Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 33 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Done}}. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The close has since been rescinded by the closer, so is very much due for closing again. CNC (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 100 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 98 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 98 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 50 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 41 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 38 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 36 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_manager#RfC about the status of this page

(Initiated 35 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 34 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't need a formal closure, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 31 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Soni (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	3	25	28
TfD	0	0	4	0	4
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	75	17	92
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 255 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 78 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 75 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 73 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 34 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Kaunas#Split section "Coat of arms" into individual article

(Initiated 374 days ago on 2 August 2023) – the request to split Kaunas#Coat of arms into a separate article was started more than one year ago and so far it received no support from other users, while two users opposed it. Consequently, I think it is pointless to leave this discussion open and it should be finally closed. -- Pofka (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I would say this was unambiguous enough that an involved close could also have been done. Soni (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

• AKonanykhin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 17 October 2013 ban discussion

A user has requested that a ban recently implemented here be lifted. I must remark that the ban was placed without meeting the formal requirements of WP:BAN, which states that there must be evidence of repeated disruption by a user. The closing admin Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated that they are "cutting and running", going offline for one week.[1] I have no issue with an editor taking a break; but an admin should not make a contentious administrative action if they know they will be unavailable to explain. Before leaving Kudpung refused to explain their actions when I challenged them. Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators are expected to explain their actions. Regrettably, I am unable to discuss the matter with Kudpung, so we are right back here.

The text of the appeal:

I would like to request the lifting of the ban against WikiExperts, that is now archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive254#Community_ban_proposal_for_paid_editing_firm_wikiexperts.us

While I believed we were acting within Wikipedia guidelines beforehand by treating COI disclosure as a suggestion, we respect the community’s decision that COI disclosure must be mandatory for us for anybody from WikiExperts to edit Wikipedia, in addition to all other COI guidelines. Therefore, we will be treating COI guidelines as policy from this point forward.

Until the ban is lifted, we have stopped editing as per the ban’s request, and will only do so once the ban is lifted in accordance to the language within it, which read, “The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases.” Once the ban is lifted, COI disclosure will be followed by anyone who edits in conjunction with WikiExperts.

As the CEO of WikiExperts I am stating here that from this point forward we will comply with the terms set out for lifting the ban. We have already updated our agreements and are in the process of updating our Ethics page on our website in anticipation of this change.

Would you please post my statement at the AN so that we can proceed with the conditions for lifting the ban. Thank you! AKonanykhin (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My greatest concern is that the user was banned without any diffs showing disruptive edits. They were banned for suspicion that they might do something wrong. This shocks the conscience and goes against our principles. In any event, the user has stated that they will adhere to policy and to WP:COI, and will disclose any paid editing. I think it will be better for Wikipedia to encourage this firm to operate in the open rather than driving them underground. We have no practical way to identify their employees, so the ban is a toothless provocation and ensures that these editors will never disclose what they are doing. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Further info from the user:

On Friday, I attempted to communicate our compliance to the Arbitration Board, and its representative User:Roger Davies responded that the better way would be to place it on my Talk Page and ask somebody to add it to AN (see below). Yesterday, I complied with Mr. Davies' recommendation, posting our compliance pledge to my Talk Page and asking the admin Kudpung who enacted the ban to add it to AN. As I had no means to contact him directly, I did so by placing a note on his Talk page, and promptly removing it to avoid accusations of unathorized editing; the full text was only left on my Talk page. In retaliation, Kudpung banned IP address of our Hollywood FL office and greatly expanded the ban to any account "operated or assumed to be by Wikiexperts.com" This wide ban was enacted without any evidence of any violation of any rule by our company, as you rightly observed. I personally was banned without having ever made even a single edit in any WP article.

Thank you for considering his appeal. Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

For completeness, what I wrote was:

"Thanks for your email. We would in all likelihood refer this to the community as it was a community ban decision, with plenty of participation, relating to a hot button topic.

"However, it occurs to me that you can appeal to the community yourself - more quickly - by posting this request yourself on-wiki on your user page, with a note asking for it to be cross-posted to the Administrators Noticeboard."

I have formed no opinion on the merits or demerits of the appeal,  Roger Davies ^talk 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support First a minor point - the AN Ban discussion was closed on the 17th while the notice of unavailability was posted on the 20th. It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that Kudpung closed it on the 17th, knowing that he would be unavailable starting three days later. The timing is unfortunate, but that's all it is.

That said, I support overturning the ban. I haven't read the entire discussion, but I see enough problems that, as a minimum, we should start over and do it right if a ban is warranted, and ideally, find a way to reach out and determine whether there is a way to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia without declaring that the business cannot do anything.

The most important reason, and already noted, is the lack of diffs. Have we ever banned an contributor without citing a single diff? That alone ought to be a sufficient reason for overturning, but I'll not a couple other points. The Morning277 issue understandably leaves a bad taste. However, when one entity involved in paid editing wreaks havoc, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that all entities involved in paid editing deserve similar opprobrium.

Some of the support are in reaction to strong words by the owner, which appear to defy our positions on COI. I agree that there was a bit of a bull in a china shop reaction, however, those concerns appear to have been taken on board, and the owner has changed policies. If we supported a ban based upon his initial position, we at least owe a second consideration when that very position is changed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, concurrent with the ban discussion there were policy discussions to try to establish standards for paid editors. One proposal banning paid editing was heavily opposed. Another, drafted by me, requiring paid editors to disclose has receive significant opposition for being too strong. It seems very strange to ban somebody for something that's not yet policy, and especially when the proposal "paid editing is forbidden" has a majority of opposition in the community. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• First of all, the lack of diffs is a lot less troubling to me than to you all. If someone says "I will trash Wikipedia" we have every right to say "You may not edit here". Of course his statement wasn't that strong, but "I will not play by your rules" is close enough IMO. That they are willing to follow the rules at this point is wonderful, but I think it's fair to worry if they actually will. I'd say:
  • conditional support. With the condition being that every editor who has or is editing for them be identified including alt accounts. If and when we find someone editing for them who isn't on that list, we can reinstate the ban. First of all, I think that's how paid editing should work (and I speak as someone who has written a proposal to the NSF to pay people to edit here--it barely didn't get funded sadly but I'd have had all editors identify that they were being paid). Secondly, given previous statements from this company, I think "trust but verify" is important. Without such a bit of clarity it will be impossible to fully verify. Hobit (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC) -- Given that the current offer doesn't include disclosing past accounts I'm opposed to unbanning under his proposed conditions. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • So you think someone should be banned for thoughtcrime whether or not the actually broke any rules. OK, lets put your theory to the test. I will not play by your rules. I will trash Wikipedia. Please take your best shot at getting me banned for making those two statements without any evidence that I have ever actually trashed Wikipedia or refused to follow the rules. Let me know how that works out for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
      • There is plenty of evidence that this person has violated COI and our meat puppetry rules in the past. His threat to do so again is credible, yours is not. If you were to trash the main page and then later threaten to do so again, you'd be blocked in a heartbeat. It is unreasonable not to react to credible threats. We do it all the time with legal threats here. Why is this different? Hobit (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Obviously I cannot do the experiment but I believe that you are mistaken. If I trashed the main page, was blocked, and the block expired, I do not believe that I could be blocked for simply saying that I will do it again. Legal threats are a different matter; WP:LEGAL specifies the reason why they result in a block: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels", and of course we have a policy page that says that I cannot make legal threats, so that puts it back in the "violating an actual rule" category. Can you point me to the guideline where me saying (in a non-disruptive way and without breaking any other rules) that I will trash the main page but not actually doing that is blockable? I maintain that our policies forbid blocking someone for thoughtcrime. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Trashing the mainpage isn't quite the same as sockpuppetry, though. Let's change your scenario. Let's say that on the first day of every month you reveal an act of subtle vandalism that you've previously inserted for "humorous effect" using a dynamic IP sockpuppet account. And let's say that you make a show of telling people that you intend to continue the game indefinitely. Your claims are credible and I wouldn't be surprised if you saw some kind of sanctions. AGF isn't intended to act as a hobble to common sense. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Actually, I am not assuming good faith. That rule would be for looking at something that may or may not be against the rules and deciding whether to assume that it isn't. This is about a hypothetical editor who has broken no rule while expressing an unpopular opinion. And your new scenario would be someone being disruptive (we don't need to spell out every way someone can be disruptive). Both the repeated vandalism and the making a show of telling people that you will continue to do so is disruptive. I am talking about someone who has broken no rule (unless someone wants to point out where we have a rule against thoughtcrime). Even under your scenario, if an administrator responded to the clear disruption with a block that doesn't mention trolling or socking, but instead named something that is entirely within the rules, that would be wrong, and the blocked editor would be well within his rights to ask that the bad block be removed, even if it was only to have it instantly replaced with a good block based upon actual evidence of violating a policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Ah well I'm right there with you regarding the COI/NPOV bit of this mess. I haven't yet seen any evidence that AKonanykhin had engaged in violations, but only that he expressed his view that COI looks like a set of recommendations rather than like a set of firm rules (on which point I must regretfully agree with AKonanykhin). And my !vote below arises because I too think that basing the ban on this goes too far. If the ban is to be upheld I'd really rather it was clarified that it is related to the sock/meatpuppet admissions from SPI. And I guess that brings us to the point at which we differ in views. I see a substantive difference between blocks based on specific tangible crimes like vandalism or BLP or COI/NPOV violations and those based on intangible crimes like sockpuppetry or my subtle vandalism hypothetical. If a ban is based on a tangible violation (like COI/NPOV violations) then we absolutely should have specific diffs to point to that document the violation. But if the ban is based on reasonable suspicions that intangible violations (like sockpuppetry) will resume then I think the threat of harm/disruption should grant the blocking admin somewhat greater leeway (the block/ban would be subject to review anyway). In the matter at hand, I don't think the proof at SPI is strong enough to indicate that AKonanykhin poses a SOCK threat going forward, but if he does violate SOCK then the ban can always be re-applied. -Thibbs (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• I would disagree with Jehochman on one point: Wikiexperts was already "underground". The refusal to be open and honest about whose articles they were paid to edit - and lets face it, this is a PR group so AGF or no, NPOV cannot be automatically assumed - was antiethical and counter to community expectations. If they are prepared to act above board, then I am willing to reconsider my previous support of the ban. Resolute 15:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support unban I supported the ban in the 17 October ban discussion, "until they change their declared policy and commit to stating their COI and restricting their edits to talk pages." That appears to have happened. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I read their comments a couple of times and am missing where they say that they will restrict their edits to talk pages. Is that somehow implied by the "following all COI guidelines"? If so, I'd prefer it be made explicit. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Given that effective enforcement of the ban would requiring outing every Wikipedia editor, it's a self-righteous feel good action, not a reasonable approach to an admittedly very real problem. It will drive paid editing deeper underground and provide yet-another-thing for Wikipedia editors to accuse each other of. NE Ent 16:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• This appeal, though no fault of the User that represents the corporation states much that is irrelevant 1) "driving underground" has not occurred as the corporation has undertaken not to edit through the ban; 2) the community decision was based on statements of the corporation and through its representative, which in the consensus opinion made banning the needed remedy. Nonetheless, the undertakings of the corporation seem to address the major consensus concerns expressed, so if they follow through, including disclosure and their web page, and under current Wiki norms: not opposed to unban pursuant to these immediate undertakings. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Conditional Oppose: While it maybe possible/wise to overlook, all that is truly past (accounts and edits and non-disclosure); the statements below seem to suggest that the corporation will not disclose presently ongoing COI arrangements (the "maintain" article agreements issues), only future arrangements. If they will not upfront disclose relative to any/all COI editing going forward, then oppose. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support: If they have indicated that they will fully comply with WP:COI instead of treating it as "unethical" as they were before, then the conditions that led to the ban have been satisfied. However, it should be made clear that reversion to previous behavior will lead to the banhammer being dropped once more. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm just a lot more cynical or less trusting than you guys, but I have serious reservations about lifting this ban. The attitude expressed here is shocking and appalling on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start. I mean, reading it now, I'm still not totally convinced that it's not a trolling parody. This is someone telling you that their official viewpoint is that it's "unethical" to disclose a financial conflict of interest. How would a sane, reputable publisher respond to a declaration like that?

  I'm a bit skeptical about the turnaround from the defiant stick-your-guidelines-where-the-sun-don't-shine attitude to the current conciliatory request above, and I've generally found modifying one's actual ethics to be much more difficult than modifying one's corporate Code Of Ethics document. I don't think this is a good idea. I'm opposed to it, unless we have some concrete way of ensuring that they follow through on what are currently unenforceable promises made under extreme duress. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  @MastCell: I've checked out the user, spoken with him, and am convinced that he's too serious to waste time trolling us. I think the ban was hasty, and there is a principle at stake: we don't ban people for suspicion. The banned account never even edited main space. Why are we so desperate to muzzle this guy? Let's assume good faith. If I'm wrong, WP:ROPE will be effective. Let's let his editors disclose themselves and promise to treat them fairly, while firmly enforcing WP:NPOV and all our other policies. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  As one cynic to another -- if the ban is upheld, do you really think the company will cease editing? NE Ent 23:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  I don't understand the argument that the possibility that a banned user will keep editing should be a valid reason for uplifting a ban. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I am sure many folks here are aware that in light of the recent uncovering of the SPI network run by WIki-PR, new policies were proposed to ban paid advocacy. See discussion here for a sense of the very mixed thoughts of the community. I posted notice of this discussion, there. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose at least for now. While it does seem like the process by which WikiExperts was banned was flawed, there is deep discomfort in the community with this kind of activity. We should not allow WikiExperts back in until the community has made up its mind on how to deal with this paid advocacy. I also note that the brief description that appears with WikiExpert's "hit" on Google, reads "WikiExperts handles this task for you, protecting your online reputation." Wikipedia does not exist to enhance or detract from anyone's reputation - it exists to provide NPOV information. If you read their Ethics page, while it is great that they say they will not remove any well-sourced negative information, at no point do say that they would actually add negative information about a company, even if that information were well-sourced. This is what I mean, about editors working for WIkiExperts actually not being aligned with WIkipedia's goals. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support The whole community ban proposal was a illegitimate witch hunt intended to out editors and get them banned. That goes against what Wikipedia stands for. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support Konveyor Belt is absolutely correct. And for the admin who closed the discussion in favor of the ban- shame on you and you should be stripped of your admin abilities, that was an abuse of power and completely not in line with policy or even the community feelings on the issue, there is no way in hell that discussion was in favor of a ban by the Community and should have been closed as "no consensus" at the very least. I am so disappointed. The ban is illegitimate and was never agreed upon by consensus.Camelbinky (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support per Jehochman and SPhilbrick. We do not want to go down the road of banning folks preemptively and without evidence. Especially not with a user/company that is making a good faith effort.--v/r - TP 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional support - more or less as per Bushranger above, if they have indicated they will comply with WP:COI fully. It would also help a lot if the frankly inexcusable statement they made about how it is unethical to abide by our policies and guidelines is very visibly and prominently rescinded and apologized for. I believe I had justification for supporting the ban based on their stated disregard for policy and guidelines, and I believe that keeping the ban in place until that statement is clearly retracted and they agree to abide by all relevant policies and guidelines is clearly indicated, here and elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional support. If every WikiExpert editor declares their COI, and participates via talk page suggestions, I am willing to let them do so. Regarding the absence of diffs; they are not needed. I approve of the banning of an editor who declares the intention to violate Wikipedia's policies. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The ban was ridiculous and out of process. Eric Corbett 17:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I find the reasoning of "no diffs provided" and other process-related complaints about the banning discussion to be a bit circular and more than a bit lawyerish. When someone states they plan to circumvent the guidelines here, I'd say the need for specific diffs of editing infractions is pretty much superseded -- especially when that circumvention is what prevents us from potentially finding any such diffs to begin with. But that said, since I only supported the ban because of their stated policy of non-disclosure, if they change their policy to full disclosure -- an oft-updated list on their site, of the Wikiepdia usernames in their prevue, would be ideal -- I'm fine with letting them back (that is, unless/until we pass something that says paid editing is disallowed altogether). equazcion → 17:53, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC)
  • So you think that the requirement for actual evidence of of editing infractions superseded if someone says that they plan to circumvent the guidelines here? OK, lets put your theory to the test. I plan to circumvent the guidelines here. Please take your best shot at getting me banned for making that statement without any evidence that I have ever actually circumvented any guidelines. Let me know how that works out for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course I wouldn't waste time acting on your issuing a hypothetical challenge just to make a point, but if it seemed like you were remotely as serious about that as this person who posted it as part of his business plan, I would do so for you, and you'd be the first to know how it worked out. equazcion → 05:18, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
      • Let's pretend I was serious and credible. (Quaker cannons are of no use if the enemy knows that they are Quaker cannons... :) ) What policy would you cite as me having violated? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        • WP:COMMONSENSE. equazcion → 15:31, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but you cannot invoke WP:COMMONSENSE to justify banning something just because you don't like it. Also, it's an essay, and you cannot ban someone for violating an essay. That section ends with "Editors must use their best judgment". If your best judgement (the generic "your" -- I am not pointing at you personally) says that it is OK to ban someone not for anything they have done but rather for an opinion they hold, then I must question that judgment. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
            • According to WP:Blocking_policy#Disruption you can be sanctioned for breaching guidelines as well as policies... Depending on context, your hypothetical example statement in itself (and AKonanykhin's initial statements that caused the ban to be imposed) could be construed as POINTy and/or DISRUPTive – and sanction worthy. Mojoworker (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
              • The only way that either statement by iteself could be construed as POINTy and/or DISRUPTive is by pretty much ignoring what those guidelines actually say and using a definition that encompasses anything someone doesn't like. It makes denying the holocaust disruptive and pointy. It makes arguing against anthropogenic global warming disruptive and pointy. It makes saying that the WMF is going the wrong way disruptive and pointy. In fact it makes anything that a bunch of editors disagree with disruptive and pointy. Of course someone can be disruptive and pointy while expressing those unpopular opinions -- we have plenty of examples of that -- but expressing an unpopular opinion without violating any policies or guidelines is never disruptive or pointy. Remember, next time you may be the target of a thoughtcrime ban instead of the proponent. --Guy Macon (talk)
                • That's essentially all true. The community decides what's considered disruptive and what makes sense -- pointing to the essay again, which albeit merely an essay, describes what IAR tends to mean. If you think what's transpired here demonstrates that someone doesn't need to violate a particular posted policy in order to be banned, you'd be correct. You seem to find that a disturbing notion since it means there would be no solid rule structure here and everything is therefore subjective, but that's basically how Wikipedia works, by its very principle -- for better or worse. equazcion → 21:35, 21 Oct 2013 (UTC)
• Support unban which should never have been enacted in the first place. --John (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional support for lifting the ban. Clearly reveal all editors being paid by this company, and commit to exercising conformance to all policies and guidelines by those editors. Guidelines may not be "policy", but they are deemed guidelines because they are agreed by the community to be best practices. Improper conduct by any editor under the authority of this company may result in a sanctions being applied as to all representatives of the company. bd2412 T 17:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support The problem last time around was their opposition to our policies. They have committed to abiding by the community norms now, so there isn't an ongoing reason to restrict their editing. Some have suggested that the ban be lifted under the condition that WikiExperts only ever edits talk pages. While I agree this is a good practice to encourage, I don't think we should make the unban conditional on them never making an article edit. {{requested edit}} gets backlogged often, sometimes for very extended periods of time... and editor retention in that area is poor. This is especially true with respect to editing articles about obscure companies. Uncontroversial edits should be uncontroversial, even if made by their team, and WikiExperts should not be discouraged from making grammar corrections or fighting vandalism just because they're being paid for that purpose. Edits where neutrality is a possible concern should, obviously, be discussed, but I don't want to see them banned in the future just for making neutral changes to articles on their own. We need people to edit these articles. As long as they are being edited neutrally, that is a net benefit to the project.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support While I don't support the venture of WikiExperts, per se, insofar as they recognize and comply with the COI policy, there would appear to be no grounds to band them.

That said, I don't think that the current policy is adequate, so hopefully this will lead to some sort of evolution vis-a-vis the current (inadequate) policies.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose Upon reading some of the other comments about meat puppetry--setting aside the sockpuppetry--I've decided to change my vote until that issue is clarified. It seems that if you have more than one editor from a paid editing group editing the same article that other policy issues arise; for example, the Wikipedia consensus building process is undermined due to the contractual obligations of PR professional to PR client. The ban should be maintained until the community can work out a viable policy-based solution, or WMF imposes one. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, and make sure that this editor is handled in a fair and transparent manner. The speed of reaction has a knee jerk feel to it. I see no reason yet to ban this editor because he exhibits fairly ordinary behaviour, despite the paid editing accusations and the firm he appears to head being controversial. However, should his behaviour become worthy of a ban, yes, ban him in the future. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Conditionally support unban as the one who originally proposed the ban. If wikiexperts.us has now agreed to make the requisite COI disclosure, the ban is no longer as a preventative measure and would be purely punitive. Lifting of the ban should, of course, be conditional upon actually doing that going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support this is going to continue no matter how many we ban, better to address paid editors now and establish additional guidelines if needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't find myself supporting this unblock at this time. Just far to early in my opinion, and the exact reasoning seems to boarder on the desperate to unblock over what could be seen as a technicality. We are not a court of law, just volunteers trying to build an encyclopedia. I find the entire subject of a company who's entire existence appears to be about paid editing to run afoul of what I believe Wikipedia is. It places an unfair advantage to articles that have editors being paid on a regular basis to edit here with permission. I see almost no way to make this work even with the proposal from below. But what I do see is many editors who have some argument I can understand if not truly agree with. This isn't a block appeal of a single editor. So I oppose the unblock of the entire company being allowed back right now, but would support the single editor himself being unblocked. Let him, as the CEO of this company, first lead by example. If they can be seen to be working within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia I think we can revisit this in a short time.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Since when do we even consider an unban request just a few days after the ban is implemented? Come back a year or two from now. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Since it emerged that this ban was incorrect in the first place, that the victim of the ban had done nothing wrong at all, and that the ban was placed to enforce a principle that the majority of Wikipedians do not agree with. That's when. --John (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: There were many diffs listed in the discussion showing infringements of WP:Sock puppetry here: [2] and also here [3] and here [4]. After concerns were first raised that there were infringements of WP:Sock puppetry, user denied and said these accusations were done "falsely" [5]. But at the SPI investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts/Archive, User:AKonanykhin admits to paying an editor to insert a promo shot of Alexander Konanykhin into the Alex Konanykhin article. He also admits to paying an editor who was then blocked for insertion of spam and advertising [6]. So, when these concerns were first raised, user's response was to deny. Then, when clear evidence is presented, the admissions come. If the user really is contrite, then surely user would be more than willing to show this contrition by sitting out a reasonable time for a block, not just a few days. The unblock proposal sounds far more like a continuation of the falsehoods in an attempt to continue past behaviour. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional support, with heavy emphasis on "conditional". I agree with Hobit and bd2412. Trust but verify, as Hobit said. All accounts must be identified. All accounts must agree to abide by policies and guidelines, same as any other editor. If evidence appears that policies and guidelines are being ignored or violated, the ban comes back. And I want to add that all the comments about the existing ban being improper strike me as wikilawyering hogwash. It was a proper ban, based upon explicit evidence and community norms. This isn't a court of law, and the pleading about process in this particular instance has been utterly groundless. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support: A dangerous precedent, banning editors you don't like on suspicion that they might be damaging the encyclopedia. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI and strong evidence of socking isn't enough to get over the "might be damaging" thing? Hobit (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • That is correct. A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI does not justify a ban. Bans need to be based upon actual violations, not on expressing unpopular opinions. As for strong evidence of socking, please show me where in the ban request socking was even claimed. If you want them banned for socking, write up a proposal that says that, and include some sort of evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
      • A large number of those supporting the ban included socking as a reason for the ban. Just search for "sock". Look, we've got someone who A) admits to using socks and having others edit for him (which would be meatpuppetry) B) we have ample evidence does use socks/meatpuppets and C) clearly indicated an intent to keep doing this. And it would be an unpopular opinion to say "COI is a bad policy". It would be threatening to disrupt to say "I've ignored COI and intend to do so in the future". Hobit (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I of course have no problem with blocking for socking (with evidence), but a number of editors on this very page have told me that it is OK to block someone for (in your words) "A straightforward statement that they won't follow COI." Where is the policy that allows that? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
          • WMF Press Release The following statement would seem to indicate that there is a general policy violation in not declaring a COI. I don't know what the implications are regarding this ban, but perhaps it should be addressed in this discussion.

            Being deceptive in your editing by using sockpuppets or misrepresenting your affiliation with a company is against Wikipedia policy and is prohibited by our Terms of Use. We urge companies to conduct themselves ethically, to be transparent about what they're doing on Wikipedia, and to adhere to all site policies and practices.

            --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Sadly I don't think that could be used to mandate COI disclosures. There's a difference between passive failure to represent your affiliation with a company and active misrepresentation of your affiliation. Even the bit urging companies "to be transparent about what they're doing on Wikipedia" is just that... an urging. But think how well that press release would be complimented by an actual policy mandating disclosure of COI. That would be ideal in my view. -Thibbs (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a policy directly addressing this issue is needed. Regarding the ban, I think that there is room to find a gray zone between explicitly declaring an intent to not disclose relationships to companies (don't know if they actually edited any articles for clients) and actively misrepresenting a relationship. It is more than a passive inaction, at any rate, based on the explicit expression of intent to not represent the relationship at all--to conceal it. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban. Blocks are supposed to be preventative but I don't believe there was evidence of damage done to the encyclopedia. As long as they agree to abide by WP:COI and be open about it, I think they should be allowed to edit on article Talk Pages:

"Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question, or on a noticeboard such as WP:COIN. These changes may or may not be acted upon. Paid advocates are also advised to disclose their conflict of interest." WP:COI

I encourage them to join Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement. If there are infractions in the future, they should dealt with. I don't believe in blocks based on suspicions, whether it is of a registered account or an IP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support… a little dubiously. But yes. To get personal and historical for a moment: Jehochman is a trusting guy. I've watched him assuming too much good faith quite often, and getting it flung back in his face. By contrast, the point made by MastCell, the original Wikipedia Cynic, really resonates with me: one's actual corporate ethics don't tend to be so easily changed as one's corporate Code Of Ethics document. Agreed. But I believe, or at least I hope, that the statement by AKonanykhin above will make it possible to unban on the "trust but verify" principle mentioned by several supporters of the unban proposal. Presumably some of us cynical people will be watching and verifying. It also impresses me that Seraphimblade, the original proposer of the ban, is now prepared to support an unban. And I'd like to second Tryptofish's characterization of the claims that the original ban was improper as "wikilawyering hogwash". It was a proper ban, and it should be immediately reinstated if the unban is gamed in any way. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC).

• Support. I am quite unhappy with the way that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us was closed. Normally when the result of a discussion goes against me I have no problem accepting and following the consensus, but in this case the closing comments ("There is a clear consensus to support the proposal, based both numerically and on the strength of the arguments. Among the Oppose !votes and comments are strong recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy, but that would be the subject of a separate discussion.") do not accurately reflect either the strength of the arguments or whether a significant number of the oppose comments were actually recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy. In my opinion, Kudpung let his own POV cloud his judgement. I think that he should have asked for a couple of other uninvolved editor or admins to agree with the closing, as is common in hotly contested proposals. I maintain that a fair reading of the arguments shows that it is the support arguments that are weak and are actually recommendations for revising the WP:COI guidelines/policy by allowing someone to be banned even if they did nothing wrong, simply for expressing an unpopular opinion. That's a huge change from our policies and guidelines as written. Bans should be based upon actual specific edits that violate specific policies or guidelines, not on having a "contemptuous attitude toward our COI guidelines". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many diffs proving meatpuppettry by people specifically connected to Akonanykhin were provided during previous AN discussion, and I do not see any procedural violations during previous discussion and closing. Where is disclosure? I mean the list of accounts that are currently used by members of this organization? Once again, this is not only a matter of COI, but a matter of proven meatpuppetry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Really, could you show me a few of them? I never saw any such diffs. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we had at least four accounts acting his meatpuppets and edited his biography[7], [8], [9], [10]. One of them was blocked by an arbitrator, and rightly so. If anyone is interested in more detail, they can check previous AN discussion.My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Key point during previous AN discussion was that Mr. Konanykhin can not comply with Wikipedia guidelines (even if they wanted ) because they are bound by a confidentiality agreement with their clients. Is it still the case? I understand that it is. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We have no interest in his contracts. If he is required to disclose for future edits, it is his problem to set up his contracts. That is not our concern. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jehochman I really disagree with you. Based on what you write here, I have a bridge to sell you! My point being, that in any transaction it makes to sense to be sure that the other party can actually deliver what they promise (ie, you make sure i own the Brooklyn Bridge before you give a million bucks for it). If WikiExperts cannot disclose who their clients are, then their promises to do so are hollow and are even bad faith. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• He tells: we have non-disclosure agreements with our clients and editors [11]. It means that they have a number of "their" editors here and can not disclose their COI.My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be surprising, if such an agreement did not have an out for complying with the demands of the privately run website they intend to participate in, but I get your concern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban: as I previously said, I would support unban only if WikiExperts agreed to disclose all accounts they use. They've updated their ethics page. It's a step in the right direction, and seems to suggest they won't create or edit articles directly, but it doesn't go far enough. It says they will do their paid advocacy: "Without compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, our clients, and our own enterprise" which strongly suggests they haven't changed their previous position about keeping their accounts and client list private. That's unacceptable. Conditional support only if WikiExperts agrees to publicly identify all past, present, and future accounts of their employees and contractors, disclose all COI relating to their clients, and refrain from editing or creating articles directly. The previous ban was brought up and supported because WikiExperts flagrantly declared their intention not to abide by COI guidelines (see comments such as those on the Signpost recently). If they reverse this position, act transparently about their financial COI, and refrain from direct editing, then they are completely welcome on Wikipedia. Steven Walling • talk 22:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The original block was based as far as I am aware, on indications that the "editor" would ignore WP policy. In other words, disruptive editing. Also there were a raft of sockpuppetry issues. I note the strong aversion to paid editing, its ethical and practical issues voiced by the community in that closed conversation. I believe user Kudpung was procedurally quite correct in his action. Why not just create a seperate business WP? I believe this is the thin end of the wedge, and the involvement of money, or worst, commercial profit as an incentive to join and edit WP will ultimately doom the project. If WP wishes to sup with the devil, it had better use a very long spoon. Irondome (talk)

• Comment on proposal to lift ban. I think the risk of conflict of interest has to be severe when editors are paid. There are also plenty of unpaid Wikipedia editors who are not just subject to conflict of interest but are driven by special interests of their own, not neutral reporting. I agree that to ban a paid editor merely on a risk basis is itself questionable or perhaps unfair. I think that a paid editor should be required to post every one of his proposed edits on the article's talk page and leave it there for a week before posting it to the article. The talk page post should be clearly labeled as a proposal by a paid editor, with disclosure of his fee.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support the ban (past tense), as enacted, despite procedural problems with the discussion.. Not because he is a paid editor, but because he is a non-repentant sockpuppeteer in control of undisclosed paid accounts. I don't support a flat ban on paid editing, as impracticable, with undesirable obvious consequences. I do support mandatory disclosure of paid-editor status for every account engaged in paid editing, and declaration of banned status on every person in control of an undisclosed paid account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Please don't be a slander monger. Link to the proof of sock puppetry, or strike your accusation. As far as I know, there has been no confirmed report of sock puppetry by AKonanykhin. People repeating accusations they heard without demanding to see the evidence is how we got into this mess. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, slander seems very strong, I didn't think my reading of WP:SOCK violation was less than obvious. Perhaps I misunderstand something. If AKonanykhin (talk · contribs) denies being in control of any accounts (whether technical control or by contractual arrangement) used for undisclosed paid editing, then I support unbanning, the ban having no foundation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC). "undisclosed" missing, always intended. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I have no idea who you are in real life, but I know exactly who AKonanykhin is, and so does everybody else. We must be careful when talking about people, especially identified people. We've heard people say "sock puppetry" and "its obvious", but is it really? The hand waving doesn't convince me. We need to see the diffs of his sock puppetry. Surely somebody can reference one diff where he's damaging the encyclopedia, if he's been engaging in sock puppetry. I think what we have here is a bunch of loose talk, and then people come along, look at the thread for 30 seconds and say, "Yeah, me too, I hate paid editing." The lesson to all is to dig into the details and look at the evidence before opining about somebody's behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know who AKonanykhin is. I have not looked at that information, as I do not see this discussion as being about AKonanykhin, but about paid-editing in general. AKonanykhin deserves extra credence for speaking up openly, but I'm thinking that not all paid editors are organised by AKonanykhin. "Meat puppetry" and "sockpuppetry" are unfortunately strong pejoratives. We should talk instead of controlling undeclared alternative accounts (accounts clearly linked to the editors main account). We don't encourage this, but we allow it if it is not abused. The checkusers don't actively look for it in the absence of actual problems. I have no evidence or suspicion of AKonanykhin, or any of his writers, having submitted a damaging edit. However, many undisclosed paid editors, working unmonitored, may become damaging. I am keen to see us monitor paid editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

On the unban motion, I agree with Jehochman about procedural concerns with the cited ban discussion. I do not specifically criticise the closer, Kudpung.

AKonanykhin now seems to say that he, and all his professional associates, his paid editors, will publicly disclose their COI/paid editing. This is a major development, changing the situation. Exactly what "publicly disclose COI/paid editing" means, I am not sure, and would like to know. As I stated somewhere else, I think only a minimal disclosure need be mandatory.

Given AKonanykhin's new commitment, I support unbanning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to use of undeclared alternative accounts for good reason. Acceptably good reasons are poorly described, but there are reasons. Paid editing seems to be one reason. I am ambivalent on paid editing; it is a difficult reality for Wikipedia. On careful consideration, I think we must allow/support it, with restrictions, if the paid-editing accounts are disclosed as paid-editing accounts. Now, given that I'm supporting limited paid editing, I can see that it must be acceptable for respected editors who choose to engage in paid editing to use an alternative account that is not connected to their main account. I assume that AKonanykhin has an anonymous main account, and if so, I wouldn't ask him to declare it. If AKonanykhin employs Wikipedia paid editors, it is like meatpuppetry, but I think we must allow him to do this, subject to him committing to requiring his contracted writers to disclose their paid-editing accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban (Support the ban) Agree with SmokeyJoe that paid editing by multiple accounts coodrinated from a single center is a violation of WP:SOCK as meatpuppeting (probably sockpuppeting as well). The only way we could allow paid editing by wikiexperts is if all the involved editors describe the conflict of interests and avoid edit warring. They did not do this so far Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Alex Bakharev: Please don't be a slander monger. Link to the proof of sock puppetry, or strike your accusation. As far as I know, there has been no confirmed report of sock puppetry by AKonanykhin. People repeating accusations they heard without demanding to see the evidence is how we got into this mess. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What proof do you need? Wkiexperts themselves claimed that they coordinate hundreds of Wikipedia accounts. Coordinating multiple accounts is of course a form of meatpuppery (if the accounts related to actual people) or sockpuppery (if they do not). Until all those accounts are properly identified and connected to each other for basic srutiny I am opposed to lifting the ban Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I need diffs showing some of these accounts coming together to corrupt the consensus at a community discussion. For instance, if the Wikiexperts help each others articles survive deletion discussions, we can ban them. If you don't have that evidence, all you have is hearsay and malice. That's not enough to ban somebody. Mere suspicion that somebody might do something wrong is not a reason to ban somebody. Jehochman ^Talk 00:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But the tune has changed to try and twist out of the penalty. If we say okay, then you open pandoras box upon the website.--MONGO 02:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd simply ask that you look at the edits made to this person's bio and his various companies. There are clearly a number of paid editors working on those in clear violation of COI and our rules on meat-puppetry. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support unbanning of AKonanykhin and his company, on condition that any accounts used in the future by him, his company, regular employees who edit on its behalf, or its subcontractors are listed on a Wikipedia page (en:User:AKonanykhin would be the obvious place). Naming the clients is unnecessary. —rybec 02:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support pending full and retroactive disclosure of all accounts. I'm not convinced that this appeal is genuine based on past experience with paid advocates, but disclosure will go a long way towards addressing the concern. MER-C 04:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I disagreed with the reasoning of the original ban, but I hoped that the issue would lead to some sort of consensus on how we should tighten the currently toothless "strongly discouraged" COI wording. It didn't. That said, we need to make it worthwhile for editors to disclose their COIs. Currently, it is in the interest of paid editors to hide their relationship with their clients - they gain nothing from disclosure in spite of leaving themselves open to harassment, and yet risk nothing by non-disclosure. By respecting WikiExpert's offer to disclose their COIs, we finally do the opposite, providing value for the disclosure of COIs that makes it worth their while to do so. It may not work, but I think we should respect the offer and give it a go. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - For what it's worth, I oppose this, since it's clear to me that the purposes of public relations people are antithetical to those of people who are attempting to write a NPOV encyclopedia. PR people serve a valuable purpose to the business community, and I have (indirectly) been the beneficiary of their work, but the usual course of business is that a PR person sends their info to some intermediary (a reporter on a newspaper, for instance), and the reporter decides how much of the info to use. It may provide a guide to the reporter for further investigation, or it may (in probably more cases than we'd like to know) be reported verbatim, but at least it has had the chance to be filtered through an intermediary who can use their independent judgment to weed out the worst of the promotional tendencies of the professional publicist. Reporters who pass along PR without vetting it have a tendency to be fired, or become PR persons themselves, because media outlets live and die by their reputations for accuracy.

  However, when a PR person has direct access to the means of dissemination, as is the case with Wikipedia, there is no longer an effective filter between their output and the encyclopedia. (Those who think that the cumulative result of all editors watching over he encyclopedia is an effective safeguard might be interested in doing a search of the project for "penis" to see the extent of the run-of-the-mill vandalism which hasn't been reverted by such means.) This is where the danger lies. If we allow public relations people to have clear and unfettered access to edit the articles in the encyclopedia, it is inevitable that we will eventually lose whatever reputation we have built up for neutrality and accuracy. Yes, people will still come to Wikipedia for information, since that habit has effectively been formed, but we will no longer be a free source of neutral information, we will be just another media vector for promotion and publicity. Those who think otherwise are, I believe, sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the blatant reality of the situation. Those who protest that we can't effectively police PR misbehavior are like inner-city cops who let crime get out of hand because it was just too hard to keep fighting against it. Yes, obviously, if we were to ban paid editing (as I believe we should) those editors would work overtime to get around our defenses, and that might require some policy changes on our part, such as loosening the restrictions on CheckUser investigations, but new strategies from the opposition require such responses on our part, and using such we can keep PR-fluff to a reasonable level.

  I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of those opposing taking steps against PR-editing are sincere in their beliefs, but I believe that are entirely and utterly wrong. The game changed when Wikipedia became the first stop of choice for many people when they want to get a quick bit of information, and such a vector cannot be ignored by people who live and die by their ability to get out their clients' message to the most people possible. We are no longer amateurs here, regardless of whether we get paid or not, we are professional information providers, and it's our responsibility to see that the information we provide is as accurate and unbiased as possible. To do that in a context where we give free reign to those other professionals, the PR people whose job it is to provide biased and celebratory information, is much more difficult, which is why we should not be unbanning any admitted PR person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is excellent comment. I completely agree. It matters a lot who edits. As someone else said, What is that he does? What is his nature? For example, contributors who are students, journalists, professional researchers or educators are relatively well fitted by their occupation to contribute here (sure, they can have a bias). However, paid professional propagandists are not. They should not be allowed edit here at all, or at least required to disclose their occupation and be closely watched by community. Such is life. Now, speaking about this particular PR company, they are openly telling at their website: Hey, our goal is to undermine Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support. I am very troubled by the statement above that "I believed we were acting within Wikipedia guidelines beforehand by treating COI disclosure as a suggestion." This isn't just a matter of deciding that some particular conflict of interest wasn't worth disclosing. Unless I'm very mistaken, this was an ongoing, systematic patter of undisclosed conflicts of interest. This suggests that you had a policy of asking "Am I doing something that doesn't absolutely break the rules" instead of "Am I doing something that (1) is ethical and (2) should be a positive for Wikipedia? I don't mind people being paid to write here, honestly and ethically, on topics of genuinely encyclopedic value that might not otherwise be covered. Writing puff pieces on topics of dubious notability while concealing one's economic interest in the matter is a very different thing. If you need someone to tell you that, it makes me wonder whether you even understand what ethics are. Before lifting the ban, I'd want to see a firm commitment not just to not outright breaking rules but to doing one's best to do intellectually honest work, including that you will be open to do warts-and-all writing. For an example of what I'm talking about, I did a piece about my own great-aunt Lena Levine. I disclosed this connection on the talk page and actively researched to find a citeable source stating that her so-called "consultant bureau for pregnant women" included illegal abortion referrals. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose unban Way too soon given that this was only enacted a few days ago. As this company's conduct amounted to utter contempt for Wikipedia's rules (it's not like WP:COI is anything new, and there's evidence that they were taking steps to avoid being caught out using multiple accounts), we need to see evidence that they're actually willing to abide by our basic terms and conditions before any commitments they make can be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-D (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very conditional support. According to their website (as of right now): "As a part of the Wikipedia community ourselves we "talk the talk and walk the walk", confidentially representing our clients in a manner that the community can embrace." (my bolding). It's unchanged from what that page said before the block. To me this implies that they promise their clients that they will perform conflict of interest editing on their behalf while ensuring that no one will be aware of it. It's unethical and a statement of continued intent to evade scrutiny of their edits, unless they now plan to deceive their prospective clients instead of us. I'd need to see exactly how Konanykhin and his company plan to implement yesterday's promised disclosure of their editors' conflict of interest here, because it clearly removes one of their big selling points to clients. Of course, getting himself and his editors banned has removed an even bigger selling point, so they might just decide to go for the lesser of two evils. I also strongly agree with Tryptofish and Bishonen that the original ban was proper one, and it should be immediately reinstated if WikiExperts.us attempt to game it any way. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. Way too soon. And the statement on their talkpage should be followed by corresponding changes to the policies listed on their website. Until that occurs they should stay banned here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'd sooner have WikiExperts in than Wiki-PR, but there's the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problem. We understand that, but a lot of the people who have just started something like a social media site for the Bloggui tribe can't see why they're not allowed in, but Facebook is. I don't object to people with what is classed as COI editing - so long as they follow the rules and we get articles and changes that are suitable. Hell, if they are OK, how do we know who they are unless they use a user name like BloggsCoMarketing? How do we set a standard to say WikiForHire can come in, but GetOnWiki can't? Other, that is, than the simple enforcement of the current rules. No corporate accounts, no advertising, notability shown and referenced. Market forces may play a part here - the creators of crap won't get any recommendations from their customers and may be subject to Trading Standards inspection if they claim things they can't deliver, or cash loss if they are foolish enough to offer money-back guarantees... Peridon (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support unban (and monitor for further SOCK violations), the evidence of wrongdoing in this case is almost entirely circumstantial. Yes paid advocate editors tend to violate NPOV when it suits them, but unless some minimum threshold of evidence is presented that NPOV has in fact been violated I find the punishment to be out of keeping with the crime. AKonanykhin had stated in the past that he didn't intend to abide by the suggestions in the weakly-worded COI guideline. And perhaps the most damning evidence against him is that presented by Atethnekos in the SPI case. But I find AKonanykhin to be much more forthright than many in his position. He has disclosed his affiliations, he has credibly stated that he intends to abide by the site policies, and he is seeking to unblock his account rather than simply sockpuppeting which as we all know is infinitely easier than a request for unban. If there were policies against COI-editing or that mandated disclosure then that would be one thing, but under the current rules there is no evidence that what he has actually done is ban-worthy. If Wikipedia wants to impose bans for this kind of editing behavior then it has to get its house in order first. There are currently 3 proposed policies on this topic which I see receiving large opposition. Voters seem to jump at the chance to vote down imperfect proposals rather than to vote up the best of them. The result is that none of these proposals will pass. If we can't get our act together then we can't hold third parties to our heightened personal standards. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm strongly sympathetic to the requirement for AKonanykhin to declare all sock and meat accounts too. My unban vote isn't conditional on this, but I do think it is a very reasonable imposition. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No. It is not circumstantial, when based on writings of the blocked/banned party - and writings of the blocked/banned party are always the only evidence. Every block/ban decision is a predicted calculation of present and future risks, including logical inferences from the present facts. As for "our house in order," every user has the responsibity for our house's order (see, eg. [12]) -- that's why the Pedia sometimes blocks/bans. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, his unsubstantiated claims that if push came to shove he would elect not to heed WP:COI's suggestions are quite clearly circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing. They may possibly be direct evidence of his lack of moral compass or perhaps even his intent to do wrong things, but intent is an exacerbating factor when it comes to COI/NPOV violations and it is rarely if ever an essential element of the wrongdoing. Furthermore he has controverted this evidence with an explanation that he does not read the guidelines as defining his actions as "wrong". I have to say the weak wording of the present guideline sadly strengthens his claims. There's an ocean of difference between "strongly discouraged" and "forbidden" even when it's written in bold. That's what I mean when I say that we must get our act together before imposing bans like this. Until we can agree as a community that paid-advocacy-editing is forbidden (not just discouraged) as a matter of policy, it's unfair to hold editors to this elevated non-consensus standard even when direct evidence exists (as it doesn't in this case) that they have actually engaged in conflicted editing. I personally think disclosure should be mandatory, but that is only my personal opinion, not yet policy. By the look of the three ongoing proposed policy discussions it will probably never become policy. -Thibbs (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not unsubstantiated claims, they are acknowledged evidence of past and future acts (and whether those acts are discouraged or forbidden makes no difference - either way they should not be done); and they are credible given the statements that were made and the actions they described. As for whether the User was mistaken, that is the risk one takes when one chooses to skate the edge - the lesson there is 'do not skate the edge.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Where have these claims been substantiated? Are there any diffs that can be provided that will show that AKonanykhin bridged the distance between simply saying that he would not take the suggestions offered in COI and actually editing in violation COI/NPOV? Because that's what I mean by "substantiated". His words would have to take substance in the form of edits for me to considered them as factual proof of misdeeds. If no such evidence exist and all we have is intent without a crime then we are punishing thoughts. -Thibbs (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Camper-mann adds promotional material and removes negative information from the Alex Konanykhin article [13]. Camper-mann continues to infringe rules against promotional editing (all related to Alexander Konanykhin), and is subsequently blocked for inserting advertising into Wikipedia [14]. After initially denying any wrongdoing, when confronted with the evidence, User:AKonanykhin says "As for User:Camper-mann, his actions were a very long time ago, in February of 2009. To be honest, I may well have sought out an editor at that time to adjust our pages, long before I ever got into the Wikipedia editing business. Obviously that user did a bad job." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts&diff=577308061&oldid=577187191).

When User:AKonanykhin was first confronted with the concerns of infringements of WP:Sock puppetry, user should have come clean, admitted the errors and committed to not doing it again. Why did the user not do this? The answer is obvious: User:AKonanykhin hoped that those users (like User:My very best wishes) previously involved with the Camper-mann etc. investigations would not show up for the discussion and that the evidence of previous misdeeds would not be seen. It was only when these hopes were dashed that the concessions occured. I call this lying: Using falsehoods to gain an advantage. This is an obvious cynical infringement of WP:CIVIL, a policy which rightly enjoins every editor to act honestly. The same is the case with the promise to disclose conflicts of interest. User:AKonanykhin user previously said it "cannot" be done [15], but now says it can. How is it possible that it both can and cannot be done? The answer is obvious: Either User:AKonanykhin was lying then, and hoped that the community would accept that it cannot be done even when he knew it can, or is lying now and hopes that the community will believe that any disclosures he does will be full disclosures, even when he knows that they won't be. Either way, this is another cynical infringement of WP:CIVIL. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There are significant chronological holes in this argument. AKonanykhin only made the statement that he would ignore COI's recommendations in the interest of his clients a week or so ago. I don't think he has had time to make good on his claim yet. The diffs you offered actually predate AKonanykhin's having even joined (and thus implicitly agreeing to abide by the rules of) Wikipedia. Likewise as far as I know he hasn't yet had an opportunity to demonstrate that he won't make full disclosures although he said he would so your accusation that he is a liar seems to be as premature as the ban. That AKonanykhin would have violated COI and that he would have failed to make full disclosures remain hunches, assumptions, and speculative projections. Holding him accountable for the actions of another person from nearly 2 years before he even joined the project goes a step too far. I think some kind of actual misdeed should precede a ban, not a gaze into the crystalball to nail him for future crimes. -Thibbs (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not say assertorically that User:AKonanykhin is lying on that count. Rather, I say disjunctively that either the user is lying on that count or the user lied when it was said that disclosures cannot be done. How can one sincerely promise to do something but also believe in one's heart that it cannot be done? Such could not be a sincere promise. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's no more a lie than my statement that "It's impossible to force an advocate editor to disclose because we have no policy mandating this" will be a lie once such a policy is adopted. When AKonanykhin made his initial statement he was accurately reflecting his company policies as written. Now that they have been rewritten he has changed his claim, but that doesn't make his previous claim a lie. You're not presenting the full picture. -Thibbs (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

When editors first complained to User:AKonanykhin about not following disclosure requirements, the user's response was to say that it "cannot" be done, and that such disclosures would be unethical, and would put clients at a competitive disadvantage (because others would not disclose despite the requirements) [16] [17]. And this is in a context of a "crusade" or "jihad" supposedly being waged by Jimbo Wales and other editors against (partially) the user and WikiExperts, in which is a prerogative to avoid scrutiny [18]. Then the user is banned. And then also the user sees that other users will largely only agree to lifting the ban if these disclosure requirements are agreed to. So, when, in the mind of User:AKonanykhin, did agreeing to these requirements stop being an unethical concession which simply cannot be done in this holy war? Your theory is that the hyperbolic claims of it being unethical were the sincere beliefs of User:AKonanykhin, but then he coincidentally changed these sincere beliefs right when doing so would allow an unban. My theory is that he was or is being insincere at some point, either then or now. That's not me failing to give the full picture, that's me having a different interpretation of motivation than you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No, failing to give the full picture is to leave out the fact that the business policies have been modified when you say that "First he claims that he can't disclose for business reasons and then a few days later he claims he can disclose". If the business policies have been modified then this explains why he can now disclose. The same is true at Wikipedia. If there's a rule against vandalism then we can say that we can't vandalize. If this rule is repealed then we can now say that we can vandalize. That's not an example of us lying. That's an example of the policies that bind us changing. It would be presenting an incomplete picture to say "Look at these liars! One day they say they can't vandalize, then the next day they say they can! Something is fishy!" without mentioning the policy change. The same is apparently true in this case with AKonanykhin. -Thibbs (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban - the ban was implemented by the community, and I do not see any good reason why this one user should not be subjected to it. GiantSnowman 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, please show me one diff where they have done something wrong to an article. One diff and I will shut up. Aren't you an administrator? Do you look at evidence, or do you just ban people who you don't like? Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the principle of the matter. A ban has been enacted by the community as a whole; the burden is now on you/AKonanykhin to show why the ban should be lifted. FYI, your "do you just ban people who you don't like?" comment makes you sound like a stroppy teenager, or wose. GiantSnowman 13:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Giantsnowman - was this meant for the section above?--v/r - TP 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apologies, this thread is too bloody long! GiantSnowman 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I could care less whether AKonanykhin gets unbanned. My concern is that we the Wikipedia Communittee act ethically. The ban was improperly placed. No evidence of wrongdoing was presented, and the closing admin misjudged consensus badly. There need to be diffs of wrongful editing. We do not place bans for political reasons. Bans are for repeated disruption of the encyclopedia, not for suspicion or simple dislike for a person. Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence of puppetry (meat vs. sock being unclear). There is plenty of evidence of folks editing articles related to this person and company with a COI. And there is evidence that he was ignoring COI and plenty of evidence that he intended to continue to do so. How is that not enough for a ban? That said, if he's willing to fix those things and identify all COI (past and future) I'm fine with removing the ban. But this isn't a ban based purely on "suspicion or simple dislike". Hobit (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman: - where have I said I dislike this person? FWIW I think he's actually come across rather well. Your lack of good faith is disturbing. GiantSnowman 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per WP:SOAP. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients.My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support unban - I'm agreeing with the opening statement of the initial flimsy case, and maintain my view that they shouldn't ever have been banned. Not only that, but the user in question has very clearly made attempts to line themselves up with the majority of the policies. I've seen several users publicly state that they will reject policies as they see fit on their user page/talk pages, without any action; another sign of double standards. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is not about the user, but about this user and his company. Did this user and his "friends" follow policies, in particular WP:SOAP? No, they have been heavily involved in promotion using multiple accounts [19], [20], [21], [22], exactly as they suppose to be as PR people. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• You're going to have to do more than show a few 2008 and 2009 transgressions to convince me. As for Eclipsed, the only recent account, almost all of the articles they've written have plenty of references, and I'm not seeing many deleted for being non-notable, or being pure puff pieces. In fact, even AKonanykhin's own article isn't a pure puff piece, given the presence of two immigration trial sections. These articles are less biased than a large amount of those written by non-paid authors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking about their "merits" per WP:IAR, we do not know it, because we do not know who and what edited on their behalf. However, their presence caused significant disruption: these two huge AN discussions and a couple of earlier ANI discussions I remember. That's for sure. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Since when was the number of AN/ANI discussions even remotely a relevant factor? Several editors in very good standing have had multiple AN/ANI threads opened against them. Should we ban them essentially because other people have issues with them, even though these users are contributing effectively and well? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And a lot of other people were banned, because they created more disruption (unhelpful discussions on ANI and other places) than contributed positively to content. In this particular case, we simply do not know if this organization contributed positively to the project at all (we are talking about organization) because we do not know who their editors are and what they did, just as few people knew much about Wiki-PR, until their actions have been investigated. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons to WikiPR are not warranted here, as the two are indeed very different in their approach to policy and Wikipedia in general. No two paid editors are cut from the same cloth and we shouldn't try to categorize them. KonveyorBelt 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin - arbitrary break

• Strongest possible oppose I'm seriously thinking of retiring. Wikipedia has fallen so far that now we allow and encourage paid editing and corporate interference with our articles. We no longer have any integrity left. The way we are heading, I no longer have much respect for this place as an independent source, or a project that I can put my time into. I have always admired our integrity and ability to call bullshit when it comes to conflict of interest editing, but in the last several years we have rolled over and let ourselves become nothing more than a giant billboard for hundreds of different companies. The lack of a good COI/Paid Editing policy, policies such as "outing" that are exploited in situations such as this, and strong, deep COI inflitration. This group of editors has abused our sockpuppetry policy, our notability guidelines, and our policy on using Wikipedia for advertising, like hardly anyone else in our history. If there has ever been somebody to ban it is WikiExperts. Under no circumstances should they be allowed anywhere near our articles. ThemFromSpace 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not a battleground, and therefore we need not "prevent them at all costs" or worry about "infilteration". KonveyorBelt 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Themfromspace: If you can't make your point without needless profanity, hyperbole, and threats to resign you might consider taking a break. We don't need this sort of diatribe in the midst of a rational conversation. The community is deeply divided over paid editing. We can't even agree on a policy, yet. We need to find common ground. Treating this topic as a battle is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no hyperbole. Infiltration by advertisers, which is happening, is the greatest threat to our integrity that we face outside of the longterm decline in neutral editors. This is something we need to say NO to. Loudly. Anything less is unacceptable. This is not a battleground mentality, it is an antivandalism mentality. ThemFromSpace 17:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What has changed? Advertisers started "infiltrating" Wikipedia over a decade ago. We have robust policies and processes to deal with that issue. Nothing has changed except a group of users have started a mass hysteria. Jehochman ^Talk 17:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. Maybe one banned editor soured me on paid editing forever. But what I saw was (and still is, as I'm sure that banned editor is still socking away), was pure advocacy for profit. Doc talk 16:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Doc9871: If you are going to denounce a named, living person, you need evidence. Can you please show me the evidence of sock puppetry? This is a rumor that's been oft repeated but never substantiated. Where's the sockpuppetry report? Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, I was not referring to this editor. I was alluding to MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs), an editor that started out openly promising on elance to create and "maintain" articles for money, creating any notability required as a WP "expert". Sorry for the confusion; I've mentioned MPF in so many comments concerning this issue that I took it for granted that it would be understood that he was who I meant. My bad. Doc talk 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• The banned user, unable to participate here in the discussion of their fate, has emailed me to say that he updated his website to explicitly state that Wikipedia's COI guideline disclosure requirements will be followed. http://www.wikiexperts.us/en/ethics That may address some of the concerns expressed previously. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't mean this particular banned user, FWIW. I don't see how WikiExperts is going to make much money if they abide by the same rules for content that we all do. Paid editing is usually about promoting your product, ensuring notability and keeping out all the negative stuff. Meh. Doc talk 17:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• We're trying to discuss whether to unban this particular user, not the general principle of paid editing. There are a couple policy proposals pending. Please do help us resolve them! Jehochman ^Talk 17:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Doc - paid editing can also be moving a process along that would otherwise wait for a disinterested editor to come to at some point. For example, removing primary sources used to cite negative information (someone hated their spaghetti, blogged about it, and then updated a Wikipedia entry for an Italian restaurant that managed to escape CSD). Or it could be writing a new article for a person who has plenty of references but has not had anyone on Wikipedia get around to writing an article about yet. Or it could be handling any other perfectly legitimate concern without some silly PR rep bludgeoning it because they don't understand our processes.--v/r - TP 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no difference between this guy's firm and this one. I think we're screwed with companies like this around and more popping up. They are just going to sock to evade detection when they realize that they pretty much have to. Really look at what they promise to do. This sort of paid editing is, IMHO, totally against what the encyclopedia is for. Doc talk 21:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But your making an assumptions and then making a factual comment about the assumptions. ie "A could be B, and B is really bad, so A is really bad."--v/r - TP 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Are you being unfairly treated on Wikipedia? Our Crisis Editing team helps you navigate contentious situations. We'll both directly edit your page using our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins. And we'll engage on Wikipedia's back end, so you never have to worry about being libeled on Wikipedia." My emphasis on "and admins". Like I said: we're screwed already with this. Doc talk 02:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And the "mission statement" of WikiExperts is just so wrong. "You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Wikipedia profile to strangers - or worse, to the competition." Seriously?! "Strangers" can't edit "your" article? An unbelievably stupid fucking joke is what that is. Doc talk 02:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A user tearing down the first and fourth Pillars of Wikipedia. Perhaps the community should play Delilah in this drama?

• This seems to be more of the same behavior from the user. As documented above [23], User:AKonanykhin, when first told of WP:Sock puppetry violations, denied; and then, when shown the evidence, conceded. Now we see here the same behaviour: When first told of COI disclosure requirements, user denied and said this was not contractually possible [24], but now that the community presses, the user has conceded. This seems to be a pattern with this user of using falsehoods to try to get benefits. This is both an infringement of WP:CIVIL, in not acting in good faith with other users, and WP:NOT, in not acting collaboratively to build an encyclopedia, tearing down two of the five pillars. Which of course makes sense: User fully admits to being here not with the end goal of making a better encyclopedia, but with the end goal of making better money. It's become increasingly clear in my mind that when the interests of this encyclopedia get in the way of the interests of this user, this user sacrifices the former for the sake of the latter. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• You've misrepresented what they've said. That "is both an infringement of WP:CIVIL, in not acting in good faith with other users, and WP:NOT, in not acting collaboratively to build an encyclopedia, tearing down two of the five pillars." What he said was, that he has rewritten the contract for his future customers which allows for open declaration of a COI and disclosure of whom he is working for. He's still contractually obligated not to reveal the others unless he can contact those customers and negotiate an amendment.--v/r - TP 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• If what you are saying about the meaning is true, then either the falsehood is the same as I identify, or it is even worse! Either User:AKonanykhin has dropped, or will drop presently, all the clients for whom work cannot be done while meeting disclosure requirements such that all editing will meet these requirements, in which case the previous statement that disclosure "cannot" be done was the same falsehood. Or, User:AKonanykhin has neither dropped, nor will drop presently, all the clients for whom work cannot be done while meeting disclosure requirements such that all editing will meet these requirements, in which case the promise to meet disclosure requirements is a shameless lie! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Or it's not a "shameless lie" at all and your continued rhetoric only serves to obscure and derail factual discussion. Business doesn't happen overnight. A promise from the CEO to change business practices takes time to renegotiate contracts. Your confusing unrealistic idealism with legitimate business expectations. Please stop doing that. Be realistic and quit accusing them of being liars simply because they cannot snap their fingers and make it all happen in an instant.--v/r - TP 20:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I never intend to use rhetoric, I only intend to give the facts as I see them, to the best of my ability. I don't expect anyone to make anything happen in an instant. I assumed that your interpretation was not the case. According to User:Jehochman, who I take to be trustworthy on this matter, User:AKonanykhin now intends to meet disclosure requirements ([25]). As I said, either they do intend to meet the disclosure requirements, in which case their previous statement that this "cannot" be done, was a falsehood, or they do not intend to meet disclosure requirements, in which case the current promise is indeed a shameless lie. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You yourself are tearing down pillars, namely 3 and 5. KonveyorBelt 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure is not a "requirement". It is a recommendation. They've agreed to follow (not meet) disclosure recommendations (not requirements). WP:COI "you are advised to...provide full disclosure of the connection".--v/r - TP 22:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the wording Jehochman ascribed to the user: "The banned user, unable to participate here in the discussion of their fate, has emailed me to say that he updated his website to explicitly state that Wikipedia's COI guideline disclosure requirements". If there is a real difference between the meaning of "following requirements" and "meeting requirements", just read "following" whenever I have said "meeting". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Question. When the company says it will abide by the COI guideline, does that mean it will disclose its accounts and require its contractors to refrain from editing articles directly (as the guideline advises)? Or is it offering something more restricted than that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Same here. @Jehochman, I'll believe it when I see it. So now their ethics page says "including Conflict of Interests (COI) disclosure requirements" although their "Why us" page continues to promise their clients confidentiality. There's enormous scope for gaming this. As you and several others have been at pains to point out, our COI guidelines don't explicitly require disclosure. However, quite a few of the editors in this discussion who do not outright oppose lifting the ban, require declarations of COI from this group of editors, and for well-founded reasons. None of their editors are banned from editing their talk pages. It would be a good start if each of them declared their conflict of interest on their talk pages now and AKonanykhin linked to those talk pages on his talk page so that this can be verified. Voceditenore (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm tired of being a middleman in this discussion. I'm not his spokesman. Please go talk to AKonanykhin directly. This is why it was so stupid to ban him. It's hard for concerned editors to talk to the guy when he can't even edit his talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• His block log doesn't indicate that his talk page access has been revoked, and indeed, he has edited it 4 times it since he was blocked. I'm also quite sure he's reading this discussion, as are his employees. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support unban. I have yet to encounter a cogent argument for the position that paid editing creates a bias that is somehow more problematic than any of the other myriads of biases all editors are influenced by, and, so justifies special treatment. I see no reason to address any particular bias, including this particular bias. Regardless of what an editor's biases are (and it's a matter of what the biases are, not if there are any), what matters is that the edits are made in compliance with NPOV and our other content-oriented guidelines and polices. WP:AGF, anyone? And, yes, paid editors can edit in good faith. --B2C 17:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree, an editor who was simply paid can edit in good faith. However, an editor who was paid to conduct propaganda type editing (and that is what PR companies do) should not be allowed to edit per WP:SOAP. Well, perhaps they might edit per WP:IAR, but only if they openly disclose their affiliation prior to any incidents resulting in blocks, such as promotional editing of Mr. Konanykhin biography (see my links above). My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes (talk · contribs), edits in violation of WP:SOAP are violations of SOAP regardless of whether they are motivated by payment, and should be dealt with accordingly. There is no need for a separate sanction targeting paid editing. Since there is no reason to disclose any other bias (like one's race when editing an article about race, or one's religion when editing a religious article, or one's political leanings when editing a political article), there is no reason to disclose the specific bias created by paid editing. Attempting to do so resolves nothing and pushes the behavior even more underground. Let's show a little more faith in our content-guarding policies and guidelines like NPOV, Notability, WP:IRS, and, yes, WP:SOAP. --B2C 05:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not about bias. An editor who belongs to an outside organization makes promotional edits (including removal of important reliably sourced information - yes, I saw this a number of times, and this is the reason I do not edit in certain subject areas) not because he has a bias, but because he was told to do them by his superiors. He acts as a proxy. He acts essentially as a meatpuppet. Therefore, the disclosure is necessary.My very best wishes (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I do not mind when people work for educational or scientific organizations (although a disclosure would be appropriate/necessary even in such cases), but when it comes to political PR, such as removal of well-sourced information about crime, no. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I question the prohibitions on meat puppetry as well. But that's a bias too... it's a bias favoring the views of the meat. I don't care why people edit as they do - I care whether the result of their edits -- the affected content -- is in compliance with our content-specific policies and guidelines. That's it. --B2C 06:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose (of unban)
  • The current proposal is based on the proposition that, since there were few diffs given during the banning discussion, the rules on banning were ignored. There are no rules that require diffs during the banning discussion. There was clear and solid evidence -AK's own statements made in the media and posted on his own website, that he had violated the rules of Wikipedia hundreds of times, and that he intended to keep on violating our rules. His statements on this page were enough to show meat-puppeting. The ban was quite proper.
  • I don't find User:AKonanykhin's statement that he would follow the rules in the future at all convincing. There are no details showing that he knows what he did wrong. There is no acknowledgement or reporting of the history of what he's done wrong, so that we can't easily correct his advertising and promotion. He needs to disclose his clients and contractors, and give dates and articles. His claim that he can't disclose because of contracts he's signed is self-serving, and any such contract provisions would be unenforceable as it is public policy in the US that promotional and advertising claims must disclose the relationship between the sponsor and the person making the claim (if it is not obvious that the person making the claims (here- the editor) is working for the advertiser).
  • Konanykhin's website wikiexperts.us is currently breaking the law by making false advertising claims. For example he currently promises his clients to "Increase the visibility and credibility of your company, brand, or product by creating or improving your Wikipedia presence." He cannot deliver on these promises for at least two reasons: 1) promotion is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia; and 2) he and his employees are currently banned from editing on Wikipedia. If he continues to make false advertising claims on his own website and break the US law on deceptive advertising, even after he is banned here, how can we expect him to follow the rules here. At a minimum, he needs to take down his advertising of Wikipedia editing services on his own site, before we can even consider unbanning him.
  • Two more example from wikiexperts.us of deceptive advertising (the first also promises POV editing)
    • "Article Monitoring and Repair: When someone edits your article, WikiExperts are alerted immediately. Our staff reviews the article to check whether it is still objective, representative and above all, not unduly damaging to your brand’s image. If needed, the changes are reversed."
    • "Updates: Just as your business is dynamic, so too should be your Wikipedia entry. Every time your company’s situation changes, we will update your article, applying the same care to keep it compliant with Wikipedia policies." (How can he update an article - compliant with Wikipedia policies - when he is banned?)

Smallbones<subj>(smalltalk) 20:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting argument. However, he acts rationally. Why change their web site? He overcame Russian justice, INS, FBI and US Department of Justice. Sure thing, he can deal with Wikipedia. I am looking forward seeing him and his people around. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Why change their web site?" because he is breaking the law if he doesn't. It's pretty simple. Is your argument really that he should not be held to Wikipedia's rules and US law, like any other person, simply because he has won some cases in court? It seems like an incredibly cynical argument - "because we can get away with it" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I am simply trying to explain why they did not bother to fix their web site (yet) - from their perspective. They think they will edit here no matter what, I believe. Let's see if this unblock passes. If it does, I am right. If it does not, they will do something else (possibly new statements and yet another request for unblock). My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Qualified support for an unban. On the one hand, I (and I believe I speak for many here) don't like the idea of unbanning known paid editors—paid editing is distasteful and disruptive, and can be fairly assumed to carry a certain level of bad faith. I say that last part in that the ultimate goal of a paid editor is to get paid, rather than improve the encyclopedia—that's my distinction between "bad" paid editing and acceptable paid editing (e.g. the reward board, or paid Wikipedian-in-Residence positions at GLAMs, et cetera). That being said, given that we cannot prevent all paid editing, it is in our interests to bring it "above-ground" as much as possible. By allowing paid editors some freedom when they disclose their actions and are subject to scrutiny, we ultimately gain greater control over paid editing's influence because it can be measured and regulated more effectively. It also gains us greater leeway to penalize paid editors who try to slip under the radar and fail, since there'd be an established best practice that they are demonstrably trying to circumvent.
  The freedom that I believe paid editors should enjoy when their work is disclosed and meets our standards is tempered by greater freedom on our part to block and ban paid editors who do not meet these standards. If a paid editor is found to also be operating "underground" or operating sock puppets, etc., that should result in an immediate and permanent ban. We cannot tolerate behaviour that is manifestly in bad faith. For that matter, if paid editors produce poor-quality work, we should not be tolerant of that, because it can produce so much clean-up work for our unpaid volunteers. I'd support a "sticky proposed deletion" process analogous to those for BLPs.
  I'm rambling, so TL;DR: Unban this time, and let's move to incentivizing good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour more consistently in the future, please. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply a poor-quality work is not a forbidden, unless an editor is utterly incompetent. It does not really matter that these editors are paid. However, they work for a propaganda/PR company. That should be forbidden per WP:SOAP.My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support unban, not because I like PR companies editing, but because we can either A unban and have all PR accounts disclosed, or B don't unban and drive PR accounts underground. It's very simple. Ross Hill (talk) 00:49, 22 Oct 2013 (UTC) 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Despite the disclaimer on their "ethics page": "You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Wikipedia profile to strangers - or worse, to the competition." Does anyone here seriously not see how this statement sums it all up? It's astounding. Doc talk 07:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Firm Oppose. Per Smallbones and Nyttend. While some people here claim that the banning process was "flawed," the fact that it's an editor with his own article we're talking about here, who has made repeated intentions of violating WP policy, and suddenly seeking an unban roughly two weeks after Kudpung closing it? Jeez, as per Nyttend, try going off the grid for six months!

I agree with Smallbones' points on the subject being alerted of possible edits to a client article and their people will fix it. That's already owning it in my book and they dare other people to edit client articles. AKonanykin's making a really stupid facade of declaring that his company will suddenly follow all WP guidelines despite all his rhetoric about violating them, hypocrite much? An unban will only play into his hands.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban per two points:

1. I call shenanigans, basically. I believe AKonanykhin is a good businessperson and will do what good businesspeople do, which is serve the needs of their paying clients. What they have stated they do for their clients seems patently incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. I just don't believe their culture, aims and methods can turn on a word like that. I read the latest on AKonanykhin's User Talk and there's a lot of "Yes, but..." there setting up loopholes. Yes, WP:AGF but also AGF is not a suicide pact.
2. Where are the diffs? - Several commentors here supporting the unban have asked for diffs showing the ban is justified. However, this is not another !vote on banning. This is an UNBAN vote. We normally only grant an appeal to lift a ban after it has been demonstrated that the editor can contribute productively and in line with Wikipedia's rules. Where are the diffs demonstrating this? If AKonanykhin provides a complete list of their paying clients and accounts the company uses, and demonstrates that well-sourced content that meets Wikipedia's content policies but reflects badly on their paying clients won't be challenged or removed, I might reconsider.

Zad68 15:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unban As someone else wrote, "I find the entire subject of a company who's entire existence appears to be about paid editing to run afoul of what I believe Wikipedia is." Paid editing is advertising, and Wikipedia does not allow ads. John Nagle (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, hiring of an experienced participant by a business can be a bribery - if the payment alters to the worse editing behavior of the recipient.My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Unban with proviso that all Paid COI edits must be identified on talk pages of affected articles, under penalty of return to banned status. The marketing of this company implies NPOV is the least of their worries. We need to make sure that it is on their radar, and the only way to do that is if we know where to look. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to unban this account. We can talk about why that is for months. Doc talk 11:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support unban: As much as I am opposed to paid editing, as it truly does undermine the spirit of Wikipedia, I am unconvinced by arguments that this ban should stay in place. If the ban was to be kept in place until a promise to declare conflict-of-interest was made, then there really is no reason to keep the ban in place. A lot of the arguments to keep the ban in place revolve around the implicit mistrust we have in paid editors, and that in many cases may be well founded. However we set a ban in place and gave specific guidance as to how it could be removed, and if we do not follow through on our word here, then we are just as untrustworthy. Do we really set expectations for people without meaning them? Do we really set bans or blocks in place with instructions as to how it can be removed, then reneg on those terms when someone complies?

It appears that a major concern is that we have no idea whether or not the company will comply with the terms of the unban. I’m a little sceptical of that line of argumentation. If they are unbanned and hey, look, there doesn’t seem to be any Wikiex account anywhere doing anything whatsoever, I think we’ll have our answer—they’re not following the rules. And if contributions do pop up, we’ll know immediately if we need to revert them or not. So I think we can see pretty easily whether or not to trust the company’s word if there is future disclosure, or if there is not. Considering all we have to go off right now is a couple of stale diffs from before the editors went into business that would be very beneficial in terms of seeing what potential problem lies here. On top of that, we can see what their editing patterns are and if we want, continue searching for problem patterns that might have popped up elsewhere, and address such patterns as they arise. So if they can’t provide past accounts, I don’t see the issue personally, as if they were problem accounts we’ll find them. Wikipedia isn’t fragile or incompetent, we can easily see if the unban should stay or a ban reimposed by a small sample size of disclosed edits. So again, no reason to reneg on our word. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Real problem here is not paid editing, but use of multiple accounts by the same organization when every individual account acts as company's proxy. Yes, I agree, such bans can be appealed, but only under one standard condition: complete disclosure of all their current accounts to asses potential damage (or possibly benefits) of their activities. Actually, we have this below with regard to another company: This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that XYZ as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• A standard could be set, but I don’t see where it has. I’ve reread the ban again and it does not mention retroactive disclosure, so are we not moving the goal posts here? In retrospect, if the ban had included retroactive disclosure, the vote could have turned out differently. In addition, if the ban had not included a clear pathway to reinstatement, again the vote could have turned out quite differently. There is no way of knowing if the ban would have been agreed to with the new standard of retroactive disclosure. It’s not that retroactive disclosure is a bad idea, it’s that no one agreed that it would be necessary. I dislike these types of people as much as anybody, and would prefer no paid editing whatsoever on Wikipedia. But the language used was pretty specific, and ignoring that language in favour of new conditions strikes me as strange.

The other thing that bothers me is the assumption of bad faith in past edits, which was also not a part of the ban. You mention WikiPR, where there is evidence of bad faith edits, but this case provides none. For all our searching (I’ve done some myself too) I can’t find examples of bad faith editing—and definitely nothing that would make me feel comfortable with establishing new conditions for unbanning. Maybe that’s all beside the point though, because from what I read the ban doesn’t state anywhere that there was an assumption of bad faith edits. It only states that it was unethical (and, quite frankly, abhorrent) to lambaste Wikipedia in the way that it was happening and at the same time not disclose accounts that could prove good faith editing. The logic behind this wasn’t that the company must be editing badly, but that we didn’t trust it to edit without supervision. Anyhow, I’m uncomfortable with the apparent shape-shifting of the argument not to unban and the setting of new conditions that did not appear in the ban, as when I apply the arguments here to the ban language, I feel it is starting to slip away from the original decision (which I agreed with, by the way). I think that is dangerous for the long-term development of a paid editing policy that keeps Wikipedia safer, as it doesn’t show continuity in our decisions. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF policy is only about individuals, not organizations. Importantly, even though we have AGF, we also can and should trace contributions by individual editors to identify those who actually damage the project - this happens all the time. When it comes to corporations, there is an additional dimension: activities of people who work on behalf of the same organization are normally coordinated from the same center. Is it an illegal coordination? We do not really know without having their disclosure. We can't AGF that activities of between different people from the same corporation are uncoordinated because they usually are, almost by definition. Yes, I believe they must make retroactive disclosure as a precondition of their unban, so we can check they did not do damage like Wiki-PR. Did this particular user and his employees were actually engaged in doubtful coordinated activities? Yes, at least four their accounts (one of them blocked) edited biography of Mr. Konanykhin. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just as a point of interest, nowhere in WP:AGF does it state what you are implying it does. Groups of people are not treated differently from people by the policy, which is besides the point, as I was only pointing out that there was no breach of WP:AGF retroactively in the ban language and that therefore I find that imposing it now is contrary to our mission—which is to root out any potential problem we might have. I am clearly not saying that no tracing should occur, I in fact stated that we can trace patterns much more easily if damage exists by allowing ourselves a recent sample of their edits. As a complete aside, I’m not sure that making charges of illegal activity is in line with WP:LEGAL, as you are implying that crimes are taking place and that legal action may be needed. But I could be wrong on that.

Really, I agree with you that perhaps in the future retroactive disclosure requests could be made a part of any cban. But it wasn’t in this case, and again, I think that trying to impose it regardless doesn’t respect the original community consensus. Is there evidence enough to ignore the consensus and impose new sanctions? The evidence you present for unconstructive editing is pretty old. One is an attempt to post material that was shut down pretty easily by us four years ago, and which occurred before the company we are talking about came to being. The second is a case where conflict of interest was actually disclosed, so the policy we’re trying to imposed (and rightfully so) wasn’t circumvented. That second edit was just to add a photo, I would add, and one we still have on the Commons and in use. I’d want to see far more in terms of recent, damaging diffs to determine the impact of this situation on the site, and in fact, believe that we will never be able to determine such potential damage if we do not respect the language of the original consensus and disallow ourselves the ability to see what new edits we receive. That’s fighting this battle with one hand tied behind our backs. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did you find that I am "implying that crimes are taking place and that legal action may be needed"? I never said anything even close. I only said somewhere that I saw how certain editors remove well-sourced negative information (including information about crime) from articles about certain rich/influential living people and organizations, and I am sure this is COI problem. Unfortunately, based on my experience here, this is all unprovable (no one declares their COI in political subjects of course), can't be fixed, and only will get me banned. So I would rather avoid editing these subjects, and that is exactly what I actually did.My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin - 2nd arbitrary break

• The original ban stated [26]:

"The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of WP:COI in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases."

People might argue in how to interpret the first "will", but to me it's stating the company's editors must disclose that they have been paid to edit articles prior to the ban and that any new employees must do so if/when the ban is lifted. It does not require that they name their clients, although that can be reasonably inferred from the articles they have edited since 2010. In fact, although they later attempted to make that information harder to find, several of them had been openly declared, along with their articles. See for example, User:Eclipsed here, here (uncollapse the thread). The user pages of two of the four editors whom Eclipsed "adopted" (and at one point referred to as his "team"): [27], [28]. All four editors can be found here. See also here (uncollapse the "Declarations"). Plus this user after this. I will notify all the editors I've mentioned here, although apart from Eclipsed, they now appear to be inactive. There is another editor who is almost certainly from WikiExperts who has extensively edited WikiExperts.us as well as all the other articles on Konanykhin's various companies, his wife, her associates, etc. I won't name them here as they have made no attempt to declare their COI. Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Three points. (a) Yes, this is written in text of ban: all accounts (including current ones) should be disclosed. (b) Konanykhin said that they have a non-disclosure agreement not only with their clients, but also with "their" wikipedia editors [29] and that they currently have a number of editors here, rather than these old accounts (in his another statement too where he tells that their people stopped editing during the ban) (c) Making such non-disclosure agreement means creating a Cabal; and we know several cases when members such "teams" (even not bound by any agreements) were sanctioned by Arbcom in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The original drafter of the ban language himself has stated he supports an unban in the above discussion. I believe that they would have the closest understanding of what the language was supposed to mean. A number of other users who supported the ban have changed their minds, so I am reasonably assured that these individuals have the right interpretation of the language. In addition, there was very little discussion of disclosing retroactively in the commentary that led to the ban, so I'm relatively convinced that your misinterpreting it. No retroactive disclosure was agreed upon by the community. That said, we can go round and round like this for weeks. On your other point Voceditenore, I would indeed like to hear from User:Eclipsed to see how his or her Wikipedia activities are related to this discussion and what they have to say about the things being said about him/her. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter what drafter or anyone else tells. It only matters what was actually written in the ban, because that is what people voted for. My very best wishes (talk)

We're saying the same thing here, just from two different sides. I believe it is a stretch here to say the ban intended for retroactive disclosure, and that moving the goal posts doesn't help us deal with the problem at hand. I'm also saying, I guess, overall, that smacking away the hand that is being extended by the company in question and gaining the "upperhand" so to speak by actually seeing if what we fear exists (potentially attrocious editing) is not in our best interests either. I'd rather keep Keyser Söze in my grips while I can (no offense to the company/person described meant, I'm purely using an analogy). Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Two points. 1. Retroactive disclosure to some extent may well be the incidental result of present and future disclosure, but present and future disclosure should occur, nonetheless. 2) Are there current claims that present/future disclosure cannot be made? If so, those should be rejected, as incompatible with the ban condition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, nothing should stand in the way of present and future disclosure. Any claim that full disclosure post-unban is not possible due to potential retroactive disclosure would be a cause to reinstate said ban, if made. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Jeremy112233... You want to know what role of User:Eclipsed is in all this? Read this posting he made to AN in November 2010, when this company was first brought to the noticeboard:

"Greetings! My name is David, and on Wikipedia my username is Eclipsed. I recently signed up as COO of the company named in this thread. My boss is Alex Konanykhin. I receive financial compensation for the work I do for this company. I would like to say more, but I feel to do so may be a violation the spirit of WP:NOTADVERTISING".

Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is perfect example what happens when political PR companies are working in Wikipedia. Eclipsed was a well-intended participant who contributed just fine since 2005. He was recruited in 2010 (based on his statement), which led to COI problems and finally his retirement from the project. This incident alone could be a reason for banning the company. What they do is bribery. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

In that same post that I linked Eclipsed claimed that he was already working as a free-lance paid editor here, but finding it hard to make a go of it until he met Konanykhin. If he is to be believed, he wasn't exactly corrupted by his current boss, although if you read the whole discussion (uncollapse the thread), several editors disputed the accuracy of his narrative. Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Strange that there was a disclosure of COI on User:Eclipsed's edits instead of being done in secret. It's not all that relevant to the ban/unban discussion though I guess, as it is an example of disclosure that has already taken place and not of undisclosed contributions, in line with what we are demanding. We can use it in other ways though perhaps. Maybe as an example of how the company might have in the past been able to edit in the way we need them to, for those on the fence, or at least that sample size of edits I was talking about, in terms of the kinds of potential edits we are trying to ferret out. Good information. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is a disorganized discussion because people commented and voted with regard to three different issues: (a) paid editing (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but better be declared), (b) WP:COI (editing in the area of your expertise, paid or not, is not necessarily COI), and (c) working on behalf of an external political PR/propaganda organization by multiple editors coordinated from the same center (potential improper coordination and WP:SOAP problems). I think (c) is the most serious issue that requires complete disclosure of all recent and current accounts used by all external organizations currently working in Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully respect your opinion, though I've heard almost nobody in the above thread describe anything like your option "c", and find it mildly bombastic--equating public relations people to propagandists and whatnot, or assuming that there are multiple tag teams of editors out there (no one has provided evidence of that). Your use of WP:SOAP is apt though; I would add that if any significant amount of unambiguously promotional material is found and deleted in association from the organization we're discussing, that there could be grounds for restrictions outside the language of the ban in any unban. I just don't see any such clear examples of such unambiguous promotional activity right now, which makes me concerned that we're imprinting our own worst fears on a phantom that may or may not have any of the organs we might be attributing to it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps this whole discussion is purely academic. Even Jehochman does not believe these guys are going to respect Wikipedia rules. He tells in his opening statement: "I think it will be better for Wikipedia to encourage this firm to operate in the open rather than driving them underground. We have no practical way to identify their employees, so the ban is a toothless provocation and ensures that these editors will never disclose what they are doing"'...My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for Disclosure

What if: We have the editors who work for WikiExperts create separate COI accounts, like WMF staff members, that they use while making edits for WikiExperts? For example, if I were employed by them (which is not to say that I am, because I'm not), I would use User:TParis (WikiExperts) for all paid editing by WikiExperts and User:TParis for all of my normal editing. Using the WMF Staff member model, this could make it very clear which edits are by WikiExperts. The way it stands now, if we identify who their editors and customers are, we still do not know if each, and which, individual edits are being paid for or not. This solution would take all the ambiguity away. Thoughts?--v/r - TP 18:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as being maybe workable. That is provided these individuals actually do any editing that isn't for pay. There could be a bit of a blurry line, though, if I as a paid editor (which I am not) were to, perhaps, try to add some information on the topic of my COI to marginally related articles. An example might be trying to add a link to my business' building (which may or may not be prominent in the community) to the article on the city in which it exists, or something like that. Such edits might be seen as problematic if the editor, reasonably, thought the building should be mentioned, which perhaps it might be, but others, just as reasonably, might disagree regarding the amount or location of such content. In such cases, to what degree might COI be considered relevant, and, as a secondary concern, to what degree might, potentially, problematic paid editors (which would probably include only a comparatively small number) seek to excuse such problematic edits with this perhaps dubiously defensible reason? John Carter (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This leads directly to witch hunting. If an editor sees they are paid 10/10 times thy will revert. If they explicitly state in their names they are a paid pr firm they will be reported to ANI and generally harassed. KonveyorBelt 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not exactly. I've been paid to write articles and I've even managed to get them put on DYK: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dennis_Lo.--v/r - TP 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• It has been my experience the Wikipedia community is actually protective of COI editors who follow the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Konveyor, you keep making claims about disclosure leading to harassment, but you never point to any specific examples. Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• User:CorporateM is out and proud and manages to get the job done. No doubt it is very much more uncomfortable and difficult to do it that way than to simply hide, but he/she nevertheless behaves ethically. Like TP, above. We could make it easier for them by reviewing their talk page requests and WP:AFC submissions in a timely manner. But we can't welcome a team here that openly defies community-agreed norms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not persuaded that we actually need it to be part of the username for the account, the way that "(WMF)" is used, but I do believe strongly that some kind of identification is needed, perhaps by way of userpage disclosure. I don't really buy the argument directly above, about inevitable reverting of good edits, because that's what discussion and consensus are for. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm fine with this. Might be a good way to go with all paid editing. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I think this ban can be lifted if they provide list of all their accounts (here and right now), so that everyone will be able to check what exactly they are doing. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)I believe all PR companies and individual propagandists must be forbidden simply per WP:SOAP. This is because their openly stated goal is promotion of their clients. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Other paid editors, such as WWB, have used this method successfully. Steven Walling • talk 21:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that the affiliation of paid editor should be in his/her username; disclosure upfront (like scientists with COI do in their scientific papers) is the way to go... don't bury the information. As volunteer editors our time here is precious, and I for one don't want to be suspicious of everybody I am working on an article with, to the point where I go check their pages to see who they are when there are disagreements. I think too that all their paid editing accounts should be listed on one page, so that it is easy to find the relevant editors and audit their compliance, for any editor or admin who wants to see how well they are keeping their promises (assuming we un-ban them) Responding to User:Konveyor Belt. I know what it is like to be witch-hunted, so please know that I am sympathetic with that concern. But we need to work toward compromise and consensus, and it would be helpful if you acknowledged that there is a big chunk of the community that is really concerned about paid editing - we need to work toward solutions everybody can live with and avoid exaggerations like "10/10 times they would be reverted." I hope you can see that.... Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a general solution in such cases, but not in this particular case, where I think the ban should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - every paid editor should indicate their allegiance otherwise it constitutes violation of WP:SOCK Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a violation of sock unless the employer asks all its employees to work together to subvert consensus. If there are 100 employees of Apple editing Wikipedia, which there probably are, should we block all of them for sock puppetry (starting with User:Alison who freely discloses her Apple affiliation)? Jehochman ^Talk 01:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Makes sense. Now, if we can just get User:Dickhead (Bigot) and User:Nice person (Acupuncturist) to fall into line when editing race or acupuncture articles, respectively, life will be much simpler here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Really this sounds no stronger a policy or guideline than just requiring the user to create an account with that companies name in it like, oh...I don't know..User:Arturo at BP and follow that example. But they should still not be allowed to edit, but can make drafts and suggestions on the talk page. As I understand it, TParis is suggesting we just allow the paid editors to just edit any article with a new user right....one that we have been attempting to fight against. No, I'm not for allowing paid editing on Wikipedia, no offense to those who have admitted to having already done so. I see this as a way that more experienced editors could easily take advantage of their expertise and experience to profit from and....I don't know that anyone can talk me down from that position but please try, I am all ears. Volunteer should be our goal and if someone is slipping through our policy cracks by editing an article specifically because they have been hired to do so....well, I would think we would want to fill that crack, not widen it.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Mark. Are you offering the example of Arturo at BP (talk · contribs) as a good example of a paid editor? Because it is moderately disclosed, and has no mainspace edits? I think it looks good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Why not run a test case on this? Make it optional, and get feedback from them and the community after some time. We can then broaden or scrap the idea based on its success. Contrary to Konveyor Belt's claim above, a named account would seem more trustworthy to me; the editor is choosing to be transparent and is obviously knowledgeable about our policies and his responsibility to manage his COI. I don't know if requiring them to have named accounts is the best plan when we don't have such a policy in place for other paid editors, so I'd oppose a requirement on those grounds.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would only argue that we do have such a policy or guideline in place for other paid editors. In fact we have, what I thought was a pretty clear set of policies, not perfect, but getting stronger and clearer on the subject.

Disclosure polices

Per WP:ISU "Usernames implying shared use": ...usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", "LoveTrammelArt", etc. Remember that promotional editing is not permitted regardless of username. The conflict of interest guideline advises all users to exercise caution if editing articles about businesses, organizations, products, or other subjects that they are closely connected to. If you choose to edit articles that are in any way related to your company or group, you will need to carefully follow Wikipedia's advice on editing with a conflict of interest. " Per WP:NOPAY "Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing": If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an employee, owner or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection. You may use the article talk pages to suggest changes, or the {{request edit}} template to request edits. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other, and may not be acted upon. The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited. And of course Declaring an interest: Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. The benefits of this are that most editors will appreciate your honesty and may try to help you; you lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself, and public relations professionals may be required to abide by code of ethics, such as the GA code of ethics or PRSA code of ethics. The disadvantage of declaring your interest is that people outside Wikipedia, such as reporters, may identify you and generate negative publicity for you, your group or your company. Some COI declarations have the effect of announcing your real name (see WP:REALNAME). Do not publicly declare an interest if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers.  ::Example of disclosure.

I think it is safe to say we have a few policies in place for this very thing.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Every paid editor should disclose their COI. This is a very straightforward way of doing so and is about as good as it gets. MER-C 04:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support TParis' line of thinking. These paid editors are here and prohibition will not eradicate them. A User:Username (paid editor) account would be the best disclosure for edits to mainspace. I would not insist on having the tagged alt account linked to the main account, as I think there would be lots of paid editors not brave enough to do this. I would have untagged, undisclosed paid-to-edit accounts declared preemptively banned, with their work subject to WP:CSD#G5. I think only this will motivate compliance from the majority of paid editors. I would allow tagged accounts the freedom to edit as per any editor, and to restrict their editing privileges if they edit poorly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hey SmokeyJoe. Is the statement: "These paid editors are here and prohibition will not eradicate them." something of a false argument? We have a set of guidelines and policy in place and have been through a good deal of discussion from the BP article in regard to paid editing and paid advocacy editing. I am not sure if I understand the logic of the proposal if not to simply allow editing of the article itself by creating a new user right or user category. I would say if we are allowing them the ability to gain financially against the very policies we have in place right now and in mass to the very question of meat puppetry, we should probably hold off any decision until we have a Village pump proposal made to the full community. If there is consensus for some special user group with the point blank disclaimer embedded permanently into the editors name...then won't they also want to have an alternative account for when they are not being paid? How far will this really take us? Will everyone be allowed two alternative accounts? If not, how does one get this new user right? What are the criteria for it? If you get it and don't have a regular account would you be able to work around the all editors being able to have double accounts...one for volunteer work and one for payment from an outside entity for the best price I can get? Can this be be implemented without the foundation and a full look into any implications on community reaction and editor retention. Would legal need to look into this first. This sounds like something that would need a straw poll, and go through a more thorough process of community vetting and consensus to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Mark. The statement is my working premise. There are some high profile admissions of undeclared alternative accounts used for paid editing. The existing policy on paid editing is weak. It is discouraged. Disclosure of COI is encouraged. They are not forbidden/required. I think "requiring" disclosure of paid editing is a reasonable small step worth trying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think one step is to tighten the policy to require disclosure of paid advocacy and paid editing. I think it is a step too far to then..."Release The Kraken" upon the community by then saying just by a stamp of disclosure we should let them edit articles. Disclosure and proper COI editing is not direct and it may not be exactly what companies and editors may want in regards to paid editing policy but I can't support actually giving them a green light with the collateral of the whole thing being alternate accounts, mass groups of editors from different companies with different agendas and a political nightmare of campaigns and PR firms etc, this will attract. This isn't really just a matter of one company, but allowing everyone the right to do the same thing...and they do have the same right to do what this company does. Now we have to decide how to react to it. I agree. We should require disclosure of paid editing. I do not agree that we should allow paid editors to edit articles directly.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Mark. Agreed, we should require disclosure. When disclosed, should we allow them to edit mainspace? If it is a hard no, does this mean we require them to post edit requests on the talk page, and will these be ignored? My problem with a hard no is that they will reject the deal and stay underground. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose per the name of the company. The Foundation accounts are used to speak with some sort of authority. Non-regulars at AN will see (WikiExperts) and think these are more expert than the other poor sods who just have plain user names. Peridon (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Proposal for Disclosure. What's next? A special user account for editing political articles identifying your political affiliation (B2C (Whig Party))? And another for editing religious articles (B2C (agnostic))? And yet another for one's favorite football team when editing football articles (B2C (49ers))? And, of course, everyone should be required to disclose their place of residence in order to identify nationalistic biases, etc. (B2C (Antarctic)).

  There is nothing about the bias created by paid editing that makes it require special treatment relative to other biases. There is no reason to identify paid editors, ever.

  Focus on content, folks, not the editors. It is that simple. --B2C 18:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

" There is nothing about the bias created by paid editing that makes it require special treatment relative to other biases". Then find ways to deal with other means of bias too. That's like saying we shouldn't block vandals because we can't block all disruptive editors. When we can deal with obvious forms of bias, we should. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you're underestimating the effect of all other kinds of bias, and thus overestimating the relative significance of this one kind of bias. We deal with all bias in the same way: WP:NPOV, WP:IRS, WP:NOTABILITY, etc. The beauty of WP is bias does not matter! WP all about putting all of our biases (and we all have them!) aside and creating NPOV notable content that is well-founded in reliable sources. This whole issue reveals how little understood and appreciated this aspect of WP is, even by very experienced editors. Sad, really. --B2C 00:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per declaration here [30]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal number 99999: Declare that you do paid editing

This seems by far the most sensible and lightest solution. If you engage in paid editing, place a notice on your user page or talk page that says you do. This bit could be compulsory, if that's what consensus says. If all your edits, or the majority are paid for, then you should say, but this bit isn't required. No need to disclose exact clients, or their exact requests. No messy signatures, no outright bans, just a simple notice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Support as proposer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support as long as this is not interpreted to mean that this is the only thing that needs to be done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

   Depending on exactly what you mean by that, then no, it doesn't suggest that this will resolve the entire problem. I'm not that naive. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

3. Support This is one of the simplest things to be done and one of the best. Declaring any COI before you start editing will hopefully defuse tensions. KonveyorBelt 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. This makes sense; we need to wake up to the reality that paid editing is going to go on (just as unpaid biased editing is going to go on), and our best defense against error is to have it out in the open. On a slightly more maudlin note, I feel bad for Luke, since this is Proposal number 99999, and Proposal number 100000 wins a free Hawaiian vacation. Well, I'm off to make a proposal... bd2412 T 17:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
5. Support I feel the issue isn't being paid for editing, per se, but whether or not a person clearly profits from the edit: consider two cases. If someone fixes a typo or adds a minor detail to a biography (date of marriage or graduation from college), no one's response would change if the edit was made by the subject, his arch enemy, or an objective person who jsut happens to know the fact. On the other hand, if someone questionale material to a controversial subject, thus tilting the POV of the article in one direction, the community response will be in proportion to just how vested that person is in the subject -- viz., a newbie is far more likely to simply be educated on Wikipedia ways than someone being serious money by an advocacy group or business. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
6. Support I think this has already been agreed upon by the prior consensus, and by this one. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Clients' identities must be disclosed if disclosure is to have any value. Otherwise, what does this accomplish? The whole point of COI declarations is to put other editors on notice so they can apply additional scrutiny to your edits are they deem appropriate. A bare declaration that you've done some paid editing, for who knows whom and for who knows what, provides very little guidance, if any. In addition many editors (especially those with less experience than the ones patrolling this noticeboard) don't often look at other editors' user pages, so a COI disclosure on an article's talk page (such as a Template:connected contributor tag) would be much more effective. Moreover I see nothing wrong with requiring paid editors to disclose their client lists. This is not WP:OUTING. If they signed NDAs, well, that's their problem. And expecting them to follow a "paid editor honor code" is sheer folly, given the empirical evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

   • Comment: I have a feeling, based on people's reactions, that the proposal isn't being read very carefully. The proposal isn't for full disclosure, but rather for partial disclosure. I'd like to see other editors weigh in not only on whether disclosure of paid editing is warranted but also whether disclosure of clients is warranted as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

   • No, clients identities don't have to be disclosed. That's never been a thing, it's just many people wish it was (including you, it seems); it also borders on WP:OUTING to force it to happen, as you are expecting confidential information to be put into the open. If you see a spammy article from someone with an "I engage in paid editing" notice, then it's almost certain that they were paid for it, and that they need to be watched carefully. Since paid editing is not a policy violation, there is at present nothing more that can be done. At the end of a day, someone can be neutral or biased regardless of payment. Good, neutral pay editors should not be discouraged; those who act in a biased or policy-violating manner should be dealt with on those violations, not solely the issue of payment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

   Your proposal already goes beyond the strictures of WP policy, so by your logic here your proposal must be rejected as well. And yes, you're correct that my position is for paid editors to disclose their clients. No, this doesn't border on WP:OUTING. OUTING is about personal information that exposes the editor to harm, not about confidential information. And frankly I don't give two bits about confidentiality agreements entered into by parties who are subverting our project. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

   Uh, I'm not sure if you've read the rubbish you've just written or not, but OUTING doesn't directly expose an editor to harm, and forcing people to disclose confidential information definitely COULD expose an editor to harm anyway. And again, you're buying into the myth that every single paid editor is bad, which is quite blatantly bullshit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

   Comment This does not appear to be the right place to discuss a policy proposal. As is the proposal seems ambiguous, ("but this bit isn't required"?) also disclosure for our readers (and editors) sake will need to be on the talk page of the affected article, in addition to the user page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

   That's completely ignoring most of the proposal, which deliberately avoids the thorny issue of disclosing confidential information. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

8. Oppose per unenforceable due to privacy policies of WMF. NE Ent 11:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

   What privacy policies? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Another Proposal: Certification Course

I'm just full of ideas this morning. What if we organized a certification course? It wouldn't be a precursor to editing, nor would it prevent a paid editor who is advocating a POV from getting blocked, but what if we offered this course that companies like WikiExperts can enroll their employees in and they'd get a userbox identifying that they've been through this course and have a basic understanding of policy? I'd imagine it could be modeled after our current mentorship programs. It would go a long way toward trusting folks.--v/r - TP 20:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Also liking this idea. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the past, Wikiexperts.us tends to hire subcontractors with prior WP editing experience, and often with considerable experience. It isn't surprising, in that new editors tend to make more mistakes which see the articles deleted. So it isn't lack of knowledge of the processes that is generally the problem. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is probably why they are successful. Their editors are pre-certified. Jehochman ^Talk 01:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the idea was more general than just Wikiexperts. I'm talking about paid editor companies all around.--v/r - TP 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so. A provocative question: would we rather have a bunch of bungling corporate marketing people edit Wikipedia, or would we prefer that they hire professional help who know how to write to our standards? Jehochman ^Talk 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• If you're serious about this idea, then the objective should be a program for *all* new users, an area where we already have severe deficiencies. NPOV is the key issue for all new users, whether they're paid advocates, paid editors, unpaid advocates, or just want to add something about their favourite TV show. The mentorship program is on its last legs due to a lack of volunteers. The idea is a good one, but it needs to work within our existing resources and target actual problems for the project, not just the perceived ones or the ones that are currently high-profile. We've had paid advocacy here for more than 10 years (my own first encounter with it was in 2007, and Wikipedia was a key part of a multi-pronged publicity campaign), so this is not a new problem. Risker (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

New users shouldn't have to slog through a bureaucracy just to edit. It must be fairly intimidating to have to go through a complex course just to fix a typo. After all, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we should try to keep it this way as much as possible. KonveyorBelt 02:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a question, then, Risker. Would anyone object if I, and maybe a few other volunteers (or someone else entirely, I won't patent the idea), were to "incorporate" a small business as a 'school' of sorts for these types. Off-wiki and what not, but with the sole purpose of teaching these paid-editor types, those whom are not already savvy, on how to edit Wikipedia. Could also teach public relations teams for companies how to do it right. Would that solve the problem?--v/r - TP 02:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The encylopeadia anyone can edit as long as they have the money or connections, eh? So you want to create a business enterprise to teach WP policies, of course for a fee. I am aware you in fact do not, but this will be the logical end result. As I said above. the project is doomed if money becomes a major criteria. No money should be involved, no one should make a penny from WP. We are all unpaid volunteers. See my proposal for a purely business enterprise related WP below. All monies recycled into local companies enviroments on a charitable basis. They would have to sign up to this explicitly. It would be hived off from the real project. I am taking it to Meta, and I think it will generate some support. Irondome (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm more or less weighing the idea in general as such an endeavor wouldn't require the approval of anyone here. However, if the community were to see it in a good light, we might be able to determine a route that would give us the 'feel goods' needed to make paid editing in a limit function acceptable. Money and connections couldn't possibly affect the encyclopedia itself, as such a company wouldn't edit the encyclopedia. All it would be is to teach policies and then cut those editors lose. Then they are on their own and liable to the very same policies as everyone else. All of fee would get them would be knowledge of how Wikipedia works to give them the best chance to be successful within policy. I, personally, would charge to teach others this. I'd need to cover expenses such as a gotoMeeting subscription, a website, and business fees. But it's an idea. It's also an idea I'm not attached to, I already work two jobs and I don't need a third, so if anyone else likes the idea they are welcome to run with it. Wikipedia is part of the 'free culture' but this is a sensible business niche and reason should trump idealism.--v/r - TP 03:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

such an endeavor wouldn't require the approval of anyone here This is exactly the attitude that got Wikiexperts and WikiPR into trouble when they started ignoring policy. KonveyorBelt 18:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I need to take a shit, can I get your approval for that? Creating companies related to Wikipedia is not the same thing as creating companies to edit Wikipedia. So no, it's not the same attitude. Take your rhetoric to someone who wants a bite.--v/r - T:P 19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If taking a shit was an inherent, natural part of Wikipedia, it'd be approved. Process is important. If your business is designed to make money off Wikipedia without approval there would be a problem. Businesses are a natural canvas for soapboxing and MEAT. KonveyorBelt 22:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the militant-ignorance that is causing the problem we have now that managed to site ban a user without evidence of misbehavior (no, meat puppetry has not been proven). People make money off Wikipedia all the time. Our content license is specifically written to allow it. I could print and bind the entire encyclopedia and sell it. So no, making money off Wikipedia is not disallowed. Making money teaching people how to use Wikipedia is actually a great idea, doesn't affect content in the slightest other than improving the general quality of new editors, and the only reason not to do it is a fear of threat to the "free culture" that permeates throughout this project.--v/r - TP 22:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Making money off of a nonprofit organization is not disallowed, yes, but it is completely unethical. It certainly affects content. For example, someone could be assigned to add a part to an article by you or someone else, and that part contains POV material, although the student doesn't know it. Who is at fault here? The horse or the master? KonveyorBelt 23:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't been around very long. People make money often reusing Wikipedia content. It's specifically licensed to allow it. The only restriction on Wikipedia content is that it has to be attributed and shared in the same fashion. But you can bundle it on a CD and sell the CD and make a profit. There is nothing unethical about it. What credentials to you have to make an ethical determination here?--v/r - TP 00:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Konveyor Belt: I've made money from Wikipedia. To be specific, directly from the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization responsible for hosting Wikipedia. I had a several month long contract with them, one that paid quite decently. Although they no longer employ me, the Wikimedia Foundation still employs quite a number of other people. I see problems with unethical paid editing practices, but I think saying making any money whatsoever related to Wikipedia is unethical is going too far.. if no one made money off of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist. If nothing else, a site of our size could not realistically survive without some full time tech people, and it'd be remarkable if we could find enough solid tech people willing to work for free. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, no one has objected to John Broughton making money from sales of Wikipedia – The Missing Manual. If an author can profitably write a book about how to edit Wikipedia, why can't an instructor profitably teach a course on the same subject matter? Why can't an expert individually advise a client on the same subject matter? bd2412 T 15:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a relatively simple corporate editing training module already on this site? I thought I saw something like that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Don’t know if they have a formal programme, but there’s WP:CO-OP.—Odysseus1479 07:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A separate business WP

• A separate WP should be created.
• It would adhere to WP procedures and agreements, and users would sign up to that.
• All monies would be donated to companies local enviroment, including charities. There will be no profit made. This should be a red line.
• Companies should agree to any monies being paid to their local communities to foster good works. This would be cast - iron AGF, and would indicate the ethical solidity of interested companies. Irondome (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bring this to Meta. Ross Hill (talk) 23:09, 20 Oct 2013 (UTC) 23:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. I need to knock this up into a more detailed proposal though. What metawiki portal would be most appropriate Ross? Irondome (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think somewhere, someone actually suggested something like this on Jimbo's talk page and frankly this sounds like the best route. Maybe not as proposed above but using the Wikivoyage model. Perhaps something like "Wikispotlight" (sounds better than Wikibusiness or Wikiforhire) and leave the entire subject of paid editing as ambiguous as it is at Wikivoyage. As I recall there is no such policy of paid or promotional editing on that site or any particular rule about a business writing their own information if it is relevant for the page and section.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do think the concept of the ultimate desination of any monies paid through using this mooted new sub-Wiki would be revolutionary. Companies would agree that any monies paid would go to charitable or local good cause foundations. It would attract some potentially huge revenue, (I think BP would love it :)) and would indicate that participating companies have a strong ethical semse, or perhaps merely a sense of positive PR. Any monies accrued using WP would be small change, and they would gain great kudos. The foundation may need to take it on, but potential revenues for positive charitable or educational programmes could be considerable. Just initial thoughts here. I agree this model is the way to go. Irondome (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So we'd have 2 Wikipedias - shall we call them PRpedia and NOPRpedia? With the PR folks banned from NOPRpedia, but free to pitch as much as they want at PRpedia? Lots of questions on the details here, but there is one very big problem. If we disclosed to the readers that PRpedia editors were allowed to put in "hidden" PR pitches into their encyclopedia, then they'd have very few readers. They'd also tend to have pretty poor articles outside of business areas - except that they could just copy NOPRpedia articles. They'd also have very biased articles on business, so when readers figured out what's up, they'll all go back to reading NOPRpedia. PR folks are not idiots, so they'd just go back to undisclosed editing at NOPRpedia, and PRpedeia would die, no readers, no editors. If anybody disagrees, of course, they can just form their own PRpedia and see how successful it is. The WMF will supply the software for free, and probably even help them download all the articles to start. Actually there are mirror sites that do this already, but I'd guess all the successful ones have one thing in common - no hidden PR in the articles.

A more direct approach might be for the WMF to just provide space for declared PR companies or business to just write whatever they want about their clients or themselves in the form of CC-BY-SA licensed articles. They wouldn't be good secondary sources, but we could use them as primary sources as needed, as long as the companies provide adequate info that the writer is who he/she claims to be - i.e. the public can hold them responsible for what they write. Again, the companies can do this themselves if they want on their own websites, but heck - why not as long as they agree not to put their advertising into our articles? As above, they could pay the costs of keeping the site open. A couple of problems here though. 1st the PR folks won't do it - they wouldn't fool anybody if their "info" was in this form; and 2nd the WMF has always said that it wouldn't take advertising. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Great feedback. Appreciated. I dont agree with large chunks, but we have a coherent dialogue on this path started. Irondome (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Irondome (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree entirely with Smallbones. It's not realistic. Feel free try it anytime. These companies want to be listed and covered by Wikipedia-proper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've thought along these lines myself - and rejected the idea. There already are Facebook, MySpace, AboutUs and so on where they can post their PR speak twaddle for free. Why provide them with another space for the same? These PR people already seem to think people love their stuff - I saw a van belonging to a well-known mattress manufacturer the other day, and on the back it said "Follow us on Twitter @xxxx!". Mattresses? People who are that desirous of finding the latest news on mattresses? Cameras and computers I could understand, but mattresses? PR gone barmy. Keep Wikipedia free from this nonsense. And don't lend the name to a PR pushing venture. It's bad enough with xxxx-Leaks and Conservixxxx around. Peridon (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently several mattress companies use Twitter. Tweets include "NOTHING ELSE MATTRESS..." and "Students! Be careful of buying a used mattress from Craigslist." Comedy gold. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with a spinoff wiki is that it will never achieve the same level of Google importance that enWP has. I remember during the MMA wars when a great faction of the supporter camp up and decided to set up a MMA wiki after irreconcilable conflicts with the generally accepted Policies/Guidelines/MoS/Best practices. Whenever you search for a MMA topic Wikipedia is typically one of the top 5 sites simply because we do uphold a specific set of editorial practices. I don't think we want to give any opportunity for free-advertising to have any linkage to Wikipedia's good name Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...have you edited Wikivoyage Hasteur? I have actually been collecting some information from business' on my travels and taking pictures of some of the more interesting California Hotels/Bed & Breakfast to add to articles eventually, but I have added images and other contributions to a number of articles. It's great fun I think. Take a look at the article for Hollywood. Note that there is contact information, addresses, and very "pamphlet" style writing with what some might call "promotional tone". And that article could use some expanding as a travel page. Why couldn't we have something similar that isn't specific to travel. Maybe "Wikimarketing" if we want to be blatant, but I think it needs to be purpose driven and have a need to feel in the right manner and the best idea I come up with is "Wikispotlight" or something similar sounding that is simply a place that allows a magazine style of formatting. It would be filling the nich of "this need" for paid and unpaid advocacy of subjects in a little more graphic looking and slicker format, as paid code writers would be able create far more complex templates and creative ways to us mark up coding. I think if we ever tried to fill a "need of paid editing", this would be the way to do it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nope - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to shoot down this proposal entirely. I've had the same thought as this proposal many times. It would solve the problem of our readers being deceived, and the endless arguments that paid editors will give when they are edited. But the likely failure of this experiment to draw in advertisers only highlights the fact that the advertisers don't want to just advertise here, they want to deceive our readers, and steal our credibility. It just wouldn't work as far as attracting the advertisers to the new site.

But it could likely work in another sense. Going to court against the advertisers would likely be quite complicated under the current set-up. The courts would likely address questions like: What rule did they break? Why is this a cause of action in court? Having this alternative advertising site, with a small fee required, would make it all very simple: theft of services. An advertiser who had the opportunity to pay for an ad, but instead just inserted it in an article would not have any case in court. They'd be in and out in 5 minutes. Guilty as charged. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So I take it consensus indicates its an idea so bad, it will stampede an octopus. Irondome (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't put that much weight on it. I think TParis even mentions somewhere that something like this wouldn't even need a decision here. I think it might be something being proposed to Meta.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It already exists. It's called Wikia. It's full of ads and promotion. Most of the content is fancruft. That's what a "business-friendly wiki" looks like.John Nagle (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Exact wording people are supporting?

I've proposed conditions that I'd be comfortable with for unbanning this user. But I've yet to see a clear idea of what conditions, if any, we'd require before we unbanned him and his company. I'd like to see a specific proposal from the user directly (I believe he can edit his talk page and if not perhaps through WP:ORTS. In particular I'd like it made clear if he is agreeing to have all folks editing for his company identified (and if it's just future ones or would include the past) and how exactly he'll have paid editors proceed. I'm pretty happy with the changes to his website, but I'd like to get some kind of sense that those will stay around. Basically I'd like to hear what he's committing to (if anything). I feel it's really unclear what people are supporting (or not supporting) above. Hobit (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What they support is in fact unconditional removal of ban. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are at least 11 !votes under the unban proposal for conditional support, the condition being that all this company's COI accounts here are openly declared. That's just a first count. There are probably more if you read the various statements carefully. So I think Hobit's question is very apt. Voceditenore (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. And since they are not going to declare their current, but only future accounts (if I understand correctly from their statement below), these 11 vote probably should count as "oppose"... My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked on his talk page and the following is the reply to the question above (Mojoworker (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)):

As the founder and CEO of WikiExperts I am happy to state clearly that, if WikiExperts is again able to edit Wikipedia, we agree to follow all COI Guidelines to the letter for every edit we make moving forward. That includes disclosure of any account used to make an edit from that point forward, as per the condition set within the original ban regarding the condition for unbanning. Disclosure will take place in full adherence to the COI Guidelines. Prior to the ban it was our opinion that it was unclear whether or not COI disclosure was mandatory, and if it had been made known to us that it was mandatory and not an issue for debate, we would never have made previous edits contrary to the guidelines. Now that we know disclosure is mandatory, we have altered our practices to adhere to the new set of rules. I have reviewed the above proposals for how new forms of COI declarations could occur, and state here that WikiExperts is fully willing to work directly with the Community to develop a system of declarations that makes the Community comfortable and provides an additional level of neutral scrutiny for all our contributions. We will not be posting, and have not posted in the past, anything that is/was not meant to help develop a more accurate and better Wikipedia, and we are comfortable working with the Community to prove our work can be beneficial to Wikipedia. Because of previously signed NDAs, we have no ability to reveal the past clients, however, we pledge to no longer sign agreements that would disallow us from full COI disclosure, so that all future work can be verified as within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Ethics page on our website already states as such, and past references to confidentiality of the service have been removed. We would very much like to prove that we are not harmful to Wikipedia, and to show that we add neither promotional nor non-notable material to the website when allowed to edit. AKonanykhin (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC))

This is probably unrealistic, but I would love a requirement that editors working for a paid editing company be required to put in, say, 500 productive article-space edits per month on topics unrelated to any of the company's paying customers. Think of the typos to be fixed! The uncited assertions to be sourced! The disambiguation links to be fixed! bd2412 T 15:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Requiring that sounds unworkable, but we could come up with some scheme to review and rank paid editors according to how much volunteer work they do, and urge uninvolved editors to take that into account when they decide who to work with. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks all, I appreciate everyone working to make this clear. Personally, I don't think this goes far enough. I'd certainly want a list of all articles/subjects they were hired to edit before I'd think it reasonable to have them come back. It's pretty standard to ask people to clean up their own messes or help others clean them up before getting restrictions lifted. If they signed non-disclosure agreements, that isn't our problem IMO. But I am pleased we have some idea how things would improve. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The defense that WikiExperts has "no ability to reveal the past clients" because of "previously signed NDAs" is legally specious. WikiExperts, its clients, and its employees/contractors are fully able to renegotiate and/or rescind any NDAs as necessary, and they all have the incentive to do so. So I call Mr. Konanykhin's bluff on that point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Slimvirgin here is the answer to your question above. It appears that WIkiExperts does not intend to follow the COI guideline, in that they do intend to edit pages directly as opposed to limiting themselves to suggesting content on Talk. The relevant quote is "We will not be posting, and have not posted in the past, anything that is/was not meant to help develop a more accurate and better Wikipedia, and we are comfortable working with the Community to prove our work can be beneficial to Wikipedia." I have posted the question directly to User:AKonanykhin; I will copy the reply here when it comes.Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Motion for closure

I think the length of the thread has gotten to the point where the average editor will not invest the time to read it all and make a thoughtful comment. Could we get an uninvolved admin, please, to read this and record what the result is? Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This proposal is indeed hard to read. There is a problem with there being 2 distinct questions 1) whether the 1st banning was improper (with many editors not commenting on this) and 2) whether Wiki-experts et al should be unbanned. There is also the problem that many editors expressed conditional support for unbanning, but the conditions vary and it's not clear whether any of the conditions have been met. These !votes will have to be read very carefully.

Due to the complexity of the proposal, I'll suggest that 3 univolved admins work on this, make separate counts and then compare notes. FWIW, on the 1st question, whether the 1st banning was improper, I count 16 saying it was proper and 10 saying it was improper. On the 2nd question, unbanning, I count 22 opposing unbanning, 13 conditionally supporting unbanning, and 21 supporting unbanning. Obviously the 13 conditional !votes are very important, but to the extent that the conditions aren't obviously met, I believe they should be counted as opposes. I don't claim that this is a perfect count, only that counting will be difficult and require more than 1 admin to do right. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

For any observers, please bear in mind that the closing admins will not only count votes, but also weight them by quality of reason. If it comes down to a conditional unbanning, I request that the unbanning conditions be proposed to the subject, and that they have a chance to agree to them. There might be a disparity between what the subject agreed to already and what will be required. That may be due to the subject (understandably) not knowing the requirements. If the closing admins can make the unbanning conditions clear, that would be helpful. Thank you for your efforts. Jehochman ^Talk 04:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to unban this editor. Unless his outfit can prove that they are completely different from something like WikiPR, the outcome is going to be similar. Doc talk 07:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiPR was creating low quality spam articles. I don't know what this editor did wrong because even after many requests, nobody has posted diffs showing evidence of wrongdoing. There's been guilt by association (a false impression that this group is the same as WikiPR), guilt by assumption (they are paid, they must be bad), and guilt by mass hysteria (OMG paid editing is so bad, let's ban somebody!!1!) but no actual evidence. It has been a shocking display of poor judgment by some of the participating editors and especially by the admin who closed the original discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 12:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Doc, I very much disagree with your point of view on this (the strength of the arguments to keep the ban are rather flimsy in my eyes and held by a minority of votes), but that is besides the point--it is not up to those involved in this discussion to decide on the state of consensus. I also highly disagree with @Smallbones, who is trying to use his misinterpretation of the banning language to whitewash the original intentions of those that voted in a support of unbanning. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose early closure The fact that many editors have expressed an opinion is no reason to short-circuit the normal process and close early. Right now there are 20 comments labeled "Oppose" (meaning oppose the unban, keep the ban) and 38 comments labeled "Support" (meaning support the unban, remove the ban). Of course such a rough count isn't at all definitive, but that just supports the need to wait the full 30 days and then have an experienced and uninvolved closer give us the final answer concerning consensus. There is only one valid reason to close early -- WP:SNOW -- and it does not apply here. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  I think the user has the right to have his appeal decided faster than 30 days. Nowhere has it been established that we must wait a certain amount of time. Moreover, as I said already, this thread has become very long and convoluted, and the flow of fresh opinions has dried to a trickle. There isn't much benefit to letting the same partisans argue their positions; this only makes the thread longer without providing further insights. Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The two editors immediately above clearly don't know the rules on the time required for a community ban. WP:CBAN says "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I should be aware because I had a hand in drafting that rule. We've waited way, way longer than 24 hours. The 30 days is typical of an RfC, which this is not. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Informational note: I have asked User:AKonanykhin directly if WikiExperts intends to edit pages. I did that, because although he promised several times to abide by the COI guideline, he also wrote things that made it seem as though they do intend to directly edit articles, even though the guideline clearly and strongly discourages conflicted editors from doing so. Since the initial ban arose from their bluntly aggressive interpretation of our guidelines and policies in their favor, it seemed like an important question to get clarification on. The answer was a great example (to me) of avoiding a direct answer to a direct question. I re-asked and have not been answered yet. The brief dialogue is here. Would you like to wait for closure until there is a response? Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this might be an instance of violating our rules against the harassment of banned editors. Isn't stating that one will abide by all COI guidelines the same thing as stating you'll abide by each of them as they are being pointing out one by one :) In addition, giving your own personal context to rebuttals given by banned editors instead of allowing their words to stand on their own (and commenting after the fact) seems rather unsavoury to me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jeremy112233 sorry you see this as unsavory. I am just trying to ascertain how User:AKonanykhin will interpret that - please recall that they said before, that they were abiding by WIkipedia's rules.... it was worth it to me at least, to find out what that means, now and in this case. AKonanykhin has replied to my question. The question and answer are copied below.

Hi AKonanykhin

You have said that WIkiExperts will abide by the COI guideline. That guideline reads, very clearly: "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."

Above, you wrote: "We will not be posting, and have not posted in the past, anything that is/was not meant to help develop a more accurate and better Wikipedia, and we are comfortable working with the Community to prove our work can be beneficial to Wikipedia." Based on this, it appears that WIkiExperts does intend to edit articles directly. So to avoid any confusion, would you please give a yes/no to this question: If unbanned, will WikiExperts directly edit articles? Also, if the answer is "yes" would you please explain how you square that with the very clear advice in the guideline? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jytdog - We intend to follow COI Guidlines in its strictest sense, as a policy. There are any number of aspects of the Guidelines, and we will follow all of them. Would you mind posting my response to your question to the AN thread? AKonanykhin (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! However before I relay this to the board, would you please answer the question I asked above? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to provide a direct answer, I will be happy to copy your answer above but will include a note that I asked twice for a direct answer and didn't receive one. If your goal is to gain trust this is not a great approach... Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jytdog - My response is that I will follow COI guidelines to the letter, abiding by all parts as if it is policy, as requested. That includes all parts of the guidelines, including the non-posting of material directly to the page if it can be in any way construed as controversial, and the alert of a COI to all such edits so that they can be reviewed by others if they so choose. AKonanykhin (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming a bit more clear. So the COI guideline says that paid advocates (like WikiExperts) are "very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral". It sounds like you interpret "areas" narrowly. Let's say you had a client, Company X. It sounds like you would consider a neutral fact about Company X, like the date Company X was founded, as not being included in "areas", and you would indeed directly edit that kind of content in an article about Company X. On the other hand, it sounds like you would interpret some controversial activity of Company X to be within "areas" and therefore WikiExperts would not directly edit content about that controversial activity. Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please clarify! Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There will be no efforts to circumvent COI guidelines whatsoever, and our reading has often been more strict that those of others. A non-controversial fact would be pretty straightforward, such as having the founding date of a company and a New York Times article that states that date and no other article contradicting the date, which could be added in tandem with the Times article as a source. Apart from such exceptionally clear-cut facts, pretty much nothing is non-controversial, so we will be posting all other kinds of material to talk pages instead of direct editing, so that the material can be first reviewed by the community. AKonanykhin (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation. Copying this to the discussion now. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog - AKonanykhin has already given you the answer - he will abide by the COI policy. Quit trying to bait him into saying something that the policy does not say. The policy does not forbid editing. It's a suggestion. End of story. And you know that's true because you're trying to get him to specifically say what you want him to say instead of saying he will abide by the COI policy.--v/r - TP 16:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, according to WP:COI, "paid advocates" are only "discouraged" but not forbidden from direct editing any articles they want. This should not be a problem if they honestly disclose their COI, and more important, their work on behalf of an external propaganda organization. However, according to statements by AKonanykhin, they did not (and will not) disclose anything with respect to their recent and current editing and editors - for whatever reason no one here should care about. That's why I can not support lifting this ban.My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jytdog - Glad to see the dialogue here now, no offence meant, just making sure we're following policy :) Good useful information here at the end of the day! Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No disclosure of earlier edits. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree this should be evaluated by several uninvolved admins. Those who previously edited article Alex Konanykhin are obviously involved [31] - please check. My personal reading: there is no consensus to overturn this ban. Whatever else people agree or disagree about is a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary and recommendation

As I have not contributed above, I might have the right to close, but if I were to now evaluate the consensus of the community -- and by consensus I do not mean agreement, which we do not have, but rather a settlement which most of us can live with--I would say that the consensus has a remarkable similarity to my own opinion. I therefore think it better just to summarize and recommendation.

1. We are not agreed whether it would be desirable to absolutely prohibit paid editing, but I think everyone is agreed that we have no way of preventing it.
2. We are all agreed that since it exists and we cannot prevent it, it needs to be controlled and carefully watched
3. We are generally agreed that self-identification of paid editors should be required, I think it therefore follows from our general policy on user accounts that this is required of each individual account.
4. We are not agreed on whether or not it is ever permissible for an editor to introduce a new article for which they are paid directly into mainspace, but we are generally agreed that this is permissible via AfC, and probably also in user space. We are generally agreed that the move to mainspace must be done by or with the approval of an uninvolved editor
5. We are essentially all agreed that this firm of editors have violated multiple rules in the past, having engaged in meatpuppetry and undeclared COI editing. We are essentially all agreed that they have used many tactics to try to deny this, and avoid complying with out plainly stated rules. I think there is general agreement that in such a situation Kudpung's ban was justified, whether or not it strictly complied with the usual way we place such bans.
6. We are not agreed on the likelihood that the firm will follow the rules in the future, or about their good faith in offering to do so. But I think we are generally agreed that they have at least made a clear offer to follow our rules in all respects without their customary quibbling.
7. I think we are agreed that in such situations we normally afford the user the opportunity of a final chance. I think most of us feel that it would be warranted here, though some are of the opinion that the likelihood of their actual success in following the rules is not very great. There are varying opinions of whether it would even be possible for them to follow the rules--whether the scrutiny that the articles would receive would accept the notability and freedom from promotionalism of their articles.
8. While I do not see how we can require the disclosure of previous edits, if they have made a contractual commitment to their customers. I think we are essentially all agreed that they must not use such a reason to avoid self-identification in the future, I suppose this implies they make sure their present and future customers realise this, and that they say so explicitly in their advertisements.
9. As comments, I note that (a) some self-identified paid editors have elsewhere expressed the opinion that there is not sufficient such business to maintain a company;s existence by article-writing alone--that there are insufficient customers that are actually notable and would be willing to pay a fair rate for a truly POV article, and (b) some established rule-following paid editors seem to want us to continue the ban, in order to avoid having the taint of this firm's unsuccessful attempts affect them. I hope we will continue to judge all cases individually.
10. I therefore suggest that we provisionally overturn the ban, requiring a commitment to follow all " bright-line" guidelines. In the case of a failure to self-identify, the ban will be replaced immediately and I see no reason for further appeals to be listened to for some time, After 6 months, the situation should be re-evaluated to see the effects of the self-identified editing. If there is the actual production of decent articles, the trial will be a success. If not, we can consider wether to simply continue under intense scrutiny, or to ban for the empirical reason that the COI of this particular group of paid editors prevents honest editing. In the later case, I do not know how we will prevent their re-emergence. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: with a question. Are brightline rules the same as COI guidelines? If so, then definitely support. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal by Dolovis

Following the advice given to me here, I am requesting that the topic ban imposed upon me on January 5, 2012 be lifted. I am an experienced editor, and a review of my edit history will demonstrate that a topic ban is not required. This topic ban is preventing me from legitimately contesting controversial moves per WP:BRD such as this one, or from even taking part in move discussions such as this one. I thank you for your consideration. Dolovis (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff for the topic ban is here, if I understand rightly. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The requirement of any request to reduce a topic ban is to, in the request, prove:

1. The editor has been able to successfully edit elsewhere in the project, without similar problems
2. The editor shows how they will behave in a future, assuring the community the the problems that led to the ban will not recur

This request meets neither of these ES&L 22:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could explain to us what led to your topic ban, and what steps you will take to avoid the behaviours that resulted in it? Resolute 23:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose pending answers to ES&L's questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response to Resolute's questions:

  I was topic banned as a result of this ANI. At that time I thought was editing in accordance with instructions found at WP:REDCAT. I was adding Template:R from diacritics to redirects (a common practice as can be seen with redirect edits at Igor Bacek, Milan Balis, David Arvay, Tomas Bokros, Miroslav Bobocky, Emil Bucic, Tomas Bukovinsky, Tomas Bucic, David Buc, David Skokan, ect.) however, because adding a second edit to a redirect prevented non-admin edits from moving articles without going through WP:RM, it was characterized as “gaming the system” and I was blocked and also topic banned from editing diacritics.

• Response to ES&L questions:

I was blocked from editing for six months in April 2012, but I did not return to editing until a full year later in April 2013. In the past six months that I have returned to being an active contributor to Wikipedia, I have stayed away from the issue of diacritics, and have demonstrated that I have been able to successfully edit elsewhere in the project (mostly within the ice hockey project) without similar problems.

In the future I will not directly move any articles which contain diacritics in their title, but will only follow the written policy and procedures as outlined at WP:RM/CM. Dolovis (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I will preface this with the statement that Dolovis and I severely disagree with each other on several points (and diacritics is one of them), and are on less than friendly terms... I do think your answer above is a tad simplistic, as you were banned from moving pages, then once that was lifted, banned from diacritics for resuming similar actions. However, I presume that you will not be gaming the system in this same fashion in the future, so I see little threat there. Likewise, I will vouch that your editing under the Dolovis account has not repeated such behaviours since you returned. The six-month block, however, was for sockpuppetry and involved using sock accounts to continue your anti-diacritics push. You are not banned from using alternate accounts, but I do trust that you are not actively using any undeclared socks in circumvention of this topic ban, and will not do so in the future? Resolute 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Resolute: Given the amount of interaction we have on Wikipedia, and the large number of edits we have made on common subjects, you probably are better aware of my editing style than anyone else on this project, and I appreciate you vouching for my editing behaviour. If you are looking for a declaration, I will give one: I am not using any socks in circumvention of this topic ban, and will not do so in the future. Do I have your support to lift the topic ban? Dolovis (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Truthfully, I expect that lifting this ban will result in our opposing each other in various diacritic-related RMs. As much as I personally would rather not deal with that, I can't use our difference of opinion to keep you on the outside. So yes, in this case I am willing to support your request for another chance. Resolute 17:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced Topic bans do not come out of a single incident. They only come to AN/ANI when everything else has been tried first. When multiple members of the community tried to guide Dolovis, they refused - continuing down their path of "editing in accordance with instructions" - even though advised time and time again that they needed to stop. The ANI was a culmination of many, many attempts to get Dolovis to stop, including (if I recall) more than one trip to an admin noticeboard. This outright refusal to follow guidance was a key to the topic ban, and I do not see those behaviour addressed above, in fact, it's suggested that the topic ban was due to a one-of incident, which is patently false ES&L 08:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What would it take to convince you? The topic ban was for an indefinite period, not permanent. Please advise me what more I need to demonstrate for you to support lifting the topic ban? Dolovis (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Honesty, perhaps. You state that the topic ban came out of a single situation, which is patently false. You were told again and again to stop, but you refused. You therefore FORCED the community to topic ban you. In other words, you have proven that you do not have the ability to actually LISTEN to policy and advice, and require enforcement action to be taken - which is an absolute waste of time and energy that should have been directed towards useful article work. If someone tells you that you're acting out of policy again in the future, what will be your reaction? What steps will you take? Do you even yet understand what was wrong that led to the topic ban in the first place? There are so many unanswered questions here, and the silence is deafening. "I'm a good editor, who cannot do a task" was basically your original request - sadly, you could not do that task because you were not being a "good editor". You're asking the community for a favour, and completely refusing to give the community the warm fuzzies that might actually permit them to grant you a favour - you seem to wholly misunderstand how much of a timesink you have been in the past ES&L 11:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My topic ban appeal request is sincere and honest. Topic bans are supposed to be used to prevent disruption, and not as a form of punishment. I am disappointed that you are relying upon semantics to suggest that I have somehow been less than honest to discredit my request. Of course their was some history prior to the topic ban being imposed; I have not stated anywhere that there wasn't. But I have made my request with all sincerity asking for a repeal of the ban based on my constructive edit history over the past seven months. Dolovis (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Question (from a non-admin) Hi Dolovis, you're making valuable contributions and it's good to see you back, but when you give the diff for wanting to be released from this topic ban as relating to a move by User:Djsasso of a French-Canadian BLP which you had created as "Jeremy Blain" and which DJSasso moved to Jérémie Blain (for reference ["Jérémie Blain is" Hockey] gets 4 280 plain ASCII html Google hits, and another 339 with the full WP:FRMOS accents, ["Jeremy Blain is" Hockey] gets only 8 results relating to a wrong Jeremy Blain, a software trainer whose company has trained some hockey players.) the question it prompts isn't "great, there should be an RM", but why did you create a French-Canadian known as Jérémie in full sentence sources (using "...is" to weed out crude player listings) as "Jeremy" as if he was an Anglo-Canadian in the first place? I'm not suggesting you created it purely so another hockey editor following the agreed WP:HOCKEY guidelines would move it and then you could complain here, but why didn't after the move you check first to see whether the other hockey editor's edit summary was correct, because it looks like it was. Sorry, but I think this is relevant since you cited this diff as a reason for lifting the ban. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I created the article based on English-language sources. All English-language news sources that I found use the non-diacritics version of his name. You should also be aware that this topic ban prevents me from creating article title using diacritics, so even if the Blain article is the exception to the Wiki-policy Naming conventions (use English), I would be prevented from titling it with diacritics. But the broader issue is that this topic ban bars me from even raising the issue of a controversial move, which per WP:BRD would otherwise be my right. I believe that I have demonstrated through my edits and conduct over that past seven months that I deserve the opportunity to edit without the stigma of a topic ban. Dolovis (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis, BLP articles on en.wp except your stub creations are spelled using the living person's French, Finnish, Czech name. The original conflict with other hockey editors reached a peak with you creating a hundred Czech Hockey League stubs WP:POINTEDLY in 52-character abcABC fonts (reminiscent of 7-bit ASCII) which you then redirect-edited locking them preventing editors following normal BLP practice. And you're saying that the terms of your ban prevents you from creating BLPs at living French, Finnish, Czech peoples' names? Can you please link to where an admin told you that the terms of your ban restrict you to doing exactly what caused the fight in the first place?

There was nothing POINTY about my creation of article stubs for notable European hockey players, and you trying to paint my good faith editing as something else is disappointing. My topic ban warns me in bold font that the topic ban is to be “broadly construed”, which is why I would not want to create articles using diacritics. Dolovis (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As for "Jeremy Blain," you're not listening. The 3 database sources in your article Elite Prospects.com Jérémie Blain, hockeydb.com Jeremie Blain, nhl.com Jeremie Blain all have the French name. Instead of 48,500 Google hits for "Jeremie Blain" Hockey you chose to use as a source a photo uploaded to a blog by a Chicago Wolves fan with "Jeremy Blain" - among the 1% of Google hits with "Jeremy" - the problem isn't the sources, the problem appears to be something else. But the point is that after User:Djsasso moved according to English sources, leaving a clear edit summary to check English sources, you didn't check sources before citing the diff (you again didn't check or aren't recognising English sources in the above reply to this question) and you ask for a lifting of your topic ban so you can object to a move done following 1% of blogs and no full sentence sources. This doesn't look as though you are willing to follow the guidelines at WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice and the consensus established there. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, but the link to topic ban text is broken, presumably there is a link before [this?

I am genuinely sorry to see that the answer is "no." That no admin told you that following WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice was a breach of your topic ban. Therefore it is your own interpretation that the topic ban obliges you to conflict with WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice. Goodwill would have assumed you e.g. simply missed the ö in the Eliteprospects.com Dennis Nordström source, in creation of Dennis Nordstrom, without ö, but now you say you deliberately left the ö off because you believe the topic ban required you to continue to do what you were doing before you were topic banned? This doesn't make any sense. How could you think the topic ban required you to start creating a new set of diacritic-less stubs after the hassle with the previous stubs. The consensus at WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice is, it seems, in part at least a response to the Czech stubs. And you took "broadly construed" to mean do the exact opposite of what WP:HOCKEY Project diacritics notice says? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This user has repeatedly found any means possible to try and game the system. His choice of example of article that he would like to be able to edit is a perfect example. Almost all the sources on the article and the vast majority on google as In ictu oculi mentions have his spelling one way. And Dolovis purposefully created the article without. His modus operandi while being blocked has been to rapidly go through as many player databases as possible to create articles for players that have diacticis in their name but to create them without the diacritics in them as an attempt to force the non-diacritic version to be the default fall back position in a case of no-consensus. That being said almost every move discussion has ended with them being moved to diacritics. He uses almost any method possible to push his agenda including the above mentioned situations of double editing redirects to prevent moves, sock puppeting, etc. He has been an very large time waster for a large number of editors. He has shown he is unable to edit constructively in the topic area and as such has to have the community force him to stop. The wiki will not be improved by allowing him back into this topic area. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  I have no agenda other than trying to build a better Wikipedia. To suggest otherwise is patently false. Dolovis (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

ANRFC thread open for over one month

Wikipedia:ANRFC#Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/September#Commas in metro areas has been open for more than one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You might consider posting this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure; there's quite a queue for admin action right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This is about ANRFC, I believe. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks Pink. I guess I should have had coffee before replying; my bad. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Good morning Diannaa, thank you for your reply. While I appreciate the suggestion, posting twice in the same forum will put me in the exact same position as we were in before. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

IP from Suburban Express complains about User:CorporateM's edits to their company's article

• Suburban Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Suburban Express has initiated about 200 lawsuits against its own customers since 1994 and ten civil suits against competitors.[4]"

Here is the citation:

http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html

The article does not say Suburban Express filed 10 lawsuits against competitors.

It says this: In the past, Sub urban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX.

The three named companies are competitors, but it does not logically follow that all 10 lawsuits were against competitors. Champaign County Circuit Clerk's website reveals that suits have been filed against non-customers who are not competitors, ie Pitney Bowes.

This is the game that CorporateM is playing: He is relying on the laziness of readers. He expects that he can say something that seems like it is true, but which is not actually true, and that nobody is going to actually check. He constantly lies in his edits, which are biased and not consistent with NPOV.

Most of CorporateM's edits to Suburban Express article contain significant errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that CorporateM's edits are not consistent with NPOV, that CorporateM is making numerous negative edits without discussing edits beforehand -- even as he criticizes other user(s) and reverts their edits for not discussing before editing. CorporateM has admitted elsewhere to being a paid editor, and he seems to have an undisclosed COI wrt Suburban Express.

An adult in charge needs to get this user under control. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Relevant links: Suburban Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); CorporateM (talk · contribs) ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 15:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• CorporateM is a paid editor who usually identifies him/herself as such on the talk pages of articles they edit. We don't accept county clerk records as reliable sources because they are raw "primary" sources. If there is something noteworthy about the cases you refer to, find mentions of them in reliable "secondary" sources and discuss it on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Before making accusations that CorporateM is a paid editor, you should come up with a better justification than baseless speculation. Also, you should not be complaining about "paid" editors when you admit to being a paid representative of Suburban Express.

On the subject of the 10 civil suits you filed, you seem to be conviniently ignoring the fact that you filed 3 lawsuits against LEX and that you filed a lawsuit against Peoria Charter. --Gulugawa (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express is here to remedy false statements and false citations which appear in the Suburban Express article. Suburban Express is, in fact, advocating for Suburban Express, within the rules and frameworks established by Wikipedia. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

County clerk records are not necessary to refute CorporateM's false entry. The article cited simply does not state what CorporateM claims it states. You may find it difficult to accept that a wikipedia editor is doing sloppy work and/or lying, but that is absolutely the case here. Before you fire back defending CorporateM, look at the article and look at the cited source. Until you do that, you are just speculating. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• And what is your connection, if any, to these articles, 99.147.28.113? Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the extreme accusations and insults against a very cautious and diligent editor over what at worst (and IF true) is an editing error makes this a good candidate for a boomerang. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

[11:46:06] erinacity:/tmp
alisonc $ whois 99.147.28.113

[snip]
NetRange:       99.147.28.112 - 99.147.28.119
CIDR:           99.147.28.112/29
OriginAS:       
NetName:        SBC-99-147-28-112-29-1104201844
NetHandle:      NET-99-147-28-112-1
Parent:         NET-99-128-0-0-1
NetType:        Reassigned
RegDate:        2011-04-20
Updated:        2011-04-20
Ref:            http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-99-147-28-112-1

CustName:       ILLINI SHUTTLE-110420131800
Address:        Private Address
City:           Plano
StateProv:      TX
PostalCode:     75075
Country:        US
RegDate:        2011-04-20
Updated:        2011-04-20
Ref:            http://whois.arin.net/rest/customer/C02741096
[snip]

According to WHOIS record [32], Illini Shuttle (aka Suburban Express) own this ip address range. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

!!???? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Article has been subject to a long history of socks/meats/paid editors consistent with this company's behavior on Reddit, where they allegedly used sockpuppets to attack users that criticized the organization for alleged corrupt business practices. Frustrated students involved in litigation with the organization have also made COI edits, but their conduct is less egregious.

POV pushers that do not get their way will almost always resort to personal attacks and a COI disclosure is an easy hand-hold for them to latch onto. It serves as good "bait" into making POV pushers self-out themselves by focusing on it. Who would possibly pay me? The students? I originally became involved in the article more or less to protect Suburban Express from legal antagonists.

An article protection, sock-puppet investigation, a few IP blocks and/or other administrative actions are long overdue, but I am too lazy to go through our bureaucratic processes. I have previously notified admins User:OrangeMike, User:Dennis Brown and User:DGG on the issues on this page.

As for the "correction" suggested above regarding the number of lawsuits, they may be correct or not. It would be worthwhile for someone to check. CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No attempt is being made to hide the source of the IP edits. The ip address used to post this message is registered to Suburban Express. We are here expressing our concerns regarding wild inaccuracies and misattributions by COI/Paid editor CorporateM. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A large percentage of citations in this article are inaccurate. There are multiple examples of CorporateM misrepresentations in the talk section. Here is another one:

"Another False Edit by CorporateM: The student did not receive a letter demanding $570 for liquidated damages. The contract specified $500 liquidated damages for, among other things, disruptive behavior. The diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&diff=573947756&oldid=573926939 The alleged source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/07194422871/bus-company-threatens-redditor-with-lawsuit-meets-ken-white-runs-away.shtml" 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The two examples provided are not isolated examples, they are two data points in a pattern of bad edits.

We at Suburban Express object to the Suburban Express wikipedia article containing false information and false attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• If CorporateM is habitually misrepresenting sources in such a way as to slant the article (something we call tendentious editing), please make a concise, coherent and complete case here. You are across the issue here, so you're the best qualified to do this. Provide a diff (enclosed in square brackets [], then quote what the source actually says, and quote what CorporateM represented it as saying.

You might want to familiarise yourself thoroughly with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, too. At a glance some of the sources being used to pillory you seem a bit dodgy (but I'm no sourcing expert - the people at WP:RSN are.) And Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: again just glancing (it's bedtime here) but that article seems heavily negatively weighted, verging on an attack piece. I'll have a more careful look in the morning. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, some of the sources conflict on the exact numbers. Many of the sources are tech rags, like TechCrunch and Ars Technica, which are reliable, but should be used with caution, because they don't necessarily share our editorial mission. This small college bus company is arguably best-known for suing their own customers and allegations of astroturfing Reddit to insult students, but a certain amount of balancing media sensationalism is right and proper and has been reasonably accounted for already - though regular editors may reasonably disagree on the precise balancing. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuses and double-talk. CorporateM has been made aware of numerous false attributions and the response here is manipulative and disingenuous. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There is already a bevy of evidence in the article's talk page. This evening or tomorrow evening, a concise and current list will be posted here. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

speaking of lazy, the following text is directly out of the link you posted "Suburban Express filed 209 lawsuits since April 1994, when the first lawsuit was filed in Champaign County. Eighty-four of these lawsuits were filed prior to 2013." which seems to back the 200 lawsuits just fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Compare the statement in the wiki article to the source. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And from your second link "He received an e-mail from the company that said he was being fined $500 for "liquidated damages" and was permanently banned." also sufficiently sourcing the statement in your diff. Stop trolling. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything in there to support the "10 civil suits against competitors" though. 6, yes (see sidebar), but nothing directly to support 10. Gah, hate supporting obvious corporate trolls, especially one so foul. Ravensfire (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ravensfire "Champaign County Circuit Court records also show that Suburban Express brought a civil lawsuit against the Peoria Charter Coach Company in 2009. In the past, Suburban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX." The source is ambiguous on this point, so we may need to tweak the article text, but this certainly doesn't rise to an AN issue as our text is a reasonable interpretation of this source text. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed about both this isn't something for AN and that the text can be tweaked. In fact, when I checked the article text after posting, it had been revised to say that civil suits had been filed against 4 competitors. I think it could have been revised as 10 civil suits, including cases against 4 competitors so that both the number of cases and the number of competitors are included. Ravensfire (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express -- if you go around suing lots of people, you will get a certain reputation, and that reputation will appear in your Wikipedia article. If you don't like this reputation, you might need to behave differently. Wikipedia does not whitewash its articles to please business interests. Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Expres sues cheaters. That is a well-established fact, and not something we dispute. The issue here is that the article is riddled with inaccuracies and false citations. We do not take issue with the article containing factual information from credible sources. We do take issue with false statements which cite sources which do not support the statements. Simple as that. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You need think about this from a public relations point of view. It might be within your legal rights to sue these people, but lawsuits can generate dsnews coverage, much of it adverse. It's like negative advertising. Maybe you need to balance the pros and cons. Unfortunately, your service doesn't seem to have much coverage in reliable sources except all the suing. You've made the company become notable as a lawsuit mill. Maybe you need to find a better way to deal with cheaters. Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express does not profit-maximize in matters of theft and fraud. Suburban Express pursues cheaters even though it is not the profit-maximizing solution. Suburban Express will continue to vigorously pursue cheaters, much like many retailers vigorously pursue (and prosecute) shoplifters. Suburban Express will not be blackmailed or shamed, by cheaters or the bloggers who support their cause (what cause?), into not pursuing cheaters. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

WRT your statement that "doesn't seem to have much coverage in reliable sources except all the suing". That is false. Suburban Express exists because it exploited a regulatory loophole and brought inexpensive, reliable service to a market that was poorly served by a company with a monopoly granted by the Illinois Commerce Commission. Suburban Express increased service and decreased cost for hundreds of thousands of students. Conventional media has covered Suburban Express well in its 30 year history. Online detractors of Suburban Express seem to delight in the fact that only recent (mostly negative) articles can be obtained online, while older conventional-media articles cannot -- and they have in the past bristled at the suggestion that they read conventional media sources posted as pdf's on the website of the owner of Suburban Express -- as if somehow posting a newspaper article on the website of the owner somehow makes it not a valid conventional-media source. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

boomerang

Not an admin, but reading through the article talk, I think its time for the boomerang boomstick. WP:DE and WP:HARRASS all over the place, attempting to throw the kitchen sink at CorporateM, and wear down the other editors via attrition. proposal : Permanently semiprotect the article, and topic ban/block the troll and obvious socks who are obvious. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How do exactly you propose that Suburban Express address a situation where a user is posting false statements, false citations, and false edit "reasons" other than by calling out the infractions? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if the (only specific) complaints by the IP's were 100% true and accurate, they would merely represent a couple of errors that need correcting. And CorporateM has indicated openness to such. I don't even know what this is doing at the noticeboard, except for considering a possible boomerang. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, a large percentage of statements inserted by CorporateM are false or inaccurate and/or have citations that do not support the statements that cite them. Not one or two minor errors, a systematic pattern of either sloppy editing or errors. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Given 99.147.28.113's extremely precocious editing history (just look at his/her very first edit) I think the sock accusations are quite reasonable. 99.147.28.113, in the name of full disclosure, could you please tell us which other accounts you've been using? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above three editors. It appears that the banned sockmaster User:Thenightchicagodied might be related to this as well as User:Eyeteststar, and User:Joshuabcohen I'd like to ask the IP if he is related to these editors and if there is anything else he'd like to say about any other possibly related editors, or if he wishes to make a full COI statement. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you perceive to have happened in the past has no bearing on the the matter being discussed here - false statements and false atributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

For context, the article has been semi-protected for quite some time, but that hasn't prevented paid editors with established accounts from slanting the article, which leads in turn to frustrated students with the opposite COI who are (mostly) self-prohibiting themselves from article-space. I posted a request for stronger article-protection, but they said blocking the disruptive editors would be more appropriate. What would be even better if anyone has the initiative is a full investigation into the network of paid socks and other related accounts. Many articles have been effected by the same network of non-disclosed COI accounts and it looks like user:Samllbones may have just provided some additional leads. CorporateM (Talk) 19:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. One of the Wikipedia administrators should investigate the accounts in more detail. Gulugawa (Talk) 01:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express acknowledges the participation of user Gulugawa in this discussion and cautions readers that Gulugawa has an admitted conflict of interest arising from his tireless activities online as a Suburban Express detractor. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, the ip I am posting from is a Suburban Express IP address and I do in fact represent Suburban Express. That has no bearing on the issue being discussed here: False statements and false citations in the article. They are false whether I point them out or someone else points them out. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express has the right to comment about their situation. We should not stifle the subject. On the other hand, the subject needs to participate in a non-disruptive way. You can state your case, but don't abuse your editing privileges. If you think the article is biased, please be calm, say why, and suggest other sources of info that could be used to help create a better, more balanced article. Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course they have the right to comment. At the same time, 99.147.28.113 is an WP:SPA whose sole purpose is to oppose CorporateM. On top of that there are indicia of sockpuppetry. This user should not be allowed to bifurcate his/her anti-CorporateM accusations (no matter how valid they may be) from his/her other contributions to the project. This user should be putting their credibility on the line just like anyone else who comes to the noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

False. The sole purpose of Suburban Express is not to "oppose CorporateM". Suburban Express would argue that the opposite is true, eg that CorporateM has made it his misson to oppose and defame Suburban Express, regardless of the facts. The goal of Suburban Express here is to ensure that the contents of the wikipedia article about Suburban Express is consistent with wikipedia rules, customs, and standards. To the extent that any user is posting false information and/or false citations, Suburban Express will pursue such matters vigorously and within the wikepedia ecosystem, which is exactly what is being done here. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Spin it however you want; your edit history speaks for itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing. That does not seem to advance the discussion about false statements and false attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Pardon, but how could Suburban Express possibly be more open and transparent than posting from an IP address that is registered with ARIN as being controlled by Suburban Express? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That is encouraging. It sounds like you are prepared to accept WP's policies and practices, if that is what you mean by the term "ecosystem". Think of the boards as the Human immune system. Committed users, especially admin staff, have the duty of monitoring the editing of all editors, old, new, registered, I.Ps, illustrious editing histories, or non at all. It is nothing personal. Irondome (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

99.147.28.113, you could plaster a big COI notice on the user and user talk pages of every account associated with Suburban Express, including your own, and you could add a {{connected contributor}} tag to the top of Talk:Suburban Express and associated talk pages.

That seems to be a sarcastic statement which does not advance the discussion of false statements and false attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't sarcastic at all. It was good advice, and I am now giving you the same advice. You ask how you could possibly be more open and transparent? You could start by not referring to Suburban Express in the third person, which is misleading, and you could demonstrate your alleged efforts to be open and transparent by putting a COI notice on the user page of every account associated with Suburban Express and adding a {{connected contributor}} tag to the top of the user talk page of every account associated with Suburban Express. Not that I believe that you actually want to be open and transparent, but if you do, that is a good way to accomplish that goal. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That statement seems to contain many assumptions.99.147.28.113 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you denying those assumptions...that the sockpuppets mentioned elsewhere in this thread aren't you? The last time someone asked you, you simply stated such information was not relevant (which I believe it is). 67.175.155.121 (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Bounty

FYI - Suburban Express has posted a generous offer on the bounty board (correct terminology?) for citation/accuracy cleanup. Perhaps one of the editors reading this would like to earn a donation for wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bounty_board 99.147.28.113 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the link? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How about if that editor then requested the fee be given to a charity or good cause of their choice, which you would then pay? Or you donate the amount to local charity helping the disadvantaged in your locale? As some may be aware, that is the only kind of paid editing on WP I "personally" consider acceptable. However I note the terms of the bounty board do not admit of that. Perhaps it needs changing or broadening somewhat. You are aware that there is an information technology arms race raging, and its getting more intense out there. If the company is generating negative vibes through use of a liberalised electronic media by some disgruntled clients, and it is reflected in a RS, it is our duty to note it. Obviously it must be balanced by strict NPOV criteria by ALL of us. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

99.147.... If there are errors which you would like to work towards getting corrected, your best route would be to calmly discuss the specifics of them, propose fixes and provide sources consistent with wp:RS to support your statement. And continuously hurling insults, accusations, attacks, assuming bad faith etc. is about the worst possible way, certain to result in a train wreck. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Irondome: The bounty offer has been modified as follows: Expiration date changed, bounty may be assigned to any legitimate charity. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem there is that WP rules do not recognise that as another reciepient option at this point. It would require a community-wide discussion to change the bounty board criteria. However, there is a debate currently ongoing in the community in terms of payment on WP. I think radically reworking the bounty system, expanding it is the way forward. Having a company showing interst in that method may give any mooted proposals for change additional credibility. Irondome (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the bounty, Suburban Express is unfamiliar with all the rules surrounding bounties. Suburban Express has complied with your request for a change to the terms. The changes can be deleted. Guidance is needed here. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This is new territory to me too. I was not aware of the bounty board, and I have been here a while. It may be wise to provisionally delete, pending any discussions for change. Any other admin editor feedback very welcomed here. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How can the bounty be modified within wikipedia rules so that it is of interest to you? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is of no personal interest to me, however such an expansion of payment options may improve corporate/WP relationships in the round. It appears to be a neglected and almost unknown but rather imaginative concept, which has been left to neglect, apart from a few dedicated bounty hunters who still participate. Irondome (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the "reward board" may be a means of facilitating what you desire. If that is correct, Suburban Express would be amenable to doing something there, to facilitate the charitable donation(s) that you deisre. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• (1)The Bounty Board is a survival form the early days of WP, and I think rather than tinkering with the criteria, it is time to remove it, as facilitating misunderstanding of our mission. Perhaps the way to deal with it is MfD, & I have taken it there at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination). Offering material rewards for writing WP articles is not forbidden, just as paid editing is not actually forbidden, but neither should be institutionalized as part of WP.

(2) I do not consider the complaints against Corporate M are made in good faith. The errors complained of are trivial and correctable, and the charges against him wildly excessive. I take note, as with an earlier discussions, that there is an accusation that because CM sometimes conducts paid editing ,he is therefore unreliable altogether. I am not sure whether there is any connection between the two complainants.

(3) As for SE, I think it's time for a community ban, including talk pages and WP space. They seem disruptive everywhere. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Truthfully, I am amazed that they haven't made this easy on us by making a legal threat. Given their history, it is astounding. Resolute 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask somebody to write this up to start the community ban. There is enough evidence just on this page to support one. Given the acknowledged history of filing lawsuits, and the passively acknowledged link to sockpuppets, there's no hope that we can convince them to stop the disruption. At the same time, I have to admit some bizarre admiration for SE - it's them against the world and they are not backing down no matter what. They sue their competitors, they even sue their customers and appear to have a somewhat successful business. On this page it's them against 10-15 editors, and they are not backing down or even willing to compromise. What else can we do except a community ban? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Complaints against CorporateM are absolutely made in good faith and are valid. Suggest that DGG examine the actual false statements and cited articles, sales edit description(s), etc. At this point, it appears that DGG is shooting from the hip without first gathering information. Suburban Express is puzzled by DGG's assertion that the present discussion is somehow violative of Wikipedia rules or conventions. Suburban Express is objects to false statements and false attributions. The motivation for the present discussion is CorporateM's false statements and false attributions in the Suburban Express article. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, please. You keep making these accusations, but you never point to any specific edits. Do you really imagine anyone is going to take your word for it? Evidence, sleaze please. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems as if you did not carefully read the text above your statement. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment

The company has a long history of sockpuppets/meatpuppets/CoI editors/possibly paid editors attempting to edit the article in order to make it more flattering of the company - they have tried to emphasize the company's supposed glorious history and to de-emphasize the negative information about lawsuits and astroturfing and trolling on the UIUC subreddit, which are actually the company's main reason for notability (as can be seen from the sources here). Semi-protecting the article hasn't prevented this, and pending changes protection won't either, since there seem to be two autoconfirmed CoI/possibly paid editors, User:Verdict78 and User:HtownCat who advocate for the company and quietly change the article when this article isn't making its usual rounds on the AN/SPI drama boards and no one is paying attention to it. Blocking users/IPs is unlikely to work either, since the company has used a range of sockpuppets in the past (see the sockpuppet investigation here), has access to a wide range of business and residential IP addresses, and many IPs which resolve to Sprint wireless. I see full-protection as the only option to contain this long-term pattern of tendentious editing.

I am very skeptical of the bounty thing - the company is offering money to effectively push the article toward a version that presents the company in a more flattering light. They have used their financial power to bully, harass, intimidate, and silence students who criticized them on the internet (on Reddit, Yelp, etc.) by suing them or threatening to sue them, knowing very well that college students lack the financial means to fight back against a moneyed corporation. They have been unsuccessful largely because Ken White of Popehat has stepped in and arranged pro-bono assistance for the students sued or threatened with lawsuits (the relevant blog post is here). I hope Wikipedia doesn't allow money to become a factor in deciding who gets to influence the article, even if the money is under the guise of charity/donations/for a good cause. AlmostGrad (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express acknowledges AlmostGrad's hatred of Suburban Express, which is frequently expressed here and elsewhere. AlmostGrad has been a tireless detractor for many months. As previously stated, Suburban Express is concerned with false statements and false attributions made in the Suburban Express article and is working within the wikipedia "ecosystem" to facilitate correction of false statements and attributions. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation: The problem isn't my drinking. The problem is you complaining about my drinking. --00:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

SuburbanExpress sounds like an idiot for referring to itself repeatedly in the 3rd person, and by doing so makes it clear that the (ip) account is intended to represent a company (possibly used by multiple editors) which are both violations of wikipedia policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your attack does not advance the discussion. 99.67.249.6 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to note that IP 99.147.29.158 is registered to Suburban Express as seen here under the Customer Name

24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

A few editors have seen enough at the Suburban Express Talk page, here on the drama board and the company's approach to the bounty board[33] to get a sense of things. This particular organization is unlikely to make any substantive positive contributions, but has a long track record of harassment, disruption and corrupt COI participation.

I propose:

1. Blocking the Suburban Express range of IP addresses that have been posting personal attacks: 99.147.28.112 - 99.147.28.119
2. Blocking non-disclosed paid editors user:Verdict78 and user:HtownCat (perhaps this should be handled separately since they insist they do not have a COI)
3. Increase the article's protection to either full protection or reviewer status
4. Get the article on a few more watchlists, in particular for block evasion

CorporateM (Talk) 02:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please point out examples of what you consider to be personal attacks by Suburban Express in this discussion, so that Suburban Express can avoid upsetting discussion participants in the future. Suburban Express understands that you may be uncomfortable being called out on false statements and false attributions, but criticism of your writing and citations is not intended to read as personal attacks.99.147.28.113 (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You have a page on your website about me that has personal information such as my name and where I live. Gulugawa (Talk) 18:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You have repeatedly posted your personal information on Reddit. Suburban Express is asking users for specific examples where wikipedia users feel they were subject to personal attacks *on Wikipedia*. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• strong support Gaijin42 (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I support items 1, 3, and 4. Re item 2, Verdict78 and HtownCat have clear bias in favor of Suburban Express, but I'd want to see the evidence of paid editing or other policy violations before supporting sanctions. CU is warranted as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like blocks may be in order anyway as block evasion. As Smallbones mentioned, there are previously blocked SPAs that are most likely the same person. [34][35][36] CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support all 4 - Utter mess that has gone on long enough. Corporations trying to white-wash history always piss me off. This is one of the lamest and most half-arsed versions of that I've ever seen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Counter Proposal

The proposal above does not remedy the large number of false statements and false attributions in the Suburban Express article.

Suburban Express proposes that CorporateM, who has made a large percentage of the edits to the Suburban Express article in recent months, and is therefore responsible for most of the text and citations, undertake the following:

1) Read each sentence of the article which is attributed to a source.

2) Read the cited source and verify that the attributed sentence/information is present in the source.

3) Correct all inconsistencies.

Earlier, you seemed to profess to be concerned about these problems, so this proposal should not seem to onerous. Furthermore, undertaking the corrections would quickly dispose of the current matter and relieve others from making the corrections. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Close as improper proposal and possibly trolling. A proposal at ANI has to propose something that an administrator has the right/power to do. For example, anyone can propose that I be required to no longer edit a particular article (also known as a topic ban) because administrators have the power/right to require that of me in order to prevent disruption. However, one cannot make a motion to require me to edit a particular article because I am always free to stop editing any page, and no administrator can force me to edit it or block me for refusing to edit it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously not a formal rule-based proposal. The goal was to bring this discussion back to earth and back to the issue at the top - inaccurate statements in the article and citations which do not support the statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Guidance Sought

Suburban Express has come here to make specific complaints about a specific user's contribution to the Suburban Express article. The complaints are objective and easily verified. Two examples were provided at the top, and pursuant to a very small number constructive suggestions, Suburban Express stated that it would provide a more comprehensive set of (objective) examples "this evening or tomorrow evening".

Wikipedia community has responded by attacking Suburban Express from every angle, making numerous repeated unsupported claims, hurling insults, and generally working to cause the discussion to drift far from the initial, objective, and valid complaint about the user and article.

Suburban Express will work to provide a well-supported list of false statements and false attributions/citations, and will post Friday evening..

With regard to claims of personal attacks by Suburban Express in this particular arena - we are very puzzled by this. The way we see it:

SE: We have a problem. Here it is.

Wikipedia: You are a-holes, F.U..

SE: We're trying to address this specific problem, let's stay on topic.

Wikipedia: F.U.register a username, the ip address you are using is registered to SE

SE: We know the ip address is registered to SE. All statements from this ip address are from us.

Wikipedia: You're disruptive. We're going to get the rope and torches and ban you for being disruptive.

It is not clear to us how Wikipedia insulting Suburban Express in this discussion constitutes a ban-able infraction by Suburban Express.

Perhaps one of the least emotional participants can explain this to us. We are quite baffled.

Also, we are quite puzzled by a contradiction we see here repeatedly. Wikipedia simultaneously refers to Suburban Express as small, puny, and not notable AND talks about Suburban Express as if it's a huge corporate monolith -- "the man" to be reviled by all. Suburban Express is probably neither. We are a small business that employs about 10 people regularly and up to 75 subcontracted employees a few days a year. We exist in a competitive market where we must be frugal at all times, deter fraud as best we can, jump through endless regulatory hoops, try to keep all our computers running and protected from online attackers, etc...all to eek out a modest profit--sometimes. So which is it? Puny and non-notable or huge and evil? Unfortunately, the world isn't actually binary like that.

In any event, we will endeavor to post our analysis of the article tomorrow -- assuming that we have not been banned by then for letting ourselves be abused here.

99.147.28.113 (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by a number of the responses above, and I can't explain them. Thank you for your transparency here. As I said above, a clear, comprehensive and concise case against CorporateM is needed if you want action on that - and you're best qualified (and motivated) to prepare that. To demonstrate tendentiousness, you may take into account behaviour going back some time. More than errors need to be shown, you need to make it clear how CorporateM's edits slant the tone against you in each instance.

But that doesn't address the issue of undue weight being given to negative reports, which may be the case, and possible over-reliance on poor sources. Of these last two, I'd be inclined to first take the sources, if you think some are not good quality per WP:RS, (a clear, concise list of any that concern you, explaining what each is being used to prove - a source may be suitable to support one kind of claim but not another) to Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard for opinions and advice from uninvolved editors with experience assessing sources. Then, once the sources have been sorted, open a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and ask for input on the amount and nature of text devoted to criticism. But you're free to do this in whatever sequence you're comfortable with, or not at all.

I know how much time and effort this will involve, and you have my sympathy; but that is the best way forward that I can presently think of. Don't hesitate to ask here or at my talk page if you have any questions or want someone to look over anything before you present it to a noticeboard. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, here's a much more concise guidance: Focus on the specific points in the article you would want to see re-evaluated, and drop the attacks against other editors. This thread here is laden with them, and pretty much everything else Suburban is writing is so too. It is very obvious at this stage that while the community at large will agree that the wording in the article can be improved and made more precise, there is also a consensus that you have no case against specific editors.

In other words, focus on edits, not editors. This will leave open your capacity to bring up what you see as issues on the article's talk page, and seek further input at other places.

I understand that the whole situation may be frustrating, but any further lashing out at or about anyone else here will lead to an indefinite block. This would limit your ability to comment about content to e-mail. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support the recommendations and advice given by User:Anthonyhcole and User:MLauba. Let's return to pragmatic problem solving. Irondome (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd support forgiving Suburban Express of its extremely disruptive conduct on the condition that (1) it immediately start following MLauba and Anthonyhcole's advice and (2) it fully declare its COI for each associated account as previously suggested. I still think an WP:SPI is warranted regardless. The COI disclosures and SPI should happen before Suburban Express expands this mess to multiple additional noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification Sought: What is the proper way for multiple employees of one company who wish to participate in Wikipedia to set up accounts and declare their COI wrt a specific article? What we've seen here is that different users are either all presumed to be the same person, or they are branded sockpuppets of one another in what seems to be somewhat of a witch hunt. When different individuals are working to defend the company they work for, it is unclear how they are supposed to avoid accusations that they are the same individual or that they are sockpuppets of one another. If three individuals who are employed by Suburban Express wish to participate, what is the "proper" way to do this? 99.147.28.113 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

One way to do this is to add a {{connected contributor}} tag at the top of the talk page for each account that is associated with your company and has edited the article or its talk page. Be sure to read and understand WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS as well (in addition to WP:NOPR). In light of these policies I'd say best practice is to have only one employee participate in any given dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll look at that carefully. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Username Suburban Express President has been registered. That should remove any ambiguity. Employees have been instructed to use connected contributor. We cannot, however, control the actions of subcontractors or employees of subcontractors, who have access to wifi we own in their buses.Suburban Express President (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User: Suburban_Express replaced with user: Suburban Express President

User smartse blocked user Suburban_Express, apparently because the name has potential to be interpreted as being used by multiple users. User Julia_Abril suggested that the username was problematic, but we apparently did not resolve the problem quickly enough. Please be advised that user Suburban Express President has been registered to remedy the problems with user Suburban_Express. Please don't launch the sockpuppet nukes. We're trying to understand your secret society and adhere to its (numerous and often confusing!) rules.

We continue to work on the promised materials for the earlier complaint, above. It is turning out to be a very time-consuming project.

Thanks Suburban Express President (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You really don't know what the problem is with your name, do you? GamerPro64 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

GamerPro, if the editor knew there was a problem with the name he wouldn't have chosen it. Only a total ignoramus expects everyone to know everything he knows; especially regarding something as impenetrable as Wikipedia norms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your message reads as sarcasm, user:GamerPro64. Perhaps you are willing to explain what you mean. In the meantime, I have chosen to follow the guidance provided byuser: Julia_Abril. If anyone else wants to help me understand GamerPro64 's unspoken message, I would appreciate any non-sarcastic guidance you wish to offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suburban Express President (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your name still refers explicitly to your company and therefore fails WP:U for the same reason your original name did. You need to have a username that doesn't mention your company, at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: using sarcastic phrases such as "We're trying to understand your secret society" while accusing others who show no signs of sarcasm of being sarcastic, do you see this pot? What color is it? How about this kettle? Really? The same color? What are the odds? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor makes a perfectly valid point about the "secret society". Our norms are dense and confusing to newcomers. This is a person who, at least on its face, has a Wikipedia article heavily weighted to vilifying him and his company, and he needs help learning how to work with us, not this kind of puerility. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Everyone please step back for a moment. Suburban express was blocked simply for {{uw-ublock}}, with no additional or more specific reason given by the blocking admin. As far as I can see, Julia Abril was the only person to suggest that the username was problematic, and that suggestion concentrated on a WP:ROLE violation, rather than the spam-username issue. Between these two facts, it looks to me as if SEP really didn't know what the problem was with the "SEP" username. Meanwhile, Orangemike blocked SEP with a {{uw-spamublock}} message, and SEP has requested a username change to "Arri416". I'm going to grant the unblock with the usual "request a name change immediately" advice and a reminder to follow WP:SPAM/WP:COI/etc. very very carefully. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: actually, that's not quite true. Users are allowed to mention a company or organisation in their user name, as long as it is clear that the username belongs to a specific individual. Suburban Express President probably thought that the new name was ok because it pointed to a specific individual at the company, but actually it is possible that the position of president might change in the future, so I think that "Suburban Express President" still doesn't tie the account down to an individual person. Something like User:John Smith, Suburban Express would be ok, however. (The policy details are at WP:CORPNAME and WP:ISU if anyone is interested.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Orangemike's use of the {{uw-spamublock}} template was wrong and confusing. The editor was clearly trying to be transparent, not using the username to advertise his company. Presidents change, so the problem was with WP:ROLE. Rather than a change to the meaningless "Arri416", I'd prefer to see something like "Suburban Express Arri"; and others from the company calling themselves "Suburban Express Sally", "Suburban Express Joe" or whatever. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Arri. From the above it should be clear that you're in an an odd environment here. The only way forward is to (a) read and abide by the policies and guidelines you're pointed to and (b) remain polite and constructive at all times, most especially on article talk pages (which should be hallowed ground on this project). (A) is mind-numbingly tedious and (b) requires super-human frontal lobe function - but I'm sure you're up to it. Ultimately, it's about seeming reasonable and persuading the genuinely open-minded through sound policy-based argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be making this user jump through hoops just to get the name right, when all he wants to do is have input regarding an article about him. I hope we can leave the user-name issue now and focus on the content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Could Orangemike say what the problem is here, and why Suburban Express President can't edit with his current name? Leaving a source on talk seems like a reasonable thing to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who has followed the article and the discussion can answer. As for anyone else with COI, this individual has no business editing WP mainspace at all about himself or his company in mainspace. As his editing in WP space (here) and talk space is unconstructive, he has no business editing at all. OTRS remains open to justified complaints. I am amazed at the patience some of my colleagues here are showing with the most unsubtle example I have ever seen of a company trying to conceal apparently justified sourced negative material. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

DGG, as you know I oppose any kind of paid advocacy, but I can't see what the user has done wrong here. These are effectively BLP violations that he's trying to fix, given that the criticism is aimed at one, borderline-notable, individual, and that most of it seems to be from social media. I hope we can help him to fix this, rather than make him jump through hoops about name changes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello - Just stopping by to update the situation. I have put in a name change request so that my username does not violate WP:Role and am refraining from editing the Suburban Express talk page (or anything else except for engaging in conversations largely at my talk page) until the change is completed. I have no intent of editing the Suburban Express article due to COI. As for the article, the issues raised with editor CorporateM are still valid and I will be posting information consistent with user anthonyhcole's recommendations once the name change is complete. I notice that CorporateM has been very active with editing again, and that the edits are not accurate. For instance, a recent edit states that we have sued 200 students. That statement does not referencea any article and it is not true. About 40-50% of tickets are purchased by parents, and parents are not students. Clearly, remedial work is necessary. Also, I am in the process of posting pdf's of (copyright-released) articles on my talk page which are currently not available online so that wikipedia editors have access to all articles, not just articles which are currently available online. My goal here is to ensure that the Suburban Express article does not contain false statements or inaccurate citations. At this point, it does.

Hopefully, the name change will go through soon. Suburban Express President (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you don't actually need a name change in my view, though if you want to go ahead with one that's fine. But in the meantime (with this name or with your new one) you're allowed to post on the article talk page if you have sources or suggestions for change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko socking

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

---

At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 146#The disgraceful state of Wikipedia, Kumioko (User:KumiokoCleanStart) is editing as a variable IP ([37][38], and as himself[39], but repeatedly pretends to be two different editors[40][41] and uses that as an argument that he is right (" That editor is accused of being disgruntled and angry and then the user responds to several comments essentially confirming what I started the discussion about."). While he is not fooling any experienced editors, it is still a violation of WP:SOCK. He was blocked early in 2013 for socking ([42]) and unblocked on the condition that "has agreed to edit solely from User:KumiokoCleanStart and not any other accounts or IPs. User:Kumioko remains globallylocked." I have no idea if that condition remains or has been lifted afterwards, but it doesn't really matter, since the socking he did in that discussion is never allowed. I'm not neutral or uninvolved wrt Kumioko, so I can't take any action here, but I don't believe this kind of disruption should be tolerated. Fram (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see Fram is up to his old tricks again. Just to clarify a few things:

1. Point one, I am disgruntled and angry. That parts true. I'm also a a Leo, I eat meat and I know how to use a shovel, that still doesn't mean I am socking.
2. I have told Resolute several times over the last few days. I have used that IP a couple times in the past. That doesn't mean I am socking, I'm not trying to mislead anyone.
3. That discussion and the vast majority of edits by that IP (as well as 138.162.8.58, 138.162.8.59 and the rest of the Navy) aren't me regardless of what Fram or that piece of shit checkuser program say. Those "experienced" editors he is referring too are mostly abusive admins that have wanted me gone for some time know because I have been vocal and critical of admin abuses and various other things that need to be changed for the better in this project. Since the project would rather keep abusive admins than to fix the system or get rid of them, frankly you deserve what you get at this point. But you can't say I didn't try to make things better.
4. What Fram and the checkusers don't tell you and generally don't want known is that the crappy checkuser application is wrong as much or more than its right and its extremely hard to use and interpret, particularly with high volume editors. It will show you I edited from this account, a couple Ip's (several of which are proxy servers used by a large number of people), that I use Windows, XP, 7 and 8 and Internet explorer 7 and Mozilla Firefox. Probably some other useless associations too.
5. The end state of this AN discussion is irrelevant because other than responding to notifications and talk page comments I have only made 3 edits in a month and a half. So it really doesn't matter to me if you block me or not. Because your going to be hurting the project, not me. But that hasn't mattered here in a long time and that's a large part of the reason why I left.
6. As a point of fact though, the block will do nothing to "protect Wikipedia from harm" because nothing has been harmed. So this block would be purely punitive and petty initiated by an Admin who has tried to get me (and most of the other highly active editors I might add) banned from the project for years.
7. Fram has done more harm to the project than I ever could in his quest to ban all the high volume editors. Because the more edits you do, the more likely you are too piss someone off and give them a reason and excuse to block you.
8. I would also add that unless you intend to range block the entire navy (138.156 and 138.162) and the entire verizon fios network, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me from editing if I want too.

1. Additionally, just to clarify some things. The Kumioko account is globally locked because I made that happen, not because I was guilty of some widespread abuse. That comment is typical of Fram's ability and tendency to exhaggarate the truth to justify his own Point of view.

So in the end, do whatever you all want. Because I have tried and failed to make this place better. Their are widespread problems and the community either doesn't see it, doesn't care or doesn't agree. So I have gone from being highly devoted and productive editor in the project project who believes in the intention of the goals of it, to being inferred and insinuated as being just another Vandal, sockmaster, POV warrior etc. This is mostly done to discredit me so the admins can continue abusing editors with impunity and protecting their POV edits, but who cares right. At least I'll be gone and you won't have to hear about all the problems; 10, 000+ edits won't get done a month; WikiProject United States and about 100 other US related projects will finally be allowed to die with no one supporting them; etc. So go ahead and feel free to block this account indef, make the site so that IP's can't edit and an account is required; go ahead and do all the other stupid things that will be the demise of this site. RANT OVER because no one is going to read this OR CARE!Kumioko (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, look - in general, I (and I expect others) support your attempts to improve this project. However, in order to get those benefits, we have to far-too-regularly put up with WP:DIVA, WP:POINT and other ridiculous bovine excrement. That part of things is tiring. So, don't be surprised that when you PERSONALLY have a history of pointiness and other bullshit, that some people AUTOMAGICALLY ASSUME that you're simply continuing the same damned pattern. Whether it's you or not, because of your history, it sticks to you. The best idea would have been to not create the pattern of ridonculous behaviour in the first place, n'est-ce pas? ES&L 11:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

With respect, I seriously doubt that anyone, including you support my anything. That is not the feeling I have gotten....repeatedly and in no uncertain terms. Also, to which "pattern of ridonculous behaviour" are you referring. Me trying repeatedly to get the WMF to pull their head out of their nether regions and fix Visual editor; my constant attempts to instigate reform to the RFA process; my frequent comments about how the editing environment is toxic in WP because abusive admins aren't held to court; etc.? Or are you referring more specifically to my tendency to once a year get driven to the point where is say F' it I quite because I get tired of the insults, blaming, told how I can't be trusted; how WikiProject United States is so massive and unmanageable (which by the way is far far smaller than WikiProject Biography with about 2 million articles in it)? If the latter is the case, excuse me that I can only take so much before I get fed up. You all are right though. Generally in the past I have come back, but this time, I am really done. After I post this I am going to remove my email address so the notifications will stop being sent to me. That way I'll quite being blamed for Divaish activity because I replied. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"I have used that IP a couple times in the past." and "the vast majority of edits by that IP [...] aren't me". Looking at [43], the edits from 16 October are clearly Kumioko, the edits from 17 October are clearly Kumioko, but the edits from 18 to 24 October aren't you? The edits from [44] are even clearer: the edits from 18 October, made between 18:20 and 18:25 are clearly by you, but the next ones, starting 16 minutes later, are not by you? (Note that here one IP adds to the comment of the other, so we can at least be sure that the two IPs are the same editor here, before that gets denied as well). The IP claims "I do not think I sound anything like Kumioko. They are very angry, I am indifferent.", but I guess that it is better to let uninvolved editors make that call. Fram (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, I find Kimioko's attempt at faking split personalities to be rather sad and childish, but I don't view it as disruptive, per se. He's not double !voting on anything and he certainly is not misleading anyone. I would suggest he simply stick with one or the other however, because all he does with these little games is undermine his own credibility. Resolute 13:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Kumioko has retired. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Several times, IIRC. This retiring statement is a bit over the top. [45] Ansh666 20:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Just a thought, but if people would quite pinging me with notifications I would quite responding. I guess I could remove my email address from the site so I won't get notified, but if you all don't want me coming back, quite calling. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
      • People get notifications for diffs? That needs to be fixed... Ansh666 20:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a setting in your preferences ... you can choose to be e-mailed if someone posts on your talkpage, or (IIRC) when they reply in threads you mark accordingly. ES&L 09:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@EatsShootsAndLeaves: I know, but I thought that was for direct links only. I don't see any of those here, only diffs, which use the external link syntax. Ansh666 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Setting aside whatever's going on with Kumioko, I'm bothered to see that Fram is in any way involving himself with Jimbo's talk page, from which he is banned. Seeing as this is the only way Jimbo still exercises his right to unilaterally sanction editors, and seeing as Fram is, as far as I know, the only sitting admin to which he has done this, it seems to me that Fram should spend more time thinking about his own conduct than that of others. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo has banned me because I unearthed some examples of very problematic editing by him, e.g. his attempted outing of Edward Snowden, coupled with an appeal to other editors to help him in this. He wants to use his user talk page as an alternate forum for all editors, but one where the normal rules for such fora don't apply, and where he can unilaterally ban editors who are too critical of his actions. Either he should use his user talk page for his own edits, like other people use their talk pages, or he should make it an open forum, where the normal user talk pages rules don't apply. But he wants, whenever it suits him, to have the best of both worlds, a little fiefdom where he can control and steer policy discussions. He has found one willing admin to do his dirty work for him. That doesn't mean that I can't watch his talk page or note people acting problematically there (he has never complained when I reverted vandalism or removed socks from the page). I see no reason to reflect on my conduct because some person can't handle criticism of his actions and misuses his position in such blatant ways. Fram (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to treat others with collegiality, especially their fellow administrators. It is inappropriate for you to pursue a personal vendetta against Jimbo, and the fact that you cannot see this disturbs me. This is not because he's the project founder; if anything, it's in spite of it—it would probably be more inappropriate for you to behave like this toward any other admin. I encourage you to re-read your comment and consider some of the things you're saying.

1. First of all, anyone can banish others from their talk pages, within reason. This is a longstanding practice, and the exceptions to it are few and far between.
2. Secondly, tons of people run their talk pages as alternative fora of sorts. User talk:Drmies comes to mind. A user is allowed to control what he wants on his talk page. If that seems like "the best of both worlds" to you... Well, you're welcome to try to turn your talk page into the same. You'll find there's nothing in policy preventing it.
3. Thirdly, you're repeating inaccurate and insulting allegations here, on matters that have already been settled as well as they ever be. I see that you have similar material on your userpage. Once again, if this were about anyone other than Jimbo, it would be removed immediately.

For someone so eager to hold the Big Bad Founder accountable, you are alarmingly unaccepting of criticism. Why not open yourself up to recall, if you're so much against abuse of authority? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I know that I called Fram on it - even clearly stated that if I saw them violate Jimbo's request to stay off his talkpage that I would block them for disruption and harassment myself. Of course, when I'm on leave from my admin account for a few months, I cannot jump into the fray like that, and Fram has increased their visitations to that page, rather than decrease ES&L 09:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have increased my visits. I do believe that you were not aware of my actions there (e.g. asking me to do vandalism reversions there and so on, when I had been doing that on and off for years), and are now more closely following them, which creates a perception bias. Fram (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Which insinuations are "inaccurate and insulting"? When someone states that he wants to know whether named person has edited here, has found a username which he has used on other sites, and then states, after having been warned of the potential outing issue: "I looked for a couple of variant spellings and found nothing, so I asked to see if others could find anything." (bolding mine)[46], then there is no other possibility under our policies than to consider this a violation of our WP:OUTING policy, and a request foo others to join him in this research. That Jimbo Wales then declares elsewher that ""I am not, ocntrary to the false headline, engaged in any search."[47] (bolding again mine) is him contradicting himself in a very blatant way. So please, tell, me which "insulting and inaccurate allegations" have I repeated here? Fram (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As numerous users said at the time, it seems pretty clear to me that Jimbo was just asking if Snowden was a known Wikipedia editor, not asking for people to try to find whatever secret accounts he may have used. Your insistence to call this months-old incident outing, and to bring it up inprovoked, is what I find insulting and inaccurate. This as good a case of WP:DROPTHESTICK as there ever was; get over it, take the rant off your userpage, ignore everything involving Jimbo, and get back to trying to improve the 'pedia. And, I ask you once again: Why are you not open to recall? Do you hold Jimbo to a higher standard than you hold yourself? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Boomerangs for evrybody involved for being overly diva-ish and violating your respective bans. KonveyorBelt 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussing something that another editor did on some page doesn't violate a dubious ban on posting to that page. Fram (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean he's not permitted to do it, and have it enforced - you know that ES&L 09:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

He can do it. That you want to enforce it is entirely your choice though, and the way you implemented the ban was a textbook example of admins acting on personal preferences and dislikes instead of following policies. You were and are severely biased, and shouldn't involve yourself in this in an administrative capacity. Fram (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, what? I didn't implement Jimbo's ban; he did ... I'm not acting on my "personal preferences and dislikes", and how would blocking you - as per Jimbo's prerogative to ask you to stop editing his talkpage - be "involving myself" improperly. Your logic is somehow escaping not only me, but the gravitational pull of Earth ES&L 10:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The short discussion that lead to you claiming that you would block me if I edited his talk page again (and that I wasn't allowed to edit your talk page again either), clearly showed your prejudgment and lack of impartiality. Acting upon a blocking threat you made in a clearly partial and prejudiced manner would be a block while being involved, not a neutral block by an uninvolved admin. It's the reason I brought Kumioko's clear socking here, instead of acting upon it myself. Admin 101 for most admins. Fram (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What? Shake your head Fram ... I'm not "involved" simply because you claim I'm involved. My reminding you that Jimbo had specifically advised you to never post on his talkpage again, and a warning that I would block you if you did was purely an administrative capacity. It had no relevance to our discussion - other than the fact that I had your attention, and that when you replied to it, you were therefore acknowledging that you had READ the warning. I have no interest in Jimbo's page, and have no interest in you. Any block that you get due to continually harassing Jimbo on his talkpage against his wishes would not fall under any unusual reading of WP:INVOLVED. That is Admin101, Fram. You're an admin - you're here to set an example, and uphold the rules. Continually posting on Jimbo's page when he said "stop" is setting the worst precedent to other editors. ES&L 11:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Duh, it's not the blocking that would make you involved, I never claimed that. Your prejudice and personal comments about an editor make you involved, and if you would then block them, no matter if the block was otherwise valid or not, would make it an involved admin action. If you make comments like "Just when one thinks that someone is improving as a person AND as an editor - WHAM! - they fuck it up badly", which is a clear personal attack and indicates a prejudice about how someone is "as a person" (going past "discuss the edits, not the editor" to making claims about the person), then you are not the admin that should afterwards block that person. As for the rest of your remarks: we have one person here with the "founder" flag. If he doesn't care about leading by example (or does care, but in reality is leading by bad example, time and again), then people should call him out on it. He regularly tries to stifle critics from his page (you know, the one with the open door policy), perhaps I'm the only admin among those, I haven't checked that. But for some people, it is apparently more important to uphold to the letter a user talk page policy which is hardly applicable in his case anyway, so that he is not disturbed when he makes incorrect claims, violates policy, misuses his admin tools, ... Some people have very strange priorities. Fram (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You're funny, and I like that. The warning was given, and you read it. You then tried to provoke a fight in order to make me involved in order to invalidate the warning. I closed it without responding to your baiting. Nice try. You should do standup. ES&L 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Baiting? You made claims about my edits, I asked for evidence, and you refused to give any "Out of respect for you". I haven't done any baiting there or elsewhere. Asking for evidence is not "trying to provoke a fight", and providing evidence for allegations made is something all editors (and especially admins, "you're here to set an example") should do upon request. Instead, you closed it with an unwarranted personal attack. While you may have the tools and inclination to block me, you don't have the necessary position to do so under our admin policies anymore. Fram (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You keep living under that bizarre belief, and good luck trying to continually justify your inexplicable actions. Cheers ES&L 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

At least I try to justify my actions and statements. If you had started out doing the same [[User talk:Bwilkins/Archive 12#Claim at ANI|here], I might have had a more favourable opinion of your edits and considered your block threat. But threats based on malinformed or biased opinions? No thanks. Fram (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you two please stop your bickering? I know these are 'teh dramah boardz', but jeez... GiantSnowman 14:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll shut up now. Fram (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Update MTN Irancell Logo

Dear administrators. Would you please help me to update and overwrite MTN Irancell Logo? Current logo in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irancell.gif New MTN Irancell logo: http://irancell.ir/Portal/Picture/ShowPicture.aspx?ID=0f0b542f-e0e1-4877-b6f7-6a6fcb15fe28 Thanks in advice --Hamid 2fun (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Any help? --Hamid 2fun (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Posting this request in the middle of the board, as opposed to the bottom where it belongs won't help - however, I have left you some image-related help on your talkpage. ES&L 13:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Admin. I did not post my request in the middle of the board. Please take a look at the dates. Thanks for your consideration but i did not get my answer. --Hamid 2fun (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand the problem. What you identify as "current" logo, File:Irancell.gif, is no longer the current logo; the current logo is File:Irancell Logo.gif, which appears to be exactly the same as the image you link to. I'm trying to verify whether that logo agrees with the company website, which is mindbogglingly slow--OK, I'm giving up on that, I hope their cell phone connections are better than their internet accessibility. The picture you linked is from the company site, so I consider that legitimate. The earlier image is up for deletion since it's no longer in use; in other words, there is no problem here. (Except that MTN Irancell reads like it was posted by the company.) Drmies (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Drmies, Thanks for your answer. I have uploaded the correct logo in wikicommons (while it seems that it is not the right place for non-free logos) and updated the article's source by myself. But now i am trying to find out how i can replace the correct logo with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irancell.gif . Because it has been uploaded in the right place with a real copyright information. I may not need to replace the files. Instead, I need to know how to upload a non-free copyrighted logo. --Hamid 2fun (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Block Appeal by User:Colton Cosmic

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

---

It has been six months since my block was discussed here. At that time it wasn't lifted but I'll try again. I hope for a previously uninvolved administrator to volunteer to discuss my case with me at my talkpage (you will have to unblock me there). I was blocked more than a year ago on the basis of sockpuppetry, but I've always said I didn't do it. Like my very first edit says, I had privacy concerns with my original account so I switched to this, never going back. What Timotheus Canens says, though it took him a long time to explain it, is that I "stirred up trouble" with my new account and therefore it became a sock. I feel that it is wrong to characterize my contributions as troublemaking. Even in the short time before I was blocked I improved several articles, and authored one: Rain City Superhero Movement. It is accurate I was uncivil to Nomoskedacity (spelling?) I called him or her a "provocateur" and questioned his or her value to the project. But the context is I was aggravated because I viewed Nomo. as persistently bullying Youreallycan. Anyhow, if you are willing, let's discuss this at my page. The last thing I'd ask is don't accept allegations against me as true without letting me answer them. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.195.211 (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, you just went through an extensive unblock discussion at Jimbo's talkpage ES&L 09:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's something I'd have brought up at my talkpage to any administrator considering my appeal. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.195.211 (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You miss the point: as per WP:OFFER, you'll need to wait at least 6 months after your most recent appeal, which was to Jimbo. Seriously Colton, I have given you sage advice again and again - this one simply shows you have no desire to act according to the rules. You have no rights to edit here. Whether or not you feel the ban was just, it's been upheld by the community and by Jimbo. You now have to follow the processes to the letter. Stop shooting yourself in the foot by trying to circumvent things - it just proves the community and Jimbo right ES&L 09:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing as an IP while indef blocked is, by definition, block evasion. No appeal of the block should be considered, and the IP should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. Policy (WP:EVADE) expressly makes such actions discretionary. You would be correct to say my IP "may" be blocked. To explain it from my view though, I've no alternative. My talkpage is blocked to me, so I can't appeal there. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c.

They've tried arbcom, they've tried Jimbo, now they're trying to find a WP:OTHERPARENT. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's a few dozen editors who regularly state that admins are idiots. I suppose Colton's trying to prove that point and actually find one of those idiots ES&L 09:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude by not replying anymore to ES&L (aka Bwilkins) and Demiurge1000, but I'm beware "wall of text" that turns everybody else off. I'll squeeze though in that I'm not calling any administrator an idiot. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.195.211 (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. GiantSnowman 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

174.226.68.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked for block evasion. Bencherlite^Talk 13:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Topic Appeal Ban (2) by Martinvl

I wish my topic ban to be removed or relaxed.

While I understand that the topic ban is aimed at preventing further disruption and that ultimately I am responsible for my own actions, I would like to plead in mitigation that I had never seen the page WP:NOJUSTICE until it was pointed out to me via private correspondence by another editor. Although it is my responsibility to have been aware of that page, had User:BeyondMyKen quoted the page concerned when he cited from it, I would certainly not have adopted the stance I took. As it is, there is no mention whatsoever of that page in the ANI concerned. My entire stance, especially that outlined in my earlier appeal, was made in ignorance of the existence of that page.

In light of this and of the stress that I have suffered, I request that my topic ban be removed or relaxed. I undertake to be more careful with any edits or reversion that I make and I am willing to work under such restrictions that you might see fit to place on me. Up to this point I have tried to improve articles more or less on my own, and that in large part has placed me in the position I now find myself. Under the proposed regime, I will have to rely more on persuading other editors rather than making edits myself. Learning to do this will ultimately make me a better editor. Martinvl (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block of this editor due to continual violation of their topic ban ES&L 16:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block - Martinvl simply doesn't get it. GiantSnowman 16:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support extended block - As a participant in the ANI discussion which lead to the topic ban I do not understand how MartinVL could ignore what was said to him simply because it was not cited to an essay (not policy). 192.76.82.87 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef Martinvl is not hearing it. KonveyorBelt 17:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Wait--why would we block him? I see that there's something Martinvl doesn't get, but I see no violations of the topic ban in their recent edits. I'm tempted to close the request per SNOW and IDNHT and all, but is there a violation that justifies a block? This request in itself shows they might not get it, but that in itself is not, in my view, sufficient reason for a block. Please tell me what I'm missing. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• See #Topic ban appeal by Martinvl, closed less than 24 hours ago. GiantSnowman 17:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, Martinvl's ANI resulted in extensive wikilawyering on his end (citing vote-stacking by the filing party after insisting himself the filing party notify all involved in the current dispute), then bordered on actual lawyering based on statements made on his talkpage. Once the topic ban was handed down, after several people tried desperately to get him to listen, he immediately asked for a relaxation in part to file an ANI complaint (what should have been an SPI filing) against another party in the subject from which he was topic banned. Prior to receiving that answer (which was "no"), he filed the report, which dealt extensively with the subject from which he is banned. The ANI complaint was closed with a reminder that he is topic banned. He then lodged a complaint GaintSnowman linked to above, where he refuses to accept that despite being told in the ANI that he does not have legal rights on Wikipedia that we failed to let him speak, when in truth he just didn't listen to what was being said at him. Now, he is topic banned from his preferred area, and rather than pursue other areas he is intent on having the ban revoked. 192.76.82.87 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I won't !vote "indef" right now, because it's all very sad - but honestly, I've seen this so often. Editor has a "niche" area (in this case measurements) which they edit to satisfy a POV. Editor gets on everyone else's nerves with tendentious editing to said area, and pernickety wikilawyering. Editor is topic-banned, when community becomes exasperated with this. Editor continues tendentious wikilawyering with multiple topic ban appeals. Community gives up and indefs due to massive timesink, and well, unwillingness to put up with it. Rinse and repeat. I don't think it's necessarily the way things should always happen, but it's sure predictable, and even understandable. In this case, oddly, Martinvl seems to be claiming that until now he did not know that wikilawyering about his "rights", and being a major pain in the arse was a "bad thing". I doubt it'll wash right now, but fascinating, even if only to the extent that it may well be wikilawyering about the right to wikilawyer if you didn't know you didn't have that right... or something...(I'm lost) ... Or it could be genuine, but see that's what happens when people have had enough - AGF fails. Begoon ^talk 17:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Gotcha (Snowman). Thank you. Odd: blocked not for breaking their topic ban but for excessive disruption only partly related to said topic ban. Martinvl may place an unblock request--indefinite is not infinite--which will be turned down immediately unless it shows some understanding of the irritation and disruption caused by their behavior. I'm not going to list policies and guidelines here that they should study; they're linked in the various threads on ANI and on AN and on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I think this is a little too much. Martin's made another plea, but how does that equate to an indef block due to disruptive editing? I would encourage people to encourage Martin to take a pause for a moment and to leave both AN and measurements etc alone. Did anyone warn Martin that another entry at AN would result in an indef block? Can someone provide those diffs please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at The Bushranger's close of the previous topic ban appeal, where he wrote "...if this same tactic is adopted in any further appealing an indef WP:BOOMERANG is likely to hit." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Relax topic ban to 1RR First, Martinvl does get it. He has a world view (very effective for the areas he edits) where what is documented is valuable and random opinions aren't. Pointing out that WP:NOJUSTICE exists settles the matter of wikilawyering in a way that multiple people giving their opinions could not; we're not going to see any more of that behavior.

Martinvl has a long track record of being an effective, expert contributor. I've never had a technical disagreement with him that lasted beyond one or the other of us producing a reliable source. Despite constant harassment from a sophisticated sockmaster, I've never seen him be anything less than civil. But if there's a disagreement that can't be adjudicated objectively, his stubborn streak can come out.

I'd like to keep the expert contributions while Martinvl learns how to walk away from unwinnable arguments. A 1RR restriction lets him contribute but won't let him argue; we get the benefit without the disruption. Garamond Lethet
c 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A good compromise. I hope that others here can assume good faith (perhaps just one more time) and allow Martin a shade of latitude. 1RR is a harsh mistress and I'm certain several here would be happy (even keen) to enforce it when required. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Remove Topic Ban, Impose 1RR Restriction Based upon Martinvl's comments above, I am confident that he does get it. In particular, looks at this comment:

"Up to this point I have tried to improve articles more or less on my own, and that in large part has placed me in the position I now find myself. Under the proposed regime, I will have to rely more on persuading other editors rather than making edits myself. Learning to do this will ultimately make me a better editor."

Based upon my previous interactions with Martinvl, in my opinion he is unlikely to make a commitment like that and then take it lightly. And of course if I am wrong on this, there is always WP:ROPE to consider. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Withdraw. This replaces my comment above. I have carefully read all the other comments on this. Though I am not 100% convinced, there have been some compelling arguments -- enough so that I am withdrawing my comment above, and neither support or oppose any of the proposals. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef - I also support a further topic ban on appealing this topic ban for a minimum of six months to a year. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • And almost certainly banishment to a dark dungeon with rats, whips, spikes etc. Point made. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Would the dungeon have Internet? DSL or cable? (Don't be so melodramatic, there's life outside of WP - I think.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'm willing to give IRR a try, with the caveat that it must be clear to Martinvl -- and I mean that he must say clearly and distinctly that he understands this -- that 'any violation of 1RR, or any Wikilawyering, tendentious commentary or WP:IDHT behavior will be immediately met with an indef block, with no community discussion necessary. In other words, I am in favor of approving the indef block in advance. I don't have any great hope that this will work, and I put litle stock in Martinvl's words of wonderment which began his appeal, which, frankly, seem specious to me, but I take it on good faith that he's got something to offer the project that may possibly make another try worthwhile - but the rope's gotta be really, really short. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep topic ban as 1RR cannot apply to his talk page comments, where he has been disruptive in the past. —Rschen7754 21:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The more disruptive part has been the persistent Wikilawyering, not the reverting, so 1RR won't help any.

As to the indef, well, I viewed the previous appeal as an WP:NLT violation - and the threat has not since been withdrawn - so I feel he was lucky not to have already been blocked indef before this appeal. Plus let's remember that the topic ban has already been broken, as noted in the previous appeal. I put approximately no stock in Martin's saying he gets it, as per RGloucester below, and per my previous experience with him. Kahastok talk 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: I support an indefinite block until Martinvl agrees to follow the topic ban. --Rschen7754 18:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I support an indefinite block, however, the topic ban should remain. Martin is a long-time editor who has been around all edges of Wikipedia. He knows how it works, however, he has chosen to disregard that repeatedly. He may say he "gets it", but he has said such repeatedly, after the fact, and yet continues the behavior that leads to sanctions. For example, as a result of the 48 hour initial block that he received for disrupting the ANI, he said that "he would not've done that" if he knew the person who told him to stop "was an administrator". These type of retroactive "getting it" phrases should not be bought wholesale. Look at the history. Not to mention his previous repeated obsession with legality and justice. It suddenly disappears today? That seems a bit queer, doesn't it? RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef on reflection. It's not forever and he can work on convincing admins on his talkpage that he is no longer going to waste everyone's time like this, and truly understands the issues. There does come a point where the sheer amount of time involved in dealing with this kind of repetitive, tendentious editing is too much. You fit in, or you get out, in the end - that's true of any community. The mere fact that this has rumbled on for so long and now is reignited shows that any sort of "ok - but be good in future" result, again, is insufficient, because every view other than Martin's must be wrong, nothing is ever Martin's fault, Martin "gets it" now, but never before when explained, if that serves the cause, and oh, it's all so unjust... This kind of timesink stuff may well be the death of this place if we refuse to address it. Yes, I mean don't set a precedent here that wikilawyering wins. Oppose the rats and whips, and also the spikes. Begoon ^talk 22:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support retention of year long topic-ban and propose a 3 month block - whilst I am an involved editor, Martinvl will continue to post requests to overturn their topic-ban as they don't believe they have done anything wrong and will not defend the accusations against him, always trying to pin it on someone else or trying to worm out of it by a technicality even when that is turned down by several admins. The fact they didn't get a sanction for their incivility to me and DDStretch and the continued lying and twisting in regards to doing it at the UK article is in my eyes a let off for them never mind edit-warring with admins on AN/I of all places. A 1RR would be of no use. So instead of an indef block, maybe Martinvl would benefit from a short-term block of say 3-months so they can think about their behaviour and attitude. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Martinvl is an editor, so they should be editing. So they took longer than the average editor to grok the intricacies of the bureaucratic non-bureaucracy we've erected around here; not that important. As one of the editors who took a shot (not "desperately") at explaining things to them on their talk page, my time will only turn out to be "wasted" if, at the end of the day, they don't end up editing in a collaborative fashion -- because that's supposed to be the goal of dispute resolution. Their post here makes it seem like they finally got it; personally I don't care why and long as they did. And we can't figure out whether they really did until we all stop yakking about it and they return to editing. NE Ent 23:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest NE Ent I don't believe Martinvl is being sincere. They haven't even apologised for their false accusations which equate to personal attacks on me and DDStretch, and the twisting he partook in to avoid taking the blame for it. So on that, how can Martinvl be described as finally getting it when they can't even bite the bullet and accept they where in the wrong and apologise for their incivility? Any editor with even the tiniest amount of remorse and wanting to receive penitence would at least acknowledge their fault and apologise for it - Matinvl seems absolutely unable to accept their fallibility, and at this stage any such acknowledgement and apology would more likely be an attempt to game. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly; this sort of stuff has been going on for years. --Rschen7754 00:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: As will have already been noticed by people who have been aware of prior events, I am involved as the administrator who initially tried to deal with the edit-warring Martinvl incorrectly attributed to Wee Curry Monster (thus downplaying his own deep involvement) on Talk:United Kingdom. We then saw Martinvl launch a series of actions that ran counter to the spirit of wikipedia, for which he has not yet apologized, withdrawn, or even acknowledged in many cases. All these are documented on the AN/I thread about him. I am not sure that Martinvl will comply with the small amount that he has acknowledged and written here after such a short time since his last problematic behaviour, and may be he cannot easily control himself at the moment. But we have at last seen a statement that begins (and only just begins) to acknowledge something. We should try to build on that, even if some of us cannot, at this stage, believe that it is true. There are, however, so far no apparently sincere expressions of regret for his edit-warring or personal attacks, or his other disruptive behaviour, bar the "no justice"-related issue. I think he needs to be guided firmly to deal with the other issues now. And if the action of the community now is to allow an immediate relaxation of the present sanctions, then I think he needs to be urged, if possible, to join the mentoring service to guide his behaviour on here to much more acceptable forms. It would count in his favour, in my opinion, if he voluntarily agreed to this rather than being required to. In addition, if the sanctions are immediately relaxed, I think there should be developed an explicit list of bullet points concerning specific aspects of his behaviour that Martinvl should be required to deal with before any relaxation should be considered. He should be put on probation about all of this (a bit like a suspended sentence). I know this seems harsh, but the extent to which his behaviour has been abberent to this project up to now, and the extent of a change we see in the apparent Damasene conversion before us would seem to require it for us to be sure. I would hope that if Martinvl is sincere in his change in attitudes, he would not object to doing this. The problem is that his prior behaviour seems so entrenched given previous problems with him, that, although his contribution to wikipedia could be very great in the area of measurement, it also carries great risks to wikipedia because of the disruption that has sometimes gone along with them. I hope he can be encouraged to contribute in his special area of measurement in the future, but I hope we can help him become a more agreeable editor to the wikipedia project by adopting some of the ideas (or adapting them after discussion) I have suggested here. If this is impossible, then I, sadly, cannot hold up much hope for his future as an editor on wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Revert indef, reinstate topic ban as before - I've supported Martinvl in the past, but let's set that aside a second. Firstly, this appeal is not convincing enough to suggest that the initial concerns will be resolved from now on. However, it is not so purely disruptive for a lynch mob of "indef block" votes to be thrown into the ring (and the close of the previous discussion is irrelevant, to be perfectly honest; that's one admin's opinion, however valid it may be) - Martin is at least attempting to demonstrate a willingness to change, and although I can understand the lack of good faith being assumed, it is utterly unhelpful. I think Martin should change his editing focus for six months or so, work on his abilities in disputes, and attempt to find a mentor. If this happens and it is successful, I would see no reason to not lift the topic ban altogether - but that's a big if, Martin, and you need to do the work yourself, because no one can do it for you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Sustain indef block for now Until Martinvl gives a commitment to drop the stick, follow the topic ban and generally move on an indefinite duration block is justified. Unfortunately he's going around in circles on this issue pursuing the supposed injustices he feels he was subjected to, and this is not a good use of his time or that of the community. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Suggestion: because Martinvl appears to have made valuable contributions to articles about measurement, and since the conduct that has been found problematic seems to have been concerned only with the usage of measurements in articles generally, to narrow the terms of the topic-ban to those ‘circumstantial’ areas—I’m not sure how best to reword it, but the idea is to permit him to work in his area of interest, if not (or only under a 1RR) in its broader applications where disputes have arisen. ISTM the exception allowing him to follow up his GA nominations was already a step in this direction.—Odysseus1479 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion because Martin has addressed almost none of the substantive reasons for his block, and the one he did address seems so quick on the heels of his continued disruption in that manner as to make make some editors wary of its validity. Until he does show real and more changes in more areas where he was disruptive, and gives assurances that he has a clue about the way wikipedia works in all the areas he has created so much disruption, past experiences are that he will simply resume his disruptive ways. If your suggestion is to be given any traction, then he needs to address a list of bullet points we should develop specifically about his problematic behaviour, giving assurances about each one, before we should even consider relaxing the current restrictions. Even then, I am not sure it can easily be done without Martin getting involved with this service: WP:MENTOR  DDStretch  (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC regarding new userright

Please see this RfC regarding a admin-granted userright "reviewer permission" for AfC. I'll tread on the edge of the canvassing rules by saying that this proposed userright does not seem to be able to be implemented in a way that it will effect any real technical permissions or restrictions, and leave it at that. Gigs (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You should have stopped after the link to the discussion. GiantSnowman 12:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I really debated. I'll strike it out, not that that really helps anything. If anyone thinks it's a serious problem, please archive this entire section and place a more neutral link. Gigs (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

RE User:Medeis

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

---

For some reason a user I have never known (User:Medeis) reacted hysterically to an edit I made a day or two ago regarding the discrepancies in reports of the actual cause of actress Marcia Wallace's death.

• This editor publicly accused and threatened me, without even attempting to contact me, of and about:

1. Violating 3RR (untrue and bizarre)
2. Committing WP:BLP (when the subject is deceased!!!)
3. Expressing opinions on the talk page (WTF?!!!)

• First, he/she claims that I committed "edit fraud" because the reflink backing up the comments made by her son which I entered into the article, was not present (i.e. the reflink following the comment did not confirm that the comments made by the son were actually made). Even if this were true (and it is not), the editor should have assumed and had no reason not to assume good faith, and contacted me on my talk page. The reflink (reflink #10) has been present over the last 24-48 hours since the notice of Wallace's death.

• Then in his re-editing (since reversed as I readded the reflink more clearly since he was too lazy to find it), he made an inflammatory edit summary comment, to wit: "unsupported BLP violation removed, editor has expressed OR on talk and been made aware of 3RR and BLP violation". This is insane. What BLP violation? Even if I knew what that was it cannot apply as Wallace, the subject of the article is deceased. It seems that the gist of this nonsense apparently is that he/she did not see the reflink which clearly quoted Wallace's son, Michael Hawley, even though it was at the end of the same paragraph (again, reflink #10), which he/she could not be bothered to look at or for.

• This is the text in question:

  On October 25, 2013, Wallace died at age 70 due to complications from pneumonia. Her son, Michael Hawley claimed she was cancer free at the time of her death; however, Wallace's longtime friend Cathryn Michon told Deadline Hollywood that Wallace "passed at 9pm last night due to complications from breast cancer of which she was a long and proud survivor and advocate for women and healing".

• Reflink # 10 is reflink # 3 here due to truncated text:

• "editor has expressed OR on talk [page]" -- I did express what I clearly stated was my own opinion regarding the discrepancy between her son's comments that his mother was cancer-free and a claim by Wallace's friend that she had died from complications of breast cancer (with which she had been diagnosed in 1985 but long considered cured given the length of time). Is there a rule that one cannot posit or express opinions on article talk pages??

• This outrageous, hysterical, aggressive, antisocial, obnoxious verbal assault by User:Medeis merits a block, in my humble opinion, particularly given his history of being blocked for abusive conduct. Quis separabit? 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Medeis notified of this ANI action. Quis separabit? 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR is not applicable to talk pages; the first sentence of the policy page reads Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. You made three sets of edits in a 24-hour span before Medeis' edit, so even without looking at the diffs, I knew that you'd not violated 3RR. Meanwhile, the sequence of edits I find rather confusing, and a non-3RR edit war really demands a clear and non-confusing history. Even the strictest and most absurd application of BLP permits what you've added, and removing it violates WP:NPOV — there's a dispute over the cause of death, so our article mustn't mention exactly one of them. You're to be commended, RMS, for ensuring that the article retains the ambiguity over the cause of death. At the same time, this really isn't something block-worthy; I'd suggest that we close this now, only implementing any sanctions if it continue. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I just want to say that Medeis (I don't know if this is a he or she) accused accused me of 3RR and BLP, claims he/she has been "civil" with me when my first knowledge of his existence came when I checked my watchlist and saw this edit summary accusing me of this, that and the other, because Medeis was too lazy to look for the reflink at the end of a sentence/paragraph. I know NOR is not applicable to talk pages, apparently Medeis doesn't. Sorry, I am just really mad about being blindsided over nonsense by someone who didn't even have the decency to contact my talk page. Thanks for listening. Quis separabit? 21:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Response by Medeis

This is getting a bit absurd, given this was cut and pasted from AN3, where it was closed. I'll just ask admins to look at the language used by Rms125a above ("outrageous, hysterical, aggressive, antisocial, obnoxious verbal assault "), compared to the complete lack of diffs to support it, and paste my comments here from AN3:

Actually, there's no strict violation of 3RR here by anyone, but the editor who needs addressing is User:Rms125a@hotmail.com.

He has repeatedly added uncited material to the article claiming Wallace died of pneumonia, diff; claiming repeatedly that her son said she was cancer-free until his last edit, after being challanged; arguing his own personal OR and BLP violating opinion "my personal opinion is that her son may be in denial" on talk, diff; and attributing quotes to the Mirror without any such reference, diff, diff. Of course, the claim of pneumonia and that the son had said she was cancer free nay have been true, but unsupported they were subject to removal, especially given the article's Recent Death listing.

Then, when my communication with him has been nothing but civil, he insults me and people with disabilities on my talk page: "you are evidently a slow learner/special student" diff and files this incredibly hostilely worded AN3, with no 3RR violation on my part.

Please admonish or block Rms125a.

Or better yet, just close this summarily. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets work on her article to expand it and not get bogged down in her death. That is indeed part of being sensitive to the subject and family per BLP policy isn't it?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mark, and also that this be closed out. I am not going to keep repeating the same things over and over. I never claimed she died from pneumonia and went out of my way to point out the discrepancy re cause of death, and added external reflinks, which if I mishandled somehow I regret but it was not intentional. And NOR doesn't apply to talk page discussions, which Medeis should know. Medeis' behaviour here is both inexplicable and execrable, but I am moving on. Quis separabit? 22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Jumu'ah should be corrected to Jum'ah

The title of the article Jumu'ah is an inaccurate transliteration of the Arabic word جُمْعَة jumʿah. The short "u" does not exist in this word. Thank you.--Akhooha (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to start a requested move discussion on the article talkpage ES&L 00:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've just done so. --Akhooha (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Range block of Colton Cosmic

He continues to disrupt, the last few IPs have been:

174.226.68.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

174.226.70.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

174.236.0.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

174.236.1.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

174.254.177.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

174.255.195.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Is a range block feasible? GiantSnowman 12:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The allocation is a /10, that's around 4 million addresses, so probably not going to be range blocked. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As CC keeps edit warring on this page using a variety of IPs, I've semiprotected it for 12 hours. 28bytes (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

His disruption is not limited to this page; see also Jehochman's talk page, amongst others. GiantSnowman 12:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the four /16 ranges above. They are very busy, and any rangeblocks would cause too much collateral damage. I'll also note that since they are mobile ranges, single IP blocks are almost completely ineffective - he hopped over at least three ranges in just the past hour. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got the time to edit filter 564 this morning. Any competent filter editor (King of Hearts, perhaps?) that wants to try adjusting it to block his latest antics should feel free. Otherwise, I'll try in about twelve hours.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The filter was fundamentally flawed in the way it was attacking the problem, so I rewrote it. This, at a minimum, works against recent edits and should be a little more resilient. However it should be noted that unless tripping the filter results in a very quick block, EVERY filter will eventually fail to catch something. I'm going to add this filter to the list of automatically reported filter hits if it's not there already. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Shirik: I've optimized your filter, see notes. m.o.p 03:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Undid that one, m.o.p. Look through the filter history and you will see he has access to wider ranges than that.—Kww(talk) 03:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Kww: My mistake, didn't see those. Since that range can't quite be filtered for, I'd suggest incorporating the other line - checking edit deltas takes a bit more time. m.o.p 03:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What I wrote should be very heavily optimized; everything it uses except for the last check is already computed. I don't want to talk more about it than that because it's a hidden filter, but we can discuss it over email or whatever. I note that removing the check you're referring to would actually be disastrous to the filter's performance; it should be there, even though functionally it would produce the same result without it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block of Eric Corbett

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This thread has burned itself to the ground 3 times over at this point: Actions in the near future: A RfC/U will be presented to discuss the interactions into and out from Eric Corbett. Everybody goes back to editing and improving the encyclopedia. Collapsing for the good of the community. Hasteur (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

---

• Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'm afraid that Eric Corbett's actions over the past 24 hours have shown that he has returned to his less productive persona. I find this a shame, but every single edit he has made since returning from his 3 hour block has violated any number of civility based policies. I have therefore taken the step to indefinitely block him. As discussion on his talk page is unlikely to be productive over the next 24 hours, I've taken the unusual step of protecting the page for that period, so that calm discussion can happen here. I should also point out that no ban discussion should happen without re-opening his talk page, to allow Eric to participate, though I think participation in the next 24 hours would be unhelpful. Worm^TT(talk) 15:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. If you don't like his particular and/or peculiar way of arguing, just don't read his page. Eric tends to cool off when he's done being hot, and this shouldn't interfere with the discussion here. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Calm discussion here. Right. We know what will happen. Those wanting to ban until the end of time (and beyond) will muster their most strident arguments, as will his defenders along with those who just don't like those who want to ban. If this is supposed to be the high ground it looks more like a cesspit from the edge. Intothatdarkness 15:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That is no different than any other issue on wiki (or the real world really). You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like. (Alternatively, Gotham has the Batman it deserves...) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Show trials are show trials. Intothatdarkness 15:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How does one excuse Eric's behaviour?

I don't want to see Eric blocked or banned (yes Eric, really). However given the choice between him editing and not abusing others, using editing to abuse anyone and anything that moves, or just blocking and having done with him, I see one choice that it's beyond anyone other than him to choose and two where one is very much the lesser of two evils.

We have a rule: you don't use these terms to other editors. It's a simple enough rule. If you can't work within it, you don't have the maturity to be part of such a community. Eric gives no indication of being able to. It's beyond me why he can't or won't, but that's his problem and it should no longer be ours. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, poking a hornets nest with a stick always helps. It seems you've made up your mind that you're going to push for a ban, which is hugely regrettable. I'd prefer if you were to strike that and see where things stand tomorrow once things calm down. I find it quite astonishing actually that you block his ability to respond then discuss the idea of a ban. That's really not very nice. Nick (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, but perhaps a request for arbitration would be a better way to handle an appeal of the block than a noticeboard discussion here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually Nick, I'd personally oppose a ban, but was trying to stop the conversation before it started. Worm^TT(talk) 15:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's curious that at least two admins let the poking and provocation just above the final blocks slide, as one example:

Not to mention "cunt" [8]. Eric, its really obvious you were pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted. Be happy. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC) [48]

For a very long time, Mally's (Eric's) point about civility was the double standard in the way it is applied. That trend has only become worse over time, with other editors increasingly being able to get away with more, and their admin friends defend their even worse, wholly unprovoked attacks, while blocking Eric after he was poked at with not even a warning to the poker. (No diffs supplied on the even worse transgressions allowed by other editors since anyone paying attention knows which personal attacks I'm referring to, from an editor with a long history of same, but dragging worse examples into this will only derail this conversation. I do like Arsten's idea of an arbcase: I've got some relevant diffs to supply.) Fram or Worm, why did you not protect Eric's talk as soon as the poking started? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Worm, I think protecting Eric's talk page was a fabulously good idea, and was something I've been on the verge of doing myself for the past 12 hours. I think raising the stakes with an indefinite block was a bad idea. The blocks should be doled out after the calm discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion indefinite =/= infinite. I'm hoping that some calm discussion would agree what we expect from Eric should he return, and then he can be unblocked, perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Seems a lot shorter than 3 months to me. Worm^TT(talk) 16:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to support Worm's actions here and to echo indefinite != infinite. I see an indef (which Eric could resolve tonight if he wished to) as much preferable overall to 3 months. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, that was indeed one of the reasons I protected the page. 6 minutes after that very post, as soon as I was aware of what was going on and had read the history. I'm currently in the process of writing a up a statement regarding my indef, then I was going to deal with other comments on that page. I'm getting to it, but you'll have to give me a short while. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Worm, appreciated. It would be helpful if admins who stood by and didn't protect talk explained why they let Gaijin42's post slide, and whether they do not find it to be equally attacking, even if no fing is used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

After seeing this comment I went to user talk:Eric Corbett to see if EC had ever been warned for incivility and if so to block the account, if not to give a warning. I support the block, but I suspect that as Intothatdarkness says this will get messy. SG as to a warning this user has had lots of warnings so why do you think that another would be appropriate? SG please supply a diff for Gaijin42's post. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

PBS, you don't seem to be paying attention. Not only is the diff there ... even if it weren't, it's not that hard to find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

SG where is the "there ..." that your are referring to and what is the diff? It would help me and probably others (and those that read this record when it is archived) if you would be explicit when making such statements. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Could someone else please help PBS find the now two diffs posted on this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have posted two diffs on this page. Which diff are you referring? -- PBS (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with SandyGeorgia here. If we're going to be sanctioning someone for reacting when poked, can we not address the poking as well? The hot-headed comments that get EC in trouble don't form in a vacuum. I seem to recall a massive ArbCom case not too long ago that said as much. 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

And most of this started with the usual seasonal editing surrounding a page Eric and Parrot of Doom have put a great deal of work into. It happens every year, and usually generates some sort of drama. Intothatdarkness 16:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The biggest poke of all came from that exemplary admin role model, Fram. No wonder Eric was so incensed. There would be something wrong with him if he wasn't. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did I poke him? Please compare his reaction before and after the block (the only action I took here). I don't see any difference, so my "poke", the block, didn't make any difference to him being "incensed". Fram (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. Indefing someone who is being poked and prodded on his own talk page is completely unnecessary. Frankly, a f**k off is hardly something to block someone over in the first place - it means pretty much the same thing as 'buzz off' or 'go away' and someone has to be fairly thin skinned to be offended by it. Sort of like putting someone in jail for jaywalking. Am very disappointed in worm (who is, generally, a reasonable sort of chap). --regentspark (comment) 16:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a fan of the current level of profanity et al allowed, accepted, tolerated here on Wikipedia, but I do understand the point of the double standard, the fact that other posters can say even worse things with or without fing c's and still get away with it, and the issue of poking. I don't defend Mally's (Eric's) language; I do understand the broader points. I hope. And Worm has said he is still composing a post of his reasoning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

RP I do not agree that this comment is the equivalent of 'buzz off', particularly as there is no other comment on that page which are directed toward EC that could conceivably deserve such reply. -- PBS (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree Sandy. And, I can't really understand why someone who as handy with the English language as Eric obviously is, has to resort to profanity to make his displeasure known. But, we live in a world where profanity is accepted and I don't see how we can effectively ban it from Wikipedia. Profanity is actually less offensive than, for example, what Gaijin42 wrote on Eric Corbett's page. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that what Gaijin42 wrote on Eric's page was arguably worse than a simple profanity, since it was just like a diagnosis (a psychiatric one) about his entire personality, not just a "one off" profanity. Does Gaijin42 have the expertise to make such a diagnosis? Even if he has, did he carry out a medical examination for which he should have got informed consent, in order to reach it? If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then it was a direct and profound personal attack.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:ddstretch Not sure where you are going with this. Melodramatic and passive aggressive are not psychiatric diagnoses. Nor did I attribute such to his personality, but to the specific statements he was making. I did not acuse him of being bipolar, or schizophrenic, or any such. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This farce has happened too many times. Someone pokes Eric. Things escalate, until Eric crosses some line. Eric gets blocked. Parties who did the poking get nothing. (AFAICT) I haven't read all of the diffs, but it sure fits a pattern. I wish I thought Arbcom involvement would help.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm putting this together to explain my reasoning. Overall, I consider myself a supporter of Eric, I do believe he's one of our better editors from a content perspective. However, I do believe he has stepped over the line a number of times. He has been blocked for long periods and has had many of those blocks overturned as unfair. Some, however, were fair. A three hour block yesterday for his actions on the Guy Fawkes especially[49] was a reasonable block, indeed it was softer than many other users would get. Eric vented on his talk page and was needled targeted through the block. He left Wikipedia for the night and returned this afternoon. Not one of the edits he made was remotely productive. From returning to the article for more direct insults (which he knew goes does poorly with the community)[50] to anti administrator tirades, every single edit made was unacceptable.

  I removed his talk page access as he was being provoked, though the provocation was not an excuse for his behaviour. There would be no sensible discussion there. I've only removed it for 24 hours, at which point I hope that he will have calmed down and be able to discuss the matter rationally. If he feels he can do that sooner, he is welcome to email me (or any other administrator), who may remove the page protection. Please do be aware that people will be provoking him should that protection be removed, which is why I didn't remove talk page access for just him, but for everyone. If an admin removes it, I hope they'll be watching his page.

  What do I think should happen next? A discussion at AN about what we expect Eric to do. It might be some sort of civility parole, it might be to stay away from certain hot spot articles. It might even be that he should be able to act like that with complete impunity, but it should be decided. If Eric agrees with whatever the community decides on, the indefinite block should be lifted. Should anyone want to take this to the arbitration committee, I will of course recuse. Should anyone believe my actions as an administrator were grossly unacceptable, my recall procedure is at my userpage. I've got to drive home now, but will be available for further comment soon. Worm^TT(talk) 16:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  One problem with your reasoning is that history shows your approach won't work. What will work, perhaps, is dealing with the double standard and the pokers. Mally (Eric) does not return "calmed down" when the pokers get away with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia I fail to see how pointing out a recent example of Eric's NPA failure (with diff) constitutes a issue on my part. For the record, I have no grudge against Eric, in fact recently putting a happy ferret/weasel video on his talk page [51] and holding a friendly coorespondance off-wiki with him about ferret hammocks. @PBS my diff is [52] which includes a link to the diff by Eric [53] where he called (either me or an anon IP) a cunt. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you don't; I'm not here to talk to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia. I think you should apologize to Gaijin for your impolite remark to him. When you post at this forum you talk to all of us. Gaijin is a user of good standing in the community and has of course full rights to participate in the discussion – not least when it is an issue that he has been directly involved in – and to expect to be treated with the same respect as all other users. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am talking to people who understand that Gaijin's poke was an attack and that the double standard is still alive and well, even after a full arbcase. Neither you nor Gaijin seem to understand that, and those who don't understand, won't no matter how much I type. So, I'm not here to try to convince you either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia You’re basically saying that you don’t want any conversation with people of another opinion than yourselves and don’t seem to respect them much. My view is that Wikipedia is a community where we all have a say, and were we are expected to discuss and work together in order to gain consensus. I haven’t been involved in or followed much the dispute leading to Corbett’s last block, but noticed he called the blocking administrator for “impotent arse hole“. Since double standard has been mentioned: I doubt there are many users here who will say so to an admin who has reprimanded them for incivility and get away with it. A minimum requirement for unblocking Corbett should be that he gives a sincere apology for this comment. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Again. You doubt that someone else would get away with same? Whether you aren't paying attention, or you are just unaware, you are wrong. They often do same or worse, and they often get away with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please give an example with diffs of "They often do same or worse". -- PBS (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

PBS, are you able to read what is on this page? You are three for three. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I assure you that I have no one reading this to me, so you can take this reply as an answer to you first question. I do not understand what you mean by "You are three for three". What is the evidence best evidence you have that "They often do same or worse, and they often get away with it."? a few diffs would help because I have not seen worse than this on Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd like to say that I completely agree with everything that SandyGeorgia has written here. The double-standards that seem to be operating need to have firm action to end them.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Especially since they're not limited to Eric. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the poking was inexcusable, but so was the reaction - all parties involved here should know better by now. Is Eric's long-term history of incivility and personal attacks embarrasing (for both him and the Project) and disruptive? Yes. Should he be indef blocked for this latest shameful episode? No. GiantSnowman 16:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to my post as the poke, not that it had no impact on Eric's actions resulting in a ban, as he was banned for actions he had already taken before my post. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

He was not banned (focus please). Once again:[54]

Eric, its really obvious you were pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted. Be happy. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Emphasis mine. It would have been nicer to just say what that message really says, which is something along the lines of, "fuck you, asshole, you got what you deserved because we all know you are passive aggressive and did this on purpose". You don't seem to see a problem with your poking, which has long been precisely one of Eric's points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Slip of the tongue, I meant blocked. Eric calls me a cunt. I post something about it on his talk page, and I'm the one who instigated it. Your logic is flawless. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• He didn't: "If you don't want to be called a cunt Gaijin42 then don't act like one". Semantics are important. Did I miss a diff where he actually called you a cunt? And how is "the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche" NOT a personal attack? It's so tiresome to see all this focusing on one word, not even used in direct address. Why would you go to someone's talk page to piss on them? What did you expect to come out of it, except for momentary relief? Drmies (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's basically equivalent to the old "But he started it!" (a classic of the genre). That shit didn't fly when I was 5 years old and trying to pin stuff on my younger brother; it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) fly now. If your comment had been "Eric, I was actually really offended by your comment, can you please retract it?" or something equally milquetoastcivil, that'd be a different story. But it wasn't, and it isn't: it's the same old story, it's the same old game. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/cx3) I think it's the manner in which you posted it, almost certainly knowing about previous "Eric incidents", and yet you still went ahead and did it inhe way you did. I think that a more correct way would have been to either say nothing, or be completely neutral in your response. I don't think you were: it was a "counter attack" and you probably knew that Eric would react again.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No wonder Eric gets frustrated. Gaejin, focus! I never said you "instigated" anything. Ditto per Writ Keeper. I asked why admins let your provocation and poking slide (and I see that Worm has now addressed it with you and you still decline to see the problem). You can end this faster by admitting you poked, and that was wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. Gee, I am so sorry Eric called you a name, you believe that Eric called you a name, and that rampant name calling is allowed and tolerated on Wikipedia (depending on which admins one has for friends), but you are missing the other point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Strike, correct, better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I suppose congratulations are in order to Spartaz, Fram and Worm for upholding the standards we have come to expect from our admin tradition (though disappointing to see you there Worm). This is what we get when hundreds of lose cannon admins are allowed to operate with no centralised control and not even a mission statement. The real problem here is our unreformed admin system, which cannot operate skilfully the way it is put together at the moment. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@ GiantSnowman Yes, the poking was inexcusable obviously, it was excusable, as it happened, and no actions have been taken. Or does "inexcusable" measn something different to you?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: ah yes, because rashly blocking everybody involved, as opposed to dsicussing next steps, is a sensible move. GiantSnowman 17:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Come on, GiantSnowman. You know what's at stake here: perception of unequal treatment. The way to solve that is of course not to block every poker--but blocking the bear is even worse if the pokers don't even get a slap on the wrist. What am I supposed to do, as an admin, give Gaijin a templated warning? Block him for that foolish remark? No, because I don't want to be that kind of administrator, and I don't think the other admins who are opposing this ridiculous block are either. I wish the others involved could take their fingers off the block button; the only thing they're achieving is continuing the perception that single-word based civility policies ("fuck", "cunt") are in effect and other kinds of incivility is overlooked. Or maybe it's not a perception; maybe Eric is right. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

On what basis would you block Gaijin42? Preventative, not punitive etc. Like I said, we need to decrease the drama, and issuing more & more blocks is not the way to do that. As for "unequal treatment" - well, I've already said that the indef block should not stand. GiantSnowman 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your sarcasm does not decrease the heat, that's the problem. I wouldn't block Gaijin on any basis, but a civility cop who has more at their disposal than a simple checklist could. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What sarcasm? We seem to be agreeing that Gaijin42 does not need a block - so why are we arguing? GiantSnowman 17:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I admit to being disappointed in you Worm. The whole situation became uncivil because of Anselm citing civility policy in an uncivil way. Few people appreciate sanctimony and it is not uncommon for someone to get a little tasty when faced with sanctimony. We need to look at the actual cause, rather than the series of incidents that occurred afterwards. This comment is what prompted all of this and it is far from blockworthy. Anselm's sanctimonious cries of incivility over that comment got Eric to say he doesn't give a fuck what Anselm thinks, leading to Anselm's templated warning about "personal attacks", and Eric's testy removal of said warning. Everything from that point is a product of snotty-nosed sanctimony on his talk page regarding the block. As far as I am concerned, Eric has been indefinitely blocked for calling a discussion "bone-headed" and suggesting people find something else to do and such a block is invalid on its face.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, and that's saved me some typing. Frankly, nothing is going to change here until (a) some admins stop throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti (that's not a particular dig at WTT, though it is one at Fram), and (b) those who instigate such actions through ill-advised poking the bear receive the same sanctions as those they provoke. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Any examples of me "throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti"? Fram (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

TDA would you consider blocking EC over this comment (Notice it was not in response to a comment addressed to PoD not to EC). If yes then for how long? If no then what would you consider blocking someone under incivility? -- PBS (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, let's see ... how about the last time you blocked Eric Corbett after he'd been poked to death by Doc9871 (who got away scott free)? Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(If you don't remember, that was the one that led to two admins handing in their bits and one going on Wikibreak before being undone early - looks like your mission to rid Wikipedia of Eric has gone slightly better for you this time - so far). Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That was a one month block, not an indefinite one. Any examples of me "throwing ridiculous one-sided indefinite blocks around like confetti"? Fram (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm - I didn't mean to put "indefinite" in there (fairly clearly, as I was talking about your 3-month block). Apologies if that made it unclear. The rest of my comment, however, stands. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Much has been made of the so-called poking. Note that the comments by Eric Corbett which directly caused the block were some 12 hours after the last post to his talk page, and were posted, according to himself, "after some serious consideration"[55]. None of the posts since his previous reply on his talk page can be considered poking either (so it's not as if he got a yellow "new messages" box, read those, and posted "incensed" about them, to borrow another editor's description. As far as one can determine, Eric Corbett posted his personal attacks calmly and deliberately, not in the heat of the moment.

Was Gaijins comment after the block ill-considered? Perhaps, or at least badly expressed. But it hardly raises to the level of the attacks by Eric Corbett. Fram (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We have different opinions. I think the remark by Gaijins by far more uncivil than Eric's comments.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the part "the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage" is the one that you consider to be (most) problematic? It seems to me to be commenting on edits, on style, not on the person. Erics comment was directly about the editor though. One is slightly incivil and ill-considered, the other is a personal attack. Gaijin should have left out that part, but I don't believe that the rest of his comment was a problem, and nothing in it was even remotely blockable. Fram (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't just the words, but the timing. If I told you that a mutual acquaintance borrowed $20 from me and never paid it back, that remark would be, well, unremarkable. But if said to the widow while she knelt before his casket... the same words would be perceived differently.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I was initially unhappy by Worm's action, but I'm coming around to the notion that they may have been prophylactic. Unfortunately, strong words continue to be thrown around (and I can't exclude myself), when it might be ideal to pull together a summarized sequence of events. I've often seen EC say things that make me cringe. I've yet to see such a incident unprovoked.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for data/evidence and comment? I have no dog in this fight, but I am trying to put together some actual data on the provoked/unprovoked question. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I fully cop to making a single nonconstructive statement as part of my WP:NPA response. I would however argue that my statement was perfectly accurate. As the OP to this thread pointed out Eric made a series of 20 or so consecutive edits that he obviously knew were in violation of policy, at a time when he knew the all seeing eye was on him. He made his posts either with the intent to flaunt his immunity as obviously as possible, or to get blocked. Could/Should I have posted differently? Yes. FWIW I in fact have apologized to Eric for poking him via email (which he explicitly declined to accept). The greatest reason I am sorry for my action is because I inadvertently provided a convenient October_surprise to allow everyone to talk about something other than Eric's actions. His actions were ridiculous, and obviously require a block, but I do not advocate for that block to be indef, nor do I advocate for a ban, as I think if he can cool off he is a very valued member of the community. User:Drmies, thank you for your post on my talk page and here as well. I respect your opinion greatly, and accept your admonishment. I have quibble with your interpretation of the semantics in Eric's post, but I think going into it would only further derail this discussion, so I again (publicly this time) apologize for my poke and consider myself duly chastised. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

?? You use the word "accurate" as if it were a rebuttal to incivility. I daresay that everyone onevery one of Eric's comments, even those I would agree are uncivil, are "accurate".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that everyone will accept that your public chastisement and apology is equal to Eric's block! I do not think so.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm going to post my thoughts, but don't take them as is however. I kind of knew this would happen. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has a policy of saying bad words such as the f word, and I haven't actually read the policy, but at least basic teachings from my grandmother tells me we should never say these things to complete strangers in public places (which I would apply to here) and more importantly, be nice. I do admit that Eric is definitely being provoked, and I do not know if I did as well, so I'm sorry if I did, but I do see that he has been getting posts that are designed to provoke him. By that, I mean some are trying to get a rise and trying to get him in trouble(no I did not deliberately try to do this, at least not purposely...) It's kind of hard to explain, but I do support the block... indef is kind of extreme however, but he needs to cease and desist this profanity, it isn't in the sites interest, and I don't think it's good moral to keep this up. Sooner or later, it's time to stop this. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 18:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Next step?

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

---

I have a great deal of respect for User:Worm That Turned as an administrator, but I don't think the indef block was the correct approach here. I understand that, in theory, "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite", but I don't think anyone realistically expects Eric to negotiate unblock conditions, so we're essentially left with the choice of banishing a productive but prickly editor, or not. I think we ought to come to a consensus here which it will be, and my thought is that we reduce the block to 24 hours and be done with it. That won't make the people who think he should be banned happy, and it won't make the people who think he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place happy, but I think it's a reasonable compromise that recognizes it's not really OK to call people cunts and idiots and arseholes – whether provoked or not – but also takes into account the reality that sometimes our valuable contributors say and do things they shouldn't and it's not in the best interests of the encyclopedia to kick them off the site forever for it. 28bytes (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Concur. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support GiantSnowman 18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• If that's the will of the community, I certainly won't stand in it's way. However, we've been here before and if we don't work something out, we are likely to come back here, as we know. However, Eric needed to be blocked for the comments, and 24 hours is a lot closer to the right length than 3 months. Worm^TT(talk) 18:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• No doubt we'll be back here the next time someone lands a unilateral 3-month (or whatever) civility block without gaining consensus for it first. I cannot see any reason for civility blocks to be more that a preventative 24 hours (especially, as in this case, whilst Eric's RFC/U link is still red.) Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• The reason for that is because everybody knows any attempt at an RFC/U would become an absolute circus, given Malleus/Eric's very well-known position on WP:CIVIL and the group of editors for whom he walks on water and for whom any attempts to enforce anything against him are made by rogue admins with horns, spaded tails and tridents. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Circular reasoning that, though; if an RFC/U is not possible now, it's precisely because various admins kept insisting in landing ridiculously punitive blocks on him when their first stop should have been AN or ANI. I bet that half of those, if they'd been short blocks, would have ended up standing when they were inevitably taken to the drama board. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support – as a compromise with the dark forces --Epipelagic (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• weak support Support longer. 3 hours didn't work. A previous 1mo didn't work. with that knowledge in hand, 24 hours seems unlikely to work. to be an effective measure against recidivism (and copycats), there has to be an actual credible threat of a real penalty. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support Agree entirely with Gaijin42. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at EC's block log short blocks have not been a deterrent from incivility the longest block to date seems to have been a month shorted to about three weeks. So I think that the block should defiantly bee more than a month (two or three) with the proviso that next time there is a breach it will be doubled. -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support original proposal by 28bytes — ChedZILLA 18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC) (aka Ched)
• Support, but. Despite having occasionally crossed swords with Eric on the various drama boards I have the utmost respect for him as an editor - my interactions with him as an editor have, indeed, been calm, constructed, and greatly appreciated. What's needed, though, is that he recognise that, whether he agrees with it or not, and whether he likes it or not, WP:CIVIL is in fact one of the Five Pillars. Yes, he gets poked a lot, because some people think it's fun to poke the bear. But his well-voiced opinion of WP:CIVIL needs to, at least, be filed in the "agree to disagree" folder.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support 28bytes' proposal. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Meh. Not really sure what this accomplishes – there really is no way this works; as mentioned above, we know Eric's position on WP civility, we know a block will not accomplish anything, and we'll be back here again soon anyway, so this seems to me like a punitive block, as it will not prevent a future incident. That said, short of an indefinite block, which is also not a good idea, nothing will truly stop the behavior. I am at a loss. A topic ban from the user talk namespace also seems unfeasible, so at this point, I would support unblocking until this eventually ends up before those who make the big bucks. Go Phightins! 19:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support with regret - would prefer unblock. The above discussion provides an unusually clear illustration of varying standards on incivility. Whether we like it or not, there are usage communities in which the use of "curse words" is acceptable, and usage communities in which it's a bright line never to be crossed; and there are also usage communities in which attaching a psychiatric label to someone as a form of disagreement is acceptable behavior and others in which it is insupportably rude. We are unfortunately stuck with these differences, and civility is an important grease in a huge, international project where there will be a lot of disagreements. But I for one consider we do not do nearly enough to discourage snideness, or even direct verbal attack, and in this instance I'm with those who consider Eric was less rude than others were to him. Also, note that his rudeness was confined to talk pages, almost entirely his own, so I have less understanding for the reasoning given by either blocking admin, that all his edits since being unblocked were non-constructive. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Immediate unblock I cannot believe (a) that Gaijin42 remained unblocked despite their behaviour and (b) is getting to decided, in part, what happens to Eric. To be allowed to bait a user into a block should not be permitted, to allow that same user to discuss the unblock is fully worse. If it wasn't too bloody late and the block had drifted from preventative to punitive, I'd block Gaijin42 now. I will, as an alternative, make it absolutely crystal clear they will be blocked the next time they pull a stunt like they did today, make no mistake. Nick (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, would support immediate unblock also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose 24 hour block, support indefinite block until there is promise of change. I post this as an involved user (I posted about Eric's incivility at WP:ANI yesterday) though I suspect many people are involved in some way. Eric has been blocked multiple times in the past for similar incivility, and it has had no effect on his behavior. The solution then isn't to say "It's not working", give up on blocks and let him say what he likes. The "solution", such as it is, is to have an indefinite block until we receive a promise of change. As someone said above, indefinite is not the same as infinite. But if Eric, or anyone else, is allowed to interact with editors the way he has been doing, then Wikipedia will be a toxic place to work. StAnselm (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support proposal by 28bytes. There must be some sort of compromise between those who want him infinity blocked and those who want him immediately unblocked. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Why kick this can down the road when we know with 100% certainty that we'll be back here to waste time discussing it in a few weeks when it happens again. Something needs to be decided once and for all, or else Eric will invariably tell someone to fuck off again, and generate another predictable gigabyte of useless discussion and warring about the inevitable short-duration block he receives for it. This is the twenty-third time he's been blocked for incivility since his Malleus account was first blocked in May 2008 (no comment on how many of those were "correct" blocks, as that would be impossible for all of us to agree upon). I say we stop wasting time and draw a line in the sand. Either we agree to allow Eric to have special privileges to say whatever he wants with immunity, or we come up with a set of civility guidelines that he must agree to as a condition of being unblocked. No one is asking him to grovel to an administrator as a condition of being unblocked. We're just saying, "look, don't call people names, don't insult people's intelligence, and if you get angry with someone don't use profane words to express your frustration." While such conditions are arguably a bit stricter than what most other editors have to deal with, I think it is reasonable to impose slightly more well-defined boundaries on an editor who has been blocked 23 times for the same thing. If he can't edit under those conditions, then he shouldn't edit at all. I don't think that's asking too much. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: I can't believe people are willing to waste time on this any more. No contributor is worth this.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  I can't believe that people are allowed to blatantly bait users and get away scot-free. No baiter is worth it. Sportsguy17 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support immediate unblock per Nick. Support action against those who baited him. --Cassianto^Talk 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scottywong and Kww. Eric - follow the basics of WP:CIVIL as the rest of us are all required to, or else go away. We can and will survive without you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• STRONG oppose - WP:CIVIL is not optional! If you cannot follow it then you deserve to be indeffed. Any admin that does not indef for such gross violations of this core pillar are undermining it and the encyclopedia. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Further: If the block is reduced without a guarantee that the incivility MUST stop or the next block WILL be a guaranteed indef with no reduction or release until it is guaranteed that this incivility will stop then I WILL escalate to ArbCom as the community CLEARLY cannot enforce WP:CIVIL in this case. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Unblock I'm very disappointed in the number of seemingly sensible editors who condone the use of profanity directed at other editors and I'm frankly astonished that anyone can think its ok to compare anyone to a cunt as part of a what should be a collegiate discussion but long blocks don't work and are over strict for the behavior anyway. I'd have supported a short block but this is excessive and time served is enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Support 24hr block - We've lost far too many great editors this year, Eric may be uncivil at times but yet he's a great editor here, & IMO doesn't deserve an indef over it, Those poking him should be sanctioned!....
  

-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. While action should be considered/taken against anyone who is found to have provoked Eric, there can be no doubt that he has a long history of deeply problematic behaviour and exhibited it yet again. It does not benefit the project to enable his behaviour by circling the wagons in his defence every time his mouth gets him in trouble. For that reason, I would oppose any arbitrary time limit on a block. The ball is in his court, and when he is prepared to behave within community expectations, then he should be unblocked. Be that five minutes from now or five months. And this can be considered concurrently to any discussion on anyone else found to be acting similarly poorly in this situation. Resolute 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Epipelagic.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support -I've heard worse language and personal attacks and bullying taking place on here and by admins at that. The sooner we accept that Eric occasionally snaps and calls somebody a cunt or an asshole and don't batter an eyelid the better. Banning him isn't going to improve wikipedia, we're an encyclopedia not a school of manners. It does get tiring seeing the repeated process and drama which ensues but if you stopped reacting to him then it wouldn't happen. Why can't we just shrug and say "whatever, so what" anytime he calls somebody something? We can't afford to throw away anybody who edits wikipedia productively, uncivil or not. Unless he makes serious threats to kill somebody or delivers disgusting racial taunts at somebody banning somebody indefinitely over something like this is more preaching than sense over what is best for the website. No, it isn't acceptable to call anybody anything, but it happens, and you react like this to it. Why an admin can't just silently delete it and move on beats me. It becomes an excuse for more wiki drama everytime this happens. It needs to stop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is just the latest in a seemingly endless parade of incidents demonstrating that a permanent ban of this individual is long overdue. How many more years are we going to have to put up with this nonsense? — Scott • talk 23:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Eric is supporting our First Pillar - how many others are? e.g, Fram, how is this user-friendly and welcoming to new users? Do you think you could have at least done a smidgen of source-hunting?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

side discussion involving Drmies, Fram, StAnselm and Cas Liber regarding Fram and the First Pillar NE Ent 12:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow. Is there a templated warning for tag bombing? I did a smidgen on one of the articles; I'll look at some of the other ones as well. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Welcoming to new users? One article that Drmies sourced after my tagging (and which otherwise would have remained unsourced) was from January 2009[56], the other one that would have remained unsourced otherwise was from June 2006[57]. Perhaps focus on the issue at hand instead of trying to derail a discussion with completely irrelevant nonsense? E.g. noting that you are not supposed to pick and choose between the pillars, and that working on the first pillar doesn't mean that you can ignore the fourth one: Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Fram (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC) The issue at hand is that this has blown out of all proportion - the issue at hand is that we are here to write an encyclopedia - the issue at hand is civility and atmosphere. I reckon tag-bombing loads of articles does more to dampen new editors' enthusiasm due to the fact that maybe two orders of magnitude more people are affected, than by some profanities directed in the heat of an argument. About 98%most of Eric's editing time is spent building or reviewing content - how much of yours is Fram? (i.e. so don't go pick and choose pillars, to quote..umm..you) I can cope with the occasional blow up as long as passers by don't blow it out of all proportion - I watch the content of this place closely and see what gets improved and by whom. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Well, if you're asking for statistics, Malleus Fatuorum had 61.14% of his edits in article space, while Fram has 62.94%. Eric is now on 72%; you're on 50%, I'm on 86%. I'm sure these numbers don't mean anything, but I thought I'd point them out. StAnselm (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC) I was waiting for that one - I could go on to look at qualitative analysis of edits but I think that is getting off track. sigh..I must do less drama boards and more content one day... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (ec) But Eric Corbett's mainspace edits are of higher quality than mine. Statistics are meaningless, and not really important anyway. It is because of his mainspace edits that he is still around after all this years, a non-productive or minimally productive editor would have been banned years ago. But that doesn't mean that his article work necessarily grants him infinite protection or some extra-special status. Fram (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC) No idea of percentages, but by far most of my time here is spent reviewing content, yes. I couldn't find old hoaxes or delete other undetected problematic pages otherwise. And in the course of this, I tag pages for some major problems as well, like being totally unsourced. If you feel that new pages shouldn't be tagged as unsourced, then feel free to propose a policy in that regard. If you want Wikipedia to become a pure meritocracy, then propose that as well. But use another venue than this totally unrelated discussion for it. Fram (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC) No I don't want it to be a meritocracy and hate the non-level playing-field nature of it. I have no problems tagging articles sometimes but for it to be all someone does? Just even a few times in 500 mainspace edits it'd be nice to see some sign of collaborative editing...just a few..that'd be nice. The point is as I made above - which do I wonder is worse for new editors/onlookers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support -- This user is clearly here to build an encyclopedia and actually follow the purpose of the website. The reason we end up here is because users are willing to get in fights with him and deviate him from being productive. It makes me sad that people can bait all they want and will be given at most a reminder while the user who was baited and snapped gets the beating. Most of the time, the users EC calls an asshole are generally assholes who were looking for trouble. Unblock him, stop the fighting, and lets go make some GA's with Eric, eh? ;) Sportsguy17 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Scottywong, Kww, Andy Dingley, Resolute, PantherLeapord, et al. Fram's 3 month block is the correct block. The reason blocks don't persuade Eric is that they don't get longer and longer like they're supposed to, so he doesn't take them seriously. Just enforce policy. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Immediate Unblock given that the people who were goading him have not been similarly blocked yet. NOT Blocking the goaders, or NOT taking action against the admins who reach for ridiculously long blocks as their first response to Eric will certainly strengthen the perceived lack of even-handedness here.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This editor resolutely refuses to accept one of the 5 pillars, and has consistently behaved in a way that drives other editors away from Wikipedia. Slaps on the wrist have had no effect. A long-term block is the only solution. -- 101.119.14.248 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, it's block Eric time, when the IPs come out of the woodwork, having forgotten their old log-in information of course, and lo, there appear the unverified claims of editors being driven away and blah blah. I call bullshit. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I have been editing Wikipedia for many, many years as an IP editor, precisely because of people like Eric. Without a stable talk page, I can only be bullied in public, and not by personal attacks on my talk page. That makes Wikipedia a little more bearable. There are plenty of studies on the exodus of editors from Wikipedia, and the reasons for that exodus. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And might I remind you to observe WP:AGF, regarding that snide "forgotten their old log-in information" comment. I'd support a block on you as well. -- 101.119.15.6 (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I see, it's just on this particular occasion you felt it necessary to edit from a mobile phone, yeah? I call bullshit too. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I support the IP's proposal to block Drmies. How dare he raise suspicions about a suspicious IP that has come out of nowhere? GiantSnowman 11:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
          • If you're genuinely suspicious, there's always WP:SPI, but what I'm seeing here is breaches of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and a strong slice of "foreigners go away, this is our Wikipedia." Yes, this is how I always edit. And it's not a mobile phone, it's a tablet. -- 101.119.15.225 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
            • It's OK for Mr. Congeniality's posse to close ranks around him when he acts up, but it's not OK for IP editors to say they prefer that policy be (finally) enforced. Go figure! (Down with IP-phobia!) --96.231.113.61 (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scottywong. Someone who cannot accept the Pillars...no matter how productive they are, can they be part of the community? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. But I would prefer an immediate unblock. And I do think that admin Spartaz should lose his tools and be de-sysop'd. (Why? For behavior unbecoming of admin. What behavior? Look at Malleus's Talk page - Spartaz went back-and-forth with sarcastic exchange w/ Malleus, after his block. It is understandable that Malleus might be perturbed from being blocked on the basis he was, but even then, it seemed to me Malleus was cool and asking logical Qs of the blocker [afterall, Malleus is desensitized any more to BS blocks like this]. But Spartaz was all-too-willing to play ping-pong w/ Malleus sarcastically, when if he were acting in becoming-admin behavior, he simply would have stated his case as dryly as possible, accepted any flashback gracefully, then exited the discussion. Instead he hung around to prove one-upmanship "superiority". Unbecoming. Baiting. He s/b de-sysopped.) I'm very happy that this discussion seems to be indicative of a systemic turning of a curve finally ... Very very smart & experienced editors (SandyGeorge, Devil's Advocate, Epipelagic, Black Kite, 28bytes, and DDstretch [I haven't read the latter before but he is very smart]) are all concurring that this is a bunch of nonsense (and it makes me feel proud to be on WP as a result - there are many intelligent editors here!). Intelligence is finally winning over. That said, all the calls for "But but but! Malleus violated the PILLAR. Can't tolerate that!" is BS lynching stuff, since the "pillar" is ill-defined, and doesn't attempt to identify poking or baiting, or dishonesty, or other forms of incivility that are perverse, that humans have honed for all of history since language was invented (and likely even before). What I'd really like to see is a wall of text from Malleus, where he would feel free to speak his mind in detail about what is unhealthy and wrong with the current system and how it should be re-fashioned for the betterment of the encyclopedia aims and everyone involved. But I can understand his disinclination to do that because his solutions would call for restructuring & change ... and as he has pointed out and I think others will concur, "Nothing ever changes around here." (So basically, why waste his breath?) So I'm glad for the editors named to step in and stop anything stupid from happening, like a lynch. To all editors who say "Off with his head!" I have a personal message for you in word-efficient Malleus style: Go fuck yourselves. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOJUSTICE. It matters not who provokes who or even who said what. It doesn't even matter, really, what Eric said. What matters is whether or not the project is disrupted and who is central to it all. It doesn't matter if that person is the cause of it, or if a herd of others are responsible for it. It only matters whether disruption exists.--v/r - TP 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• That kind of attitude is one of the many things wrong with Wikipedia. Just because this site is not about justice does not mean it is about lynch mobs. At least, that does not mean it is supposed to be about lynch mobs.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• *shrug* It is what it is. There is crap on both sides of the aisle. Pick the smallest pile.--v/r - TP 14:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment What a surprise, people are claiming that someone who's chronically incivil should be allowed to get away from it "because he's a valuable contributor" (read: he has a whole bunch of people who are willing to scream and whine on noticeboards about him). This sort of thing has gone on for years and years with so many different people. Why not just MFD WP:CIVIL already? It's clearly not being applied evenly. Jtrainor (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - as really, incivility is a rampant problem throughout the site that exists because of passion, rarely malice. Indefinitely blocking for incivility only serves to limit the amount of emotion people can bring to their work, which will have a chilling effect on contributors. Many of the worst offenders in terms of incivility are very productive editors in every other sense of the word. Blocks should be given in context, and yes, part of that context is the value of a contributor to the project in other ways and what lies behind that value: ie, why they edit here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock now that 24 hours are up: Note to any uninvolved admin: this section has a pretty clear consensus, if you read it through. There's no current consensus (yet) on what to do going forward, but there's clear consensus to either unblock immediately, or unblock after 24 hours (which by now are the same thing). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose we might as well try and reach a permanent resolution now because otherwise we're just going to wind up back here again. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

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

I have a hard time understanding how anyone found a consensus to unblock in the above. A small numeric majority by a group that provides no policy based reasoning for exactly why enabling Eric's chronic abuse is a good idea.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You want him banned; I get it. Perhaps someday you will get your wish, but for now I think it is time to drop the stick and move on. There are several open threads remaining here to work out how to deal with this on a long-term basis, but it's not going to do anyone any good to re-open and re-litigate this one. The close was a good one, and frankly I think a consensus-based decision on whether and when Eric should be blocked or unblocked is a refreshing change of pace from the drama-causing unilateral blocking and unblocking we've seen in the past. Consensus doesn't always go our way, but there was clearly consensus here to go ahead with the proposed compromise, imperfect though it may be. 28bytes (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer it if he would just behave himself. But no, carving one small subsection out of a large rambling discussion and declaring a clear consensus to unblock is an outrageously poor unblock, 28bytes. There's no consensus to unblock Eric if you take the whole discussion here into account, and the only way to read a consensus into this small subsection is by nose counting.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative / complimentary next steps

As I stated to Nick above, I certainly don't support a permanent ban of Eric, but I would like to see some solution as this situation is untenable. I believe at a very minimum Eric needs to be aware that escalating his disputes in the manner that he does is not acceptable. I accept that people do provoke him, but at the same time, he needs to find a better way to deal with such people. Any suggestions that Eric might be able to follow would be appreciated. However, to improve things for the future, I suggest we come up with the following restriction on Eric, alongside the reduction in block length.

• Eric Corbett is put on indefinite civility parole, should any uninvolved administrator believe that Eric has violated WP:Civility, then he should be blocked for a period of up to 24 hours. This time period does not escalate, 24 hours is the maximum period allowed under this restriction.

My theory is that this will stop the disproportional blocks, yet it will send a clear signal to Eric that this state of affairs cannot continue. Worm^TT(talk) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Worm^TT(talk) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  I'd support the baiting provision mentioned by a number of editor - as long as the restriction is displayed clearly at the top of Eric's talk page & on his edit notice. That way the "baiter" could not claim to be unaware. If it happens off Eric's talk page, we'd need some way to make sure they were warned. Worm^TT(talk) 07:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support per my proposal below. (Basically the same idea, though the wording on yours is definitely more refined.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support And I agree with many of Adwilley's thoughts below. It might also be worth considering one-way interaction bans if there are persistent incivility against specific users who are bothered by his comments. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - would prefer the indefinite ban to remain until there is promise of change, but if there is no consensus for that, this is the next best option. StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn support in favour of Scotty Wong's proposal below. StAnselm (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see where you're going with this, but as illustrated by the conversation above, different administrators have very different views on what constitutes "incivility"; that combined with the baiting issue will increase the unevenness of applications of civility policy, not decrease it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Admins should not have their hands tied behind their back to deal with a problem such as this one. 24 hours is not a significant penalty, and it's not likely that would serve as a sufficient deterrent. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, provided that it include a provision that if he's poked into it, the poker gets the same treatment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that is implied. I don't see any indication in this proposal that baiting and badgering would be dealt with any differently. In my own proposal below, the intent was that these rules would apply specifically to Eric, and that any poking or hounding would be dealt with in the normal manner so that the punishment fits the crime (which would likely be a stern warning on a first offense or a 24 hour block for repeat offenders). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I might support if there were provisions to deal with provocation and poking, but unlike The Bushranger above I have no hope of that being developed. Until baiting is dealt with, this is just another way to get rid of a contributor you don't like. Intothatdarkness 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Only if The Bushranger provision is passed, otherwise it's a baiters charter. Nick (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Little 24-hour holidays won't encourage a change in Eric's behaviour, making the exercise a waste of time. Bushranger's comment also requires consideration. Resolute 22:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would support 24 hours being the MINIMUM with standard escalating blocks. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Question What about unblocking? A past problem has been blocks applied, then swiftly reverted by other admins. Will these 24 hour blocks (an idea which I support in principle) be sticky against such reversals? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  If we have a restriction put in place, I expect the blocks to stick, yes. The reason they don't is because there is no agreement on what should be done, and because Eric is a valuable contributor people want him to stay about. With the 24 hour idea, things should calm down in that period and they should (hopefully) stick. Worm^TT(talk) 10:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, I appreciate that Worm is trying to find a workable solution, but as long as many other editors are allowed to continue direct and blatant personal attacks, which are condoned at ANI, it is wrong to target one editor for same. I would understand this attempt if the same standards were applied to all editors who lodge real and direct personal attacks; that is not the situation we have on Wikipedia today. I abhor the environment that has taken hold here, but it is not right to single out one editor while others routinely do worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • SandyGeorgia who does worse than this? diffs please. -- PBS (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, As I said above a month block reduced to about three weekm does not seem to have been enough to stop this behaviour, so this block for this comment among others should be at least twice long, and if that is not deterrent enough then the blocks should get longer and longer with each uncivil comment that is made by the editor after a block. This argument that he was provoked is not enough of a defence for edits such as this where the response was not to a comment made to him but one to another editor. -- PBS (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This will not work unless it is firmly and indivisibly tied to similar suggested actions to be taken against people who goad Eric, and those admins who sometimes seem as if they are "champing at the bit" to impose a block on him.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Plan for the future

This is something I've been thinking about for several months as a possible solution for the future. It is based on the following assumptions:

• Eric does a lot toward improving the Encyclopedia (which should ultimately be the aim and goal of us all)
• Eric has a tendency to lash out at other editors with unkind words and personal attacks.
• There is not consensus as to how our Civility policy should be enforced, and Eric has become the a focal point of the debate, making him somewhat of a special case.
• We have lost editors (including administrators) in the drama resulting from long blocks of Eric's account.
• We arguably lose editors who encounter Eric's incivility and decide Wikipedia's not the place for them.
• With the current state of affairs, we are unlikely to achieve a consensus on whether Eric's presence here is a net-positive or net-negative.
• We are unlikely to reach a consensus to indefinitely block Eric (arguably one of the few long-term solutions available).
• We are unlikely to reach a consensus to not block Eric.
• Eric is unlikely to change his ways, even when faced with exponentially longer blocks.
• The cycle itself (our response) is doing far more damage to Wikipedia than Eric's incivility, and something needs to change. We need a plan for the future.

That said, here is my plan: When Eric Corbet makes an uncivil comment or personal attack that crosses the line, he will be blocked for 24 hours and his talk page will be protected during that time. No unblock requests, no offerings of sympathy or gloating from friends and enemies respectively, no surprise 3-month blocks, and most importantly, no drama, because we will have decided upon this course of action beforehand. This would apply to Eric only (perhaps as a test case or a personalized sanction, if you wish to think of it that way).

This plan would be a compromise between users who argue that Civility is a Pillar and should be strictly enforced and users who say that bad words aren't the only kind of incivility and Improving the Encyclopedia takes precedence. The block would be long enough to satisfy the hurt parties who report Eric and to give Eric a chance to cool off, yet short enough to allow Eric to continue contributing to the encyclopedia if he wishes to do so. Whatever your thoughts are on this situation, please try to understand the views of the opposing party. The way I see it, the only way we're going to solve this is with a compromise. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Nick (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with many of your bullet points. However, the assumption underlying the proposal appears to be that Eric occasionally crosses a line without being provoked. I haven't seen that happen, so a plan that includes a sanctions for Eric without even mentioning other parties is a non-starter for me, at least.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The fatal flaw that I see with this is, of course: who gets to decide whether a comment crosses the line? What, in fact, is this line? Where is it drawn? I mean, to take a cynical perspective, this would give carte blanche to any of Eric's "enemies" (well, the ones that happen to be admins) to block him without question or recourse. I don't see this working unless we more clearly define what is and what isn't acceptable, and who is and who is not (if anyone) allowed to apply sanctions under this scheme, and since such details would never realistically be able to gain consensus, I don't see how this could be workable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we came up with such similar proposals Adjwilley! I certainly support yours also... and am surprised I didn't get an edit conflict. Worm^TT(talk) 19:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ha, I didn't even see yours until just now. How funny! Looks like basically the same proposal, the differences being that mine has protection of the talk page and yours is more concise and worded better. (I know, I have a problem with conciseness.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There should be blocks of increasing duration until we are left with an indefinite block - just as we would with any other editor.GiantSnowman 19:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a fine ideal to hold, but it ignores the reality that there is not a consensus to indef Eric, and there is not likely to be such a consensus. At some point we need to accept that the situation is not ideal, and holding steadfastly to one ideal might not be the best solution. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• On the "provocation" issue, there is one constant - Eric. I've seen him in conflict with a significant number of editors. He needs to work out a way to stop rising to the provocation. I agree that it takes two to tango, but the assumption that Eric is always provoked is as flawed as the suggestion that he's never provoked. Today, for example, Eric crossed the line without having edited for 12 hours. It was not an escalating battle, he came straight back from the short block and crossed the line - multiple times. I can also provide other examples (general late at night) where Eric has acted without provocation. I'll provide them tomorrow morning if no one else does. Worm^TT(talk) 20:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think he does more harm then good. Staying blocked is I think the only long term solution. Incivility is unacceptable, even if provoked. I'd suggest a year block, maybe that will keep him calm. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 20:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask, Who are you and why are you involved in this? Last week you had under 100 edits. Today you have 171. You have only interacted with Eric once, on his talk page. [58] ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am more active I guess. Also, I hadn't made an account until recently. I'm not new. Also, just look at the below comments he made, --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=prev&oldid=579295073579294209

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett&diff=prev&oldid=579294209 Personal attack

Is this really acceptible? And that's only two, you should clearly see more. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 579294209

The second of those appears to be missing its last digit, so it points to the wrong page. But Dark Mistress, please see my "support" comment above. It's really not reasonable to use "profanity" (or any other term for it) as an absolute criterion for incivility. In the big wide world, it simply isn't true that people invalidate their arguments by throwing in a word your grandmother - or my mother - wouldn't like. I value civility. I believe this project has a problem with incivility. But I think you're being a bit myopic here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Do not understand but fixed it I think --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 20:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about yours, but I know that my grandmother has said things that would make your eyes widen--both with and without profanity. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As Writ Keeper said above, "who gets to decide whether a comment crosses the line?". That is the crux. At the moment we have hundreds of loose cannon admins acting independently with no central fire director. Individual admin have much too much freedom to punish content builders on their personal whims and in pursuit of their personal vendettas (we see that clearly happening in this thread). There can never be an equable and decent disciplinary system on Wikipedia until this absurdity is resolved. A small central group of editors needs to be appointed to deal with the disciplinary matters, making group decisions and operating in accordance to some sort of constitution which gives them direction. The real power trip enjoyed by many admins is their power to block and humiliate established content builders. So many unsuitable admins now have their grip on this lever that it has become impossible to prise it away from them. Jimbo has backed away from his stated intention to intervene. The WWF lacks the competence to intervene. The only hope left is mass rebellion. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• The answer to the question "who gets to decide where a comment crosses the line" is that the admins have to interpret WP:Civility as it is currently written. I know it's not ideal, but it's what we've got. The proposal above is damage control. This ties down any loose cannon admins who would interpret the policy as "Must Block Infinity". Mass rebellion isn't the answer. We have to accept reality and deal with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say mass rebellion is the answer, but it looks like it may be the only way this delinquent admin system can be reformed. Individual admins interpreting WP:Civility in their own idiosyncratic ways, and then individually acting on their interpretations is ridiculous. You can call it "reality", but its just a self serving manner of operating made up by admins. It doesn't work, it does huge damage to Wikipedia, it is insulting and demeaning to the content builders, and it can be changed. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation is the norm, yes. The difference here is that this restriction would enable an admin to place an irreversible block based on their personal interpretation, since this restriction is explicitly designed to reduce or remove avenues of appeal or discussion (i.e. drama). That's going quite a bit too far in my opinion; nobody should have that kind of power here over something so subjective. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that undermines the entire polices that governs Wikipedia? If that's the case, then that is... kind of not good. I don't see what's the problem here? If there is something I'm missing, tell me, but I will say this. Eric gets pocked at. Eric then throws out bad comments, profanity and then some admin decides to block him. Then an ANI dispute is filed, moved to here, and a whole great time waster this is. I fail to understand this, but that's bascially what's happening. If we have a polcicy prohibiting this, and we block users who vialte the polcies, I fail to understand why Eric is treated the same. I would hope this whole disscuasiuon would come to an end, but it will probably not. I will say this, however. Why didn't Eric choose to stay calm, and ignore it. I don't know who started this whole thing, but I just want an end to this nonsense. I don't have anything more to say really... but I may post more if I can think of something. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 20:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that's a valid point of view. An equally valid point of view is that in the end we are all here to build an encyclopedia, which is something that Eric does very well. I'm not arguing that either camp is right (in fact, I believe they are both right). I'm just saying that to put an end to the time-wasting drama we need a more permanent solution, which is what I proposed above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dark Mistress - I just wonder how on earth you could consider this non-inflammatory? It is very hard to see this as anything othert than baiting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I want to chime in and say that I regard this comment as being made in good faith. It is still possible that this won't end well for Eric, and part of that at least is his use of "profanity". I can see how if Eric decided to stop using swear words, the opinions here might change somewhat. Anyway, I'm sure Dark Mistress realises now that her comment didn't help the situation, but there is no doubt in my mind that it was done in good faith. We should certainly try to stamp out baiting, but this isn't it. StAnselm (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? You really think that anyone would respond positively to that? As much as I can stretch my imagination I can't see it, and I can't imagine anyone with any empathy seeing it either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you make even a semblance of following civility guidelines, you wouldn't respond with the outright hostility that Eric did here. You make the assumption that Eric somehow has to respond to this. But he doesn't. He chose to react to, quite frankly, an innocuous comment on his behaviour with an attack. That was a choice he made, and apologetics for his abysmal behaviour helps nothing. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would only be innocuous so someone who was unable to interpret it as anything else but literally - which would exclude almost all editors here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Geometrically increasing block lengths

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

---

Here's a proposal that I believe would actually serve as a more effective deterrent, and which would actually do something to reduce the likelihood that we'll all meet here again to talk about the same thing:

• Eric Corbett is put on indefinite civility parole, should any uninvolved administrator believe that Eric has violated WP:Civility, then he should be blocked for a period of 1 day. The next time he is blocked for incivility, the block duration will double to 2 days. Next time, 4 days. Then 8 days, 16, 32, doubling each time. The ninth time he is blocked, the block will last for a little over 8 months (256) days. The tenth block would be for a bit less than a year and a half (512 days). The duration of any civility blocks must follow this pattern, administrators will not have license to block for other durations if the block is for incivility. If there is a consensus that a block was applied incorrectly (civility policy was not violated), then Eric will be unblocked and the duration of the next block will not increase (i.e. it will be based on the duration of the last "correct" incivility block). If Eric violates the civility policy while he is blocked, then talk page access will be removed for the remaining duration of the block.
• Support ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Actually, I think this would work better than the 24-hour proposal. StAnselm (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The crux of the matter is that admins (involved and not) disagree about violations of WP:Civility. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, surely something needs to be done about that as a matter of urgency. It is, after all, one of the five pillars. Any ideas? StAnselm (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How about ignoring it? That's what they do at every newspaper I've ever worked at. People throw tantrums and cuss in the city room all the time. As long as they produce, nobody cares. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The provision in this proposal that allows for blocks to be overturned by consensus should adequately deal with situations where an admin applies a block for an incident which doesn't actually violate the civility policy. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

DrJoeE, in the City Room your colleagues were paid. We aren't, and although I can put up with a lot, we have lost good editors because of the behavior of others. Not everyone likes having to put up with tantrums, etc. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A fair point, although most journalists will tell you that they don't get paid enough...period -- let alone enough to put up with that kind of nonsense. But one learns rather quickly in the news biz that if you walk away, it's never an issue. And yes, I understand that Eric is as guilty as anyone of NOT walking away; I don't hold him blameless, but it's not solely his fault, by any stretch. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• How ridiculous – Just a mean game where blocking admins like yourselves can have fun permanently disposing of Wikipedia's best copy editor. You know very well that Wikipedia exerts no controls and enforces no standards for blocking admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I find your lack of good faith disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What's that meant to mean? Is that a threat or warning? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact you think it could be "a threat or warning" is in and of itself very dissapointing. What it is is a request that people not automatically assume that anything admin-/enforcement-related with regards to Eric is the cabal decreeing off with his head. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I think no one should use the f word. I support this. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 21:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Another myopic solution that avoids the question of baiting. Intothatdarkness 21:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to address the question of baiting. If someone is being uncivil (which generally includes baiting), then they're at risk of being blocked. If someone baits you, the appropriate response is to notify an admin or start an ANI thread. The inappropriate response is to take the bait, and respond to it with a bunch of profanity and vitriol, which means you are also violating the civility policy. It would be ridiculous to make the policy such that you can be as uncivil as you like as long as it's in retaliation to someone else's uncivil comments. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 21:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the most common admin advice in such situations? "Walk away. Go fishing. Find something else to edit." Why are admins so reluctant to take their own advice? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Too easily gamed. It's far easier to run cover for a baiter or "civil" POV pusher. Especially if that baiter happens to be an admin. Intothatdarkness 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It occurs to me that if all the time and energy being spent (and already spent over the years) discussing Eric's use of F words and C words had been used instead on improving the encyclopedia - which is ostensibly why we are here in the first place - the encyclopedia would be much better for it. Just sayin'. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem that this proposal is trying to solve. The last thing we need to do is unblock and just wait for this situation to happen again, and waste another man-year of time discussing it. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 21:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per DoctorJoeE. This is a farce, made worse by knee-jerk blocking and the easily offended. This was justified language IMO, used towards those who came looking for an argument, thus provoking the situation. Eric didn't go looking for this, they came looking for him, and they were told that they were not wanted. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Kinda support - I disagree with the 1 day, 2 day, 4 day etc. doubling - we should go for 48 hours, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months etc. GiantSnowman 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment What do you mean by "uninvolved"? "Involved" should certainly include any administrator who has previously placed a later overturned block on Eric/Malleus. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and Oppose. There are too many people who like to wind people up on this project who then go whining to mummy when they quite correctly get told to fuck off, coupled with too many people in love with their block button who are happy to oblige them. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Um -- are we in junior high here? The idea that such a system would improve the project seems a tad farfetched, indeed. Collect (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Collect - What we in primary school now??... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as an absurd notion. It is a cute suggestion, but an absurd one nonetheless.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose- per Black Kite. Reyk _YO! 22:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per BK, and telling someone to fuck off is not a blockable offence, what if Eric had said bugger off, or get lost, or any alternative therein, simple fact of the matter is some people will be offended regardless of how you tell them to fuck off. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If he had used any of those other terms, they wouldn't have involved profanity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the simple reason that it's complicated to the point I have a hard time taking it seriously. If we're going to decide to apply an escalating series of blocks as would be done for any "non-vested" editor, then we should...apply an escalating series of blocks as would be done for any "non-vested" editor. Throwing math at the problem is nonsensical. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose- per Black Kite. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for Arbitration

Request withdrawn, my apologies for any wasted time. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've filed a request for arbitration on this subject. The request is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Baiting. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC) That alone was wanting. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC) There really is no hope for Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC) There seems to be something seriously wrong with the arbitration request. It's all about "baiting", but there's no mention of what it consisted of. I am named in the report - am I being accused of baiting? StAnselm (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC) The attitude of some who seem to knowingly bait or goad Eric is that they seem to be able to get away with it. It is possible that some therefore think themselves immune. I suggest a short, sharp lesson from now on will clearly act as a preventative to further goad-induced drama, as it is clearly disruptive. Admins and editors should be treated equally. There was an AN discussion back in July where I made a similar point, also about Eric. This: [59] points to a comment made on my talk page (now archived) from someone who I did not name, but who clearly thought my comments about baiting were directed at him or her (with a slightly inappropriate joke, I admit, I withdraw, and I apologize for, even though it drew some insight out in one case). However, I do think such people are often engaged in deplorable behaviour. I think it illustrates why something should probably be done to address the issue.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC) I guess I ought to inform the editor whose message I provided a link to. That editor has now been informed: [60] Thanks for informing me. I have stated many times that I have no interest in seeing Eric blocked, and that I did not "bait" him but spoke in an "honest" manner that he is quite big enough to handle. I don't know why that diff is being brought up, as I am not here to bait this user. Whatever "deplorable behavior" you think I engage in... whatever. Doc talk 05:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC) I think the problem was that I did not name you in the original AN discussion, but you clearly thought that I meant you, when in fact, I didn't. Then, you made statements along the line that evcen if it was baiting, then nothing much could be done, because you went on to say: "I should point out that WP:BAIT is an essay, not policy. The most one could twist "baiting" to lead to a halfway legitimate (let alone an immediate) block is through WP:HARASS, which I most certainly was not doing." which I think is the problem. Baiting should be treated as straightforward disruption, with no special cases made for it, I consider. However, I want to clearly now state that I am very relieved to accept your statement that you do not wish to see Eric blocked, and that you did not knowingly provoke him, but there are sometimes when it is better to keep silent than speak the truth, because the manner in which the truth is stated can be misinterpreted even accidentally. I withdraw and apologize for any implication that 'your behaviour there was deplorable. For others, it is not so.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Other editors certainly accused me of baiting the guy, acting as if I then "ran to Mummy" afterwards (which I certainly did not). No hard feelings, and sorry for any misunderstandings. I really don't give a rat's arse what Eric does regarding the civility policy, or what the community does regarding him. I can envision how it's probably going to play out, but others can deal with it. Cheers Doc talk 06:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Simple

Just insist on getting consensus for any block of Eric before blocking. I've always with one exception operated on the principle that I only block when I honestly believe there would be consensus for the block, if it was discussed first.

There are downsides (the biggest of which is that decisions on ANI tend to be wrong about 51% of the time), but they aren't as big as the downsides of the other proposals. Biggest upsides: It's simple. And it gets rid of cowboy blockers and cowboy unblockers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is no need to single out Eric here. Proposal: If you want to block any established editor over something not blatantly obvious (account compromised, spewing racist stuff, etc), you should get consensus. We can fight over whether "established" means Grand laborious tutnum or whatever, but that Eric is established is clear enough--and that goes for plenty other editors as well. If admins are qualified to block as a judgment call, they should be able to form that particular judgment. Why that didn't occur to Fram is beyond me.

  I don't want to be a cowboy unblocker. Floq, why don't you do the honors? Drmies (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already been dragged to ArbCom in an Eric-related issue, although it was a long time ago, I consider myself "involved" wrt Eric. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Whose side were you on? We need a list or, better yet, categories, of who is in whose camp. Just for clarity's sake. It will make mutual vilification much easier. Jon Stewart did a nice bit (last night?) on how CNN likes to make difficult issues acceptable by asking whether something is a good thing or a bad thing, and that's the kind of mindset I find among admins who gladly do civility blocks. As for the "established" bit, I'm still pissed (yeah) that I didn't get a warning before I got my civility block. Somewhere in these threads is someone saying something like "well, why didn't a friendly admin go over to pour oil on the water"--talking is ALWAYS better than blocking, and anyone who's been here for a while (that includes most everyone on this very page) deserves that courtesy. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I thought of proposing something similar to Drmies's idea of requiring consensus to block any established editor, but then I thought, "Oh, it'll just get shot down because we'd be creating class divisions." Still a good idea, IMO. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• We already have "class divisions"; there doesn't seem to be any problem interpreting who is a "regular" in WP:DTTR and Eric is not unique: leeway is given to plenty of other established editors, who have free license to actually and really (unlike Eric) lodge direct personal attacks, even following on arbcases. This proposal has some merit in general, but only if it doesn't single out Eric ... but then, it's really just common sense (what kind of admin is blocking when he knows there will be no consensus? ... oops, silly rhetorical question). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a whole paradigm shift discussion about doing this for all established editors (although I think it's a good idea, I have no illusions about how many zillions of kilobytes of arguing would ensue). I don't have the energy for VPP and/or WT:BLOCK or wherever this type of discussion would take place. I'm just proposing an easy, simple, reasonable compromise for one case that we've found to be particularly thorny. If it works, then yeah, we should consider doing it for everybody. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)WP:DTTR is a rather disturbing conception in and of itself, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @Sandy: I know there are already class divisions, but people would oppose actually formalizing it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oops, I only just noticed that Floq was only proposing this for Eric: I was more talking about Drmies's idea of all established editors, not Eric specifically. I've modified my post above to reflect this; additions are in italics. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - This proposal will cause established editors to be able to freely flout the rules as long as they make the occasional positive contribution. It will not matter how many times they abuse, insult, degrade and libel regardless of if they were provoked or not they will still be able to edit unhindered. Do we REALLY want that to happen? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No it won't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Will too! Well, maybe not, but it's, as the editor who closed the ANI thread indicated, "boring." Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes, as Graham Chapman explained in The Argument Sketch. NE Ent 02:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear God you can be tiresome. You want me to spend time constructing a rational argument in response to a silly comment which was based on nothing but FUD? I'd rather just point out that the comment makes no sense, and those who respect my opinion can listen to me, and those who don't, won't. I'm not trying to convince PantherLeapord of anything, I have no illusions in that regard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose too much in the direction of making him unblockable -- every discussion -- including the three month one a prior arbcom, has been a whole lot of churn and no consensus when all is said and done. NE Ent 01:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - that is giving Eric a privilege that no-one else has here. StAnselm (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem with blocking Eric is the admins that reflexively unblock him. If people would just leave him blocked until there's some reason to believe that he will actually behave in the future, this problem would resolve itself.—Kww(talk) 03:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It is not just those editors who you say "reflexively unblock Eric"; it is also those who reflexively block him as well, including the goaders and pokers who seems to be drawn to his talk page like wasps to honey. Of course this does not apply to everyone. What is missing in all of this is careful and well-considered judgment all round, including that done by some of my fellow admins. It is something that the method of appointing admins seems to have failed at checking thoroughly in all cases, and which we, as admins, need to be reminded of (and may be even checked) periodically. This, though opening a can of worms (with no implications about their turning ability intended), is part of the bigger picture which really needs to be considered before a good, well rounded, critically and carefully considered change in policy that applies to everyone, can be developed. So, I sadly guess it never will be.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support, not just for Eric, but for all established editors. It's always struck me as crazy that the debates on this board are invariably about whether a block was justified, about whether or not it should be removed. The debate should take place before the block is made not after. It should be about whether to impose it, not about whether to remove it. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It'd be a popularity contest. We could film it and put it on Fox and it could be a competitor to America's Got Talent. We could even have viewers call ina and !vote. The sarcasm starts at "We"--v/r - TP 13:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like you have as much confidence in your fellow administrators as I do. But doing it this way should at least remove the worst of the excesses. They would be obliged to make their case before hitting the block button. It might be an idea for someone to change the title of the section to something more descriptive, in the vain hope that it might actually get some traction. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• When it comes to Eric, I have little faith in anyone, including myself, to make any kind of rational, fair, and acceptable decision. And that counts for both sides of the issue. It's a unique set of circumstances that Wikipedians, Eric among them, have allowed to develop into an intractable situation. A moving force and immovable object. It won't get solved without a serious quake. Perhaps the WMF should ensure that none of the servers are in California, we don't want to cause the next big one.--v/r - TP 14:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's a pity that this suggestion has arisen inside of this wall of text relating to another Eric case. Getting consensus before blocking an established user has long seemed to me to be an obvious, efficacious method of ridding this board of a ton of its drama while simultaneously protecting editors from unwarranted blocks. Hopefully someone will revisit it when the present kerfuffle has died down. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• And it would protect editors from a lot of warranted blocks. I think I've got enough friends around here where I could almost guarantee to avoid a civility block.--v/r - TP 14:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• That, coming from an admin, on the admin board, in the midst of a discussion about how we might possibly improve the risible performance of our admin corps pretty much sums up where Wikipedia is in 2013. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, Eric's teflon coating is finally wearing off, and I see no reason to apply a new coat. Resolute 14:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - nope, no special treatment. GiantSnowman 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support for all established editors. We're seeing more evidence here of the varying standards concerning civility. The "passive agressive" and flyby "it won't end well" comments are rated by some as not rude at all, and someone has stated that "bugger off" is not profanity as "fuck off" is ... I am not up on the current broadcast codes in different jurisdictions, but how is a reference to buggery any less sexual than a reference to sexual intercourse in general? And others have already stated that they find the former two to be unacceptably rude. Level playing field - and courtesy toward fellow editors, which is the point of WP:CIVIL. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support for all editors, oppose for just Eric I'm not keen on making Eric untouchable, but this is a sensible way of doing things. Indeed, I have long advocated that any editor with over (say) 1000 edits may only be blocked by bureaucrats. Admittedly, we'd need a few more crats, and the block should only be done under certain circumstances and it would need a few back end changes. Unfortunately, when I mentioned something like that elsewhere I was basically laughed out of the place. Anyway, this is a solution for the general case, but it needs more thought and discussion and certainly a wider audience than a handfull of people grumbling at AN. It is not a solution to deal with Eric (or rather it is, but not one I would accept) Worm^TT(talk) 15:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Drmies' proposal - this should be policy already. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support refining Drmies' proposal, oppose for just Eric. (specifically: "Proposal: If you want to block any established editor over something not blatantly obvious (account compromised, spewing racist stuff, etc), you should get consensus. We can fight over whether "established" means".) This won't address the past abuses that contributed to the present situation, but recognition of the cowboy admin problem and uneven application of policy by grudge-bearing admins is long overdue; may the refining of the Drmies' proposal help avoid more of same for other targeted editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support generalized version The generalized version is obviously better (though there are definitional issues). I'd even support the specific version if it means less drama :) --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Enough special treatment; equal justice under law instead. Treat someone like a prima donna and he just becomes a bigger prima donna. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• I assume this was clear from comments above, but I didn't bold anything up there. I obviously support the more generalized case as well. And curse you, Drmies, for stealing my thunder. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pragmatic decisions based on projected impacts don't seem to be adequately taking into effect all contributions we're losing from people who are driven off by this sort of behavior. We full well know that Eric isn't deterred in the slightest by short blocks. Against the current (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per 96 above. Treat him like he's special and he'll think he's above the law. KonveyorBelt 01:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose no special treatment. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

General civility sanctions

It is proposed

Eric Corbett and those interacting with him are placed under general sanctions. Any uninvolved admin (say one who has not blocked him before) may impose sanctions including topic bans and/or blocks not to exceed 36 hours in duration for failure to interact in a collegial manner, broadly construed. Any editor who has been notified of these sanctions by any editor and who engages in any uncollegial behavior, broadly construed, may also be sanctioned. This may include, but is not limited to:

• general perjorative characterizations of Eric's personality
• references to his prior blocks / block log

No sanctions may be overturned except by clear consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

These sanctions shall not apply to dispute resolution boards, specifically Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and shall not apply to Eric's talk page, with the exception Eric may be banned from using Wikipedia notifications to refer to specific editors. NE Ent 01:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Did you just propose that I be sanctioned just for posting on Eric's page? I have some very strong language for that which I will not share with you. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We now have a full blown witch hunt.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

How's that? Mark, with all due respect, I think you are misreading NE Ent's proposal. He specifically stated that these proposed sanctions would not apply to Eric's talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that now, but think this is still a witch hunt. I get you point Auto, but I don't think this is at all appropriate for Wikipedia. If Eric is such a disruption and we fear for the sake of the project, ban him and make it permanent. Don't tell us that if we interact with him we are at fault. Really? This is wrong on so many levels...--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Would not be effective until after passage, if consensus is achieved. NE Ent 02:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And that's better because.......?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• LOL Oppose - So, just mentioning one of the dozens of times that Eric has been blocked in the past will get you a topic ban or block? This proposal is nonsensical. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 02:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• As a general comment, if general civility sanctions (in some form) are a good idea, shouldn't they apply to all editor interactions? Why would they be limited to interactions with one specific editor? isaacl (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - again; I would not have a problem if it was the MINIMUM length. Setting a maximum length tells them "hey; you can just do whatever the fuck you want, we don't give a shit!". PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 03:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Sanctions for incivility should apply to everybody; that's the point of NPA. It's time we started using it. There are two things that we should not have to tolerate: one is the deliberate and repeated use of blatant rudeness to other editors, and the other is repeated discussions like this. Obviously, there will be for anyone an occasional outbreak, but we might rationally ignore it once a year per editor, but more than that means the person is either unable or unwilling to engage in acceptable human interactions. In either case, we should be free of them. What WP needs is good editors who can work with relative harmony on a common project, and both factors are necessary. Anyone who operates on a basis of you provoked me so I can insult you is not engaged here at a civilized level. The practical advantage of using language as a test--even specific single words--is that they are unequivocal. Once we have dealt with this, we can deal with more subtle problems. I am perfectly aware that mine will not be a popular view here, because too many of the regular participants in these discussions apparently would rather fight than work. The people who wish to insult each other and then fight about it can agree to do so, but not where it interferes with others, or with the public perceptions of the project. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Lol, part of me wants this to happen just to see the kind of zany shenanigans that would inevitably result from it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• LOL Oppose indeed. (Might have to add that to my standard poll options.) — Scott • talk 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• LOL Oppose. I get that the point of this is to protect Eric. But honestly, the best way to protect Eric is to stop enabling his behaviour. Resolute 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• LOL nope would ban any editor who gets within 50 feet of him. Kind of like a restraining orer, only those who are the victims will be prosecuted as well. KonveyorBelt 02:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for data/evidence

(Uninvolved observer) I have been following this, and I have noticed that several comments deal with the difference between reactive incivility (responding to baiting) and unprovoked incivility What I would like to see posted here in response to this request is:

• A sample (more is better) of incivil statements by Eric Corbett, These should have diffs so other editors can evaluate whether they are actually incivil.
• An explanation of how the sample was chosen (X latest posts, posts in month X, chosen at random with dice rolls...) so other editors can evaluate whether the sample was cherry-picked.
• A count of how many were provoked vs unprovoked, with diffs of any baiting

Other editors can then post their own sample/analysis or criticize the current analysis.

I am not taking either side with this request. I just want to see evidence that other editors can evaluate backing up any provoked/unprovoked claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it. Sample: last 100 posts (most recent first) StAnselm (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Why don't you just fuck off? Provocation: Eric, its really obvious you were pushing the envelope to get exactly this result, so the melodramatic passive aggressive outrage is really cliche. You got exactly what you wanted. Be happy.
2. You have rather nicely proved my point you impotent sanctimonious arse hole. Provocation: you haev now been blocked for 3 months for the continued personal attacks (calling someone an "impotent arse hole", not in the heat of the moment but after your block has expired and "after some serious consideration"
3. But as I've said several times before, I'll decide when it's time to leave, not the impotent sanctimonious arse holes like Spartaz.
4. If you don't want to be called a cunt Gaijin42 then don't act like one.
5. My idea is that I don't give a fuck what you think. Provocation: I have a feeling it won't end well if you don't stop the profanity Eric Corbett.
6. (Edit summary: what a fucking joker)
7. Piss poor block from a piss poor administrator, of which there is no shortage.
8. (Edit summary: fuck off troll) Provocation: template message for personal attacks
9. Like PoD, I really don't give a fuck what you think. Provocation: Again, that is simply not a civil comment. I suggest that you withdraw it.
10. Were you born a hypocritical clown or did you have to undergo rigorous training?
11. Indeed. An anonymous hypocrite with only 11 edits to his name citing the five pillars is rather revealing I think. Provocation (directed at User:Parrot of Doom): You are free to despise me, but might I suggest that if you choose not to follow WP:CIVIL, which is one of the five pillars, then the project is better off without you.
12. Why don't these people go write something themselves instead of trying to make life a misery for everyone else?
13. I think it's very clear that you do. Either that or you're an idiot. Provocation: Somebody my own size?? I don't do bullying

I suggest the following evidence, although it has not yet provoked a reaction. However, the wording used is far from neutral, potentially could stir things up (which we aren't supposed to do), and is not suitable (especially so, coming from an administrator).  DDStretch  (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC) :

1. 2013-10-30T07:28:15 SB Johnny (talk | contribs | block) removed protection from "User talk:Eric Corbett" (If you don't want to read Eric's trash-mouth rants, take it off your watchlist) (hist | change)

See this link: [61]

I would have thought this should have been more like "If you have found the content of Eric Corbett's talk page unpleasant in the past, take it off your watchlist!" That is sufficiently neutral and what I would expect from my fellow administrators. It is not a complaint about SB Johnny, but I think it illustrates the problem of a lack of careful neutral language from registered users of wikipedia, be they administrators or not.

OK, taking all of the above at face value and just counting, I get:

• 100 recent posts sampled. (Were these all talk page posts or were article edits counted?)
• 87 civil/other.
• 7 provoked incivility.
• 6 unprovoked incivility.
• 1 provocation that was ignored. (Are there any others from the same time period that we have missed?)

I personally don't count "I have a feeling it won't end well if you don't stop the profanity Eric Corbett", "Again, that is simply not a civil comment. I suggest that you withdraw it" or Template:uw-npa3 as provocations, so I would change the above to:

• 100 recent posts sampled.
• 87 civil/other.
• 9 unprovoked incivility.
• 4 provoked incivility.
• 1 provocation that was ignored.

I would be interested in the results if anyone else has done a count. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So blocking someone for a clear personal attack, and explaining that block on the user talk page, is now "provoking incivility", somehting which in some of the proposals here should be blockable as well? If by "provoking incivility" you simply mean "doing something that may cause the other editor to be pissed off at you", then fine, I totally understand that most people don't react positively to a block; but if by "provoking incivility", people mean "blockable or really problematic baiting", then no, I don't think that my action / comment should be included in that group. Taking administrative actions like blocking or deleting will almost invariably anger someone, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done or that it should be considered an offense. Fram (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Attempt 2 @ civility restriction

Above, I suggested a similar restriction, and the largest issue was with the fact that this allows the agitator to get away with it, almost encouraging baiting. This restriction should be posted at the top of Eric's page and in his edit notice, so that it's clear to any new users.

• Eric Corbett is put on indefinite civility parole, should any uninvolved administrator believe that Eric has violated WP:Civility, then he should be blocked for a period of up to 24 hours. This time period does not escalate, 24 hours is the maximum period allowed under this restriction. Editors who provoke Eric Corbett at his talk page should also be subject to at least an equivalent block for the period.

The reasoning behind the 24 hour maximum is simple - this is primarily a cooling down period. The community cannot agree on a well defined civility policy, so we should not be blocking for significant period because of it. Escalating the blocks will lead, eventually, to a block of a year or more for a simple angry comment. This solution basically stops the escalation from happening and allows cooler heads to prevail after 24 hours. Worm^TT(talk) 09:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Again; I would support it if the time given was a MINIMUM time and not a maximum. We have to deal with this and prevent it from happening again and as such escalating blocks are still needed here. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 09:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the blocks need to escalate. A 24 hour block each and every time is not a deterrent. Imagine if Eric is going away for the weekend, or knows he will otherwise be unable anyway to edit for a period of 24 hours or more. Well then, the temptation to call a bunch of people "fucking cunts" would be too great. GiantSnowman 09:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  I would agree that the blocks should escalate if we had a well defined civility policy which the community agreed on. As it is, it is just uninvolved admins making a choice, and there is no way that a single administrator should be making a block of significant length on a long term editor when the community cannot even agree on what constitutes uncivil. What's more, the idea that he would game the restriction and plan his outbursts appears to be an assumption of bad faith and I would like to see some evidence that he might behave in that manner. Like I said, this is meant as an actual solution here, and both sides might need to find some middle ground that we can agree on. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  Do we even have any uninvolved admins left with Eric? GiantSnowman 10:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  We have ~600 active admins. Eric's got ~30 blocks. My maths says yes. What's more, if the admins who are turning a blind eye were given a clear mandate from the community, I believe they would be more willing to act. Worm^TT(talk) 10:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  You know full well that one does not have to block an editor to be considered 'involved'. GiantSnowman 10:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  I do and also that a block should be considered an administrative action and does not make one involved. I was, of course, using the number to demonstrate the scale. I think you would struggle to name 50 admins who are involved with Eric, but I would not struggle to name 50 from the list of active admins who have never interacted with Eric. Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer... Worm^TT(talk) 10:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Comment (for now) I think it correct that blocks also need to escalate to the people who bait Eric at least, because they knowingly do it. However, whether they need to escalate in the same way and to the same extent, or less or more when Eric reacts to the provocation is another issue. They do the provocation, and so one might argue, they are not only causing disruption, but they are making another editor also suffer. One could argue that their blocks should increase at a greater rate than Eric's (if he is to be blocked at all).  DDStretch  (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  I think you're making a false assumption there DDStretch - from what I've seen, the "people who bait Eric" are different each time. If someone can point out the same person regularly baiting Eric, they are welcome to come to me and I will happily deal with it (assuming I'm not involved with them). That will come in the form of a warning, then escalating blocks. Worm^TT(talk) 10:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, but build it in then, as a prevention for those tempted to return and do a bit more poking, or even for those who have seen poking and think it's worth a short block to play the game and get Eric blocked again (and I think many might be in this situation). I really think one can look at it this way. The pokers often know what they are doing. They will be gaming the system to get Eric into trouble in the knowledge that it will by this policy. If there is escalation just for Eric, it will certainly be easily gamed. I think that is worse than Eric responding to the poking. This is also not a breaking of the assumption of good faith (if anyone thinks it is), because it seems to be justified because I suggest that they all know that they are poking an easy target, any returners that may exist especially. So, it is a useful preventative.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  I've added the words "at least" to specifically tackle that. I hope that if this passes, the closer will note the possibility that the "pokers" block can be escalated. Worm^TT(talk) 10:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for considering what I wrote. I have struck my Oppose view as a result. I will think about it some more and see if I can move to a Support.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support as worth trying (of I course I like my proposal better), because it's better than the status quo. Eric is a strong willed individual who seems to be to be mercurial in his stance towards Wikipedia so I think we need to forget about "deterrence" and "changing his behavior." A solution that provides a relatively low drama low haggle response to his sporadic acting like a jerk is what is needed, something between content creators can do anything Scylla and ban Eric forever! Charybdis. NE Ent 10:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is pointless. ArbCom has his back, and will desysop any admin who tries to block. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  Hawkeye7 that's got to be just about the strangest comment I've seen, given that he is currently blocked by me, and I'm on that committee. I see no reason why the committee would desysop someone for carrying out a community sanction. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  And I'm currently de-sysopped for blocking him. Vacate that ruling, and I'll believe you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  No, you were desysoped for personal attack after blocking and wheel warring; many admins have blocked Eric and few have been desysoped. NE Ent 13:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  ArbCom ruled that calling someone an f ing c was acceptable behaviour, and was not a personal attack, so you cannot say that it is now. All I did was allude to his having an untouchable status. ArbCom called that a personal attack. ArbCom also ruled that one of its own members was justly blocked for the same thing. And ArbCom said I had wheel warred in contravention to the facts. It was a purely political decision. Worm will wind up being blocked and de-sysopped for the same reason. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  I'm doing this from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong. Arbcom did claim that Hawkeye wheel-warred by blocking not too long after an unblock, and that he made a personal attack by comparing Eric to a koala. I never thought the case was that black-and-white, I thought NYB (who opposed the desysop) had it right, at least on my quick reading of the evidence. Eric was throwing around the c-bomb after the unblock and Hawkeye said that that's what he was blocking for, he wasn't re-blocking for the first offense, and I thought Arbcom completely misunderstood the koala metaphor: koalas look cuddly and everyone loves them, and then they pee on you when you try to hug them. It was inoffensive by comparison with most of the things said about Eric then, and now. I'm not arguing that admins should block someone for the c-word, that's a subject of current debate ... but that's the point, if we can't come to a decision whether that's the way to go or not, then I don't think an admin should be desysoped for doing it once, with no other evidence of bad faith or carelessness. I know that not everyone saw the case the same way, but I was disappointed, and I hope you'll do an RfA again at some point, Hawkeye. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose again. You've addressed half the problem with your original proposal, but pointlessly short cooldown blocks will not achieve any change in Eric's own behaviour. This serves no purpose. Resolute 14:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  It serves a valuable purpose in that it actually reduces the controversy by giving us a procedure to follow. Few want Eric gone, few believe his comments are completely acceptable, this solution gives us something to do when he makes a problematic comment, so that he can come back later and carry on with a cooler head. I certainly don't see that as pointless. Worm^TT(talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  We keep coming back here because Eric refuses to reform his behaviour. We will continue to come back here until either Eric reforms his behaviour, or Eric is banned. If we don't want the latter result, we need the former. This proposal fails to achieve that goal. In terms of reducing controversy here, we would still be in the same boat we are now: "did he get baited? Does that forgive him? Should those that baited him be blocked?" I like that your ideas are better than the other "Eric is a fluffy bunny who needs protection from evildoers" proposals that others are making here, but the simple truth is, the controversy starts and ends with Eric's own inability to deal with criticism or challenge. Resolute 16:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the sustained effort by Worm, but any sort of civility restriction-- no matter how worded-- isn't the best way to go here, because uneven application of WP:CIVIL (indeed, of many policies by block happy admins) is already the long-standing problem. How can we solve a long-standing problem by enacting something specific to one editor that will engage more of the same uneven application of the same policy? Some editors are blocked while others (with friendly admins on board) get away with worse. Regardless if one thinks this instance was provoked, warranted, egregious, trivial, the last straw, more of same, or whatever, the past arb case saw evidence of the long-standing uneven application in Eric's case.

I believe the way to go is to attempt some version of what is proposed above under "Simple", to address the core problem-- that is, something that will encourage if not force admins to get consensus before blocking any established editor for anything other than outright <define exceptions> (this should be common sense, but we do have block-happy and grudge-bearing admins who make blocks that no one in their right mind can believe will gain consensus), and to discourage the same admin from re-blocking in a previously controversial case (eg Fram in this case). That wording should not be about Eric; it should address uneven application of policy that is commonplace, whereby blocks, unblocks or no blocks depend on who the editor is and what admin friends some editors have. Solve the underlying problem; stop the cowboy admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see this proposal isn't going to get off the ground, so I'll leave it here. However, I don't believe a proposal like simple above should be something we're looking at. I can't believe it will gain traction across the community and even if it did, it would take a long time to get through. Hard cases make bad law, and so jumping in with what sounds like a good solution here is likely cause big problems elsewhere. So many different factors to look at.

In the mean time, we have no solution for Eric, who is a specific and unique case. This suggestion would reduce the actual problems that are caused by Eric (by removing him for a short period), whilst at the same time not removing him all together. It would mean the end of the insane 3 month blocks for an angry comment. The end of the pages and pages of text arguing over what we should do. It's a solution. The fact that both sides are criticising it makes me think it's possibly the closest we could get to a viable one. Worm^TT(talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I respect your efforts (and apologize if I seem to be putting up roadblocks), but I just don't believe that any sort of civility restriction will accomplish what you believe it will ("not remove him all together") and in fact, may accomplish the opposite (that is, assure that we lose Eric, whose talents we sorely need, now more than ever considering the decline in writing competence evident throughout Wikipedia).

Why would someone who has been a long-standing target of unfair blocks have any motivation or desire to continue to contribute to a project that would codify and further that very same uneven application of policy against him in particular, while not addressing the global problem? Seriously, Eric is not stupid, nor is he needy. Because it is likely that you have never been on the receiving end of an unjust block delivered by a grudge-bearing admin, and may not really understand how demeaning this proposal might be, I suggest re-reading Bish's post on the arbcase-- or even asking her to elaborate. I don't believe anyone has ever motivated someone to change their behavior by rewarding the cowboy admins who got away with it and codifying the abuse that furthered the problem to begin with. You motivate someone to change behavior and continue contributing by recognizing, addressing and attempting to solve the problems that led to the problem.

If we can't do that, then perhaps it's time to get on with a discussion about unblocking Eric. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry Sandy, I see where you're coming from, certainly don't feel you're putting up roadblocks. Indeed, I too appreciate the genuine points you've put forward to help work towards a solution. With a few exceptions, I think there's been some genuinely helpful comments in this AN thread, better than the general noise that happens on an Eric thread. I am unable to empathise with someone unjustly blocked, as I haven't been. At the same time, I also find it hard to empathise with a person who flies off the handle when provoked. I've been provoked many times on the encyclopedia, and when I am, I walk away and respond when I've calmed down. I believe that I've remained civil throughout - I can count the number of times I've posted in anger on one hand and even then I defy anyone to spot them in my contributions. Eric doesn't have that self control, he's unwilling to walk away from bullies, so I'm suggesting we codify that stepping away. Force it to happen. Is it the best solution? No, the best solution is for Eric to do it on his own. There are genuine risks that it might fail or Eric might not accept it and leave us for good. Sometimes, such risks are necessary. Worm^TT(talk) 15:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Much though I hate the idea of blocking people merely for mouthing off, worm's suggestion is worth thinking about if it is applied across the board. I.e., anyone who ever uses the f word (or the c word or the WP:List of banned words) is automatically subject to a 24 hour non-escalating block. The cost of mouthing off is well defined and we don't fall into the trap of ending up indeffing otherwise prolific content editors (who, often, seem to be the ones resorting to profanity in the first place). We have to find a balance here between what is useful (content) and what is just plain rude (profanity) without killing off our star editors and this seems like a good practical and commonsense approach. --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy if we didn't have f'ing c's going round in here, but those are not the biggest problem or necessarily what most discourages productive editors. Your proposal would subject anyone who uses an f or c to an automatic block, while we have other editors enabled at ANI, with a history, to engage in far worse insults, as long as they avoid the F or C. We see far more damaging (to a collaborative environment) posts routinely from editors who get away with it because they didn't use F or C. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I hear you, and we've seen some wonderful block worthy examples in this latest Eric brouhaha. But, look at it like this. Some admins, like Spartaz, find a f you offensive enough for a block (clearly, he wouldn't have blocked for a 'buzz off' which means exactly the same thing). Others, like Fram, believe that these blocks should be escalating ones. Both Fram as well as Spartaz are willing to act on their beliefs and there is little that admins (I, for example) who think these blocks are not worth placing, let alone escalating, can do about it because of the way we're structured. (To state things simply - the unblock bar is much higher than the block bar.) Escalating blocks, in particular, are really bad because people who use profanity cannot really help themselves - they're just going to keep doing it - and if we're going to escalate the blocks we might as well tell them to leave. If, on the other hand, an Eric Corbett knows that the rule is profanity = short block of clearly defined duration, we might just avoid all this drama that is inevitable when people have diametrically opposite views on the same thing. Not a pure solution by any means, and not one that I like, but it might just be a practical one.--regentspark (comment) 16:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I think we should do something, and this is the best proposal currently on the table. StAnselm (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Five Pillars

• Just a thought for those waving around WP:5P above - if we consistently dropped long blocks on every editor who repeatedly has a problem with some part of this, we'd have practically no-one left. Just remember, those pillars also include WP:NPOV (there go dozens of editors on every contentious political or social topic), WP:AGF (ditto), WP:BITE (hello certain admins!), WP:NOT (farewell trivia article editors), and WP:NFCC (that one would remove quite a few editors, including admins and at least one ex-ArbCom member). Just sayin'. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

We do, on the other hand, have a fairly regimented system of edit-war blocks - days, then weeks, then months. In your opinion, does that system work? And if it does, can it be used in other areas of Wikipedia? Or is it because edit-warring is much more black and white? Anyway, I imagine lots of fly-by users do get banned for WP:NPOV and WP:NOT violations. It would be interesting to see some statistics. StAnselm (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not about when editors "have a problem" with some particular policy, it's when they continue to behave as if there is no such policy or if it doesn't apply to them. These are the rules. No-one is required to like them, but all are required to live by them. If an editor can't, then they should go away. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Civility Restriction as DS

Basic civility paroles don't work. All they do is paint a target on a users back for anyone to provoke then block then unblock then ANI then indef then blah blah blah. What needs to happen is a system be put in place for uninvolved admins review an incident, come to a consensus, issue a solution and have it respected. That forum exists and it is Arbitration Enforcement.

If someone is upset with Eric, they file an AE request with diffs. The admins there will investigate, review for possible mitigating circumstances (like baiting), allow Eric the opportunity to defend himself BEFORE the banhammer is swung and the resulting consensus remedies are not easily reversed in a dramafest. In my mind this is the best way to fairly deal with his incivility and deal with possible baiting/frivolous requests.

Normally a sanction like that needs an Arb case. As an Arb, WTT could theoretically get that ball rolling. Eric may even cooperate to get it done since that would likely reduce driveby blockings of him as people who go to AE with unclean hands get boomeranged in a hurry there. The exact wording of the sanction can be debated and voted on by Arbs as a motion or something.

It's either that or come to no consensus here (again) and wait for the next blowup to have no consensus (again). 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that forum exists, and it is RFC (there has never been one). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've said on the potential case that Arbcom was the wrong place and I stick by that - I'm therefore not willing to push for a case. It's plausible that the committee will agree with your suggestion, but it seems just as likely that they will come down hard and ban him. I've recused and have no inside information on this matter, I make that statement out of personal opinion. Each arbitrator would have to make up their own mind and I have not discussed it with any. Worm^TT(talk) 15:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sandy RFC's are nonbinding and can not produce an enforcable remedy.

@WTT I'm not requesting a case or asking you to do so. What I am saying is to ask ARBCOM to extend Discretionary Sanctions on a particular user (Eric) for civility. You are recused, yes, but you still have the right to propose a motion, even if you can't vote on it. Or do you? I'm not exactly sure. Either way, it should be possible to get Arbcom to concider this possibility without needing to open a full case. Doubly so if Eric agreed to it, but just to be clear... I'm not saying he will or that I speak for him. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

RFCs may be non-binding but they are a great place to start. GiantSnowman 16:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as an outright rejection of an RFC, so sorry for that. It just seemed like people were looking for a binding solution. If anyone thinks it would work, they should file one. Absolutely. Though that does pose an interesting question. If an RFC came to a consensus to use Discretionary Sanctions, would Arbcom honor that? And not just in this, admittedly novel, sense. If it was for a topic, like some geographical dispute, would that be possible? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Redaction—A small step?

Since any kind of decision re blocking this kind of behaviour (and especially with respect to this editor) seems impossible, perhaps the worst aspects of it could be mitigated by administrators being more proactive in redacting the really egregious personal attacks and profanity on article talk pages. This is where that kind of behaviour harms the public image of the project and is particularly harmful to new (or prospective) editors who come across it, even when it is not directed at them. I'm talking about pages like Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. There is no reason why anyone visiting that page should have to read discussions like "I really don't give a fuck what you think", "Who the shuddering fuck cares about a stupid link..." "If you don't want to be called a cunt [...] then don't act like one" (not all of which were made by the editor in question, incidentally). That sort of thing on User talk pages is probably less egregious, less visible, and more easily avoided. On article talk pages, it presents a terrible "public face" of Wikipedia and leaving them there sends the worst possible message: This is how we discuss things here, if you don't it like go away, or rather... FUCK OFF! Voceditenore (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

On that particular page, the profanity was being used quite deliberately by Eric and others to enforce WP:OWN and keep other editors away from the page and/or from Wikipedia as a whole. One question to consider is whether Wikipedia really welcomes new editors. As you point out, that kind of language on article talk pages says "no." -- 101.119.15.153 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Just some thoughts about user talk pages

User talk pages are strange things. It's in some ways a private space (more or less belonging to the user whose talk page it is), but also public, in the sense that anyone can read it (or even watch-list it).

On facebook, for example, if someone was giving you grief on your page, you could just delete their post or even ban them from posting (or de-friend them, or whatever it takes).

On a web forum, you can choose to ignore a "private message" from someone who is giving you grief, or you can tell them to go fly a kite. If the person didn't like being told to go fly a kite complained to a moderator about it, the moderator would probably advise them to just stop PMing the guy, or perhaps even tell them that going to fly a kite would be a good idea.

Did I lose you yet?

Well, if not, here's the thing that needs some thinking about: maybe telling people to go fly a kite (or jump in a lake, or get a life, or even fuck themselves) on one's own talk page should be treated altogether differently from doing so on an article talk page (or other content-oriented fora such as the Village Pump). Just something worth considering, IMO, since this whole situation is rather silly and "off-topic" (assuming the topic is supporting the writing good encyclopedia articles). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If this were a social network, that would be fine. This isn't a social network. It is a collaborative project. Which means that nobody, absolutely nobody, has the right to ignore the feedback of other editors. If they are abusive, then they should be taken care of via all of the methods of conflict resolution and user conduct review that we have on this project. But any comments on your user page from other editors that do not violate policy are all things that you have no right to ignore. If you don't have the emotional maturity to deal with what other editors are telling you about your actions, then you do not belong on a collaborative project. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Naming and shaming instead of blocking

Civility is not easily enforced, and blocking people for incivility is not likely to work on the long term. Typically, there won't be a consensus to block an editor for civility issues, even if there is consensus that there are civility issues with that editor. What can work is to allow such an editor to edit, but only with an added text to the username that says that the editor is prone to uncivil behavior. The editor will have to earn the right to edit without that added text to his username by editing without civility problems for a significant amount of time.

The added text also makes the civility issues less serious. By making the potential civility problem visible before it occurs, editors know what they can expect from the problem editor. That then significant diminishes the effect of any incivility coming from the problem editor. Count Iblis (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

See the section above #Redaction—A small step? what if a person is using abuse on article talk pages to discourage contributions to that page and to help to enforce ownership of an article? Guy Fawkes Night, as with other anniversary pages, is likely to attract new editors around the time of the anniversary. A new editor will typically make a change to a page under an IP address. If the change is reverted, they may find their to the talk page. How likely is it that a new editor is going to want to contribute to the conversations on that page given the language that is currently on that page and directed at others who have proposed changes? Where does your "[[make] civility problem visible" fit into that scenario? -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A thought of my own

It's been a long time since I've edited or even looked at this page; I think the last comment I made here was right around Christmas time. At that time it was essentially the same issue at hand. Now I have no intention of getting myself involved in this beyond the following; instead of trying to recreate some profound comment, just read what I wrote then. Everything, including the article in question, is essentially the same. If you're starting to get riled up about the goings-on here, look at this and let it sink in for a minute; I know that for me it rather violently shakes me back into focus, and everyone I've ever spoken to has told me it does much the same for them. And now, I'll return to quietly perusing Susan Curtiss' dissertation and doing some work without the attendant theatrics. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U

Now that Eric Corbett has been unblocked, I'm starting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eric Corbett to get this away from AN and to see if a solution which all parties can live with can be found. Everyone is invited to help create this RfC/U. My purpose is to focus on the interaction between Eric Corbett and other users, in both directions, not to have a "list-everything-he-ever-has-done-wrong" festival. Evidence of his incivility and personal attacks will need to be provided, but evidence of the causes of his reaction, possible baiting, possible recurring harassment, or possible bad or execssive blocks, is of course also a necessary part of the process. Just, well, try to keep it constructive and civil wherever possible. It is not a policy-free zone where personal attacks will be ignored. Fram (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for this to be moved to User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett. I think an RfC is premature at this moment, it needs to be written, structured and evidenced. This will take time and creating it empty is the wrong way to do it. Worm^TT(talk) 08:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Premature? It seems to me to be long overdue. "Creating it empty" is the standard way RfC/U are created by the template. I'm willing to move it to your user page, but not to keep it there for very long. Some attempt at resolution is needed, and I doubt that it will come from this AN discussion. Fram (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems a bit pointless. IIRC, there's been an RfC/U before. -- 101.119.14.178 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, I can't find a trace of it (old or new username of Eric Corbett). Fram (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the RfC/U to User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett, my invitation to everyone wanting to find a solution for this recurring situation remains open of course. My intention is to get this back to a standard RfC fairly soon (days, not months) if possible. Fram (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that WTT has since clarified that his "I think an RfC is premature at this moment, it needs to be written, structured and evidenced. This will take time and creating it empty is the wrong way to do it." doesn't mean that writing the RfC will take longer, which is better done in userspace first, but that he doesn't want to start on it until he has tried other avenues first. Make of that whatever you want. Fram (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

For more information about my thought process, have a look at User talk:Fram#Regarding the RfC Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Marcia Wallace

User:Medeis is now vandalizing the Marcia Wallace article which was the cause of the AN just yesterday (see [62]). He has now determined by fiat that the comments of Wallace's son regarding aspects of her death, which helped cause yesterday's AN discussion, in which Nyttend ruled against Medeis on every point, are "unimportant". I reverted his vandalism but he will undoubtedly respond by restoring the edits, hence trying to initiate an edit war. Please hand him the lengthy block he deserves. Quis separabit? 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently every single edit to this article is going to be met with screaming. (Note that once again we don't get a diff form Rms125a of the edit at question, while Rms125a finds it necessary to revert two entirely unrelated edits of mine wholesale.)

There's no vandalism. The AN which was "caused" was Rms125a' sole doing. There's no such "ruling" allegedly by Nyttend--the complaint was simply closed. I do happen to think a comment on the beliefs of Wallace's son that contradict all published reports are out of place in the article as undue weight. But that's BRD, not vandalism. Can someone please tell Rms125a to stop this nonsense. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There is this place....it may only be in my imagination....but I feel my memory serves me well enough to say...take it to DR/N as this is clearly a content dispute. And..as I said on my talk page Quis separabit, please stop accusing editors of vandalism unless it clearly falls within that scope. This does not. Also...this is not an issue about an admin or even anything I feel admin should intervene in at this time. Eventually they will....but I don't think you'll like that outcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark: you can call me Robert. You stated on this very page (above):

"Lets work on her article to expand it and not get bogged down in her death. That is indeed part of being sensitive to the subject and family per BLP policy isn't it?"

So can you tell me how I am supposed to deal with the other editor mentioned on this page who removed by fiat the comments of Wallace's son (part of the subject's family you made mention of, no) when there remains a discrepancy. Her son says she was cancer free; the friend says she died of complications of that disease. Maybe this article should be 1RR until the editors can agree on how to proceed. Yours, Quis separabit? 00:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Her son is not a doctor or a medical expert is he? It may be worth a mention but is not the clear reason to her passing and your continuing in this manner is VERY insensitive to that family. Seriously. Please stop. As I said, this is just a content dispute. Take it to DR/N please.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Illegal use of rollback

An editor has made an illegal use of rollback here [63]. This rollback did not revert vandalism to the Anzac Mounted Division article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, and therefore cannot be considered unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. --Rskp (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the discussion above about "poking" bears, admins may care to review Talk:Anzac Mounted Division. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this matter is much bigger than an alleged illegal use of rollback. Among other things, it's a ridiculous ongoing edit war about whether we should write ANZAC or Anzac. The main editors involved are simply not engaging effectively. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The rollback aspect is trivial; it merely enables one to save a few seconds when reverting. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Illegal"? Which section of the Criminal Code was broken? You'll want to notify the legal team ... ES&L 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be more helpful to cut back on the snark and reply to the substance of the complaint. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No...it would probably be best if editors did not make legal accusations that do not exist.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at the illegal roll back? --Rskp (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain how rollback abuse is not illegal?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Was that even a rollback or just a simple revert? I can't tell. Anyone?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind that last question. Rollback of 4 edits. [64]--Mark Miller (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a roll back. [[65]]. Your link is not to a roll back, it is to the last of a series of edits which added a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, then...if yours was the rollback and the other editor just reverted...who is at fault for abusing their tools? Hmmmm. An explanation is now required.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Mark Miller linked to the addition of a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Since when is adding a full stop a roll back. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • This would be snarking, I suppose becuase, I don't even have rollback privileges. What tha ...? Can someone focus on the illegal rollback linked in the first post of this discussion? --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@North8000: The aspect is not trivial - per RBK, rollback is not to be used in situations like this.

I'm not quite sure how so many edits have been made under this header for irrelevant reasons. We know what RoslynSKP meant when they said illegal. There is no constructive reason to banter about the implication of legal action.

That being said, I'll raise this issue with Jim Sweeney. After that, I'll stop by that article's talk page. m.o.p 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad someone understands this. I am still waiting for an explanation as to where the actual rollback was, but I guess just not understanding is not an excuse for asking, but thanks. I'll just wait for my general sanctions to kick in over who I associate with on Wikipedia. Thanks you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: This is a rollback. m.o.p 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I believe you. Now... why does the history not say it was a rollback? The only such rollback the history shows (and I admit my ignorance on this) is the last edit by Rskp? I am not trying to be an ass. I guess I am just one by nature and just need an explanation as to why, from my view of the situation, I only see a single rollback being done and not by the accused editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: That's what a rollback looks like. You can tell due to it being marked minor, the text linking to Help:Reverting, and the layout of the edit summary. Also, RoslynSKP physically couldn't have performed a rollback, as they don't have the necessary privilege. m.o.p 03:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first time this editor has abused rollback privileges. See here [66] --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, as someone with rollback...if the editor abused it, take it away. Of that much...I will agree. But will not support using language that exaggerates the situation in any way. Thanks m.o.p!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel you have been unnecessarily harsh, and lacking a bit of good faith. Considering our community's diverse composition (amongst English-speaking peoples), it is geocentric to assume the context of ones prose, basing it on your norms alone. With so many soccer fans, and football too, as well as many other sports, "illegal use of" is nearly synonymous with "unsportsmanlike conduct" and proof that "illegal" is not exclusive to jurisprudence. Tighten up sir.—John Cline (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Third Transjordan attack [67] here for discussion and link to the first instance. --Rskp (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been dragging on across multiple articles relating to the Palestinian theatre of WW1 for about a year now (possibly longer). As one of the coordinators of the military history project I've commented in a few of the relevant discussions, but haven't used the admin tools given that I've had lots of interactions with the editors involved. My consistent perception of this dispute is that its RoslynSKP against the world: he or she has their preferred names for articles and units (which tend to be a bit old-fashioned, and don't take into account the fact that there are often different terms used for the same thing in this particular topic) and consistently takes a combative attitude to try to enforce this. Calling improper use of rollback "Illegal" is typical of RoslynSKP's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach - instead of trying to reach consensus through calm discussion, he or she routinely escalates disputes. The various editors RoslynSKP fights with are all in good standing, and often seem pretty fed up with dealing with them. As the archive box at the top of Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division shows, RoslynSKP has tried to move this article to a different name five times since January 2012 (including a move review request) - four of these attempts have been made since mid-September this year. While Jim shouldn't have used rollback here, it's not hard to see how such stubborn and disruptive behaviour would wear down other editors. The fact that RoslynSKP dismissed the results of all the move requests by saying that "these issues have not been addressed, just swept under the carpet." a couple of days ago says it all really: this is not constructive conduct, and suggests a complete inability to drop the stick and move on over this issue. This thread appears to be an attempt to change the battleground and distract attention away from their prolonged disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

while you're at it, could you please move Henry G. Chauvel back to Harry Chauvel for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Just passing by ... Graham87 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D on this. My view is that failure to achieve a positive result on one battleground (repeated RMs) has resulted in a move to a new battleground. At this rate, this is going to end up at ARBCOM and some editors are going to wish they hadn't escalated this. To deter continuation of this behaviour, a boomerang is probably in order. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I also concur with Nick-D's take on this. I had a few encounters with Rskp after I responded to a GOCE request for an article in the WWI scope. If the response I got from Rskp later is any example to go by, and judging by their behaviour at RM, then they have significant ownership issues with anything they edit. During the course of my copy edit of the article, they would systematically go back and effectively revert many of the changes I had made. Normally, that wouldn't be much of an issue as that's the nature of WP, but when the end result is more verbose and difficult to read than was afte the copy edit, it's moe than jus a little annoying. A later discussion on the material in the article, I posited an opinion, which was responded to in an unnecesarily dismissive fashion entirely non-conducive of a collegial environment. However, rather than edit war over it, I notified Jim Sweeney as he was a major contributor to the article and left it to them to hash it out. Crisco1942 subsequently protected the article to stop the ensuing edit war. This single interaction with Rskp soured my taste for future interactions and I have subsquently made a point of not taking up articles within the WWI scope that they've been involved in, which I find somewhat sad as I am Australian as they are. Rskp is a polific writer in WWI, particularly on the ANZAC contributions to the war effort and that is laudable, but their interactions with other editors is leaves much to be desired. Blackmane (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp, but I am surprised to learn that this has been an ongoing problem for more than a year. I do think its time that this was escalated - by which I mean page protections and blocking - so the rest of us can work in peace. I agree with Peacemaker - this is gonna end up at arbcom sooner or later unless one or more of us man up and lay down the law such as it were. It's not pleasant (it never is) however that doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be done. And judging by this post, it needs to be done soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think people are starting to recognize the point of my first post (the one referred to as "snark"). The OP seems ot have a pretty serious history of problematic editing. In order to get his "preferred version" or at least one of his opponents potentially blocked, he used an inflammatory heading: "illegal use of...". This was designed to get immediate eyes, and immediate action in his favour. However, in doing so, he may have whipped out his giant AN boomerang. ES&L 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth I have had numerous interactions with RoslynSKP over several years, including quite a few disagreements, so I am hardly an uninvolved editor here. That said I fully endorse Nick-Ds cmts as an accurate, considered and remarkably restrained summary of her behaviour and I think this complaint needs to be considered in this context. Further scrutiny, and potentially sanction, is needed here. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:EW

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

---

In the article Iran–Iraq War a user is using false claims to remove WP:RS. Despite warnings to first discuss it first on the talk page, he continues with the push pov. I'm trying to maintain the WP:STATUSQUO of the page, but again he refuses and uses argumentum ad nauseam in the talk page to try to get out of that. I'm tired of this. Coltsfan (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm using reliable sources in both article and talkpage (Talk:Iran–Iraq War#Death tolls), while you're just forcing irrelevant third-rated publications, reverting and accusing ("pov pusher", "vandalism"). --HistorNE (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, this is fun. Two edit warriors walk into a bar, and call each other out. There is no punchline, only an explanation: this is the wrong bar. You should be at WP:ANEW--both of you. (I note that HistorNE has already been blocked once for edit warring, only two months ago.) Y'all are lucky Bbb23 didn't see this, cause he has little patience for edit warriors. In addition, HistorNE seems to think that referring to an edit as "retarded" is acceptable: it is now (see edit summary in diff above). Coltsfan seems to have missed the HUGE orange bar above this very edit screen I'm looking at that says "notify the other editor".

  I've warned both users for edit warring, with a beautiful template. They should maybe consider WP:DR or some other kind of mediation. The next one to revert gets a free block. Yeah, it sucks--I know the WRONG VERSION is currently up, but what can you do. Hash it out on the talk page. In addition to blocks for edit warring, full protection of the article is an option as well. Hash it out on the talk page, preferably with a third party, or seek dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So, the wrong version will stay up? Reliable sources were removed and that's fine? Important changes were made without any consensus but hey, no problem? Since no consensus was necessary to remove the informations, then one does not need a consensus to put them back, right? I'm sorry, I'm just trying to find some consistency in this train of thought. As far as I'm concerned "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor. If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way". Coltsfan (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Your sarcasm is appreciated. If I had reverted the other one would have been here to claim that "charlatan sources were reinserted". WRONGVERSION may be listed as humorous, but it's serious as well: admins are not supposed to jump in and make content decisions. Find the proper venue, please, at any of the places linked above. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

How nice you find this situation humorous. The guy removes reliable sources because he considers them "charlatan" and he gives no explanation whatsoever for it and it's fine, right? So I can go to any article, remove any source I want, change any information without consulting any other users and I'm the wrong one in this situation? And worse, the article continues on the wrong version? And I don't say "wrong" because I think so, I'm saying wrong version because it should had stayed in the version prior to the WP:EW and a consensus should have been studied, but none of that happened. But rules... why bother making rules worth a damn, right? And that, my good sir, is sarcasm. And btw, I'm out. Since you don't care (you should because, as a administrator, the rules should mean something to you), why should I waste my time on this?! Bye. Coltsfan (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Will an admin kindly evaluate consensus and close this?

A topic ban discussion involving Loomspicker (talk · contribs) was archived before an admin would properly close it. Could someone please tear themselves away from the Eric Corbett admin pissing war and dramapalooza, or elsewise, and please close it? Thank you - MrX 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban request for User:Jonathan.bluestein

Both ‎Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I feel that Jonathan.bluestein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be banned for reverting good faith edits at Haredi Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without adequate reasoning as explained at Talk:Haredi Judaism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs). Thank you, -- -- -- 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Jonathan Bluestein here. These two users are both Haredi Jews. They have strongly biased opinions on matters relating to that page. User ‎Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been serially deleting contents off that page for months now. The talk page is full of extremely long discussions in which ‎Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to make up all sorts of excuses as to why additions I have made to the page are invalid and inappropriate. Over the last few months I have added over 70 (!) relevant sources to the segments I have edited in order to 'please' ‎Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s demands. To no avail. Whenever I am not around, he takes the opportunity to delete any materials criticizing actions by the Haredim. The sources I have used are mostly from Israeli mainstream media, and relate mainly to two issues: 1. Military conscription of Haredi Jews. 2. Controversies related to Haredi actions against 'immodesty' shown in public in Israel. The debate at hand has been raised within Wikipedia's resolution center, but no resolution could be reached. Neither did asking for moderators to intervene helped in the past. I believe that the sole purpose of this request here is to eliminate my influence from that page, and with it to gain an opportunity to once and for all erase any trace of criticism towards Haredi populations. I wish to ask any moderators looking into the matter to read the wikipedia page being discussed first, and then thoroughly go through the long discussions on the talk page, to see the long history of our disagreements and how they were debated and resolved in the past. Thank you. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hyphens, you'll need to explain what you'd like to be done. Do you mean a siteban (i.e., Jonathan's not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all), or a topic ban (i.e. he's not allowed to edit articles related to Haredi Judaism), or an interaction ban (i.e. he's not allowed to edit pages you've been editing, and vice versa), or something else? Regardless of which one you mean, you absolutely must demonstrate extensive disruption by Jonathan; bans are a drastic solution that are only imposed when we've tried other solutions without the problem being resolved. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel Jonathan.bluestein has limited editing experience. After all my "mentoring", he still does not "get it." I am sorry to say, I feel his continued edits are a blight on this page. As a "litmus test", I added his material to Orthodox Judaism and soon after it was removed by another editor who stated: "This is an interesting and potentially important section to add; however, as it is, it is full of OR and unsourced assertions, and is not balanced." Jonathan.bluestein has been trying to insert his Hodge-podge of undue, pov, unsourced, etc. etc. material for some months now. It is clear Jonathan.bluestein has had enough "warnings" about his editing style but continues to add text which violates policy. He may be sincere, but he does not seem capable of understanding what belongs where, if at all. He needs to be blocked from this page so it can be fixed and the tags removed. Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is worth investigating some of the recent edits by Chesdovi to get a perspective on what is behind this ban proposal. I agree that some sources added by JBluestein are not usable, but Chesdovi is removing a good number of sources that *are* usable -- and also removing material on the basis of a clear ideological dislike for the message they convey. In that context, the ban proposal is merely an attempt to eliminate an ideological opponent. BTW, the post at 10:39 just above is a clear violation of WP:POINT, and in general there might be a call for WP:BOOMERANG here, at least for Chesdovi (not for hyphens, though) -- the POV-pushing is by no means limited to one "side". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • And Nomoskedasticity wishes to be seen as a neutral broker in this discussion? My foot. If Nomoskedasticity acknowledges "some" sources JB added as inappropriate, why has he never removed any? He is always seems very quick to remove or tweak to the intricacies of material only I have added, happy to leave this rest of the page full of bunkum. It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that I wish to push my POV or "eliminate" an opposing ideology. My edits clearly demonstrate my attempt to edit neutrally. Nomoskedasticity has a real gall to even suggested I have a POV pushing problem. It is the edit's of J Blustein which are a genuine problem here, and it is him and Nomoskedasticity who are intent on blurring real editing issues by claiming the issue at hand is to do with pro/anti Haredi stances. This is unfair and offensive. Nomoskedasticity has not ever once highlighted JB's problematic edits, until his latest post, which is an obvious attempt to frame himself as neutral on this issue; how idiotic. In his latest edit on the page, Nomoskedasticity has re-added primary sources which have been discussed previously at talk. Yet Nomoskedasticity does not feel he needs to discuss the inclusion of these primary sources himself at talk, but re-adds blindly. Shameful. Chesdovi (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually think that among all the people who have been editing the page in recent months (including myself), Nomoskedasticity has been one of a few that maintained very decent and respectable neutrality. I fact, he did delete or have called for the deletion of a few of my sources, with sound arguments. Probably about 4-5 sources so far, and they're now gone. Weren't good enough... As for Chesdovi's other claims here - I find no reason to try and counter his claims. I sincerely believe that reading the page, talk page and the sources themselves would easily reveal who is the troublemaker among us. The admins are welcome to check out the facts and decide for themselves. I should add, as I have before in the dispute resolution discussions, that this issue and page would better be examined by someone versed in Israeli culture and Hebrew. All points of controversy relating to this page have to do with events in Israel from recent years, and most of the sources on the page in general are in Hebrew. The latter fact is because the vast majority of news reports, article, studies and literature about and relating to Ultra Orthodox Jews (Haredim) is written in Hebrew. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan, if Nomoskedasticity modified some of your material, please can either he or yourself point me to where that occurred, because I do not remember this happening, and I have checked and cannot find when this happened. Hebrew sources – how helpful. JB adds reams of text cited to Hebrew sources. But why? JB obviously can converse in English. Hebrew sources are unhelpful, confusing and usually against guidelines. What has J Bluestein added to this page? Material about specific peculiarities of the Haredim and why are so loathed in Israel by ardent seculars like himself. That's all. That is the glaring POV issue which strikes me. He is a proud anti-Haredi activist in wiki and in real life. That’s okay and obviously, I am not against inclusion of such material, so long as it adheres to normal editing parameters. Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, here's a sampling of what has been going on:
  • On 00:38, 24 July, Jonathan deleted a sourced paragraph of Haredi Judaism without explanation. This unexplained deletion was reverted by User:Nomoskedasticity on 14:54, 24 July.
  • On 20:46, 29 July, User:Chesdovi changed "Lithania" to "Lithuania". On 01:19, 30 July, Jonathan changed it back to "Lithania".
  • On 20:21, 5 August, User:Black Kite changed "a Haredi men" to "Haredi men". On 04:05, 13 August, Jonathan changed it back to "a Haredi men". On 10:31, 30 August, User:Leveni changed it to "a Haredi man". On 00:50, 25 October, Jonathan changed it back to "a Haredi men".
  • On 16:02, 13 August, Chesdovi added tags "{{According to whom}}" & "{{Weasel-inline}}". On 19:36, 9 September, Chesdovi removed those tagged sentences altogether. On 00:50, 25 October, Jonathan restored those sentences, but without the tags.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I changed the "Sabbath" (which links to the general concept of Sabbath) to "Shabbat" (links to the Jewish Sabbath). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "Sabbath" without explanation.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the phrases "even go as far" and "might prove" which do not seem very encyclopedic to me. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored both phrases without explanation.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the word "interestingly", classified as editorializing. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "interestingly" without explanation. On 10:42, 30 October, I removed "interestingly". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored "interestingly".
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I removed the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence "There had been more extreme cases, too". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the sentence without explanation. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the sentence. On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored the sentence.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I disambiguated: [[Egged]] → [[Egged (company)]]. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "[[Egged]]".
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "segregated men and women and required women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back" to: "required men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front and women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back." (The fact that men are not allowed to enter from the back or to sit in the back is important because it shows that this is not an issue of Sexual discrimination, just separation between the genders.) On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan changed it back to "segregated men and women and required women to go up from the back of the bus and sit in the back". On 10:42, 30 October, I restored "by requiring men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front" and added a reference to: "Kobre, Eytan (Dec/28/11). "In The Hot Seat". Mishpacha. Retrieved Oct/30/13. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)" On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan redeleted the words "by requiring men to go up through the front of the bus and sit in the front" together with the accompanying reference.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "Orthodox and Secular Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel'" to "Jewish women called 'Neshot Hakotel'" (the source cited (חדשות 2 - בקרוב: רחבה משותפת לגברים ולנשים בכותל) actually says that 'Neshot Hakotel' is comprised of Reform women). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "A group of Orthodox and Secular Jewish women" without explanation.
  • On 11:41, 27 October, I changed "Male, Female and Mixed" to "male, female and mixed". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "Male, Female and Mixed".
  • On 01:29, 28 October, I removed the reference to A news report (March 2013) of how one female drummer and one female singer were forced to cancel their participation in a municipal music festival in Jerusalem because of Haredi demands which is unrelated to "the show of exposed arms and legs", as discussed on Talk:Haredi Judaism#Review of Chesdovi's deletions over the past week (13th of August, 2013). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the reference.
  • On 07:45, 28 October, I added links to Derekh Eretz Rabbah פרק א and Nedarim 20a. On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan removed those links without explanation.
  • On 07:45, 28 October, I removed 9 references unrelated to, but lumped together under the banner of 'immodest' women, and thus causing a mess out of the article, as discussed at Talk:Haredi Judaism#Review of Chesdovi's deletions over the past week (13th of August, 2013). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored all 9 references. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the 9 references. On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan restored 7 of the 9 references, and replaced the other 2 with duplicates of the existing references.
  • On 07:45, 28 October, I changed "On March 2013" to "In March 2013". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored "On March 2013".
  • On 07:45, 28 October, I changed "'Mehadrin' buses - bus lines" (n-dash) to "'Mehadrin' buses — bus lines" (m-dash). On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the n-dash. On 10:42, 30 October, I restored the m-dash. On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan restored the n-dash.
  • On 07:45, 28 October, I removed the not-so-encyclopedic-looking and unnecessary sentence "The cause for the existence of 'Mehadrin' buses was, to begin with, the wishes of many Haredi communities to further set men and women physically apart, for the same reasons and rational that called for 'modest' female display in public". On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan restored the sentence. On 10:42, 30 October, I redeleted the sentence. On 22:35, 30 October, Jonathan restored the sentence.
  • On 17:10, 29 October, Jonathan changed " mainstream rabbis " to "mainstream Rabbis ". On 10:42, 30 October, I changed it back to "mainstream rabbis". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan changed it back to "mainstream Rabbis".
  • On 10:42, 30 October, I changed "have been known to censor pictures" to "have censored pictures". On 22:26, 30 October, Jonathan changed it back to "have been known to censor pictures" without explanation.
• If think that will have to be enough for now, as I'm running out of time. -- -- -- 13:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The first diff hyphen produces is a good example of how Nomoskedasticity is happy to add superfluous material to this page. On 00:38, 24 July, Jonathan indeed deleted a sourced paragraph, but he merged it into the text he added in his next edit. This was over-sighted by Nomoskedasticity who carelessly re-added the exact same paragraph on 14:54, 24 July, making it appear twice in the article!! This is of course of no consequence for Nomoskedasticity who seemingly likes to add unnecessary duplication here. Chesdovi (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Both Chesdovi and -- -- -- failed to include my answers and explanations for the above-mentioned issues, which were addressed and appear on the talk page. They only put here a part of the discussion - the part representing their writings and opinions. The full-length discussions from the last few days are found here. At this link are the lengthy explanations for my edits and additions, which both users have claimed 'did not exist'. I wish to again stress the fact that in my opinion, in order to understand what has been going on with that page, it's best that one takes the time to read the entire talk page. Then one could see that most of the issues at hand had already been discussed over and over again, countless times. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

On a more personal note, I am not an "anti-Haredi activist" as Chesdovi suggested here, and have never claimed to be one. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan, you stated above that Nomo deleted about 4-5 of your sources. Please show me which ones. Or was it an oversight? Chesdovi (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall it happened, but I couldn't find it being discussed on the talk page. Perhaps he explained it in one of his edits, or perhaps I was wrong. It doesn't really matter and has no relevance to your claim that I should be banned. You are merely trying to point out that myself and that user are somehow united under an anti-Haredi cause. Which is funny, considering you and user -- -- -- are both Haredim, and have very distinct political agendas about that page, which you have been promoting with sincere cooperation. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from moves

Is the following statement correct?

Every talk page in this category which does not have a page history or any other special issues, can be speedy deleted?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

bulk deletion request

Drafts about the following topics were found in User:Sublimeharmony/sandbox11; a table listing the topics, with links to the drafts, is in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Morning277 under "Sublimeharmony sandbox topics". I'm requesting deletion of the following pages in furtherance of the ban against the company Wiki-PR.

—rybec 00:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

List of articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's check these pages and make it simpler for deleting admins. I'm putting my name after the ones I've checked, along with a comment. Please add your input to ones where I've already commented; don't let mine be the only comments. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 4cabling — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk) Aasted — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk) American Writers and Artists — not so sure. Nyttend (talk) Bizible — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. At AFD, but simply on notability grounds. Nyttend (talk) Brosix Inc. — not so sure. Nyttend (talk) CHMB Solutions Inc. — leaning toward delete. Nyttend (talk) ClassDojo — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk) Confio Software Inc. — leaning toward safe; stub with only basic factual information and simple wording, not like the type of stuff we're seeing on the problem articles. Nyttend (talk) CrowdOptic, Inc. — safe; written by longstanding editor Netasif2004. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC) DDC Advocacy — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk) Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Dominique Molina Echopass — not eligible for speedy deletion, since it survived AFD. Nyttend (talk) Genius Inside (company) — not so sure. Nyttend (talk) GroundWork Inc. — not so sure. Nyttend (talk) Heliospectra — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk) ITelagen — not so sure. Nyttend (talk) Inflection (company) — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk) Inigral (company) — leaning toward safe; written by Kirti t, whose writing is mostly on things like the Morongo Unified School District, the Trade and Development Bank of Mongolia, and mediaeval kings in India. Nyttend (talk) Jonathan Cardella — original page deleted and replaced with new page, but not so sure because of the author's lack of track record. Nyttend (talk) Legitmix — leaning toward safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page, although the citation bombing makes me somewhat leery. Nyttend (talk) Loyaltyworks — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. At AFD, but simply on notability grounds. Nyttend (talk) User:Melleber/sandbox Network Capital Funding Corporation — safe; original page deleted and replaced with four-sentence stub whose longest sentence mentions criticism. Nyttend (talk) OneHope Wine — not so sure. Nyttend (talk) PCN Technology Inc. — leaning toward delete. Nyttend (talk) PeopleSmart — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk) PressPad (software) — not so sure. Nyttend (talk) Rich Schefren (entrepreneur) — leaning toward delete. Nyttend (talk) SJ (singer) — safe; written by someone who's editing in lots of different fields, including Iraqi politics, Peruvian history, and the a lake in Slovakia. Nyttend (talk) User:Cecilia.firstencoding/sandbox Telly (website) — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk) Tom Kemp (entrepreneur) — safe; original page deleted and replaced with new page. Nyttend (talk) Virool — safe; created by someone whose editing doesn't look spammy, and later modified/expanded by someone who's safe. Nyttend (talk) Zipwhip — not so sure. Nyttend (talk)

First thing, Rybec, I've collapsed the list to make this section more manageable; that forced me to modify your signature slightly so that it wouldn't be included in the collapsed area. Secondly, blind deletion is a bad idea: some of the pages in this list were deleted after it was compiled, only to be recreated without problems by other, seemingly unaffiliated editors. See the history of Virool or Tom Kemp (entrepreneur) for two examples; I checked just four articles and found these two. I strongly suggest that admins not delete a page on this list until its history has been checked, lest we delete good content. Finally, a little bit of process: all of these articles were created before the ban, as far as I can see, so they're not eligible for deletion under that criterion; however, the pages in question are definitely being created for advertising purposes, so they're speedy deleteable as spam. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not asking for immediate assistance from an admin. Rather my intention was to start a discussion about these articles as a group, so that they might be deleted if there a consensus emerges to do so. Whether the contributors of these articles are affiliated with Wiki-PR is unknown, because the Morning277 SPI has been closed. I didn't mean this to be about the contributors (although I did notify them) but about the article topics. —rybec 04:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Although these articles may have been created before Wiki-PR was banned, they were created after Morning277 was blocked. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about post-deletion-discussion actions

Occasionally, editors may move articles that are at WP:AfD (during the discussion); if the discussion closes as any sort of delete, the closing administrators will sometimes overlook the pagemove and delete only the resulting redirect instead. As I'm not an admin myself, I obviously can't carry out the delete, so what's the best way to deal with this? I usually use WP:CSD#G6, which works just fine, but I wonder if there's anything better. Ansh666 02:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say do three things: (1) Keep using G6 as you're doing now. (2) Leave a note at the movers' talk pages, asking that they not to move pages without adding a big warning to the top of the AFD, something like "NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: page has been moved". (3) Leave a note at the admins' talk pages, asking them to be a little more careful. Wish I could suggest something more directly useful, but I don't know what it would be. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you notice that the page was moved while the discussion is still open, feel free to replace the article name in the header, with an appropriate eit summary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is why I wrote WP:NOMOVE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember too that these articles (where the AFD closes but the moved article remains because it was moved) usually end up appearing at WP:BADAFD. Once there, admins usually take care of it pretty quickly. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, nowadays usually I take care of it pretty quickly... =P Ansh666 19:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion

The Eric Corbett-related discussion is taking up a huge amount of space on this board. Would it be a good idea to spin it off onto a sub-page, with a pointer left here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh god, please don't. Every time we subpage something, it ends up dying on the vine and we never end up getting any real results until it finally goes to ArbCom. Witness Betacommand, the past times we've subpaged a Malleus/Eric discussion, Rich Farmborough, etc., etc.... rdfox 76 (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean you believe that the discussion(s) is (are) heading towards a substantive decision while embedded here? It appears that ArbCom has already decided not to deal with this, in favor of RFC/Us, which (as usual) no one appears to be interested in starting, so why are do we need to clutter up AN with continuing discussion on this topic? Maybe (I know this is a radical concept) everyone should just ignore Eric Corbett's potty-mouth, and just let his targets know that he's a valuable contributor who's not really responible for his outbursts, kind of a Wikpeedia version of Tourette's Syndrome.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"ignore [his] potty-mouth"

I'm happy_(sic) to do that. However (Read Talk:Sunbeam_Tiger#Sourcing_to_avoid_edit_warring.) Eric also does this as the worst sort of WP:BITE to new editors. We shouldn't expect them to have to suffer this. (TL;DR: [68], [69]) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

How about a namespace? MALLEUS:CIVIL, MALLEUS:AN, MALLEUS:AN/I, etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion too conservative. We need a new sister project: WikiMalleus (malleus.wikipedia.org)   (: --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The namespace could be colloquially referred to as hammerspace. Deor (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone with oversight please help

• I am an ordinary administrator. In Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen#New requests someone put this request:
  • List of longest rivers of Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): This is sort of the opposite of a cut-and-paste move. The article was originally started in a sandbox with a long history of userspace drafts. Then it was then moved to mainspace, along with the irrelevant history. If possible, please move all edits prior to this one back to User:Finetooth/Sandbox3. Thanks! LittleMountain5 20:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • When I tried to delete List of longest rivers of Mexico to perform the history-split, the deletion was refused as "this page has over 5000 edits". Can someone with the power to delete very long histories, please do this history-split for me? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think only stewards can do this -- see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Pages with many revisions. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  I noticed that this page has now been deleted. I attempted a partial restore, but something went wrong. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the relevant revisions, 4480 revisions remain deleted. Fram (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to do the opposite: restore the irrelevant revisions so that I could move them elsewhere. I suppose we could move List of longest rivers of Mexico to some other temporary page, then restore the rest and move it elsewhere, then move the article back? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, busy doing just that. The restoring of these 4000+ revisions takes some time, but afterwards it's just a move to userspace, and a move back of the temp page to the original one. If the sandbox then needs further history splitting, we can always do this, but I don't think it is necessary. Fram (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

History moved to User:Finetooth/Sandbox6 (lower numbers already existed, didn't want to complicate things). Temp page moved back to List of longest rivers of Mexico. Please let me know if anything still needs to be done, or if I made a mistake in this somewhere. I don't do these very often, AFAIK User:Graham87 is the expert on these. Fram (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Page move undo

A page Mayor of Tower Hamlets has recently been moved without discussion and against consensus to Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets. This is unilateral, against consensus and has been discussed perviously. Can this please be undone to restore the consensus ad to ensure that discussion and consensus are formed before it is changed unilaterally. The title Mayor of Tower Hamlets redirect to the new pages and is not a disambiguation page and the page created to supposedly avoid confusion with is a red link article. Sport and politics (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sport and politics, I don't see any discussion of this on the article talk page. Where is the discussion that established the consensus you want to restore? DES ^(talk) 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was there way no consensus to move a very similar article and that discussion can be seen here. I believe that the consensus not to move that article discussed here shows no consensus for moving any of the elected mayors in England and Wales articles. This article is also specifically mentioned in the discussion on moving the other very similar article. It is also not right to spread the discussion on to every article talk page as that would be pointless and only serve to create a disparity of information. Sport and politics (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, Sport and politics, that move discussion was closed as "no consensus" which doesn't really firmly establish a consensus. Moreover, it was about a different article. While it is true that a list of similarly named articles, including Mayor of Tower Hamlets, was mentioned in the RM discussion, if you want to establish a general consensus to apply to all similarly named articles, the discussion would need to be more widely advertised then being at another article's talk page. it should be an RfC or at least advertised as if it were, in my view. Also I see only 3 editors making formal expressions of opinion (Support or oppose) and only 5 or 6 commenting at all. Not a very wide consensus in my view.

My advice is to start a discussion on the talk page of the article (now Talk:Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets) or else start a general RfC and mention it on that talk page and other appropriate locations. DES ^(talk) 15:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see any attempt to engage with the editor who did the move. That might have been a good first step. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that but as neither of us are admins neither one can undo what has been done today. I understand that there was nothing malicious here and it was all in good faith but this was unilateral and needs reverting as going against consensus is undone and this cannot be undone unless by an admin. I will of course contact the there user and engage in a discussion but first the long-standing consensus of no consensus need reverting to. Sport and politics (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As an admin I am unwilling to undo such a move without either agreement by the moving party, or a significantly clearer consensus on the matter. Other admins may have different views. DES ^(talk) 15:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this requires direct administrative intervention. We have requested moves for contested moves. Is there some reason this process hasn't been used? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Concur, if you want the title moved back make the request at WP:RM. It is clear that the recent un-discussed move was not without controversy and should have been handled through RM. But that's what RM is for, getting titles correct, if they aren't. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

While i can see what is being said here the onus is being placed on the wrong party. The move was a contested and controversial move so should have been moved only after going thorough a requested move. It should;t be that to go back to the long satnding title which came about after discussion a requested move should be undertaken that just strikes of being the wrong way round for doing things. If it was an uncontroversial move to start with then fine, I can see the logic behind requiring an RM to move it back but in this case the action undertaken was controversial so should have gone through RM procedures. If an Rm is required for moves of this kind then it gives carte blanche to make controversial and contested moves and then say well you now need an RM to go back to what it before the controversial or contested move was made. Sport and politics (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You point out one of pitfalls of the WP norm that allows any autoconfirmed editor to move pages. The only thing that prevents chaos with page moves is the need to have deletion authority (admins) when redirects are involved. This is not an uncommon scenario, and indeed many editors do exactly what you describe. However, RM is the venue to discuss the move. Experienced editors and admins follow that venue and in many cases when this type of scenario occurs, an admin will chose to move the title back to the previous one immediately if the facts support it. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics should take these concerns to Talk:Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets. This isn't the correct venue. MRSC (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting Drmies' proposal for a general rule on civility enforcement

Proposal: If you want to block any established editor over something not blatantly obvious (account compromised, spewing racist stuff, etc), you should get consensus. (Drmies' words, kiped from #Simple, above)

• Support as re-proposer. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and should always be carefully considered. Assuming good faith - and supporting the right of all kinds of people to edit (avoiding entrenched bias and treating fellow editors with respect, the underlying purpose of WP:CIVIL - we must recognize that people have varying notions of what constitutes unacceptable rudeness. The massive discussion about Eric Corbett above showed this very clearly: for some, certain words are beyond the pale; for others, disrespect matters far more. (Full disclosure: I'm in the latter camp. I swear like a Marine off-wiki and I have a low tolerance for attack argument, including snideness.) It also demonstrated that we have more than one problem: it's not just Eric, it's not just the difficulty of factoring in extenuating circumstances ("poking the bear" etc.), we can't even agree which kind of incivility is driving more editors away. All we can agree on is that civility matters. Let's turn the issue around. We think hard before blocking a new editor, because biting people who don't yet know the ropes is unfair. We should also be sure before blocking those who do know the ropes. They - we - deserve that much respect, and getting consensus will afford more time for talking and untangling the situation so that a block is no longer needed, in addition to overcoming that bias we all largely unconsciously have. It will, I hope, exchange lots of short discussions here for the occasional mammoth ones ... such as about Eric. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It completely lacks any objectivity and would simply result in editor's aligning themselves for or against their favourite/disliked fellow editors. Leaky Caldron 18:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So... you mean it's what we have now, minus the actual blocks. I think I like it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Me? I love it. Simple, sensible, avoids controversy, will reduce drama, acknowledges common knowledge, easier than the "clunky" "involve a bureaucrat" thing I saw, applies common sense. Oh, no, see... I did it again... I just listed all the reasons it'll never fly. Sorry. Mea culpa. Begoon ^talk 19:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose First of all, you'd have to get everyone to agree on a definition for established editor. Second, we already have problems with the relationship between admins and non-admins. This sounds like something that could create friction between newbies and everyone else, because if a new editor (someone who is not established) gets involved in a dispute with an established editor, the newbie is in greater danger of winding up blocked. Third and finally, how would this be enforced in cases where a block is issued without consensus? Does the block get lifted? Is the blocking admin desysopped? Yes, this could prevent some drama, but it won't entirely do away with it. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we really opposing new proposals now because, although they would improve things, they wouldn't "entirely do away with" existing problems? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say - what's the definition of an "established editor"? DonIago (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Enforcement could be a nightmare and this indeed could create more friction between admin and editors. And I agree that the term "established editor" is....without clear definition. Some call editors who have established an account and passed all criteria for article creation to be established and that doesn't take much. Some others feel that editors that have a particular percentage of edits that are in article space only are established while others look at the edit count alone. Nah....this looks like a dead end, but Drmies is the actual proposer and may have more input on this that could convince editors of it's viability.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, please. If I were to pick nits, I would quibble over details - I'd prefer to leave "established editors" out of it, and instead say "if you want to make a block that you suspect will be controversial, you should get consensus first" - but quibbling over details is going to be the death of decision making on Wikipedia. I strongly support the idea behind this, and we can tweak details if we find we're discussing too much, or arguing too much about whether someone was an established editor or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The entire proposition is based on the notion of editor's who have earned special recognition - established editors - having earned special rights. You can hardly remove that stipulation on the basis of it being an insignificant quibble. Leaky Caldron 20:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Egotist that I am, i shall take that as support for my proposal :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis that this would turn things into a blatant popularity contest where editors with enough friends to filibuster away a prposed block will be able to get away with anything. The solution is to not F and C bomb other editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• How unfortunate that you have brought forward a rough, worthy first proposal with no attempt at refining it. That's not exactly the path to success. I support in theory, but it would be wise to work on the wording before bringing it forward again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, how about hell no. No one should have special status. Everyone should play by the same rules. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No, that's not true. Look at how we block VOAs: on sight, even without (final) warning if need be. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• The idea of "before you take an action that you know will be contentious, discuss it" is a good one (and is actually already enshrined in some aspects of blocking policy). The idea that certain users should be more insulated from the possibility of blocking than others, solely by virtue of being "established" (how long do I have to be around before I'm "established"? How many articles do I need to write? how many policies do I need to have discussed?), however, strikes me as extremely wrongheaded and unfair. Yes, you should discuss contentious actions before taking them, but contentiousness has to do with circumstances, not the relative longevity of the editor. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I am nearing my eighth year without a block, and I have a simple rule: if someone warns me not to do something, I stop doing it and start discussing the issue even if I disagree with the warning. If I ever get blocked, I don't know what I will do but I might just quit. Don't you think that an administrator contemplating a block should take that into account before destroying an unblemished record without warning? Yes, I do think that I should be treated differently than a new editor with one vandalism edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 3) (non-admin AN/ANI stalker observation) In theory, this proposal sounds like a good solution. In practice, though, as others above point out, the language is just too broad for consistent and effective enforcement. Unlike many others, I'm not implying that we have a rotten admin corps, but I'd like to point out that the dramuh-boardz attract many non-admins (like me), many of which (not like me, I hope) tend to be problematic editors. Their presence, especially if involved in the dispute that leads to the potential for a civility block, could potentially lead to even more difficult situations. I do support the spirit of the proposal, but it would have to be carefully modified to avoid class tensions and such (and as Floq says, quibbling over details is bad for the 'pedia). The one modification I suggest is that the consensus be built from uninvolved editors, or involved editors must declare themselves as such; the problem with this is that it would also be impossible to enforce, considering how few editors actually read messages such as those on top of the edit window for this noticeboard...anyways, just my two cents here. [add another 8 dollars and I can get a Subway sandwich combo!] Ansh666 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • AN and ANI are not exactly the same; I hadn't specified. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The lines are slowly getting blurred. I'd say that in the past week or two, maybe 1/3 of the sections here probably should have been at AN/I. Although, it is true, AN gets a lot less visitors. Ansh666 20:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Of course there should be some sort of consensus process before productive editors are blocked. The core problem is that currently any one of hundreds of loose cannon admins can block on whim. There can never be equity or stability under this cowboy system. The ability to block such users needs to be taken away from run of the mill admin and given to a disciplinary panel of admins specially appointed for the purpose. These problems will continue ad nauseum until this happens. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose based on having seen what this kind of concept, be it de jure or de facto, for bans and admin action has done every single place I've seen it come into play. More specifically, more well known and popular people become almost untouchable outside of the most absolutely egregious actions while new and/or less popular people find themselves being hammered and sacrificed to protect said popular people. In turn, this leads to resentment of the controlling cliques by established members (eventually driving them away or into much less participation) and scares away (or just outright bans) possible new members. Everything becomes about popularity and who your friends are. This is already a huge issue as it is (although generally after an admin action has been taken) and outright making it an official guideline or policy will just enshrine it into the system and encourage it. That is the last thing Wikipedia needs. Simple Sarah (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)