hounding claim i.e. this ANI, attempt at offwiki communication (my email now off)
    • "...WP:OWN...": Weak (per above / COIN)
    • "...WP:Civility...": no

Editor has disclosed they are still in contact with the subject of paid editing articles to justify content that was deemed promo (per above). Widefox; talk 00:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Widefox, you are way out of line.

• Bullet point one: PAYTALK is not relevant. I have not been paid to argue with anyone. As my disclosure clearly states, I'm only paid to edit four mainspace articles. I can provide evidence from Shiner that he's paying me for the article, and evidence from IB that I was only paid the summer before last, long before any of these "arguments". Ergo, PAYTALK has no relevance here. This point is moot.

1. I am allowed to remove my disclosure from my userpage. That's completely within my rights. This point is moot.
2. You cannot accuse me of not following a policy you instituted, without consensus, yesterday. This point is moot.
3. (the double bullet points) Again, I am allowed to remove COI disclosures. Policies only require COI disclosure on the article talk pages, which I have. This point is moot. The WP:POINT argument is also moot, my edits are WP:NOTPOINTy as they are not disrupting Wikipedia.
4. You need to make a more clear and concise argument for your last bullet point with the five sub-bullets.

• As for your last point, I see no reason why you brought it up again. That's not against the rules...

Can we please wait for administrators to sort out this mess? I'm tired of all of these accusations getting thrown back and forth. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• What remedy should be applied? It is outrageous that Ɱ can wikilawyer (18:47, 15 November 2015 above) that they are only paid to write certain articles so it is fine if they edit WP:PAID. They could make a case for their edit on its talk, but aggressively forcing their "rights" on volunteers needs to be stopped. Volunteers are motivated to defend the encyclopedia and it is important that the community prevent such volunteers from being overwhelmed with nonsense from paid advocates. A suitable remedy might start with an indefinite block for Ɱ until they agree to restore a plain disclosure on User:Ɱ (not a subpage) with no obfuscations. We're talking about ToU violations and disruption, not violation of a policy Widefox may have edited. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is so out of line! They make written rules so people can know what to do and what not to do! I have been following all rules, before Widefox began changing the rules! You cannot block or ban me for me trying to argue my own case! And you can't block or ban me for not putting a COI disclosure on my userpage! Nowhere, at all, in any policy or guideline must a user place a COI disclosure on their userpage! (So long as they have it on the article talk pages, which I do)! This is simply outrageous! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would support that. I have no tolerance for paid editors trying to do the minimum. If they are not disclosing in all places they are not being up front. The user page is needed so when people see suspicions edits they can quickly see if the editor has been paid. The article talk page disclosures are necessary to know who has a paid COI, if fact all COI editors must disclose on the talk page not their user page so paid editors do not get a pass there. Disclosure of paid edits are needed if they are not made on the article because others should not have to go searching beyond the discussion at hand to see if an editor has a paid-COI.

  The purpose of disclosing paid-COI is so other editors know there is a COI so they can take it into account. Anything that makes it harder to do so is fundamentally deceptive and after paid editor has been told this it is willful deception and we just can not have that here. Jbh^Talk 01:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

PER the ToU and WP:PAID, I am not required to put a COI disclosure on my userpage. No policy requires it. Therefore I can choose not to, and I do. If you want me to, there will be no convincing unless you change WP:PAID. Keep in mind that per the ToU that requires approved by the [English Wikipedia] community and [listing] in the alternative disclosure policy page. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The question here at ANI, is when and at what point is an admin going to step in and stop this disruption. Ɱ's edit of PAID is a bright-line for me. I have no faith in Ɱ now, and per Johnuniq second third an indef block, topic ban on COI / PAID. I'm sure there's an essay, the fallacy that Ɱ seems to now be holding on to is a right to edit here while WIKILAWYERing, disrupting, following just the letter of the ToU, ignoring consensus and other policies/guidelines such as COI, and subverting policy. This fallacy can be quickly demonstrated as incorrect. Widefox; talk 02:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:PAID which is a English Wikipedia's policy implementing the ToU. "Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (articles, drafts etc), or, if the talk page can not be used, in edit summaries."}}(emp mine) Seems pretty clear to me. Jbh^Talk 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we've had to be explicit with that wording due to this WIKILAWYERing example, but in fairness to Ɱ, because of that fact we can't really hold Ɱ to those words. We can hold Ɱ to ToU, COI, consensus, (plus that new wording once assessed/bedded down), PAYTALK etc. Just to be clear - that's about the only thing I agree with them on. Widefox; talk 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: user page has finally been edited, but still no disclosure [39]. Widefox; talk 11:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment No user should ever edit a policy or guideline particularly where they would benefit from such a change. It's akin to changing legislation to make legal what was previously illegal. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "particularly"? Surely, it must be possible to edit them in other cases when you do not benefit: it's a wiki, although of course (and as the hatnotes say), policy and guideline pages are subject to a higher level of scrutiny and consensus standards than other pages. LjL (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the text was changed from "shall" to "should" which backs up Ɱ's stance. This is highly inappropriate. Personally, I feel that no policy or guideline is to be edited without substantial discussion and consensus on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the arguments made by Widefox, JBH and Blackmane. removing COI notice from Ɱ 's main page does not help transparency and looks deceptive, editing a policy whose change would benefit them from such a change is COI par excellence.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment For what it's worth, Ɱ's user page now says "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak." I suggest closing out this issue for now. If Ɱ comes back and does something annoying, there will be little argument about what to do. WP:DENY and WP:ROPE apply here. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree that by the editor taking a break they would normally weasel out of avoid sanctions for PAYTALK disruption (per preventative not punitive). However, they have not taken a break [40] User:Ɱ care to explain? And, even if while away we are still missing the disclosure per policy/guideline (and spirit of ToU). We also know they are paid to edit what's currently a draft article, so they will be back as soon as the coast is clear due to profit motive. In the unlikely event they aren't coming back (just seen they're back), when/who's going to add the disclosures to their page and delete the drafts? (6 months for the latter.) I understand admins being reluctant to sanction for disruption, but if we allow paid editors to violate WP:PAYTALK to the extent of subverting paid editor policy then we may as well remove as toothless. Patience has run out for this hounding drain on volunteer time (a plug for my thoughts on where this is going is WP:BOGOF), and we have the bigger picture of legal disclosure where things will only firm up. I, for instance will not put up with this level of abuse and gaming as a volunteer, and suggest either admins take over paid COI (and then they are better covered by WP:INVOLVED) or enforce policy preventing gaming abuse of their fellow volunteers. Widefox; talk 11:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ɱ editing now without logging in [41]. Uw-login given [42]. Widefox; talk 07:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:LOGOUT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:1:FF00:8044:ACC7:FFB0:5155 (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

per LOGOUT "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors..." . But here editor states [43] "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" after three editors suggested indef block (above). Blocks apply to the person not just account, so this is attempting to evade any imminent block while continuing to edit, deceptively.

Edit warring [44] [45], undone [46] [47] adding inline EXT on a COI article, warning [48] . Ping User:Nagle. Widefox; talk 07:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Damn you. How can I possibly be deceiving others when I plainly state my association with a now-closed account. I resumed editing as part of my job, I hereby cease editing once-more. Your nastiness and harassment have pushed me away from Wikipedia, and I'll probably only ever be back here to resume work on articles I was paid for. Remember that you ought to be permanently banned from Wikipedia, your behavior is vicious and atrocious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:1:FF00:8044:ACC7:FFB0:5155 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(unfounded accusations ignored) With 3 or 4 indef block !votes above, consensus is editor should be blocked, and at that point they deceptively state "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" then make 1 more account edit, then continuing to IP edit, thus attempting to go under the radar of scrutiny here. That trick of avoiding sanctions only works if they actually go away, they haven't. Widefox; talk 08:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You should be banned. Ever since I complained to you about your conduct, you have been on a relentless mission to get me banned from Wikipedia. Your attacks are ridiculous. There's no consensus here. Not a single other COI editor commented here. Also, here, on the Administrator's Noticeboard, not a single administrator has even commented. Congratulations for finding three one other (only you and Johnuniq wanted a block) anti-COI editors, there are thousands more biased against what should be considered decent work. Your 'consensus' here is a farce any clearheaded person should see.--2601:643:1:FF00:799F:A536:C6D4:2096 (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

IP hopping reported Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ɱ deception (to evade) imminent block there's consensus for above. Widefox; talk 09:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Now just wait a cotton-pickin' moment there, Widefox. I have already commented at the SPI on the meritlessness of your claim there (short version: an IP editor admitting they are a former registered account that does not wish to edit again from that account may be problematic on some levels, but sockpuppetry it ain't). But as for your clarion call above ... this is AFAIK the first time that I've heard someone call for an SPI on the grounds that someone is planning to evade a block (a block I have not seen any admin agree should be undertaken). My understanding is that policy is purely reactive ... there is no justification for using blocks, certainly not checkuser-based blocks, as preemptive strikes. And what is your evidence that this user is planning to evade a block, even if it were likely that one were forthcoming? Are you reading his mind or something? It has been claimed that you're making up rules here as you go along; certainly this would lend that claim credence. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case this is a disclosure issue and wikilawyering with some deception rather than socking per se. The editor removed all disclosure on their user page, an hour later edited the policy PAID to reduce the need for paid editors to disclose when editing PAID, then there was limited consensus above for block, then falsely claimed the editor - not the account aren't editing anymore [49] "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" (emphasis own) then continue with one more edit after (fair enough), then willfully log out and edit war on their paid COI article (while providing only edit summary disclosure), later claiming "There has been no crossover on articles or topics between the IP address and my former account" [50]. That is willful deception. They are the same editor so either they are deceiving about not editing the same paid article (whilst at the same time deceiving about not editing), or they are deceptively trying to claim they aren't the same editor. One or both seem to me a claim of actual socking by them. Several of these claims can't be (and aren't) true.

It may fall between the cracks here but I've not brought this to ANI despite it being suggested to me. Repeating unfounded allegations doesn't make them true. Nobody's asked for checkuser, so that's a straw man. My first two edits of SPI are clear: "Editor has disclosed this IP is the same person as the account" [51] "The main thread is at ANI, this is just to document it, not to forum shop." [52] . Documenting isn't "fishing", despite how useless the SPI seems. Whilst the TOU and PAID / COI say different things, it's wikilawyering season, rather than fishing or cotton-pickin. Widefox; talk 10:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A request at SPI is generally taken as a request that checkuser be used unless it's decided that the case can be proven without resort to it or it is impossible to use in the particular case. Just because you didn't explicitly ask for it doesn't mean it wasn't understood that way. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not new to SPI / COI, having User:BiH (relationship with User:Orangemoody) under my belt etc, but I know nothing about the those internals of SPI, just what I see at WP:SPI "Upon request, investigations can also be conducted by a CheckUser.." (emph own), "CheckUsers will only conduct..." , "CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances." so at no point did I consider checkuser a consideration. WP:LOGOUT "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors.." which by the claims of Ɱ at the SPI is proved to be true. Widefox; talk 11:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Widefox, you've been wikilawyering as much if not more than me. You've been incredibly deceptive. As I said, there's no rule against removing the disclosure. As I said, there's no rule against editing PAID, and it was only to revert part of your bad-faith edit. There was no 'limited consensus' at all. You and one other suggested a block, and you're both out of line. My continuation in editing was really only due to maintaining the Shiner article, and if I didn't have to, I wouldn't have. I only continue commenting now to ensure your accusations don't lead to any blocks, and it's clear you're determined more than anything for that to happen. I never edit warred on the Shiner article, I reverted once. Jesus. And there really wasn't any physical crossover. My user account never edited any of the same pages that my IPs did, except ANI here recently. I was stating that to prove I wasn't being deceptive, and after all, how can I deceive when I'm not even on the same pages with the two different 'accounts'? Your SPI request is so obviously forum shopping, it's disturbing. 2601:643:1:FF00:B4BC:C790:4A99:EE3C (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Any evidence/diffs for deception? If not all these places where you've made these allegations then please strike through. The SPI details how this is deception. Widefox; talk 11:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Note to admins - no diffs / evidence for these unsubstantiated claims.

User:Daniel Case as you can see from the SPI, Ɱ is claiming no overlap of articles between IP and account and as such the SPI is actually relevant to establish that trivial fact (as it is denied by the editor). Widefox; talk 21:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ɱ's other statements have suggested he no longer intends to use that account. I think it would only count as an attempt to deceive if he had not made such statements (and even if he should change his mind, if he were to agree not to edit any articles he had edited as an IP I would be satisfied). It is not the best way to continue editing, but I don't think he's doing it to be deceptive. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Problem is, he/she did make that statement (and remains unfixed), and it started to sway consensus above. I actually believe they consider that they're not being deceptive (I've mentioned WP:COIBIAS). They've mentioned their rights a lot. They can edit as IP. It's up to them if they want to edit as an IP or account, no problem. If IP editing, then don't falsely claim "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" as it actually is deception. Anyhow, they still need to follow consensus and policy WP:PAID and disclose on that account userpage, and at each IP userpage & article (draft/moved or not). The problem is editing at all with this statement which is not true, misleading and its placement removed the (sub-PAID level of) paid COI disclosure, together with claiming at the SPI of no overlap (just because the article has been moved). That's not right per LOGOUT (misleading), or WP:CLEANSTART (overlap). The editor has made many statements, including they are in communication with paying clients for a content question and that they are continuing to edit because it is their job. Wikilawyering is the best faith I can call all that. Paid editors do not have a right to edit here unless they follow TOU, consensus, PAID, COI. The difficulty is only not wanting to, and ignoring consensus to hundreds of lines of talk. It is a way of editing that subverts the discussion above, and (not quite) following the letter of TOU (not quite = claiming no need to disclose on drafts or disclosing on all relevant discussions etc), while ignoring the letter and spirit of consensus, PAID, and COI. This is really about disclosure (not SPI), but has progressed to removing disclosure and providing less in the face of consensus - that's WP:POINT disruption. I've consistently said I consider this a good faith editor, but now this is POINT and we're not meant to get drawn into wikilawyering per PAYTALK. Widefox; talk 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Jimbo WP:COI#"The Hunting Ground" prompts COI discussion on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales (User talk:Jimbo Wales#This looks worthy of a discussion) where User:Jimbo Wales is calling for "I have long advocated that we should deal much more quickly and much more severely with COI [ Conflict of Interest ] editors." That example, like this one nothing was done (so far). Widefox; talk 08:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Shiner - turns out it is not notable, this is paid promotion WP:NOTHERE. For the record, the above unfounded wikilawyering has served to suppress me from taking this to AfD due to my uncertainty about meeting "national charts" WP:NMUSIC. I've put the COI tag back on. The SPI is to keep track of the IPs - which details "how difficult" it seems to be to disclose as an IP meeting ToU (edit summary disclosure at AfD haven't always met the letter of ToU, and without disclosure in the text of the AfD editors may be unaware and also not realise the different IPs are the same editor and the creator). I suggest others review edits and press for full COI (paid and unpaid) disclosure from this editor for all their edits considering.
  • The (supposedly abandoned) account User:Ɱ has accountcreator right, which per my understanding of WP:ACCRIGHT should be removed "users who are no longer involved in the ACC process" and seems highly inappropriate considering. Widefox; talk 10:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Allie X Topic Ban Proposal

As you can see in the closed ANI post, an admin already put page protections and closed the previous incident report on this page, but the people, (WordSeventeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zpeopleheart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), involved are still refusing to discuss any of the issues on the CollXtion I and Allie X talk pages. This is obviously not an isolated incident, at least for WordSeventeen; they have been blocked for harassment before: [[53]] They are repeatedly undoing edits like alternative covers on all the Catch (Allie X Song) page.dif here:[[54]] (for being "WP:UNDUE" even though that has nothing to do with this. Undue is for viewpoint is it not? Including such things offers no opinion on the material. WordSeventeen, I have had issues with in the past as well, with another ANI post detailing similar behavior. Cursory looking can show obvious signs of WP:DISRUPT, WP:HOUNDING, WP:VANDALISM, WP:POINT, WP:GAMING, WP:HUSH, and WP:IDHT. Even though they are obviously still on Wikipedia and making edits, they continue to ignore repeated attempts at discussion which is making a negative impact. Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen have been disregarding established guidelines like WP:MUSBIO, picking it apart like their trying to to illustrate their tendentious view on MUSBIO. And since they are using tools like Twinkle, they seem to be committing WP:TWINKLEABUSE as well. After filing the premature arbitration request, instead of making comment there, they harassed me yet again on my talk page as well as WordSeventeen proceeding to propose deletion for the locked articles that are very much the same, if not improved articles, from when AfD was voted against before. His AfD was immediately declined [[55]], see there, and yet he refiled , see here,[[56]], with the exact same AfD proposal statement. He has done this in the past before as well, and was told not to do so. He has been violating the same policies over and over for vast stretches of time, exemplified here [[57]] and here [[58]]. Why has he not be sanctioned? It's an obvious pattern in behavior. Pages that illustrate their refusal to co-operate:

• [[59]]
• [[60]]
• [[61]]
• [[62]]
• [[63]]
• [[64]] (Reviews of a person? There are no reviews of "her".)
• [[65]]
• [[66]]

It was suggested to me to pursue moderated dispute resolution, but one of the requirements on that page is that the topics must have been discussed thoroughly on the talk page; this does not meet that requirement because they are refusing to talk about anything. I really feel like a topic ban is the only thing that will make them stop. WordSeventeen's persistence over such a vast span of time is disturbing. It also appears Zpeopleheart is calling me a bitch [[67]] WordSeventeen practically confessed to his improper behavior here as well : [[68]] The administrator Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also comments on this review page's history "Not done. I'm quite certain that my motivation in asking about this was and is preventative. You have acted quite disruptively and dishonestly in the past. As you say, your record is right there to see, so you must have known..." So again, this seems very cut and dry that his conduct is wrong, and the amount of hurdles I have had to go through just to ameliorate such an obviously horrible situation is irritating. SanctuaryX (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) SanctuaryX, after a cursory look, I've placed warnings on the two editors who have repeatedly "warned" you - regardless of who is at fault, it's pretty clear that their actions are verging on harassment samtar ^{t} 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I notice that neither Zpeopleheart nor WordSeventeen have used the talk page at CollXtion I despite being prompted to by SanctuaryX clpo13_(talk) 20:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have prompted them on all the talk page articles CollXtion I, Allie X, and Catch (Allie X Song); Zpeopleheart only bothered to reply to the birth date question in Allie X after Karst began discussing it with me.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why has he not been sanctioned? Because, generally speaking no matter how many times I'm accused of being a block-happy fanatic, we're generally quite hesitant to sanction people. When I locked the pages, I wasn't really suggesting arbitration - just engaging on the talk places, bringing in people through appropriate noticeboards, and then coming back to another board if, after the solution doesn't resolve itself in the time the article is protected, the disruptive parties will find themselves having a hard time editing Wikipedia. WP:DRN was suggested by someone else in the arb request, but I wouldn't even suggest going that far. I'll make a comment on a relevant talk page, but if this is still an issue f complete failure to engage when the protection wears off, the disruptive parties will find themselves the blocked parties. Also, wrote this before taking a full look at the diffs involved, which I'll now do and potentially take action on. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed that misquote; sorry. I never meant you were suggesting arbitration. I got ahead of myself.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban for WordSeventeen

I propose a topic-ban from all articles related to Allie X for User:WordSeventeen. His or her campaign to delete the articles is disruptive and has aspects of an obsession. The singer is referenced by multiple reliable sources and passed an Articles for Deletion nomination six months ago. So now the editor has again opened another AFD, arguing WP:TOOSOON, when that argument was already considered and dismissed, and then opened yet another AFD (3d nomination) while the second nomination is still pending. That is disruptive editing having aspects of an obsession. I was uninvolved until an ill-advised Request for Arbitration was filed and is in the process of being closed, but it is clear from that evidence that WordSeventeen is being disruptive and should be topic-banned.

• Support as proposer. Do I need to move this to the bottom of ANI because no one will read it up here? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Premature. If he doesn't figure out how to behave reasonably well in the next week, a tban will just send him in to another area of ENWP to be a problem. He has the next week to shape up. If he doesn't, well... Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)\

This behavior has been going on since May, intermittently albeit. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify my oppose - what I really meant is if he keeps doing the same stuff until I block him for longer and longer periods of time, or he'll voluntarily get the point and stop being an issue (with, which the rather stern warning issued, is the hopeful outcome.) Tbanning him from Allie X will throw him in to being a problem in some other part of the encyclopedia; he needs to either get on board and fix the problem, or get tossed off the ship. Hopefully he'll get on board and be a genuinely productive editor even re: Allie, but if he doesn't, I have no problem personally tossing him overboard. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, but I would hope if he did just go making problems elsewhere instead of just whomever requesting a topic ban at the new place, they would just try to get him flat out banned after seeing his previous history. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 17:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It's slightly confusing that we use both 'block' and 'ban,' but I can indefinitely prevent him (block) from editing all articles by myself if he continues to be disruptive, unless another admin strongly disagrees. A ban is much harsher, more like a 'community endorsed indefinite block', requires more evidence of disruption, more discussion, etc. If he was tbanned from this area, I would either have to start following his behavior in another area to see if the disruption persists, or drop it (letting him potentially be equally disruptive in an area no one is paying attention to.) If he's not tbanned, I can just block him for increasingly long periods of time until he either gets the point or is unable to edit effectively permanently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense and either way sounds marvelous. Thanks for explaining. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as initial complainant. It should be noted that Zpeopleheart clearly shares the same ideas, as per his reasoning for the delete vote in the AfD. He filed an ANI for edit warring and he was sanctioned himself [[69]] SanctuaryX (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support WordSeventeen has a history of harassment and hounding and it all seems to stem from him either not knowing when to stop or not wanting to stop: [70], [71], [72] [73], [74]. It should also be noted that with the last block for harassment, WS's permissions (rollback and reviewer) were revoked. From what I can see with this particular instance, a topic ban seems quite appropriate considering the circumstances (the proposer's note that WS seems to be "obsessed") as well as the user's history of disruption and inability to back off when advised to do so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC). Arbitrary break
• Support – I have filed a checkuser on Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen; I would be very surprised if they are different people. Oculi (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Oculi:Thank you for doing this. I thought the fact they shared the same tendentious views was odd, but with everything going on I did not want to be the one to make such an accusation. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 00:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose You guys might want to check around and do a few searches or ask Bbb23. Been done. Some of you editors need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Also any further accusations against me with diff or concrete proof will be personal attack. Happy thanksgiving. Zpeopleheart (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't notice, he made that request. We both noticed it didn't check out. Try to be civil. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: @Robert McClenon: I am on my phone so I can't easily tell, but someone has illicitly segregated WordSeventeen's response. I'll assume it was Zpeopleheart because he added a reply. This has messed up the voting for topic ban etc. Someone fix this please. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Zpeopleheart attempted to highlight a couple of things WordSeventeen said, possibly to call for a topic ban on SanctuaryX. I restored the original flow of the voting and comments. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block due to the editor's pattern of trying to blank, redirect and/or frivolously AfD this article, and the obviously retaliatory topic ban proposal below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for SanctuaryX

I agree that obsessioni a good topic t o be discussing but instead about the about the editor SanctuaryX. Regarding a pattern of disruption by SanctuatyX in the article set regarding the articls about AllieX and watched the back and fort between SanctuayX and the other one with a Z name something or other. Of course all those articles are still on my watch list from when I tried to edit them, but SancuaryX was so disruptive during that period of time since she had taken complete and final WP:OWNERSHIP of them it was really to tedious to even try to to edit the Allie X article. I would propose today SanctuaryX is a SPA. Practically all of her edits have been about all those articles with the exception of a few toke plant species artice. at this particular moment in time I only have a mobile. I will add the diff to all these points. Please note I am out of my regular town and on emergency military to act in response to the expected, and or possible bombings within the United state on the night before Thanksgiving. But I will respondmore fully when we stand down here in USA. So anyways, I kept seeing these edited and the articles popping up on my watch list and when I saw the first disruptive Ani pop up, I went ahead and read over it. I entered a comment on the ani. So I would say that me editing a group of articles months ago, and thanks to the obsession ally disruptive user sanctuary ally User:SanctuaryX who is continuing to show ownership and take over everything about definitely needs a topic ban on all AllieX, articles topics discussion or any other matters abount in or around the topic of the 'artist' Alliex, and or a WP:BOOMERANG . or any tother sanctions or blocks they may wish to apply to the editors account of Sanctuatryxxx. Thank you all, please have a wonderful American Thanksgivg. Zoe any other holiday you and your May celebrate. hoooooo RrrrrrrrrrAaaAaaHHHH. ----

peace to the world!!! WordSeventeen (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I admitted already my behavior wasn't the best. But you have no proof of any of this. Just please stop stirring up trouble. They can see where you've made these evidenceless accusations towards me before. And considering I have worked on many more plant articles at a scholarly level, than those related to Allie X, I am clearly not a "SPA." And even if I was one, as long as my edits are generally unbiased, it wouldn't matter. They saw how I behaved as well. This isn't a one way road. WP:STEWARDSHIPSanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 15:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support a lengthy topic ban of three weeks toward user sanctuatyx due to the the fact as supported by her involve the in the alli x article with different editors over like a six month period The one looks to have apparently given up and did not try to edit the. Article any more. The n months later I tried to edit the same group of artles But due to the completely obsessive disruptiousor tenditios practices of SanctuaryX. Zpeopleheart (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close - this topic ban proposal is clearly nothing but a retaliation for the one proposed against the nominator directly above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close per Ivanvector. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close Both of their grammatical/general English mistakes makes this even difficult to comprehend for me. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close – absurd suggestion. Oculi (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban for Zpeopleheart

See everything in above two sections involving this editor and WordSeventeen for more detail on his obstinately disruptive behavior (WP:DISRUPT, WP:VANDALISM, WP:POINT, WP:GAMING, WP:HUSH, and WP:IDHT)in addition to the following dif's and associated edit comments: [75], [76], [77]. Edit: And as you can see below, it's really quite impossible to show all the difs, much simpler just to look at history pages like this: [78] and to look at my talk page where he is continuously "warning" me.

• Support as nominator. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment umm not sure what you mean. Is this a new stick? or what? I just got back into town, been away for a while. So if you think I of all the in the a I above please provide the diffs and concrete proof from within the past 12 hours or so. Otherwise I will have to consider having you charged with a PERSONAL ATTACK. Did you not understand the rules and procedures here. Acting in good faith, I will give you one chance to apologize, we will call it a day, and I will leave all alone for a bit and let you work out your WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Have a great evening all! And remember I got 99 problems and this ain't no fun. Cannot we have peace on a holiday? A sort of detente. Peace Zpeopleheart (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a personal attack. You clearly aren't doing what is asked by many people. I wasn't overly nice at first, but I have been civil since even with your repeated poor behavior. I'm not sure where the communication here is failing, but it's clear you have issues. I am clearly not experiencing ownership issues. I repeatedly tried to advise you of Wikipedia policies, I tried to explain to you why what you're referencing doesn't apply or isn't true, and I tried to discuss it with you, and you failed on all three counts. I have no problem with people editing the page, only when people like yourself constantly remove things that are perfectly acceptable not by my standards, but according to Wikipedia itself. For you to come here and try to silence me on the ANI just adds to my case. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Editor is showing signs of being difficult/slightly disruptive, both here and on the article you've linked to. However, they above state that they will "leave all alone for a bit" - due to this I don't think a topic ban would be preventative anymore -- samtar ^whisper 20:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A bit is kind of vague; that could be minutes, hours, days, a week before they start being obstinate and tendentious again. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is vague - perhaps Zpeopleheart would agree to voluntarily leave the article alone for a set period of time, to allow people to chill out? -- samtar ^whisper 20:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I've been pretty calm, do I seem particularly obscene or uncivil? @Samtar: And as you can see now, that a bit didn't even last a day.SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 21:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This isn't the first article Zpeopleheart has refused to actually discuss the changes they want to make. See the Black Lives Matter article history. They repeatedly reintroduced material that had serious issues (no citations, BLP claims, ect.) that was removed by multiple different editors. A talk page section was started after the second revert and they refused to participate. Refusing to participate in a collaborative project is a serious issue and the multiple articles they have done this on is a pattern of behavior. They claim to be dropping it and leaving it alone for a bit. However, the "for a bit" is what concerns me. Are they going to pick up right where they left off in a week after the holiday is over? There needs to be some assurances that this is going to stop and they are going to start participating in the discussions that people are asking them to participate in. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

And if you search through the above sections, you'll see he has been sanctioned for edit warring before as well. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 20:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing more to say here. Zpeopleheart (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - clearly disruptive editing, repeatedly reverting to maintain their preferred version of an article, and failing to make any reasonable effort to discuss their issues on the talk page despite being pinged repeatedly. Multiple editors have tried to reason with this editor both to understand their weird view of neutrality, to ask them to expand on their rationale or provide any sources at all for their insistence that the subject must be viewed negatively or not at all, and to try to explain why this behaviour is disruptive including a fairly dire warning the last time this page was full-protected to prevent the same disruption they're continuing with right now. Competence is required; consensus is not optional. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: After posting my comment above, Zpeopleheart has continued to try to push their own view on Allie X. They also posted a false warning on SanctuaryX's talk page claiming that they filed a bad AIV report [79] when SanctuaryX has not even posted to that page at all according to their recent contributions [80]. Their abuse of Twinkle to add pointless and false warnings to other editor's talk pages is purely retaliatory and needs to stop. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom, Ivanvector, and Stabila711. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The 2 apparently different editors Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen share an obsession with Allie X. WordSeventeen has taken it to afd twice (both snow keeps) and Zpeopleheart redirected it to Catch (Allie X song). Between them they have made 63 edits to Allie X, most of which are against the consensus at the article (ie all other editors there disagree with Z and W). Oculi (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Note - Zpeopleheart has been blocked 36 hours for continuing to disrupt the Allie X article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Edwardpatrickalva and blatant COI.

The user in question was directly involved in production of the highly controversial film The Hunting Ground, which, by many accounts, was proven to have used a patently false narrative. Evidently, as this article shows, Mr. Alva has, by his own admission, violated the laws on Conflict of Interest over the course of several months, and arguably has violated NPOV and Verifiability by changing articles to match the accusations of the film, rather than own up to the film's factual inaccuracies. Now, rather than apply hard protection to a wide array of articles, I feel that at the very least, for the sake of the encyclopedia's integrity, the issues be addressed with the guilty party, and that this bad-faith editing is halted. Of course, the decision rests solely with you guys. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor has explicitly stated it at Talk:The Hunting Ground as well. This belongs at WP:COIN not here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits to articles on the film's subjects would seem an even more serious issue, and though it might go on the BLP noticeboard, the two matters are closely related. Our BLP provisions apply to all articles involving living humans, not just to biographies, so they apply to the article on the film also. Further analysis is needed, and I think we should be prepared to block if there are further related mainspace edits. I don't want this issue to get lost in a jurisdictional dispute between noticeboards DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We can focus on the different issues. I don't know what should be done though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the COI issue turns out to have press coverage.[81]. Not in connection with the film article, though, in connection with Jameis Winston, who is a subject of the documentary. There. Edwardpatrickalva made edits regarding the rape accusation.[82][83] That's a major BLP issue. Those edits started in March 2015. That article (the subject is a football player) has many edits since then, including some recent section blanking by an anon.[84]. I suggest that the Winston article be referred to the BLP noticeboard for attention. The film article had a little too much PR language, and I toned it down a bit. There's current press coverage and criticism not yet mentioned; that's a subject for the article talk page. In any case, Edwardpatrickalva shouldn't be editing either article. John Nagle (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to see more editors paying attention to these articles, though I am a little skeptical of the reasons. From the beginning, I have been upfront about my affiliation, and I have worked to seek consensus among other editors for more substantial changes. I’d ask that Wikipedia admins take a close look at Talk:Jameis Winston, where on multiple occasions I brought things up for discussion. Prior to my involvement, the lead section of the Winston article was at odds with Wikipedia policy (though I don’t think any particular Wikipedia editor had done that intentionally, I think it was an organic outcome of how Wikipedia articles sometimes come together). Nearly every story about Winston in the many months before the NFL draft -- in mainstream media, in sports media, in entertainment media -- centered on whether his off-the-field issues would impact his draft performance. But that point appeared nowhere in the lead section, and could only be found in a “controversy” section below everything about his sports career. I took steps to address that significant problem, seeking input from other Wikipedians, striving at every step to work with Wikipedia’s standards in mind, not to narrowly advance my employer’s interests.

Finally, could an admin consider taking action to deal with the vandalism on my user page this morning? It has been reverted once, which I appreciate -- but I do not look forward to having to deal with schoolyard insults while this issue plays out. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best that you step away from editing in this subject area entirely. There are plenty of other editors who can work on these articles from a neutral point of view. Kelly ^hi! 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Edwardpatrickalva acknowledged the COI early on and generally engaged on talk pages to suggest/discuss sensitive changes before making them. That's exactly what we want people with a COI to do, no? Clearly this is an issue that demands scrutiny, and of course using the talk page first doesn't mean there aren't problems with his edits, but I'm worried this COI angle is a ticket to fomenting wikirage to justify edits contrary to his. It should be a red flag that the source leading the charge here is one we don't typically take as reliable for contentious social/political issues. There are plenty of sources criticizing the film and plenty of reason to take the claims seriously, but let's not get sidetracked by COI. @Edwardpatrickalva: will you agree to takes Kelly's advice above and refrain from editing any article for which you have a COI for at least a while until these articles can be evaluated and stabilize? COI editing is a touchy thing, and it would be better to focus on content, I think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd want to do a bit more investigating here, and I don't really have the time. But as I now see it, this situation could be dealt with very quickly and justly with a permanent ban of Edwardpatrickalva. There is clear evidence of disruption, violation of the policy WP:BLP, and of the guideline WP:COI. Even leaving out WP:BLP, blatently violating WP:COI and causing disruption is enough for a ban. It is *not* a cause for leniency to say that he complied with the Terms of Use to disclose his employer - that is just a minimum requirement to edit. Flying in the face of WP:COI and causing disruption in and of itself is cause to ban, and I believe that any admin can do it. As I said, I don't have enough time to do a thorough investigation, but those should be the principles applied. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A cursory review of Mr. Alva's edits shows clear disruption, including replacing entire paragraphs that would cast doubt on the allegations made by the movie, replacing them with favorable content, using unreliable sources and dubious wording, shameless self-promotion (where "self" means the film), and stern warnings about his bad-faith editing which he ignored. His declaration of his involvement with the movie was only just added recently, and the user seemingly has not made edits that aren't related to the subject matter of the film in some manner or another. From all indications, this account of his was created solely to give the film a PR boost, while trying to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to a false narrative. KirkCliff2 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the user has been highly disingenuous with both edit summaries and his methodology on this very discussion, in addition to editing on his own where a consensus should be reached beforehand. He has been warned, several times, and in numerous places, to cease with the flagrant gaming, yet even as this discussion is happening, he remains engaged in discussions on the talk page of The Hunting Ground. Again, you, the Administrators have the final say in what happens to him and virtually everything else within the realm of this encyclopedia; I'm just laying out the facts before you. KirkCliff2 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kelly and Rhododendrites: I have not edited the articles themselves since this issue came up, and I don’t see why I would, as long as there is a healthy amount of attention from diligent Wikipedians. Before yesterday, there were far fewer editors working on any of these articles, and edits and talk page comments were much less frequent. I did not want to nag, and in some cases was explicitly advised to just make changes myself.

To the other editors who repeat accusations, I would request that you do take the time to look at the issues closely; there is a great deal of nuance in the topic, which I have sought to address openly and responsibly. It’s possible I made some judgment calls that were less than ideal, and I am happy to learn; but the repeated accusation that I’ve been “disruptive” overall is simply not accurate.

One specific criticism I want to address: yes, one user did tell me not to edit The Hunting Ground on two occasions. I did take note of what the user said; in hindsight, maybe I should have explicitly acknowledged it. But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules. I did make sure after that first statement to be more diligent about bringing substantial edits up for discussion.

There are strong opinions on all sides in this issue, which is pretty obvious from the varied takes in media. I do not think I am the only editor working on these articles who has strong opinions; but I have tried to reveal my own bias and to keep it from driving my edits, and to check in with other editors when there might be a question. I am open to feedback if I have made mistakes, but please understand, my intent the whole time has been to improve Wikipedia articles according to Wikipedia’s standards. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Jimbo has mentioned this issue and this news story on his talk page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules.

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that? You continue trying to justify your actions whichever way possible, when the reality is, the aforementioned policies exist for reasons such as this; and to that very end, declaring your conflict of interest would seemingly imply you knew better. Either way, regardless of how your edits were received (I, for one, am incredulous to your claim), and irrespective of how many editors these articles had working on them, you should never have been editing everything from the film article, to Title IX, anti-rape movement, and Jameis Winston's article, and certainly not for the purpose of making your film seem accurate when the real facts dictated otherwise. If you can't plausibly grasp these concepts, you have no business editing on Wikipedia. Am I wrong to think so? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Plain and simple, Edward: No matter your intentions, no matter what the circumstances may be, the rule is immutable: Where editing the article(s) in question would result in a conflict of interest, stay clear of editing said article(s). Simple as that. You are trying to justify breaking a golden rule of Wikipedia that even Jimbo Wales himself has indicated needs to be upheld more stridently. Are you going to tell me you know better than Jimmy himself, Edward? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur. If you have a bias strongly in favor of a subject, your word alone is not sufficient to assure everyone you will not try to push your bias. Nothing personal, Edward, but it's human nature the rules were designed to safeguard against, and it's human nature to want to make something you have a vested interest in look good, consciously or otherwise. If you want to make changes, you should stick to the talk pages and ask uninvolved editors to supply the information you believe needs to be added, and only after it has been verified as accurate. The NPOV of Wikipedia is to ensure the minimization of any bias, or at least as much as possible when presenting information, and as such all things that might insert bias, such as editors with a vested interest in the topic, are not exempt from making sure bias is not inserted, even if the NPOV Wikipedia strives for doesn't make the topic at hand look good. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia strives to be factual, not as propaganda. Arcane21 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Commentary: I find it rather shocking that Mr. Alva has the audacity to lie about his intentions, stating that everything he did, he did to help articles comply with Wikipedia standards and guidelines, when his edit history tells an extremely different story; and if his intentions were really so pure, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with, nor would Ms. Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner have called him out, exposing the hypocrisy and prompting me to bring this case before ANI, which is where we now stand. Edward, although I'm not an Administrator, I've been around a long time, and I've seen the case files on users banned for life. You are going to end up just like them, if you continue manipulating Wikipedia and its users alike (two different kinds of manipulation, to be sure, but that is hardly relevant or germane) as you downplay the seriousness of your actions, henceforth exposed for what they are. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel like enough discussion has been made of the subject here and at Jimbo's talk page on this user and his policy violations. Can a consensus be reached on a course of action that would ensure Wikipedia remains relatively neutral and free of potential scandals such as this? If necessary, that can be decided upon elsewhere. KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"Enough discussion has been made..."? Most of it is yours. You seem to be pushing this with a vengeance. We're not a lynch mob and can afford to move slowly. No damage is being done. A cursory look at the talk page of Winston's bio shows Alva working extremely well with other editors and his edit requests meeting their approval. I don't know about other articles. Maybe we should let other editors speak. It's too bad that some of the editors who have worked quite well with him aren't here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo personally addressing the topic on his talk page has added a sense of urgency to the matter. As for Jameis Winston's article, even if his edits are well-received, are they factually accurate? And were the editors aware of Alva's Conflict of Interest, which should technically have precluded him from being in the discussion? Meanwhile, many of his other edits are far less constructive, and were essentially revisionism so that his film could be seen by Wikipedia as more accurate. There is never any excuse for agenda-driven editing. Do you not remember when members of United States Congress got caught red-handed on here? The same sort of principle ought to apply here, no? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

KirkCliff2, Jimbo says a lot of things on his talk page. Some of his statements are useful, others less so. There's no added sense of urgency for this matter and disclosed COI precluding someone from being in a discussion is completely wrong. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN is right. Back off a bit and drop the lynch mob attitude. A cautionary approach is called for here. I'm going to repost below what I wrote on Jimbo's talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Some logical thoughts to consider so we don't look like a kangaroo court or lynch mob:

1. He did declare his COI. Good.
2. He did use the talk page. Good.
3. If his edits were questioned, did he edit war over them? If so, a short block might be in order if he persisted. Did any of that happen?
4. If his editing was questioned, was he willing to stick to using the talk page and cease editing the article(s) in question? If so, good.
5. Questions about his editing will naturally tend to call out the worst assumptions made by human nature (such failure to AGF can be a blockable offense): "He has a COI, so hang him immediately, no matter what types of edits he made, and by all means immediately revert all of them, regardless if they improved the article!" We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors.
6. Lynching is the wrong approach because a COI does not absolutely forbid editing, but rather it's an admonishment to be careful. If a COI editor actually violates policies (not referring to COI here), then judge based on those infractions. While it's wise for them to only use the talk page, it's not totally forbidden to carefully edit and seek consensus.
7. A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions.

So go through those steps and don't jump immediately to blocks and topic bans unless necessary. We do need topic experts, and even a topic ban should be limited to the article itself, not the talk page, unless dealing with a really hardcore a##hole. Then just indef them. So carry on and good luck with this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

---

I'm an ancient wikimedian who shirks admin duties (I do not envy you guys, thanks for doing what bums like me won't), and I gotta say this ANI discussion addles my already-baffled brain. One, too many words. Two, too too much adhominenmication, which just adds to problem One. Could someone/s sum up the facts of the case? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

---

A blatant Conflict of Interrest (COI) occurs when there is an elephant in the room and the owner of the elephant expects that nobody will discover the fact. When someone comes and says: look at my nice elephant, this becomes a disclosed COI. And now, it remains to examine if the Washington Examiner is a more Reliable Source (RS) than The Atlantic when it comes to en:wp. A DC versus MA controversy ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Necessary sub-section

May I reiterate that the user's disclosure is a fairly recent event? The majority of his seemingly bad-faith edits, which, among those I glanced, included the aforementioned revisionism and borderline advertising. And, while I apologize for what might very well constitute a lynch-mob mentality (I'm very results-oriented, but only the correct ones, achieved with due diligence), I feel that too much focus is being placed on the COI alone and not on the nature of the edits themselves. Finally, with regards to the COI rule itself, independent of Mr. Alva, I'm sensing there's no clear delineation on what the procedural policy is for dealing with editors who violate this principle. Even among here, there've been a wide array of stances on the issue. Is there a definitive guideline set forth on the matter? I ask in order to better contribute and respect whatever the guidelines instruct Administrators to do in such cases. KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about, KirkCliff2? As far as I can see, the very first edit Edwardpatrickalva made to Wikipedia was to declare his COI on his user page, which means he is fully compliant with the Wikimedia terms of use. If he sought agreement from other editors for any edits, as Brustopher asserts below, then he has done absolutely nothing to deserve anyone's wrath, and the related press article seems like a rather cheap shot. Andreas JN466 16:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Leo, a lot of the key issues were spoken of by me plus others in what constitutes the lede, and also shortly thereafter. The rest has largely been run-of-the-mill Wikipedia debate club material (perhaps we should have one, bringing together the best of the best to WikiLawyer in good nature?). KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Thanks LeoRomero, that is what I have been trying to understand: what exactly am I being accused of? I have no idea. In this thread, people have said I am disruptive, that I am a liar, that I have introduced bias. Elsewhere, the founder of Wikipedia (!) said it is appropriate that I should be publicly shamed. None of this makes any sense to me. If there is a place where I erred, I would like to know about it as much as anybody -- and if public shaming has to come along with that, OK. I am relatively new here, I can take a little hazing if necessary.

In the meantime, the extraordinary bias in the Jameis Winston article that I worked to slightly reduce has been fully restored. The widely respected publications Wikipedia is supposed to respect barely mention his name without making his behavior a central focus; the 6,000 word NY Times article, written by a Pulitzer winner, was not an account of his athletic prowess. ESPN dubbed him "this years most polarizing player" on the cover of their magazine. The GM of the team that drafted him said one day he might write a book about the extraordinary steps they took to vet his character. But Wikipedia editors seeking to correct for my alleged bias have minimized those issues, paying more attention to a couple of opinion columnists and the president of a university with his own conflict of interest.

Please believe, if I wrote a version that matches my own bias, it would look radically different from any version of the Wikipedia article that has ever existed. But since I know Wikipedia is a place for reasoned deliberation and careful vetting of sources and facts, I have never pushed for something that even comes close to reflecting my own bias. Again, if I have erred anywhere I would like to know about it -- but so far, all I see is broad and unfounded accusations. I also hope editors will put even a fraction of the energy they have put into this page, into improving the biography of one of the most talked-about athletes of our time. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This is why I'd support a ban of you altogether, Edward: You continue alternating between a partial admission of guilt and acting as though you never were aware of any wrongdoing, all the while trying your hardest to ignore everything I and others have said about your actions and for which we have blatant proof. If you cannot plausibly understand what the rules are, you have no business editing until you do. If you think lying to Administrators and normal editors and portraying yourself as a victim will help you, you're gaming the system, and likewise should abstain from editing. If you could simply own up to your mistakes and agree to not insert your personal bias into articles, let alone your need to rewrite them so they make your film seem accurate, that would show a degree of willingness on your part to help improve the encyclopedia for the common good. I'm trying my hardest to remain civil with you, Edward, but your repeated and condescending attempts to feign ignorance and at the same time show disdain for the whole process of finding an optimal resolution to this issue are honestly very frustrating. Just stop. You can't hide your edit history, or the warnings given to you by Admins. Leo, am I wrong? KirkCliff2 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Kirk, you need to stop the wild accusations and actually provide diffs. You MUST AGF!! Even if you're right, this is nothing compared to this SPI case, where a large paid PR team got away with it, and their meat puppets are still whitewashing articles. Huge COI. That is real harm.

No harm is being done here (other editors have been collaboratively involved all along), and if necessary, a topic ban (from the articles, but not their talk pages) would protect Wikipedia. I haven't examined everything, but what I've seen is certainly debatable and without edit warring, IOW typical editing. What I've seen showed the other editors agreeing with the quality of Alva's edits and thought his edits were good.

These types of accusations should not include normal content disputes, but only concern truly egregious edits and edit warring, and I fear you're including mere content disputes in your calls for a burning at the stake and lynching. That's way over the top. We want content experts here and we aren't supposed to bite newbies. Alva has only made "79 edits since 2015-03-13", and many of them were not to articles.

So, no more accusations without diffs. Okay? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok I've looked at his contributions to Jameis Winston and Alva has played very close to the rules with regards to COI policy. It doesn't look like he's made a single change to the article without prior agreement from another editor. From his very first edit he had his role on the Hunting None of his edits are anything that would get someone without a COI sanctioned. As proof of this, look at how none of the editors who approved of his proposals are being dragged to ANI. Would not support any sanction stronger than a restriction to only talk pages. Brustopher (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: Thanks for doing that. If you could share your evidence via diffs, that would be very helpful. Only Nagle, the most experienced arbitrator among us, has submitted diffs so far. Quoting him from text above: "Edwardpatrickalva made edits regarding the rape accusation (diff1,diff2). That's a major BLP issue." Neither Edwardpatrickalva, nor anyone who supports his case, has addressed Nagle's evidence. @Edwardpatrickalva: Would you mind addressing just those two edits, also via diffs (f.e showing the consensus-building conversations you had prior to those two edits)? If you're not used to our arcane procedures, let me know and I'll help you. - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@LeoRomero:Sure thing! Before making the changes in the first diff, Alva presented the proposed text at Talk:Jameis_Winston#Updating_article, where it was approved by User:Muboshgu. The changes in the second diff were made on the recommendation of User:Jadeslair in Talk:Jameis_Winston#Including_rape_allegation_etc._in_lead_section. The rest of his edits to Jameis Winston follow pretty much the same method linked to above. From a COI policy standpoint Alva did nothing wrong on that article. If his edits are indeed smearing Winston as people claim, those who approved them share equal blame. However, after further searching, I've come to the conclusion that the same cannot be said about his edits to other articles. Alva added links to the film's article to Title IX, Anti-rape movement and Annie E. Clark. While Alva made proposals beforehand on the talk pages for Title IX and the Anti-rape movement, these additions were made before anyone responded. His additions to Clark's article were done without any previous talk page discussion. While these edits are clearly problematic, I wouldn't say they're enough to warrant any kind of sanction if he agrees to stick to talk pages on COI issues as I have requested on his talk page. Brustopher (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: Thanks! You've made it so much easier for a bystander like me to follow the trail that led to the two contested edits by @Edwardpatrickalva:

1. 23 March 2015: Edwardpatrickalva starts conversation on proposed edits. This goes on for eight days. diff
2. 31 March 2015: Edwardpatrickalva updates the article along lines agreed at Talk (diff
3. 5 May 2015 Edwardpatrickalva discusses new edits re rape allegations on Talk diff
4. 24 August 2015 Edwardpatrickalva edits Article diff

I thus see no evidence that Edwardpatrickalva broke COI, as to these two edits. As to the other edits you found while doing further research, no one's supplied relevant diffs, so I'll just trust your judgment that although Edwardpatrickalva did break COI, no sanctions are warranted if he agrees to stick to Talk. I'm grateful for your research, and your balanced approach. - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not notice that the coi on his user page was related to the page being edited. I had no idea what that movie was about. The main thing I was concerned with was that the NYT article was original research. After looking at this tonight, it is clear the the user should not be editing pages directly but to my knowledge the editor has not broken any policies just guidelines. Although this edit probably supports the movie, it updated incorrect information based on what the citation says. It seems this dispute is from an article about the editor. The external news sources do not know all of our rules and I do not think we should bow to them. He is most certainly biased, as we all are but I think the edits are pretty solid. I am not an admin so I am not even sure If I am supposed to be commenting here, if not please disregard Jadeslair (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"the NYT article was original research": A NYT article is the exact opposite of original research: it's a reliable source, Jadeslair. Andreas JN466 06:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. My mistake Andreas. I thought it needed other sources to verify it's accuracy. Which the editor later provided. Jadeslair (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Brustopher for good work, although the burden of proof is on those making the accusations. They have not provided any diffs showing any wrongdoing. I too looked at the very few edits made by Alva and found nothing wrong, and his talk page interactions were fine. Unfortunately he met some stiff resistance and uncalled for demands from accusers who don't understand the COI guideline.

I'm not sure what LeoRomero means by "although Edwardpatrickalva did break COI." He has a COI, but did not make any improper edits, so he did not violate the COI guideline. It does not forbid careful and collaborative editing. When we are dealing with a subject expert who has a COI, that is the type of editing we want from them, and that's what he gave us.

Only if his edits were problematic would he be required to only use the talk page, or if worse get a topic ban. None of that seems necessary. He's been an exemplary COI editor who openly and honestly declared his COI, made very careful edits, worked well with other editors, and did no wrong. He's a subject expert whose expertise has improved the encyclopedia.

He should get a medal and everyone who made such severe accusations and failed to AGF should apologize to him and be forced to carry a wet trout in their underpants for a week. People who don't understand the guideline should keep quiet. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What's deplorable in cases like this is that the press can manufacture a plausible-sounding story out of nothing. Andreas JN466 14:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, he did add links to his movie in three articles without gaining prior approval (as I detailed above), which is what LeoRomero is probably referring to. But in 2 of those articles its was because his proposal was met with silence, so it's really a pretty small fry violation if anything. Definitely not something worth getting the pitchforks out for if he agrees to stop doing it. Brustopher (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I didn't say what you said I did. Not that it matters, because Edward himself said he didn't stick to COI all the time. More important, your trout proposal is a clear and direct violation of [WP-TROUT], and that's a blockable offense. LeoRomero (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Hi guys - After going through the text above and the summary below one more time, here's what I see so far:

1. two Wikipedians asked that Edward be banned altogether and outright, but they did not present evidence, and they stopped participating in this discussion on 11/20 and 11/25;
2. we did get two diffs which showed that Edward made two COI edits to a BLP over a span of months; then we got two diffs that showed that Edward did in fact consult other editors prior to posting the edits;
3. there's some indication of other COI edits, but no one who's still in this discussion thinks they're a big deal;
4. no one at this point is proposing any ban or block against Edward.

In short, not exactly not guilty, but not guilty enough to be banned. Did I get that right? And if I did, how much time should we give others to present actual evidence against Edward before I ask the Examiner to re-examine their story? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC) BAN ALL COI EDITS! He said again.

Summary of discussion so far

[ Update: I think my analysis as of 11/25 below has served its purpose, and don't plan to update the table. No objections to anyone getting it out of the way. Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC) as I shake my head over how much work goes into just one COI case. My solution to the COI problem is to get rid of COI. No Conflict of Interest edits. You get one warning. You ignore that, we send you to Friendster, forever. Join the discussion at COI Talk. ]

Table of points, diffs, and recommendations

My first and only attempt at a case summary, ever. We have a shortage of diffs. Missing diffs are marked as ? under the diff column. I think this includes all relevant points, though I may have accidentally left some snarkiness in. Please edit as you please, esp for brevity. If you are not comfortable with markup, just do as I did and test a Visual version on your User page/subpage first, then copy the source code over. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Relevant links Edwardpatrickalva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The Hunting Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Talk history Jameis Winston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Talk history Discussions Talk:Jimbo Wales, Talk history AN/I, History Talk:COI, Talk history POL/REQ +/- statement diff by WP:COI - as this article shows, Mr. Alva has, by his own admission, violated the laws on Conflict of Interest over the course of several months ? KirkCliff2 WP:COI - editor has explicitly stated it at Talk:The Hunting Ground ? Ricky81682 WP:COI na COI issue turns out to have press coverage.[85] na John Nagle WP:COI + From the beginning, I have been upfront about my affiliation, and I have worked to seek consensus among other editors for more substantial changes. I’d ask that Wikipedia admins take a close look at Talk:Jameis Winston, where on multiple occasions I brought things up for discussion ? Edwardpatrickalva WP:COI + Prior to my involvement, the lead section of the Winston article was at odds with Wikipedia policy ... I took steps to address that significant problem, seeking input from other Wikipedians, striving at every step to work with Wikipedia’s standards in mind, not to narrowly advance my employer’s interests. ? Edwardpatrickalva WP:COI + acknowledged the COI early on and generally engaged on talk pages to suggest/discuss sensitive changes before making them ? Rhododendrites WP:COI - clear evidence of violation of the guideline WP:COI It is *not* a cause for leniency to say that he complied with the Terms of Use to disclose his employer - that is just a minimum requirement to edit. ? Smallbones WP:COI - His declaration of his involvement with the movie was only just added recently, and the user seemingly has not made edits that aren't related to the subject matter of the film in some manner or another. From all indications, this account of his was created solely to give the film a PR boost, while trying to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to a false narrative ? KirkCliff2 WP:COI + I have not edited the articles themselves since this issue came up, and I don’t see why I would, as long as there is a healthy amount of attention from diligent Wikipedians. Before yesterday, there were far fewer editors working on any of these articles, and edits and talk page comments were much less frequent. I did not want to nag, and in some cases was explicitly advised to just make changes myself ... In the meantime, the extraordinary bias in the Jameis Winston article that I worked to slightly reduce has been fully restored. The widely respected publications Wikipedia is supposed to respect barely mention his name without making his behavior a central focus; the 6,000 word NY Times article, written by a Pulitzer winner, was not an account of his athletic prowess. ESPN dubbed him "this years most polarizing player" on the cover of their magazine. The GM of the team that drafted him said one day he might write a book about the extraordinary steps they took to vet his character. But Wikipedia editors seeking to correct for my alleged bias have minimized those issues, paying more attention to a couple of opinion columnists and the president of a university with his own conflict of interest. ? Edwardpatrickalva WP:COI + one user did tell me not to edit The Hunting Ground on two occasions. I did take note of what the user said; in hindsight, maybe I should have explicitly acknowledged it. But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules. I did make sure after that first statement to be more diligent about bringing substantial edits up for discussion. ? Edwardpatrickalva WP:COI - regardless of how your edits were received, and irrespective of how many editors these articles had working on them, you should never have been editing everything from the film article, to Title IX, anti-rape movement, and Jameis Winston's article, and certainly not for the purpose of making your film seem accurate when the real facts dictated otherwise. ... No matter your intentions, no matter what the circumstances may be, the rule is immutable: Where editing the article(s) in question would result in a conflict of interest, stay clear of editing said article(s). ? KirkCliff2 WP:COI - I concur. If you have a bias strongly in favor of a subject, your word alone is not sufficient to assure everyone you will not try to push your bias. If you want to make changes, you should stick to the talk pages and ask uninvolved editors to supply the information you believe needs to be added, and only after it has been verified as accurate. ? Arcane21 WP:COI + disclosed COI precluding someone from being in a discussion is completely wrong. ? NeilN WP:COI + He did declare his COI. He did use the talk page. We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors. ? BullRangifer WP:COI na Jimbo has mentioned this issue and this news story on his talk page na Etamn WP:COI na Jimbo personally addressing the topic on his talk page has added a sense of urgency to the matter. na KirkCliff2 WP:COI na Jimbo says a lot of things on his talk page. There's no added sense of urgency for this matter. na NeilN WP:BLP - edits to articles on the film's subjects would seem an even more serious issue ? DGG WP:BLP - made edits regarding the rape accusation. That's a major BLP issue. Those edits started in March 2015. [86][87] John Nagle WP:BLP na article (the subject is a football player) has many edits since then, including some recent section blanking by an anon. [88] John Nagle WP:BLP - clear evidence of violation of the policy WP:BLP ? Smallbones WP:DIS - clear evidence of disruption ? Smallbones WP:DIS - A cursory review of Mr. Alva's edits shows clear disruption, including replacing entire paragraphs that would cast doubt on the allegations made by the movie, replacing them with favorable content, using unreliable sources and dubious wording, self-promotion (where "self" means the film), and stern warnings about his bad-faith editing which he ignored. ? KirkCliff2 WP:DIS - disingenuous with both edit summaries and his methodology, in addition to editing on his own where a consensus should be reached beforehand. He has been warned, several times, and in numerous places, to cease with the flagrant gaming, yet even as this discussion is happening, he remains engaged in discussions on the talk page of The Hunting Ground. ? KirkCliff2 WP:DIS + No damage is being done. A cursory look at the talk page of Winston's bio shows Alva working extremely well with other editors and his edit requests meeting their approval. ? BullRangifer WP:DIS - even if his edits are well-received, are they factually accurate? And were the editors aware of Alva's Conflict of Interest, which should technically have precluded him from being in the discussion? Meanwhile, many of his other edits are far less constructive, and were essentially revisionism so that his film could be seen by Wikipedia as more accurate. ? KirkCliff2 WP:NPV - changing articles to match the accusations of the film ? KirkCliff2 WP:NPV - The NPOV of Wikipedia is to ensure the minimization of any bias, or at least as much as possible when presenting information, and as such all things that might insert bias, such as editors with a vested interest in the topic, are not exempt from making sure bias is not inserted, even if the NPOV Wikipedia strives for doesn't make the topic at hand look good. ? Arcane21 WP:VER - changing articles to match the accusations of the film ? KirkCliff2 REQ na issues be addressed with the guilty party, and that this bad-faith editing is halted na KirkCliff2 REQ na shouldn't be editing either article na John Nagle REQ na step away from editing in this subject area entirely na Kelly REQ na could an admin consider taking action to deal with the vandalism on my user page this morning? It has been reverted once, which I appreciate -- but I do not look forward to having to deal with schoolyard insults while this issue plays out na Edwardpatrickalva REQ na refrain from editing any article for which you have a COI for at least a while until these articles can be evaluated and stabilize na Rhododendrites REQ na permanent ban, and I believe that any admin can do it na Smallbones REQ na A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions. na BullRangifer @LeoRomero: I can't tell if your intent was to close this discussion or not. These summaries (here and at User talk:Jimbo Wales) are admirable and probably helpful, but if this is not an actual close, it does, at least in part, have the effect of closing/moderating discussion. Operating under the assumption you're looking to aid continued discussion rather than close it, I've renamed the section from "case summary" to "summary of discussion so far" and collapsed the extended table. Others can feel free to restore if I'm alone in thinking this way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Hi @Rhododendrites: I like all your edits, thanks. The only change I made was to add the word "diffs" to your title. We have a severe shortage of diffs in this case. (Is there a Diff Drought?) Of all the participants, only one provided diffs - @Nagle: all 3 of those diffs linked from the table. Our overworked Arbs and staff need good diffs in order to examine the evidence without having to read yet another gazillion pages. And thanks for assuming my good faith, Rhod, and for the opportunity to address your concerns. Even if I did have the power to close an ANI (or any) discussion (which I don't, and never-ever will), there's no way that I would close this case without adequate evidence via diffs. I wouldn't even open it. And that would be such a disservice, esp to both the accuser and the accused, who almost always, as in this case, get the most abuse. Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho removing sourced content and not being civil

I am involved in a content dispute with User:Serialjoepsycho on the List of military occupations in several places. One of the areas is that the lead of the article states that annexed territories are not to be included, and the second sentence and paragraph, then goes on to explain what that means. Based on that, I said that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should not be included. He responded, that EJ and GH is occupied and should be included. I kept going on in circles, that I never said it's not occupied, but the lead is inconsistent with what the list is and either the list has to change or the lead has to change, I made a passing mention to Tibet as another territory that was also annexed but is not in the list.

• I then made an edit to the page and added Tibet to the list.
  User:Serialjoepsycho then reverted [89] claiming it to be a violation of wp:point.
• I then reverted back, and added a comment to the reference part.
  I then edited again and added two references asserting notability to the claim that Tibet should be included in the list [90].
• User:Serialjoepsycho then reverted back claiming a violation of wp:point [91].
• He then claims on the talk page that Tibet was removed due to a consensus: and that my edit was solely to prove a point.
• I then pointed out to him that I edited the page and included links to sources: [92]
• I then pointed out that I looked through the archives and found no consensus: [93]
• At the end of Archive 2, he even asks for a discussion on Tibet: [94]
• Here again, he claims I am including Tibet solely because of WP:POINT [95]
• Here he says anyone is free to challenge and take the appropriate action or process, but I am just interested in WP:POINT (This is after he reverted my edits, with the sources): [96]

• Here again, I asked him to show me where the consensus was and that his continuous use of WP:POINT violates WP:AGF. I asked him if I had to clear every edit with him first? I reminded him that I did indeed add sources to my edit. He then violated policy by failing to assume good faith and failing to talk about what he obviously knew was a contentious edit on the talk page. [97]
  

• He then claims I am violating WP:CANVASSING by my contacting one of the editors who was involved in a prior conversation with him a while back. [98]
  

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs)

This is very excessive since it makes no actual case. WP:AGF has that become a suicide pact now? Contacting one editor that was involved in a conversation a year ago on the basis that you think they will support your position is canvassing. This is what happened.

When someone makes a change to an article to promote their point of view because an RFC is not going their way, only for the actually purpose of promoting their point of view, this is point making. Consensus is not a matter of Either I get my way this way or I get my way that way. This however is their case here. Either we remove East Jerusalem and Golan Heights or we place in Tibet[99]. What is this really? A fallacy of false choice? A consensus for one thing does not imply a consensus for the other. They are trying promote that it is. This point here is the reason behind their edit [100].

I do have a consensus for the removal of Tibet. I took it to the talk page. I responded to those who had responded. No further response came and there was little discussion anyway. Since making the change it has been maintained with little discussion against it [101]. As far as I can recall I've been the one to seek out these discussions on the talk page since my involvement.If I'm actually needed here for anything else please ping me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, no answer to why he removed my insertion of Tibet. Even if we say there was a consensus, I included references and consensus can change. His "evidence" in link 181 is funny considering 1. He specifically asked me to name a country not on the page and 2. The way he interacts in an uncivil manner. I am still waiting for a valid reason why I'm not allowed to edit the page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 07:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A search for Tibet in the archives shows a 2000 Talk:List_of_military_occupations/Archive_1#Tibet with one person making a statement and no responses and a September 2014 Talk:List_of_military_occupations/Archive_2#Tibet_is_a_part_of_China discussion by Serialjoepsycho with one person in response and a counter-response. This seems like the first time someone has brought up sources and we have Talk:List_of_military_occupations#Tibet now so I think we can have an actual discussion now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

But if I include it, he will then revert, or report me. When I included it, it had references. Can you please add my diff of Tibet? I would even be OK with him adding a disputed tag to that, but it should still be added. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What you are missing is they are not entering the content dispute as you would like. They are saying a more in depth conversation than what has happened in the past can happen on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it was for years, and that's not WP:POINT. I included references on my edit. If you didn't like it, you could mention it in the talk page, add a tag to it on the article, but there is no reason to revert it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not how what was for years? Maybe you could add complete thoughts? You added Tibet in the first place simply as an exercise in point making. WP:BRD Very common practice. You make a "bold edit", I revert, you take it to the talk page to discuss. I already had a consensus to remove Tibet. You need to go get a consensus to put it in. Adding two of the weakest possible sources you can find in 5 seconds is not the same as getting a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

1) You had no consensus on keeping Tibet off. 2) You keep failing to AGF in me putting Tibet on there. I didn't put Hawaii on there, did I? You don't own the page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Some basic points, irrelevant of who's right or wrong. Zerothly, content is not to be adjudicated here, just conduct. Content is discussed insofar as it is relevant to the conduct issue. Firstly, nobody needs any consensus for keeping content off, consensus needs to be found by the person who wants to keep the content. See WP:ONUS. Secondly, just having references is not enough for inclusion of content. See WP:ONUS again. Thirdly, I don't really see anything too egregious here which can't be settled on the talk page. WP:AGF can get strained in heated talk page discussions. I know several editors who can't stand me and often think the worst of my motives, based on past experience. One learns to live with it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, 1) You don't understand what a consensus is if you consider that I did not have a consensus. WP:Consensus Here's a whole policy explaining it. Regardless of that the WP:ONUS is on you to get a consensus. 2) AGF is not a suicide pact. Your position again is that if we don't endorse this one view then we must endorse this view. This is a False dichotomy to which you are trying to make this edit to promote. This is the purpose behind your edit. This is an exercise in point making. It's very simple matter. Go get a consensus. A consensus to keep East Jerusalem and Golan Heights in the article is not a consensus to place Tibet in the article. If you want to promote this false dichotomy go ahead, and again get a consensus. If you are curious at how to do it, Go to the talk page and try to get one there. If that doesn't work use some form of dispute resolution such as an RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in looking on the talk page, there were at least three mentions of Tibet, Archive 1, Archive 2 , This is also in archive 2 , there doesn't appear to be any others, and in those three sections , there doesn't appear to be a consensus reached in any of them, so I don't think what Serialjoepsycho's saying is correct. It looks like no consensus is present for the inclusion or exclusion of Tibet. KoshVorlon 18:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Silence is consensus. But never the less the onus is on them as they seek to include content.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho Silence is never consensus, that's an old argument and it's been shot down everytime it's been brought to ANI. KoshVorlon 11:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

When I make a removal and take it to the talk page and there's little or no discussion, I have a consensus for the removal. When a long time later someone readds it and I once again take it to the talk page and the only comment is in support, I have again done my due diligence. When a significantly long time later a user adds it back, the wp:onus is on them. The overriding factor here for this addition by this user to add Tibet is that they want to remove something else. Either we remove what they want or we add Tibet. Just point making and wikilawyering.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually prepared to talk about it with anyone or will you keep repeating that you have consensus even if it's just a consensus of you? Other editors do have a right to argue that consensus has changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There's already a discussion underway, which I started. Other editors have the right to argue the consensus has changed. If necessary there's also a central location to determine the consensus WP:ANRFC. Those editors are not free to give inappropriate notification in seeking a consensus [102]. This is not a matter of actually getting a consensus for the inclusion of Tibet. This is a matter of promoting their false dichotomy, that they started promoting first in the active RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I posted Tibet, with a reference. You keep saying there is a consensus. Just because you say it doesn't make it so, a consensus of one is not a consensus. And this is indeed bordering on WP:OWN, if I may say so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

To add material to the article the onus is on you to achieve a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No, to remove something sourced, it is up to you to achieve a consensus. There was no consensus to exclude Tibet, so my addition did not need a consensus, just being bold and having sources, your removal needs a consensus. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As it's already been pointed out to you in this discussion, "just having references is not enough for inclusion of content. See WP:ONUS again." Convenient placed blue link there for you to click and everything.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, based on your logic, I had a consensus to include it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Then go ahead and apply the logic. Where have you commented on the talk page and received little or no comment in against your change? Where have you placed it in the article and maintained it's inclusion with little or no talk on the talk page? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

* block Sir Joseph for disruption. SerialJoe is right, he posted a post in 2014 and only one person objected. He has consensus on that page, no one has any right to be disruptive. 166.170.45.253 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

huh? how is this bordering on disruptive? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ignore the IP. It's a sock of an indefinitely blocked user who only comes back to troll. Blackmane (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty of formatting the OP's text so I can actually read this thread. Sir Joseph, you really need to learn wiki markup. Don't use HTML; there's no need for spacing between bullet points; for line breaks either double space or use bullets; and please collapse future WP:DIFFS with brackets as I have done. Softlavender (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Here he goes again, [103] I put a disputed tag on the page and not only did he remove it, even though we were discussing it on the talk page, he removed it and made a comment it being pointy. He continuously thinks the page is his. If you look at the latest talk section, he ignores that there are other opinions other than his own. If you look at the beginning of the page, you will see he already chased away several editors, and that is the MO of how it works on Wikipedia and how to achieve your POV, or so it seems, as it was pointed out by Koshvorlon and Ricky81682, and now I can't put the disputed tag back because it's 1RR and I'd be reported to AE again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I put in the disputed tag because of Gaza ,East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and he reverted and only mentions Gaza. On top of that, he doesn't even mention it on the talk page, he just reverts. Yet, other editors have claimed that Gaza should not be listed, so according to him there is no clear consensus so it must be discussed. How can someone just own a page and get away with it consistently? Won't anyone do anything about it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

My two cents provided at Talk:List_of_military_occupations#Disputed_.282.29 as to the disputed tag. As to the issue, I suggest Sir Joseph let the RFC run its course rather than try to "adjust" the article to reflect the concerns. The RFC provides a distinction within it about military occupations. If Sir Joseph can find sources that differentiate these issues, that could help resolve things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I own the article because they are not allowed to own the article is really what I'm getting here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh and since AGF is now a suicide pact, perhaps you can explain the good faith reason for opening a discussion towards the top of the talk page instead of the bottom beneath the other active discussions[104]?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This rises to the level of harassment and should not be tolerated by the community. The OP is violating numerous guidelines regarding civility and is behaving in an unspeakable manner. At the very least, we should consider an interaction ban or a community ban. MForteKL (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Whom ever this Sockpuppet is give it a rest. You supported me and I'm the one that marked your ip a SPA above. You aren't going to secretly slip one by anyone. There's no point in these dishonest tactics.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

San Jose, California

Can we get someone to lockup San Jose, California for a bit ...blanking going on....or block those involved. -- Moxy (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice. We have San José acting as a redirect to San Jose, and San Jose acting as a redirect to San José. So one of those needs to be undone. Since San José seems to be the correct spelling per the official website that's what I'm setting it to. Tabercil (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Woops, sorry. Looks like I checked things smack dab in between repair edits and jumped the wrong way. I see Edgar181 set things right - thanks! Tabercil (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think everything is put back in the right place for now. It appears that the edits were made in good faith, but the widespread change from San Jose to San José would need consensus first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

For example, the San Jose Sharks do not use the accented "e" on their website.[105] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And this is the official city government website, and they don't put the accent on the "e" either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually they use both. It's not in the logo but it's there on the front page at least four times. However, it is not widely used (ie San Jose Mercury News, San Jose Sharks etc) but appears to be a relatively new pretentious detail to go with the gentrification over the past 15 years. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like the problem is/was solely confined to one editor: Salvaeditor (logged in and logged out). He's gotten a few warnings about it on his talk page, including a final warning. I think we just need for him to confirm here that he is not going to continue this disruption (and also that he won't make cut&paste moves of any article). Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC); edited 06:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Konstantin Monastyrsky

Severe COI editor, who in his last edit has identified himself as Konstantin Monastyrsky, making big changes to his own article. I warned him of COI process on his talk page (Sorry, not sure how to link to a diff for creating a new page,) and when ignored raised an issue on the COI page here. Another editor agreed, and also reverted Kmonastyrsky's edits here which were reverted again by Kmonastyrsky here.

Users edit summaries show no intention of following COI process:

• "Chaheel Riens, you revisions violates Wikipedia's policy against backlinking. If you revise this page again, please justify your edits."
• "Chaheel Riens, you are in a violation of Wikipedia policy of making changes on behalf of interested party. I request that you recuse yourself from modifying this page."
• "Your edits are inappropriate. I am not "Soviet" writer, but American. People who have made the negative comments about my work do not represent "scientific community" and use my page to promote themselves."

I'm not sure if this comes under COI, edit warring, disruptive editing, vandalism, ididnthearthat, or a combination of all and more.

Editors informed on their talk pages. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The material Kmonastyrsky was objecting to was not properly sourced so that's been removed along with self-sourced puffery and Kmonastyrsky has been warned. I don't think any further admin action is needed at this point. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This page should be deleted. There is only one 3rd party source on the subject, and it tells this. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: If the article really does not meet notability, please WP:AfD it. If that's not going to happen, and this is a COI case, please re-open the WP:COIN case, which should not be closed merely because there is an additional discussion here. Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Update: I checked out the article, and nominated it for deletion myself: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstantin Monastyrsky. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Update 2: If the article stays on Wikipedia, Chaheel Riens needs to stay off of it. He is posting inaccurate claims and citing them to non-RS obscure talk-radio shows. Might even rate a boomerang here. Thank you to NeilN for the cleanup. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Softlavender, thanks for catching the baton! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Omar-toons

Omar-toons (talk · contribs) is a prolific editor on topics related to northern Africa, particularly Morocco and Algeria. Unfortunately he has a strong pro-Moroccan and anti-Algerian POV that makes it impossible for him to work constructively and collaboratively on those topics. The example that brought me here was the Sand War where Omar-toons is giving prominence to less reliable sources and for spurious reasons either removes or de-emphasizes better source. Examples include [106], [107], [108], [109]. By now there's a rather wide, policy-based consensus established on the talk page; that didn't keep him from labeling those opposing his preferred order of sources "disruptive".

That pattern of edits is not limited to a single article: [110][111], [112], [113], [114]. The standard modus operandi is to revert, possibly quoting some irrelevant policy, and to keep reverting until the other side is exhausted. In my experience talk page comments generally are short, if they're given at all, and do not address the points raised by others; they're more of a diversionary tactic than an attempt to establish a consensus.

For these reasons I'm proposing a topic ban for Omar-toons from edits related to North Africa and the Maghreb. Huon (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

In my defense I could say that I always try to keep it NPOV, and that disagreeing with me about the edition on one sole article isn't enough to accuse me of being a POV-pusher (I even keep it NPOV about Western Sahara, for example by considering it a separate territory from Morocco, which can be considered illegal here... just to say).

Also, I called M.Bitton "disruptive" because... actually he is. Did you take a look on his TP (in its pre-cleaning version)? He did a mess last time he intervened... [115]. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reduce Sanction to 1PR I don't think that we should TB any editor who is adding material to an article. YES his additions are POV(I have just come here from Sand war, an article I went to browse and witnessed it brim over with drama), but still he adds sources and does work. So we should just make sure that we take out the disruptive side of his contributions , and a One revert Per Day sanction should be just that. Toons can continue editing Wiki, but if he is reverted he will have to discuss it without being disruptive. Win Win for all. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And, FreeatlastChitchat : you are nor an admin nor involved, except the fact that we had some diagreements on previous articles (where you POV-pushed a lot)... so, what's your point? --Omar-toons (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ummmm, don't know what to say here when faced with this kind of imbecility. But here goes. DUDE! I am on your frigging side here. Did you not even read my comment? It says "REDUCE SANCTION" right there at the start. Being involved with you in debates and still taking your side on this is evidence in itself that I am not INVOLVED, so whats your point? had I been involved I would have commented something like "Toons is a complete troll who routinely edit wars on Algeria related pages diff, diff, diff, diff. Ban him asap omg why isnt he banned yet. /hairpull #BanToons". So please do not look a gift horse in the mouth. @admins who judge this, my stance still remians that toon should not be topic banned. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Omar-Toons was blocked for edit-warring this time; my suggestion was going to be that we try and let regular processes play out. I can't see if an ANEW report was filed, but that, perhaps, should be done every time OT gets to edit warring--and kindly point out, in such reports, that typically OT isn't always guilty of 3R, but rather of slower edit warring. I am well aware of OT's zeal and occasional disruption, which includes ownership-style editing and very loose interpretations of policy ("You are a little bit late : all sources are kept per WP:BOLD"); for a topic ban, however, we would need more evidence from different pages. I'll have a look at Huon's second paragraph; in the meantime, I'll also ping Dougweller, who has some experience dealing with this type of problem. In the other meantime, Omar-Toons, I wish that on occasion (like, on this occasion), you could break out your most mellow and collaborative side. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• OK, Omar-toons did the exact same thing on Algerian War just signaled by User:Huon, and I have blocked him again for edit warring, now for 72 hours. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask for a topic ban for a slow-moving edit war, though that's tedious enough on its own. What did it for me was a mistranslation and a misrepresentation of a source. Omar-toons adding sources is no benefit if the sources don't say what he claims they say. Huon (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior with ethnic overtones on Blue Army (Poland) Talk Page

I'd like to report User:Faustian for disruptive behavior on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. Several editors are in the process of agreeing on a consensus based on the results of a nearly finalized RfC, which concluded that the there is a issue of undue weight and coat-racking within the article. Unfortunately, despite the outcome of the vote, Faustian has continued to argue that more information should be added, contrary to the RfC results, more importantly his behavior is taking on the characteristics of bullying when Faustian wrote: "So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source" and "Double-standards motivated by nationalism" and "You are presenting with a pattern of dishonesty" [116] . I would request that Faustian is blocked before this gets out of hand. Also, he continues to revert edits which have gained support — here: [117] [118] and [119]--E-960 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Darouet's assessment that your RFC is non-neutral and thus rather problematic. Additionally the most support is for the third of three options ("Other possible solutions") so it does not seem as though consensus is really very strong. I don't see that Faustian is doing anything to be blocked for. I would recommend you withdraw the RfC and rephrase it in an unbiased way, plus have only clear options for people to support rather than a vague "other." —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

—Мандичка, the RfC is a separate item (btw most folks clearly voted for option 3, no need to question the results), the problem I'm reporting on has nothing to do with the merits of the discussion. But, the tone struck by user Faustain, pls address my request. --E-960 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just telling you my unbiased impression. I don't think Faustian has done anything worth banning for and may have a point. You shouldn't be making those changes before the RfC is complete so Faustian is right to revert you. I don't agree with your assessment that it's a nearly finalized RfC. The tally vote math has "Option 1: 1.5 votes/Option 2: 2 votes/Option 3: 3.5 votes to reduce the text / 1 vote to expand the text" IMO this is not very clear at all and not much of a majority. Additionally, the RfC as you formed it clearly violates policy as it is very leading and biased, and thus an admin may choose to close it with no consensus by default. So I recommend starting over with a neutral question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

E-960 is operating as essentially a SPA devoted to removing negative information about the Blue Army. This is part of his disruptive process. The talk-page is filled with his mostly one-editor struggle to do this. He has already been caught deliberately misrepresenting what a source says. On another RFC he claimed [120]: " Also, as noted by Encyclopedia Judaica such actions were the result of "individual soldiers",[2] so the article text should not overemphasize controversial subject matter to tacitly imply that the entire army was a pogroming force." The actual source stated [121]: "Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." This sort of thing has been common with him. He is clearly not here to build an Encyclopedia but to remove information he doesn't like, and to disrupt the efforts of those who are here to build the encyclopedia. If anyone ought to be sanctioned, it should be him. Please do so.Faustian (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note the results of the RfC vote, I think most editors who commented have a genuine desire to improve the article, however the recent tone struck by Faustian is counter productive:

• Option 3: As suggested by users SMcCandlish and Ivanevian. I think that the proposed "third way" approach is fair and worth pursuing. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Faustian (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: Certainly keep lead and body material that describes pogroms, but add more information that also describes the causes of anti-Semitic and anti-Ukrainian violence, as we discussed in the Talk Pages above. -Darouet (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: There is clearly a WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK problem here, but it is not as significant as the nom suggests. I do agree that this material can be compressed by about 50%, but a summary of it should not be removed from the lead. As noted below about Enc. Judaica, Haller's Army is notorious for this; i.e., it's one of the things that establishes WP:Notability. It's not WP's job to do a WP:SYNTH analysis of our own on how significant the alleged pogromming was in relation to the Blue Army's role in the war. Just follow the sources. That said, don't dwell and dwell on one aspect from cherry-picked sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: I wouldn't go as far as option 1, but the emphasis on anti-Jewish violence by the BA completely distorts this article, so a re-edit of some kind is definitely needed. Ivanevian (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1/3 I second Ivanevian; the article currently has an undue focus on this issue. I'd suggest shortening the lead a bit (what are "numerous segments"?), and trying to be more concise in the body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1: Re-edit the sections as recommended. Reason: It is too one-sided, hence POV now. Zezen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

--E-960 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

He has now violated 3R. Reversions are here: [122], here: [123], here: [124] and here: [125]. He was warned here: [126].

Most of his reversions involved removing sourced information without consensus and despite a previous RFC having concluded that the information was acceptable in the article (RFC here: [127]).Faustian (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, the removal of this text was seconded by an experienced user Volunteer Marek, because the text originally cited to back it up was taken out of context and was missing key verses that completely changed the meaning of the statement. --E-960 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

False. The full passage was included and RFC passed with the full passage. Anyone can follow the RFC here: [128], just scroll down. The missing verses actually made the RFC less likely to pass. When I included the full paragraph it was determined that the statement in the article did reflect the original source. Had I deliberately left out information to make my case better (as you falsely claim I did) people wouldn't have disagreed with me initially.

At any rate, this is off-topic, although it does highlight your negative approach to wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, lord. Could we please have an admin involve themselves here? In all honesty, any editors who have had dealings with E-960 have been subjected to his blunderbuss techniques to the point of EXHAUSTion and should no longer be expected to assume good faith. He's an SPA who's NOTHERE being allowed to continue BATTLEGROUND tactics on all things ARBEE. Please see these archived ANIs: here, here, and here. He's a bully, pure and simple. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment, as I told Faustian, that the current discussion on the talk page, is attracting input from several experienced editors and we are receiving feedback on how to improve the disputed section, however Faustian wants to add material without gaining consensus and reverting text which was seconded by another user. I suggest any admin should look at the ongoing discussion before rushing to judgement. --E-960 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• On quick note, my last recommendation was to initiate a cool-off period until other editors can review the proposed edits. [129] I don't think that by making such statement I'm engaging in battleground tactics, just simply trying to get more editor to review possibly controversial text. --E-960 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• On a quick note, I don't accept this piece of WP:CRUSH as being 'respectful' in good faith. I'm afraid your reputation precedes you here. Paying lip-service to 'civil' when you believe it serves your purposes is a misrepresentation of the machinations of how and why you edit, and how you interact with other editors. Incidentally, starting this thread and posting this slanted 'request' on the AN is FORUMSHOPPING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Addendum: Anyone who reads through the protracted dispute on the article's talk page will see for themselves that the context in which you 'initiated' a 'cool-off period' belies your claim not to be batteground... and anyone who knows the first thing about how RfCs work know they are not a !vote... so why do you keep counting !votes? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has several editor comments and we are in the process of agreeing on how to fix the disputed actions, the votes are just a quick reference point. No need to ridicule my method, also because several editors have lend their feedback, I don't think that Faustian's approach is productive, when he tries to insert more information to the disputed section while the discussion is on how to reduce the size of the text to avoid Coat-racking with in the article. --E-960 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Faustian inappropriate comments questioning editor's ethnicity

Moved up from bottom of page as new report. BMK (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, for the the third time User:Faustian has questioned an editor's ethnicity on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. This again happened after I submitted an ANI yesterday — 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — to check his behavior before it got out of hand. Unfortunately, my request was ignored. Since, then Faustian has made the same obnoxious remarks to Volunteer Marek.

• Double-standards motivated by nationalism? Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• In the RFC and here every non-Pole felt that it reflected the source. Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Prompting this response:

• I have no idea how you know the ethnic background of everyone who's commented here. Second, you are ascribing views to people based on their ethnicity "Y believes X because Y is Z". This is at best a form of offensive stereotyping and at worst a form of bigotry. Third, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to be aware that the proper way to carry out discussion is by commenting on content, not editors. Volunteer Marek 22:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm very frustrated by the apparent selectivity of how admins discipline editors, I myself have been accused of being an instigator, yet no disparaging remarks were made on my part. All the while user Faustian has been blocking content which was agreed on with other edits and making rude comments. Yet, no disciplinary action has been taken against him. Is this going to continue? --E-960 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is your second complaint here about Faustian on the Blue Army article and the other one is not even closed. The reason why you're accused of being an instigator is apparent. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask that you address the statements made by Faustain, pls. Yes, it's the second request because I'm afraid you ignored the first. --E-960 (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC

He was just blocked for edit-warring: [130]; after coming off his block he is continuing his pattern of disruptions and harassment.

My statements that he is complaining about, in the talk section of an article about a Polish military unit that killed Jewish civilians: "In the RFC and here every non-Pole (once the full paragraph was included) felt that it reflected the source: [12]. Me, SMcCandlish ☺, Malik Shabazz, and here Darouet. truther2012 felt it wasn't but that was before I provded the full context, and he didn't respond after that. RFC was closed by Robert McClenon (talk who concluded "The statement does properly reflect the source." My statement that all the people who happened to not be Polish, felt that the statement reflected the source, was accurate. I suspect this may not be a pure coincidence. I have respect for you as an editor and I think you edit in good faith, but like all of us you might not be completely free of unintentional bias. A good thing about an RFC is that it can get neutral voices. In this case, the neutral voices didn't agree with you. I would be happy to do another RFC. My next and final comment on this topic was: " Volunteer Marek , I'm disappointed in your harsh tone; I had been quite civil with you. I did not ascribe views to people based on ethnicity but suggested the possibility of subtle bias, due to one's background, in you (as in anyone), whom I consider to be a good-faith editor. I pointed out that it would be good to have non-Eastern Europeans comment on these issues as they have no "dogs in this fight" and that on this specific issue concerning a Polish military unit non-Polish peoples' attitudes differ form Polish editors. Something to think about. that being said, I won't comment on this anymore and will stick to content."

This discussion was finished, but then E-960 (talk decided to use it to continue his pattern of harassment and disruptions.Faustian (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this was simply false: "All the while user Faustian has been blocking content which was agreed on with other edits".Faustian (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already addressed Faustian's behavior and once again I don't feel Faustian has done anything wrong. IMO he is arguing for a neutral viewpoint here, not just the Polish POV, which I think is necessary for content such as this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, majority of users who commented recently on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page: User:Piotrus, User:Ivanevian, User:Zezen, User:Volunteer Marek, User:SMcCandlish and User:SageRad believe that Faustian is not arguing from a neutral POV, but unfortunately when an admin is selectively looking through the content you can justify just about any kind of behavior. --E-960 (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet another misrepresentation, but off-topic here so I won't get drawn into a discussion here.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for E-960

It's been suggested here that E-960 is a SPA for Poland who is WP:NOTHERE. I've noticed seriously problematic, non-neutral and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior so far on the talk page for the Blue Army, and elsewhere E-960 does not appear interested in engaging in a civil manner[131], [132]. We have previous ANI complaints[133][134] and I propose this be dealt with via a topic ban for Eastern Europe, which is already under WP:ARBEE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. His efforts are a largely a trail of disruptions. Faustian (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:In ictu oculi continually spreading lies/harassing - please make him stop

This has been going on for years and years now, and it seems to always get ignored or brushed aside. This is not another oops slip-up by In Ictu oculi. I've asked him so many times over those years to stop the lies my fingers are getting tired from typing it. A difference of opinion is one thing, we don't agree on diacritics. Now there are several conversations going on about whether wikipedia should ignore a person's own wishes and sources on how to spell their name in English. And in those conversations, once again, In ictu oculi is making personal attacks and spreading the same lies once again. I did not create WP:TENNISNAMES, I did not even !vote on creating that essay and told the editor I could not support something that didn't take into account all sourcing. In ictu oculi is closer to owning that essay as he edited it. Yet over and over again he attacks me on it with these continual fabrications: HERE and HERE. There are dozens of these off-topic attacks on me. I don't care that he disagrees with me on following a biographical person's own wishes, that's wikipedia. I do care about his continually, year after year, attacking me with fabricated nonsense. Please make him stop this ridiculous baloney and stick to the topics at hand, because I've had it with his own warped version of non-truth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the type of thing I had to deal with even 3 years ago when this guy tried to round up everyone he knew to attack me. It will never end with this guy and I want it stopped this time. I will keep reporting it until I get satisfaction because I don't want his attacks and lies to get swept under another rug. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see you are frustrated, Fyunck(click), but I don't believe those diffs warrant a block. I have posted a warning on his talk page (User talk:In ictu oculi#November 2015). If this disagreement between the two of you has been going on for years over a specific set of articles, I encourage you to utilize dispute resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm beyond pissed. But I don't want a block. That's always the last thing I want. I want it retracted and I want it to not happen again. After years and years of this same baloney from him... always leaving the topic at hand to attack me, to slide in innuendos, to link me to the page he worked on, to bring up things from years ago every chance he gets... I'm fed up. I try to turn the other check with this fabricator, but he won't let me. He's been banned from my talk page for years, Administrators have told me to try and steer clear of his antics and they'll blow over. Well they never seem to blow over. Don't block...make him STOP! I want nothing to do with him, ever, as he is 100% untrustworthy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What about an interaction ban? clpo13_(talk) 20:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In looking at it, that could work. If an RM or RfC happens, it looks like we can both comment as long as we don't comment with each other or bring the other one up in any way. I assume if one of us starts the RM/RfC the other could !vote? I could go for that. Anything to stop this dude. And effectively, I do that already unless it's to defend myself when he gets way out of line. And it's better than a dispute resolution mentioned above because I will never ever assume good faith or trust this editor in any way. That boat has long since sailed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I know it affects me also, but how do we get the ball rolling on that so I don't have to deal with this anymore? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it's a holiday in the US so I expect a slow down in implementing, but I want to make sure this stays fresh. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user Calton

I'm hoping an administrator can evaluate the Talk page conversations between me and user Calton. I believe the user is engaging in continuous personal attacks against me.

• After the first series of personal attacks, I wrote a note on his Talk page asking him to refrain from continuing.
• I wrote a detailed list (including links) of each personal attack he made against me on his Talk page.
• As a response to my note on his Talk page, he wrote a note on my talk page that I find to be abusive, including continuation of his past behavior of using curse words and writing to me "You are dishonest."

Because this user continues to write personal attacks, despite my effort to stop them, I am requesting an administrator to intervene. Fact Checkmater (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing the disputed edits, I note that you've used an unreliable, polemic source to support negative claims about a living person; I've removed the claim and the source in question. I suggest that you review the biographies of living persons policy and the reliable sources guideline. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. However, your response did not address my post here on this noticeboard. Respectfully, this note on this noticeboard was about the conduct of a user and my feeling that I was/am being personally attacked. Would you mind please addressing this? To address what you did write: I understand what you are saying about the sources and subject matter, and I will work to improve the neutrality of my editing. Thank you. Fact Checkmater (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, one more question. In your response you wrote "I've removed the claim and the source in question." I'd like to view that so that I can improve. I'm wondering which article you are referring to. I glanced at your contribution history and don't see any activity from your account (after I posted this notice here) on any Wikipedia article that I've edited. Thanks, Fact Checkmater (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Right here. Another user has since added back similar information, this time supported by a suitable reliable source. If you have questions about which sources are usable, the best place for that is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...It looks like you made a false and spurious accusation that Calton had a conflict of interest with respect to a number of articles. If you fabricate a COI claim against another editor based on no evidence whatsoever, it shouldn't be entirely surprising if that editor responds with less-than-endless patience. Be aware that baseless accusations of unethical editorial conduct are themselves seen as personal attacks. I would strongly recommend, Fact Checkmater, that you drop the stick and back away from the horse, lest you face a boomerang. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Calton only seems to be contributing sporadically of late, but did leave this on the NPOVN. There could be something bigger that a boomerang flying in Fact Checkmater's direction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite ban of Calton The community's patience has been exhausted.MForteKL (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: this account is about two hours old. Reyk _YO! 12:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why I am here — I think I looked at the history of one of the participants. In any case I see that those doing the complaining are being accused of being newbies, I think (I apologize did not read this carefully). So since I recognized the name User:Calton I thought would mention an interaction I had with the same editor when I was a newbie a long time ago. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Dƶoxar and Kyiv/ Kiev

User:Dƶoxar is not ready to accept Wikipedia consensus that the capital of Ukraine is Kiev (not Kyiv), see Talk:Kiev/Naming. Hedoes not edit Wikipedia often these days, but when he does, he comes back to Ahatanhel Krymsky and replaces Kiev with Kyiv on all occasions. Lest year I took it to their talk page, and they said they do not accept the above-linked discussion as consensus. For safety, I took the issue to the WikiProject:Ukraine and got exactly zero comments. Today, they started an edit-war in the article (at three reverts now) and called me a "vandal" [135]. This is usual article ownership problem, which is exaggerated by the fact that only them and me care about the article at all. IAt this point, I am not sure what to do, I would definitely reject myself a similar RFPP request, and I do not see how 3RR would give smth in this situation. I think the general problem is that nobody cares, and the user just insists on keeping it at their version.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

May be to add that other users have been blocked in the past for mass renaming / replace Kiev by Kyiv, but to get blocked, they really had to work hard and to exhaust someone's patience.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a particular need for consensus about this specific issue, given it falls under the more generic scope of WP:ENGLISH. As far as I'm aware, the English-language name of the city is Kiev, even though Kyiv is a more direct transliteration of the Ukrainian name: "do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one". LjL (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I accept Kiev but I don't accept exclusion of Kyiv. Historically Kiev was used wider but practically both versions are correct. So, I think users have right to choose depending on context. (Although this is not precisely this case but I see it similar.)--Dƶoxar (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kyiv is the Latin spelling of Ukrainian name and it is the capital of Ukraine, versus the Russian-era Kiev. Kyiv is used nearly universally by a majority of reliable sources, including other governments, the CIA Factbook, National Geographic etc. Insistence on the Russian spelling of Kiev is ridiculous and Dƶoxar is right to question how this is allowed to be "consensus" when it's clearly politically motivated from pro-Russian editors. It goes to show the problem with consensus in that facts are irrelevant; consensus could be that fuchsia is yellow; that doesn't mean it actually is. It's no different than clarifying Peking/Beijing; Bombay/Mumbai, Calcutta/Kolkata, all of which are respected on Wikipedia. Both can be used but Kiev should redirect to Kyiv, and not other way around. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not the venue to discuss Kiev vs Kyiv issue. We have Talk:Kiev/Naming for that. I suggested to take the issue there a year ago, but nothing happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kyiv redirects to Kiev and many articles, such as Kyiv Post and Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, use this spelling as it is perfectly correct. Kyiv is not wrong nor is it vandalism. There are many articles with spelling variations of proper names, such as Lwów Ghetto for Lviv, because of transliteration or common name. I fail to see how Dƶoxar is being disruptive and think you are POV-pushing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me Wikimandia, who said "Kyiv was vandalism"? The OP said that the other editor accused them of vandalism for insisting on Kiev. LjL (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: IMO, OP is implying Dƶoxar is being disruptive by using Kyiv in articles, and that he went on his page to warn him not to do that. I'm stating that there is no such need as Kyiv is not wrong and as I stated, is frequently used across Wikipedia. It's not vandalism so why the need to go tell them to stop using it? It would be like going on someone's talk page and warning them to stop using the name Myanmar to refer to Burma. Surely there are more important issues to worry about. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not there is merit to using the "Kyiv" name (which is not so much for this board to discuss), WP:Vandalism isn't the only behavior that is against Wikipedia policies. LjL (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OP stated that Dzoxar started an edit war when that is not true - OP reverted Dzoxar first.[136] Meanwhile, Dzoxar did not violate any policies by using Kyiv and I can see his frustration over this. I think it's a real problem that OP, who is Russian, is POV-pushing insisting on the Russian version for the Ukrainian capital. LjL what you said above about Kiev being the English name is not correct - Kyiv is recognized as English by multiple English dictionaries and reliable sources. It's not the equivalent of using "Munchen" for Munich or "Moskva" for "Moscow." "Kiev" is an artifact of Soviet Ukraine and no different than the Russian spellings of other Ukrainian cities that have been changed and recognized, such as Lviv, Kharkiv, Zaporizhia, Luhansk etc. Reverting mentions of Kyiv is pure politics and IMO rather unbecoming of an admin like Ymblanter. If people want to use the spelling Kyiv in random articles about Ukrainians like Ahatanhel Krymsky, who cares? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, do care a bit about consistency. As to "reverting first"... that's not (necessarily) starting an edit war, as per WP:BRD. Usually, the one reinstating the reverted content without discussion is the one considered to be edit warring. LjL (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Iron-fisted consistency is not a hard and fast rule, thus we allow variations for British/American spelling, DMY/MDY dates etc. They are all correct. Kiev and Kyiv are both English, and thus we have Kyiv in article names because it is not considered foreign. Consistency in the same article is what I care about. The article on Ahatanhel Krymsky was started from the very beginning with the spelling Kyiv. Ymblanter is the one who changed it to Kiev. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As advised, please take content debates to Talk:Kiev/Naming and off of ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Where I've started an RfC here. BMK (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I personally disagree with the idea that this merits yet another RfC about Kiev/Kyiv, when every single one of the perennial RfCs on the matter comes up as a close as Kiev. This is a user disruption issue, and a IDHT issue. If the user will not accept En-Wiki style, they need sanctioning in order to stop their disruption. The sanction could start as small as a topic ban on anything Kiev-related, broadly construed, enforceable by very longterm blocks (since they only edit sporadically) followed by an indef it if recurs. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, I'd be happy to withdraw the RfC if something else could be done - but it's not just Dƶoxar now, it's also Wikimandia edit warring to put in "Kyiv". Any solution involving topic bans, or promises not to continue their policy-violating editing, would have to include both editors. BMK (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. You're right. Wikimandia needs to be included in the topic ban if she is going to be obtuse like this. Wikipedia has been through this revolving door far too many times for it to be open to debate every six months. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made my opinion clear here and in the RfC, and I fail to see why I should be topic banned. I hardly even edit in this area so excuse me for being knowledgeable and unbiased. BMK has done more reverts than I have. People claiming Kiev is the "English" name of Kyiv are the ones being obtuse à la "Bombay is the English word for Mumbai!" Duh. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We go by consensus on Wikipedia, not by your personal opinion. And the consistent consensus every time this comes up every few months like clockwork for the past 11 years is to use the English-language WP:COMMONNAME spelling/transliteration of "Kiev". Perhaps you have not been privy to all of those discussions – if you have, you're being obtuse; if you hadn't, you can check them out now. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the same brilliant Wikipedia consensus that got Bicholim Conflict labeled a featured article? Consensus does not replace fact. Looking over recent RfCs, most of them "no consensus". About what you'd expect if you'd done an RFC "which is correct, DMY or MDY"? They're both correct. But for Ukrainian articles, Kyiv is correct. Just like Mumbai, Beijing, Kolkata and Almaty are correct. Old names are no longer used. Arguments show that people used in this so far show most people don't understand the difference and think Kiev is how you transliterate Київ, and the pro-Russian bias here is apparent. I'm hardly a Ukrainian nationalist, and frequently correct names based on how people actually refer to themselves,[137] but I'm neutral enough not to inflict Soviet-era spellings on a capital city. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone would argue that consensus gives the "correct" answer everytime, but since we don't have a Content Supremeo to hand down rulings on content disputes, there has to be some mechanism in pace to settle these things so everyone can move on, and consensus is the way we do it. Og course consensus can change over time, but the "Kiev" consensus has been remarkably consistent since at least 2007, and a glance at the page the RfC is on will show at least 8 RMs from 2007-2013 in which a move to "Kyiv" was rejected. Teher may be more in the archives, I haven't checked.

It's one thing to refuse to accept a local conses which consists of 2 people with an opinion opposed to yours, but it's another thin completely to fly in the face of multkiple consensus decisions involving large numbers of editors. I suggest that you and Dƶoxar simply grit your teeth, accept the fact that you are in the minority, and drop the matter. I also suggest that if either of you change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" again, that an admin should drop a significant block on the editor who did so. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I generally turn to the BBC when I want to know what the common spelling is in the English language. While it does use Kyiv in some places, it overwhelmingly uses Kiev in general usage - up to and including this month. Having checked a few other western news outlets, they also tend to be the same, Occasionally Kyiv, mostly Kiev. Which doesnt appear to have substantially changed since the last 15 discussions on this topic. Also, content dispute yadda yadda.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

The long-standing consensus having been confirmed, if editors User:Dƶoxar or User:Wikimandia again make a change from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" or any other version of the name, or if they make any other change of name for a person or a place for which a standing consensus exists as to what the WP:COMMONNAME is, they will be placed under an indefinite topic ban from changing the spelling or transliteration into English of any name, anywhere on English Wikipedia, It is their responsibility to determine if a consensus exists or not. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as common sense - Kyiv exists in many articles (including titles) and is a perfectly valid spelling and in fact is CORRECT per every single official source. Being that I'm not a sheep, I also would not accept consensus if Wikipedians decided that the earth is flat and vaccines cause autism. And indefinite topic ban of what? What is the topic? Proper spelling of European capitals? —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No one is forcing you to change your own personal opinion, to which you are well entitled. But if you don't accept the community's decision regarding the spelling of the name, your only choices are to attempt to change that consensus, or to refrain from making any edits relating to the name. Seeing as the first option has repeatedly failed, for the time being you need to go with the second option, or else it will be imposed on you. (Other editors can voluntarily abide by this community decision despite their personal objections, so I hope you can as well.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No, I don't accept the community's "decision" regarding the capital city's name, any more than the community can "decide" who the queen of England is or who is on the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts should not be left open to consensus and this is the biggest joke about Wikipedia, especially in cases like this when you have serious ethnic bias and ignorance running amok. I am not an active editor on Ukrainian articles but I will continue to call bullshit like I did in the case of OP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That you still cannot see the difference between "the truth" and an editorial decision does not bode well for your continued freedom to edit in this topic area (or at all). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
        • LOL the "truth" essay - are you suggesting it is not verified that the capital city of Ukraine is called Kyiv? Even though the government of Kyiv and Ukraine, in all English-language material it has published, clearly calls it that? It's not verified even though the CIA World Factbook and National Geographic call it that, among many other expert sources? This is not verifiable? Perhaps you should visit WP:CIR if you think this can't be verified. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Although BMK and I see eye to eye, in this case such a broad topic ban is excessive. If Wikimadia continues to do what they're doing now, just levy an edit warring block. Blackmane (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mess of bad mafia editors (one sock case or two sock cases?)

Today I noticed this guy making a couple poorly sourced additions on Vincent Asaro. Looking through his edit history I also found this account; both of them seem to be from someone promoting the author Daniel Simone.

Also on my watchlist was this unsourced addition to the Bonanno crime family. Checked the editor's history and found they and one other account have been adding unsourced material about the (possibly nonexistant, not finding anything on Google) mobster Michael "Pippi" Fiducia on Ozone Park Boys.

Not sure if these two apparent sock cases are related. They share the same focus area, they're active at the same time, and they have a tendency to use real-sounding names as their usernames. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sent notices to the two most recent accounts used Paola Rosoff for the first case, Justin Badagliacca for the second. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your reverting of those statements, but this sounds more like an issue for WP:BLPN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that and sockpuppetry. And spamming. And now this. There's so much wrong here I'm not sure where to go. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The user who made that ridiculous statement has since been indeffed by NeilN. But if you think that user and the user you originally reported are related, it seems that WP:SPI would now be a better venue to go to. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Consistent, long term harassment and insults by Malaylampur on talk pages

I am bringing up this conduct dispute here per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. For weeks, User:Malaylampur has been harassing myself and another user (and a bot) across a few talk pages. His editing has improved markedly since he created his account; the problem is that he can't resist insulting other users like a 12 year old child at the slightest hint of disagreement, and attempts to moderate his conduct have failed.
Starting in late October, the user disagreed with some edits of myself and User:MusenInvincible, responding to a content dispute with various winners such as telling other users to flip burgers and "BRING FACTS" in addition to flaming a bot. When I responded and disagreed with some of the edits, I was called a snake-eating ignoramus, told that my wife left me and took the kids and that my account would be "folded".
When User:HyperGaruda noticed and intervened (I was on a small hiatus from editing after the initial conflict), MalayLumpur removed the talk page notice and threatened HyperGarude with their account being reported over a content dispute. He even threatened to open a COI against HyperGarude and myself during my hiatus. It wouldn't have gone anywhere, but when taken together, the repeated patterns of childish and petulant behavior (which consist of about half of all the users contribs) make for a tense editing environment.
After my hiatus, I logged in to see that HyperGaruda and another user had mediated the content dispute while weathering more abuse by Malaylampur, but once the content dispute was handled, the issue seemed to fizzle out. When I logged in and saw all of this, I left a comment on HyperGaruda's talk page thanking them for handling the dispute that I didn't even know had escalated and expressing my disappointment that the content/editing issues had been resolved but not the conduct issues, and informed HyperGaruda - since they had been involved - that I intended to reopen the issue if the conduct issues flared up again since the user had been reasoned with by multiple peers. Well, MalayLumpur apparently was watching and responded to my comment (which wasn't directed at them) by calling me a troll and a clown, accused me of ignoring them, and then opened a taunting message on my talk page harassing me about my personal beliefs.
This amounts more to an annoyance than anything since, to be fair, Malaylampur's editing and content issues improved quickly. But he doesn't seem willing to quit on all the insults, which is a really unpleasant thing to be faced with as soon as one logs in. Since he's rejected all attempts by others to mediate the conduct dispute, I'm not sure what else to do; arbitration and 3rd opinion don't seem in order because this isn't about a specific article, and for me to message an individual admin would feel like canvassing or tattle-telling. I hope that the community can instead provide suggestions or even solutions for some sort of mentoring or other way to express to Malaylampur that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Time for the almighty boomerang 118.21.114.100 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sock has been put back in the drawer. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

user:Malaylampur's behavior is intolerable. They have created havoc across several pages and have used inexcusable language against MezzoMezzo. MForteKL (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) -- samtar whisper 11:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC) And who is user:Samtar but a sockpuppet of MalayLampur.MForteKL (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Somehow doubt that MForteKL, seeing as my account is seven years old and all.. -- samtar whisper 12:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC) MForteKL is an obvious and malicious sock puppet, and with this edit they've added simple vandalism and harassment. I've blocked MForteKL indef. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 13:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: your the one acting like a toddler. You pissed me off and continue to do so with these posts. Once content issue was settled you proceeded to call me a troll on hyper's talk or should i say insinuated that i had been. Stop pissing me off and monitoring my edits. Lets take a closer look at the peronal belief harassment you claim exists. Now looking at your edits you said that Barelvis claims of being Sunnis is disputed. [138] So I asked you what sect do you believe are authentic sunni. That is not harassment. But this is. calling others a troll when their not and that I should be banned [139] calling my edits disruptive even when their cited [140] & Last but not least. A very provocative headline on another users page 'Previous trolling" [141] Malaylampur (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Malaylampur: I'm not entirely sure how you can think that comments like the one just above might help your case... LjL (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I accidentally noticed that Malaylampur was already discussed here this month. I am lazy to check how it ended, but seeing him writing texts like "Stay off wikipedia if you continue to act like a clown." afterwards, I don't think he was given or got the lesson. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the previous ANI discussion turned stale (probably due to some communication issues). Nevertheless, we were able to work out the content dispute that started said discussion; whatever is going on now, is beyond the scope of the Encyclopedia. If you don't mind, I'd like to put to rest this - as the Dutch say - "storm in een glas water". - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspected new sock of User:Dragonrap2

104.243.166.200 (talk · contribs)

Previous (immediately blocked) socks: user:WXA53, user:Futurewiki, user:104.243.169.127, user:104.243.167.109, User:Futuristic21, User:Futurewiki2, User:Mega256, User:Futurewiki The Third, User:Mega257, User:Mega258, and User:Futurew.

All previous IP socks--like this one--are from Natchitoches, Louisiana. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

We've talked about a rangeblock for this guy in the not too distant past. Do you have a comprehensive list of IP addresses for him? Katie^talk 15:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Calculating from the above three IPs, we can block 104.243.160.0/20 (covers 4096 IP addresses). I will go ahead and do that, and will post at the SPI case page as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

See Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Suspicious edits to DOB and place of birth by 120.152.129.6 and other IPs. Here's a non-exhaustive list of the IPs:

• 120.152.129.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.181.200.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.195.4.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.181.163.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 203.219.94.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.195.144.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.195.136.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I'm wondering if a rangeblock would be feasible. Jenks24 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Jenks24. Not with those scattered IPs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Drat. Thanks anyway Neil. Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Problematic behavior

User Spybuteo first began editing on November 14.[142] They have deleted reliable sources [143] [144] [145] including the Encyclopedia Britanica[146] [147] and Brill. [148] On Talk:Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib they misrepresented my position and accused me of gaming the system for no apparent reason, [149] Another editor reminded SpyButeo to AGF,[150] but a few days later on Talk:Aisha SpyButeo accused me of meatpuppetry for agreeing with another editor,[151] then 2 minutes later welcomed [152] an account that only has 1 edit before November 15 [153] who Spybuteo agrees with on that talk page.[154] Spybuteo has also specifically invited comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muawiya II from only two accounts, [155] [156] neither of which appears to have ever edited the Muawiya II article or its talk page. [157] [158] Edward321 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as speedy keep, and the user seems to me an example of WP:NOTTHERE. Other opinions are welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Spy is WP:NOTTHERE, although I am not sure if he is just a POV editor who won't listen or a troll. Otherwise clear case of disruptive editing by him at multiple article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

62.157.122.132

Could somebody pls have a look at the recent page history of this user, User:62.157.122.132, whom I recently blocked, revert it (pls consider revdel), and semi-protect the page to stop harassment. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access got revoked ... is good enough, IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Negeryi: subtle vandalism?

I'm not reporting this to WP:AIV because it's not entirely obvious, but I'm reporting it here without first giving too many warnings and nice messages because I do think it's obvious enough when you look at the user's whole edit history.

I came across this user on 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown where I quickly realized almost everything they had been doing was reverting edits that were reasonably justified, with no explanation or with dubious edit summaries (for example, this edit summary just seems like a partial verbatim copy of someone else's earlier unrelated edit summary). Another example is this summary, where it is claimed that WP:EL spam was removed, which is an entirely bogus claim (sourced content from BBC was removed instead).

Then I went on to check for further bogus edits / violations of policy, and for instance, here I find unexplained removal of a whole section and messing up of section headers; I revert the mess, and I promply get this undo with its edit summary.

The user has edited many articles, but has only been around on Wikipedia since a few days. I think aside from a small number of edits, it should be considered a vandalism-only account, even though it's not immediately obvious.

you should be considered avandalism-only account--Negeryi (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by CU-blocked sock struck

LjL (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: They are editing my talk page headings where I call their edits out. LjL (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

PS:that is NOT your talk page headings--Negeryi (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by CU-blocked sock struck

this is indeed unnecessary no notable because it describe what was in the video--Negeryi (talk) Comment by CU-blocked sock struck —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• I filed a report at WP:AN/3RR as well: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Negeryi reported by User:Godsy (Result: ).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• I was about to comment on the remarkable crossover with Gbgfbgfbgfb (talk · contribs) and 35deyu4642 (talk · contribs). However I note they are all currently being checked over at SPI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Disruption is over. CU-blocked as a sock. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gbgfbgfbgfb. Dr. K. 20:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe I am being harassed by Martin451

Imho, my record speaks for itself - I came to Wikipedia a few months ago with a solid book source and a desire to improve Avro Vulcan XH558. Over multiple edits over the summer I believe I have improved it greatly, hopefully educating more people about it during this time of increased public interest (it's last ever flight was a month ago). In more recent edits, as well as further updating XH558, I have also improved Vulcan related material on various other articles, not least by creating Vulcan Display Flight (details of which I only realised were completely missing from Wikipedia while researching XH558), and making a start on List of surviving Avro Vulcans, which also looked like an obvious omission when looking at other similarly notable aircraft types, by splitting out what was a tiny unsectioned list in the main article. I hope to expand on it in future, time permitting.

I have been here long enough not to really expect any thanks for any of this, and I appreciate that on the whole, people here only seem to interact in a negative/obstructive way, but I draw the line at people attempting to impugn my motives, with the apparent goal of stopping me editting Wikipedia completely. The harassment all started when I came back recently - during my past work on XH558 I had shifted a list of displays out into a separate list, List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances. At the time I was ambivalent about its merits, noting this exact issue had previously been debated on the talk page between a couple of users, without resolution it seems. I just wanted it out of the way so I could work on the main article. But I did also greatly expand and improve it too - applying the tabular format consistently across all years, and filling in lots of missing entries.

Having come back for a second stint, with no more displays planned, I thought I might next work on getting that list of appearances finished, citing every entry and filling out all remaining gaps (I estimate around 20 appearances per year, or 160 in total). In my absence, someone else had proposed it be deleted, so mindful of the earlier dispute, I took the perhaps unusual step to propose it for deletion myself - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances, in order to establish a positive consensus that it should exist. Without that, I'm not really interested in spending the time it would take to finish, and I'm glad I did, as the debate is currently trending delete. The final part of the story is the fact I also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avro Vulcan XM655 the same day, for more straightforward reasons, as explained there, in the process copying the usable parts to the list of survivors.

Although some have complained I have ignored attribution (I am now careful to state where I am splitting content to/from), and I supposed the reason for the first deletion can be seen as unconventional, I think my actions are defensible from the standpoint of wanting to improve Wikipedia. However, it seems user Andy Dingly [159][160], and now Martin451 [161] (creator of Avro Vulcan XM655) disagree. But rather than just disagree, they have seen fit to make all sorts of nefarious allegations against me, suggesting I'm here to disrupt Wikipedia and/or rid it of Vulcan related content by stealth. Their allegations don't stack up, but they seem to be deliberately ignoring facts which counter their narrative and they have persisted despite objections. Well, Andy has at least stopped. But I logged in today to see fresh allegations from Martin451 [162], and I really have had enough. I ask that they be asked to stop and restrict their comments to things I have actually said or done, and reasonable analysis of such, rather than trying to conduct what I can only really describe as some kind of smear campaign aimed at getting me to just go away and find something else to do with my spare time. Since Wikipedia isn't all that much of a rewarding place to be anyway, it won't take much more of this to persuade me to do just that. Natural Ratio (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The only major interactions I have had directly with you is in two AfDs. I don't think I have had any other interactions as I have hardly been editing of late.

1. Could you please supply a diff where you asked where I restrict my comments to things you have said and done.
2. In the AfD List of Avro Vulcan XH558 post-restoration public appearances, you nominated the article for deletion, then immediately posted a keep !vote. You then pretty much disagreed with all !votes whether they where/are !keep or !delete. I posted one !vote where I !voted for merge, and suggested you were being disruptive due to just wasting time.
3. After reading the above AfD, I found the second linked by Andy Dingly where I made one keep !vote, followed by comment of Natural Ratio's language to Andy, I then made a second comment over twenty hours later. That is the total of my postings two these AfD. (A total of four edits on both AfDs).
4. Natural Ratio made what I believe a personal attack on Andy [163][164], and his complaint seems to be that I am in the wrong for questioning his personal attacks. He does not believe that language he used is a personal attack, and that questioning his behaviour is an affront to himself.
5. After this personal attack on Andy I replied with this[165]. They replied with this [166].I then replied here [167], he then brought this matter to ANI.

I don't believe my behaviour constitutes harassment. I think WP:Boomerang applies here. Natural ratio has done some excellent work with the Vulcan articles, but he displays a bit of WP:OWNership. They are happy to hand out insults, but not to be told about them, and regard being told about insulting behaviour as an affront to themself. I suggest Natural ratio avoid AfD, and major policy until they have come to understand it. Martin451 00:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I will most certainly not avoid Afd because I think I do understand it. This is harassment - it doesn't need to be a long or sustained campaign, it just has to be a pattern of continued behaviour like this, over objections. And I most certainly consider it an affront to be told I'm disrupting Wikipedia with my supposed anti-Vulcan article agenda by someone who has now suddenly changed their tune and acknowledged my good work. I am not attempting ownership of anything, my edits have almost universally been ignored in fact, and I have actually compromised on the one issue someone actually disputed with me on XH558 - having a Background section. This is what I'm talking about, you're clearly trying to smear me with accusations that are baseless in fact, and I think it's because of your own ownership issue, being upset that I nominated an article you created for deletion. I don't believe I attacked Andy, I think it's fair comment to say he was being paranoid in his attempts to cast me as some kind of Dr Evil, which did indeed result in a raving comment, which made no sense whatsoever. I note he has not continued these allegations and has not come here to defend or add to them, so I can only assume he has seen his error, so I've no wish to focus on him if he has indeed moved on. You however, appear to be digging in. Natural Ratio (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote: I don't believe I attacked Andy, I think it's fair comment to say he was being paranoid in his attempts to cast me as some kind of Dr Evil, which did indeed result in a raving comment, which made no sense whatsoever[168] I don't think I need to add anything. Martin451 01:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I've just got better and busier things to do than waste time at ANI, where it now seems that comments made at an AfD are to be discarded unless they're submitted in duplicate and countersigned at AfD.

You have split a section off from one article, then AfDed the split section. You have simply AfDed another article. That's a funny way to go about "supporting" or "extending" Vulcan coverage.

Now if you'll excuse me, this volcano won't hollow out itself and I've got a Villiers Vindicator to rob. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidently I gave you too much credit. It would be funny if that's all I had done, but as I explained above, it's not. And 'split and delete' is not what I did to the display list either. It's this sort of behaviour I am here about - the repetition of blatant lies and misrepresentations despite my objections. It is either a deliberate attempt to smear me, or you still haven't yet properly studied my edits and explanations. There is a very clear line between fair criticism, and whatever this is, whether it's intentional harassment or just plain negligence. So no, you are no excused. I have better things to do as well, but you two have imho crossed the line. Natural Ratio (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopehoppy (again)

Confirmed homophobic. First this "edit"[169], then this comment. A dangerous precedent if he be allowed to continue editing. By the way, look at the first edit he is concealing here[170], seems that being heterosexual is something of "pride". --Para Forts (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I have offered some advice and removed the category, as it's intended for article space only. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a problem in article space? The political opinions of the editor are only an issue if they adversely affect the content of Wikipedia. See WP:NOTCENSORED. John Nagle (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE also apply. MarnetteD|Talk 05:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

He's not likely to be around long unless he gets some enlightenment. It occurs to me that being "proud" of whatever one's orientation happens to be is akin to being "proud" to have been born with a normal set of arms and legs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Consider controbutions of IP

[171] IP on my radar again. Geolocates to Island of Jersey in English Channel. I'm seeing a very clear pattern of pro-ISIL edits. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm. Yeah, it's got a whiff of that, sure, but I'm not very knowledgeable in that area. I did, however, make an edit to one of the articles they wuz busy on, and left a note on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. The person behind the IP has been in the news (and the courts) and has no business editing Wikipedia, for their own good as much as anything else. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocking me

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

---

Please do not block me I am just being friendly I will write articles. --JohnnyWelcome (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

An obvious troll (and an experienced one, judging by their edits...), here only to have fun for as long as it lasts. Just check their contributions, which includes posting user warnings for adding "inappropriate external links" on the talk page of Media message delivery bot... Thomas.W ^talk 19:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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

IBAN review

See [172]. If this constitutes a blockable violation of an IBAN, then block me, but I may not notice as I am ridiculously busy right now and this makes me more impatient than is consistent with fair exercise of admin (or indeed editing) privileges, so I'm taking a Wikibreak. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• No one should block you for that. Good to see you on-wiki again Guy--take care. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• This is the statement made by the blocking admin.[173]DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Considering Guy is not "continuing this behaviour", this would be a moment for an application of IAR and just let it be. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• By any reasonable and common sense reasoning, not only was this not a violation of anything, but it was the kind of commendable behavior that we should see more of on Wikipedia. Bravo! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• (1) Not a violation in any respect of the terms of the IBAN. (2) If it was a technical violation, which it wasn't, given its nature it should not have provoked any sanction on Guy. Common sense. BMK (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Problematic editor Trinacrialucente

This editor has:

• engaged in personal attacks or remarks: this edit summary and this comment (I can find similar older issues like this striking one)
• reverted other editors' talk page comments (under the pretense of providing "a third opinion")
• edit warred (not sure what to make of User:2601:14c:0:f6e9:b4a6:abc6:d6ca:f708 in that history, might be someone else)
• seemingly wrote off ARBPIA3 restrictions after being informed about them
• been here before with editors complaining about similar behaviors from them (although they were the one filing the report)

Perhaps nothing extraordinary but just a slight adjustment to this editor's settings could be made? LjL (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an absolute lie. I was not "edit warring"; I was providing NEW sources and citations for the topic while two other users were reverting/undoing mid-edit. I welcome any/all editors to analyze the topic of Racial Segregation/Israel and review the conversation on the talk page. Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll address these point by point for Trinacrialucente

1. Commenting on an editor's mental state is an attack, accusations of racism are attacks.
2. Outside of blatant vandalism or personal attacks, you should not be editing or removing another editor's comments.
3. The repeated reversions as evidenced in the article history are edit warring.

   Racial segregation has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict..specifically my topic of segregation against Felasha...who are not Arab.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

4. I'll go find the ARBPIA3 warning template and drop one on Trinacrialucente's talk page. I'm pretty sure discretionary sanctions were authorised but admins won't act on them without a DS notice being issued. Blackmane (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The behaviors around removing other editors' comments, aggressive language in the quoted comments, and edit warring ([174], [175], [176]) are unacceptable. I have evaluated Trinacrialucente's request to review the relevant part of the talk page for evidence that this was not edit warring, and what I find is reasonable disagreement with the structure of their edits. So yes, it's edit warring. That some of these issues around personalizing disputes and aggressive language have arisen before, and their denial that there is any actual problem suggests that a block is needed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the user routinely removes warnings, notices, and a recent indefinite block from his talk page. While that is his right, the deletions hide a long-standing pattern of the behavior outlined by LJL above. Roscelese detailed this pattern at length in the previous ANI report linked above. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATrinacrialucente&type=revision&diff=692625126&oldid=692562471 but he is aware that he should not be editing in that arena, regardless if he's being civil or not. As for the other area, I've been blocked for much less, so I won't comment on what should happen, only what happened to me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: an edit warring report has now also been filed by another editor. LjL (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be an underlying content dispute, which can be discussed on the talk page. What Trinacrialucente should realize is that everyone in this area has a POV, and complex matters should not be discussed through edit summaries. Make your case on the article talk page, and don't hurry to edit in the main space. This is a very contentious area, and making personal attacks like calling a user "unbalanced" can lead to easy blocking, no matter how right or wrong you are about the underlying content dispute. WP:FOC is applicable. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Block review

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

---

How dare these ruffians deny my existence! They're worse than that suspiciously grubby peasant Ritchie333 who can't even get my peerage right. Despicable!

Mike V has blocked Jbmurray for an alleged BLP violation on the satirical Lady Catherine's arbitration candidates guide. Lady Catherine is a harmless sock account of another user and is a polar opposite joke account for her (take a close look at the image on Lady Catherine's page...for instance). Mike V removed the edit first himself, here, Jbmurray restored it noting that the entire guide is a satirical joke [177]. Mike V agin removed it claiming Jbmurray may be blocked if it was restored [178]. Irondome reverted Mike V calling the matter "absurd" [179] followed by another revert by Mike V with summary "BLP" [180], right after Mike V warned Irondome about the alleged BLP issues [181]. Jbmurray again restored it asking for discussion [182]...and Mike V blocked Jbmurray for the alleged BLP [183] issue, then Mike V once again removed the alleged violation [184], with edit summary "WP:BLP is quite clear on the matter". No it isn't quite clear at all. This is a satirical joke ACE guide and represents the likely opposite views of the author in most cases. No previous interaction with Mike V, but this is a big misunderstanding. Does Mike V not see that the guide in question is satire? Is this administrative abuse, perhaps even blocking someone they are in a content dispute with? Jbmurray seems to have summed up the issue well at their talkpage,[185] but Mike V appears to have gone offline though this block still needs to be reviewed.--MONGO 07:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Satire folks...its satire...[186]--MONGO 07:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: Block review should be on WP:AN. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just MONGO...was not sure where exactly.--MONGO 08:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this has ended up here anyway, I will add my voice to the pile-on about a bad block. So obvious that one need not belabour the point. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Absurdly bad block. Is this the first such instance by this user? Holy cow... Carrite (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Mike V: - please undo this block promptly, so someone else doesn't have to. Obvious satire is not a blp issue on a satirical guide, and blocking JB for disagreeing with you that fact still doesn't make it anything but a bad block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Deplorably wrong-headed block. Please undo. Reyk _YO! 08:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Not a good block. Shows a dismal failure of sense of humor. (or an unfamiliarity with the Lady). DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Please unblock asap per DGG and Kevin Gorman. Andreas JN466 08:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Completely bad block - Anyone reading that guide would realize it's satire so how BLP comes in to this I'll never know!, Someone should probably undo it.... –Davey2010^Talk 08:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Most laughably incorrect and tone-deaf block of one admin on another since this one, and worse, in my opinion, for not even having an inkling it might be wrong. Unblock and apologise immediately. Begoon ^talk 09:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Revoltingly bad block. pablo 09:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Wow. Spat my coffee when I saw this. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have unblocked per the consensus above (yes, it wasn't open for long, but consensus was quite clear and coming from experienced editors, not some early rabble of wikifriends). Discussion, if needed, can continue of course, and if consensus would magically change or new circumstances come to light, feel free to reblock or take whatever is necessary without consulting me. Fram (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

... Just a reminder, BLP applies everywhere, even on satire. The block was good. KoshVorlon 12:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The description of someone as "revolting" is not a BLP violation as it clearly is a subjective opinion. MikeV (presumably also a living person) has had his action described as "Deplorably wrong-headed" and "absurd" and it has been suggested that this action was abuse. By your logic these are BLP violations too, in which case everyone commenting on this matter should be blocked. pablo 14:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the block was silly. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that it is possibly a BLP violation, I think a block is going a bit overboard, giving the nature of it being userspace satire. All that was needed was a revert and an explanation for the revert. A block was overkill IMO, and to have it overturned was the best remedy.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, an edit summary like "which part of "this discussion is closed" do you not get?"[187] is really uncalled for. A block review doesn't necessarily end when the block is overturned, certainly not when this was done relatively soon after the start of the discussion. Clsoing down this discussion was probably premature but acceptable, but patronising editors who don't agree with that close and the block isn't. Fram (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I would hardly call that block wrong. We love humour here, but that humour should not go into the territory of insulting our article subjects. Consensus seems to think this is okay, I disagree and think BLP of course applies. HighInBC 15:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Hooker.jpg

We thank Thee, O Lord, for another day without whining from someone who doesn't get the joke. (EEng)

• BLP is about Biographies... That's the B. Several months ago I referred to one of the leading American Presidential candidates as a "Centrist opportunist" or some such on Jimbotalk. That is not a BLP violation. If I had put the same line in her Wikipedia biography, THAT would be a BLP violation. See the difference? BLP is meant to keep mainspace clean of defamation, not to crush free speech. Of course, that's not how it is used by some people. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not correct. If a given statement is a BLP violation in the subject's article, then it's a BLP violation anywhere else it might appear in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• As I see Lady Catherine's arbcom guide right now, I can pick out insults towards Kim Jong-un as "that man with the funny haircut" (an opinion that I am sure would cause a North Korean to get into serious trouble) and having a swing at the Gender Gap Task Force, claiming that Angela Merkel and Margaret Thatcher were no more suitable to be major heads of state beyond "selling contraceptives" and speculating that AKS.9955 may not be suitable as an arb because his name sounds like a brand of a Russian assault rifle. If you have read all that and genuinely feel hurt and upset because you believe the subject mentioned have been insulted, then that's your opinion, but I really would hope people can see that things that are so blatantly exaggerated are never designed to genuinely offend. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Having rather needlessly contributed to such drama, I pledge to write some content today as penance. I have but a couple closing observations: 1) it perhaps bears repeating that the Lady's guide was not "insulting our article subjects." As I explain at some length, any halfway-competent reader would realize immediately that the guide's author (hint: this was not the Lady Catherine de Burgh) if anything meant quite the opposite. 2) Even if it were insulting (and again, it most definitely wasn't), it wouldn't have been defamatory. Some people need to re-read the BLP policy, and the reasons for it, a little more carefully. Of course, it would still have been totally inappropriate in article space; but not for reasons of BLP. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• See Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell, and also see right. EEng (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Troubling

I'm afraid I feel compelled to prolong this thread. It's troubling enough that someone so tone-deaf is an admin, much less a CU/oversighter, but when someone who's apparently part of the trusted apparatus of the election itself [188] feels free to tinker [189] with the community's comments (whether facially serious or lighthearted) about the candidates, it's extremely troubling. There was no urgent need for immediate action, and he should have had the sense to leave any such action to others. EEng (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User Mannyqee keeps posting references to a blog full of unreliable information

Revision history

Within the racing sim community that blog is known to be full of conjectures. I don't know a single person who takes it seriously. Such references should stay out of wikipedia.

Thanks. --Theaghan (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) -- samtar ^whisper 09:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Theaghan, you may disagree with the source (I haven't overly looked into it) but creating obvious sock accounts (such as Garyjpatersonwiki) is against the username policy. I've opened a SPI -- samtar ^whisper 09:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed some days ago that IPs were removing information from the article in question. I didn't think any more of it until I saw it here. Anyway, I've just had a nose around and there is a thread on a forum related to the subject. It's not public but I suspect it's being used to organize a meatpuppet campaign here. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Help Required - Ongoing Vandalism

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

---

Resolved

Stanley, Falkland Islands Can I get some rapid admin intervention to protect this article against a vandal please. Ongoing right now. WCM_email 10:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Semi-protected for one week. Let me know if it continues afterwards. Please report to WP:RFPP in future (although I acknowledge that the response there is often woefully slow). Number 57 10:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Admin oversight required - WP:PA, WP:VAN and WP:SOCK suspected in Talk:Racial segregation

A number of bona-fide named contributors to Talk:Racial segregation and the related articles have been called names such as "morons", "know nothing about the subject ... why it's XXXX", "ZZZZ is not competent to edit WP". Also the sourced content has been repeatedly removed by the related IPs, with little, if any, explanation on the Talk Page, bordering on WP:VAN. Such offensive ad hominem comments by IP(s) were then redacted (removed) by named account(s).

What is weird, the IPs and one named account(s) use similar phraseology. Apart from WP:PA, I suspect WP:SOCK and maybe even WP:WIKIHOUND. It is too difficult for me to disentangle who does what to whom, as numerous accounts and even languages are involved, so please investigate. Zezen (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously an IP-hopper, so blocking won't fix it. The best solution would be to semi-protect the talk page for a few days so the disrupters can find something else to play with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've had to do with this (starting yesterday, after noticing an edit war, see above report about Trinacrialucente), and I do echo the sentiment that semi-protection would now be beneficial. LjL (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I leave it to you what to do here. Is it possible to semi-protect both pages against IPv4 and IPv6 contributors only? Zezen (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy to make an account "on the fly", so that's why semi-protection is (always?) applied to IP addresses and new accounts. (Besides, to be honest, y'all edit warring.) LjL (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to semi-protect pages against both IPv4 and IPv6 only? Semi-protection does protect against both types of IP addresses, and against accounts that have not been autoconfirmed. There isn't a form of semi-protection that permits new accounts to edit while blocking IPs, because, as LjL says, it is easy to create new accounts "on the fly" as a form of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 days to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the page. GAB^Hello! 21:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the article itself, aside from the talk page, might benefit from semi-protection. See the latest IPV6 edit summary for instance... LjL (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I concur that the article itself should also be semi-protected.

2. Also, please note that the same two IPs who messed up this talk pagestarted to use the epithets "moron", "shit" when commenting on bona-fide article scope proposals in this Talk page, probably WP:HOUNDINGing me thereto with their aggressive edits. They openly admit to be the same "editor" in the comment itself.

-> Can you look into the pattern there and react? Zezen (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, and this n-th sock of a sophisticated black-hat Wikipedian also accuses an unrelated named account of canvassing, using high-level Wiki TLas. The cheek, I say... Zezen (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Zezen, if you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. I wrote that you're not competent to edit en.wiki, and your actions since then have only confirmed my diagnosis. Your understanding of English seems to be lacking, you can't read and understand policies and guidelines -- let alone the opening paragraphs of Wikipedia articles. I think WP:CIR applies.

Also, your complaints indicate a complete ignorance of how it works when one edits as an IP. As I wrote at User talk:NeilN, every time I start editing I am assigned a new number -- that's not socking, it's not evading scrutiny, it's not against policy. It's just the way things work when you take Wikipedia at its word that it's the encyclopedia anybody can edit.

So please drop the stupid remarks about "I don't reply to a number". I've been here longer than you have, I understand the policies and guidelines better than you do, and if I correct your mistakes and leave you a message on your Talk page, it's not too much to expect a response. Read WP:IPHUMAN. Thank you. 2601:14C:0:F6E9:71B2:6F01:9EB8:B237 (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Blood libel and Aryan Nations have seen activity by IPs that geolocate to the same area and share the same dismissive tone, and are probably avoiding Drmies's block of the above IP. They've switched to another network that uses IPV4. Some eyes there would be useful, I'm going to be away. Acroterion (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph, User:Drmies and other editors think such IPs are at best WP:PRECOCIOUS. I can see that by now apart from the semi-protect page(s) request, this IP has been suspended for personal attacks towards other editors, of which it is proud, but it is whacking a mole.

As for my grasp of the English language, see my contributions hereinabove. Zezen (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I have no opinion on precociousness. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Rangeblocked 2601:14C:0:F6E9:0:0:0:0/64 for 72 hours and semi-protected this page for 12 hours due to this IP editor's disruption continued as these IPs:
• 66.87.80.133 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.87.82.248 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Madridejos, Cebu and Lazaro Mangubat

I have had a lot of trouble with WP:DE by User:Mateothehistorian also number as 49.151.10.237 / 49.151.38.12 (in Metro Manila). He has again and again added text without WP:V or WP:RS. I have added additional references but he keeps deleted them.

Madridejos, Cebu

Revision as of 16:40, 3 September 2015
   Revision as of 08:53, 20 November 2015
Revision as of 04:17, 22 November 2015
   Revision as of 06:08, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 07:06, 22 November 2015
   Revision as of 07:15, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 08:38, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 08:45, 22 November 2015
   Revision as of 09:09, 22 November 2015
Revision as of 13:59, 23 November 2015
   Revision as of 23:06, 25 November 2015
Latest revision as of 17:24, 27 November 2015

Lazaro Mangubat

   Revision as of 22:52, 13 November 2015
Revision as of 04:14, 22 November 2015
    Revision as of 22:58, 23 November 2015
Revision as of 16:04, 24 November 2015
   Revision as of 19:00, 24 November 2015
Revision as of 23:46, 24 November 2015
   Latest revision as of 00:09, 26 November 2015

In the nearly three years, all Mateothehistorian has done is about 60 editings of Lazaro Mangubat and about a dozen of Madridejos, Cebu. All he writes is legend not fact; does not give WP:RS and WP:V; ignores or reverts any references I have had. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 04:13, wikitime= 20:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD

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

---

User:MarnetteD is WP:STALKING me and I feel I cannot do anything anywhere without him stepping in and removing my contributions just because my first edits as an editor were nonconstructive. It is not a coincidence that he found these by himself, he clearly followed my contributions.

• [190]. Here he claims the links go to a DAB even though they don't at the time of this message (see Ariel Hernández (singer) and Gabriel Hernández (singer))
• [191]. He claims this is unsourced despite 18 reliable sources on the linking article he removed.
• [192]. Ok well he didn't revert me here but he mysteriously "found" the article a short time after I edited it.
• [193]. Hello again, he is just making a WP:POINT here, the claim of WP:OVERLINK is opinionated for one, unrealistic for another as the article doesn't particularly have that many blue links. Either way one more in the infobox doesn't hurt.

I am trying my utmost best to be a constructive editor and place the past behind me (homophobic comments and so on), but this at the moment is extremely creepy and I feel I cannot do anything without this editor following me onto each article. Can someone please order him to back off, keep his distance and NOT touch one of my contributions unless it is absolutely necessary (ie. NOT Peter Ueberroth). Hopehoppy (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

After examining your editing history, I can safely say that someone should be carefully looking at your edits as you're still adding nonsense like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine then, abuse your admin privileges and allow a "favoured" editor to hound me even when I make constructive edits. I mean only veterans here get prvileges, newbies get treated like dirt. Hopehoppy (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No "admin privilege" was abused. NeilN did not have to use his admin powers to comment on the quality of your edits, he was simply acting as a good editor who knows garbage when he sees it. BMK (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, who invited you again? I came here looking for admin action against MarnetteD, not sympahtizers of the accused coming along to gloat. Hopehoppy (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't have to be "invited" to talk here. You decided to bring your issue here; that means you accept to be yourself under scrutiny. That's how it works. LjL (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL is correct. The behavior of all the editors involved is examined when an AN/I report is opened. Only in this way can we find out if the reporting editor is using the process as an offensive weapon, when they themselves are actually the disruptive element, as I believe we've determined here. That leads to a number of conclusions: (1) Don't open an AN/I report unless you're certain that you are not a contributor to the problem; (2) AN/I reports are not the first stop, one should never file a report without having attempted to resolve the problem directly with the other editor; and (3) Don't use AN/I to "get back" at an editor you're pissed off at, because the majority of the time it's going to bounce right back on you. BMK (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Judging from the report about you above in this very page, I think you are not new to treating others like dirt yourself. How does it feel? LjL (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have a question to ask me concerning my edits, go ahead. Hopehoppy (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

When someone's former edits were consistently "nonconstructive", reaching the point of homophobic comments and so on, I don't personally see an issue with keeping an eye on their contributions to make sure they don't disrupt Wikipedia any further. Note that WP:HOUNDING does itself make such an exception. As to your specific points:

• Ariel Hernández (singer) and Gabriel Hernández (singer) aren't disambiguation pages, but those are not the links you had added; you had added Ariel Hernández and Gabriel Hernández which are disambiguation pages.
• I don't see a relevant statement in the article linked as source (though it's not easy to search within it); if it's not there, then the actually relevant sources should be made explicit
• Found an article? Oh bother.
• WP:OVERLINK is quite tenable there, since American a very well-known nationality. I'm personally in favor of linking such things when they are in a relevant infobox field, but, that's a perfectly legitimate content issue.

I think it's unreasonable to ask any editor to stay away from any of your edits unless "it is absolutely necessary". If your initial edits were nonconstructive, then I opine that it's up to you to show that you can improve, and put through the additional scrutiny that will inevitably result from your prior contributions. LjL (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"STALKING" as a Wikipedia term of art has been retired. Please provide specific evidence of how MarnetteD has violated WP:HARASSMENT#Wikihounding, but note that reverting your bad edits is not evidence of anything but his desire to improve the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The complainant appears to be a somewhat overzealous newbie. He can't "own" pages, and he should fill out the two singers' articles before linking to them. If the only thing to say about them is that they are members of this group, then they should not have articles. "American" was already linked once, it doesn't need to be linked repeatedly. Also, the term "shoplifting" has been around for over 300 years,[194] and anyone who speaks English knows that it doesn't mean hoisting the building. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD is not "he". Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"He" refers to the complainant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No. The original poster refers to User:MarnetteD as "he". Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I see. Your intention was good, your indention less so. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

After several edit conflicts - Sorry RM but I am a he. As to the OPs points here we go

1. Ariel Hernández and Gabriel Hernández both of these links go to DAB pages.
2. The "Best known for" edit did not come with a source and is a WP:POV violation as well
3. Has nothing to do with the OPs edit
4. WP:OVERLINK specifically states that "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" and "The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions" should not be linked. The link added was both of these.

Directly above the editing field is the statement "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." and that is what I was doing. The OP would do well to read the policies linked to instead of opening an ANI thread each time one of their edits is changed. MarnetteD|Talk 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The OP continues to edit war over their OR that the band No Mercy is translated into french as "no thank you". They should consider themselves lucky they haven't been handed a block yet. Blackmane (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the French for "no mercy" is sans pitié. If the band's name is a play on non, merci, then a source is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I left a note on their talk page saying that "No, thank you" in French would be "Non, merci", but they simply deleted it.

Looking at the three AN/I reports about this editor (this one plus this and the one above us at this (after a little over a month and only 71 edits), I see suggestions of Hopehoppy trolling and being WP:NOTHERE, and at this point I'm inclined to agree. BMK (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If the right honourable gentelamn sees that this violates policy, may he freely explain where this is so, otherwise may he move along and mind his own business. Hopehoppy (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: I never said removing a message from your talk page was against policy, I simply cited it as an example of your continuing to ignore the information which has been provided to you. Second, it is the business of every Wikipedian to correct errors, clean up articles, undo damage and report disruption, so, no, I will not "move along and mind my own business" -- or, rather, I will not move along, and I will mind my business, Wikipedia's business, especially when you accuse good editors of being in violation of policy. BMK (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to decide who moves along and when. Anyway, that edit on your talk page (where you removed a comment instead of interacting; that is of course your prerogative) does not violate policy. Point? LjL (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've gone through about half of the OP's article edits and have found nothing there to substantiate the charges against MarnetteD, although I have found a lot of trivial edits, mistaken edits, and edit warring. The OP should look to their own house and not blame other editors for their own faults. BMK (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Be careful, everyone, SageRad's Anti-Bullying Crusade will come along and drag us off to the hoosegow. BMK (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you notify SageRad that you said that about him? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, nor did I (or do I) have any intention of doing so -- but I see that you just did. You should puruse our policies occasionally so you know what you're talking about: there is no requirement to notify every editor mentioned in an AN/I report, only the editor(s) who is the subject of the report. For instance, I could mention here the many fine qualities of Newyorkbrad, the many controversies surrounding Eric Corbett, the copyright expertise of Moonriddengirl, and your own propensity toward continuing to complain about a 24-hour ArbCom block that happened a month ago, and I would not be required to notify any of them. Do you plan to ping them all now? BMK (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me that I do not know what I am talking about. My point was that, in this particular instance, you did not merely mention him, but rather, you spoke derisively of him. Yes, I pinged him, and you are welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually I spoke derisively of his campaign, I said nothing about him whatsoever. Again, you might like to read WP:NPA so you don't make this mistake in the future. BMK (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Another bit of trolling from the 166 range. BMK (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Support block of Marnout himetteD. WP:BITE is important and bullying shouldn't be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.58 (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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

IP user: 201.88.39.234

User has five times deleted the same piece of text without explanation and despite requests to discuss and warning on Talk page. Special:Contributions/201.88.39.234 Btljs (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Six times: they've just done it again. Btljs (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User has been blocked, this should've been reported to Wikipedia:AIV. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Gotgot44

Gotgot44 (talk · contribs) had been warned in the past for vandalism of multiple pages (not recently though), tonight they're at it again. Just great. Aethyta (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You're required to notify the user; I've done so for you. It might also help to explain how the edits constitute "vandalism". For many of us the subject matter is opaque.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, a brief glance at the most recent edits

This is nonsensical OR

This is an odd statement, probably OR or some sort.

This edit removed a lot of sources

More OR

They also broke a few images. This seems to be more incompetence plus some English issues than malicious vandalism of any sort. Blackmane (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Box Office India has gained a lot from Wikipedia

Few days ago I filed an ANI about a user who removes reliable sources to add boxofficeindia.

Today another old editor comes to prove that boxofficeindia is the only source for boxoffice collections, removed references from Bollywood Hungama and The Financial Express with edit summary "Don't add box office figures now. Wait until BOI publishes" and removed content sourced from International Business Times

Me, myself regularly visit boxofficeindia.com to check latest box office colections of Bollywood movies. Now: How I came to know about this website? Today i remembered.

Few years ago I used to read Bollywood movie articles in Wikipedia. I read the critical reception and the box office section. I read the plot of movies, that i didn't want to watch. In the box office section, boxofficeindia website would be used as reference. Due to that i visited the website. There was no other such Bollywood box office related website dedicated only to box office. At that time the website was very ordinary than what it is today. I don't get it why this website is given preference over others.

I read the warnings of Administrator given to spammers "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for driving traffic to your website". But me and many people visited boxofficeindia through Wikipedia. Some third party news websites also mention about boxofficeindia. Even they might have read wikipedia articles. Even good faith editors have begun to trust boxofficeindia. I never objected against boxofficeindia, but if editors with high edit count starts preferring boxofficeindia over other much much reliable websites then there is something fishy going on here, as much more reliable websites as International Business Times India edition, India Today - 1 2. Business Standard - 1. The Economic Times- 1 also publishes Box office reports along with Koimoi and Bollywood Hungama.

Novice spammers, open an account, and directly start spamming their website in multiple pages and get blocked. Experienced ones read the Template:Uw-sblock which are posted on user talk page blocked for spamming. And this blocking template has link to this Forbes page page named "Spin Me Softly"--(reasons unknown to me, why that link was given in the template).

And in this page Andy Greenberg wrote in the year 2007: -- "But with the right tactics, articles can be successfully tweaked to improve brand visibility and drive traffic to other Web sites, contends marketing guru Spencer. He suggests that marketers add valuable text to an article, along with a link to their own Web site. Since Wikipedia’s editors will hesitate to delete useful content, the link often stays on the page.

Even better, Spencer says, is to develop a user profile on the site that builds personal trust within the Wikipedia community. That means spending time deleting typos in articles, cleaning up spam and otherwise cultivating a good Wiki-citizen image. “You have to make real edits that add value, not just ones that boost your company or your client,” Spencer says. “Developing that street cred is really important. If you try to add links or content without it, chances are it’ll be reverted.”

As if, we want to teach the spammers how to spam successfully, otherwise I don't see any other reason that article with such spamming/advertizing tricks being included in a blocking template meant for blocking spammers. --The Avengers 13:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's not immediately clear to admins, in addition to musing generally about problems in Indian cinema articles, The Avengers appears to be complaining directly about user Arjann, for instance about this edit summary linked above where Arjann bossily instructs users Don't add box office figures now. Wait until BOI publishes. This sort of gruff assertion is not helpful as it's not based on any Indian cinema community precedent. Indian film grosses are all estimates. There is no reliable way to track this information, and there is corruption throughout the industry. Some of that corruption takes place at Wikipedia as well, with paid editors and socks going to extreme lengths to inflate numbers, deflate numbers, report the newest, highest pet estimate, etc. as if the made-up box office estimate from Times of India that comes in at 2pm is more reliable than the made-up estimate that came in at 1pm from the Mumbai Mirror. Facepalm

The Indian cinema community has made no such determination that BoxOfficeIndia.com is the only reliable source. In fact, it generally feels the opposite, and this assertion that BOI is the only go-to source is very similar to what indeffed user WikiBriefed tried to pull.[195][196][197]. Arjann has done this a few times, for instance, here he removes would normally be a suitable reference, IBTimes, with the insufficient explanation unofficial source. I can only surmise that he means that he prefers BoxOfficeIndia.com, but when do we discard reliable sources like this? Here he makes an unsupported proclamation Oye Times is more reliable than Filmibeat. Who said? There's nothing in the Indian cinema task force's WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources that asserts this. I don't see any discussion at RSN. I don't know what Arjann's specific motives are, but by all appearances, it looks like an attempt to take ownership and to craft articles to fit a POV. I also notice bizarre edits like this where Arjann ignores an obvious embedded note that asks for film budget data to be attributed to a reliable source. He doesn't add a source, just the comment, Budget is confirmed. Arjann may need a refresher in proper Wikipedia editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Replicative editing of Leaf-cutter bee articles

User:Thine Antique Pen has made a replicate expansion of hundreds of Megachile species articles from August 28. He/she seems to have concocted general information about the genus Megachile together with specific information about a single species, and copied them over almost each and every species article in the genus. The result is simply a devastating amount of misinformation in hundreds of articles. I opt for immediate reversal of all these edits. Gidip (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikistalking by User:DaeafcMnnC

After I !voted "weak keep" in an afd (s)he nominated, DaeafcMnnC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been wikistalking me. Look at their contributions from 15:11 to 15:21 today and you will see they sequentially reverted several of my edits including removing my comments from talk pages, blanking sourced material, removing an afd template, and undoing my vandalism reverts (thereby re-instating the vandalism). On their user page they say they've been editing since 2009, but the account is only 5 days old. (S)he has violated 3RR on this page. Their entire contribution history shows they're most likely not here to constructively build an encyclopedia.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 16:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hate to be assuming bad faith here. But something seems off about this user. Connormah (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)