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. 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

Vipul's paid editing enterprise

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

---

Am bringing a mega thread of the same name at COIN here, as this needs community consideration. Thread at COIN is here. This is a bit long but attempts to summarize.

• Vipul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Riceissa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Note, Vipul has said that Riceissa has an organizing role, as well being paid by Vipul -- diff)

Note- all off-wiki links below are OK to use per statement by Vipul here.

• 1) Vipul works at an SEO and website optimization company in Silicon Valley funded by VC there. Very data and metrics driven. (company website, LiftIgniter)
• 2) Vipul describes here, a website linked from his userpage, the network of editors he personally pays or as he says "sponsors" to do work at Wikipedia and elsewhere; these editors in turn are encouraged to recruit other editors. Payment to any given editor is in part upfront, in part based on page views, and in part on a "royalty" -- a percentage of what recruited editors are paid (pyramid scheme). Everything he is doing is carefully documented, in almost bewildering very fine detail (down to a copy of his bank statement). All very data-oriented and data driven. That page notes: "Note that workers who have opted to be paid privately are not listed here."
• 3) This has been going on since January 2015, based on the payments recorded there. I can't work out exactly how much he spent on Wikipedia editing, but it appears to be between ~$50K and~$20K (the smaller number based on based on WP-related tasks listed here, but this has been contested at COIN). Vipul provides this list of all the tasks he has paid for, and I generated this spreadsheet based on his data and there are 276 rows - multiple articles have multiple editors so let's call it ~250 articles. Again this doesn't count people he didn't list.
• 4) At that page about this effort, Vipul has written that he has done this inspired by the ideals of effective altruism, and the effort has targeted areas relevant to that movement - a) technology (including technologies themselves, companies, people, and investors); b) philanthropies (tracking in detail how much they give, to whom like this); c) global health; d) governance issues like open borders and immigration, and taxation; e) animal welfare.
• 5) Many of the articles that have been created are in the format "Timeline of X", which range from Timeline of cholera (many of these by disease/condition) to Timeline of healthcare in Egypt (many of those by country) Timeline of Microsoft (many of these, by company). Many are extremely detailed. Around 100 of the ~250 articles are in the "Timeline of X" format.
• 6) There is no clear mission to all this.
  • Some of the articles, especially in the "technology" focus, look like typical paid editing gigs (promotional, only positive, not well sourced, etc), and concerns have been raised about SEO intentions, especially regarding many of the Timeline of X articles, which are full of poor sources. For articles that are look like typical paid editing gigs, see for example Zenefits, Parker Conrad, Data Collective, and Gusto (software) which are inter-related - Parker was the CEO of the company that created Gusto, which was funded by Data Collective. Another is Adora Cheung which is all positive and lauding, but one of the sources actually used is highly critical of the company that made her somewhat famous, and there is nothing of that in the article. (the ref)
  • Some of the topics seem advocacy-driven. In Vipul's invitation to edit for pay he explained why he wanted to recruit paid editors to work on certain topics, and wrote: Migration liberalization is a top interest for me personally. and wrote I believe that animal suffering, both that inflicted by humans and that inflicted by nature, is an important part of global suffering by sentient creatures.. Are we looking at using paid editors to force multiply WP:ADVOCACY? Hm. I brought this up to Vipul and he said they strive to be NPOV. But this is where the whole COI thing of his editors kicks in, right? And they are not putting articles and edits through peer review. Problematic.
• 7) There have been both behavior and content issues:
  • Behavior - WP:MEAT/WP:TEAM behavior. See for example history of Form 1040. In general the editors have been inconsistent in declaring per the TOU and have not been following the WP:CO guideline and have been editing and creating directly, and aggressively. And again per the note on his project page, there is an unknown number of editors who are apparently not disclosing that they have been paid by Vipul. That part is really troubling.
  • Additionally there appear to be some clear COI issues, and there are possibly SEO activities going on here, despite what Vipul has said about the altruistic motivations.
    • COI: One of Vipul's editors for example created an article about one of the VCs that funded Vipul's company. (see history and you can see that Vipul directly edited it - no COI declaration anywhere. The paid editor also included a wikilink to Vipul's company, diff. See also the inter-related articles mentioned above. Vipul also created the article on Shasta Ventures which also has a seat on the Data Collective (ref).
    • SEO: As mentioned a bunch of the "Timeline of X" articles are pretty badly sourced, and as mentioned Vipul works at an SEO firm. That raises eyebrows. Then there is this page where VIpul lists companies to create Timelines for ... and you find there companies that are not cutting edge tech (which I can kind of see Effective Altruists being excited about) but instead includes old school retail dinosaurs like Forever 21, Saks Fifth Avenue, 7-Eleven and Kmart. I cannot get my head around how this would fit in Vipul's philanthropic mission. It ~looks~ like setting up SEO linkspamming.
  • Content: Much of the content violates WP:NOTHOWTO or gives WP:UNDUE, and there is a great deal of WP:OR in the Timeline articles. And as mentioned there are PROMO issues with the technology-focus articles. As an example of UNDUE see Open_Philanthropy_Project#Grants_made, a very detailed table that Vipul pays editors to keep regularly updated. Vipul says at the bottom of this blog post that he uses this WP page to explain to people what the Open Philanthropy Project is. This is a bit of abusing WP as a webhost, which WP is NOT; the Open Philanthropy Project is an effective altruism project, and so this is kind of advocacy-driven as well.

So - what am I recommending? (Note, some of the following feels like looking a gift horse in the mouth; I am unaware of a paid-editing entity disclosing at anywhere near the level that Vipul has. These recommendations go to what would be ideal, to give the community comfort and to be truly transparent and ... well, clean)

• a) that Vipul put a moratorium on this operation.
• b) that Vipul formulate a clear mission for what he is doing and consider going through the GLAM on-boarding process before re-starting. I suggest that the "technology" focus be eliminated. I reckon the GLAM folks will think through other aspects of the mission with him. (I hope)
• c) that Vipul provide a single list of articles his team has worked on for him, and a list of all the editors he has paid. (we don't need to see how much he has paid them)
• d) That Vipul obligate his editors via the contracts he has with them, to follow the PAID policy and the COI guideline. Posting those contract templates would be great.
• e) That his team
  • 1) puts PAID disclosures on the Talk pages of articles they work on, and
  • 2) follows the COI guideline, putting content through peer review via AfC for new articles, and through Talk page postings for existing articles
• f) the community should agree to have zero tolerance for MEAT/TEAM editing by his team against other editors.

Some folks at COIN have called for more stringent measures like TBANs from technology or INDEFs but i am mostly concerned to prevent future problems. One of the concerns mentioned multiple times at COIN is that this operation will keep growing and growing as editors recruit other editors and so on. The quality of content and behavior is not well-managed by Vipul even at this stage of the project's development and the community has had no input on the effort per se, and there has been no systematic content review, since articles are being edited and created directly.

I am intrigued and troubled by this model of individuals paying editors to work in WP, as a form of philanthropy (to take what Vipul says at face value). This is one of those things where we do encourage people to be WP:BOLD but the community also expects large-scale projects to gain consensus before they are initiated. And if that is not done, well this is what happens.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC) (struck the single list of paid editors - that was already in existence Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)) (added example of too detailed content Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC))

For the sake of completion, see also the beginning of the saga on my talk page (Lengthy Q&A). El_C 03:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks El C. I also want to note that Vipul made a statement at COIN, here, about what he is doing. in reaction to the COIN thread. I found it mostly defensive and unresponsive to the concerns of the community, but folks should have a look at it. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Jytdog's recommendations. As he mentions, he is mostly looking into the future (of course, to that end, a more forensic view of past operations of the Vipul Group is also warranted), to be able to set a correct precedence. I hope Vipul understands that this is done in good faith, not to be harsh, but to ensure there is a smooth interplay between volunteer and paid editng. A lot of us give money to the project, but almost all of us do it by donating it directly to the Foundation. As I said before, it is Vipul's money, after all, and he can spend it as he sees fit. But spending it on paid Wikipedia editors, does fall under the strict conditions outlined in the m:ToU. Conditions to be further expanded and refined upon here. Jytdog also mentions that some at COIN have called for more stringent measures—I am still unsure as to that, however. El_C 04:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Acting on (a), I have suspended all the portion of contract work operations that involve Wikipedia editing. I have posted this update to my user page (see diff), updated contractwork.vipulnaik.com (see commits here and here). :I've also informed all people currently actively working for me about this. Any edits they make while the project is suspended will be in their personal capacity.

For (c), I've already included a list of all editors I have paid at User:Vipul#List_of_people_I've_paid (this includes the one anonymous editor). The full article list is currently available off-wiki along with a bunch of non-wiki tasks (you have permission to reference and use this list); I will prepare a Wikipedia-only version of this list and post it to my user page some time in the next week.

For (e1), I will add CoI disclosures to talk pages for all the articles in the list over the next two weeks.

If we resume this project, I will work on implementing some variant of (b), (d), and (e2).Vipul (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. When I meant in c), is a single list of all the articles you have paid people to work on. (that is different from a list of the people you've paid) I didn't find that anywhere in your documentation; perhaps i missed it. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The list is here. I've linked it above and multiple times in the past.Vipul (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly I find what Vipul's doing fascinating and kind of exciting. The idea of funding the improvement of articles comes up from time to time, and in an ideal scenario it seems like a great way to elevate quality -- especially in those areas for which we do not have many interested volunteers. I can imagine a philanthropic organization, for example, paying to improve articles that serve the public good. That said, obviously adding money to editing is fraught to say the least. After being burned so spectacularly so many times, parts of the community are understandably jumpy (case in point, some of the comments in the COIN thread). In general I think that Jytdog's proposal is measured and sensible. As I understand it, there are two primary problems here. One is easy to fix: none of the paid editors should overlap in their editing (i.e. don't edit the same articles). The other is not so easy: whether there's anything beyond Vipul's documentation of the operation that would render it problematic (intentions/mission, whether it's in any way tied to SEO/marketing, etc.). I think that the burden for the latter is, at this point, on those making the allegations rather than on Vipul to prove a negative (that there's not more than meets the eye). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that the act of multiple paid people editing the same article has come for a lot of criticism, but I want to clarify that the intent here was not to deceive. It simply is often the case that the person who originally worked on the article no longer has the time or resources to expand it, and so the task is handed over to a different person -- or in some cases, I might give a task to one person and then notice some improvements I can make myself so I just go ahead and edit the article. This is, basically, the way collaborative editing generally works. I (and probably the others here) hadn't realized this could seem misleading. I continue to think that not allowing multiple paid people to edit the same page would significantly hamper the functioning of any paid editing project. If and when we resume the project, I'll include in the proposal ways to address the concerns here while still preserving the flexibility of allowing input and effort from multiple people to go into the same article.Vipul (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a deal-breaker for multiple people from the same paid editing enterprise to work on the same article as long as it's very carefully documented on the talk page, as long as they never operate as distinct voices in a dispute, and as long as they aren't operating concurrently (e.g. as you describe, a project handed from one person to another). In general, however, I think the logistics of this and the bigger conversation are better saved for subsequent threads. At this point people are trying to get a handle on your project in general and this is a relatively easy concern to assuage which you can always revisit with, say, an RfC later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That is reasonable. I will not derail the current thread further with these details.Vipul (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is both interesting and scary. The setup instinctively rubs me the wrong way because of the use of pyramid scheme methods. After all, those were invented to capitalize on the kickback avarice of people at successively lower levels of an organization. There's something troubling about employing them in an idealist cause such as Wikipedia. For one thing, this scheme diverts each participant's focus from creating good articles, to recruiting more people; that can't be good for article quality. For another, the method is made to snowball, making control for quality and COI progressively more difficult. Allowing a financially-driven snowball mechanism into Wikipedia should be eyed with great suspicion.

On the other hand, maybe with proper controls this might work as a more ambitious update of the defunct "bounty" system, and merely provide an efficient way to make targeted donations towards WP development. I empathize with the gift horse comment; but plain assuming good faith seems a little more dangerous than usual in this case. Jytdog's recommendations seem like a reasonable way to put a few safety constraints on the idea if the community wanted to test the waters. In any case, I heartily agree with the suggestion about removal of subject areas that lend themselves to overt promotion (i.e., the technology and company profiles). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• People who haven't followed the other threads should understand several things that are not in dispute. 1) This editor is a passionate advocate for certain causes. He was recognized by a well-known national publication back in 2013 as "the face of <advocacy issue> on the Internet". 2) This editor has directed a large team of paid (employees? confederates?) to assist in promoting these same advocacy issues here. 3) At the same time he has directed the team, and personally contributed to, articles about his employer's investors and investments, and national employment policies that stand to benefit his pocketbook directly. For these reasons alone, not considering unexplored SEO issues, they should be indefinitely blocked and the entire enterprise barred from acting here. For people who think his team can create worthwhile content, why not let them do it in their own forum and license it appropriately to be incorporated at a later date?

Okay, what I wrote above is as dispassionate as I can manage. Now for a more personal opinion. This enterprise has damaged Wikipedia tremendously. Consider the impact to the goodwill of editors without the means to hire their own team of advocacy editors when they learn of this. Consider the impact on people who had thought they had narrowly carved out a WP:PAID policy that works for both parties. And now we have a team doing paid advocacy editing under cover of this very same program. The claim that stuff like "Timeline of 7-Eleven" has anything to do with anything altruistic is absurd. It is extremely disappointing, and sad for the PAID advocates as well, that this has become somewhat of a test case, about as far from an "ideal scenario" as you can get.

Bottom line, this editor hasn't got the requisite distance from any of this stuff to be writing about it himself, let alone paying other people to be doing so. Under the NPOV pillar, advocacy editing has always been impermissible and no amount of discussion here about motives, disclosure, bookkeeping, or any other details will change that. We're going to have to reboot a discussion about how a private individual can properly manage a compensated team, but this is not the right case around which to be parsing this out. - Bri (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

thank you for posting, Bri. That is a clearly laid out position with which I am sympathetic but don't hold myself and it needed to be said here. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• What happens when the next enterprise like this is being funded by a US political action committee (though we are probably kidding ourselves if we think it isn't already going on)? Nfitz (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• I initially wanted to support User:Jytdog's recommended actions but they are still not strong enough. There are some articles that are valuable to this project like the immigration topics for instance. Some are terrible and despite numerous attemtps by editors to collaborate with and try to improve them, "regular" editors have been reverted and undone by Vipul's project time and time again.

I'm STILL trying to wrap my head around HOW exactly are we supposed to tag these paid advocacy articles? Putting a COI on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation article or Talk page for instance doesn't quite seem right there if the subject of the article did not ask for Vipul's help. I think if we had a bulleted laundry-list of everything wrong with the way that this project has operated here so far, we would see how much damage has been done.

As far as content the Effective Altruism article for instance, needs to be deleted. Garbage and dis/misinformation on the timeline articles, I don't know what is worth keeping there or not. From what I have seen of the immigration topics, it would be destructive at this point to remove them, because from what I have seen there, they are excellent, and provide information in a clearly encyclopediac way.

I completely agree that Vipul should have worked with Wikipedia or even the WPF instead of going rogue and yes he does have interesting ideas. I want to be able to support the policies here that people have worked so hard to make. Vipul has trampled over about 18 of them, repeatedly and created policys for his project that are not what we have agreed to or work with here. Actually his project's policies oppose WP in many ways.The Doxxing and outing which Vipul invites is distubing. He never really answered the question about who was funding him that I could see. The astroturf is particularily sickening. TeeVeeed (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The tagging is simple. Template:Connected contributor (paid) goes on the Talk page with a diff in "otherlinks" to the disclosure saying they were paid by Vipul. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bri that all members of the team should be indeffed, and I say their articles (as disclosed) be deleted without further discussion. Not only is this enterprise a fraud ('deceptive business practice') on the community and a breach of trust but it is continuing breach of FTC directives and similar (stronger) directives by other national regulators against astroturfing which mandate disclosures must be communicated effectively so that consumers are likely to notice and understand them. We have not yet considered the evidence on Vipul's financial statements disclosed off-wiki that he was receiving significant sums of money into his bank account from third persons and so cannot rule out the possibility that he was used as a cut-out to evade WMF's ToU terms. While the community can continue to discuss the theoretical considerations of future paid editing at leisure, the existing violations must be excised swiftly to safeguard the project from the negative publicity from cases like the Wifione matter and Orangemoody matter, and whereas those earlier cases involved anonymous people from coordinated groups creating promotional articles thus making prosecution of the perps by the victims rather difficult, over here Vipul and his team (some of whom are minors) have waived their privacy (or as somebody else expressed on COIN, Vipul coerced / duressed his workers to waive their privacy in exchange for rewards).Inlinetext (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• The two big issues here for me are 1. advocacy and 2. editor behavior. Advocacy's been covered pretty well already above, but I think the pattern of behavioral issues merits more attention. Quite unsurprisingly, the editors with the most significant payment for their edits, specifically Riceissa ($8508 declared) and Wikisanchez ($5383 declared) are the editors with the most egregious behavioral issues. Even solo behavioral stuff can chill or chase away volunteer editors, to the extent that even without the advocacy issues I think this ring is a net negative to the project. Deletion and indeffs are blunt tools, but one way or another I can't see any justification for allowing this ring to continue. VQuakr (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• I have just nuked another bunch of WP:REFSPAM added by Vipul and his friends. I started out by suggesting a way forward that would be compliant with policy, but I have by now concluded that Vipul and any known associates should simply be shown the door. I can't find anything about their actions that is anything but antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose and values. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

At my age, I am not going to spend any more time thinking about or researching this matter. It just didn't feel right to me as I started to read about it, so I feel very comfortable in adapting Guy's opinion as my own, based upon his thoughts and research. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Looking into this further and I am seeing a fair bit of reference spam :-( We generally block users who insert links for the purpose of SEO especially at this scale. Ref spamming is a common and lucrative effort.

Vipul works in the SEO business. I assume many of these links are to his clients. Which if that is the case would definately not make this altruism but simply business. In this edit they add a link to visapro.com. One of the people they pay also used the link[1]. We than have visprolaw.com, visapro.in, and visapro.com all owned by the same entity. The company visapro.in does SEO.

This is definitely not cool.[2]. One adds content than has people you pay try to edit war it into the article. In this edit history we have Vipul and Riceissa involved.

The more I look at this the greater concern I have that Wikipedia is being used and the altruism bit is not true. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Vipul can you address these concerns. Why have you used Visapro so much as a ref? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't work for a SEO company or in SEO. None of the firms mentioned above are my company's clients and I don't have any relationship with them.Vipul (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added links to user-friendly descriptions of various immigration policies to supplement official links on the USCIS website and other stuff, to demonstrate the importance of the underlying topics and the correctness of the interpretations in the article. The way I selected specific references was mainly through seeing what came up on top in a Google search; in some cases I went a little deeper in order to get appropriate references but Google search was mostly the starting point. Most of the added links were already on top in search results before I created the Wikipedia article.Vipul (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Deletion of GiveWell. Hi, I haven't fully digested the above discussion yet, but I just wanted to ask the admin(?) who deleted the non-profit charity evaluator GiveWell if - on reflection - the entry could be restored. (I originally wanted to look something up about GiveWell and was instead reduced to using Google cache.) By all means nominate GiveWell in proposed "Articles for deletion" if it felt such a nomination is appropriate - or perhaps add suitable warning tags, or a Comments/Criticisms section (etc) if needed. I realise there are circumstances when an admin needs to act fast and urgently, but GiveWell is a fairly well-known (and IMO valuable) organisation. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) 14:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

JzG deleted the article as a CSD "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW))". There are several enquiries about the deletion on his talk page at User talk:JzG I'll notify him of this discussion; it seems like a good candidate for WP:DRV — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've put up a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 9 — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am grateful to Davidcpearce for piping up here. As was pointed out by User:Bri (Brianhe) in the mega-COIN thread here, we have had issues in the past with advocacy in WP by people in the Effective Altruism movement (which includes Davidcpearce). In the past they have coordinated offline to advocate for their issues here in WP.
  • User:David Gerard opened a thread about that here at COIN in October 2016.
  • There had been a prior thread at COIN here in April 2016 which was related to some dramafest AfDs that the EA online community rallied to try to save via various offwiki locations:
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abolitionism (bioethics) (result was delete)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild animal suffering (result was no consensus)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising for Effective Giving (oddly closed no consensus)
    • and an SPI case here that found two sets of socks.

Vipul's project adds paid editing to that history of coordinated advocacy in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I guess if asked, I'd say I aspired to be an effective altruist, but then probably so would Torquemada. It's not in itself a source of discreditable bias - although if an editor were involved with any particular organisation that used the label, it might be borne in mind. Here IMO it’s red herring. Also, whatever else I might be accused of, I've never used "sock puppets"; all my Wikipedia edits are under my own name. I was just asking the admin(s) to reconsider, that was all. --Davidcpearce (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep the SPI found that you were not socking, that is clear. The advocacy issue is also clear and is not a red herring but rather one of the central concerns about Vipul's enterprise. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• As a regular at WP:COIN, this seems to be a subtle form of SEO-type activity. See timeline of colorectal cancer. There was a reference to "lifeextension.com", which sells nutritional supplements. (Removed that.[3]). Most links seem legitimate, but a few are promotional. So that's the way in which this abuses Wikipedia. I haven't looked at more of these articles yet, but they may be content created as coatracks upon which outbound links can be hung. In terms of article repair, the Vipul-related articles need to be identified and purged of references that are not WP:RS reliable sources. Does anyone have a full article list? That really should appear at the beginning of this AN/I discussion. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

John Nagle. See Point #3 in the OP, for the complete list. Thanks for commenting. I just reviewed that article too and removed entries based on a press release (diff), content not supported by a ref at all (diff), spammy ref to patienteducationcenter.com (diff) and silly content about a study being published (woo hoo) sourced to Focused Ultrasound Foundation diff). Two of those are very spammy; one is just incompetent, and the other is just badly sourced; several are OR (selecting an item as important in the history based on ... what?) I am pretty worried about these ~100 Timeline articles. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So it's worse than I thought it was. There seems to be an approaching consensus that Vipul & Co. will be shut down, which is the main AN/I issue. After that comes cleanup. Which articles should be cleaned up, and which should be deleted? The "timeline" articles are for subjects that already have a main article, so they can be thought of as POV forks for COI/coatrack purposes. Put "proposed deletion" tags on the marginal articles, especially the "timeline" ones, and see if anybody wants to save them? If someone wants to save them, we'll need to do a merge. It's a low-effort way to clean this up. Would that be appropriate? John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment When I entered the search term "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GiveWell&action=history" into Google to locate a cached version of the editors on the GiveWell article, the only result I got was to this link, where somebody who is apparently (and in all good faith I stress on 'apparently') indeffed user "User:Soham321" has linked to this paid editing of Vipul's team as far back as Feb 24 2017 and pointed to the link in question there on Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:03 am with an exceptionally detailed precis. A link to IssaRice's website there is particularly instructive on the deceptive tactics employed - Appearances matter a lot with Wikipedia editing, and publishing a page that, on first glance to a casual editor, looks like it is supported by a wide array of sources, is critical to increasing the odds of survival in the Wikipedia world. Of course, the page should also actually be backed by good evidence, but we want to avoid putting people on the path of suspicion. Inlinetext (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd read that as "don't use such a small number of references that other editors will immediately assume the article is under-referenced"; maybe a little awkwardly phrased, but not of deceptive intent per se. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. That would not be the way an external agency (see para 27 therein) which doesn't automatically assume good faith would probably interpret it. FYI, EU, German, UK and Canadian jurisdictions are clearly also inherent by coordinated edits of 'Vipul' and 'Issarice' like these and many many more like this. Inlinetext (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• This ANI does not fully reflect the COIN discussion. Any observer of the paid $55 editing at Against Malaria Foundation, Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, and GiveDirectly and seeing the unanswered article talk messages there and their off-site coordinations would seek clarity why Vipul, Riceissa, User:Rootdown1010 (no statement yet from Vipul if this user is paid by him or his IRL name) and Davidcpearce have not been yet been indeffed/banned under the anti-sockpuppet policies of this community discussed a few week back at ANI for WikiExperts ? The difference between undeclared meatpuppetry and declared meatpuppetry is not clear to me. Inlinetext (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Rootdown1010 was never paid by me and I don't know who this user is in real life. The user actually removed a lot of content I had added to the GiveDirectly page (but also updated it in numerous other ways. I have not included this user in the list of people I've paid.Vipul (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong action is required to reject paid advocacy. Someone like Robert Mercer could pay a manager to control a team of advocates to push whatever line they wanted. An issue might be raised at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN concerning problem edits, only to have a dozen paid advocates overwhelm normal procedures. The only reason normal POV pushers can be handled is that they lack discipline and central control—their enthusiasm generally results in sanctionable behavior. For example, a controlled group, motivated by significant financial reward and shared political aims, could greatly influence the tone of articles related to the next cycle of US elections. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If anything significant is to be achieved from this long, drawn-out saga it, indeed, should be changes to the policy which reflect this emerging consensus. Not just a resolution specific to the Vipul Group. El_C 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Novel idea Let's make more rules and drive paid editing underground because we cannot handle one of these situations without a massive clusterfuck of idealist morals facing reality.--v/r - TP 19:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TParis I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter and my recommendations. thx Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The best way to handle this is to apply our behavioral policies to the issue. You have a whole list of them to pick from. The colluding and meatpuppetry violates the canvassing policy. The aggressive behavior violates the TE policy. Any promotion edits, which I don't think you've mentioned any, could be handled by the NPOV policy. Focus your efforts there to avoid driving this underground where it cannot be managed. Despite all his other faults, User:Vipul has laid out the best framework to date to be in compliance with our TOU. It needs some refining, but it offers more transparency than we've ever seen before. We should at least acknowledge that an effort was made.--v/r - TP 23:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your more considered reply. We seem to be more or less on the same page and several folks commenting have praised the transparency. On promotional editing - as I noted and linked to in the OP I and others have found PROMO especially in the "technology" focus articles, and I and others have found poor quality (very spammy) refs in Timeline articles. More is being dug up. Hard to tell if this is the product of "average" editing {which means roughly half of it is bad  :) } or something else. But Vipul's QC of content and behavior of his editors is not at the same level as his transparency. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

See for example this series of deletions of refspam by Guy that he mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Question: @Vipul: Do you, at all, give any training, to those that you're 'employing' within your company / job industry / whatever? If not, would you consider at least pointing all your newly contracted (if the project resumes) to a few policies that will help them get it right? We, as a community, could perhaps decide which Policies the 'workers' must know of when they start, if it helped. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: While I 100% agree that this should have been brought before the wider community at ANI (because this is for the most part the most-watched community board), eventually it is going to overwhelm a community noticeboard and need to be moved to its own (well-publicized) dedicated subpage. In fact the discussion is already overwhelming, or starting to overwhelm, this noticeboard. There are simply too many elements to discuss, too many problems and eventualities, and too many opinions on how to solve or handle these growing, ongoing, and potential future problems. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting User:Softlavender - I have been looking forward to your comments here! I don't agree that Vipul's enterprise is not addressable here. I have been thinking about whether this is close-able, and the discussion above is closeable, in my view. There are diffs that can be looked at, patterns that can be identified, and defineable remedies proposed and agreed upon. The discussion below is only close-able with something like "another general discussion of paid editing that reaches no consensus" - it is really not appropriate here but people will do what they will do. But Vipul's project is a concrete thing that is addressable. You haven't posted your thoughts on Vipul's project and what the community should say about it, and I would appreciate it if you would, for the closer. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the entire subject too overwhelmingly troubling and difficult to comprehensively deal with in merely a few days on ANI. It has been, and is being, discussed at major length on COIN, on El C's talkpage, offline, and here (and possibly also Jimbo's talkpage although I haven't checked), and frankly I have just been too burned out by all the current and potential problems of this subject, in addition to the current AE drama, to try wading through this. I also do not think that everyone who has something to say about it, or will have something to say about it, or should have something to say about it, has commented or had an opportunity to. I have not read this ANI thread, so if I say anything that is (by decree) putatively no longer the case, feel free to correct me. Here are some of my offhand concerns: (1) This is a pyramid scheme in which the product is clicks, and editors are paid by page-clicks, and also receive a percentage of their downline's (the people they recruit) clicks. (2) Vipul by his own declaration works in the field of page-clicks, making this an even more worrisome model. (3) He is hiring schoolchildren, which will create all kinds of behavioral and competency problems (we've already seen one of his editors, a college student, receive a final warning for an indef block for behavioral and competency issues). (4) His hiring, and the number of editors, can proliferate exponentially with the pyramid scheme. We could be overrun by meatpuppetry (already clearly present with his editors at AfD, article editing, noticeboards) and POV/COI -- there is absolutely no way to track or stop it if he has 20, 40, 60+ editors. (5) Whatever his intentions, Vipul has already been caught out making refutable statements -- if these have been deliberate misstatements (or even if not) there is nothing to prevent him from making future misstatements or non-disclosures. (5) Even if Vipul states the project is on hold, there's no way to determine that, or even determine what exactly he is doing or not doing, or what his editors are doing or not doing. Those are just a few of my concerns (I have more but I can't remember them). Whatever happens here at ANI or how ever this thread is closed, I think it's going to pop up again. Lastly, not only do paid articles need to be tagged on their talk pages, editors creating or adding to paid articles need to list and declare every single paid article prominently at the top of their userpage. Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Dropping in this Daily Dot article for context. Inlinetext (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Softlavender's analysis is instructive and this....paid editing....is a terminal cancer that has to be cut out with immediate radical surgery ASAP....and its not a question of should it be stopped, but how and how quickly it can be stopped. The status-quo is unacceptable. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, we need to have emerging consensus reflected in policy—that may be a novel idea, but it's worth pursuing. Basically, the principle of disclosure has to be taken up a notch: with every edit to an article by a paid editor tagged accordingly for reference. Paid editors also must be made aware that their COI makes them have less rights than volunteers (participation in AfDs, RfCs, etc.). It's troubling, indeed, because we can't expect paid users to employ their critical faculties onto articles they are paid to edit. As for pyramid schemes, if that's what's happening here with Vipul's Group—if the FTC dosen't act (which we don't expect it to), the Foundation should then drop the hammer. Does the Vipul Group truly do write favourable uncritical Timeline of corporations articles due to altruism? That's why I kept asking Vipul about contracts and that's why Inlinetext intimated pay-per-clicks. Because working for private wealth for free is a difficult notion to reconcile. It comes down to motivation—makes sense to be suspicious. El_C 23:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

When I opened this ANI I was concerned that people would keep venturing into the bigger picture issues. The community is very divided on paid editing and the more people talk about general issues the less likely it is that we will be able to resolve anything about Vipul's activities in particular. If you are unaware of how divided the community is and how unproductive community discussions about COI/paid editing are, please read the current RfC at WT:COI and please read the extremely long discussions over each of 5 simultaneous policy proposals on paid editing that the community held in late 2012 early 2013 after the Wiki-PR scandal - they are linked in the "historical" section of the "see also" section at WP:COI - Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing_policy_proposal was the most extensive one. Really - nothing will come of this if it gets bogged down in trying to rethink the framework of paid editing. This is not the place for that. We need to deal with what Vipul has done and is doing under the current framework if we hope to resolve anything. We can, if people focus. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised at how many editors just can't believe that someone with a bit of money would want to improve Wikipedia with it, rather than (for example) donating it to a school or a homeless shelter or a food bank. Is that really so hard to believe? I even once considered it myself, just before the TOU changed to make paid editing more complicated. Another editor had suggested a particularly excellent and comprehensive source to identify rare diseases, and it was on my to-do-for-Wikipedia list for literally years, without me making any progress on it. I thought about how little it cost to hire people through Amazon's Mechanical Turk, and that I could probably hire someone to add Category:Rare disease to all the listed articles for less than what some of you spend on restaurants in a week.

But, okay, if you're unable to believe that anyone could want to spend some money to help the world instead of helping themselves, then could you perhaps try to believe that it could make their lives easier? Maybe, like me, he was thinking about ways to reduce his task list. Maybe he wanted those articles on companies to save himself the trouble of looking up all the information himself. Given the average hourly wage in San Francisco (which is US $30 per hour), if you paid someone $25 to collect the information, and that saved you an hour's time in preparing a presentation, then maybe you'd consider it cost-effective. And if you're going to pay someone $25 to collect information so that you can give a talk, maybe you might as well publish that information on Wikipedia, too, since none of this seems to be private or sensitive.

It's a truism in finance that money is fungible, and I suggest to you that the resources needed to improve Wikipedia are fungible, too. Some of us are literally spending thousands of hours on Wikipedia each year, and some of that time could easily be substituted by hiring another editor. (The US federal government values your time at approximately $12 per hour, in case you were wondering.) So why do we think it so suspicious that a highly paid person pays cash to get some Wikipedia editing done, but we don't think that it's the least bit strange or suspicious that some of us have literally quit our jobs or reduced our hours to be able to contribute more to Wikipedia?

(And now I encourage you to take Jytdog's advice about focusing on current policies.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

General thoughts about ToU etc

I have broken this into a separate section. General discussions of the ToU and paid editing are way, way beyond the scope of this ANI thread and are not addressable at ANI. We have had something like seven RfCs or policy proposals about paid editing generally and there is no consensus beyond WP:PAID and WP:COI, and it is not going to be obtained here. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment - think first. From even the quickest look it is obvious that the deficiencies in the Terms of Use policy, some of which I commented on when it was enacted, have come to light. Chief among these is that, if paid editing is allowed at all, every paid edit that is made should be tagged with a link by which the paid editor and his network can be uniquely traced, so that article editors have a better idea what was going on. The immense irony here is that Wikipedians are alarmed by the network of paid editors, yet we know about it only because Vipul went above and beyond the policy we have!

I don't immediately see evidence of wrongdoing - our key emphasis here should be on reevaluating our policy. However, Vipul is driving a truck through a loophole you can drive a truck through: you can create a "Timeline of..." practically any topic and not have the same level of resistance that any other kind of article split gets at AFD. We should think about this. I'm suspicious there is some commensalism going on here where the new articles have a lot of great references with a few chosen works he wants to SEO to the top of the list of search results, but cannot prove that!

I am also curious whether @Vipul: is paying himself to edit, and also have some idle curiosity whether Vipul can claim a tax deduction for donating to charity by paying himself to edit Wikipedia for charitable purposes. That's a trick a lot of editors could be interested in ... we might all become paid editors. ;) For example, I see $50 in payment listed for contributions for Form 1023 - was anyone other than Vipul himself editing that for pay?

I want us to hold off on any action against this paid team - they have done us an invaluable troubleshooting service, and it may make more sense to work with them to decide what we can put up with, or if we demand they stop entirely (and likely we should) then we can do that as a policy going forward, without rancor and blocked notices. I know that's not how laws are made in America - usually the prosecutors come down on some poor sap for doing something he thought was legal and then the legislators try to figure out a way to make it look like they ordered it - but Wikipedia isn't feeling very American nowadays. Wnt (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's because American is kinda nutty lately! But I agree with you on the two (three) points: 1. "every paid edit that is made should be tagged with a link by which the paid editor and his network can be uniquely traced."; 2. There may not be "immediate ... evidence of wrongdoing" (underline is my emphasis); (3). Whether Vipul has seen any money (or any benefit whatsoever: contracts, etc.) from this, be it through astroturfing (hopefully not!), or through tax deductions, is also of great interest. El_C 14:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this is the fairest criticism I've seen and a reasonable one from the outside view. Replying to two of the issues you raised.

We had no SEO goals. I don't even know how that would work, because external links from Wikipedia are nofollow, so even repeatedly linking specific websites wouldn't boost their SEO directly (Any effects would be indirect, e.g., if a lot of people discover the pages through Wikipedia, then they might link to them from their own sites, and boost the link juice; however, I expect this effect to be too weak). In my personal edits, I was obviously biased toward sources that I was more familiar with (though not with intent to boost their search engine rankings, because I don't even think that's possible). However, I didn't instruct paid editors to boost specific sources.

I don't get paid by third parties for any of this (as I've reiterated often) and I also don't get tax deductions. Form 1023 was created by Churrupy, whom I have listed as one of my payeees on my user page (and also externally). To be more concrete on my tax situation, I use the standard deduction in my US federal and state tax return so I don't itemize any payments for Wikipedia editing.Vipul (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It is incorrect to suggest that Vipul complied with or exceeded policy requirements - The immense irony here is that Wikipedians are alarmed by the network of paid editors, yet we know about it only because Vipul went above and beyond the policy we have!. Per contra, had all these 250+ articles been properly tagged with the FTC, or other applicable law as mentioned/incorporated at the outset of the ToU, mandated prominent and conspicuous disclosure notices, this mischief/wrongdoing could have been caught a long ago. I find a long trail or AFDs and COINs about this network (which overlaps with EA astroturfing) spanning at least 2 years but it was always somehow converted into 'content' and not really focussed on the abusive behavior / meatpuppetry which was systematically crafted to beat off concerned unpaid volunteer editors from the articles they created and controlled. Inlinetext (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Inlinetext: I'd love for that to be a rule. But it isn't! The actual text from the Terms of Use (link at the bottom of this and every page) 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.

Unless you own a supercomputer and can keep the entire edit history of all the articles in your memory to search and write some custom software, you can't actually track the third way throughout Wikipedia. This or the talk page message could be anything - you'd need the much-hyped Watson to figure out all the ways an editor could say he's paid. Vipul actually picked the way easiest to track and made a good faith effort, as far as I've seen so far, to follow both the letter and the spirit of our policy. So it's the policy that should be in the dock here. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The Precautionary clause 1(b) in ToU ... For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America., and thereafter - Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, violation of privacy, or any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation; With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate; ... (Paid contributions without disclosure) These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities ... Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. . The FTC requirements are hence squarely already covered in ToU as are also several other possible ToU infractions by Team-Vipul. Inlinetext (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is that list to the +250 articles located at again? El_C 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

here as created by Jytdog. Inlinetext (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Inlinetext: You bolded up the first part without noticing it applies to "personally identifiable information", which this is clearly not. And as for the FTC... well, it's possible that Donald Trump is going to appoint a brand new U.S. attorney today who will try to prosecute internet entrepreneurs for making generally constructive encyclopedia edits within a site's terms of use without disclosing them a certain way. It's also possible I get hit by an asteroid before I hit the "Save" button. But I'd guess it's up to us to make new policy if we want to interfere with anything close to Vipul's pattern of activities. Wnt (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wnt: In context of "You" == "Vipul" etc. appropriate bolding (please correct me)

• you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America (qv. Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure - What is the "applicable law" for paid contributions on Wikipedia and its sister sites?)
• (Refraining from Certain Activities) Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, violation of privacy, or any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation. {qv. recruitment and soliciting personal details of his editors for payments for non-WMF sanctioned promo purpose) See this most blatant example of soliciting WP users .
• (Refraining from Certain Activities) With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate. {qv. Issarice's off-wiki deceptive advice to editors on how to deceive Wikipedian scrutiny).
• (Paid contributions without disclosure) Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. (qv. FTC, FTC/DOTCOM, WP:COI - no prominent on article disclosure done, no AFC, no via talk page insertions, to the extent that talk page protests of other editors were ignored while they just reverted and kept on editing). Inlinetext (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• TOU notwithstanding, we know how to deal with abuse of Wikipedia for SEO. That said, I support the idea that every single paid edit should be called out as such in the edit summary. At present we place undue burdens on the volunteers who check for subtle bias in paid edits. Paid editors can technically make one inconspicuous disclosure and then blast away, with RC and NP patrollers given no obvious clue that content is advertorial. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Guy, we could ask the developers to add a "this is a paid edit" option when we save an edit, just as we currently have a "this is a minor edit" option. It could produce a "p" instead of an "m" in the edit summary. Editors could be asked to check it for any edit for which they receive or expect to receive compensation, whether on articles or talk pages. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• I like this idea provided that efforts are taking to counter anti-"p" edit biases like which is currently not being done with regards to IP addresses that edit. If a "p" edit is not an auto-revert on someone's radar, then this could be an easy way to disclose.--v/r - TP 17:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

We could. The downside is that this would give tacit approval to paid editing. There is no consensus that paid editing is forbidden, but equally there is no consensus that it is a good thing (if anything, rather the opposite). However, a generic "conflicted" flag and an encouragement to identify the conflict in the edit summary might be an idea. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Guy and TParis, it does risk giving tacit approval, but then so do the terms of use by requiring paid editors to disclose. Marking edit summaries with a "p" would make disclosure easy and obvious. If there's reasonable compliance, it would allow us to keep track of how much paid editing there is, including on talk pages. Other guidelines would still apply, e.g. WP:NOPAY. Doc James, what do you think about this: having the option to mark "this is a paid edit" with a "p" in edit summaries, just as we mark "this is a minor edit" with an "m"? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure we could try it. In cases such as this it would be helpful. I am skeptical of its widespread use as most problem paid editors work hard to avoid detection as they are using multiple sock puppets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It could be a requirement of the terms of use - within local policy. I've opposed most new policies but I think I could support requiring paid edits to use the "P" flag. Paid edits that didn't use the "P" flag would be considered subverting community policy and editors could get blocked. Discretion could be made on a case by case basis for ignorance of the policy.--v/r - TP 21:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

TParis, what would we have to do to get that implemented? (a) RfC on the village pump, then (b) if we gain consensus, who would we ask, and how much work would it be to add it, from the developers' side? Is this a job for the WMF or could volunteer developers do it? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The work is trivial. A database entry and a few bits of HTML. A developer will need to install it, but anyone could write it as an extension for MediaWiki. So, I'd start with asking WMF 1) Will they develop it, and 2) Would they install it with community consensus. If the answer is no to 2, we're dead in the water. If the answer is no to 1 and yes to 2, then we'd need to find a developer to write it. If the answer is yes to both, then you can move straight to developing community consensus with the tentative approval of WMF. RFCs sometimes get derailed on "We don't even know if WMF will do this..." etc. Once consensus is achieved, WMF can move toward implementation. We should also ask that the data be made available to the API and jQuery objects so that scripts, bots, and tools can be written to leverage the 'P'.--v/r - TP 01:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

TParis, thanks. I'll try to think of the best WMF person to ask and take it from there. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I'd start with the community engagement folks: Moonriddengirl and James Alexander.--v/r - TP 00:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I no longer even see where this was meant to go because this section has been reorganized so much (my own doing too)--v/r - TP 23:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jesus fucking Christ this is exactly what I was talking about above. This site has lots it's shit. You people literally cannot handle a fact of humanity that is going to persist no matter what we do without blowing the fuck up and having a giant cluster fuck of mouth vomit.--v/r - TP 16:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support options for disclosure but make them general-purpose tools -- the "Usonian" ideal is at least as undesirable in software as it is in architecture. Instead of having a "p" checkmark box, editors should be able to add a "context tag" at the end of their edit summary. This tag, among other things, could uniquely identify a paid edit or non-uniquely identify any official WMF edit or identify a small group of editors associated with a particular GLAM participant. At the edit UI level only, the tag could be provided in a separate field. The field should be persistent between edits - i.e. if you put that you're editing for pay in the first time, it stays the default for every future edit until you clear it. To change the field without making an edit (like clocking off) you could make a null edit with a different value for the field. And the length of the field should be deducted from the max length of the main edit summary, plus an extra for a template. I say for a template because there should be a raw mode text for the edit summary like /* References */ I added sooo many good linkz Template:Ctxt, so that the edits are stored in the database without any differentiation from those that have been made the past ten years. However, they could also be used by some WMF tool that pulls out every edit by paid1234 and to give you a set of reports much like those Vipul provided. True, I guess this isn't a real template, so a simpler tag format might be used, as long as it doesn't retroactively impact more than a couple of edits in the database. But I use that to illustrate. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support I support requiring paid edits to use some sort of local "Paid" flag or tag via a TOS/TOU (real law), as long as they are also still requried to follow normal editing guidelines. This allows the bounty boards to be reopened, I've still seen bounties here and there and centralization and logging would be helpful. I think "the war on paid edits"(meme) is not a thing we can currently win, just drive further underground. This modification allows for that market to be more monitored, transparent, and local. Considering that Jimbo has also weighed in on this issue elsewhere and that this is a policy issue it needs to be carried to a full separate discussion where specifics are hammered out however. Endercase (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

distraction and a mess Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposals (in draft) Proposals specific to Vipul, by 'Jytdog' a) that Vipul put a moratorium on this operation. b) that Vipul formulate a clear mission for what he is doing and consider going through the GLAM on-boarding process before re-starting. That the "technology" focus be eliminated. I reckon the GLAM folks will think through other aspects of the mission with him. (I hope) c) that Vipul provide a single list of articles his team has worked on for him, and a list of all the editors he has paid. (we don't need to see how much he has paid them) d) That Vipul obligate his editors via the contracts he has with them, to follow the PAID policy and the COI guideline. Posting those contract templates would be great. e) That his team 1) puts PAID disclosures on the Talk pages of articles they work on, and 2) follows the COI guideline, putting content through peer review via AfC for new articles, and through Talk page postings for existing articles f) the community should agree to have zero tolerance for MEAT/TEAM editing by his team against other editors. additional proposals for Vipul g) that all articles edited by Vipul or his team members shall either be deleted or carry prominent disclosures within them cautioning readers and be reviewed for compliance with other core community policies, h) That all Vipul's 'Timeline of ' articles be deleted forthwith Inlinetext (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Gist of some proposed amendments / clarifications of present policy pursuant to experience of Vipul's enterprise Paid editors must disclose their verifiable real world identity / affiliation / employers on their user page Paid editor accounts must not be used for non-paid edits. Paid editors shall comply with all community policies and guidelines on discussion pages or their user pages Paid editors shall not create or edit articles directly but may request edits or that AfC be done with volunteer review Paid editors cannot campaign or promote causess for their employers (or anyone else) but must confine themselves to suggestions for non-controversial improvements and correctiions of obvious errors to specific articles. Correspondingly it is incumbent on community volunteers to respect such requests and promptly review them in accordance with the ToU and community policies.. Every article containing promotional or commercial content suggested by a paid editor shall carry a prominent/conspicuous notice cautioning readers within the article and such notice shall be directly visible even for mobile users or print readers even if such content is removed subsequently. Paid editor accounts shall incorporate a distinctive symbol (eg. '[P]:') visible in their signature(s) and in their edit summaries Paid editors cannot operate in teams / relays but may nominate a single similarly identified "alternate" in their stead Sustained paid editing or as a profession / income source is discouraged. Paid editing is expected to be occasional and confined to improving the encyclopedia and to also discourage undeclared paid editing and sockpuppetry. Suggested by Inlinetext (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC) What you are doing here is derailing this discussion by constantly bringing up larger issues that cannot be handled here. You also didn't sign each subsection above, which makes it unclear who wrote them. I am hatting this entire mess Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• OBJECTION : @Jytdog:. Concerning your hat. IMHO you became an involved party when you opened off-wiki discussions with User:Vipul. It is incorrect to suggest that the 3 sections you hatted are (a) distractive , (b) involve larger issues or (c) were deliberately unsigned to make it unclear who wrote them. The first section was clearly titled as your proposals, the 2nd and 3rd sections were set-off and individually signed by me. All my proposals are founded in existing policy. Because this incident report emanates from repeated removal of COI notices from Parker Conrad which I placed and where the reverting editor refused to discuss or explain, henceforth I, as an average reader of Wikipedia, shall monitor the presence of prominent and conspicuous notice of COI editing on each and every surviving article of Vipul's team and, if required, forward my concerns directly to WMF under the ToU in the manner prescribed by them. I also remind this community that the 5 business days limit set by the 'applicable law' to resolve the complaints of unambiguously promo content coupled with lack of COI notices on Vipul's articles is overdue and affected persons like me (who have been repeatedly harassed, stalked and targeted for removing unambiguous promo content) cannot wait indefintely for a clear resolution by this community on the specific issue of prominent disclosure of paid editing placed so that article readers are likely to notice them. Thanks, I am not participating in this thread any more and may consider resuming my editing on this project in due course. Inlinetext (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Where do people stand on the specific allegations re Vipul network editors?

In general, I think Vipul's enterprise illustrates a need to change the policy on paid editors rather than evidence of misconduct. But in the back-and-forth above somewhere we lost track of @Jytdog:'s more specific original complaints. In particular:

• Were some paid editors improperly canvassed (WP:CANVASS) to become "meatpuppets" of the paid network, causing editing decisions to be made by a false consensus? (Form 1040 was the site of this allegation - we could definitely use more detail!)
• Did some paid editors put in so much unencyclopedic information (such as how-to guides or "undue" material) as to constitute problem editing that ANI should address?

Also:

• As mentioned by @Inlinetext:, did some paid editors engage in edit warring at Parker Conrad or otherwise violate policy by removing the notices?
• Are the "Timeline of..." articles appropriate, or are they going to end up being deleted or merged, and if they are, does that reach the level of an abuse?

Now what all these questions have in common is that they should be asked about specific editors, not "the Vipul group overall". AFAIK until proven otherwise under policy their association doesn't make them accountable for any of their co-workers' offenses. It's not my intent to name any at this time, even Vipul himself, since the statements I see above about it tend to be broad and require a lot of interpretation by the reader. I strongly encourage those who have complaints in mind to do so at this time. I think categorical logic didn't get where people wanted to go above, but it's possible that if you can show, one by one, that editors in the network should be sanctioned, you might reach the stage that by inductive logic you can say that it is not working out for us and editors need to be told to stop making paid edits by it, even without policy change. Though I still think the policy issues are most important, the specific conduct issues are what belong on ANI. Wnt (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason this has become meta on paid editing/paid advocacy is that it appears that there are differences in opinion about disclosure. Personally, I am of the opinion that each paid edit or article/Talk page edit should carry some notification, but if they operated within current rules, individually that doesn't matter i guess-maybe?. A problem is the tag-team editing where more than one have worked together against non-affiliated editors, without identifying the fact that they are working as an outside group which does not have the same goals as Wikipedia. And the astroturf issue where more than one of the group have edited the same article which implies a consensus of Wikipedia editors when really it is not. And the astroturf issue of WP:SPA (single-purpose editing) which can be applied in several different ways here. AND---just because this group has Doxxed themselves, (under duress because they were forced to in order to become paid)----That does not make what they did here right.

I think it makes them MORE WRONG, since it is just another example of off-site policies that diverge from what we do here.

I know how a lot of people feel about IPS, but why are we cutting way too much slack with this group here when if for instance an IP or annon. person punched me in the face and ran-away, and if Vipul or someone from Vipul's team punched me in the face and just stood there and said, "Hi-here's all of my info. I punched you in the face." the main question is what are we going to do about it? NOT applauding Vipul for being transparent or treating them any differently than we would for any other meat-drawer.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• About behavior -- the MEAT and edit warring on Form 1040 and Parker Conrad are obvious; there was similar activity at Laura and John Arnold Foundation which went from the article to its Talk page and continued at a strange conversation at Talk:List of most viewed YouTube videos in this thread. There is no question these were violations of behavioral policies. However that was in the past -- blocks aren't punitive; for the future, there is a rough consensus on the "zero tolerance" recommendation and Vipul has said that he will instruct people not to do that in the future.
• About content - in my view there is a great of bad content that was added to WP by this project; also some good content. What typically happens when a thread is raised at COIN is that we do what we can to stop the direct COI editing so bad content isn't continually added, and we go back and clean up after the conflicted editors. The cleanup of what has been done In this case is a massive task as they have directly created ~250 articles. Looking forward, if they will agree (or the community compels them) to follow the COI guideline and submit new edits to peer review (through AfC or on Talk pages) that will stop the new additions.
  • The key content problems have been bad sourcing, OR, UNDUE (exceeding detail on grant-giving), and advocacy (for effective altruism, with huge representation given to orgs like GIveWell. In my view their work has been shot through with these issues.
  • In my view the "Timeline of company" articles are promotional garbage. There is almost nothing negative in any of them and they are pretty much what you find on a company website. Look at Timeline of Amazon or Timeline of Microsoft for example. Nothing negative there - basically a series of product launch or acquisition announcements. This is part of why I recommended that "technology" be removed from what they do. All these articles should perhaps be nuked by community consensus. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • (ec) I gotta ask --- why aren't these at AFD presently? I mean, not long after Trump fired the US attorneys I followed a link from Google's main news search page and found 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy listed at AFD, no matter how obvious it is that will be GNG-worthy. But these articles seem like unnecessarily split content, people are scrutinizing them over the paid editing/SEO issues ... yet after all this debate there's still no AFD tag at the top of either page. Proposing AFDs isn't something I really do, but the lack of AFD discussions here is holding up the ANI process, because you can't really say which editor(s) are at fault for a pattern of inappropriately submitting promotional articles when you haven't even shown which if any of the articles were obviously inappropriate to create, let alone so many as to demand some kind of administrative fix. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you please add Timeline of nonprofit evaluation to timelines that need to go? I tried to speedy it, actually tried to read it first, lost my mind, and the denial of a speedy with instructions to AFD it, WHICH I don't ever do here so it would be a mess probably. Reasons for anyone who doesn't see it, title and article mismatch. "Timeline" is mainly a list of internet-age charity evaluators which leads to the nice neat conclusion that the "cutting edge"/current state of affairs in evaluating charity is you guessed it EA. Can't we put ALL of the TL articles in a mass AFD?TeeVeeed (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• SUPPORTblind mass nuking of all tl articles from this groupTeeVeeed (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Nuke all the TLs. zzz (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Deletion of timeline articles without debate. The information contained in these articles is exactly what most readers would want to know about the topics (for example Microsoft and Amazon). Deleting without debate is certainly not serving the interests of readers of Wikipedia. Jrheller1 (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Microsoft and Amazon be deleted or that the main articles are either inadequate or too bloated to inform our readers ? Inlinetext (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• SUPPORT mass nuking of all 'Timelines' including the medical and EA advocacy related ones. Indefs on Vipul, Simfish, Riceissa, Ethanbas and Wikisanchez for long term coordinated meat-puppetry and abusive editing. Inlinetext (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

gah, i should have written more cautiously. But let's see where this goes. Jytdog (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

When have you EVER written anything cautiously? 38.88.149.138 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• COMMENT There's a lot of enthusiasm here, and yet there is still no AFD notice on Timeline of Amazon or Timeline of Microsoft. Voting to delete or not delete on ANI is out of order because this isn't the place to decide on deleting articles. Normally the big trick on Wikipedia is not getting an AFD tag on your article. Would folks like @TeeVeeed, Signedzzz, and Inlinetext: please consider putting an AFD on one of these articles? Once something is on the docket at AFD, you'll probably find some regulars who are more than happy to set up additional deletions for the group and to make the arguments about it. But we actually have to do this step! Because if we don't follow our policies, why do we think anyone else will? Wnt (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Because observing the 'defeatist' attitude here against paid editing, I see this is as primarily a ToU / FTC enforcement matter and not a community enforcement one. However, if admins have the inherent powers (as they claim) to sort out what 'Softlavender' has eloquently summarised above, then let them either do so or else forever admit their helplessness. Inlinetext (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want Terms of Use enforcement, you're on the wrong site - that's up to the WMF itself - and if you want FTC enforcement, you're asking the wrong organization; Wikipedia isn't the U.S. government. On Wikipedia it's a matter of policy, and if we want policy to ban paid editing because of stuff like this, we need to make that policy first. What we have doesn't cut it. What you can do is try to document that some number of the articles should never have been made, which can only be done by taking them to AFD and getting a strong consensus against them, if indeed one is merited. Then you can use that as evidence that permitting this much paid editing was a mistake that Wikipedia should fix. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you seen me running to any community Notice Board to report any of the harassment, sockpuppetry and hostility I have faced ? Because, this community is so riddled with COI admins / sock-puppets / undeclared paid editors etc. that it is beyond recovery and incapable of healing itself, no sensible person would play the Wikipedia game when there are far better games to play when such an opportunity fortuitously presents itself. Inlinetext (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia may be overly bureaucratic about some things but it has to be bureaucratic about article deletion. In general there are too many people who want articles struck out for the wrong reasons, and it's worth putting up with a lot of crap in order to make sure we preserve good content. We can't let admins nuke articles whenever they feel like - so there are rigid criteria for speedy deletion. I think we can't let a mob of editors get carried away and nuke a list of articles sight unseen in an emotional vote on an unrelated noticeboard, even when there are very good reasons to be suspicious of profit motives. We have to post the articles on the site's standard list of deletions so that every user theoretically can have a say in them if they're attentive enough, we have to list them, we have to decide what's wrong with them by policy, not just that we distrust them, and we have to notify the actual editors involved so that they can make a fair defense and in order to show them the basic sort of collegiality to which all editors in a shared project for human knowledge ought to be entitled, despite any doctrinal differences we have. Wnt (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note An AfD has been started - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Amazon.com - if I'm out of line starting it, well firstly show me a policy/guideline that says I'm out of line and then apply WP:IAR to it. Let's get this whole mess cleaned up, with fire or nuclear weapons or something. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's great - and once I had it to work from, I already noticed something I want expert feedback about: Wnt (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Question -- is @Ottawahitech: or Timeline of Yahoo! in any way associated with @Vipul: or his network of paid editors? I was looking at a few companies on Template:Technology company timelines that weren't in the proposed AFD, and saw a purple link for Ottawahitech in the Timeline of Yahoo! history. I had clicked the name before because Ottawahitech was one of the editors on Form 1040, which came up here before. He added that navbox to many of the other Timeline articles in the network, though he didn't create it. But Vipul's contributions to Timeline of Yahoo were from 2014, before Vipul's index of contributions, and Timeline of Yahoo is not on his list of projects. Ottawahitech is currently blocked over something, I didn't look to see what; I noticed some edits to his talk page with detailed statistics of how many articles and edits he donated to Wikipedia. [4] Could a knowledgeable admin take a look and see if I'm just seeing patterns in noise? Wnt (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Wnt: No connection that I'm aware of. But he's been indeffed for about a month so it's kind of a moot question. See Archive 945 thread #3. - Bri (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am no longer following this thread. This is completely derailed and uncloseable. People insisting on using this thread to soapbox against paid editing don't seem to understand that the constant derailments make this uncloseable - uncloseable means no decision and no action taken. I am considering other routes to get a community decision on Vipul's activities. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a simple issue, deflected by shills, with a simple and effective remedy. Ban / Indef (for their seriously conflicted externally co-ordinated well-documented self-admitted disruptive paid Meat puppetry which has plagued this project) on Vipul, Riceissa, Simfish, Ethanbas and it should be done here on this most watched noticeboard of Wikipedia and immediately. Inlinetext (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral notification of a related Articles for Deletion discussion

An Articles for Deletion discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Amazon.com. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The 'Team' has simultaneously begun forking all the deleted Timeline articles to their own wikis with claims they "inherit" Wikipedia's licence. example. Somebody will have to explain to them that fraud vitiates everything (including CC licences). Inlinetext (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That is dead right -- putting content on Wikipedia means anyone can use it. That's absolutely the way it's supposed to work. When it's also content they paid for I really don't see any room to talk. ;) Wnt (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

IP 2405:204:C...

User:2405:204:C005:B703:9DC2:251F:B6FE:2648 / User:2405:204:C280:3B2A:F92D:DBDC:356F:9734 / User:2405:204:C601:2A58:D0AD:97BC:F13D:B2EF has been adding and subtracting spaces. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] It is annoying seeing these show up on my watchlist, plus I suspect that he is doing the same thing using other IP addresses. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Office of the President-Elect has a long list of 2405:204:c000::/36 IP addresses that have been disrupting it, including blanking and adding/removing whitespace. Scanning through the range contribs, it seems this has been going on for a while. However, a /36 range block would be huge. Also, I keep getting HTTP timeout errors while trying to access Wikipedia, making this rather difficult to research right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

After spending some time going through the range contribs, I'm becoming very pessimistic about the quality of edits coming from the /36. I've reverted a few edits to obscure Indian topics, but it's tough for me to determine which edits are vandalism. I'm also pretty sure that the political edits are made by the same person now, especially the obsessive tweaking of articles having to do with political presidents, such as Presidential system, United States presidential transition, and Office of the President-Elect. I'm tempted to briefly semi-protect all the affected articles, as they seem subject to random blanking and poorly-written changes. What do other people think? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

More, this time from 2405:204:C28A:339D:54A0:96E:37C5:86D8. There is always the chance that a very short softblock of the range will work. Sometimes a disruptive editor gives up the first time he finds that he is blocked, not realizing that the block is only temporary. Worth a try? Or maybe if someone can catch him in the middle of an editing run using one IP, just blockingh that IP for a few day might have the discouraging effect I am hoping for. Worth a try? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP addresses aren't assigned for very long. I guess I could try a range block if nobody objects. The range isn't all that active, and, like I said, many of the edits coming from it are disruptive. I don't think too many legit editors would be inconvenienced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you should try it. If I am right, a week will do the job. Does anyone object? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the latest account (2405:204:C280:5D0E:A0DB:C185:C3F4:A22A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) while he/she was still editing and pointed the IP editor toward this thread as an explanation. Hopefully, this will serve as a wake-up call. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It didn't help. Four more showed up: 2405:204:C28F:AF1C:1455:51A7:5717:EE1B (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2405:204:C08F:CD13:2040:E833:9CCE:E27D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2405:204:C086:8BD3:E08B:F805:30F8:DFB7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 2405:204:C085:B6CA:941F:FAB:59:C511 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since most of the edits coming from this range are from the same user (and this user is engaging in block evasion), I'll do a 72 hour range block. If it continues, we can work our way up to longer durations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort you are putting in to this. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I see a trickle of edits on the range now that the block timed out, but none of them seem to be this user. 24 hours without any disruption is a good sign. However, I haven't been as active in the past few days, so you might have to ping me to get my attention if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

FkpCascais and 23 editor.

A while ago I participated in a RfC [21] along with two other editors, FkpCascais and 23 editor. RfC's topic was whether Djokovic parents' ethnicity should be included in the article. The mentioned two editors voted against inclusion with the following reasons.

FkpCascais agreed with another editor whose reasoning was: "right now it says nothing about the nationality of either parent because it's not notable enough to do so. That's how it should stay. It doesn't really matter if Djokovic's parents are Serbian, Croatian, Russian or Mexican since this article is about Novak, not his parents or grandparents. They are named and that is plenty. And if it's even remotely controversial then it's even more reason to keep it out."

23 editor stated his reasoning: "his parents are both Serbian (one born in N. Kosovo and the other in Belgrade). The genealogical lineage is completely irrelevant." (he didn't provide any sources for his claim which went against presented sourced in the RfC )

They had quite a strong stand that parents' ethnicity should not be included in the article. I put a link to the RfC.

What is troublesome is what I found recently. They both went against their previous stand and introduce parents' ethnicity to [22] article. One IP objected and did some reverts. I noticed and I reverted them also and opened a discussion.

Then Vanjagenije came, blocked IPs from editing. FkpCascais of course put back their edit. Since then, they both refuse to discuss. I want to confront them about their previous completely opposite stand. I have prepared sources to confront their sources. All that is impossible since there's no point to discuss. They pushed their edit, Vanjagenije aided them deliberately or not, I as an Ip can't edit.

Is this a way to edit Wikipedia? Vote in one RfC no when the edit doesn't go along your view. Then do the same thing you voted against previously on another article. Refuse to discuss, refuse to explain a 180 turn from previous stand. Refuse to discuss at all.

This is not those 2 editors are behaving in such way the first time. I don't want to write a wall of text explaining their history. This example by itself show their lack of consistency and their manipulative way of editing by presenting the same thing in 2 different ways depending on their own view. If someone wants some history, I'm prepared to explain, but you should also be prepared for walls of text. Literally, since only Serbs of Croatia RfC (infamous among other editors as well) lasted for months due to FkpCascais disruptive behavior.

PS. Be prepared to a lot of personal attacks. For one eason or another FkpCascais and 23 editor think that all who oppose their way of editing wikipedia is a sock, as seen from the initial edit that had me involved (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Branimir_%C5%A0tuli%C4%87&diff=766344487&oldid=744590746).

Also, Vanjagenije was of no help either [23]. He knew all about what those 2 editors did on Novak Djokovic's page (he even deleted some of their personal attacks to other editors), yet he didn't see anything wrong with their POV pushing on Branimir Stulic article.

I don't know, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia and Vanjagenije is an admin. Maybe this is a perfectly normal way of editing Wikipedia.

I didn't notify them on their talk page about this discussion on purpose, since they have ignored my plea to join the discussion and reach a consensus. I'm completely disappointed with them ignoring the discussion and even more with the fact that an admin condoles such behavior. 89.164.223.43 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, you must notify any potentially involved editors about any discussion here. It's not an optional step. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Which part of the big red text at the top of this page or the big orange box that appears at the top of the edit window did you not get? Blackmane (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors notified. Blackmane (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've put a source to the talk page to contest their sources.They are still ignoring the discussion and the new source. 141.136.192.216 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

All veterans here know that you edit as IP because you can't create an account because your accounts end up blocked because you are a sockpoppeteer evading indef-ban. Your harassment and repetitive atempts to present me as bad guy and get me blocked are very borring. You have been doing that for some two years now, ever since you confronted me at Nikola Tesla article and got yourself banned. You are becoming quite an unique case here on the project and your case may well be used as exemple on how nowadays we lack proper mechanisms to sucessfully deal with socks and IP editing of indef-banned users. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice This IP [24] has targeted my edits. This IP is currently reported by another editor. They asked FkpCascais to have a look on my edit at Kosovo War and the later editor undid my changes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

For God sake, please take atention, this is a totally different case unrelated to Kosovo and Albania. FkpCascais (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI

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

---

Could someone please take a look at this and this on Talk:Alternative for Germany. I'm perceiving pretty strong WP:I didn't hear that and WP:I don't like it behavior, but maybe I'm wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Even though I said on the article talk page that I was taking this to AN/I, I've notified the editor in question on their talk page anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I was about to refer this. I'm confident that whoever looks into this will understand my position. Please also check the talk pages of myself, and the other two involved, and also [25].

I have noticed multiple behavioural problems, including failure to assume good faith, refusal to respond to reasonable questions, and generally uncivil and unpleasant behaviour. In particular, there was some fairly blatant wikilawyering concerning accusations of canvassing, and in one instance an insistence that I could not remove redundant references without a consensus, followed by a refusal to explain why the references were necessary. I am confident that you will find that the conduct of User:Beyond My Ken and User:Jytdog, which has included explicitly aggressive language and gratuitous swearing, has been generally quite poor. I invited both to adjust their tone on their talk pages, but both continued to be needlessly adversarial. Hayek79 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's pretty much all I have to say - just read the talk page, all will (I think) be clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is an article that seen a lot of alt-right trolling as one can see it in the history, which leaves patience thin for those who watch it.

Hayek showed up at the article two days ago, in that short space already has 44 talk page comments, 4th highest of anybody (edit stats). WP:BLUDGEON. Hayek is a relatively inexperienced editor (edit count) with unfortunately strong views, pushed WP:TENDENTIOUSly.

With Hayek there are also WP:CIR issues, e.g after about their tenth repetition of a point I wrote: "We have had so many trolls coming by the article trying to whitewash it. I am not saying you are one (at all), but I do not give a flying fuck that you think the infobox is too detailed."

• • Hayek had a cow demanding I remove the "flying fuck" and even after I redacted it just to remove the distraction, they still demanded I remove it {diff) and when I pointed out to them (diff) that i had redacted, they wrote, "I had seen that, but I can still read it, and therefore as far as I am concerned it has not been removed." Ack.
  • They also misrepresented my comment above when they wrote here and above, claiming I said anything about their politics, when I specifically said " I am not saying you are one (at all)". Double ack.
  • In that same last diff, they also repeated their claim that "antifeminist" shouldn't be in the infobox because the topic wasn't discussed in the article, but I had added it to the body already, addressing the one valid point they had been making.
  • Neither BMK or I agree that the points they are making are sound in PAG and have said so, and our simply disagreeing with Hayek makes us "obstructive" etc.

They are not even paying attention to the article, but seem invested in the dramah. I don't know if they can contribute productively to this article, with all their passion and inexperience. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog attempts a conciliatory tone, even now one that is fairly unpleasant and patronising, after having been consistently rude and aggressive throughout the course of the exchange. I'll trust that whoever reads this will look at the entire exchange and determine which party was being the more fair. Concerning the use of profane language, it would have been advised not to have used that language in the first instance, and to then have removed it subsequently. I don't believe the guidelines prevent the removal of curse words. As for my "strong views", this entire mess developed from my request that we shorten the "ideology" list in the infobox, mostly for aesthetic and accessibility reasons, and my questioning whether the "anti-feminist" designation was accurate, and supported by the sources provided. Nothing I'm especially passionate about. I was however somewhat taken aback by the level of hostility with which this was received, and I'm certain that this was because the editors above imagined that I was sympathetic to the AfD, or something similar. Hayek79 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not using a conciliatory tone here; I am writing just as I did at the article talk page. You have brought no diffs. Again I get it that you are passionate but you don't know what you are doing, and you should really go edit some non-contentious content until you learn how this place works. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You owe me the courtesy of responding properly to my suggestions, regardless of my edit count. Hayek79 (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Both BMK and I did, more than once. You have BLUDGEONed the talk page so much it is a pain in the butt to provide diffs, but here we go:

• you first complaint was that the list was too long diff. I asked you the basis in PAG for that. To which you replied here about infoboxes not being "exhaustive" and asking me to be "resonable" which I didn't bother replying to, as these are not PAG-based objections, but just a restatement of your original point. You repeated it again here.
• you complained about the sources here and here (which you edited over a few times). BMK replied to you on that here. In this diff you acknowledged that you were not even looking at the sources provided. That about it killed it for me.
• your one valid objection here was that the content was not discussed in the body of the article. As noted above, I added it to the body.
• here you said it wasn't "accurate" which nobody replied to as it is bizarre.

You are just digging your hole deeper by repeating that we didn't respond to you. Oh, and as for the canvassing, diff of the worse one is here. I don't think that has been cited yet.

Your complaint seems to be that we didn't agree with you. Which is nothing to complain about. This thread is your bludgeoning the talk page and wasting everyone's time with dramah. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time you have actually attempted to respond systematically to my comments - even if your rendering of my argument is quite unfair. Thank you for doing this,

i. You did indeed ask for the guidelines, and I referred you to this Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as you can see from the link you have just provided. I'm fairly certain I posted this link on more than one occasion. It also happens to be true that the purpose of the infobox is not to list, exhaustively, every ideological commitment of every faction within the party. "Anti-feminism" is not a leading feature of the AfD agenda, and if you believe it is, you haven't provided enough support for that claim.

ii. On your second point, neither of you responded to my reservations about the other three sources.

I believe you are confused about the following comment: "I can't be invited to cite a study disproving the thesis that AfD is an anti-feminist party, that's for you to prove." This does not imply, as you said, that I was "not even looking at the sources provided". The other editor had offered a study which discussed attitudes towards gender issues in the party, and I was merely making the point that I couldn't be asked to provide a study which proved the opposite. I recall that someone had asked me for sources, but I may have been mistaken.

iii. I have no objections to the Facebook campaign being mentioned in the article. The article still does not discuss AfD's purported anti-feminism, unless you think that the party can be designated anti-feminist on this basis alone.

iv. This is an instance where it might have helped if you had been a little more patient, and asked for clarification. My argument throughout has been that the two articles on the Facebook campaign, one of which was a very short opinion piece, and an article about an AfD representative from the Baden-Württemberg state parliament, is not enough to support the claim that anti-feminism is a significant feature of the AfD platform. Therefore, designating the party "anti-feminist" on the basis of those sources would be inaccurate. Since the infobox is supposed to provide a brief overview of the main ideological commitments of the party, and given that there is no support for the claim that the AfD promotes an explicitly anti-feminist agenda, this is something, I argue, that can be cut from the infobox.

"Your complaint seems to be that we didn't agree with you" - this is obviously not a fair summary of my argument. Hayek79 (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You are continuing to argue content. This is about your behavior. I won't respond further as this is getting cluttered. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

We were both discussing content, but I have copied this onto the talk page so that, now certain things have been clarified, we can hopefully have a more fruitful discussion there. Hayek79 (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't allowed to transfer this discussion of content onto the talk page, despite it being useful in clarifying our disagreement. User:Jytdog has now suggested that I am "repeating myself". As it stands, no effort has been made to address these points. Concerning his response to point iv, it would seem that one of three things can be true:

i. There was an honest misunderstanding, but that Jytdog has refused to concede this by insisting I am "repeating myself"

ii. If I am "repeating myself", Jytdog cannot have been confused about my point concerning the accuracy of the designation, and therefore his comment about it being "bizarre" was deliberate misrepresentation.

iii. Jytdog didn't read my comments. Hayek79 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? You copied your comment from this thread to the article talk page with this edit, and it has not been removed, it remains there, so your statement that "I wasn't allowed to transfer this discussion of content onto the talk page" is inaccurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

BMK they originally copied a chunk of this, including my comments, to the article talk page here, which i reverted as my comments were about their behavior - their claim that we have not responded -- not content. They then copied just their comments from here, in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the correction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. Yes, I believe WP:BLUDGEON applies, and WP:REHASH. For instance, Hayek insists on a lot of mistaken arguing when they're very reasonably warned about their bad habit of pinging particular users on the talkpage and "inviting" them to comment (obviously in the hope of support). Being confrontational about good advice is a real waste of other people's time. And then it turned out that one of the people they "invited" was someone they knew in real life! (User:Acather96, an admin, who responded very properly). Of course that's horrendously inappropriate, and raises doubts about competence. And what's this nonsense? I'll quote it in full, because there are so many things wrong with it in small compass: "I think we'll assume that User:Beyond My Ken has no intention of responding. I've checked their talk page history and they appear to have a long history of unconstructive editing and edit-warring, so I think we should try to get a consensus without them, and deal with them later if they become a problem. Mélencron You seem reasonable, what are your thoughts?" First Hayek concludes, from a user's talkpage history, that that user "has a long history of unconstructive editing and edit-warring". That's both offensive and illogical; people who deal with a lot of POV-pushers, such as Jytdog, Sitush, or indeed Beyond My Ken, will naturally have a lot of complaints, including fake warnings, on their talkpages. Talkpage history is just a ridiculous basis for concluding anything about the constructiveness of a user's editing. Then Hayek concludes that a user who they have themselves worn out with insistence and nagging "has no intention of responding", simply because the response isn't immediate. And then Hayek pings a user who "seems reasonable" (= who agrees with Hayek). Competence problems + aggression = talkpage disruption. I've blocked for 60 hours. Bishonen | talk 17:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

• Could you guys stop referring to Alternative für Deutschland as "AfD". It leads to vexatious puzzlement. EEng 12:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this can be closed if anyone has a mind to. The editor in question was blocked, the block has run out, they've changed their account name (to "L.R. Wormwood") and have pledged to Bishonen to change their talk page behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Endercase

Endercase (talk · contribs)

This user is apparently WP:NOTHERE, and I don't frankly know what to do.

The account is old, but they made a tiny number of edits back before 2013, and came back about two months ago. It seems pretty likely that they were upset that a Twitter account got stealth-banned and came to Wikipedia to write up on the subject based on what was on Breitbart.com. They have spent basically all their time in the last few weeks fighting over whether Breitbart.com and other rightist fake news sites should be allowed as the sole source for factual claims and forum-shopping the same dispute to RSN, NPOVN and Jimbo's talk page (see [26]; also pinging User:JzG and User:Only in death). When said forum-shopping doesn't work out they post disruptive non-comments in multiple unrelated threads on the same noticeboards (no need for diffs; Ctrl+F their username on either of those noticeboards and it's pretty obvious; or just Ctrl+F "bold" on the currently live version of RSN).

When others disagree with them, they start posting these weird, sarcastic-looking attacks on them. (I've seen it myself[27][28] and also noted it happening to User:MjolnirPants.[29])

I'm thinking at least a TBAN from "RSN" or perhaps "right-wing news media" is in order, but at this point the user is practically begging to be blocked.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• We can now add canvassing to the list of disruptive things Endercase has got up to.[30][31][32][33] I literally wrote my entire response to DT below before it occurred to me that it was really weird for a random editor to have seen this thread and responded in good faith the way he did. I check his talk page and find that Endercase canvassed him, apparently because he's one of the very few people (the only person?) to say "I agree" and "I don't want you banned" to them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note this hidden comment with edit note "Clarifying why I pinged who I did, since I can totally see someong accusing me of assuming bad faith and hypocritical canvassing.".

If Endercase is canvassing, he sure is doing a bad job, since most of the editors didn't come here to defend him/her. It looks like a cry for help from a new user who doesn't know the rules and why he is in so much trouble. For a new user, it sure seems honest. When I asked him about mentoring, he said, "I agree I need a mentor". [34]. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: When someone adds an invisible clarification of a certain point so as to be left in the public record but not to clog up the thread, it kinda defeats the purpose when someone else comes along and adds a response to it that's longer than it, and quotes its edit summary in its entirety. I am only counting one canvassed editor who hasn't shown up yet -- do you mean that it was not votestacking since he canvassed one user who disagreed with him along with you and Nocturnalnow? That seems more like a deliberate attempt to seem like one is not votestacking, while disproportionately contacting editors on one side. Also, as I said when you quoted it below, the quote you provide was immediately followed by a clear statement of BATTLEGROUND mentality in which the users who oppose him were called a "Cabal": if you intend on mentoring Endercase, you need to stop downplaying/ignoring/denying the disruptive behaviour that needs improvement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I see in the diffs/link you provided is that a page-ban from RSN would be in order. He seems to be monopolizing things there and is not being very helpful (more to the contrary). Unless you provide specific diffs I don't yet see anything else actionable presented. If he is edit-warring on an article (e.g., Stealth banning), then report to WP:ANEW. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Given that a significant part of the problem is forum-shopping, I don't see how a narrow page ban would solve the problem. I said TBAN because, if he posts something on NPOVN or Jimbo's talk page that clearly belongs on RSN, then he could still be blocked if he were subject to a TBAN but ... well, actually if he were subject to PBAN then we could say he was wikilawyering his way around it and come right back here, but it still seems unnecessary. He also really doesn't appear to be HERE -- again, essentially all he's done since coming back is fight over Breitbart.com. (Even on Talk:Stealth banning, all his posts are essentially just him arguing for inserting material he read on Breitbart and InfoWars, or complaining about how he is not allowed directly cite them -- this (the bottom part) is a particular egregious example.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That said, did you look at this diff? Or this one? These kind of remarks are not appropriate, and they are hardly atypical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the three diffs and the two links you provided. The comments seem pretty standard stuff -- except for on the RSN (excess posting, excess repetition, and idiosyncratic interpretations). You haven't provided any evidence of anything else. To make a case on ANI, you need to provide probative diffs. Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I dont think there is enough yet. But I also think its just a matter of time. Generally their noticeboard (and I am including Jimbo's talkpage here as well) posts quickly devolve into soapboxing when people disagree. What really needs to happen is that an uninvolved editor needs to close their threads sooner rather than later when they go off target. RSN/NPOV boards are for asking specific questions about specific issues with articles, not trying to convince people of an idiosyncratic interpretation of policy. If they want to soapbox on Jimbo's page, well thats different. They can join all the others there. Or an admin can take 5 minutes to explain to them that if they want to discuss the policy, do it at the policy talkpage instead of noticeboards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:TBAN seems appropriate given the WP:NOTTHEM, WP:IDHT and everything else. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think Endercase will read carefully what everybody says and will adjust their participation in order to get along and contribute better. I'm sure they want to contribute and just need a little more time and experience. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow was also canvassed. I don't have the time or energy to figure out why right now; unlike with DT, it didn't apparently come right below the words "I don't want you banned". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Endercase is accomplishing nothing but the waste of time and energy by defending indefensible sources of lies and deception. When people point this out, they wiki-lawyer and whinge. That does seem to smell of NOTHERE. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Orangemike was also canvassed, but clearly it didn't go as planned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• No Action Endercase is a very new user, and the bigger problem is that the accuser (Hijiri88) has failed to assume good faith with unfair accusations such as WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, and suggestion the new editor is "editing Wikipedia because you are upset that your Twitter account got stealth-banned". Hijiri88 interrogates him/her about whether s/he is using multiple accounts [35][36]. (See entire discussion.). Hijiri88 also accuses the new editor of "a fallacious attempt to get users to say indirectly that Breitbart is reliable in certain circumstances". [37]. If anything the problem is the accuser. Perhaps an iBan from Hiriji88 -> Endercase is in order.

I have recently encountered Endercase at WP:RS/N here. It was obvious to me the editor is new and does not understand many of the rules we live by here, citing things like ignore the rules, like there are "no rules". Admittedly, s/he got a little defensive but cooled down when I treated him/her with respect, unlike others who were not so friendly. There is no reason to WP:BITE new users like this.

I have written about this problem at WikiProject Editor Retention here.. In fact, this particular case was on my mind as I wrote it.

Endercase did reach out to me on my talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

David Tornheim was canvassed. Endercase chose to message him about this discussion for some reason, likely that he had written "I don't want you banned" several days earlier. David Tornheim is one of the only users to agree with Endercase in one of their content disputes, and to have partly benefitted from Endercase's disruptive "non-comments" I mentioned above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Self-collapse. This long response was written because I (Hijiri88) have a tendency to take AGF to the extreme, and didn't occur to me until after I'd written it that Dave might have been canvassed.

@David Tornheim: Umm ... what? Endercase is a very new user The account was created in 2011. It came back recently after a long absence and has done nothing but fight over our sourcing standards. s/he got a little defensive I'll say. [Points to diffs of sarcastic attacks further up] Perhaps an iBan from Hiriji88 -> Endercase is in order. Not going to happen. I asked, in a fairly polite manner, if Endercase had used any other accounts, and was met with a string of sarcastic personal attacks. Plus, one-way IBANs don't work and are rarely resorted to except perhaps in the extremest of cases, as ArbCom explicitly told me a little while back. There is no reason to WP:BITE new users like this. Again, if I thought Endercase was a new user I would have applied BITE appropriately, but the account is six years old, and is behaving very precociously on multiple noticeboards (including Jimbo's talk page). Admittedly, some of his recent behaviour[38] does make me reconsider my earlier opinion that he was socking, perhaps his main account was blocked, and he went back to his earlier account. In that case, perhaps he could be considered a newby, and if so I apologize for BITing. However, this does not excuse his continued disruption on multiple fora, after numerous users called him out and told him what he was doing wrong. Your opinion seems to be somewhat similar to OID's (I dont think there is enough yet) except that, for whatever reason, you threw in a string of random jabs at the messenger. Seriously, if a one-way IBAN (something ArbCom refused to do even after a year long hounding campaign), what would you do with all the other users, including at least two admins and one long-term user whose contact with Endercase was essentially limited to thread you link above, who said the exact same thing as me? Your comment seems to be more about your being just about the only one so far to have agreed with Endercase on something he said on RSN than about the actual issues. Which no doubt is why he canvassed you.[39] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Stricken as redundant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

^This is worth a read, because it seems to reinforce what I said. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: Since I wrote the above "No Action", I suggested to Endercase that s/he seek a mentor. His/her response was "I agree I need a mentor." [40]. I would be okay with closing this with the recommendation Endercase get a mentor and Hijiri88 (and all of us experienced editors) be gentle and less accusatory to new users. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Your reading of that long comment is somewhat optimistic: the portion you quote was immediately followed by I appear to have upset a very active Cabal of users. Anyway, how would you feel about a set-term (three months? six months? one year?) TBAN on right-wing news media and/or RSN combined with mentoring for the same period of time, subject to review on completion of said set term? If, as you say, this is not a NOTHERE case, that kind of solution being effective would be a pretty surefire way to prove your case. Conversely, anyone who is HERE and recognizes that their activities have caused disruption would have no reason not to accept such a narrow restriction with a definite end date to look forward to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I spent some time on a reply on your proposed remedy (and am a bit warn out on this whole discussion). I do not think he has been disruptive, so he should not be punished with a tban. I think he is new and *confused* about what is and is not okay, and believes he is right and argues his case.

He--like probably a large portion of Trump supporters here in the U.S.--probably does not understand why editors on Wikipedia don't consider Breitbart or InfoWars to be good WP:RS. It's our job to make it clear to him that there is some consensus that establishes that. When another editor said Breitbart was no good, they provided no evidence for it, so Endercase went to RS/N to ask whether we really do ban specific sources (especially sources he thinks are good). His reaction makes perfect sense to me--exactly what a new user would do, one who doesn't understand how things work here. Obviously he didn't know about the banning of Daily Mail. I believe this problem is going to keep coming up, so we need an RfC or something like that to point to that says Breitbart (and InfoWars) are generally not good WP:RS. I would vote in favor of it, if such an RfC is held. Maybe I'll make one myself.

I have seen similar behavior over sourcing, e.g. Talk:Breitbart_News#Fake_News_being_passed_off_as_sources.

As for a remedy: Mentoring is fine, and perhaps a warning about not advancing specific sources as good WP:RS. If he stops advancing Breitbart and Infowars, I believe your main issue goes away. I think he might begrudgingly comply. We could ask him if he will do it voluntarily. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not think he has been disruptive Only because you are choosing to ignore all the disruption he's been causing. I think he is new and *confused* about what is and is not okay, and believes he is right and argues his case But how do you propose we deal with that? Are you offering to mentor him? If so: you say you don't think he has already been disruptive, so how would your mentoring prevent further disruption? so we need an RfC or something Maybe. But won't Endercase keep complaining with each new "formal ban" that it should be listed somewhere? If he stops advancing Breitbart and Infowars, I believe your main issue goes away. Actually, my main issue is the incivility (as I said in the commented off section above explaining why I pinged MP). I think editors who get their information about the world from Breitbart but know better than to directly cite it on Wikipedia are just as dangerous to the integrity of the project as less tactful users like Endercase, but they are obviously very difficult to root out. Actually it doesn't matter where they got their opinions: any editor who adds their opinions to articles and look for sources retroactively, rather than read sources and write what they see in the sources is a problem (ask Nishidani or Curly Turkey for the worst example in my memory of that -- I don't wanna go into detail). Endercase has actually been showing signs that even if you or some other mentor could get him to understand that citing Breitbart is out of the question, he'll just become one of those editors. And since I'm somewhat pessimistic about the Encyclopedia, I think that's the best we can hope for in a lot of cases. Content-wise. But he would still need to drop the sarcasm, ABF, canvassing... and anyone who doesn't recognize that he has been doing these things is not the right one to teach them not to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Notice: I refer to this AN/I at the talk page of WikiProject Editor Retention here.--David Tornheim (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I don't actually believe that Endercase is a new or inexperienced user, nor that we should treat them as such. New and inexperienced users do not hang out at RSN proffering advice, nor do they quote Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages [41]. I don't know what is the appropriate action here, since Hijiri has failed to make a case by failing to provide diffs substantiating the claims in his OP (not the first time this has happened, which makes for a lot of wasted community time). I do think Endercase should at the very least be kept on a very short leash, and be banned from RSN and probably from reliable-source discussions in general. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No mos. I actually kinda regret not providing more evidence specifically in the form of diffs in my OP comment. Not that it was actually necessary or appropriate. Just that I could have prevented this massive! CREEPy, wikilawyerish tangent about what kind of evidence is preferable. No one cares anymore. Everyone can see what is going on. I think the evidence I presented upfront was enough. Others disagree. Whether I am right or wrong, I apologize for my choice having led to this long distraction from the subject of this thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I actually decided not to post this earlier as it might be bludgeoning to reply to you more than twice before anyone else had commented, but there is actually no obligation to provide evidence specifically in the form of diffs, and in this case diffs would not have been helpful as it would have simply multiplied the number of links that need to be clicked. Endercase posted the same comment in half a dozen RSN threads, and he was the only one to use that particular word on the page, so linking the permalink for the then-current version of RSN and saying Ctrl+F either "bold" or "Endercase" was actually better than diffs. Similarly, the claim that the user is NOTHERE cannot be demonstrated by individual cherry-picked diffs; I linked their contribs, where it is blatantly clear that all they've done for the last several weeks is argue on various fora about Breitbart and InfoWars. I provided diffs where it seemed appropriate (specific snipes at me and MP). It's really not clear what "claims in [my] OP" you want further evidence for. I guess I could have (should have?) linked this to demonstrate that more than half his mainspace and article talk edits are to the same article, which is the one he tried to cite Breitbart and InfoWars on, and his favourite single page in any namespace is RSN, where all of his comments are either weird non-comments or about rightist fake news. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC) You provided a link to RSN with instructions to search for his username, which was instructive, and as I stated above I feel he should be banned from that noticeboard and probably from all discussions of reliable sources. But you did not provide diffs substantiating any of your other claims. The three diffs you provided show nothing actionable, and they do not mention Breitbart. Do not expect other editors to search through hundreds of contributions to find the diffs you should have provided. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Softlavender, could you tell me where I was told that I am obliged to provide my evidence in the form of diffs? Or specify a particular claim I made that wasn't supported by evidence? I am sorry for not providing specific diff for the Breitbart claim. I assumed you would look at the talk pages of the articles in question and see that when he says "my sources" and the like, Breitbart is what is referring to. Here are some diffs where, either in the edit summary or his comment text, he specifically names Breitbart.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] It also appears on his userpage under the spelling "Brietbart". It is undated, so it would be a massive timesink to find the exact diff. Currently, "Breitbart" (and "Brietbart") is only used on RSN by users responding to Endercase, but the rest of us (me, OID, Fyddlestix...) are not just putting words in his mouth: he is unambiguously referring to Breitbart, and to a lesser extent InfoWars, when he talks about "his sources" and "banned sources". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC) The very first instruction at the top of this page is "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." And it doesn't mean 20 diffs, but enough to adequately demonstrate each point you are stating. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Please include. Not "you must include". It's a guideline, not a hard rule. Evidence in other forms is frequently enough, and sometimes (as in this case) preferable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC) It's not a guideline, it's an instruction. There's nothing about the word "please" that makes the instruction conditional. It doesn't say "may" or "maybe". Nfitz (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC) @Nfitz: Lots of ANI threads don't require evidence specifically in the form of diffs. The one immediately below this one didn't provide a single diff because anyone could click on the blue link and see what was being referred to. The one that led to this guy getting banned said, essentially, "Look at this person's user page -- it's Nazi propaganda" and if I recall correctly included no diffs. In this case, the only thing I didn't provide specific evidence for was "This looks to me like NOTHERE, but I'm not sure how to deal with it"; there are a bunch of ways to recognize NOTHERE, and most ANI regulars are quite familiar with at least some of them. Don't wikilawyer me into requesting that the wording of the instruction be amended to take cases like these into account and say something like Please include evidence (for example, in the form of diffs) to help us. That's WP:CREEP and really shouldn't be necessary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Although, I have seen cases where no diffs were required, I think much time might have been saved in the case if more diffs were provided in the filing, rather than expecting us to try and figure out exactly what Hijiri88 contends is "disruptive". I didn't understand what "CTRL+F Bold" meant, even though I use CTRL+F all the time. Providing the diffs of such a search would have saved me time. I hope Hijiri88 listens to the concerns raised here and take the message that if s/he is going to file something like this in the future, to please provide diffs and evidence. Also, last night I started looking at the many diffs above provided to Softlavender. The claim was "either in the edit summary or his comment text, he specifically names Breitbart." Many of them came from a SECTION named Breitbart. That's not him "naming Breitbart", that's just him posting in the section containing the name Breitbart. A single link to the section saying, "here he is defending Breitbart"--if that is true--is sufficient. I feel much time could have been saved if the original filing had focused on diffs of "disruptive" behavior or behavior advocating Breitbart, InfoWars or some other right-wing site as WP:RS. It took me a while to understand that the advancement of right-wing sites was really the main concern, rather than argumentative behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC) @David Tornheim: I provided all the evidence I thought was necessary. Everyone here except you recognizes I mean by "disruptive", and the only reason you don't is because you are ignoring all the specific evidence presented. Softlavender also recognizes the problem, and was just being pedantic about the difference between "diffs" and "evidence, in the form of diffs where appropriate". If you sincerely think, after all of this, that my main problem is the advancement of right-wing sites when I specifically told you above, in the comment that you pointedly ignored for some reason, that [a]ctually, my main issue is the incivility. I'm still waiting for a response to the question I posed in that same comment: if you don't recognize that Endercase's behavioir has been disruptive (I do not think he has been disruptive), how would your mentoring prevent further disruption? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Hijiri, several people have informed you that you did not provide diffs adequate to substantiate your several various claims in your OP. This has happened before with your ANI filings, and as it has now, it merely wastes everyone's time (which you are continuing to do by trying to prolong your self-justification, bickering, and wikilawyering). Now you can either take that information to heart and improve the next time you feel the need to file at ANI, or not and waste more people's time. But please stop harping on it here. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC) You still have not identified the "several various claims" I didn't substantiate. But why on earth are we still talking about this? If you still want diffs for something I said, I'll provide them within his collapse template. This is just distracting at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: A user with 328 edits is not a new user??? [57]. When I was a new user, if someone told me, "You can't use this source anywhere"--especially if I believed it was a good source, I would have looked for a general place to air a grievance about such a banning of a particular source, or banning of any source. (for the record, I don't think Breitbart is a reliable source, but I know there are people out there that think infowars and Breitbart are the only sources that have "real" news ). The way he aired it and then posted on WP:NPOV shows he didn't know that it was inappropriate to post at that notice board. He obviously didn't know about the banning of Daily Mail either or he wouldn't have asked the question. We are supposed to assume good faith, so these claims he is not a new user (or has multiple accounts) need some evidence. I provided evidence he is a new user. Is it guilty until proven innocent? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

New and inexperienced users do not hang out at RSN proffering advice, nor do they quote Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages [58]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

New and inexperienced users do not hang out at RSN proffering advice. Sure they do. I did the exact same thing when I had fewer than 1,000 edits under my belt, offering opinions at six different RS/N sections in a 24-hour period two years ago, until a couple of admins basically told me to butt out. I was a bit shocked, believing that Wikipedia was completely egalitarian and everyone could comment anywhere, regardless of experience, especially when I saw certain editors making so many comments in so many places.

It is a rookie mistake to be citing things like WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE the way he did--not disruptive but naive.

As for Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages, who knows how he learned of it--possibly he just did a search because he didn't understand why some of us were talking about deleting an inconsequential article (WER_v_REW)) that had inadequate WP:RS. Incidentally that article has nothing to do with Breitbart, Infowars or alt right ideology. He is obviously defending an inclusionist approach. I saw no evidence of disruption. He did argue with others, when experienced editors like myself argued with him. Nothing strange about that either: New editors who think they are right will argue, just like experienced editors do. I did the same thing when I started. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether he is new or not (and I don't believe he is), he is borderline trolling in my opinion, does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, and needs to be reined in. I think a topic ban on reliable source discussions, broadly construed, would at least be a good start. That would give him a chance to cut out the game-playing and demonstrate he can edit constructively. Otherwise, I'm not sure anyone wants to babysit him and if he fails to act maturely he probably is heading away from Wikipedia, so to speak. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I did the exact same thing when I had fewer than 1,000 edits under my belt That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that you had made over 400 edits, over several years, before your first edit to the Wikipedia namespace. Again, though, it doesn't matter to my argument whether Endercase is actually a new editor. BITE is an essay, and is subordinate to various policies (such as AGF). Once a newbie has rejected friendly and politely-offered advice from multiple parties and kept doubling down, apparently because of a firm belief that Breitbart and InfoWars are not unreliable sources, they should no longer be treated with kid gloves: editors who refuse to abide by consensus, either by deliberate or accidental failure to recognize the consensus, should either be given a limited sanction to allow them to demonstrate that they are at least capable of contributing constructively, or in extreme cases with a block. Incidentally that article has nothing to do with Breitbart, Infowars or alt right ideology. In other words, it represents only a tiny (even negligible) portion of his contributions so far. More than half of his mainspace and talk edits are related to the two articles he is insisting on citing Breitbart/InfoWars on. In second place is the two Arianism articles he briefly edited immediately after returning. I have not looked at the content of those edits, but one would need to be pretty ignorant of right wing ideology to think that they have nothing to do with it. (I never said "alt right"; my first interaction with Endercase was the FRC thread, about a Christian fundamentalist, anti-LGBT hate group.) Nothing else even comes close to these three. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI Arianism is nothing to do with Aryanism --79.71.0.201 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@79.71.0.201: I know that. Read my comment again. I specifically said that I wasn't talking about "alt right" or "Nazism". Arianism is associated with right wing politics because conservative Christians (Christian right) frequently associate various groups with whom they disagree with "Arianism", and lump secular scholarship of early Christianity in with that Da Vinci Code-based misconceptions, most of which center around the Arian controversy and the Council of Nicaea. It's super-off-topic and would potentially violate BLP if I posted it in detail, but there's one particular conservative scholar I'm thinking of; but it's definitely not limited to him. The topics of "Arianism" and "Gnosticism" can very easily be tied to the Christian right. As I said, I haven't looked at the content of Endercase's specific edits to the topic, so I am not judging the edits specifically: merely pointing out that the fact that he edited those pages is not evidence that he has been contributing positively to topics that aren't pet topics for the American right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENY.

Hijiri88 needs a long topic ban from American Politics for comments like "Breitbart.com and other rightist fake news sites" and "the FRC thread, about a Christian fundamentalist, anti-LGBT hate group" which suggest that Hijiri88 is incapable of cooperating with editors with different points of view. Breitbart is a real news source that meets WP:RS. A distaste for its political stances (WP:IDLI) is not grounds for disallowing it or comparing it to Infowars. Anyone who tries to enforce partisan purity on Wikipedia should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Woah. Seriously? Why would I be TBANned from a topic I have barely edited, not once disruptively. Also, who on earth are you? Have you and I interacted before? Your IP range is unfamiliar... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC) 71.198.247.231, if you wish to troll ANI and ask for bans for users in good standing, kindly log in to your account to do it. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

• Give them a stern warning and let David mentor them. If they show up here again, slap a TBAN (or possibly an indef block) on them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I would be inclined to agree that mentoring could solve this problem, but I have my doubts as to David's ability or willingness to address the problem. I have serious doubts about mentoring by David under these circumstances: if disruption continues as before, will David just ignore it as he has been? The "mistakes" could be forgiven as a thing of the past, and even the fact that many of them clearly weren't mistakes overlooked, if there were any evidence that it wouldn't continue. If an editor who had disagreed with Endercase, or had at least acknowledged the problem, were offering to do the mentoring it would be one thing, since (if the IDHT behaviour continued, even toward the mentor) they would likely get frustrated and report back that mentoring wasn't working. David, though, looks set to just ignore all further disruption and only offer Endercase advice on how to successfully get away with his disruptive behaviour. If someone who recognized the problem were offering to fix it ... wait, a funny thought just occurred to me ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:I understand your concerns, however I'm not too worried about the disruption it could cause. A failure to get the point while under mentorship would result in a fairly quick block or TBAN. Look at it in terms of a risk-reward balance: There's a substantial chance that it would result in a small amount of disruption, and a substantial chance that it would solve the problem while adding another useful editor to the project. Even if the balance is in favor of the risk, the equation points to taking the chance as the best option. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Shit. I only just saw this now. Either your ping didn't work, or I was distracted when I clicked on the notification. You actually make a fairly good point about A failure to get the point while under mentorship would result in a fairly quick block or TBAN. is right on the money, and I'm now kind of regretting all-but withdrawing my support for David doing the mentoring. I still don't think he's qualified, but allowing other users to shoot themselves in the foot is a much better idea than taking the gun off them so I can shoot myself in the foot. Put simply: I don't want to take responsibility if/when whatever happens doesn't work. There's theoretically enough support below for a TBAN (if the canvassed and hounding !votes are disregarded), so if a closer wants to go that way I think they probably could, but at this point I think a likely outcome is "Mentor, by whoever wants to take a shot at it". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong warning and short leash is sufficient here. I wasn't canvassed, and am commenting because of a not very positive interaction I had with this editor at WP:RS. If Endercase is sincerely wanting to contribute, then he'll learn and change his behaviors. If not, then leash should be short. First Light (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• JzG and Orangemike have both voiced very strong opinions but have not !voted on the two proposals below. I am pinging them to invite them to do so. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  I'm pessimistic (how much rope in enough?), but not quite enough so to obstruct either proposal. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  Very little, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Mentorship

As suggested above, I also think the mentor idea is a good one. Although in most ways I am not the most qualified, I would be willing to act as User:Endercase's mentor, as long as he doesn't expect me to be available or on Wikipedia for over an hour a day. Although it is counterintuitive for me to be his mentor, I think I can guide him into compliance and non time wasting way to edit and contribute overall without pissing people off. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, respectfully, I do not think you are appropriate or qualified to be the mentor here. I say that glancing at your contribs and your edits on, say Marie Le Pen, and elsewhere via your former account. And also because Endercase canvassed you into this conversation. The mentor needs to be a longterm Wikipedia editor in good standing with very clear NPOV. I think a TBan from RS discussions and from mentions of Breitbart and InfoWars would be better than mentoring, but if mentoring is chosen, I personally do not think it should be you. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

ok, Softlavender, thank you for your respectful wording. I accept your observation in this regard and withdraw my offer of mentoring. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• support mentoring. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from someone not opposed to mentoring, in theory I still think mentoring from someone who thinks there has been no disruption -- indeed is still officially trying to shift the blame onto those disputing with Endercase, as David's first comment still has not been stricken -- is not going to help the situation at all. If David was willing to admit that there is a problem, or if someone else who was willing to admit there is a problem offered to do the mentoring, it would be another matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that I'm still waiting on a response to my [Y]ou say you don't think he has already been disruptive, so how would your mentoring prevent further disruption? above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think his behavior was 'disruptive'. But I also think he made a number of errors, because he is new and does not understand the rules fully, which he freely admits below. Rather than be defiant and admit no wrongdoing here, he admits he needs help and has made mistakes. That's what I would like to see personally. He wants to learn and follow the rules. I have already spent quite a lot of time on both my talk page and his giving him advice. He asks good questions. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Sarcastic, uncivil comments and laughing at other editors in edit summaries are not "errors". If mentoring does not prevent further disruption of this sort, then mentoring alone will not solve the problem. The "mistakes" you say he has admitted to are mistakes others attempted to correct both before and since you, and he has refused to listen. He is only now admitting that he made "mistakes" because he is facing sanctions, and there's no reason to believe that if those sanctions don't pass he will not go back to not listening. You are the only one who thinks his behaviour wasn't disruptive, and it's increasingly obvious that this is because you are the only one to agree with him on the substance of one of his posts (apparently the only one you read). If you don't recognize what is wrong with his behaviour up to this point, then how can mentoring by you correct it going forward? If any other editor were offering to mentor him, or if you were willing to admit that his behaviour was disruptive, I would assume that mentoring would be a good first step, since if the behaviour continued the mentor would be the first to notice and get worn out by it, but you don't seem to even understand what he has been doing wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarcastic, uncivil comments and laughing at other editors in edit summaries are not "errors". Hijiri, I agree with this statement, but there is an argument to be made, here. Specifically, that it remains a possibility that a cursory reading of WP:RS, a misunderstanding in which WP:NPA is taken to be the whole of our policy on civility, and a few relatively minor misunderstandings about fallacies could explain the response to me that triggered this thread. To such a person, who felt that Breitbart met our RS guidelines, that any sort of interaction that didn't involve insults was acceptable and that (for example) dismissing an argument as "ridiculous" is an ad-hominem and that "argument" on WP is synonymous with "negotiation", one could see how such a response could be made in relatively good faith. Personally, I don't think that is the case here, as that requires a comedy of errors on a level that would virtually mandate a WP:CIR block. I think, in this case, it's generally more constructive to assume they acted in bad faith, but are capable of extending good faith. If we're wrong, we'll find out soon enough, and if we're right, we get a shiny new editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Yes, I agree with just about everything you said in the above comment, but at the time I posted the comment to which you were responding, I was of the opinion that David mentoring would be a bad idea, not that mentoring itself (as opposed to formal sanctions) was a bad idea. At the time you posted your response, I had already changed my opinion on this point, since I figured that if David's mentoring was supplemented with my own it would not be a problem. (That's why I didn't initially reply to you.) But now (after the discussion on JzG's talk page and a bit of my own research based thereon) I have gone back to thinking that, whether or not David is theoretically capable of offering advice to new editors, he probably shouldn't, given his own sketchy (and, more importantly, recent) edit history. Since my offer to do the mentoring is still on the table, I haven't gone completely back to where I was two days ago, so ... I guess take this for what it's worth? Whether Endercase would be open to me and only me doing the mentoring (and whether I have the time/energy to take on the full responsibility) remains to be seen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose of David Tornheim as mentor. In my view, David has serious issues of his own. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment So ... yeah ... when I questioned JzG on the specific details behind the above comment, some interesting points came up. David Tornheim was TBANned from a discretionary sanctions area last July and within a week was blocked for violating the ban.[59][60] After being blocked, he disappeared from the Encyclopedia, before reemerging 49 days ago.[61] Essentially, David appears to have engaged in IDHT regarding his own ban and almost immediately violated it, and he has less than two months of edits to his name since that incident. This all makes his apparent refusal to accept my compromise proposal, or to strike his earlier attacks against me further up this thread, difficult to interpret as good faith "not having gotten around to it yet". I of course believe in second chances for users who were blocked and briefly left the project, and particularly for those who have been TBANned in the distant past (I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't), but should such users be mentoring younger problem accounts? David Tornheim's capacity to mentor a new editor who has been (perhaps inadvertently) causing disruption is definitely in question. I dunno: am I still "failing to assume good faith", having just noticed this background four days too late? I'm still up for mentoring, for whatever it's worth, but I'm wondering if Endercase should be explicitly told not to treat David as a mentor if he wants to avoid a TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that I have no problem with David as a person, and have not reviewed his edits outside this thread (so I have no idea what I would think of him as an editor). His above unstricken personal remarks about me are not really a concern for me, and I don't think he should face any specific sanctions for not striking them and not accepting a compromise proposal whose terms (per my own stricken support for the TBAN) I have already technically met. The above comment only means that I am again beginning to question whether he is the right person to mentor Endercase. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

David is a perfectly nice chap, but mentorship requires someone who unambiguously "gets it", and I really don't think he does. His input would IMO be more likely to lead Endercase astray. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

I propose a topic ban from RS discussions, broadly construed, and from mentions or references to Breitbart and InfoWars. Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. This solution is much easier and more doable than mentorship (which is time-consuming, unpredictable, and unwieldy, and rarely works with disruptive editors who already know an enormous amount about Wikipedia). It will allow Endercase to contribute productively to Wikipedia however he likes, and demonstrate that he is here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Regardless of whether mentoring happens, it's clear that nothing will be gained from the editor continuing to discuss those two sources and continuing to post on RSN. In a few months' time, once the mentor (David, if he ever gets around to explaining what he meant above) determines that the time has come, the ban can be appealed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I stand by the above, especially in light of my own offer below to mentor Endercase. I think a break from RS discussions, and generally staying the hell away from citations of Breitbart and InfoWars, would do Endercase good, and would advise him thus if he accepts my offer of mentorship. Once I think (or perhaps David and I agree) that the time has come for him to contribute constructively to RS discussions, then I would support lifting the ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support withdrawn pending agreement to my proposition on David's talk page. Both David and I agree that Endercase should refrain from both the issues covered by the proposed TBAN, and if Endercase is really serious about mentoring then the result is the same wiout a formal ban.At his point I just want this mess to be over. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that I am now neutral on the formal ban (assuming David Tornheim's accepts my request on his talk page), but this is based on the assumption that Endercase takes the advice of me or David or both of us, which would have about the same effect, at least in the short term, as a formal ban. I think, if mentoring works, the formal ban would be redundant for as long as it would have been necessary. I have not changed my !vote to "oppose". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my withdrawal. My offer to mentor Endercase still stands, and if Endercase accepts my mentoring and listens to my advice, then the effect would be the same as a formal ban. Having a ban on one's record is not a "punishment", and David Tornheim (whose own recent history with bans is apparently somewhat checkered) is wrong to claim this. The fact that both users offering to mentor Endercase have advised him to take a self-ban on these two narrow topics means that formalizing the ban would just mean that, if Endercase (flagrantly and deliberately) refused to follow said users' advice, he would be blocked for doing so. The only effect of not formalizing the ban would be to allow Endercase to ignore the advice of his mentor(s). Note that the reason I'm re-supporting the ban proposal is to allow the closer to count my !vote as what it is rather than what it would be in ideal world. If one discounts the two canvassed !votes (both of whom seems to be under the mistaken impression that bans are meant to "punish" or "censure" users rather than prevent disruption) and the one hounding !vote, the number of "support"s significantly outnumbers that of "oppose"s, so theoretically a closer could close as consensus being to enforce a formal (narrow, perhaps temporary) ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I mentioned in the discussions above. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed The mentoring with David Tornheim is the perfect solution, imo. Endercase has not been such a problem that they deserve being banned or censored in any way, imo. They just need a first chance.Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: Again with this "censorship"? I stand by my offer to mentor Endercase (or at least help/supplement David's mentoring), but continuing to claim that something is being "censored" is not going to help. Claims that can be sourced only to Breitbart and InfoWars are already, effectively, barred from inclusion in Wikipedia because they are almost certainly false, so any specific sanction on use of particular sources by Endercase would not censor any content he might want to add. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait ... or did you mean to write "censured"? If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I still disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion on whether he should be censured by the community. You're not entitled to accuse others of trying to "censor" him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confident he meant censured. Thanks for the kind words Nocturnalnow. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

sorry..censured is what I meant. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: Okay. Stricken. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree. "censure" implies some kind of stigma, but not being allowed contribute to an area of an online encyclopedia in which one has caused disruption is not something that should be treated this way. Several other contributors to this discussion are subject to TBANs and other restrictions, and have (presumably) contributed constructively while abiding by those terms. Sometimes bans are handed out not because the users themselves were causing disruption (deliberately or mistakenly) but because the community or ArbCom decide that a (limited!) editing restriction is the easiest and best way to solve the problem. Again, here, I must emphasize that if Endercase is subjected to a formal ban and mentoring, and a few months down the line wants to appeal the ban, I will support it appeal if I think it is right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I understand your reasoning, I just think that in this case we should approach the matter from the position of holding back the formal ban for application if the mentoring does not fix the entire matter, similar to a court putting someone on probation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: But again, your analogy doesn't work: A formal ban, which amounts to "If you do this bad thing again, you will be blocked from editing" is similar to probation. Mentoring means that if the solution doesn't work, a new ANI thread and an entirely new discussion of what is to be done.

He was already given the same advice (in some cases by the same people!) that he now appears to be listening to before this ANI thread was opened, and flagrantly ignored it. It makes about as much sense to assume that he is faking contrition now in order to avoid a formal ban, and will go back to being disruptive once this thread is closed, as to assume that this is just a coincidence. It would be a technical AGF violation to apply a formal ban under these circumstances, except that both users offering to mentor him are telling him not to do what the proposed ban would formally prevent him from doing anyway, so that the only difference between a formal and an informal ban is that he is not allowed ignore the former.

If this gets closed as "Hijiri88 is to mentor Endercase" or "Hijiri88 and David Tornheim are to mentor Endercase", and Endercase immediately starts ignoring my mentoring, the responsibility to report him again and request a formal ban would then be on me, which is not something I want. Much better to formally say that if Endercase flagrantly ignores the advice of his mentor(s) he will be blocked, which would allow anyone to report him if he does so.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the practical effect difference between mentoring and "ban", the word "ban" has a more negative linguistic connotation, whereas "mentoring" has a more cooperative connotation. So, I think we should respect the optics of any close as well as the practical effect of it. At least that's my opinion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems that Endercase is listening to some good advice now. If they could stay away from WP:RS and stop bringing up those same issues voluntarily, that would be better. If this becomes a problem again, then a ban could be revisited, though I'm hopeful that won't needed. First Light (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@First Light: You are right, but the "good advice" he is listening to at the moment is largely "don't post on RSN" and "don't cite Breitbart/InfoWars". The problem, though, is that the same advice was offered before this came to ANI, and he ignored it then. It's therefore entirely possible that he is only listening now because there is a discussion of a formal ban, and will stop listening once his thread is archived. While being formally subject to mentorship and ignoring said mentorship is likely going to result in a block, it would have to be left to the mentor to report on ANI that the mentorship is not working. The mentor, here, would be either me (I'm sick of ANI and really don't want to come back here if this happens) or David (who still seems not to recognize a number of the problems here). A formal ban would mean that if he ignores the mentors' (or even each individual mentor's) advice he will be blocked and it won't need to be the mentor who does the reporting. (I need to keep emphasizing this, since I don't want this to come back and bite me in the ass: This is based on my interpretation of the banning policy as being similar to the blocking policy; bans, with the exception of site-bans imposed on NOTHERE editors, are preventative, and are not meant to say that the banned users in some way "bad people" or "unwelcome on Wikipedia". I am not sure if others agree with this personal philosophy. I thought it was widely recognized and was kinda surprised not to see it formally enshrined in WP:BAN.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I share some of the same skepticism that you do, regarding pattern of behavior and the mentor issues. I just think that one more chance, short leash, etc. is best. I also think that if the bad behavior continues, someone will bring it here. It won't depend upon you. Just my opinion. First Light (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@First Light: Meh. It seems to me like "one more chance" and "short leash" would be arguments in favour of a TBAN, and if they waste that last chance by violating the TBAN they are issued with a block. But, again, this is based on my (personal? idiosyncratic?) opinion that a limited topic ban already is a last chance (which also seems to be what User:Softlavender is talking about above with [the ban] will allow Endercase to contribute productively to Wikipedia however he likes, and demonstrate that he is here to build an encyclopedia). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per the points raised by other editors. DarkKnight2149 20:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note Darkknight2149 says "per above", but he hasn't actually posted anything above. His only other comment in this discussion is below here, which ... well, for reasons explained here his involvement in this thread is highly questionable. I'm also not the only one who thinks this drive-by commentary is inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC) (Edited 07:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC))

I was referring to genuine points raised by others when I said "See above". Also, see this. DarkKnight2149 22:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVOTE. You need to specify why, not just say "per above". No two participants in this thread are in full agreement, and everyone agrees that disruption, in some form, has taken place. Also, your participation here, and explicitly stating that you are doing so [b]ased solely [emphasis added] on [your] past experiences with [me], may well qualify as a TBAN violation -- your only past interactions with me were in the topic area from which you are banned, and the ANI thread that led to said ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, solely from my previous observations of your behaviour at ANI discussions. Stop bringing the TBAN into this. You are clearly retaliating. DarkKnight2149 22:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My behaviour at those two ANI discussions was directly related to the COMICS discussion. Said discussion is the one from which the above user is banned. I have no interest in reporting the comment in the section below (which essentially amounts to "Hijiri88 is not a nice person and his behaviour, not mine, led to me being banned") as a TBAN violation; I'm just explaining why I think it is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support, per my arguments above. And David Trondheim is an absolutely inappropriate mentor. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments (meta)

• Comment from Endercase I'm definitely open to mentorship, or to any actions deemed appropriate by consensus. I have currently engaged in mentorship with David Tornheim on our respective talk pages. Their input has been very respectful, helpful and enlightening thus far, though I would not deny the assistance of any users (particularly one/s "assigned" to me) in helping me have a better understanding of the workings of Wikipedia or of life if they would like. Despite having read all policies that have been referred to me I feel as if I do not currently have a clear understanding of Wikipedia's working definition of "disruption". All of my actions have been based on my understanding of policy at the time of my interaction. I would have definitely done things differently had I had the understanding that I currently have of policy, yet I still feel like I have a lot to learn. I'd would like to thank all of you for using your time to determine what is appropriate action to take in my case. Endercase (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: Mentors are not "assigned". It's voluntary, so if no one is willing to mentor you then you don't get a mentor. I appear to be in the minority in thinking that mentoring by the one person who has thusfar offered to do it is not going to work. If the community decides that mentoring by David is the solution, then I will accept that, but ... well, what would you say to me being your mentor? I'm willing to forgive and forget any past negative interactions you and I have had, and if you are really willing to work to get better at editing, then I am willing to assist in any way I can. How about it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: David Tornheim has been extremely helpful thus far and I would not like to lose their interaction and input. However, your input would also be extremely valuable. Considering that you and David Tornheim have not gotten along even in this discussion it may be difficult for the two of you to work together. If you can work with them in mentoring me I think this would represent a major development between two very different editing styles. This would be a very growing experience for all of us and I suspect this would lead to a few growing pains. However, I feel like we would all learn quite a bit from the experience and become better editors. If you would like to mentor me the main thing I think I need at this moment is your clear definition of disruptive behavior. You have mentioned: excessive posting, sarcasm, and repeating the same arguments under a singular heading, canvassing, and having non-descriptive edit summaries, and a few other things. I have also been reading other AN/I posts to generate a better understanding. I would love to have a better understanding of your perspective and would like David Tornheim's input on this idea. Endercase (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

[me] and David Tornheim hav[ing] not gotten along even in this discussion is not really an issue, since we have never interacted before, and in this discussion we have a disagreement as to whether your behaviour has been "disruptive" or merely "mistaken". This actually isn't even that much of a disagreement, since we appear to be working on different definitions of "disruption": the way I use it, it says nothing about intent or lack thereof, and so is not mutually exclusive with "mistaken" behaviour; under my definition, it's a truism that disruption has taken place, regardless of whether or not you meant to be disruptive. Everyone, including me, is in agreement that mentoring would be a good idea: I am just concerned that David seems to have been ignoring the concerns the rest of us have had expressed about your behaviour, and so might continue to do so even if he is officially acting as your mentor.

If you are willing to accept me as your mentor, I will offer you the advice not to cite Breitbart or InfoWars at all -- they only occasionally get things right, and then only when they are in agreement with more reliable sources, and their editorial slant is so much at variance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy that using them would involve enough care and diligence that it would be impractical even for experienced editors. Better just avoid them.

As for RSN, I would strongly advise you not to contribute there in the manner you have been. That noticeboard is most often meant to determine whether this or that source is appropriate for some particular purpose on Wikipedia, and so telling other users to be "bold" and add whatever material they are talking about is not helpful. Neither is saying that a discussion of whether the FRC is a reliable source for the teen pregnancy article should take place on the talk page rather than RSN. Most regular contributors there are highly experienced in writing articles, and you are not going to be able to contribute as well as they can without gaining more experience actually writing articles and citing sources yourself. This is based on the assumption that you are not a university professor who should already know that Breitbart and InfoWars are unreliable; I'm not (I have a bachelor degree and I read a lot). I can't unilaterally ban you from RSN, but I really think it would be a good idea for you to stay away from it for a while, until you've contributed a bit more content and demonstrated to me (and whoever else) that you understand or content policies and guidelines, particularly WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. (You may also have a problem with WP:NPOV, but I haven't seen enough article content to tell.)

I would be happy to continue offering you advice like this for the foreseeable future, but you would need to listen to it. I tried to offer you essentially this same advice on your talk page before coming here, but you ignored it. That is something you will not be able to do if you are granted the "mentoring" option in place of what some other editors have argued for in this thread. There may be limited support for Softlavender's TBAN proposal relative to the general concept of "mentoring", but there's more support for a "strong warning" and "short leash" than for any other option, so you must understand that if you don't listen the advice that is offered you from now on, you will likely be blocked from editing. Please do not take this as a "threat". I no more wish to see potentially good contributors blocked than does David, nor do I have the power to unilaterally block you even if I wanted to. It is simply a statement of fact.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

TLDR: You shouldn't cite those sources, and you should write more articles before attempting to offer advice on RSN. These are terms you really should adhere to, whether or not the above TBAN proposal garners enough support to pass. If this thread is closed as "Mentor", you need to listen to your mentor's (or mentors') advice. If not, your mentor will likely get tired of trying to make you listen, and we will be right back here without the "don't block; mentoring is better" option on the table. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (addressed mostly to Endercase). I have no objection to Hijiri88 giving advice to Endercase in addition to myself. In fact, I would prefer it, as my time is limited. I agree with Hijiri88 that we would not likely be at cross-purposes, any more than the case when I first met you at WP:RS/N and experienced users were giving you advice.

I agree with Hijiri88 that the main disagreement between us is whether your behavior so far needs punishment on the level of a tban or censure: I don't think it does. I see this as a beginner who did not understand the rules, thought WP:IGNORE meant we have no rules, and now you know that, yes, we do have rules and there are consequences to not following them.

I agree with nearly all of Hijiri88's advice:

1. use of Breitbart and InfoWars as WP:RS should be avoided
2. encouraging editors be WP:BOLD is a bad idea, especially as you did at WP:RS/N
3. listen more to advice from experienced users (you can look at their user page to get a sense of who is experienced), and refrain from long arguments. If you really think the other person is wrong, you can ask us.
4. stay clear of giving advice at WP:RS/N, again avoid saying "be WP:BOLD". Learn the rules of WP:RS first, and that means more than just reading the rules. It takes experience.

It should be okay to ask a question at WP:RS/N about whether a particular source can be used to support a particular statement. But do it to gain input and consensus, rather than argue if you don't like the answer.

The only thing I disagree with Hijiri88 is any requirement that you create your own articles. There is plenty of work to be done adding to existing articles with top quality RS; and especially adding good RS to statements that are have poor RS or none at all and correcting errors in the text when the sentence does not match what is in the RS. Fixing typos is always welcome, as is reverting clear cases of vandalism. And as I mentioned before, work to be done at WP:Backlog (<I'm not sure if you need more experience to work on that stuff or not. There is probably work to be done that a new user would find comfortable.)

FYI, in the past mentors were assigned. I don't know what is happening with that now. The page Wikipedia:Co-op says that it is no longer active. I will ask. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Concern - Based solely on my past experiences with this user, I don't think that Hijiri88 is the right choice to be the mentor. But in terms of what he's saying here, I agree with much of it. DarkKnight2149 20:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that Darkknight2149's "past interactions with me" consisted of me correcting his disruptive misreading of sources on one article, a minor interaction about which I had forgotten on another article, and my participation in two recent ANI threads about him. The ANI threads resulted in him being temporarily TBANned from the topic area covering the two articles. I am now thinking that the temporary ban may need to be extended to indef, since it's clear that it has only made the problem worse. The only thing my previous interactions with him demonstrates that might be remotely relevant to this case is that I know more about careful reading of sources than he does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the sort of behaviour I was referring to. And since you are looking for a fight, I'm moving on. Do not mention or ping me here again. I'm out. DarkKnight2149 22:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I've interacted with Endercase before at WP:NPOVN, regarding something relating to a bias. He mediated in the discussion and I did not get the sense of any bias towards either side. He seemed to be quite neutral and helpful in resolving the issue. I'm just bringing this up because it is an example where this user acted as a productive, unbiased editor and it should be taken into account. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeated edits and reverts against consensus

We're deep in the middle of college basketball conference tournament season, which means there's a lot of editing of various pages dedicated to the tournaments as the games are being played. Per consensus within WP:Collegehoops, as tournament brackets are filled out, a logical flow from one round to the next is maintained as the team routing into the next game from the "top" of the bracket flow is placed in the top of the next matchup, while the team coming from the "bottom" is placed at the bottom. I found one brief discussion in WikiProject College Basketball talk archives, and the behavior of nearly every other editor indicates that this is indeed the consensus.

What appears to be a single editor disagrees, however, and has been repeatedly changing the brackets in cases where there has been an upset, "flipping" the pairing so that the higher seeded "home" team is always listed on top. This defeats the diagrammatic purpose of the brackets, breaking the logical flow of following how a team has progressed from one round to the next. The editor has even going back to pages from conference tournaments in previous years and making these changes.

This apparently single user has been using several IP addresses and at least one registered account, and based on the condescending edit descriptions and talk page messages the user has left, they apparently have no interest in following consensus or engaging in constructive discussion.

Some of their behavior likely falls under 3RR, but because the edits span several dozen pages, there is a larger issue here that makes it difficult to centralize discussion.

Summary of problematic accounts I've seen in recent days:

• 72.23.91.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff. I reverted that change, and the editor reverted my revert with an edit note of "that this kid keeps messing up." The issue was raised three times on the user's talk page, once by another editor earlier this week and twice by me, and it was not until this third notice that there was any sort of response from the editor. That response appeared on my talk page and was automatically signed as from a registered user:

• BHenne59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user's response on my talk page earlier today of "not gonna happen" showed no willingness to discuss the issue. Later in the day, it appears the user began using another IP to continue with the behavior:

• 12.168.218.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff. User Tewapack was also attempting to clean up from this user's edits, and the user continued to revert to his or her preferred style, referring to Tewapack as "that idiot" in an edit note on this diff.

I made one more attempt to engage with the user, posting a message on BHenne59's talk page again pointing out the consensus and the multiple other editors having to clean up his or her edits. The user responded to me with "you aint gonna win brother," again signaling no interest in abiding by consensus or discussing the issue.

I apologize for the amount of information here, but it's a bit of a messy situation given the multiple accounts/IPs being used. Any guidance on the best way to handle this would be appreciated, as it is a tremendous amount of work to continually clean up these issues on so many pages with a user this stubbornly refusing to adhere to consensus, and even with multiple editors trying to do it I'm approaching 3RR territory myself. Thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

To be sanctionable, I think you need a clearer consensus than a brief archived discussion between two editors and your subjective analysis of "the behavior of nearly every other editor". If it isn't sanctionable, it isn't an issue for this page. I'd suggest forming that clear consensus as a first step. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll try to garner a fresh round of feedback from the WikiProject members to help establish consensus. WildCowboy (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss:@WildCowboy: I'm sorry, what do you mean? This user is clearly WP:SOCK ("Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address") and WP:CIVIL ("belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts") and is in violation. How is that not sanctionable? Endercase (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment These IP/Single use account edits defy logic - a reader expects to see sport tournament brackets flow from left to right so that winners visibly advance. Please use common sense, it's doubtful anyone thought this situation needed a specific consensus discussion, but if it's needed we certainly can. The user (and I'm sure it is the same person) is essentially just trying to create havoc. Rikster2 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment Just want to note for the record that the user being discussed here deleted this ANI discussion and then proceeded to continue disrupting brackets yesterday. We've been able to achieve additional consensus on how brackets should flow. I suppose no direct action is needed at the moment, and hopefully things will wind down as the conference tournaments are now over, but I think it's important to have everything documented here should disruptive editing resume. -- WildCowboy (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive IP hopping on The Simpsons-related articles

For nearly three years now, a group of IP's have been disruptively editing The Simpsons-related articles, by adding fake episodes, disruptively switching around information such as writers, production codes, and suppressing info by using nonsensical excuses such as "This site knows too much" displaying WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior, including deleting source information claiming it is "too soon" to list the info or that "they're not ready" for the info to be available yet, despite that the information is sourced. After several years of reverting this user who uses a variety of different IP ranges, the most common ones being 2602:306:37eb:47e0.* (which was rangeblocked by KrakatoaKatie back in January for vandalism, including one other time in August 2015 for "tv-related, ip-hopping disruptive editing and vandalism") and 205.213.104.*, I looked into the vandalism in the page history, and found over 160 examples of this user (using different IPs) vandalizing Simpsons-related pages (the diffs can be found on this page). Despite the many different IPs, the user often uses very similar phrases throughout IPs and displays similar behavior. Adding fake titles, particularly "Maggie Goes to Nursery" 1, 2, 3, sneaky director switching 4, 5 and claiming The Futon Critic, a very reliable press release site that gets all their information directly from the television network, is somehow "ahead of its time" and should not be used 6, 7.

Going through this information, I found one editor, Davejohnsan reverted this editor quite often and seemed to be aware of the person's editing patterns, so I sought him out on his talk page earlier today asking if he would be interested in giving input when I made this report on ANI. Though Dave did not get a chance to respond yet, the IP hopper commented on my message to Davejohnsan diff here pleading with me not to report him and told me "I'll stop for real this time!" along with an "explanation" for why these edits were made. This gave me pause for several reasons, 1) despite his "begging" for another chance, the editor has been blocked several different times on different ranges, so they clearly knew what they were doing was wrong. 2) His explanation clearly displays WP:NOTHERE behavior as he is essentially editing according to his personal whims, and neglects to realize his removal and vandalizing of content affects all of Wikipedia. 3) Finally, in my message, I never once mentioned in my message what this "Disruptive IP range" was, so if the editor was truly "innocent" how would they know I was referring to them? Not to mention the fact that he "conveniently" happened to see my message Davejohnsan's talk page only hours after I posted it, meaning he was likely stalking my contributions as well. At the very least, this editor is WP:NOTHERE and their disruptive behavior cannot continue.

Admittedly, I don't have much experience dealing with this, but I would recommend at least the season 28 and List of The Simpsons episodes articles being semi-protected for now, however, I think a much more long-term solution is necessary as this has been going on for three years now, and cannot continue. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 02:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: For anyone who decides to take a look at this, Katniss appears to have been kinda keeping up with the edits. Such a list may help with any further blocks put in place. 'Fraid I've not exactly got anything to add to this yet, other than pointing out what I just did. Off to bed for moi! MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 02:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What are the IP ranges used? It looks like 2602:306:37eb:47e0::/64 and 205.213.104.0/24. Is this correct? I can semi-protect the season 28 article for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirateYes, that is correct. Occasionally, other ranges have been used but not for a while. That would be great if you could protect the season 28 article, however, the List of the Simpsons episodes article is an equally common target of this vandalism. I would potentially suggest maybe blocking both of those ranges as well so they don't simply switch to other season articles after that one is blocked. Thanks! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 01:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake, just saw that you protected both those articles already. Thank you! I would still suggest those two ranges you list above be blocked to prevent the other season pages from getting targeted.

Also, if the vandalism/disruption resumes after the semi-protection elapses, should I re-report back here or somewhere else? Thanks! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 01:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I semi-protected both articles. I also blocked both IP ranges for a month. Let me know if there are other IP addresses that perform that same disruption. I might be able to do something about that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will definitely let you know if I see any more disruption after the protection has elapsed. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 02:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Socking, COI, repeated article creation/deletion

Multiple socks and IP editors keep creating versions of Rajkumar Mishra(Film Actor) and vandalizing India film pages by replacing famous actor's names with "Rajkumar Mishra."

• Special:Contributions/RAJKUMAR_MISHRA_FILM_ACTOR
• Special:Contributions/47.31.1.214
• Special:Contributions/2405:204:3008:1F76:0:0:1B41:88A4
• Special:Contributions/37.127.136.241

Closed sockpuppet investigation here shows prior socks:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RAJ_KUMAR_MISHRA

Blocking and salting page creation for this latest article would be a good thing. First Light (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And they continue:

• dif
• dif

First Light (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And more:

• dif]

First Light (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Though I fail to see 37.127.136.241's connection to Rajkumar Mishra(Film Actor). El_C 10:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, that was mistake to add that particular IP, who actually was reverting the vandalism. Thanks for noticing! First Light (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Our sock is not done, it seems:

• Rajkumar_Mishra(Tv_actor)
• Rajkumar Mishra(TV actor)
• latest sockpuppet: User:Rajkumar Mishra (Tv actor)

First Light (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything above has been taken care of, now we have this user adding the name to List of Indian television actors: Block for IP, please,[62] and that article could be put under protection since it's a favorite target. First Light (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another IP spamming this supposed actor's name:

2405:204:300A:DB87:0:0:24B9:38B0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) First Light (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there any famous person with this name, or any reason this couldn't be set up as a filter to stop it being added to random articles? From the profile it looks like a game of whack-a-mole and this mole seems to have a lot of time on their hands, so perhaps a new approach is needed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC).

haha, I was just looking at the edit filter request page to ask for this. No, there is no famous person like that. No articles or authors, etc., as far as I know. Can you request an edit filter for this, or I can do it? First Light (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• And now this: Rajkumar Mishra(Actors) First Light (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • plus the new sock: User:Rajkumar Mishra (Actors) First Light (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest that as you have more experience with this individual you'd probably be better off making the request. Edit filters are expensive in processing terms and tricky to set up, and they'll have to be run in test mode for awhile to make sure it doesn't return any false positives before being put in "disallow" mode. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, will do - thanks, First Light (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Now "Raja Mishra

• Raja Mishra Actor (talk · contribs)

Could an admin please block this latest sockpuppet? First Light (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikihounding, personal attacks, incivility

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

---

User:Arianewiki1 apparently has nothing better to do than follow me around Wikipedia to harass me and make flagrant breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS. This mess started when I created a requested move on this nebula article. The RM was a proposal to rename the article from the long catalog name to the more used common name. After one editor supported the proposal Arianewiki1 jumps in, guns blazing, with a large obnoxious screed about how they hate "people who name nebulae". In it they declare with no evidence that I have a COI over naming astronomy articles and say that I am "grooming" editors. They are told by an uninvolved editor (User:Elphion) to "dial it back" [63], to which they respond with another large screed and say I am ignorant and one of the "blind following the blind". Attempting to bait me, they tell me to "assume good faith" and call me "sunshine". They then post on my talk page, with the header "Poor Behaviour"; stating that I need to stop with my "fanatic" editing. The diff they give is me adding a source to an astronomy website!

By this point I decided that I had enough and should just back off. I removed the articles from my watchlist and their very uncivil rant from my talk page. Around this point I get a message that an article I nommed for GA is being reviewed. Happily I look at the review page, and what I see is a capital bolded "OPPOSE" from the usual suspect and another lengthy screed that I can't be bothered to read. Arianewiki1 states that the review should be immediately thrown out and once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI. [64] The article in question is Bic Cristal, about a ballpoint pen. Arianewiki1 says they are "seriously concerned" that I edited the article before nominating it (WTF?!) and states the article should be merged into ballpoint pen (akin to saying that iPhone should be merged into Phone). After I responded here telling them to stop calling me a COI editor or I will take them to AN/I they accuse me of personal attacks, call me a "bully" (after stalking me to a random article) and ask "How does such indignation feel?". They post another message to my talk page (despite my telling them not to) stating they have renamed and rewritten an entire article which I moved to its common name according to their POV; saying "Look, I'm not trying to start a fight" – as if I'm stalking them. I wonder if they are trying to turn over a new leaf with this but immediately after they revert my removal of their rant from my talk page (against WP:OWNTALK) with the edit summary: "Any contrition yet or is the ego just too bruised?". [65] This user has been blocked before and they were warned just a few days ago by administrator Lankiveil about personal attacks in an RfC, where they called the starting editor a "groomer" again and referred to them as a "stinking filthy lawyer"! [66] Please look into this. Thanks, Laurdecl ^talk 09:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

We'll see what Arianewiki1 has to say about this (briefly), but that is, indeed, disconcerting. Perhaps an interaction ban or block is in order. Anyway, I'll drop them a note. El_C 10:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I've not had time to look in detail at the issues raised by User:Laurdecl, but I did have a run-in with this editor a couple of weeks ago. I asked them to exercise a little more care after a comment that they made at AWNB, and got a couple of messages on my talk page threatening to take me here to ANI. I notice they mentioned me at the GA talk page and for some reason the ping did not come through, but I stand by my view that use of the term "grooming" is completely inappropriate and I'm disappointed that they saw fit to repeat it shortly after being asked by an admin (me) to be careful about using that particular term. I note that User:El_C has independently come to the same conclusion that I did about the use of that particular word.

I'd really rather not see this editor blocked; they are committed to rooting out pop science junk on astronomy articles while keeping them accessible to the average reader, something that is sorely needed and something that they do well. I've had a quick look at their contribs and they seem to work okay with others when there isn't a disagreement over an article involved. But at the same time this sort of reaction can't continue. I'm really stumped as to what the best path forward is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC).

Indeed, we can set up an interaction ban, but then again they edit the same type of articles (astronomy), so someone would invariably would have to be excluded from these. That said, we do have a lot of astronomy articles, enough for both of them. But, unless I missed something, I don't see Laurdecl having done anything wrong so as to be excluded from any article. First, we'll have to see if Arianewiki1 is genuine about changing their behaviour. El_C 11:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to how this user found their way to a GA nomination Bic Cristal, not an article in their usual topic of interest, and one nominated by someone they'd recently been in a dispute with. On the face of it, it could be a case of WP:HOUNDING, but hopefully there's a more innocent explanation. Lets wait until Arianewiki1 can respond to this before seriously considering anything as dramatic as interaction bans. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC).

Yes I followed the link from the document WP:GA nomination[67] to Bic Cristal, and found a series of edits by Laurdecl. My comments were mostly objective; I.e. Point 1b written by David Eppstein says what I said. It is quite unclear where the actual objections are. I.e. The now collapsed initial text of mine or in what comes after it? Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good point about Bic Cristal, I overlooked that part. El_C 11:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I just hatted the entire conversation in that GA review, though I'm pleased to see that David Eppstein seemed to have been unperturbed by that rather tasteless screed, where I lay the responsibility for it at Arianewiki's feet. I do not understand their animosity in that RM discussion, nor do I understand at all the tone of this comment on the Aussie noticeboard, nor why it is so poorly written. I do not see any interaction as the problem--the problem is rather one of personality. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Dremies Please explain what you actually mean by "tasteless screed" and where exactly please. Regardless of your opinions, saying "I lay the responsibility for it at Arianewiki's feet" is about what exactly. (If you required for me to present any defense, it is would be better if you were precise with links to the page difference if possible.)

If there is no issue with the initial text (excluding the COI mistake by me, that I properly apologied and retracted), then the responsibility for the "tasteless screed" must be Laurdecl and not me, because he made the WP:PA claims that:

1) Here I been threatened : "If you ever follow me to random articles again to harass me and make baseless claims about myself having a COI we can talk about it on AN/I."

2) Personal Attack : "Not only have other editors told you to "dial it down" [6] but an administrator warned you here to stop with your personal attacks, calling the editor who stated the RfC a "groomer"! "

3) Personal Attack : "As I can see from your talk page you are no stranger to making baseless COI claims closed by admins. Apparently you haven't learnt from past blocks."

Perhaps you can condone me for responding. I admit I was particularly cross at the time. I admit I was careless with Point 1, but Point 2 & 3 is calling things out on me that weren't even true.

I cannot recall any issues with me having a COI and none have been "closed by Admins." (Most are 3RR) If I was blocked in the past, I also though Users were not supposed to single people out. Accusing me of WP:PA when I'm defending myself cannot be just my "tasteless screed" nor can it be totally to "lay the responsibility for it at Arianewiki's feet." Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I find your comments at the GA review to be a personal attack more than a review; from the beginning you focus on Laurdecl rather than on the edits. If you were cross at the time, perhaps that explains the tone, but if you were "cross" you probably shouldn't have a. followed Laurdecl to a GA nomination and b. commented on a GA review. I do not wish to point at examples of poor writing in that review (or in this thread); they should be obvious. The poor source I noticed was this one. Also, please be more concise. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Response 1

Sorry for the length here, but I want try to properly explain and reply to some of these serious by wrong accusations. If I an going to be threatened with a sanction like a block or ban, then facts become important. (I've just spent many hours trying improving / creating two very complicated edits on Sh2-297 and Sh2-279 and I need to recharge the batteries.)

Comments on Grooming

1) Firstly let's get this very unfair accusation of inferring that using the word 'grooming' means 'child grooming' in the context it was used. It is very unfair. I actually only said "As for Witty please stop with the unhelpful commentary and grooming as it can be construed as deliberate bias." How can this be misinterpreted? I felt Witty's replies to those agreeing to the proposition in the Section on Copyright Laws were trying to unfairly gain support for the proposition. (In Australia their is strong debate and opinions on Copyright laws, where foreign agreements in some free trade agreement wanted to watered-down or diminished such rights. My point was the "filthy stinking lawyers" were deciding our destinies. Notably too, the comment wasn't directed to any Wikipedian. Is Witty a lawyer? I see no evidence nor how I could even know that.)

The actual edits in question is here [68] As I said: "The word 'grooming' clearly means "prepare or train someone for a particular purpose", and my comment was specifically to the Wittylama's unnecessary replies asking opinion - influencing others to a particular point of view." Mitch Ames pointed out saying "you linked to Child grooming, effectively implying that Arianewiki1 was making a quite serious allegation. However Arianewiki1's post had no such link, and could quite likely have referred to "coaching" or "mentoring" (eg as used in Mentorship)."

Any implication of child grooming is totally horrifying to me as any normal person. (I said as much.) What rational reason could I have to accuse someone I never interacted with before of preforming such a unspeakable act? It is beyond nonsensical.

Regardless, the link to child grooming was removed and the accusation withdrawn. As far as I'm concerned, the matter was settled. I will be careful next time, sure, but 'grooming' is a legitimate and common word. (The silly suggestion here not to use the word at all is basically politically driven censorship. Do you want to ban all these subjects now?[69])

But what has this to do with Laurdecl at all?

He said "... but an administrator warned you here to stop with your personal attacks, calling the editor who stated the RfC a "groomer"! "[70]

This didn't happen that way at all, and it was clearly written just to embarrass me. (From the expectant reactions here, clearly it worked. I.e. I must be 'bad'.)

Yet again the same accusation appear above, when Laurdecl says "This user has been blocked before and they were warned just a few days ago by administrator Lankiveil about personal attacks in an RfC, where they called the starting editor a "groomer" again and referred to them as a "stinking filthy lawyer"! [71]

Clearly I've said no such things. (Also where did I "called the starting editor a "groomer" again"? What does that mean?)

2) Another misnomer is: "As for "Arianewiki1 states that the review should be immediately thrown out and once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI. [72]"

Yet here, I admit my own mistake [73], where the edit title say "I have removed the wrongful implication of Laurdecl was WP:COI. I mean the article that was already WP:COI. My sincere apologies for unintended wording.)" I also said in the formal response to Laurdecl; " My immediate apologies any inference of WP:COI, which was an unintended mistake by me. I meant, as the way the whole article reads, as shown since the first edits in 2006 till now. I have now struck out the wrongful implication. My sincere apologies for unintended wording, which I do mean."

I also struck the offending words out.

These particular comments here and show these statements by Laurdecl are simply not factual, and the allegations are unproven. I've shown proper contrition and make apologies when warranted. What else can I do?

3) As for saying "Happily I look at the review page, and what I see is a capital bolded "OPPOSE" from the usual suspect and another lengthy screed that I can't be bothered to read. Arianewiki1 states that the review should be immediately thrown out and once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI."

This is completely emotive and deliberately deceptive.

• If you can't be bother to read it, how did you know about the COI? Complaining
• "I see is a capital bolded "OPPOSE", don't all comments seeking consensus respond SUPPORT of OPPOSE. (Even Laurdecl did so here.[74] !)
• "usual suspect." Oh I've done this before are you implying? My user name is Arianewiki1 actually.
• "once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI." Where? I never said anywhere "YOU have COI" 'implication' does not equal 'assert', and worst didn't I retract this as stated above?

I must be bad, obviously. Is that the intent here?

The article in question has real problems with objectivity and looks like promotion, and the reviewer independently agreed. You did the edit and the claims were uncited too. (Must be my fault.)

Now, I'll reply to these other accusations in due course, but there seems a lot of similar accusations here without much evidence.

5) As for El_C saying: "First, we'll have to see if Arianewiki1 is genuine about changing their behaviour." OK. But how do I show this in this instance?

Secondly, there is some pretty poor behaviour coming my way too. Everything I write too Laurdecl comes back just nit-picking every little fault or inference they can find. Best example is the talk page on Sh-155[75]

Example: I say; "Sorry, none of these primary references. Just the blind mindlessly following the blind."

Yet Laurdecl says: "Firstly, I have 20/20 vision, so your claim of me being blind is utterly false nonsense (one might even call it the highest folly)"

I say; "What? Saying "I have 20/20 vision, so your claim of me being blind is utterly false nonsense (one might even call it the highest folly)." No you've misread. The comment has nothing to do with your eyesight."

The reply becomes: ""Th [sic] comment has nothing to do with your eyesight" – REALLY?? "The true evil I'm against" – Please stop, you're cracking me up."

I say "Trying reading WP:GF, sunshine, because this response here is just insulting."

The final reply is "Sorry, I don't know what "trying reading" [sic] means, buttercup."

Yet in the given complaint above, says "....to which they respond with another large screed and say I am ignorant and one of the "blind following the blind". Attempting to bait me, they tell me to "assume good faith" and call me "sunshine""

How could this be possibly interpreted this way? 'ignorant' does appear on that page at all, I never called them blind at all, I used the word sunshine clearly meaning brighten up, but fail to mention their reply "buttercup", urban meaning 'stinky fart.'

Sure it is moronic behaviour, but all this is is cherry-picking to paint me in a really bad light.

Funny too, if you do read it, there are certainly robust and strong opinions, but in the end, the result was obtained to everyone's agreement. Even Laurdecl says "I am also happy with this name, and I mentioned it as an alternative at the start. This RM is to move the article away from the incorrect name" - changing his opinions. Now (above) there is above a complaint about it!

5) IMO Laurdecl has one serious issue here to address.

a) What do you want me to say and want to happen?

b) What is my motive here?

Really. Editing is difficult enough, and the problem is we all make mistakes. My personality might be a bit aggressive at times, but I'm at least willing to encourage others, sort out the problems, and will withdraw without reservation (as clearly shown above.). Even before I knew of this AN/I, I informed Laurdecl about the changes in my edits (I didn't have too) here.[76] in respect to their earlier contributions.

So far all Laurdecl has done nothing towards both of us being able collaborating on anything, nor has shown any contrition or present an olive branch. All I see is someone who wouldn't even take one little step back for the sake of rationality, and another being treated both harshly and with giving any quarter or any compromise. (WP:GF is supposed to be a two-way street.) I do feel, frankly, you just want me out-of-the-way.

Truly, Laurdecl is clearly a good editor, and his physics background is especially useful for the science subjects, which is much needed in so many articles. (There are so few competent science editors here.) They are also creating articles, like NGC 1741, and I am very impressed by their grasp of the subject and competence.

In the end Laurdecl, all this AN/I does is damage both of us.

(Sorry, I really need some rest.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

complaint 1

I have been reading through the initial AN/I complaint here and am greatly disturbed by the extent of the allegations. To defend and explain my position would take a long time, and it is difficult to recall so many edits and search for all the edit differences. Also the negative and biassed language used by Laurdecl is effectively written to character assassinate rather than deal with the facts. Worse the complainant has given only four edit differences, but some of the admins here are exploring well beyond the purview levelled against me.

Could we please limit the allegations to those claimed to have affected Laurdecl or me, and remove the erroneous problems that have nothing to do with it. I.e. Laurdecl says "After one editor supported the proposal Arianewiki1 jumps in, guns blazing, with a large obnoxious screed about how they hate "people who name nebulae"." Where is this presumed long tedious text located then? (Honestly, I can't remember and don't know where this text is located!) Why use subjective words of supposition like "jumps in", "guns blazing", "obnioxious", "hate", which are surely just their opinion. Notably too, the repeated use of the word 'screed' also prejudicial against me (meaning 'tedious long piece of writing') Tedious to whom? (Even Demies here is now describing "tasteless screed")

If I have attacked another editor, this might be a problem, but if I present it as an argument to support getting a consensus, what is wrong with that? Do I deserve the threat of reduced editing capabilities for writing too much?

Regarding the problem with the word grooming Laurdecl so far in the complaint says ""grooming" editors" (the quotes implying I might mean something else?), but then tries to allege and link that I did so in an unrelated incident nothing to do with Laurdecl implying that I did mean child grooming. Worst still the complain link goes here [77] when the actual uncited changed edit [78] by Lankiveil actually saying "especially the (hopefully hyperbolic) accusation of grooming." (which notably has no formal comment explaining the edit, but it takes ages to find - 20 mins for me.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That was not briefly. (How did I know?) Anyway, I can't see the word "grooming" not having extraordinary negative connotations vis-a-vis child grooming. If you use it in ordinary speech, my suggestion is that you don't. (If there is a causal way to use that word, I am not familiar with it.) As for the rest written at length, I'm not sure how it came to be that you two have developed this personal animosity, but I would suggest just giving each other a break from one another. There are plenty of articles out there (science and otherwise). If you do find something glaring in each other's edits that you somehow must comment on, seek a third opinion or use the Dispute resolution noticeboard, instead of becoming involved directly. El_C 22:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

El_C, I think we should make that involuntary, and tell Arianewiki1 to stay away from Laurdecl. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I ought to have phrased that more firmly. After all, s/he's the one who seems to end up in Laurdecl's orbit rather than the other way around. I'll drop them a note. El_C 00:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In the end, I did set up an interaction ban for Arianewiki1 to avoid Laurdecl. As Drmies suggested I make it mandatory, just to be on the safe side and ensure further conflict is avoided, I did so. To reiterate, I think the two of them can continue to make quality edits and make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia entirely without interacting with and thereby coming into conflict with one another again, as that was based on personal animosity rather than on ideological differences. El_C 00:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this El_C and Drmies. I genuinely have no problem with Arianewiki1 and they obviously do excellent work with astronomy articles, though I am bewildered as to why their first interaction with me was so negative. Despite my interest, I seldom edit science-related articles anyway (the last article I created was this, about civil rights legalisation). I did react rudely a few times, but always after they started casting aspersions, etc. I just wanted them to stop following me around for no apparent reason. Thanks again. Laurdecl ^talk 06:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Response 2

@El C: @Drmies: I think this decision is very unfair, harsh and mostly one way, because it openly ignores the whole editing behaviour and gamesmanship of Laurdecl. Not once has there been a single criticism even though some of his contentious are either dubious or unfounded, yet they are left uncommented. The present complaint for this ANI is nearly impossible to defend in any brevity because it is mixed with false accusations, bias and deliberate fabrications, which are both uncited and look like a deliberate personal assassination. (You even mock me for it.) The response here to the used of the word 'grooming' seems the only criteria in which this aberrant decision was made and not just based on the stated contentions.

The latest rather lackluster response by Laurdecl says it all, especially in saying "I am bewildered as to why their first interaction with me was so negative." and then El_C saying "I'm not sure how it came to be that you two have developed this personal animosity..."

Really, you should have known this first before considering any course of action. (Here: Motive is the key to behaviour, "where beliefs are influenced by our inner drive to succeed." [79]

It was this edit[80] in which Laurdecl had made without consensus nor properly understanding the problem. Saying as a reason "Laurdecl moved page NGC 1973, NGC 1975 and NGC 1977 to Running Man Nebula over redirect: Use common name." is wrong. The issue is the naming is complicated, as "Sh2-279", "NGC 1973, NGC 1975 and NGC 1977", "NGC 1977", "Running Man Nebula" (and a few others) mean different descriptions of the structure. The article named "Running Man Nebula" is a small part of the larger structure. This is a common problem with edits of this nature, which I have come across many times be before over edits made over the years. (The Italian version of Wikipedia calls this "NGC 1977" for example.)

I reverted the text in the article here [81], commenting "There is no evidence for this. Name isn't recognised in SIMBAD. Other fixes." [[User:Laurdecl|Laurdecl] then made this edit[82], which I undid saying "This is not the main name so it isn't bold. You have no consensus for this edit." [83] These edits collectively made the article to need corrections, which I attempted to do. The whole aeries of edits are here: [84].

My complaint was then made under the "Non consensus change article title" is here[85], which I did in an attempt to get needed consensus as required by normal procedures via the Talkpage.

Clearly my initial response is because of the article name change WITHOUT consensus in the statements in the earlier edits.

Laurdecl saying " I am bewildered as to why their first interaction with me was so negative." is self-explanatory because of the avoidance getting consensus. The rest of the discussion - good or bad - is mostly understanding this contention. This explains all the reactions here.

Sh2-279 is the correct designation of the object because its the largest structure in which the "Running Man Nebula" is just a smaller part.

The initial error is that I wrote "This is yet another example of individuals gaining notoriety...", which I think Laurdecl may have thought that 'individuals' was targeted at him. It was not meant like that and I my apologies if it was construed this way. I was talking about general observers /astrophotographers who name some object - then attempt to promote that name.

In retrospect, I did perhaps act hastily, but I did say in balance "Without bothering to consensus rightfully this should be reversed now, yet we should await Laurdeci response to hear any justification." [86]

The issue was further exacerbated with the request to change Sh2-155 article, which Laurdecl says above in the ANI; "This mess started when I created a requested move on this nebula article." which was written at 13:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[87] note the revert was done on the name change on "Running Man Nebula" at 23:40, 5 March 2017‎. OtterAM explained why Sh2-155 should not be changed which was on 01:43, 7 March 2017.[88]

It comes down to the way the change at 23:40, 5 March 2017 with now Sh2-279 (Running Man Nebula was changed. [[89]]

My fear was that Laurdecl was going to start changing all the 'unnamed' articles systematically, which is why I responded as I did. Dealing with significant page changes at once is a logistic nightmare which I was trying to bud. With Laurdecl uncompromising attitude and the Laurdecl seemingly changes of the ref names of an article that I was in the midst of editing; became plainly infuriating. Even if this wasn't a deliberate act by Laurdecl, Laurdecl should have shown some remorse or contrition, but instead starts unfriendly and disrespectful acts against even reasonable WP:GF.

Now you'd probably really think just a little "sorry about that" for the inconvenience might have gone a long way in settling things down, instead you get completely overrun. Frankly, it made me feel like a piece of sh*t!

I've dedicated much of time in stabilising lots of astronomy articles from unjustified changes, most done innocently by Users who lack wisdom to understand why things are done in a certain way. If you start changing article titles as you like, the single precedent can cause a rippling effect across hundreds of other articles. (If we had followed the edits of Laurdecl here, it would have caused a lot of heartache for me and other editors to correct them.)

Lack of any normal respect shown by Laurdecl towards me and other editors in these articles has been utterly deplorable. (Not one word appears on my talkpage!) Any decent person, especially when I made an apology like the COI mistake, would acknowledge it. All I see is arrogance and the air of superiority, twisting rules and regulations just to enforce their will - and treat with contempt anyone who disagrees with them. Moreover, mutual respect is earned by cooperation, and in light of our human failings, decent editors who do something useful should heed their wisdom or confirm their views. If they react strongly, it is usually for a good reason. Problem solving is difficult enough, but deliberate distractions on multiple fronts just to prove a point - that's what Laurdecl did in a nutshell.

So, yes, I'll avoid Laurdecl is the future, and I expect they will do the same, but if they do attempt to make drastic changes without gaining formal consensus of other editors, another ANI will quickly follow.

IMO, this very complex complaint could of been handled much better, especially in light of the presentation of the given complaint. One instant of proven falsehood should have instantly closed the complaint (I've shown four instances of false claims), because you have no idea which statements are true, false or exaggerated. Also there was only four links in the complaint, and the examination of these four claims weren't even presented. Worst there is a dubious statements that should have been struck, especially the nonsense: ""After one editor supported the proposal Arianewiki1 jumps in, guns blazing, with a large obnoxious screed about how they hate "people who name nebulae"."" This angers me the most, because it is not what I believe, and it shows a complete lack of understanding in how things work, and yet;

This whole matter could have been avoided if they asked around before they changed and article title without WP:CON and avoiding WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

Note: I am female with bring up a teenager, and I too worry about possible child grooming. However, the actual meaning of the word 'grooming' isn't bad nor controversial and can only be evaluated in terms of context. (Another I heard yesterday was 'barking", which was assumed to infer that they it was a derogatory word calling another "a dog", when it was actually referring to the way they were speaking. Does this mean it is now a controversial word too?) Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no proper way to use that word in reference to another editor influencing others. Three admins have told you this already, so just don't do it. El_C 04:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1:, @El C: and @Drmies: I'll try and make it brief, for everyone involved:

• 1) Please stop pinging me constantly, and saying that I am somehow gaming the system.

• 1.1) I doubt that the other editors only marginally involved in this dispute appreciate these pings either.

• 2) This complaint is not about your use of the word "grooming", and never was. I filed this for the sole reason that you followed me, through the message on my talk page, to a GA review that had nothing to do with you, for the sole purpose of attempting to fail it.
• 3) You respond to my comment above as "lacklustre", in which I said you were a great editor and was thankful this was over with. If you see comments intended to diffuse the situation as lacklustre, that reflects more on your interactions here than anything.
• 4) I didn't post on your talk page because I prefer to focus on content, not contributors (thus the article talk page is the right place). I could easily have posted lengthy screeds in an attempt to bait you – as you did – but I refrained and kept my discussion to the RM.
• 5) My undiscussed move of the nebula article was in the spirit of WP:BOLD, as I did not think it was controversial, though I did start an RM for the article I thought could be. I did not see your discussions at the talk page because your pings were malformed. Whatever you thought I was going to do, none of it justifies your reaction at the RM. You then say that I failed to AGF, very hypocritical directly after you expressed your fears that I would move every astronomy article ever (because of my COI, obviously)
• 6) It took an AN/I threat to make you strike out your COI aspersions; I had asked you before the GA to not make such claims. Also, I do not see what you want me to apologise for, editing articles you WP:OWN?
• 7) You still have not stopped casting aspersions. Below you accuse Lankiveil, then me as socking with an IP to make you look bad. I am not out to get you, or to "silence" you, and I have barely commented in this AN/I at all.
• 8) Above you state "So, yes, I'll avoid Laurdecl is the future, and I expect they will do the same, but if they do attempt to make drastic changes without gaining formal consensus of other editors, another ANI will quickly follow." I assume "drastic changes" is renaming one article and then starting an RM? Firstly, please stop making threats. Secondly, the IBAN is on you, not me, not that I have any intention of following you around as you apparently have with me. Thirdly, creating an AN/I about me would be a violation of the interaction ban (read WP:IBAN); If my edits are so bad then I am confident someone else can start such discussions.
• 9) I'm not going to read your blather about how to "gain mutual respect" and how I twist rules.
• 10) Contrition is defined as showing "repentance for one's actions". No, I do not repent for my sins of starting a requested move; you appear to be quite keen on hyperbole.
• 11) I do not see that you have uncovered any of my deliberate deceptions (assuming they exist). About the phenomenon of people naming nebulae you say, and I quote, "This is the true evil I am against". This is more of a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude more than anything else.
• 12) Why do you persist in writing these? You are not being blocked or sanctioned here, and an IBAN says nothing about the merit of your contributions. If you are here to help Wikipedia then do so, instead of trying to get this overturned (why? So you can continue to follow me and cast aspersions?). Perhaps you should use your obvious passion for writing to start a novel, instead of linking to random psychology websites and talking about "motive". Warm regards, Laurdecl ^talk 06:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I also note that despite the length of the above, you have not addressed your violation of WP:OWNTALK and your deliberately inflammatory edit summary about my ego being bruised. Laurdecl ^talk 07:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I care about is Item 10, the rest I couldn't give a toss. I'll concede everything everything else and extend apologies wholeheartedly, do anything you want, but I will not backdown one iota without you shown a inkling of contrition. Why don't you get that? Thta is all I'm asking. I doesn't make you as a weak person, it actually makes you infinitely stronger. The whole basis of Wikipedia is to work together collaboratively, and not once have you shown a willingness to do so. It is clear the admins are dancing around what to do here, and they are trying to balance between presumably wrongdoing by me and supporting your own claims. They don't want to intervene, but the issue will be forced to be enacted on merely on unwavering ego. The matter here is not right or wrong but principle. Break this principle, and I will not waver. If I'm banned, so what, but I will not cow-down to ultimately hostile disrespect. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write that for you to "not give a toss". It is an answer to your lies and accusations above. The fact that you don't see fit to respond is evidence enough that you can't even defend your own accusations and personal attacks, which you see fit to keep making, including accusing me of socking with an IP. Laurdecl ^talk 09:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: @Drmies: How is this awful response here even acceptable even in an AN/I? Did I tell lies? Did I accuse Laurdecl of socking with an IP? This is bulling on a scale I've never ever seen before. This kind of attack has just got to stop. If this is not an WP:PA, then what is? Disagreement is one thing but gross intimidation like this is surely unacceptable! Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You said it was "suspicious" so I guess he took that as an accusation. Laurdecl, you don't really need to respond to every comment Arianewiki1 makes. How about you both take a break from ANI for a while. I don't see how continuing this helps either of you, except in adding to the animosity. Go edit some articles and forget about one another. El_C 11:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the word "grooming"

For what it's worth I stand my original comment that the use of the specific word "grooming", in the context which it appeared, did not in any way imply "child grooming". In the context in which it appears, it seems clear that it means "coaching" - in the sense of "The act of teaching someone...", "coaching, mentoring", eg as used ("groom") in the mentorship article - although in this case more of "persuasion to my point of view"

I'm not saying that Arianewiki1's assertions of grooming/coaching were reasonable, but any sexual connotations drawn reflect more on the mindset of the reader than the writer. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The term is inflammatory and in this case used deliberately to antagonise. His screed(!) above (seriously, where do you guys find the time to write all this meaningless waffle?) does nothing to suggest it was used innocently with ignorance of the impact it would have. If Arianewiki1 really isn't concerned with duality of meaning, I'm guessing they would be totes fine with us referring to this case as his/her molestation of Lankiveil? Yeah, thought not. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: and @Drmies:. Please investigate this edit by 62.255.118.6 which is uncalled for and is suspicious odd in its defense of Lankiveil Laurdecl and looks like a possible revenge attack - possibly hoping for another reaction or for a further deliberate diversion. (Painting me as a 'molester' is despicable - and if I argue either way it just supports the contention using 'grooming'.) Notably, this same editor has seemingly made equally outrageous claims before. I'm particular disgusted that this ANI has been sidelined in the complaint of me using the word 'grooming' rather than some of the questionable accusations made by Lankiveil Laurdecl . Do I need to start another AN/I here? Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have a regular's alternate account there. I don't think the comment meant to paint you as a molester, I think it's just some bad acerbic humor. El_C 01:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Really comforting. You threaten me with "perhaps an interaction ban or block is in order" and now its " it's just some bad acerbic humor." The source of this seems to be an IP Wokingham Borough Council (A library perhaps?) I am more frustrated that Laurdecl has used this as an very effective weapon feinting outrage in the ANI to distract from real presumed complaint. This making me having to defend on multiple fronts diminishes my focus - making this more like a game - and an effective deterrent to fight back. Funny 'molester' can be twisted in connotation too. "I don't think the comment meant to paint you as a molester" isn't really the point. It was meant to silence me. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

And what would you have me do? I doubt you'll end up interacting with that IP ever again (unless I just jingsed it). El_C 05:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the IP comment was not me; the IP geolocates to the other side of the world and it was posted in the middle of the night at my local time. If I have something to say to Arianewiki1 I'll say it using my own name. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

@Lankiveil:My humble apologies Lankiveil, as your and Laurdecl are fairly similar looking names, and I have been caught once or twice before. I corrected the text above. I see no connect with the other user and you. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: If it was an honest mistake then no apology is necessary, however I do appreciate your having offered it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

Yeah I got nothing to add to the above comments. Maybe this: that IP sounds like many we've seen here and there, with a mixture of seriousness and trolliness that some find amusing. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Obvious feigning of mock horror at a straw man there. I didn't call you (Arianewiki1) a 'molester'. Think about it: throwing around the term "grooming" with ease and scoffing at the offence caused by duality of meaning, while at the same time recoiling in shock at someone describing your treatment of Lankiveil as "molestation" (a word which used to mean "harrass" or "pester")? I think my point about double standards has been rather vindicated, don't you think? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User:62.255.118.6, I understand the point you are trying to make, but could you please leave me out of this? I've said everything that I've got to say about this matter. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

No worries, though the discussion isn't really about you. It's about the term "grooming" saintly folk like Mitch Ames are so chill with using, conjuring as it does for them images of ruffling one's hair or tickling one's chin; without sparing a thought for the rest of us filth... 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Complaint 2

The Admins here have not been taking my responses seriously, because the focus is only on the point of my legitimate use of the word 'grooming.' Whilst I disagree, I will try and heed their advice. However, the obsession with this point is not addressing the principle complaints made by Laurdecl, who have mostly been seemingly trivialised and whose objectivity I now openly question.

I will accept any ban or action they deem fit, but they must address the accusations - false or not - and my given defense. So far absolute no comment has been made against Laurdecl at all, even though the proof has shown many of his complains as either false, invalid or fabrications.

I'll happily prepare a counter complaint against Laurdecl, who initially defied the required need to gain consensus, and by their poor behaviour, have escalated the problem and not reduced them.

If I've proven to have defied the expectations of editing, so be it, but sitting on the fence with Laurdecl deliberate falsity and defamation is intolerable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: what would you have us do? What admin action are you actually seeking? El_C 06:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use the word defamation again. We have a policy against legal threats. Even implying legal action can see you blocked indefinitely. So don't even go there. El_C 06:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"You didn't answer my question: what would you have us do?" Good question. Your are the admins, so judge me on ts merits. It is clear to me, regardless of the legalise of words such as 'defamation', that Laurdecl has made claims that I have properly pointed out, are not actually true. I am not defying what you are saying, I am trying to get my accusations verified. Falsity here is making me as the victim, regardless of any point of view, which I feel is placing me in a very narrow box. Laurdecl has made false and misleading accusations here, which is openly deleterious on my character - defamation by exact definition.

I want just one thing. some sign of contrition. I've fought like hell to defend a stable article, but instead I'm defending making a legitimate opinion based on another who is avoiding consensus. If I must be pillared, it should be based on fact not fictions. Laurdecl here is playing gamesmanship, which is seemingly being supported. This is what I feel.

What disturbs me more is the narrowing box I'm being placed in. The game is ultimately who is the better to present an argument. Laurdecl argument here is deliberately divisive and my defense inadequate (or just being ignored). Dealing with principles are difficult, but I want acknowledgement I'm just not solely at fault here. If not true, then I'm wasting my time. Your judgement so far has been based on my usefulness to the project, and not to the motivation on why I edit. My experiences and contributions are to improve knowledge on astronomy, something I've dedicated my life too. Laurdecl open trivialises that based on some unexplained delusion. All they do by my behaviour is mock me is some sick little game. If I fight for this so hard, then clearly I must care about it. Thanks for the doubt. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop derailing this with lengthy screeds and appeals to emotion. You are not getting an apology from me after following me around to hound me and cast aspersion; you are indeed wasting your time. I have made a point by point response to your accusations above, so please reply to that. Laurdecl ^talk 07:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: There is only one person here following the other around to make "false and misleading" allegations, and it is not me. I don't see how dedicating your life to astronomy involves following me and attacking my character. By the way, you can use the mention template i.e. {{u|Laurdecl}} instead of [[User:Laurdecl|Laurdecl]]. Laurdecl ^talk 08:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Quote "You are not getting an apology from me after following me around to hound me and cast aspersion;" This is no what I'm asking for at all. I'm just asking for an inkling of actual kindness. All you do is keep spitting in my face. Your response so far is rhetoric BS. Keep acting as you are doing and will end in tears. all this could of been avoid if you were not so merciless. Why can't you see that? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Merciless"? What I see is Laurdecl requesting a move, but was refused. Out of nowhere, you have the guts to follow them around to a random pen article, which you have never edited before, and respond to the GA review. That's wikihouding. And you want to talk about being "merciless"? You have been so vague and unclear, and more importantly very lengthy in your response (WP:TLDR). And you're painting yourself as the victim. All I see is you following a user around to do God knows what. If anything, you're the one in the wrong. You don't specify how they have been "merciless" at all. You point to a behaviour that doesn't seem to exist unless you're interpreting something into something else. You're making this ANI worse for yourself. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 08:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote in a much larger response above, there is no "need" to gain consensus before modifying an article; read WP:BRD. Indeed, this AN/I is not about article content, but about your behaviour and wikihounding. I, for one, have had enough of your extremely lengthy and mostly off topic (you even started to quote a paper on psychology above) "counter complaint"s already. Laurdecl ^talk 07:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a principle here, in which I will not back down. It is your open brutality of your behaviour that I openly question. You seemingly do not giving a sh*t about editing or causing inconvenience to other editors. I have asked for even a hint of contrition, and your arrogance shows you will not backdown even one iota. You have two possibilities here. Act like a part of a community or go away. You seem to be willing to act with utter falsity, make outrageous claims, then pretend indignation. I content YOUR behaviour is deplorable, and even though the ANI has ended in your favour, you are still willing to push the point. Either show an inkling of contrition, or this problem just keeps escalating. If everything is my fault all the time, then you or I being totally banned is the final option. It is your dismal lack of any humanism that I find most offensive. Do so, and this immediately evaporates, and none of this BS has to happen. Wake up. Its not that hard! Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You are the one escalating this. You could just walk away and go about your business on Wikipedia, never giving this another thought. And I told you not to mention defamation again, that wasn't a suggestion. I can't tell how Laurdecl has wronged you, you have not made that clear. You have not been concise, and all of our time is precious. In any case, it ought not be important. The dispute should be resolved with the interaction ban, but you keep picking at it. To what end? El_C 08:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's put this all on the final line... The gaming stops now. Either show some contrition Laurdecl or the admins must ban me. This is the only way to finally end this impasse. No joke. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think an ultimatum like that is helpful to anyone. Just go do something else. Why do you need contrition from someone you're going to avoid anyway? El_C 08:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who told you to back off. But no, you continued to rant on my talk page and follow me around, so we are here. You are not being "banned", and there is no gaming, nor "impasse"; please illustrate your point without hyperbole. I notice that you still refuse to reply to what I wrote above, again derailing this thread and ignoring my responses. You then say "act like a part of a community or go away". El_C, if I may ask, are "You seemingly don't give a sh*t about editing" and "your dismal lack of any humanism" personal attacks? Also, is their accusation of me socking with an IP above, calling it a "possible revenge attack", yet another breach of WP:ASPERSIONS? Thanks. Laurdecl ^talk 08:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that the first one is just incivility. The second one I am not sure. Also, if a user were to call out on another's user supposed socking without providing evidence, it's considered a personal attack. Hope I helped. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 08:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I definitely am unhappy with the, indeed, hyperbolic and at times, uncivil comments, but I presume the editor is just a bit overworked. El_C 08:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's make this even simpler. I am appalled at the total lack of wisdom here. Either what I saying is a deliberate lie or Laurdecl says in the ANI against me is absolutely true. Sitting on the fence here is not solving the problem. I've stated the facts as I see it, and I have been confronted with a totally impossible set of qualifiers which an individual has no means of properly defending. Frankly, it is absolute mess. I propose you ban me for a month, then let me post a counter WP:AN/I, whereas I have time to comprehend the problem. All I want is an inkling that I even matter by Laurdecl. Instantly, this problem will evaporate. To me at the moment, nothing else is important. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh. And you wonder why there are few female editors.... Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Give me a break. Laurdecl ^talk 09:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If anything, you've been treated extremely gently here. You have still not proven wrongdoing by Laurdecl. Your complaints have been lengthy and tendentious. El_C 09:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't play the sex card, it has no bearing here. Anyway, I thought you were a man, because Ariane sounds like a man's name (English is not my 1st language). El_C 09:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you do not get a grace period in which to compose even more personal attacks than you already have. One month; can you imagine the size? A screed to end all screeds; my broadband data would be used up in a single download. The point of an IBAN is that you stop following me, commenting on me, making AN/I threads about me. Such a hypothetical thread would be removed and you blocked for violating your ban. Callmemirela, thanks for your input. I have no idea why this user persists when they could happily ignore me and go back to editing, since I have never once said they should be blocked, simply that they stop following me.

Admins here are being very generous towards you, seeing as you continue to cast aspersions and suggest that I am socking, state that there is a "total lack of wisdom" coming from them, make very blatant personal attacks such as , and continue to refer to me in third person; you have been warned twice in less than two weeks! Laurdecl ^talk 09:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I point out ""your dismal lack of any humanism"" in me requesting some kindness, and the blunt blade is to beat me into submission (as the comments above.) The final insult. Why would anyone follow someone with such utter contempt? Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As an example today, I received a very simple kindness by User:EndercaseEndrcase saying they appreciated this edit.[90] I needed it. It cost me nothing, especially because I disagreed strongly against the person who asked me a question. This is an example of contrition, showing I'm not totally heartless. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I point out ""your dismal lack of any humanism"" in me requesting some kindness, and the blunt blade is to beat me into submission (as the comments above.) The final insult. Why would anyone follow someone with such utter contempt? Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh please WP:BAN me now, because I'm emotionally spent. Ariane[91]. Even the Admins are avoiding WP:GF. Enough said. As for "You have still not proven wrongdoing by Laurdecl." Really. Laurdecl is just playing around. The wrongdoing is clearly in their clearly false claims in this AN/I, which I've already proven, but no one is listening. Every infliction has another deeper infliction. God help me if I have true emotions. Please. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you're so upset over this; to me it seems, for naught. I can only keep suggesting you go do something else. Do you really need to be banned from ANI for a while? El_C 10:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Winstonview repeatedly advertising his firm

Reporting trouble with the page Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). User:Winstonview has used this page to advertise his legal firm of ambulance chasers with a link to his firm's website. His user page makes this connection obvious. The page he is linking to is designed to appear as an official CICA website: it is not.

On each of the four occasion that he has added his commercial link to CICA it has been reverted with a comment to the effect that links to commercial sites are not to be used in this way, but he continues to add it back in. This has happened as follows:

1 2 3 4

He had edited only two pages, his user page (itself practically an advert for his firm) and CICA, but following my second revert he has taken to going to pages in which I have had some involvement and deleting material with the comments "Removed commercial external link" (White Waltham Airfield), "Removed commercial link to a hotel" (Edward Hain) and "Removed link to commercial photographer site" (Popham Airfield). Emeraude (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The addition of the link is problematic and should not occur again. The removal of the other links were good edits on their own but the wikihounding aspect needs to be addressed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note aforementioned user just attempted to remove this very listing (without an edit summary marked as minor edit, no less), which I have cautioned them against. El_C 13:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is not quite a legal threat, but somebody ought to remind him of that policy, for the future. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done Kleuske (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Kleuske, I came here to thank you. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

After he's unblocked, he reverted the edit again to his version. I've reverted his edit based on what User:ScrapIronIV told him to not restore the content without adding source. I've responded to his comment at my user talk page about this situation. --Stylez995 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If he reinserts the text again without getting consensus, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

POV-pushing on multiple Balkans-articles

Copied from WP:AIV where countless other reports have been handled since the report, but noone seems to want to touch this:

• 91.148.77.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters (diff):. Repeated POV removal of sourced content on multiple articles (articles subject to AE/Balkans) after getting a final warning for it (they swiftly remove all warnings they get, but the final warning, and the ones before that, can be found in their talk page history). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that I stated reasons for removal of "sourced" content in edit summary. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Reasons that are POV and not valid. As you have been told you need to discuss it on the talk page and get support for it there, before removing it. On at least one article you are also repeatedly falsifying content, by changing text to say things that the source does not say (see comment on IP's talk page), which is as POV as it can be. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I can say the same thing about you - reverting back to suspicious and POV content, without bothering to understand the issue. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you are reverted, just redoing the same edit and repeating the same edit summary again and again is not enough. I think you need to use the articles' talk pages to properly explain the reasons you think your edits should remain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP (who, based on edits, page history of involved articles and general behaviour, including checking if they're being reported at WP:AIV and then immediately posting claims about POV/bias there, to make it seem like a content dispute, is identical to Special:Contributions/212.178.255.63, who was blocked twice in February, see block log, for the same and similar edits, and most probabaly also other IPs further back in time) has over the past few days repeatedly removed properly sourced material from and/or changed text on multiple articles relating to Kosovo and the 1990s Balkan War (articles edited sofar are Battle of Tripolje, Destroyed Serbian heritage in Kosovo, NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters, Battle of Lođa, Attacks on Likošane and Ćirez and Kragujevac massacre, all of them subject to AE/Balkans), with claims about the articles being biased/POV, edits that also include repeatedly toning the text down and making the articles no longer say what the source says. The edits have been reverted by multiple other editors, and the IP has been told to discuss the changes on the talk page of the articles, and get support for them there, but the edits continue.

All warnings they get are swiftly removed, BTW, so you will have to check the page history, which also shows they've been around for a while, so if someone knows who the real master behind it is please say so here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

When I edit, I'm a vandal, when I state in edit summary the reason for removal of the content I get reverted and accused of vandalism. I may have made some mistakes, but I am no vandal. And when I go to a talk page nothing gets done. Too bad Thomas.W cherry picked through my edits, avoiding articles where I contributed. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You personally feeling that something is wrong or biased isn't a valid reason for removing properly sourced content, or rewriting sourced text in a way that doesn't properly reflect what the sources say, and especially not a valid reason for doing it over and over again, after being reverted by several different editors. As you have done, using more than one IP for doing it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, you ignored what I said. As for your claim of "personal feeling" I can say the same about you. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One good edit doesn't excuse 99 POV-pushing edits. And I don't have any personal feelings when it comes to the Balkans since I'm not from there and have never been there, I just try to uphold the rules here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Balkan-related articles is that often both sides have sources to back-up their POV, so one has to apply WP:UNDUE in order to archive balance. It is quite common to see editors cherry-picking sources that are convenient to their side and remove sourced content and sources from the other side. That makes a situation where it is not enough for some content to be sourced to become undisputable but rather one should gather and see what reliable sources say about the subject from 3 sides: one side, the other, plus neutral ones. FkpCascais (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I want the IP to discuss it on the talk page of the articles, instead of just repeatedly removing anything they don't like. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes,, that is clearly a way to go. FkpCascais (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Then (Thomas.W) why not take your own advice, and the initiative, and use the talk page? The last post there (talk page of NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters) was on 14 feb, by me. Given the absence of talk page usage by the complainant, I don't see validity in raising a case here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I thought that was obvious: I have no opinion fore or against the edits, and quite frankly don't care if it's one way or the other, I'm just reverting an IP who is repeatedly removing and/or falsifying sourced content just because they don't like it. And the reason I posted here is that I feel that repeated (as in over and over again no matter how many other editors revert them) removing sourced content, using one IP after the other, and having been blocked for the exact same thing multiple times before, deserves a block. An opinion others here apparently don't share. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if you don't personally have an opinion on the content, by repeatedly reverting and without making anything as a talk page post, aren't you behaving in the same way as the IP by doing nothing to break the cycle. Without first trying to resolve things on the talk page, bringing a case here looks premature. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

??? Are you seriously claiming that anyone reverting blanking, falsifying of sourced content etc etc needs to spend hours on discussing every single revert on the talk page of the article in question? Do you have any idea how often this happens here, and how many editors like the IP there are? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you or expecting you to spend "hours" discussing "every single revert", though sometimes contentious material on difficult subjects will need that amount of consideration. But you have not even spent minutes discussing it, as far as I can see. Looking at your recent edit history I see lots of revert edits, many with brisk edit summaries, and many "warnings" posted on other editor's pages, but almost no use of article talk pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you check what the edits were, or did you just look at the list? Don't judge anyone without checking what the edits were, and the page history of the article the revert was made on. Reverting vandalism, such as fanboys repeatedly inflating numbers without sources on articles about the armed forces of various minor countries (or in a case earlier today lowering the numbers for country A and at the same time increasing the numbers for neighbouring country B, without sources of course...) doesn't need any discussion, it's also difficult to discuss things with IP-hoppers, who often change IPs several times a day. Nor does reverting repeatedly made changes from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", made by editors who already know that we use the name that is in common use in English, and also has been discussed ad nauseam on Talk:Kiev/naming need any discussion. A janitorial job on a side of Wikipedia that most people here, apparently you included, never see. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No I haven't looked at the individual edits in your history that are not related to the case here, and I am not questioning your good motives in any of the edits. I am just trying to say that I think going straight from reverting content deletions to here is hasty without first trying to resolve the situation through article talk pages. If the IP doesn't respond there, to your prompting, that makes the case for bringing them here much stronger. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice This IP has targeted my edits. They asked FkpCascais to have a look on my edit at Kosovo War and the later editor undid my changes. The later is currently reported by another editor. The report is some sections above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ivankola block evasion

User:Ivankola was blocked on 26 February for spamming, but they had also been warned for BLP violations (by me), verifiability, disruptive editing, and vandalism. It appears that after being blocked, they continued editing while logged out as User:145.236.37.151: the Editor Interaction Analyser shows edits on dozens of pages in common. I'm not surprised to see that User talk:145.236.37.151 is also filled with warnings going back to 14 October 2016. They also appear to be editing as User:109.121.243.26 (dozens of articles in common), so I'm sure there are more. Since check user can't connect editors with IP addresses, is there a better way to find and block these IPs? Would this be a case for WP:SI even without CU, or WP:RFPP? Woodroar (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUCK might be of help to this one, if it's as obvious as you suggest. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 11:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ivankola and 145.236.37.151 have the same method of playing around with BLPs. For example, Ivankola fills in an unsourced birth_place, changes the location, and removes it. 145.236.37.151 adds, changes, removes on the same article. I am less sure about 109.121.243.26. Even though they have edited literally dozens of the same articles, they have dissimilar types of edits so any proof is coincidental. I struck that accusation accordingly. Woodroar (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing (incl. socking, using personal attacks, battleground-loaded editing, copyvios, and what-not)

PAKHIGHWAY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been playing with fire for quite some time now. His editorial pattern includes so many unacceptable things, that it requires admin intervention.

Recent personal attacks/battleground-editing

• "Undid Indian vandalism"
• "Kindly keep your noses in your Gangetic history. Indus history has nothing to do with India. You're welcome."
• Are you on drugs or something?
• You just completely screwed up a perfectly good article. I'll instead be reporting YOU and YOUR disruptive edits.
• "you Indians just love shoving INDIA into every bloody Pakistani article because it makes you feel better about the craphole you live in"
• "Before trying to act all smart, open up your OWN source and read what is says. Idiot"

Recent IP socks used

• IP 99.226.91.115 (same edits, same edit summaries, same target articles, literally editing the articles a few minutes before or after the account in question)

Recent Copyvios

• here
• here

OR/Agenda pushing

• [92] (basically adding information about peoples/ethnicites from regions that far pre-date any "diaspora" of the country in question, a country that was created no more than 80 yrs ago. This erroneous self-interpreted bogus would be similar to someone adding "Paeonian migrations" to the article "Macedonian diaspora", or "Illyrian migrations" to the article "Albanian diaspora".

- LouisAragon (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly not competent to edit Wikipedia with such an attitude. Simply NOTHERE. --QEDK (愛) 10:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I will attempt to answer all these ridiculous claims one by one. First off, go through my entire edit history before making a remark about me being not "competent" enough. Pakistan Railways for example I've been working on for months and have had no problem. The problem seems to arise whenever "Persia" is mentioned. This LouisArgon character shows up literally out of nowhere and starts making really ridiculous edits. It's almost like he's desperately trying to make Persia a European country or something, judging from his edits, but that's another argument and debate altogether. This entire kerfuffle arose in Overseas Pakistanis article. He removed mentions of migrations that took place during colonial era and the Middle Ages. He brings up Albanians and Macedonians (which are ethnic groups) and then compares them to Pakistanis (which is only a nationality representing several ethnic groups). He assumes that Pakistanis didn't exist until 1947 and the ethnic groups that make up the country all popped out of thin air in 1947. He offered no reason as to why he made those edits either...he just thinks because he's an established Wiki editor, he can do whatever he wants. Is this the way Wikipedia operates? Where are his edits in Overseas Chinese and Non Resident Indian articles which practically do the same thing as Overseas Pakistani article? Where are his edits in Overseas Vietnamese? India didn't exist until 1857. Vietnam didn't exist until after Pakistan. And nobody was calling themselves "Chinese" during the Ming Dynasty either, so what his argument om about? LouisArgon, IMO, has a very unhealthy obsession with Pakistani wiki articles and employs double standards. He's made a mess of History of Pakistan too in the past and continuously reverts template edits without offering any logical explanation. Secondly, regarding my IP address, I've recently moved to another country hence the change after March 7, 2017. And many occasions I forget to login. It's not a malicious attempt to hide myself as LouisArgon is claiming. It's not hard to find out who's who anyway. Why would I hide myself? In Pakistan Railways I've done the same thing many times, simply because I just forget. For those Wiki editors who seem to have a level headed approach, look at my Wiki edit history and it speaks for itself. I don't go around looking for fights, instead they come looking for me it seems. I have no personal quarrel with LouisArgon, but his edits in Overseas Pakistanis was ridiculous to say the least. If this is his view, I expect his edits on Non-Resident Indians, Overseas Vietnamese and Overseas Chinese. But alas, no edits were made on those articles. The reason is simple. LouisArgon is biased and employs double standards. Thank you for reading my response, Have a great day.--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me put it simply. If you can't properly conduct a conversation without using personal attacks, I am not obliged to prove you as a helpful member of this community. --QEDK (愛) 11:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @QEDK: What personal attack have I used in the paragraph I wrote above? I'm stating an opinion and presenting my argument about how I find LouisArgon's edits as disruptive and unproductive. It was done out of spite, not for the betterment of Wikipedia. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• What affects me is that you already used personal attacks, ...Indian vandalism, ...because it makes you feel better about the craphole you live in, et al. You're being purposefully vile and as BSZ states later on, it's only a matter of circumstance that you haven't been blocked yet. Here's my advice to you: take a BREAK, reflect on your own actions and return when you're competent enough to work as a member of this community. Also, one of the golden rules on this site is, assume good faith and anyone can clearly observe your repeated failures at that basic rule. You hold a baseless animosity towards India and her citizens and that's very concerning considering this site is considered to be a repository of neutral and verifiable information. --QEDK (愛) 15:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @QEDK: Look at the old template I edited, and the reverted version and tell me which one reflects the History of Pakistan better. When Indian wiki members continuously vandalize our articles, then you should expect a response. You have no idea how many time I've had to clean up vandalism and reverts of Pakistan being called "Porkistan" and "Pakibastardland" and stuff like that. But that's okay according to you. Heaven forbid if we actually respond back...oh the outrage. My only mistake was not reporting it. They have an entire group of people who literally skim over every Pakistani article to insert "Indian subcontinent" which isn't even valid anymore since South Asia is used. I have no hatred for India or Indians...I have a hatred for Indian ultra nationalists who are not aware that a border exists between India and Pakistan. I'm also against the notion that 92 odd years of illegal British occupation with there experiment "British India" somehow erases 9000 years of Indus history and culture. If you want to ban me, go right on ahead. I'm not shying away from what I have said...I said it...if I have to be banned, then I'll take it. But I am not wrong in my edits that I have made. Look at my edits in Pakistan Railways and the various articles I have written on connection including railway stations, lines etc. Read MY edits in Overseas Pakistani, History of Jews in Pakistan and tell me what I have done that is so outrageous that they had to be reverted? I have provided sources, used proper grammar, cleaned up the article and just made it better reading experience overall. I've doubt you've even looked at my edits. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I do not see why that would affect your editing capability. You have to learn to distinguish between people who are here to edit and people who are there to vandalize, while I understand your situation, you're letting yourself get away with your attitude. I'm afraid I can't sympathize with you. I can only request you stop this while you still can, with the little bit of ROPE that BSZ has given you. I pray you shall continue to be a good editor. Cheers! :) --QEDK (愛) 16:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

He just reinstated the same material on the Overseas Pakistani people using another sock IP. Just look how the IP, with the exact same geolocation as his other IPs, reinstated PAKHIGHWAY's edit word for word verbatim. Gotta admit, this is quite the circus act. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @PAKHIGHWAY:--Well, there exists a procedure in Wikipedia called no personal attacks and establishing consensus.That you have created some good articles hardly gives you a lee-way to harass other users who are far-more experienced than you are.And please don't bring your ethnic rivalries over here.Any-way it's high time you look at your behaviour before telling others unhealthily obsessed and employing double standards.And may-be you don't know that we are serious about WP:SPA and serial WP:COPYVIO violators.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades of Godric:-- I have a right to share my opinion, that's not called "harassment". Being singled out by a Wiki editor because I called him out on this talk page is harassment actually. Also being far more experienced doesn't give someone the right to simply make foolish edits and not give reasons for it. What's the point of an edit summary if LouisArgon won't use it? He made those edits out of spite, not for any logical reason and he has a long history of this mind you. I simply asked that if Overseas Pakistani article can't mention anything before 1947, why wasn't the Overseas Chinese or Non Resident Indian articles edited? Why can those articles talk about the middle ages and colonial era and not article in question? Nobody in the 12th century called themselves Chinese or Indians. I have yet to receive a response from you or LouisArgon over this query. Furthermore, refer to my last edit on History of Jews in Pakistan and compare the entire article to the current horrible status of the article right now. Which one is better? Mine or the reverted version? The answer is pretty simple. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@PAKHIGHWAY:--You have the right to free speech as long as you don't repetitively transverse certain boundaries guaranteed by WP:NPA and take those rules for a toss.As to why I/Louis did'nt edit the other articles, remember --We are all volunteers over here.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:--That's no excuse whatsoever. We're all volunteers here so that means one can be biased towards one particular ethnic group or nationality? The point is, if those articles are mentioning it, then why shouldn't the Overseas Pakistani article be mentioning it. If it's invalid, then all of them should be deleted. It wouldn't take too long. Infact, I'll go ahead and delete all mentions of colonial and middle age history in Overseas Chinese and Non Resident Indian? I'm assuming you will support my wonderful volunteer work, correct? --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:--Also, I am not repeatedly using personal attacks against anyone. Have I used a few in the past, sure...but this isn't my daily way I do things. I've been on here since October...I've probably had a few run ins. I usually mind my own business and try to contribute to Wikipedia and don't get into edit wars. When editors like LouisArgon show up and make literally disruptive edits and just delete things without saying why, what do you expect the writer of that article to do? It's extremely annoying. Shouldn't editors be leading by example? How can he get away with simply deleting things he doesn't like? That's completely uncalled for. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@PAKHIGHWAY:--I understand your frustration and it may be heartening to hear that I did not took any sides at Overseas Pakistani.I plainly reverted because there appeared to be some fishy collusion between you and some IPs and since he opposed your addition, the onus was on you to prove you're correct.And in the regasrd just follow boeing's way-out.As w.r.t History of Jews in Pakistan & Pakistani Jews in Israel,I don't support your edits.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:-- Okay that's fine, how do I go about starting a consensus debate on the talk page? Do I just start a section and write my opinion? Which editor will read my side? Or do I have to post a template or something on the talk page to get an editor involved. I'm not sure, I'm new to this because I've never had a Wiki editor breathing down my neck 24 hours a day. And furthermore, how can I report a certain wiki editor for disruptive edits? To be honest, I'm not in the business tattle tale, but I am not one bit amused about LouisArgon's editing and his lack of insight and not wanting to help new wiki members out. Classic bully in my opinion and I intend on making this an issue of this. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@PAKHIGHWAY:--Yeah, just start a section, write your opinion and wait for people to chip in.If the discussion is just between you two and still do not lead to productivity, there's WP:RFC, dispute resolution etc.

And to make an issue(lodge a complain), just create a section about your grievances at any particular editor at this very page,But, be wary of WP:BOOMERANG.And, I don't personally feel that it will be a very good step.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see how this current situation unfolds. I'd rather that LouisAragon just stop following me around Wikipedia and tend to his life. I'm confident that my edits are reasonable enough for logical level headed people to understand and see where I am coming from. I've written my complaint here Talk:Overseas_Pakistani#Emigration From Pakistan section edit war. I hope you and other editors reading this will look into my grievances and see my edits and see how I did nothing wrong. I provided full sources and simply put I made the article better.--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User should be indeffed. None of that is even remotely acceptable. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @PAKHIGHWAY: You are edit warring with two other editors on that article to reinsert your preferred text. Some admins would have blocked you by now, but instead I have protected the article just for one hour to try to avoid the need for that. I have no idea whether or not the text you want included is appropriate and I'm taking no side in the content dispute, but you really do need to stop the edit war and seek a consensus. So please, start a discussion at the article talk page and let others offer their opinions - and if you get a consensus in your favour, you can add the content. If, instead, you continue the edit war after the protection expires, you should expect to be blocked. (I have no comment on the incivility issue as I have not looked into that.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you for explaining the procedure. I don't expect you to take my side, I just want my side heard. None of the other commentators explained what to do. They just ganged up on me and began bullying me because I had the audacity to question a Wiki editor who took things too personally. Can you please explain how I can go about starting a consensus debate on this on the article talk page? Do I have to write a special code or something? Template:WP ABC? An example would be great. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing special needed, just start a new section at the talk page and explain the text you want to add, and let the discussion commence. And you really should stick to just discussing the content and leave out allegations of bullying and ganging up on you - it can often seem like that to those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's methods, but it's usually an incorrect interpretation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done that here Talk:Overseas_Pakistani#Emigration From Pakistan section edit war. I hope you and other editors reading this will look into my grievances and see my edits and see how I did nothing wrong. I provided full sources and simply put I made the article better. I still have no idea why he simply deleted everything for no reason. Ridiculous --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Add obvious lack of WP:COMPETENCE to that indeed as well ("They just ganged up on me and began bullying me" -- kidding me?...). Even after these loads of insane, grievous personal attacks, the copy-vio's, the persistent IP socking, he's still continuing with his WP:NOTHERE editorial pattern, as we speak.[93][94] Objectively speaking, not a single article protection is gonna solve anything here. I've seen a lot of disruptive editors during my time, but the lack of competence shown here in combination with the rampant curriculum, is truly baffling. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Also (the muppet show is seemingly never ending); it's beyond me how he asks here "how to start a talk page discussion". So....how exactly did he know how to start and participate in talk page consensus discussions here, here and here?.... Literally nothing matches up. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem a little too over excited. I think you should read what I wrote again. I never asked anything about how to make a talk page. I asked how to get attention of other editors to my grievances so your biased edits could be reverted and condemned. I know very well how to use the Talk Page, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I'm just not well versed in using the Talk Page to get a obsessed wiki editor off my back. Read before you call people incomptenet and muppets? Are these not personal attacks now? What "Competence is required" does not mean * It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake." Wikipedia has a learning curve. We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process. * It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter. * It does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help improve their competence. * It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. For example, we do not say "You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article." * It does not mean that Wikipedia's civility policy does not apply when talking to incompetent people. Rude and uncivil comments may discourage the motivation of the targeted editor, raising their psychological barrier against recognizing their own mistakes or seeking to improve their skills. * Finally, it does not mean we will give any good-faith editor an infinite number of opportunities to make themselves useful. If, after an appropriate amount of time and coaching, someone still isn't competent, don't make a heroic effort to defend them. Cut them loose, and focus your mentoring efforts on a better candidate. So next time read what's written before trying to lump me as "incompetent" and a "muppet". Is this not personal attacks?--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

And what is this sock you keep calling me? I've already stated that I forget to login at times when making edits and that I recently moved to another country which explains why change in IP. You really need to tone it down. I'm baffled at how you were even made an Wiki editor with a tongue and tone like that. You jump to conclusions and get way too over your head. Calm down, drink a glass of water. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe PAKHIGHWAY earned themselves a block for edit warring or incivility, but I see a glimmer of hope. This fits the pattern of "aggressive but well-meaning newbie, who might learn to edit constructively over time". Since the bulk of the problem seems to be a paranoiac belief that LouisAragon (and their minions) is out to revert them, maybe a one-way WP:IBAN would solve it? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Seeing the developments of late, I feel an one-way IBAN between Pakhighway and Lois will serve good.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there are issues of competence here. For example, the user adds two paragraphs about Pakistani Jews in Pakistan to an article about Pakistani Jews in Israel, and when this is rightly reverted, they cry vandalism. I would recommend being open to the notion that they still have much to learn when about contributing to Wikipedia. El_C 05:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Civility

This seems to have gotten off-track. Can we address the blatant racism displayed by PAKHIGHWAY? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That's quite the accusation, one which ought to be corroborated with extraordinary evidence (in the form of diffs and quoting the exact passage that's presumably racist). El_C 05:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There is one outright racist comment in the original post with two further comments that while not explicitly racist, indicate the editor is focusing on other editors racial background instead of the content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I would block right now, but it seems that another admin is already attending to this, and that they are even more forgiving than yous truly is (wow, who knew!). El_C 14:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C:, as far as I understood, BSZ explicitly mentioned and showed in his first comment here, that he'd only only with the users' content-related problem related to one article, not with all the personal attacks/all other stuff. Btw, I just picked several of the recent incivility diffs in my original post. There are more of them, e.g. "Learn Urdu or fuck off.", and "Don't even know how to write UNIVERSITY in Urdu and you call yourselves "educated".". But, I believe that the point was illustrated more than sufficiently with the original post. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The guy calls the entire country of India a "craphole" and he gets a free lesson in talk page editing. "Hello user IHATESTUPIDINDIANS. Thanks for your comments about how everyone from India can just "fuck off". Did you know you can change the size of the font you used for the word "fuck" by clicking on "Advanced" and selecting 'level 2' from the dropdown menu?" ADMINMIKE96 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The Wiki Ed welcome mat

Last month I posed a question on Adam (Wiki Ed)'s talk page and got no response. Nor have any of the students & instructors who have left queries since 29 December. Nonetheless his account is still churning out welcome messages (around 8500 in the last 15 months) which don't vary, and haven't been interrupted by any signs of human activity in some time.

I also see no other interpretation than that Adam is running an unauthorised, unattended bot.

He's not responding on his personal page either.

If Adam's no longer responding perhaps another account should be doing the welcoming? The present situation does no favours to WikiEd, Wikipedia, the students, or the instructors. Cabayi (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Entirely agreed - @Adam (Wiki Ed): please respond here at your earliest convenience, as I can't help to agree that it appears you're running an unauthorised bot. Although we don't really have much say as to the services Wiki Ed supplies I do think perhaps the welcoming aspect of it could be improved somewhat -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Protonk, the personal account, since I mentioned it. Cabayi (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Note, this task would generally not be approved even for a bot, see Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently_denied_bots#Welcome_bot. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

At 19:14, 3 March 2017 (within that one minute timestamp), the account welcomed 40 different editors. Many of the timestamps seem to occur at roughly the same times, suggesting an automated program running on a set schedule. There's been no activity outside user talk from this account for a while and no response to inquiries about these welcome messages. It seems extremely likely that this account is being run as an unauthorized bot, so I'm blocking it until the human editor returns and explains what's going on. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Technicalz isn't my dept., clearly; but isn't there a way of finding out what's actually being run on 'our own' site? Wouldn't it have to run from a subpage? or because it's open source, can it just run from a home PC and not be embedded? But that 19:14 timestamp seems to clinch it- one every 1.5 seconds?! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: No bots run on our site. They run off some other site, server, or computer and interface with Wikipedia. There's no way to tell whether something is automated or not except via behavior, at least not in a way that has no false positives and can't be gotten around. The closest we get to running something on our own site is Tool Labs, but even that's really another site that the WMF just provides. Most bots don't use that. For example, my own bot uses AWB and runs entirely off my personal computer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks very much for the information. Interesting stuff. I understand now, cheers. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 21:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• note, Adam's account has been blocked which at least stops the ongoing botting Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ian (Wiki Ed) has taken up Adam's welcoming workload using the same bot. He has at least been interacting with students on his talk page. (Ping Guettarda, his alternate account) Cabayi (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have pinged User:Ragesoss / User:Sage (Wiki Ed), long time Wikipedian, Wiki Edu employee and product manager there. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Part of the Wiki Ed support system for classes is that User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and User:Adam (Wiki Ed) provide support for student editors. The welcome messages get posted (automatically) to the talk pages of users soon after they enroll in the class, by whichever Wiki Ed staff member is supporting that class. Adam has been intermittently sick for the last couple of weeks. We generally have someone else help out when someone is out sick, but these talk page messages slipped through the cracks.

The welcoming of users is something we previously did manually, but switched it to be automatically done by the dashboard at some point. I didn't think of this welcoming feature as a 'bot', separately from the general OAuth approval system, which is why I did not go through the bot approval process at the time that feature was added. I can do so if folks think that's necessary.

I will follow up in more detail later today. In the short term, I've removed the 'greeter' flag from Adam's account (but not Ian's), so the dashboard won't make any further welcome edits on his behalf.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sage (Wiki Ed): I think it would be useful if you could clarify whether the dashboard makes these welcoming edits automatically, or if the user (i.e. Ian or Adam) have to manually approve each welcome. If it's the former, then that would fall under using a non-bot account as an unapproved bot. Bot Policy requires that a separate account be used, and that it be approved before running. If each welcome is being sent manually, and simply being sent from the interface, there shouldn't be a problem. Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Samwalton9: at the level of individual user welcomes, it's automatic. The manually approval happens at the level of a course, but once the course itself is approved, the welcome messages are automatic for each new user that joins the course.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome messages disabled

I've disabled the automatic welcome messages from Ian as well now. It would be pretty simple to convert it to a dashboard-assisted manual welcome, but that seems pretty pointless since we want to make sure every Wiki Ed student editor gets a welcome ping from the person supporting their class, and the sooner after joining the class they get it, the better. I'll put up a BAG submission soon.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

BRFA is up: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Wiki Ed Dashboard student greetings.

User:Cabayi: Thank you for opening this discussion. It pointed out a hole in Wiki Ed's support procedures that we'll figure out how to patch, for when staff have unexpected time AFK.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

For clarity: the BRFA has been withdrawn (with automatic welcome messages still disabled). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Dashboard

(may be related to the above?)

Question: is the WikiEdu Dashboard ( https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ ) considered a bot? And if so, has it been approved by en.wikipedia bot-related approval processes?

I bring this up while there has been a problem that from that dashboard en.wikipedia pages can be updated (overriding any content that is on the page) without the dashboard editor being responsive to in-Wikipedia user talk page or project talk page comments by concerned in-Wikipedia editors. Example:

• affected project page: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016)
• unresponsiveness of dashboard operators demonstrated at (among other pages) User talk:Dr.renMueller and Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016) (and related Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 64#Student articles)
• follow-up discussion at User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed)/Archive 5#Re. "Removing"

Although nothing much happened any more since last year in this example it got stuck in my head as an unresolved issue. Possibly I lost my cool somewhere along the line, but what I remember is that there was a pile of cleanup after the project had passed through Wikipedia – and, frustratingly, no way to contact the people messing up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I would call it an alternate editing interface. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW. I think that it is rather strange that WikiEdu asks people to edit something in the dashboard, and then doesn't even allow sysops to actually do so on their pages... That's definitely something that should be rectified. It's not the wikiway. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re. "I would call it an alternate editing interface" – yeah, so is AWB I suppose... the question is not whether it is an alternative interface (it is, no doubt about that), but whether it is a bot, and if so, whether it went through due process.

The worrying aspect (as I saw it in the experience described above) is that you can ping a dashboard editor, or write on their Wikipedia user talk page or on the talk page of the project as much as you like, none of these messages go through to the "alternative interface" (so the editor there ignores it all, not even knowing a concern has been raised). Thus these dashboard editors continue editing Wikipedia via that interface without being aware about any concern voiced through Wikipedia's usual channels. In that sense it is bot-like: it steam-rolls whatever concern and overwrites Wikipedia content automatically with whatever the Dashboard sends out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In as much as it allows Wikipedia to be edited via WikiEdu's tools, and cuts WikiEdu users off from the concerns of Wikipedia's wider community (in effect censoring what messages get through to the WikiEdu users), it's a type of WP:OWN. Cabayi (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Really the dashboard needs to go both ways, in that anything on the wikipedia end is copied to the off-site project and vice versa. Its not really acceptable for an offsite dashboard to be in control of a wikipedia page and overwrite it regardless of what wikipedia editors have done in the meantime. Its a core tenet of wikipedia that communication is required *here* between editors. Not referring them to external websites. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... it's a type of WP:OWN" – that is indeed how I experienced it. So the question can be rephrased thus: do we allow https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ to WP:OWN pages such as Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016)? I, for one, can not remember ever having agreed to that, and suppose for instance Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval would be a place where such agreement can be negotiated. And indeed "two-way communication", as mentioned by Oiddde, would seem a minimal requirement for such approval to be possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The idea with the dashboard on-wiki course pages, like Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016), is that they provide an on-wiki mirror of the dashboard.wikiedu.org content, so that things like 'what links here' can be used to easily find out which editors are connected with which other editors through these courses. Two-way editing of those is not practical, because the content isn't structured the same way. Those are the only pages that the dashboard quote-unquote 'owns'.

In terms of approval process, the system itself went through the OAuth application approval process for the technical side of things, and there was a lot of (well-advertised) on-wiki discussion about the basic concept and using subpages of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed as, essentially, a replacement for EducationProgram extension that was the previous basis for course pages.

The dashboard does not allow arbitrary editing of other pages, and all the actual article editing, discussion, etc, still happens the usual way. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had already understood that much. Your last words ("... discussion ... still happens the usual way") gloss over the fact that project to project (i.e. between "Wiki Ed" and "en.Wikipedia") communication is structurally near impossible, leading to frustration on both sides (frustration from Wiki Ed project participant's side is for instance documented here). So take the interface to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, which is about more than the mere technical approval, and for instance also about how the interface blends in with the English-language Wikipedia. I suppose it should be possible to send notifications about a relevant on-wiki discussion to the relevant page in the dashboard interface when a Wiki Ed project setup causes problems in the encyclopedia (like in the Wikipedia interface we get a notification with a clickable link when someone pings us or writes something on our talk page).

Several Wikipedia editors, including myself, posted suggestions for a smoother interaction (which ultimately should result in better mainspace content, and better learning curves for Wiki Ed project participants) for future Wiki Ed project setups. I wonder what has been done with those suggestions? (if your reply would be that you didn't see such suggestions, that is kind of a confirmation of my earlier point that the project-to-project communication has in practice proven near impossible). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken: In general, adding more and better support for communication — such as notifying users on the dashboard about on-wiki communication they should know about — is definitely something I want to do at some point. I've thought a lot about this myself, and I've followed plenty of on-wiki discussion related to it. That said, I'm not sure what specific 'suggestions for smoother interaction' you're referring to here. I'm also not clear what you mean by "communication is structurally near impossible". The Wiki Ed system guides student editors to draft their work on-wiki, communicate about each others' work on-wiki, and interact with other editors on-wiki.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... at some point" – how about now? Re. "... on-wiki discussion related to it" – linking to some of these (if there are that provide insight) might be helpful.

Suggestions for smoother interaction / structural problems with project-to-project communication – apart from "see above" and "click on some of the links I gave above", here are some points I remember: there were some flaws in the setup of the North Carolina project mentioned above (leading to WP:CONTENT FORK problems etc.). Despite several efforts (by myself and others before me) we could not set up communication with the persons responsible for the project setup, in order to correct these flaws (the North Carolina professor...); Then there was the problem that almost all of the issues caused by the project showed up in a period of one or two days (on a few dozen pages), just before all of the South Carolina project editors disappeared from Wikipedia (a few remedies to avoid that in the future were proposed, e.g. timely publication of the due delivery date of the students' work on the project page; work from draft namespace instead of from user talk space; point students to guidelines that are specifically applicable for the topic area where they are going to edit; contact WikiProjects in the area where the editing is going to take place when setting up the project – instead of leaving the cleanup to Wiki editors when communication is no longer possible while everyone who was connected to the Wiki Ed project has left the building, etc...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re. "The Wiki Ed system guides student editors to draft their work on-wiki, communicate about each others' work on-wiki, and interact with other editors on-wiki." Again, you're missing the (direct) project-to-project communication for addressing Wiki Ed project setup issues. Also, for the over two dozen pages I reviewed when cleaning up it was clear that either there had been no communication between the student and regular wikipedia editors (where such communication seemed indispensable), or, in the very few cases when there had been such communication, that communication was highly problematical (see student frustration link I gave above). So, whatever the interface was supposed to do in that respect, it wasn't working. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken: Thanks. That cleared things up for me somewhat. The core issues, I think, are the same ones that have been the hardest ones for the education program all along: getting newcomers to engage in communication in the ways the Wikipedia community expects is hard. I think there are some ways that improvements to the dashboard can help — especially around facilitating on-wiki communication — but it will take a lot of design and development work to do that right. When you said "project-to-project communication", I at first was thinking in terms of communication between wikipedia.org and dashboard.wikiedu.org. But I think the problems you are pointing to are more fundamentally about how to get editors whose entry point to Wikipedia is the education program — instructors and students — to think and act like experienced editors. My view is that we've gotten a lot better at this over time, and the structure provided by the dashboard is a big part of that. Over the last year, we worked with significantly more classes and students than in previous years, with fewer of these kinds of communication problems. When such things do come up, and people post about them to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents, we often find ways of improving the process — occasionally technical ways, but usually more along the lines of changes to our training content, our help materials, and our processes for vetting courses and monitoring courses.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Some points:

1. The "automatic welcome messages" BRFA was withdrawn after a comment that ended with "... Wiki Ed [...] looks like a separate organization and it wouldn't supersede anything on Wikipedia" – if the same is applied to the Wiki Ed project page updates that overwrite all the content on such Wikipedia project pages, this would become impossible by the same reasoning... So that functionality should be disabled immediately, then kept disabled until it passes a BRFA. I'd think (after an initial setup of the project page with the basic content of who is responsible, what the project is about, what the delivery dates are etc), that the talk page of such project page should be used to post incremental messages saying something like "the dashboard page of this edu project has been updated on <date>" (of course with a link to the related dashboard page).
2. The BRFA for the Dashboard should explicitly include all aspects of (semi-)automatic updating of pages in Wikipedia originating from the Dashboard system. Thus far we've had two: automatic welcome messages (disabled, BRFA withdrawn), and automatic updating of project pages (should immediately be disabled per WP:OWN, see above) – are there any other (semi-)automatic updating functionalities generated by WikiEdu programs we don't know about yet? If so, ask permission for them via BRFA.
3. Re. "getting newcomers to engage in communication..." – a quick fix that should at least alleviate some of the problems was proposed above: instruct the students that new articles are better started in Draft: namespace (and not in their user talk namespace where they are usually under the radar of Wikipedia communication until the content is transported to mainspace). Draft: namespace is monitored and students will get feedback, will often be pointed to WikiProjects that have experience in the topic area (leading to more communication), all of that long before the "due date" (which is typically the date when students move their new content to mainspace, after which they typically immediately stop editing Wikipedia). Rewrites/updates of articles that already exist in mainspace should likewise better be kept out of user talk namespace, and should take place directly in mainspace (or via update proposals on the article talk page), where of course there will be, in most cases, immediate feedback, and thus communication, too.
4. Re. "... — instructors and students — to think and act like experienced editors" – err? I think they should think & act like newbies (which gives extra protection per WP:BITE). A part of the problem now seems to be that instructors and students, after following the WikiEdu introduction course, think they behave like experienced editors (with the tinge of arrogance that comes with it – excuse my French), but act in ways that upset regular processes and procedures, and write questionable mainspace content (e.g. in a page on a Vivaldi composition they think it is necessary to write a full Vivaldi bio, instead of just linking Antonio Vivaldi, give an overview of the composer's work, his style and whatnot, writing maybe ten percent of the new article about the composition at hand – without a single reference) – all of which isn't helped when editing from a "I'm an experienced editor" attitude, instead of from "I'm new at this, could I get some assistance?" approach. At the end of the introduction program they should know they are still newbies, so need to keep in touch with more experienced editors to address all sorts of practical issues (e.g. how to add proper references).
5. Re. Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents – didn't know about that. How about providing a link to that page in the {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} box? That box would be the first place a regular editor learns about a student's involvement, so they should know where to go when issues need to be sorted. Also, this helps for early "regulars"–"students" communication (assuming the /Incidents page is not for internal Wiki Ed communication exclusively).

All of this said, I will repeat what I said before: Wiki Ed is imho a great thing, that's why I think it is useful to take some time to hash out its issues. The program should give new editors some gusto for editing Wikipedia beyond their class assignment, which it currently only very rarely does: too often, currently, it ends in frustration, so let's do something about it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Still another thought:

6. In the introduction for Wiki Ed instructors it should maybe made clear that the professors/teachers should not primarily expect to test a student's ability to write an essay via Wikipedia (there are more appropriate venues for that, within their institution): what they are really testing in a Wiki Ed setup is the student's ability to work together with people they don't know, within their field of interest. Are they able to learn from that interaction? This is future-minded: the idea of a single scholar working in his study surrounded by books, undisturbed by the outside world, is overhauled in a wiki setting where there is immediate feedback: how do students cope with such feedback without getting sidetracked? ...seems more like the thing that is tested in a Wikipedia setup (hence my suggestion above to keep prospective mainspace content out of user talk namespace staying under the communication radar). Which entails instructors being instructed how to read edit histories and talk pages (how did the student react to input by others? what did they learn from it in their topic area? did they manage to stay on topic? did they learn something about assessing on-line and paper reference works in a WP:RS approach?). Seems like a setting that will gain momentum in future approaches to research, so today's students would do well to prepare for it (e.g. distinguishing fake news from solid information based on source assessment & input from others is a hot topic nowadays: better learn students cutting edge approaches on how to do that than learn them to write essays old style, which their schools and universities are surely better equipped for).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: If a single edit in the WikiEd interface leads to a single edit on Wikipedia, then that sounds like an alternative editing interface, not automatic editing. That's perfectly acceptable under the bot policy. It's when the WikiEd interface is set up to automatically edit with no oversight from the editor in question that we have issues. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Tx, the problem is, however, with the alternative interface not accepting feedback: i.e. it doesn't pass feedback on to the editor who accesses & edits Wikipedia through the alternative interface, that is, without logging in into Wikipedia. In that sense the Dashboard operates as a bot, churning out dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of Wikipedia edits blindfoldedly. We wouldn't accept any bot to do that: the bot would be blocked immediately, until it accepts feedback from human Wikipedia editors. Imagine being able to edit Wikipedia with AWB, without being notified of pings, user talk page messages, or whatever initiates normal in-wikipedia communication... That wouldn't last long I suppose, even if you would only make an edit in this way every few days.

For me it makes no difference whether this is approached as a "go through BRFA to get approval for this functionality", or whether, alternatively, we block all external-Dashboard-generated edits to pages for which the Dashboard claims ownership, because it goes against WP:OWN to let it continue this behaviour. The first approach does however seem to have the advantage to offer a way out. The second approach is fairly simple and straightforward: Dashboard can't own a page in Wikipedia, thus exclude it from operations on Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The dashboard only makes edits on behalf of logged-in users. You must log in to Wikipedia in order to log in to dashboard.wikiedu.org, and we expect instructors to be responsive to problems that come up related to their courses. If you run into trouble with an unresponsive instructor, you can ping a Wiki Ed staff member and/or post to WP:ENI. The 'owned' dashboard pages on Wikipedia are a convenience for other editors to easily connect the dots with active courses. It would be easy to change the system such that it only posted essentially an initial version, and then made no further edits (so that it would never overwrite changes in the meantime), but that would defeat much of the purpose; it would just mean that the on-wiki page would not include up-to-date information about which users are doing what, and what the instructor's latest assignment plan is. I think I'll make some updates to the edit notice (Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wiki Ed) to make it more clear how to address problems (ie, contact the people involved rather than edit the automatically-updated course page). I'm not aware of any problems with these course pages for quite a while, though. The case you noted was more than a year ago.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Spam on my information

Dear Administrator

I am Dr. Rola Dashti and every time I change the info on my page to update it, a user keeps on changing it back to old information stating he knows me. I confirm to you that this person has no relationship with me and ask you to block him and return my update information on the site.

Thank you,

Dr. Rola Dashti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdashti (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPSELF and also WP:COI. It's not advised to edit articles about yourself except to fix obvious errors. Instead use the talk page. Notably while it's best not to add information period, you definitely should not be adding information without a WP:Reliable source supporting that info. It doesn't matter that you know it to be correct because it's about yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I've given Arjayay a shout about this as he's tried to give SDashi a hand with this. [95] [96] standard appears to have been done for this situation, I think. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 12:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I have removed all unsourced information from the article per WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"); if anybody wants to re-add the information, include an in-line citation to a reliable source. When a living person complains about an article on Wikipedia they had no hand in creating, it's best to go easy and not Twinkle spam them, as it can be contentious and upsetting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sdashti claims "a user keeps on changing it back to old information stating he knows me. I confirm to you that this person has no relationship with me" - Could she please show where anyone has stated that they know her? - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Per WP:REALNAME I have blocked the thread starter until they provide identification that they are in fact Rola Dashti. Since the subject is a government minister, I think it's best to be careful when someone claims to be her. Regards SoWhy 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• And first female MP elected to the Kuwaiti parliament, no less. Good call. El_C 04:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The responses to this thread and the messages on the users talk page are a wonderful example of the complete and utter disrespect with which potential article subjects are treated (see Jimbo's talk page for a long discussion and prepare for another daily mail article). The first response encourages the user to read a couple unhelpful essays, the talk page is splattered with impersonal templates (2 of them right in a row!), and finally the user is blocked, with a note to appeal to a volunteer-run email system. Now of course there are genuine concerns of gaming, but this type of situation needs an immediate improvement from the community. More of Yngvadottir's approach is needed. 2600:100C:B225:377D:7829:F085:9E40:D72 (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody was disrespected. Instead we respect Dr Dashti and want to make sure she's not being impersonated. You cannot expect that a) editors take any claim of identity on face value (that would open all floodgates to abuse) and b) a site run by volunteers to run a non-volunteer email system. Kleuske (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've now updated the article; it had gathered some dust. I'm tempted to try to e-mail Rola Dashti. But since I have used up my IAR unblocks for this lifetime, could I request admin consideration of unblocking Sdashti? There is a vanishingly small likelihood she is not who she says she is, the user name is by no means an obvious impersonation, the user can always be blocked in future should there be any threat to the encyclopedia, and I would really like her to help us out with Arabic references for her career, quite apart from the help she could give us with other Kuwaiti figures (Hind Sabih Al-Sabih is still a red link, for one). Yngvadottir (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

BLPSELF is not an essay and explicitly deals with the situation of people editing articles on themselves. And I also explicitly summarised the key points here, namely that they should not be directly editing articles about themselves. Like it or not, people editing articles on themselves often leads to trouble for them so there are good reasons why it's strongly discouraged. I did explicitly check their contrib history and noticed that they were adding information without sources hence my last comment.

I did consider saying something like "I know this may be frustrating and confusing, but it doesn't matter...." And similarly I did consider repeating what I'd already said namely the need for reliable sources but I can be very repetitive and know it doesn't always help. Especially when my message gets too long and there's something else it'll probably be better they read (or they're just not going to read the whole thing), this is perhaps a good example of that. Likewise I did consider mentioning something like their hopeful knowledge of reliable sources covering them but wasn't sure this was that useful, after all plenty of people know a fair a bit about them but probably don't really know what reliable sources cover that info. Especially reliable sources we will accept, since for example if a person received an award they may a photo of the award or them receiving it, but it's not generally something we will accept. (And yes I have seen similar things before e.g. someone wanting to use their passport to show something.)

Perhaps the most significant point is that there's no easy way to tell people "as much as you may understandably hate it, the article on you will only generally contain what info we can reliably source". I'm unconvinced being gentle about it is necessarily better than being direct. Notably there is always a risk an editor may feel your being patronising or treating them like an idiot who can't read or understand stuff for themselves if you specify in great deal what what they should and shouldn't do. (This doesn't mean I'm discouraging anyone from acting in a certain way, rather simply pointing out it's always difficult to say what works best since it's going to depend on the individual.)

The only thing I do agree is I'm not sure there's a need for the block here. Unless things have seriously changed since I used to frequent WP:BLP/N, we do not block people when they claim to be the subject when they are editing under a different name or as is commonly the case, an IP. While I can understand the need for the general policy on usernames, I don't see the need for it to apply here considering the only thing the editor is doing is basically the same thing namely dealing with an article on themselves. There's no reason why someone with part of their likely real name editing an article on themselves or talking about it creates significantly more risk of harm to the real life reputation than someone editing with an IP but who has also declared so. (There may be some minor greater risk in that lazy media are more likely to notice it.) Of course if the editor starts making questionable edits elsewhere we can re-visit.

Besides that, the one thing we hopefully all agree we do need to do when dealing with article subjects is as far as possible, make sure we address any concerns they do have as reasonably as possible. This means of course we should make sure info in article is well sources. I admit I didn't do that here, I didn't feel I had the time. But I don't think we should expect people only reply when they do so, that could easily leave subjects with zero help. In a volunteer run project there are always going to be limits of how much help a person receives in cleaning up an article on themselves. For example, a week or 2 ago, I dealt with this article Branimir Štulić as best I could by removing the info which seemed unsourced after complaints from someone who said they were representing the article's subject. It seemed and still seems a lot of the other info is disputed, unfortunately since it appears sourced and most of it is in Serbian or Croatian neither of which I understand, it's difficult for me to deal with the rest. This may not be a satisfactory outcome, but until and unless someone with the necessary knowledge (to check sources and confirms their sufficiently reliable especially for a BLP) helps, there's not much more that can be done.

I'd note that while the article on a government minister from Kuwait is probably more important to wikipedia than an article on a singer who's a cult hit in the former Yugoslavia but not so well known elsewhere, from the subject's POV it's equally important that they're dealt with. And in fact the problems in the article I dealt with seem to be more pressing since it seems the subject actively disputes them rather than the info just being outdated. Again this doesn't mean I'm faulting anyone for what they have and haven't done but rather pointing out as a volunteer run project there are always going to be limits on our help which will be understandably frustrating to subjects.

Incidentally, while I can't be sure, I get the feeling that at least some aspects of the other BLP dispute I mentioned are never going to be dealt with to the satisfaction of the subject simply because of our requirements and even if I'm wrong about that case the general principle definitely isn't namely there can never be an entirely satisfactory outcome for all subjects.

Finally while it's always helpful to look at a situation which seems to have gone wrong, e.g. by media reports, we also have to take care not to read too much into something just because there was a big fuss. Sure in that case maybe things would have been better if handled differently, in other cases maybe that other option would have been the worse choice. Relying on outliers to decide on what should be done tends to lead to bad outcomes. Instead you need a more wholesale analysis and also need to accept that whatever option you choose there's always going to be a case where if fails even if you follow it perfectly simply because that solution doesn't work for everyone and it's impossible to entirely accurately predict what will work.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Fashion Architecture Taste

BLOCKED:

Per NLT, sock master and poppet tagged. --QEDK (愛) 06:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

User:Emmasomersetdavis who is adding promotional material about herself at Fashion Architecture Taste has threatened legal action here [[97]]. Theroadislong (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a fairly obvious legal threat so blocked. Still worth reviewing the article to make sure its sourced appropriately though. Amortias (T)(C) 20:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The sourcing is solid. I've cleaned up the refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amortias: She has now created a new account here User:EmmaSomDavis Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emmasomersetdavis. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The sock account has been blocked for evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk)

---

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

User Druddigon Requests a Standard Offer

Druddigon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Druddigon is requesting a standard offer on their talk page. This user has a long history including as a prolific sock-master. However someone at UTRS, after checking with CU has concluded that their request deserves some consideration and has restored their ability to edit their talk page for the purposes of this appeal. Druddigon claims they have not socked in more than two years, and expresses remorse for past behavior. Additionally they claim to have been a constructive contributor at Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. As far as I am aware they are indefinitely blocked, not banned, but given their background I am unwilling to grant this request unilaterally. Therefore I am placing this before the community for a final decision. Please be aware that Druddigon does not have the ability to post anywhere other than on their talk page. Questions should be posted there though in order to keep things somewhat orderly it would be best if actual discussion was kept here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note: For those who aren't aware, this account was previously known as Mr Wiki Pro, and was renamed in 2015. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• The admin who imposed the block — JzG — may have comments. Neutrality^talk 05:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Just Chilling: To clarify, does CU evidence suggest that there was no evident socking? @Ad Orientem: I trust you've verified all their claims? --QEDK (愛) 05:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

CU support the user being enabled to make this application and would not have done so if there was evidence of recent socking. However, it is not possible for anyone to prove a negative. Just Chilling (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am skeptical, but have no fundamental objections. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Although I am extremely hesitant when it comes to unblocking editors who have a significant history of profilic socking, this does appear to be a case where accepting the standard offer could be beneficial for the encyclopedia. Druddigon now has over 800 edits on Commons and over 11k on Simple and I don't see any significant problems on either wiki that would result in us declining their appeal. So I would support an unblock with the caveat that a reblock would be swift if there is any subsequent disruption.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm sceptical but I wouldn't mind this user getting a second chance. Put simply, I'm in support of an unblock.--QEDK (愛) 05:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• I note reservations expressed above, but would be willing to give a second chance; unblock therefore supported, with the proviso that further behavior which led to the current block would result in an immediate re-imposition of block.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Having done a lot of the cleaning up back when the socking was going on, I am also quite skeptical. However, I've looked at some of their work on other projects, and though I still see a bit of immaturity, it's no worse than what I sometimes see out of productive editors here. I supported the return of their talk page[98], and for the moment, I can't in good faith stand in the way of unblocking. As mentioned above, though, any disruption will lead to a swift reblock. Good luck. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I plan to leave this discussion open for at least the rest of the day, but so far there seems no opposition. If that remains the case I will likely unblock them either tonight or tomorrow. The unblock will be conditional on good behavior and with a stipulation that any return to disruptive editing/socking will result in an immediate re-block (indefinite). For the record, I also support unblocking subject to already discussed conditions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Check on David Rozenblatt

I was about to log off when i ran into this highly promotional revision of the page David Rozenblatt and ended up cleaning it up a bit. A quick check of the content indicates there is a lot of BLPRelated though: quite a few claim to notability seem to be unrelated to David Rozenblatt as a person (eg: He wrote the music for a ballet piece that won the "Best Actress" award or he was a member of an ensemble that was nominated for an award). The added sources - aside from self-published ones - seem to dedicate a line to him at most and a quick google search seems to turn up absolutely nothing which is quite unusual seeing the sheer amount of notability claims in the article.

The article on my list to look into sometime later this week, but if someone would happen to have a few spare minutes to have a look at this (If just for a sanity check - it IS rather later for me after all!) it'd be appreciated. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality and establishing reliable sources for article that address possible mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup

I'm writing you to receive guidance in how to deal with a dispute I have with the editor Zefr regarding my contribution to the High-fructose corn syrup article. I have attempted to resolve this using the High Fructose Corn Syrup talk page and Wikipedia’s third opinion, with little success and now would like to turn to you for help.

In the past weeks or so I have tried to contribute multiple times (March 8, March 11, March 14) to an article about High-fructose corn syrup in the section titled "Safety and Manufacturing Concerns" (original title was Manufacturing Contaminants). This section discusses the possible of mercury contamination of HFCS. I tried to remain neutral’' in my contribution by presenting "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" In this case it was towards contamination of mercury in products that contain HFCS. I wrote about research that both has found traces of mercury, as well as research that has found no traces of mercury. The research that found traces were conducted in 2009 [99] [100] and 2010 [101] and were supported by Scientific journals’’ . The research that has found no traces of mercury is the "Duke study" [102] The "Duke study" is A) a Popular press’’ and not Scientific journals’' B) not the most recent study in this debate C) Somewhat biased for it was commissioned on behalf of the Corn Refiners Association. I have tried multiple times to add meaningful contribution to this article that takes all this science into account. Yet at each time an editor by the name Zefr would revert my work (reverted on March 8, reverted on march 11,reverted on march 14). I will admit that initially I added a lot and went into details about the studies, and I understand that Wikipedia is not WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. But I thought my most recent contributions was succinct and addressed all concerns brought up by Zefr on Talk:High-fructose_corn_syrup. Yet each time he reverts my contribution with the exception of the Duke study [103] which is I contend is biased, not recent and not supported by a proper citation.

He recently redid the entire section changing the name from “manufacturing contaminants” to “safety and manufacturing concerns”. He has added the Duke Citations to the text twice, with a preface that HFCS is safe for consumption, and has added text that is not supported by citations. He won’t allow me to add peer-reviewed studies with relevant information to this article.

The editor Zefr, in my view, is not maintaining a neutral. He has reverted all of my additions dealing with mercury contamination in HFCS, and I would like help resolving this situation so that Wikipedia can provide readers a fair point of view on this controversial topic. Thatwhoiswise (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, this is the Administrative Incidents noticeboard—we generally don't weigh on content disputes here. From what I gather, you are being reverted due to your sources not being at par with the Identifying reliable sources in medicine guideline. So, you can look for better sources while you continue to discuss the issue on the talk page; you can also try listing an RFC (and anything else on the dispute resolution spectrum). El_C 04:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral Point of View Noticeboard and/or Reliable Sources Noticeboard are the places you probably want. I would try RSN first as it appears your content additions are being reverted based on the sources used, and RSN has a number of experienced editors who can assess the material used in context with the sources provided. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• It's a sticky situation. EEng 05:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Like corn syrup (hold the mercury!). El_C 10:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Did I unthinkingly deploy the expression 'sticky situation' in a thread which just happens to be about a substance that actually is sticky? I didn't realize. EEng 10:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't think too hard on it, or the seriousness of this board may become unstuck. Blackmane (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are some sweet puns, yall! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Corny ones, at least. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm good points all, I will vegetate on this. Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Percy Allen De Zylva Karunaratne

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

---

User:Jamesesquire has repeatedly removed a speedy deletion notice from the article, Percy Allen De Zylva Karunaratne, without providing any valid reason or addressing the fundamental issue of notability. I have warned him about the removing the deletion notice on each occasion however he has continued to ignore these warnings. A search of his talk history reveals that the article has previously been deleted - during the process he also removed the speedy deletion notice. The same draft article was declined at article creation for the issue of notability, or lack thereof however the user has created the article anyway. Dan arndt (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like his biggest claim to fame is becoming part of Gray's Inn, however there's nothing in the article to back this up and the article doesn't say anything about him practicing in England and Wales. It says that he was sworn in after he returned to Ceylon, which is most certainly not in England. From what I can see, the Brits haven't ruled over Sri Lanka since the 40s so there's no reason why he would be sworn in to a British Inn of Court for a company that is currently independent and was at the time of his alleged swearing in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• It looks like a foreign person may be able to join, but a look at the website for Gray's Inn shows that it's not something that would give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• I ended up just blocking them after seeing that they were vandalizing Dan's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Might want to remove talk page access [104]. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

TPA revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Mlpearc, edit warring and communication style

Mlpearc (talk · contribs) is a long standing and prolific editor who works in anti-vandalism and maintenance areas of articles. Over time, I have become frustrated that he turns innocuous and mild content disputes into heated edit wars by reverting content without explanation and leaving little to no discussion beyond the standard Twinkle boilerplate and inaccurate accusations of vandalism. These issues were present in his RfA in 2012 (eg: oppose #3) and I brought up some examples at his ORCP about six months ago. Most recently, I have seen him getting into an unnecessary quarrel on User talk:SquidandStag, where he accused the other party of harrassment and filed an AIV report over it, leading me to decline the report, explain the edits weren't vandalism, and calm everybody down.

The latest feud is in Atom Heart Mother; now having done significant work on this article, including the original GA review, I fully get that IPs turning up and changing the "genre" field in the infobox again, again, again and again is worthy of WP:LAME, and I'm not exactly a saint in this regard, as I have tended to revert with occasional "not this again" edit summaries (I'd argue "not this again" is at least a reason, albeit a bad one; whereas the Twinkle "reverted edits by" message isn't). However, as soon as somebody presents the Daily Telegraph as a source justifying a change, that is sufficient grounds for leaving it and having a discussion. But this doesn't seem to be enough for Mlpearc, who wanders in and reverts it. Elsewhere, I see he's picking a fight with an IP over an edit on Electric guitar which I felt was a reasonable copyedit. Then there's the thread below it, discussing whether it's appropriate to say that Syd Barrett remained a professional musician as late as 1974, which is brushed off without assuming as much good faith as I'd like.

I have attempted to discuss this with Mlpearc in the past, as his talk page asserts he is only human and opened to reasoned debate about possible errors (which is good). Unfortunately, my edits got reverted, so I've given up. Now I find Mlpearc has created a page User:Mlpearc/Admin stalkers with a link to one of my comments on it; I don't know whether he's keeping a handy record of archived conversations, collecting "evidence" to drag me to ANI himself, or something else.

I'm not looking for any blocks or bans (they have a tendency to boomerang and he works in the same topic areas as me so I'd trip up on an interaction ban all over the place); indeed, most of the time I'd say Mlpearc's article-space edits are right, or at least justifiable on their merits. Rather I've just got a bit frazzled trying to explain to Mlpearc how he can be a better editor all-round, and I'd like to ask the community what we can do about this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, he's been struggling with SPI/Iloveartrock, but that subpage, which I deleted, is definitely inappropriate. I'll drop him a note. El_C 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• On the narrow issue of the "Electric guitar" revert--I agree that the IP's edit was positive. It is true that no sources were added, but most of it was copyediting, and I didn't really see "opinion" in there, so the edit summary, "unsourced personal opinions", was not correct. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I must say, I have always found Mlpearc to be courteous and reasonable. Are there any examples of others taking issue with his conduct? If not, I'm wondering if this may just be a personal issue between the two of you. Sometimes people just don't get along. Might it be that Mlpearc doesn't think you're the right person to be giving him advice on "how he can be a better editor all-round", which does sound a little patronising? Although I agree that the page deleted by El C bore an unfortunate title, it does reflect that Mlpearc is (rightly or wrongly) being made uncomfortable by the attention he is receiving form you. I don't think an interaction ban makes sense either, but maybe you should disengage for a while? WJBscribe (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any examples of others taking issue with his conduct? Absolutely; here are some recent examples :

• Im fed up with being victimised on wiki when all i want to do is help!!
• It's on YouTube look at his Documents and his Biography Shine On You Crazy Diamond. (reply : "YouTube is not a reliable source, either find a good source or leave it out, simple" - YouTube is usually not a reliable source but can be in some context eg: official channels for speech transcript; no comment was made on the book)
• For your information, I have been an admin in former times, and at one time was in the top few hundred contributors and so am more than experienced at WP editing. I am not current with the present editorial politics, and, indeed, it was changes in those politics which caused me to go on an extended Wiki-vacation. If those changes have continued the trend I noticed then, I suspect I am likely to vacation myself again.
• Mlpearc, you're ignorant; You've done this more than once; Stop disrupting my editing or I'll report you. (Incivil, yes, but with a legitimate point behind this)
• I do not know what I have been doing to articles that is upsetting you, but I suggest you stop trying to attack me. There is really no need for this bombardment.

And that's just from the past week! I want to emphasise that I personally have never had issue with Mlpearc; I don't believe he's ever reverted any mainspace edits of mine and indeed on occasion I have been happy for him to make an edit so I didn't have to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than taking the above diffs at face value, editors should look at the complaining editors' edits and decide if Mlpearc's responses were reasonable. Active recent change patrollers are going to get many complaints like these. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what I did; had I concluded every comment was in response to a bad-faith or disruptive edit, I would not have come here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So, for example, making this revert and asking for sources is a legitimate conduct issue? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a note: Not a feud, I call it maintaining the project - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here, editors make bad, poor, or questionable edits, and they get removed, then they complain. There seems to be a lot of warring over music genres by throwaway IP users, like what's going on at Atom Heart Mother right now, they have to get their favorite sub-sub-sub-genre in because one writer used a word in one article. ValarianB (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Bad, poor or questionable" in whose view? Yours? Mine? Jimbo Wales? The Daily Mail's? Let me try and explain where I'm coming on in one of the examples here : Atom Heart Mother is assessed as GA, but looking at it now it probably doesn't actually meet the GA criteria - in fairness it was one of my first GAs back in 2012 and so obviously doesn't come up to the standard I would deploy these days. The most obvious problem is the snippets of unsourced content; most of the claims can be cited to the various Floyd biographies relatively easily. The prose needs tidying up a bit, there are a few buzz-words like "notable" that I don't really like to see in prose. The citation format is inconsistent, particularly in the "Live performances" section where there are citations given as bare URL links, and what does "performances by other forces" mean? Elsewhere, I would prefer all of the book sources to use {{sfn}} / {{harvnb}} as it means pulling out citations to multiple pages in the same book source is more convenient. All of the above is more important than reverting back and forth over the "genre" field in the infobox (and yes ValarianB, you are edit-warring in that article, mind you don't do 4 reverts inside 24 hours and get blocked for it!), for which I do not personally give a flying toss what is in the field as long as it looks vaguely sensible. I think Beyond My Ken said it best here : "Start with an article that looks like shit and reads like it was written by a high-school dropout. A hundred edits later, take another look at the article – and it still looks and reads like shit. .... This is the problem with eventualism: it assumes that, somewhere along the way, someone's actually going to fix the real problems and not just niggle around the edges." I appreciate it's unfair to lump this entire problem at Mlpearc's door as he can't be held responsible for the entire ills of Wikipedia, but I do wonder sometimes if I'm just talking like a batshit insane lunatic for having these views? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, you're not batshit insane; I mean, you're on the spectrum somewhere but so am I. Big deal. I sense frustration on everyone's part here and we're pretty much all on the same side. I'm thinking some time off...concentrating on other areas...the usual (or only) therapies available to us. I'm not dismissing your concerns, Ritchie, but none of us that spend a lot of time here have it easy. Again, general observation(s); dodging the crux 'cause I see both sides have merit. Tiderolls 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree @Tide rolls: my honey-do lists get longer in the summer so I'll have some time off and thank you @Ritchie333: for starting this thread, seems we'll all benefit . ValarianB I agree, there are sooo many new sub-genre's popping up everyday it seems and everyone want's their favorite bands and genre to get married, there were some sub-genre's being added to Pink Floyd that weren't even thought of when their music was released, anyway, Cheers all, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

ODEL

• ODEL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An editor is trying to rewrite the history of the article on ODEL to allegedly match the views of the current owner of the company. I have tried to reason/explain to the editor that Wikipedia is independent and not prescribed by private companies dictates. However they continue to disregard my advice and remove properly referenced material. In fact is now threatening that the company will take action to enforce its views of the history of the company. Dan arndt (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also, it is coming a bit too close to a legal threat, but we'll see if they can be reasoned with. El_C 11:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I warned the user in question about NLT and COI policies. Hope that helps. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Extra points for saying this store is "attracting unprecedented footfalls". EEng 18:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• And I learn a new word. El_C 18:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the name of the company "ODEL" or "Odel"? If the former, than that should be used throughout the article. If that's just a stylization, and the actual name is "Odel", then the article should be moved to "Odel", and that form should be used throughout, including in the lede and infobox. Right now ths mixture of forms is confusing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, article should be moved to Odel.--Darth Mike^(talk) 19:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and made that move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User:13lasagnae

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

---

Please delete his userpage! It's offensive! 89.71.21.41 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't offend....well ever honestly, but it's vandalism and I deleted the page (and it's the only edit the user has too). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User is also indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

TBAN for Korvex from biblical archeology

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

Korvex is a pure WP:SPA for biblical archeology topics, who brings a strong POV of Biblical maximalism to Wikipedia (the view that the narratives in the Bible is actual history).

Per their edit count they have 364 edits since they opened their account in October 2016. ~200 of them are to article Talk and ~90 are to articles themselves.

Korvex almost exclusively cites things by Bryant G. Wood published on the website of Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) where Wood is research director. ABR describes itself as a ministry and links to the "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" in its "about" page.

Others have added bad content cited to ABR as well. For instance an IP added content here sourced to this page at the ABR website, which has a video explaining why their work is essential -- namely "This (uncertainty) has led scholars to reject the historicity of the account of the capture of Ai, the Conquest in general, the Exodus by implication, and ultimately, the Gospel of God's Son." (clears throat)

Sample edits:

• first edit was to The Exodus, added content arguing for historicity of the event, citing 2 postings by Wood at the ABR website. That edit was reverted.

• second edit was to Book of Exodus, removing the word "myth", changing BCE to BC (oy), adding content that makes the argument that the whole Torah must be very old because of a very old tiny scroll with a few verses found on it, adding some OR cited to some bible verses. It was reverted.

• next edits were to Talk:Exodus (a disambig page_ arguing for their edits at The Exodus.

• next edits added content to the The Exodus "proving" that it happened, which was reverted. Korvex restored. It was reverted again. An IP then showed up the next day and blanked 2 sections on archeology. Which was reverted.
• next edit argued for that change on the correct Talk page. and also went to the User talk pages of two editors who had reverted them, User:Isambard Kingdom (diff) and User:Doug Weller (diff), in each of which he argues to support his edit with a blog posting on.... the ABR website.

You are getting the picture. The rest is more of the same.

This posting is prompted by Korvex's recent fixing on Ai (Canaan), a city discussed in the bible as being conquered by Joshua, which scholars/archeologists have not been able to find any definitive RW site for. Korvex's hero Bryant Wood believes that Ai is current day Khirbet el-Maqatir; hardly anybody else thinks so, but Korvex wants to give significant WEIGHT to that (like this (reverted by Guy here; restored in part by Korvex here (mentioning Wood in the edit note); reverted here by me.

Korvex showed up a month later and added another Wood ref here out of an edited book, trying to argue that this was independent of ABR. I reverted, Korvex restored, I removed again.

We rejected that source, as edited book chapters are often not solid scholarly works and after a lot of drama on Talk we encouraged him to go RSN, which he did, and where the source was shot down.

Korvex showed up again 2 days ago and did this, reverted by Doug Weller here, restored by Korvex here, reverted by User:Drmies here, restored by Korvex here, reverted by me here.

All though this Korvex has been BLUDGEONing the heck out of the talk page (talk page revision stats here; just their contribs here) not to mention leaving notes on my user Talk page like this (about a bogus edit war warning from another misguided editor).

Korvex is becoming a time sink. They are not WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but are a SPA Advocate for biblical historicity in biblical archeology, and are doing the typical things like bringing poor sources, edit warring to try to keep them, and battering the talk page. Am asking the community to consider a TBAN from biblical archeology.Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Biblical archaeology is far from something I know a great deal about, but I will note that Korvex does seem to be editing with a strong POV. For instance, they changed the fact that Richard Dawkins is separated from his wife to their being divorced, when the source says, quite specifically, that they're separated. He also used a citation from an open access journal, the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, to make a point, without identifying the source, just the author and title of the paper. (An open access journal, of course, would not be acceptable as an RS for anything except the existence of the journal and whatever editorial comments they may make, not for the material published by the journal.) Whether he did that out of ignorance or to hide the source, I don't know. Numerous other edits of his which seemed dicey to me have been reverted by other editors. I think folks who know something about their subject matter should take a closer look at Korvex's editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog makes many obvious errors. Jytdog apparently believes that the "only person" I cite is my "hero" Bryant Wood, but the enormity of this error is great. I've cited countless scholars in my Wiki history in conversations and edits, including 1) George Mendenhall, 2) Christopher Theis, 3) Joshua Berman, 4) Koert Van Bekkum, etc, etc, etc. Jytdog thinking that Wood is the only guy I cite is simply false.

Jytdog then states that my only edits have to do with advancing my narrative on biblical archaeology -- an obvious error. I've made edits that have nothing to do with proving biblical archaeology, including 1) William F. Albright's page (fixing sentences) 2) Eilat Mazar's page and expanding her discoveries 3) Finkelstein's book Bible Unearthed 4) encyclopedia list of online encyclopedias 6) page of Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 7) Yaki Yerushalayim page, etc, etc, etc. Jytdog also makes another funny error when he states I try to source virtually everything Wood has published, but the only work I have ever referred to from Wood is his work on Khirbet el-Maqatir. It is true though, that the majority of my work on Wikipedia has to do with the religion and political state of Israel, as well as Israeli archaeologists. Jytdog's only research seems to be limited to the talk page of Ai (Canaan). Jytdog also makes another grand error when he says no one asides from Wood considers the identification of Ai as Khirbet el-Maqatir, but that's an error for a different page to discuss.

It should be obvious that Jytdog's accusations come from his personal vendetta against me. His post advocating for my ban is full of mockery, and has many personal attacks (that I'm a "sinking time ship"). Jytdog has an obvious personal vendetta, where he believes a few selectively chosen edits of mine being reverted constitutes a ban.

As for Beyond My Ken, someone who is obviously neutral because he posts his comment in a calm tone and tries to judge the situation accordingly, makes good points. I did in fact seem to make an error with the open source journal JHS, and as for Dawkins' page, whether or not the source says "divorce" or "separated", Dawkins was in fact divorced with his third wife. If the source fails to reflect that, we need to get a new source that makes it clear to the reader of Wikipedia that Dawkins wasn't just "separated", a rather ambiguous term, but did in fact get divorced from Lalla Ward. See this for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3694202/Britain-s-highest-profile-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-announces-end-24-year-marriage-Dr-actress-Lalla-Ward.html Korvex (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If a source says something, we report it. If you don't agree with it, you find a different reliable source and then debate it. You don't change it and then try to find a source to fit the claim. Also DM has been determined not to be a reliable source. Try again. --Tarage (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have extensive experience with this editor, but my brief interaction has been unpleasant: I think this editor adheres to fringe scholarship and it seems to me that they try to favor those fringey viewpoints in article space. They also seem to lack a basic understanding of how the editing process here works (note their latest revert and their comment, on Ai (Canaan) and Talk:Ai (Canaan)). Finally OH MY GOD the amount of verbiage they put on these talk pages is enough to drive one insane--and I find such verbosity typical of POV warriors and other tendentious editors/hobbyists/fringe inhabitants. So sure, I support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • PS If Korvex would only refrain from edit warring (it may be that they just don't really understand how that BRD thing works, or consensus, or whatever) they'd be in a lot less trouble. If they figure that out, or make certain promises, I might reconsider. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• In line with what the other editors here have said, Korvex's editing history has created a large amount of work for other editors. Most of Korvex's edits are not to wikipedia pages themselves, but to talk pages, where (in most cases) the result is a long and unproductive disagreement, with Korvex on one side and every other editor on the other. I have several times been one of the "other editors" in the long, drawn-out "Korvex contra mundum sessions." Korvex is focused either exclusively or almost exclusively on topics related to religion, and in general edits in an attempt to move the articles further in line with a maximalist (i.e. religiously conservative) position. In general, discussions between Korvex and other editors do not reach a resolution, and are filled with long, tedious, and consistently disrespectful posts by Korvex, in which Korvex frequently (I assume accidentally) misrepresents the contents of various cited sources and misrepresents the meaning of Wikipedia policy pages. Korvex probably has the ability to contribute to Wikipedia constructively outside of fields related to the historicity of the Bible, but given that their editing history is one long campaign of POV-pushing, often with a tone that appears to be uncivil filibustering, a TBAN would be appropriate. Otherwise, Korvex is likely to prove disruptive in the future and distract from the goal of building an encyclopaedia. If they continue editing in the present manner, other editors will be faced with the choice of either (1) repeatedly having long fruitless discussions with an angry editor, or (2) simply giving up and allowing biased editing to avoid drama. Alephb (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I support a TBAN for religion (best) but if that's determined to be too broad, I would support a TBAN for biblical history, biblical historicity, biblical studies, and/or biblical archaeology. Alephb (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC) PS: and/or ancient Egypt and the near East, broadly constructed. That would work too. Alephb (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support for TBAN Removing neutral dating and adding christocentric dating in an article on Judaism would be enough in itself to warrant a ban, even without all the other stuff. IMO, we have far too much tolerance for both civil and uncivil POV-pushers in this particular area. He doesn't like me naming him, but everyone probably knows who I'm talking about when I say we had a massively disruptive POV-pusher operating in this area for far longer than he should have been, with the admin corps apparently afraid to do much about him until he started calling evolutionists and secularists Nazis. (In case anyone doesn't know, ask Bishonen.) As far as I am concerned, the sooner problems involving the early books of the Hebrew Bible and their relationship to archeology, geology, biology and history are discovered and dealt with, the better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I think the ban should be from ancient Egypt and the Near East, broadly construed. The TBAN parameters as proposed by Jytdog are far too narrow, and actually wouldn't cover a significant amount of the disruptive behaviour described. Richard Dawkins' marital status is so far removed from the rest that I think the only way it could be covered is with a TBAN from "religion", if that's seen as necessary, but most of the other stuff appears to fall within "ancient Egypt and the Near East", though not necessarily biblical archeology. Bickering over the definition of the word "myth", for instance, has nothing whatsoever to do with archeology, and he was doing it on an article about an ancient text, which would not necessarily fall within the proposed parameters either. Ditto for the christocentric dating in an article on a Jewish topic, in contravention of WP:ERA (which has nothing whatsoever to do with archeology, and he could easily keep doing it under the proposed ban). That, plus I'm not a fan of the term "biblical archeology" to begin with -- it's dated terminology that cedes too much ground to users with the same POV as Korvex: as Christine Hayes says And it was explicitly referred to as biblical archaeology — an interesting name, because it suggests that the archaeologists were out there searching for evidence that would verify the details of the biblical text. We're doing biblical archaeology; archeology in support of the biblical text. [...] Increasingly, practitioners of what was now being termed Palestinian archaeology, or Ancient Near Eastern archaeology, or archaeology of the Levant, rather than biblical archaeology — some of these archaeologists grew disinterested in pointing out the correlations between the archaeological data and the biblical stories or in trying to explain away any discrepancies in order to keep the biblical text intact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: @Alephb: @Drmies: @Jytdog: Per my post above and Doug Weller's below, the original proposed TBAN parameter (in the thread title) doesn't appear to be broad/clear enough. Could you clarify what topic (Near Eastern [biblical] archeology; biblical history; ancient Egypt and the Near East; religion) you think Korvex should be banned from? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Consider the other side These "long and unproductive" debates have only happened with me on three single pages so far as I'm concerned. 1) Exodus 2) Ai (Canaan) 3) Book of Deuteronomy. In my initial post, I've shown 6 pages where I have made edits with either zero debate on the talk page or at most, 2 short responses, which shows the good majority of my edits have gone smoothly. I can show much more than 6, of course. Regarding my "bickering" over the word myth, that is actually a serious issue where Aleph insists on literally labeling the position of Wikipedia as the first five biblical books as fiction. This to me is unacceptable, an error, and of COURSE I have responded to it. It's hard to imagine I'd be banned from all discussion on religion because of drawn-out discussion on three pages (seriously) that have almost all ended. Lastly, if Tarage can direct me to a place where Daily Mail was deduced as unreliable, by Wikipedia standards, I would accept that. But again, producing a ban because of drawn out discussion on three pages (where two of it has entirely ceased for some time) seems rather unnecessary. Someone said I should be banned "just" for switching BCE to BC, but that was literally my first or second edit in the entirety of my Wikipedia account where I had just started editing and did not know about WP:ERA. I'd also accept from refraining edits in those 3 pages where I'm prone to engaging in debates for the next month or so, if that makes a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

For anyone trying to follow along, the reference to "Aleph" in the paragraph above is about this edit by Korvex [105], which I reverted [106]. This has spawned the latest exchange here, which went on while this ANI was already in progress: Talk:Mosaic authorship#Charter myth and recent undid edit. Alephb (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, if you push a fringe theory or make antisemitic, offensive, or non-NPOV edits, it doesn't matter how often other users have challenged you and you have fought back, resulting in "long and unproductive debates". Twice should be enough, but even by your own admission it has happened on three separate pages. If you are not a POV-pushing SPA, that should be the easiest thing in the world for you to prove; yet you have to resort to counting the number of articles on which you have gotten in massive blowouts with other editors -- what does this say? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, here´s the Daily Mail thing you wanted: [107]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've had the opportunity to interact with Korvex on one of the pages in question. I'm sure some of you are waiting for me to waffle about how he's not that bad, and a stern warning should be enough. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint, but based on what I've seen I must strongly Support a TBAN from articles on biblical history or ancient Egypt and the near East. I crossed the line of "give them another chance" when I saw them say "The exodus happened, end of discussion." And if you think that's bad (and you have any knowledge of the subject), take a look at the logic they used to arrive at that conclusion. It makes my brain itch to know that someone actually thought that was a compelling argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor MjolnirPants: It seems as if my ban on 'religion' is inevitable, but I have without question established my case for the exodus. You were unable to refute my contentions, and using our personal debate to ban me seems unproductive. You have 1) Tried to explain the Book of Exodus' vast knowledge on the geography and customs of Egypt with "maps" 2) Spent an unfortunate amount of time trying to defend the claim that nomadic migrations leave remains, after being conclusively shown to be false 3) Called Petrovich a "fringe scholar" until of course I brought up his actual credentials and 4) Conflated the abandonment of Avaris during the reign of Ahmose I with the abandonment of Avaris in the reign of Amenhotep II. So, you were indeed wrong about that, but again, this conversation had nothing to do with any actual edits -- I specifically stated my debate with you was to show your claims were wrong and that I also had no intention of adding the content I espoused into the Wiki page. You were simply incorrect about the historicity of the Exodus with me, as I was incorrect about the validity of Murdock's quote or whatnot on that mythicism page. I have offered you an opportunity to defend your responses on my Talk Page, but you were unable to because of points 1-4 that I mentioned here. And for the third time, using a personal conversation with someone to ban them from edits is not the way to do things (but again, the ban looks inevitable as of now). If you want to ever claim that I was speaking any factual errors in our personal conversation, you're going to have to bring the evidence to my Talk Page.

In light of MP's ("MPs'"?) comments in another discussion further up this page, the above should be taken pretty seriously. I'm sure some of you are waiting for me to waffle about how he's not that bad, and a stern warning should be enough is right. MP is one of the most patient, forgiving users I have seen editing in this area, so his coming down as he is here is noteworthy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

MP's would be the correct choice. MPs would be something completely different. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. This kind of user causes burnout because they are here to mould the encyclopaedia to fit their own worldview, and they don't permit of the possibility that their worldview is wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support a TBAN from articles on biblical history or ancient Egypt and the near East. and given his edits at Dawkins, religion. One of the issues I've had with him is misrepresenting sources. His Dawkins edits are a good example of that. First he changes "separated" to "divorced" with an edit summary "Separation is an ambiguous term and fails to reflect it was an actual divorce)". This despite the fact that the source makes no mention of divorce. He even misrepresents himself. On being accused of pushing Wood he replied that he cites other sources, such as Koert van Bekkum. Now van Bekkum seems to be a reliable source and indeed Korvex did use him, but he used him to add " "However,scholars are not entirely certain that Et-Tell is the location of Ai. Koert van Bekkum says that there is scholarly discussion on the location of several biblical cities, including Ai,[1] citing Bryant G. Wood who has recently come to identify Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir." The paragraph already mentioned Wood, stating that " Bryant G. Wood's identification has been accepted by some[12] although rejected by others." so this simply added another mention of Wood. Not only that, the mention of Wood was in a footnote which said "For literature concerning Ai and the related discussion about the identification of Bethel with el-Bireh in stead of with Beitin (172.148), see D. Livingston, ‘Further Considerations on the Location of Bethel and El-Bireh’, PEQ 126 (1994), 154-9; B.G. Wood, ‘Khirbet el-Maqatir’, IEJ 50 (2000), 123-30; 249-54; for Tel el-Umeiri and Tel Jalul as candidates for Heshbon, see S.H. Horn, ‘Heshbon’, IDBS, 410; Idem, Hesban in the Bible and in Archaeology, Berrien Springs, MI 1982, 10-1; R.D. Ibach, ‘An Intensive Survey at Jalul’, Andrews University Seminary Studies 16 (1978), 215-22; Geraty, ‘Heshbon’, 626." And given that the article was about the city of Ai, the failure to mention what van Bekkum actually said about Ai, "Et-Tell, identified by most scholars with the city of Ai, was not settled between the Early Bronze and Iron Age I." but only use a footnote mentioning Wood seemed to me, in this context, to misrepresent the source. He certainly only used it in order to get another mention fo Wood into the article, making his statement "Jytdog thinking that Wood is the only guy I cite is simply false." looking a bit - well, a bit something. He then at the talk page accused me of suggesting he was lying, something I didn't do. Which is another big problem, his continual personalisation of discussions and attacks on other editors during talk page discussions. These range from accusing User:Tgeorgescu 2 months ago of lying[108] to more recent accusations of slander[109] and another attack on Tgeorgescu[110]. He also accused User:Zero0000 of pov pushihng and misrepresenting our policies and guidelines at Talk:Ai (Canaan)#Bryant Wood and the Associates for Biblical Research.

I could provide more detail about misrepresentation, use of poor sources, WP:UNDUE, personal attacks etc but unless asked I don't want to waste even more time here. They're mentioned or discussed on the talk pages anyway. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• • I just noticed his comments last night at Talk:Mosaic authorship#Charter myth and recent undid edit which are more evidence of his unwillingness to AGF and an evident battleground mentality. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral That's now, but if nothing changes in his behavior, Korvex will receive a TBAN sooner or later, that's unavoidable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support for an indefinite topic ban for this persistent POV-pusher, from biblical archeology — or from biblical history and ancient Egypt and the near East and religion — indeed from any areas that otherwise gain consensus here. I'd ban him on my own responsibility if the subject was under discretionary sanctions, but since it's not, I hope the community will take care of it. The time and energy of constructive editors is Wikipedia's main resource, and is not to be squandered like that. (I know, I'm like a grammophone with that, but it's true.) As JzG says above, this kind of user causes burnout. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I hope you don't mind, but I corrected what looked like a really obvious misprint in the above comment. I guess "bibliographical archeology" is a thing (digging up ancient books like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Codices and the Dunhuang Manuscripts?), but I was 100% certain that wasn't what you meant to write. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Just at Talk:The Exodus he has written close to 20,000 words and shows no sign of slowing down. Moreover, his argumentation is rife with illogic, sophism and misrepresentation of sources. He believes what he believes and arguing against him is useless. He needs to be disappeared from any topic connected to religion and the bible, which includes archaeology of the Middle East and the history of languages. Zero^talk 12:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Zero. That I show "no sign of slowing down" is, I find to be not correct, as all my conversations on the Talk Page of the Exodus have finished. As for the history of languages, I understand religions, but history of languages? Are you referring to Doug's book again, in which the thesis of it has been peer-reviewed and presented to the American Schools of Oriental Research, as well as confirmed by grand scholars like Eugene Merrill? You seem to be trying to take this ban thing from religion and trying to extend over topics that you have not conformed with your personal disagreements with me, and are attempting to extend it over topics that I have made not a single attempt to edit for. Korvex (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• It looks as if the ban is inevitable with so many people against me. I have already admitted that I have had drawn-out conversations (that have all ended by the timing of this post) on three different pages, and perhaps that warrants the ban. But I will in fact defend myself from accusations of actual errors and illogical content that I wanted to add in the edit, as I considered my edits to be true, and therefore wanted to add them into Wikipedia (for examples, Dawkins did in fact get divorced from Lalla, but because the sources used the synonymous word 'separated' in this event, this edit of mine was blocked, and is now considered evidence I'm a POV-pusher). This is not the place to defend my edits, so if anyone thinks I have made factual errors regarding the truth of what I actually wanted to add in Wikipedia can discuss that with me on my talk page. Anyways, I do have a point of view (everybody does), and maybe I have indeed taken it too far twice or thrice. I will accept the verdict of the admins on this issue.Korvex (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Korvex, my question to you is whether this criticism (and I know it's not easy to handle so much of it, sorry) makes any sense to you. Specifically, do you see how the totality of your edits seem to evidence a POV, and how that particular POV is considered fringe? or at least not neutral? or, maybe, less neutral than the non-biblical archeological perspectives? Drmies (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • For me the problem with the Dawkins edits are not so much that you are for some reason now looking at atheists and atheism (given your post at Talk:Atheism) but that you are still misrepresenting sources. We do not decide for ourself what a source "really means" (you didn't say those words but you implied them). This type of use of sources is a constant problem with you. And your reply to Zero about Douglas Petrovich's book is another. You keep making exaggerated statements. His "thesis" has not been peer-reviewed in any way that I recognise, his book has so far not received a review so far as I know other than this one and you haven't produced one, and his thesis, that Hebrew is the basis of the world's oldest alphabet[111][112] is definitely not widely accepted. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, yes, I understand and admit that 2-3 of my edits did in fact POV push. I fully admit this and if I receive a ban, I accept the ban I will be given. I can do nothing my past actions except for admit my mistakes. As for Petrovich, I don't know what this has to do with discussion on my ban but I will respond. Regarding Petrovich as not having his work peer-reviewed, this is incorrect -- Petrovich's publishers have peer-reviewed it. I even found some of his discussion with supporters of the funding of his book to be published that this is correct. It has also been presented to the American Schools of Oriental Research, which is significant and definitely makes it "reliable", because the prestige of the ASOR is not easily equaled by most journals. Doug, you also point out the book only has one 'review' -- but it has already spurred discussion from people who accept it (Eugene Merrill, Sarah Doherty, I think that new chronology guy David Rohl also accepts it, Carr) and from those who do not accept it (Christopher Rollston, Thomas Shneider). Some of these names are pretty big, Doug. If you actually take a look at the current debate existing on the subject, you'll see that the evidence is heavily stacked in favor of Petrovich's side -- I have read all the positive and negative discussion. The proto-consonantal script has names only attested to in the Hebrew language (like Ahisemech), for example. Lastly, I don't know if express.co.uk is considered reliable by Wikipedia, but I found an article there that uses the phrase "their 24-year marriage is at an end" to describe what happened between Dawkins and Lalla. I will not use it to try to make an edit considered the current situation I'm in, but if express.co.uk is considered a reliable source, I will happily send the source to the editor who wants to add it in to Dawkins' page.Korvex (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog linking users to names....again

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

---

So this is close enough to outing that it needs to be looked at by an admin since sanctions were just lifted: [[113]]. 2607:FEA8:2CA0:251:4035:5735:5002:280B (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Bullshit. The username matches the name. A user Sbelknap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making edits citing Steven Belknap? That's not outing, that's a rather obvious COI. Also: please sign in with your regular account, because it is implausible that you don't have one. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Seems like a standard COI notice. What do you expect him to do in this case? El_C 12:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• It does not look like outing to me. It is a valid concern based on on-wiki evidence. ~ GB fan 12:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Not outing. Either a COI issue (which can be discussed further), or an impersonation that needs ending. Either way there is enough cause for concern. Zero^talk 12:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Looking at the IP's past edits, I see they've been targeting Jytdog from almost the start and have been blocked twice. Blocked for another six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• And looking at the contribs from the range provides more evidence of wikihounding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Just so folks know, I cleared that before i posted it, to be sure it was OK. and please note that i did not actually say that the user is the person. it might be a case of IMPERSONATE. I am being careful. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE

I suggest that someone takes a long, hard look at this individual's input including his talk page. Seems to me he is being deliberately obstructive and effectively failing to observe WP:AGF. I notice that he is particularly keen on deleting content without requesting citations or discussing his concerns. That sort of attitude does not help the encyclopaedia. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This complaint is hilariously bad as some of their recent edits. If you take someone to ANI you are supposed to supply proof....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: Could you elaborate on what exactly the issue is with this user's behaviour that you think requires administrator action? Sam Walton (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, BlackJack seems to have simply gone around reverting a whole bunch of WilliamJE's edits that BlackJack simply disagreed with, but which were in no way contrary to any actual Wikipedia policy. Policy does not, for instance, require us to always retain uncited information, and merely add a {{cn}} template rather than removing it outright — policy in fact does permit us to remove uncited information if it's potentially problematic (as, for instance, unsourced aspersions on Michael Ellison's skill as a cricket player). So no, there's no actionable issue here — WilliamJE didn't do anything wrong, but merely did some things BlackJack didn't like. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: You are an extremely experienced editor, and should know that you don't come to ANI with such a vague complaint. I have taken a long hard look at Williams contributions, and while I don't totally see eye to eye with him on all issues, I can assure you he is not being "deliberately obstructive."

I also draw your attention to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. William has over 85,000 edits and deserves more than a templated claim of disruption.

@WilliamJE: In my opinion, best practices are that you should include a citation needed tag rather than simply removing the unreferenced claim (in most cases there may be exceptions but they don't seem to apply here). If a citation is not forthcoming in a reasonable period of time then removal is warranted. I accept the policy permits the outright removal but in the case of good faith inclusion of material, a request for a reference would be a more polite first step.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary here is a breach of WP:CIVIL and this edit is disruptive because (a) he is again rude in the edit summary; (b) the issue should be raised at the talk page and not summarily removed. He has already been blocked, only a few months ago, for disruptive editing and the comments he has made on his own talk page about that block are questionable to say the least. He is too eager to remove content when the "cn" tag should be deployed.

By the way, re Michael Ellison, the necessary citation (i.e., Hodgson, page 16) was already in the article but I had forgotten to add it to that paragraph so he was right that the sole citation there did not cover the entire statement. I would have thought, though, that as he could see the article had been created by "a very experienced editor", it would be polite if nothing else to simply place the tag. But, no, he has to remove the content.

I'm happy to accept the advice given above but, in my opinion, the attitude of this editor leaves much to be desired and he does need to start using the "cn" tag instead of removing content. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats yet again from the same IP

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

---

194.176.105.142 has been blocked on numerous occasions for legal threats, but he's back again doing the same in this edit. It seems to be a static IP, so an ever longer block seems appropriate. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And revdelled. Zero^talk 12:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

ProDuct0339 WP:NOTHERE

ProDuct0339 (talk · contribs)

Likes making userboxes, which is OK, but is creating large amounts of categories and does not see why it's not appropriate and why there are getting nominated. WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR.

Created categories include:

• People who makes Userboxes.
• People who doesn't make Userboxes.
• People who tries to, but not good at making Userboxes.
• God of Userboxes making.
• People who basicly has Userboxitis.
• Etcetera ad nauseam. See contribs for more examples. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Two edits to articlespace- 236 to userspace???? Wow... That does beg an explanation. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not see a serious attempt to discuss the problems with new user (new, unless it is true that he lost the passwords of his three prior accounts. And did not get blocked on them.) The Banner talk 14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Can non-administrators comment here? Whatever. I'd just like to point out that this user has only been editing Wikipedia for exactly one day and 4 minutes; and they are already making category pages left and right? Perhaps this shows sockpuppetry or previous accounts? I think creating categories is a little advanced for a new user. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think if we are to believe that they actually had legitimate previous accounts, they should name said accounts as proof. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

At 09:15 this morning announced 'FUNNY STORY : this is my 4th account, I lost my previous account's passwords. oh well.' — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - I know that we are supposed to AGF, but honestly I don't believe them (or really anybody who says that) without some kind of proof. I think it's especially suspicious because they wrote it after they created useless categories that were obviously going to bring controversy. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In any case, they did say it well before this thread was started. Since that seems to be the crux of the matter- has anyone asked what these previous accounts were? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to assume good faith but I'm going to assume bad faith. </thread>. TimothyJosephWood 14:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. My earliest edits, back in 2004-2005 when I was an impressionable youth, were categorizing and subcategorizing chemistry articles. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's nothing saying that it isn't a long time IP user who created an account specifically to have access to user space. That's not WP:NOTHERE; that's WP:BENEFITS. Besides, it looks like they have blanked the lot of their user categories, so we can probably mass G7 and move on with our lives, all else being equal. TimothyJosephWood 14:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Looking at this users edits, it is pretty clear that the user lacks competence and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps if they really wanted to do work in article space they could address this in an unblock request or give the user a final warning. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Is this user getting notified or are we not going to for a specific reason? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

They were notified. TimothyJosephWood 14:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification. Kleuske (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see that in the history and went ahead and renotified them as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops. They collapsed it (probably deliberately, but I have to AGF) as to make it so nobody would see. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no point clogging CfD with nominations for these frivolous categories. I've mass deleted the lot of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

NotTheFakeJTP at Sasha Banks talk page

NotTheFakeJTP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing my edit request at the Sasha Banks talk page (diff 1, diff 2.

There is a unsourced (as I have repeatedly pointed out, the reference provided does not source that 34 minutes is the longest women's match) sentence in the introduction of the article that is not true. "Together they also set the new record for a women's match at Roadblock: End of the Line in December 2016 at over 34 minutes". Many matches have taken places outside of WWE (where Sasha Banks wrestles) that are longer than 34 minutes, I provided reliable sources for two of them in this diff and this diff.

NotTheFakeJTP responded with this. Granted I did not prove it was the longest WWE women's match of all time, but I did prove it was not the longest women's match of all time. Fair enough, so I file a new edit request asking for the incorrect and unsourced sentence to be removed. Yet this is being repeatedly removed, bizarrely on the grounds that " Please provide sources in your first request that proves that it is the longest women's match in WWE history". I do not need to provide any sources that it is the longest women's match in WWE history, as I am not asking for that change to be made any more.

Please could someone remove the incorrect sentence and issue appropriate guidance to NotTheFakeJTP. Thank you. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A8AF:E235:1649:94DE (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed you did suggest that it was the longest WWE women's match of all time by requesting that "the qualifier "WWE" between 'a' and 'women's'" be added. Your second request was contradictory, which is why I removed it. In addition, you were very quick to take this to ANI without attempting to discuss this on my talk page, as noted in the criterion at the top of this page. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not contradictory. I object to the sentence "Together they also set the new record for a women's match at Roadblock: End of the Line in December 2016 at over 34 minutes", as I have repeatedly stated (and provided sources to prove) longer matches have taken place outside of WWE. My first request was for the *addition* of WWE to, my second request was for the removal of the sentence in its entirety, when you refused to add WWE. Those requests were not contradictory, they both had the aim of the removal (in the first instance by correction) of incorrect information. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A8AF:E235:1649:94DE (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and not a matter for ANI. Please take this to the article talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

He keeps removing my posts from the talk page, as I have provided diffs for! 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A8AF:E235:1649:94DE (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There is my latest protected edit request. I asked for the removal of an unsourced (since the source provided doesn't claim it's the longest match) and incorrect (I provided two sources that prove longer matcher have taken place elsewhere) sentence. This has twice been removed, that is not a content dispute, 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A8AF:E235:1649:94DE (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)