Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Terms of Use

For anyone that doesn't know, much of my work here is done as a paid editor that is sponsored by article-subjects. I disclose my conflict of interest on corresponding pages and rely heavily on the Talk page. To date I've created almost 40 Good Articles in this capacity. @Slimvirgin: has twice now asked me to disclose not just that I have a conflict of interest, but the actual name of the PR agency or client. She has correctly cited the Terms of Use, which not only require disclosure of the existence of a COI, but detailed information on any and all relevant affiliations.

I am concerned about this for four reasons:

1. My sponsor is a one-person PR agency and I feel this degree of disclosure violates their personal privacy
2. I don't see what possible use Wikipedians have for his/her name, since a COI is disclosed
3. Slimvirgin has focused her efforts on finding additional negative information to add to the page and is critical of my COI involvement/conduct. The situation is such that it feels a bit intimidating/threatening. For example, here she cited a source where all the information on Invisalign was positive, but she said the source indicated Invisalign had major issues.
4. If I start offering this information regularly, it becomes easier for someone to figure out my real-world identity

I raised my concerns about privacy and bullying when the new Terms of Use were created. My anonymity is important to me, because as a disclosed paid editor I am often targeted for harassment, etc.. At the time, a WMF staffer told me I should be fine, so long as a COI is disclosed and that nobody was going to bother me for more details. That seems to be challenged now.

Will I be blocked if I refuse to provide more information? Can anyone explain why the community would require me to disclose all of this? I know it's a complicated issue and appreciate your thoughtful input on the matter. This is very important to me. CorporateM (Talk) 01:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume you read the FAQ? It seems that you do have to disclose your employer/client, or don't get paid for editing. On the other hand, the policy does not allow other editors to engage in outing, harassment, or other violations of policy.- MrX 02:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. That FAQ could do with a copyedit (Corp?). And in this case it may not be that helpful, since Corp doesn't work for Acme, but for Hip&Hype's PR firm, so on whose behalf is he supposed to claim to be editing? I'm inclined to say Acme, still, since that's the ultimate beneficiary of Corp's work here (and all the hours I've donated to his service)--which means he wouldn't be required to name the agency he's working for. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I would say that the Terms of Use do require disclosure of the PR agency and the article-subject and my own business name, which would prohibit me from contributing anonymously entirely. However, as you indicated, I got the impression that this was just poor copyediting due to an overzealous response to Wiki-PR. I didn't think it was ever intended to be used against someone that has disclosed a conflict of interest.

Do you mean to say that my "thank yous" aren't payment enough for your time? ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 02:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes the FAQ needs its own FAQ. Here's the salient sentence: "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." - MrX 02:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• The way CorporateM has summarized this is disturbing. First, I haven't "focused [my] efforts on finding additional negative information to add to the page." I've pointed out to CM, as has Doc James, that a Cochrane report concluded that there is insufficient information available for them to reach a conclusion about Invisalign's efficacy. This is clearly stated in the review's conclusion.

That apart, CM has been hired by a PR firm to rewrite the article. He has completed, or almost completed, the rewrite, which he had two other editors add for him. He has not disclosed who he is working for, but the terms of use require this (see WP:PAYDISCLOSE:

As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

I have asked CM to abide by the terms of use. This came to my attention, by the way, because he was edit-warring with Doc James. He ought not to be editing the article directly, and getting into battles with a medical expert on a health-related article is not a good idea. Sarah ^(talk) 02:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• The Terms of Use are fairly clear on this topic. CM is obligated to disclose the information he objects to disclosing if he wishes to edit for pay on Wikimedia projects (other than Commons and...I think maybe Russian Wikipedia? Something like that). The choice is to disclose or to not edit in a manner that requires disclosure; while I'm sympathetic to CM feeling put-upon by this, it's really not much to ask that the community be made aware of what, exactly, the relevant COI is if someone wants us to give them the extraordinary level of trust involved in letting them edit on behalf of article subjects. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) ETA (to clarify): Employer, client, and affiliation can all be different, and thus be different COIs. If I work for PR Agency Y, which is hired by Social Media Company X, to run an ad campaign on behalf of Corporation Z, each step in that chain is relevant to the community's ability to evaluate my work for any COI about Y, X, or Z. Just saying "I have a COI" or "I work for PR Agency Y" or even "I'm editing on behalf of Z" doesn't give us enough information to figure out where all/any issues might be arising in the edits. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that there is anything unclear here. The ToU require that you disclose all three "employer, client, *and* affiliation" (my emphasis). Of course if there is only the employer involved, then all you need to declare is the employer, but the PR firm is involved in this - you are affiliated with them if you accept direction from them, or you direct them, or even if you just report to the employer together. "Affiliation" is a very broad term, and we must assume that the WMF put it in the ToU intentionally. We cannot change this rule or interpret this how we feel is "fairest." We must interpret it in the most straight-forward way. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go in a slightly different direction. Our enforcement of the paid editing aspects of the ToU is erratic at best, and in practice I think the focus should be on keeping to the intent rather than the letter. We also need to balance privacy issues with disclosure. Personally, I'd be extremely happy to see clearly stated disclosures somewhere where people will actually see them, denoting that there is a paid editing COI and the nature of the COI, and if that was there I would care a lot less about knowing the client's name.

With that said, unless WP forms a clear policy on how to handle the ToU, it is going to be difficult to argue that people should enforce some aspects and not others. (Noting that it has proven hard enough to get a consistent idea on how it enforce it in the first place). - Bilby (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Foundation's terms of use FAQ is clear about this issue: "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." See m:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure, point 1.8. Sarah ^(talk) 06:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I know the ToU backwards. :) My problem is that we are doing a poor job of implementing it, and the community has some radically different ideas (all the way to ArbCom) about how we should enforce it, if at all. In that scenario, I can't recommend that people ignore the ToU, but I'd like to at least be following the intent if we fail at the letter.

The question for us is how to balance our long-held principle of not requiring outing of editors and respecting their privacy, while still meeting our needs for disclosure of paid editing. I'm worried that people willing to do everything they can to meet the ToU while still retaining some privacy will get burnt, while those who ignore the ToU terms completely get away with no sanctions at all. - Bilby (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Full disclosure required per SV, Fluffernutter and Smallbones. The TOU is straightforward and clear, and that it might interfere with a particular editor's particular situation is irrelevant. CorporateM, you brought this here despite knowing precisely what the TOU says, which implies that you're looking for a personal pass on the policy. I suggest that is inappropriate, that you disclose it all per the TOU, and return to what I am assured is your excellent work for the project. BMK (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• As above, really. I can only advise you that if you feel that revealing the client's name will in some way compromise them, that you decline the work. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Full disclosure can be, 'Subject's PR firm' I don't agree with several others. The Statement "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." is fulfilled by specifically identifying the client and stating that you are hired by "their PR firm" - that "identifies the PR firm", sufficient to fulfill the TOU obligation. Fluffernutter, who I usually agree with is only correct that we would have to know the name of the PR firm, if the user is hired to edit the article on the PR firm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• WRT the issue at hand full disclosure is required. They need to state both the PR firm and the subject paying the PR firm (some may have multiple PR firms working for them). Corporate's statements above raise additional concerns of competence and promotional editing. CorporateM states "she cited a source where all the information on Invisalign was positive" Now lets look at the conclusions of the source in question "this review has revealed that there was no evidence from RCTs to show that one intervention was superior to another". How is that a positive conclusion?

Corporate raises the concern of bullying as to why they should be exempt from the terms of use. As someone who has had 300 of their colleagues emailed by paid editors. And had tweets send to their university stating they should reprimand for their work on electronic cigarettes I sympathise. But Corporate your editing is not on your own behalf but on behalf of someone else. We the community deserve to know who is paying for your efforts so that we can appropriately address your edits. Our readers deserve to know aswell. Should CorporateM be banned from paid editing if they decide not to disclose? I would say yes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And if they are banned, then does that solve the problem? And by the problem, I mean, of bad apples doing paid editing without disclosing who is paying them the money. CorporateM is getting paid by TopicOfArticle, in most cases. That the money CorporateM is getting, comes via their employer the HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, is an additional factoid, sure. Do we also wish to know, as further additional factoids, what specific banking institution, is cutting the cheques here, since the money is quite literally in reality coming from the bank of the TopicOfTheArticle, and thence to the bank of HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, and thence to the bank of the editor known hereabouts as CorporateM? It is perfectly legal for wikipedia ToU to demand disclosure of the routing numbers, of all the connected bank accounts, although obviously it would not be ethical. The three banks ... or more or fewer as the case may be ... are just financial service organizations, and their legal names and physical addresses and routing numbers and other such factoids have no impact whatsoever, upon the nature of the COI editing under discussion here. The editing is COI, because TopicOfTheArticle is shelling out money, period.

    The reason to demand the disclosure of HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, one may presume, is on the suspicion -- without evidence -- that maybe just maybe CorporateM is sekritly organizing a meatpuppet army, and if we force disclosure of the HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, we can then easily find all of CorporateM's co-workers, since they also are forced to disclose! Brilliant! Insert sarcastic comment about how well that scheme will work in practice, to actually wiki-apprehend bad apples running meatpuppet-farms. That said, you most definitely are correct that if we are to force disclosure of the employer, the specific name of the employer is very much needed -- just saying something vague like "the PR firm hired by TopicOfTheArticle" is not enough to count as full disclosure, because in some cases there are more than one PR firm working with a given company, and more pertinently, over time there are almost certainly going to be multiple sequential PR firms working therewith. The question is, do we as wikipedians *need* to know the specific name (and from there the specific legal physical address via governmental filings that all corporations must file) of the HypotheticalSmallPrFirm which is the employer or CorporateM, or is it enough to know that the people paying the bills are TopicOfTheArticle, and the means with which those USD-or-Euro-equivalents are transmitted from the pockets of TopicOfTheArticle, to the pockets of CorporateM, are irrelevant? I suggest the latter, but the ToU as currently written requires the former. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• What material difference does it make whether we know the name of this PR firm, if we know that their work is being paid for by the subject of the article? I feel like we have an editor who is doing this the right way - as those good articles will attest - and we're shitting on them all the same. I don't dispute that the Terms of Use require full disclosure. Rather, I'm saying that in this case they are harming the encyclopedia by getting rid of what appears to be a good editor who is committed to following our policies and creating good content. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Full disclosure required. How the heck is this even a question? It's the Terms of Use. It is the legal agreement you agree to follow in order to use the site. It says you need to disclose. Your options are disclose or leave. Pick one. If you have a problem with those being the only options, you should be talking to the legal team, not to miscellaneous Wikipedians who are not in any way, shape or form, as a group or individually, qualified to introduce exceptions to a legal policy. This is, honestly, baffling. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• I have my own COI here, because I offered to be CorporateM's mentor through WP:Cooperation several years ago. I did so because CM was completely transparent about his intentions and (uniquely) asked for guidance on how to do this ethically. While our mentor/mentee relationship has been completed, I still feel a sense of responsibility (sort of as an older brother) for his growth in the project. During our association, the user has consistently demonstrated willingness to follow 5P, policies and guidelines and when seeing a contradiction, has always asked for guidance from the community, as he has in this thread. He has found his own way on the tightrope called the bright line, and is widely respected because he has not abused the privilege. It could be reasonably argued that CM wears the whitest hat of all paid editors on Wikipedia. I say all this not for any special handling, but to give context to his request in this thread. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Three issues here:

• 1. In a way, Wikipedia's (and the foundation's) rules for COI and paid editing have grown up around CorporateM. The ToU FAQ linked above is fifteen months old; CM has been editing in a paid capacity for much longer. His request here today (as noted by Bilby and Alanscottwalker above) is about balancing the ToU need for personal privacy with the ToU need for full disclosure. This is important not just to CM, but to Wikipedia. If the community makes it impossible for an honest COI editor to function under the ToU, then we're encouraging such editors to participate without full disclosure (as I suspect the vast majority of paid advocates usually do). BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is saying that CorporateM is a black hat or that he has bad intentions. But I also don't think the choice is between asking paid editors to disclose (and keep editing) or to lie to us (and keep editing). We can't stop paid editors lying to us, and I don't doubt that there are many doing so, but the ToU are in place so that if a paid editor does lie to us by failing to disclose the required information, we can revoke their ability to keep editing on that basis. That would be a loss to the project in CM's case, but the choice is the paid editor's: disclose, stop editing because you value your privacy more than your ability to accept money for edits, or don't disclose and know that when someone notices, you will lose your editing privileges and/or be restricted in some way (and thus lose at least some of your ability to accept money for edits). Either of the first two choices are entirely valid and I wouldn't blame anyone for making the second; the third choice is the road you go down if you decide you're not bound by the ToU we all agree to by using the site. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I disclose a great deal more than Corprate does and I do not accept money for editing. It is not a high bar we are requesting they meet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• 2. There are many acceptable forms which balance the need for privacy with the need for disclosure. If I create a new alt account but wish to keep it off my user page for one legitimate reason or another, disclosing to a checkuser or arb is sufficient to stay within policy. When for whatever reason the foundation needs an editor to self-identify, we do it directly, not publicly. When we're dealing with BLP issues, an OTRS ticket is sufficient documentation the subject has given input. For copyright issues, an OTRS ticket can document permission from rights holders. In this case, I believe a disclosure statement (possibly through OTRS) stating complete information has been given to a responsible party (like ARBCOM or the WMF) could suffice to meet ToU. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions". "Telling arbcom" is not on that list; every single part of that list has one thing in common and that is that the disclosure is public. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• 3. As to the conflict between a paid editor and MEDRS issues, I'll decline to advocate CM's position. I've been wondering when such an issue would arise. It was inevitable some client would put the paid editor in a position where the company's need for precision conflicted with existing medical documentation. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "need for precision conflicted with existing medical documentation"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in responding. I may have used imprecise language myself. I intended to say something along the lines of "the client's desired language versus the language used in independent peer-reviewed studies". BusterD (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The official WMF FAQ says it is sufficient to say "I work for (company)" which makes sense, Asking for precise personal details about anyone is a violation of WP:OUTING as we all know. And if the WMF example is that straightforward, so the answer here should be. [1] " For example, before saving your edits to a Wikipedia article about your client, X, you may write this note in the edit summary box: "X has hired me to update their Wikipedia article" or "I work for X."" which clearly does not say that you need do more to identify what the exact COI might be.

The WP guideline states specifically: When investigating COI editing, be careful not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. Which emphasizes that editors cannot ask for any information which would be remotely connected to "outing" anyone. The WP specifies: Paid editors are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to declare their conflict of interest, along with the name of their employer or client which also accords with the WMF example of saying "I work for X" as being sufficient.

Folks who try saying "you must tell me who you work for, where you work, what your exact job description is, who the client is" or the like are specifically and absolutely in violation of WP:OUTING as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What we are asking for is CorporateM to state who is paying him for the article Invisalign. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

He clearly identified the company as "Align Technology" in case you missed it. " have a conflict of interest with Invisalign in that I'll be working with Align Technology' and their PR agency to help improve the article " fully complies with the WMF FAQ statement - and was posted 9 January 2014. What more did you wish to have? Collect (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The name of the PR firm was requested. I guess the question is is this one of the PR firms that has been banned from Wikipedia? And if so is them hiring CorporateM okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Where the FAQ contradicts the Terms of Use, it's likely that the TOU applies, not the FAQ. The FAQs are really shitty, but the Terms of Use are pretty unambiguous in that you need to specify employer and client, not employer or client. WilyD 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a degree of irony here, in that we have thousands upon thousands of socks here who add articles all day long then disappear to create new socks to maintain, all without disclosure, yet we have CorpM, who has been been an good Wikipedian in many ways, contributing all over the place, not just where he is paid, and we enforce the rules on him and not the socks. This isn't intentional, but clearly the TOU is such that it encourages hit and run sockpuppetry and discourages occasional paid editing by worthwhile editors who really want to be a positive part of the community. I don't think anyone demanding disclosure is being unreasonable or acting outside of the TOU at all, but the TOU itself is fatally flawed in that it tempts editors, almost forcefully, to instead be bad members of the community instead of good. And now the shortsightedness (to which I've been an unwilling party to in the past, too many times) comes back to bite us yet again. Socking is very easy to do, and now we are tempting CorpM to become an expert at it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(EC)It really is irrelevant unless you want to try to change this part of the ToU in the specified manner (e.g. notify WMF first that you are trying to modify the ToU). The ToU exist and trump all other policies, and we can only try to change them in a very specific manner (e.g. not here). I don't believe that the ToU contradict our policy on Outing (it's voluntary whether to be a paid editor after all, the ToU only state a few minimum requirements of what you have to do if you want to be a paid editor). But if the Outing policy and the ToU did contradict each other, the Outing policy would have to change.

Taken out of context, it might seem that the ToU causes some strange situations involving other rules. But I believe that the ToU are a rock. They stop some things head-on. They also might get in the way of doing certain things, but can be avoided with a bit of contortion. If the contortion seems bizarre, that is not the fault of the ToU, it is the fault of the contortionist. If people fail to follow our rules, that is not a reason to revoke the rules.

CorporateM now has a choice. He can follow the advice overwhelmingly given here, or he can stop paid editing, or he might even be able to go to WMF legal and request a waiver. (I do believe that the WMF has the power to give such a waiver, or at least to ignore what they consider petty violations of the ToU; but I don't think they would give a waiver in this case). Going to WMF legal works both ways of course. Any editor could go to WMF legal and request that the ToU be enforced in this case, which likely would result in CorpM backing down, or even being banned. I won't make such a request, but there's nothing we can do to stop somebody else from doing it. It's CorpM's choice. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh.... Smallbones, quite obviously the recent change to the ToU is causing CorporateM to be forced into a choice. That's not a "choice" in the language used on this particular enWiki website, unless you count Hobson's choice. But in fact, the most likely outcome is that CorporateM will be forced -- not by choice but by the newly-revised ToU -- into creating a Delaware-based holding corporation, which does not disclose investors, and which is legally the property of the one-person PR firm which actually employs CorporateM. Thenceforth, the human known here as CorporateM can say, with a straight face, that they are "an employee of PrivacyProtectionShimCorp, working for client NameOfThisArticle" ... all without ever revealing their real-life identity. If you think this is hypothetical, please be aware that I've seen this happen all the time in political situations: major megadonor wants to contribute to the campaign, but FEC requires all donations above $200 to include name of megadonor and name of megadonor's employer, so instead of donating directly to campaign in question, megadonor has their lawyers fill out the paperwork for a shell-corp, and then the donation is made in the name of said shell-corp. Similarly, many (and I mean MANY MANY) presidential campaigns use "nonprofit foundations" with no donor-disclosure requirements, as a loophole for skirting FEC regulations. Wikipedia's new ToU is encouraging socking, either in the traditional sense of using multiple usernames without disclosing the linkage between them, or more likely in my estimation, in the shell-corp-as-a-privacy-protection-sockpuppet sense. As was noted by Dennis Brown, the new WMF regulation is (much like the FEC regulation) simply going to punish the good apples like CorporateM, whilst the bad apples -- who already have sockfarms and already regularly violate the ToU and the five pillars with impunity -- could care less about the latest wiki-rule. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course, this whole discussion has one fatal flaw - this is a ToU issue, so it's up to the WMF to decide, nor for us lot. Ping User:Philippe (WMF) Mdann52 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think that everybody would prefer that we take care of it ourselves. And we do have the power to enforce the WP:TOU since they are Wikipedia policy. Of course the WMF also has the power to enforce the ToU. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we do not have the power to introduce an exemption, and that is what CorporateM is asking for. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Full disclosure is required. According to the terms of use, this includes naming "employer, client, and affiliation". In the case at hand, the terms of use require CorporateM to disclose his employer (the PR firm in question), the client (which hired the PR firm), and his affiliation (as a paid editor). All three are required. The focus on "outing" is really misguided here. "Outing", in Wikipedia-speak, refers to the involuntary posting of personal information. In this case, it is completely voluntary for CorporateM to act as a paid editor. He can choose not to do so, in which case no personal information is required. Equating his ethical responsibility to disclose his employer with involuntary "outing" is just ridiculous.

  To be more blunt: if he's comfortable enough to cash a PR firm's checks, then he needs to be comfortable enough to disclose their name. Conversely, if he's not comfortable disclosing the name of his employer, then he can't edit Wikipedia on their behalf. This is not a major imposition, and in any case there is no Creator-endowed right to edit Wikipedia for pay while refusing to disclose the name of one's employer (quite the opposite). MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Questionable editing by CorporateM

I have had issues with USer:CorporateM's editing over the last couple of weeks. This includes WP:Canvassing and attempts to brush over the best available evidence and replace it with expert opinion.

WRT canvassing

• Aug 8 5:33 CorporateM asks a single editor for "help" on a RfC I replied that while it is okay to notify an entire project, notifying a single editor is not kosher
• Aug 14 22:40 they did the same thing. They requested a single editor help them out and provided that editor with their prefered version of the article.

Their prefered version places the lower quality evidence first and leaves out / poorly presents the most recent systematic review. As canvassing was not effective they appear to next try to denigrate the best available evidence by covering it in tags.

• 04:12 Aug 15 CorporateM tags the most recent systematic review we were aware of and tagging the conclusions of the best available research as undue.
• On Aug 15 16:39 I removed these tags as they appear to be an attempt to denigrate the best available literature. While there are newer reviews, commented on, these are not systematic reviews.
• I questioned these tags on the talk page Aug 15, 16:42 [2] to which Corprate replied at 17:55 stating these tags were "annotation"
• Aug 15, 17:56 they tagged the review again
• Aug 15, 18:20 I removed these tags again and commented further on talk [3] All they needed to do was provide a newer systematic review.
• Instead on Aug 15, 18:26 they re added the tags and stopped responded on talk.

I left them a edit warring notice after which they started a 3RR which got the article protected.

P.S. I added the prior systematic review in Jan of 2015. We now have a new systematic review on pubmed which comes to the same conclusions as the last one "The quality level of the studies was not sufficient to draw any evidence-based conclusions." The prior issue should thus be solved. But the concern I have is one of behavior. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Re: canvassing accusations. I replied on my talk page: "CorporateM works by asking editors to review and approve content he's suggested / written, so that he doesn't violate COI policies adding potentially promotional or problematic content by himself. I've reviewed many of his contributions these past years, and he has taken to directly asking me if the requested edits template is taking a long time (several months) or if something requires more than adding a single sentence. I don't find this canvassing, but rather asking for help to do something which our policies suggest he'd best avoid doing himself."

I read and review things he has requested I look at as a neutral party, and my previous interactions with him allow WP:APPNOTE exceptions ("On the user talk pages of concerned editors. ... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"; i.e. his possible COI areas). He asked me to write neutral content for the article ("I know it's a big ask, but I thought if you had some time to spend doing this last leg of the article, it would be a huge help to all parties involved.") similar to what I had done on a previous situation. That is all. It's not canvassing.

I refused to write said content not because of his COI (in fact, I didn't notice the link to User:CorporateM/Invisalign until now), but because I am uncomfortable writing about medical issues. I firmly believe that if editors interested in the article discuss things, they can work everything out. I have no comment on the appropriateness of reversions, on either side. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed at the edit-warring board. The article said "As of 2005," whereas there were sources on the Talk page to say "As of 2014". I tagged "As of 2005" with a "needs updating" and mentioned on Talk that there were several sources that could be used to update this to "As of 2014". I'm sorry that I reverted, but I was very frustrated by Doc's extensive efforts to prevent me from even being able to communicate such a trivial issue and prevent any contributions from me that would alter the version he wrote.

Just to be clear nobody is contesting that the last systematic review was "inconclusive", but Doc's contributions make it sound like an alt-med article. A professional in a related field verified that dentists require a lower barrier of evidence than real medicine and the sources do say that Invisalign is proven effective for certain types of cases, but is less effective than braces in some other cases. Also, that review is ten years old. This is a product that relies heavily on computer technology and ten years ago people were using floppy drives still. I don't think it should be the only thing in the lead to summarize the entire body of medical literature.

There are literally only three MEDRS sources published in the last five years, per WP:MEDDATE. If anyone wants to get involved in the article itself, I'd really encourage you to take a look at those sources. Since there are literally just three sources, it wouldn't be hard to just read three articles, add their contents to the article and get a sense of what's representative of all three. CorporateM (Talk) 16:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

References

So you are stating that dentistry does not need to follow "evidence based" science? That when a systematic review concludes that there is no high quality evidence to support something, because that something is dentistry it is no longer significant and we should just include what "expert opinion" has claimed?

Alt med practitioners have also argued that they should not be held to evidence based standards but I disagree with you that the majority of dental practitioners would make this request for their profession. Some dental measures are supported by the highest quality evidence such as powered toothbrushes.[4] Stating when a measure does not have high level support is something we do equally for medical, dental and alt med topics. Just because something does not have high level support does not mean that we should not do it. But we should at least know it does not have high level evidence supporting it when we do.

Corporate is attempting to misuse WP:MEDDATE. In a poorly research areas such as this we still include older high quality sources. We specifically say "A newer source which is of lower quality does not necessarily supersede an older source of higher quality."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe if someone compares the recent medical literature to the article they would find that the article needs further expansion to meet GA requirements for comprehension and is unfair. I want to encourage people to actually read the sources and make bold edits. We need more editors to get involved in the article in a sustained and in-depth manner. I don't oppose the inclusion of the 2005 item, which is mentioned in current medical literature from 2014 (hence "As of 2014" rather than "As of 2005"). I disagree with it being the only thing included to the exclusion of all else. I don't think the sources require a medical professional to interpret. CorporateM (Talk) 16:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, what are your medical credentials? Doc James is a doctor and a long-standing contributor to our medicine articles. I think you might do yourself a favour by taking on board the Doc's comments, because he (unlike you) does not actually have a dog in this fight. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

He has a very strong opinion about paid editing and most of his editing on this page appears to be driven by that. Again, I want to encourage folks to read the sources and edit boldly! There is so much emphasis on wanting to prove that paid editing is bad or this myth that I'm trying to censor the 2005 item. I want to encourage editors as strongly as I possibly could to just read the sources. Please read the sources! Read them! Please!

Edit boldly, add their information objectively and completely. Then from your opinion after reading the sources for yourself. This shouldn't be a competition for whos reputation is better than the other. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Before this recent interaction I did not really have an opinion on disclosed paid editing. Your attempts to dissuade me from editing the article are not appreciated.[5]

That you state that "most of his editing on this page appears to be driven" by his position on paid editing is bollocks. In my initially edits I added a Cochrane review that was missing. I added the most recent systematic review at that time. I added a 2014 review of the literature. At the same time I removed a bunch of primary sources. This is what I do on thousands of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference all the MEDRS sources published in the last five years are here:

• Y, Yu; Al., Et (November 9, 2012). "Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment. - PubMed". NCBI. Retrieved August 10, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Malik, Ovals; McMullin, Allbhe; Waring, David (April 2013). "Invisible Orthodontics Part 1: Invisalign" (PDF). Dental Update. PMID 23767109.
• Kuncio, DA (March 2014). "Invisalign: current guidelines for effective treatment" (PDF). The New York state dental journal. 80 (2): 11–4. PMID 24851387.

I can also provide some older ones, if you feel there is not enough current medical literature and we need to dig older. CorporateM (Talk) 17:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

CM, you're representing yourself here as the only neutral person, when the opposite is true. There are competence issues – understanding certain terms, how to read medical papers, how to use MEDRS, etc. Doc James is trying to make sure the article reflects the high-quality sources. Sarah ^(talk) 17:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I just do not get it. I mentioned a new systematic review that come out in 2014 above and yet CorporateM still claims their are only three reviews? The have ignored my explanation of the difference between a literature review and a systematic review. I have brought up his misuse of WP:MEDDATE which others commented on here and yet they continue just as before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the issues of sourcing, I'm shocked by the spectacle of CorporateM repeatedly reverting Doc James on an article where CorporateM has a financial conflict of interest. According to our guidelines, he should not be editing the article at all, much less revert-warring with an unpaid volunteer. I would have blocked CorporateM if I had seen this happening in real time, and for the avoidance of doubt, I will block him the next time I see something like this happen. It's completely unacceptable. MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Citation for "should not be editing the article at all", please. Even WP:NOPAY says "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral", not "you are forbidden from ...". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

All three of these sources are currently used in the article and nobody has contested their MEDRS compliance. Though someone reading them may have to look up a term or two, they are easy to understand. @MastCell: Please accept my apologies for edit-warring. I was very frustrated by the situation. I will not do it again. It was my understanding that the benefit of COI compliance was AGF, which I did not receive. CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have long had the same concern as Doc James about CorporateM's practice of asking individual editors to review proposed edits. The way this goes is, a request is made, and sometimes an editor decides to implement the proposed edit -- and sometimes the editor decides not to implement the proposed edit. The result is that if CorporateM asks enough editors, eventually he finds someone willing to implement the proposed edit. This business of asking for favours really needs to stop. Form consensus via discussion on the article talk page, and if consensus is present then CorporateM can use the request-edit template. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Another issue that has concerned me is mixing volunteer and paid roles. I've seen CM begin work on an article as a volunteer, make edits of interest to the subject (reverting their COI edits or making edits that they like), then come into contact with the subject off-wiki and start editing on their behalf for pay. This is a difficult practice to negotiate ethically. I would like to see CM not accept a paid role once he has worked on an article as a volunteer. Sarah ^(talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

WMF's position

@Mdann52: said "this is a ToU issue, so it's up to the WMF to decide, nor for us lot. Ping User:Philippe". I pinged Philippe right after starting this string and I hope they will chime in. It is also my understanding that it is not clear whether it is the community's or WMF's responsibility to enforce the Terms of Use. It is the Terms of Use and not a community policy, but it is often brought up as a factor in block discussions. CorporateM (Talk) 16:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Response left on Philippe's talk page by Jacob Rogers. Probably not the answer you were hoping for, CorporateM. And sadly, I think the answer will result in more and more paid editors using socks and deceptive techniques. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Jrogers (WMF) has confirmed that "the Terms of Use are pretty clear on this one. You need to disclose your 'employer, client, and affiliation.' If those three things are different (say you are employed by PR company X, your client is person Y, and you are affiliated with company Z) you would need to disclose all three." [6] Sarah ^(talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not buy the arguement that we should not require proper discloser because if we do people will simply sock. One could apply this sort of rational to all sorts of rules. For example why disallow socking when we have no mechanism to prevent it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say to ignore TOU (and clearly so), I said that increased socking is surely one of the outcomes, whether we like it or not, as it makes it more difficult to be a COI editor in a legitimate way. I'm no doctor, but I've gone 1500 SPI blocks behind me, including 300 in one case alone having to do with with paid editing. The reaction by those with power was enough to make me stop working the cases altogether. We can demand all we want, but it is foolish to pretend there is no negative consequences from the policy, just as it is foolish to think the Foundation really cares about COI socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown yes agree there is a concern of increased socking. And yes we do have a fair number of paid editors that use through away accounts to write promotional articles. Do we know how many legitimate COI editors we have? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a template of some kind that they can use, or would use, so to be honest, I don't think we know how many declared paid editors we have with any precision. The same with socks. I'm conservatively guessing 20k accounts created, but that is probably too low by a mile. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is the end of the line on this question. The community certainly can help enforce Wikipedia policies, and there is no question that WP:TOU are policy. Corp has gone over our heads on this (which is his right) and the answer has come back the same. It's time to invoke WP:PAYTALK and end this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to enforce this, so be it. But more problem is that if we create an environment where it is far more favourable to engage in covert paid editing than it is to try to work within the ToU, we create a situation where we have no hope of ever managing paid editing. Prohibition on its own doesn't work. Control should have been the target. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Control-rather-than-prohibition is the point of the disclosure requirement (at least to my interpretation): we can't stop you from paid editing, and we're not necessarily seeking to ban paid editing, but if you're going to edit for pay, we require you provide us with enough information to neutrally evaluate your paid edits when you make them. If you follow this requirement, your company can send (competent) paid editors to your article and know they're not doing anything wrong. If you don't follow this requirement, your employee will find themselves blocked and you will find yourself with PR disaster on your hands. There's very little potential loss in disclosing a paid editing COI - sure, your edits might get reverted if they're bad quality, but they're just about as likely to be reverted anyway if you fly under the radar, because our patrollers are like that - and a lot of potential loss in being caught not disclosing one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It should absolutely be that way. But no one has adequately explained why the identity of the PR Firm acting as a go-between is relevant, when the fact that the subject is paying the editor for their work is fully and explicitly acknowledged. That is the disclosure that seems most important, and it does not appear to have been lacking here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How do we know if it's irrelevant, if we don't know what the other company/s involved in this is/are? We can't fully evaluate the content he (or any paid editor) is working on to see whether it's neutral with regard to the people paying him to do it if we don't know who the people paying him to do it are. Quite possibly it's irrelevant in this case and nothing CM has done has anything to do with, let's call it Jane Doe, Inc. who's the connection between places like Invisilign and him. But until we have that disclosure, we simply have no way to know if that's the case or not, so we need paid editors to disclose these connections so we're able to identify the cases where it does turn out to be relevant. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Hi All. It does seem clear that the Terms of Use do require disclosure of personally identifiable information and that this was the actual intention of WMF's policy. For the moment, I'm leaning somewhat towards the following plan of action:

• I will update the agreement I have with clients to include that they must be comfortable with their personal information being known and they accept the risk of being harassed or trolled as a result
• I will stop all volunteer editing on company pages or articles where there are commercial interests, so as to avoid the threat of being sued, doxed, harassed, etc. by those companies
• I will speak with my contact in this case about ending our relationship, so as to avoid the requirement and protect them from harassment. Also, because my ongoing participation doesn't seem terribly useful at this point.
• I will disclose more in the future

I'm sorry that this caused a lot of frustration for a lot of people. I'm disappointed that the community feels that information like the real names of people is important in making editorial decisions. I'm especially surprised that there has been so much resistance to using anonymous data like device IDs, IP addresses and analytics to expose sock networks due to privacy concerns, yet I am being asked to disclose real names that expose that individual to a high probability of heckling. We need to work hard to protect Wikipedia's founding principles and anonymity is one of them - eroding these principles is the real way paid editors are damaging Wikipedia.

While I may not like the outcome, I appreciate everyone's time thoughtfully discussing this important issue and accept the result. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like you to be explicit about what you considering disclosing "more" to mean. "More" isn't really the word I would have picked here so much as "everything the ToU require me to disclose", since "more" implies "more than before...but maybe not all". Your agreements with your clients are your business, and you can word it to them however you like, but I would also point out that we're asking you to disclose the names of companies, not, like, stockholders' home addresses. If you work for "Joe RealName, Inc.", then yeah, I guess that technically requires disclosing their personal information, but generally we're looking for "I work for XYZ PR Agency, on behalf of MegaCorp Y", not "here's my bloodtype and mother's maiden name." And again, the agreement here is that if you wish to be given extra trust by the community and allowed to profit off of its work, then you are required to make those disclosures. If you don't wish to profit off the projects, then you're free to be 100% as anonymous as you wish to be. Similarly, companies that sponsor paid editors must decide whether it's more important to them to tweak content to their liking and have disclosed paid editing associated with their articles, or to stay hands-off with content and remain unassociated with Wikipedia editors. Both are ok, but it's their choice they will need to make. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm confused about these references to outing. Align Technology, which makes Invisalign, is a large company. It employs a PR firm. That firm has hired you to rewrite the article. This is business, and you're a PR professional who has written off-wiki about your paid work on Wikipedia. Why would naming the PR firms that pay you entail outing someone? Sarah ^(talk) 18:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, the PR firm is just a single person. Given the contentious nature of the discussion, I believe there is a high probability of her being harassed/trolled off-wiki if disclosed. The whole "big company" thing is a big misnomer. I am also just a single person that does paid editing part-time. I'm a real human being and so is she. CorporateM (Talk) 19:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgive the statement of the obvious, but why can someone who wants to know the PR firm not find out for themselves? It took me all of fifteen seconds on Google to find out who the PR firm in question is. I don't understand the need for secrecy here. ‑ iridescent 19:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, if someone has set up a one-person PR agency and called it "John Smith Ltd," that was their choice. There's no evidence that supplying the firm's name would lead to harassment, and disclosure has been required for over a year. Also, you're writing as though you're a Wikipedian who does some occasional paid work, but you're a PR professional and have always been here as a paid editor. If some of the firms who hire you prefer not to be named, the solution is not to take the work from those companies. Sarah ^(talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course there's no evidence of that. Evaluating the claim would require disclosing the name of the firm, which is precisely what they are trying to avoid - because that would OUT at least the editor and the firm's principal. And, quite frankly, given some of the comments here? No, I don't think that off-wiki harassment is an unreasonable thing to fear. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what is being claimed here. Some of the PR firms that Invisalign has worked with can be found on Google. They are established companies. CM naming the PR firm that hired him is not going to out CM. Sarah ^(talk) 20:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

How would you know? As per below, the company name might be enough to do it. But even if not, it's trivial in many countries to determine who a company's principals are, directors or shareholders or President or whoever. And just like that, his real name and address will show up on some BADSITE and he's outed. It might not be enough of a concern to warrant changes to the Terms of Use, or to policy in other ways, but to say it's not a concern is laughable and offensive. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this misses the point. If his top priority is to avoid being "outed", then he shouldn't be accepting paid editing jobs. If someone is willing to cash a PR agency's check to edit here, then they should be willing to disclose the name of that PR agency. You can't edit for pay and then stand on anonymity to avoid meeting the disclosure requirements. That's a perversion of this site's commitment to anonymity, which was never intended to protect undisclosed paid editing by PR employees. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I was being dense. I saw an editor who disclosed that there was a conflict and seemed, largely, to be doing things the right way (relying on talk ages, etc). I don't get why the name of the PR firm matters at all - the conflict of interest is the subject's, not the go-between. This editor accepted the work and made a good faith effort to comply with their understanding of policy - an understanding that seems to have been flawed, if the consensus here is as clear as it seems. If we intend to require paid editors to reveal their true identities, and thus open themselves up to all of the off-site harassment that our esteemed community is famous for, then we need to be clear about that. Or just ban paid editing, which will not actually end it but just relegate it to editors who can sock effectively, who can be subtle about their edits and avoid suspicion, and who can keep their fucking mouths shut. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Per "so much resistance to using anonymous data like device IDs, IP addresses and analytics to expose sock networks due to privacy concerns" I was not aware there was that much resistance to this. Is this not what checkusers do? Our primary goal here is to write a neutral encyclopdia. We must balance privacy against information required to effectively write said encyclopdia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• "Disclose more" is not specific. The Terms of Use are clear on what you are required to disclose. Either agree that you will disclose that - specifically that, not "more than you currently do" - or this is not a proposed solution. Let me be clear, here; anything other than what the ToU requires is an exemption to the ToU. The community is not qualified nor permitted to grant you that exception. If "more" violates the ToU it's against reason and isn't satisfactory. Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@ CorporateM. When one finds one is trying to swim up hill against a down flowing river of thick (and well thought out) treacle – it could mean, that one is attempting to perform one's PR on the wrong sort of blog. Wikipedia articles - are not the drones you are looking for advertorials.--Aspro (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand the community's position and would like to volunteer to topic ban myself from the Invisalign page. I have also disclosed my real-name and business name on my user page in order to better comply with the Terms of Use and discontinued my financial relationship related to this topic. I also voluntarily accept a topic ban on volunteer editing on any pages that involve a commercial interest in order to address Sarah's concerns about my dual roles as a volunteer and COI contributor and my own concerns about editing company pages from a disclosed account. I promise to follow the letter of the Terms of Use in the future, including disclosing the real names of any people or organizations involved and to be more cautious of WP:COI. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this issue. CorporateM (Talk) 21:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, just to be clear, no one has requested real names. The requirement is that you disclose the name of the PR company that hired you and its client. That will usually be Acme PR and the name of the company the article is about. It will only be in less common cases where no companies are involved that a real name might be exposed, but if you make this clear to the client in advance, it shouldn't be a problem. Sarah ^(talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how a voluntary topic ban from a single article solves the problem, endorsed by the community and confirmed by the WMF, that you have to fully disclose the name of the PR firm as well as the company. You've already edited the article on their behalf, so how does an ex post facto ban fulfill these requirements? Plus, I'm not sure that you're taking on board that you must disclose the information all the time, for every article you are paid to write or edit. Finally, I believe that what you're asking for is essentially an exemption, and the WMF has clearly stated above that we, the community, cannot give you an exemption, only they can. Given all this, I do not see how your suggestion can conceivably be tenable. BMK (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned that CorporateM seems to have gotten a takeaway from this conversation that's very different than what (I think) people were actually saying. He's edited his userpage to say "In August 2015, there was consensus at ANI that Wikipedia's Terms of Use prohibit a sponsored editor from contributing anonymously and I was required to disclose personally identifiable information.". That's...not what this discussion, or the WMF, have concluded. A paid editor needn't disclose their name or other such "personally identifiable information"; what they're required to do is disclose who's paying for the edits they're making, all along the line. I'm actually concerned now that, because CM is so active in paid editing-related discussions, new paid editors are going to look him up, read his interpretation of this discussion on his userpage, and think that they do need to disclose their name, address, or whatever. As an oversighter, I'd rather not have to clean up after that mess. CorporateM, would you please consider re-wording what you've added to your userpage today to make it clear that editors are not required to disclose their own personal details, but rather the "corporate" details of those paying for the edits? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, CM. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The only way that CorporateM's userpage statement can be made to jibe with this discussion is if the one-man PR operation he is attempting very strenuously not to disclose the name of is his own, and bears his name - thus disclosing it would be outing himself. If that is so, then it was exceedingly stupid of him to name his agency after himself, but that deed is sone, and the name needs to be disclosed nevertheless, per WMF, TOU, and the consensus of this discussion. BMK (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you think the company would need to be named after CorporateM. In a number of countries open record laws mean it's often possible to find out who's a shareholder or director of even small businesses. It's sometimes possible to use various mechanisms to try and set up a company with no public connection to you, even in such countries, but while some people may have good reasons for doing so, more commonly it's actually a sign the person is up to no good, so the lack of such isn't particularly surprising. Even without the use of public records, it's fairly common for someone to disclose they are the owner of a certain business in circumstances where it's expected (like when they're looking for clients). And again, companies which don't do so will often be viewed suspiciously. Now the info which may completely out CorporateM wouldn't be on wikipedia, so anyone mentioning it here should be blocked for outing, but it's not clear CorporateM was referring to that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, CM has said that there are three companies involved in this: Align Technology, which makes Invisalign; a PR firm hired by Align Technology, which CM says is a one-woman operation; and CM's PR firm. He says that his own PR firm was hired by the one-woman company, but he won't name it, so we don't know who paid CM to have Invisalign rewritten or why they wanted the rewrite. The question now is what to do with the article. Sarah ^(talk) 17:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So that CorporateM doesn’t lead unpaid WP editors into becoming unpaid PR consultants for his client, we should just delete all his edits and let him start a fresh. He created this issue. As a self proclaimed professional, he should at least familiarised himself with our T&C first and not leave us with the problem of sorting it out for him. --Aspro (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be far safer to delete every article he has ever edited. Best to be sure. Don't forget the siteban. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Extremely opposedto nuking-from-orbit-type suggestions. Although there have been some specific problems mentioned about specific edits on specific articles, I don't believe that the consensus here is for anything as extreme as deleting all of CM's edits, or for site banning him. Just the opposite, in fact, I see a lot of people talking about the good CM has done for the encyclopedia in his non-paid edits, and, in general, about the quality of his paid editing, especially compared to the dreck we get from some PR reps. So radical solutions wouldn't seem to be the answer. However, CM still must follow the terms of use, and if he refuses to do so, an indef block (which I presume would come from WMF, since it's their rule) would be appropriate until he agrees to do so.
  What I am confused by (once again) is why CM's response to this brouhaha was (at least as of this morning when I read his userpage) to out his RL name (which makes it child's play to find his personal PR website) and withdraw from voluntary (i.e. non-paid) editing of the encyclopedia, since this "solution" has solved nothing. If CM continues to get paid for editing he's going to have top disclose all the company names involved, and since he has (in effect) outed his own company name, and the name of the one-woman PR firm takes mere minutes to find online (so one wonders why he was so adamant about protecting it, and his userpage statement seems to be saying that he was protecting the name of his own firm), so what CM has done doesn't appear to me to be a step forward at all -- or else I'm totally misunderstanding what his intention is. BMK (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, the only firm I'm aware of that has done PR for Align Technology is Gold PR, but that's not a one-woman company. [7] Sarah ^(talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Slim Virgin look at this page or this or this or this or a number of other pages and you'll see Ethos Commnications Inc. of Duluth, Georgia. BMK (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well his website is linked from his userpage, so it's not like you have to search to find it. Reading his userpage more carefully, unless I misunderstood, the reason why he doesn't want to continue voluntary editing on certain pages (not the entire encyclopaedia) is because he feels without the protection of anonymity, he risks too much effect on his real life from his voluntary efforts. (And once he disclosed the company name, the nature of the company meant his real name would be known, so there was little point hiding it.) So from his POV, it does solve something, it removes the, in his opinion, excessive risk he'll be harmed solely due to voluntary efforts. He may still have some degree of risk due to his paid work, I presume he's willing to accept that risk as an expected part of his job. Similarly, the risk for other areas is I presume in his opinion low enough that he's willing to accept it. As for his failure to disclose the PR firm/s who hired him on behalf of other companies in the past, I do agree it's up to the WMF to decide whether they want to ban him for it. Perhaps they will, perhaps they'll feel given the apparent misunderstanding of the requirement, according to him partially a result of some previous communication with the WMF, and his existing partial disclosure, they'll let it be provided he practices full disclosure from now on. If they chose the later, and the community here accepts that, then it seems we have a solution, perhaps not a happy one for many, but sufficient. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• CorporateM, I appreciate that you are a good guy trying to do the right thing. So was Greg Kohs, but that's another story for another day. What the TOU seeks is transparency with respect to paid editing. So, yeah, who are you, who is she, and let uninvolved editors (who are not assholes trying to drum paid editing out of existence — take a number if this applies to you) review your work dispassionately to make sure that no spam has been committed. Does it increase risk of reprisal by said assholes? Yes, sadly — let us deal with them if problems arise. But the rules are very simple: disclose fully, openly, honestly. best, —Tim Davenport, 5010 NW Shasta, Corvallis, OR 97330 /// 541-745-7862 //// Carrite (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is we actually have really little ability to actual deal with them. We aren't some sort of criminal gang in a lawless country who can kill anyone who does something we don't like. All we can really do is ban the stuff from here (which doesn't help when it's elsewhere), offer legal support (which doesn't negate most of the negative effects on your life whatever it is has) and express sympathy (see earlier). Different people may have different tolerances and perceptions of these risks. It seems CorporateM is willing to disclose the info, albeit with reductions in voluntary work given their perception of the risks that come from such work without anonymity. However they're still reluctant to disclose the PR firms that hired them to work on behalf of the disclosed companies. I presume this is because they're reluctant to expose these people to the possible risks of such disclosures (which frankly we have even less ability to affect), when then weren't made aware that this would be happening when they initially hired CorporateM's firm (unlike future firms who will be made aware). If this doesn't change, the WMF should decide if this is acceptable. I think most of us agree that CM and any firms hiring him should have paid more attention to the TOS, but that still leaves open the question of what to do now. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

For some of the folks puzzled by CM not retroactively disclosing the name of some of the PR firms involved, this may be outside of the realm of their personal experience, but it is very likely that this is due to contractual terms he had signed with his clients including confidentiality requirements. Which means that if he's trying to do the right thing, he's currently talking to them to rectify the situation in order to comply. That takes time. The random assorted ANI crowd is ill-equipped to handle this, which should be, at this point, a WMF matter. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, if there's any way we could become a lawless gang who can kill anyone who does something we don't like, I'd be all for that‍—‌with appropriate policies and guidelines in place, of course. EEng (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: I disagree that Kohs was a good guy trying to do the right thing. He saw Wikipedia and his first thought appears to have been: "how can I make money from this". I do not think CorporateM is the same. Apart fomr anythign else, I don't see CorporateM trying to get the project's charitable status revoked if he doesn't get what he wants. I do not see the two as similar. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If you actually do the digging, Greg came up with the idea of paid editing — taking money to help those not capable or not willing to navigate the markup language or the culture to establish pages — and was rewarded for his efforts to find out how to do things the right way with a ban at the hands of Jimmy Wales himself. This has evolved into a Hatfields v. McCoys feud with JW that has lasted for going on a decade and will finally end when one of them eats one too many corndogs and croaks it. It was a lost opportunity. Kohs back then and CorporateM now are exactly the same in the way they are trying to do the right thing and bumping into immovable objects in the process. Of course, Kohs has been driven underground — those who think he doesn't edit at WP are idiots. He does and you don't notice because he minds things like sourcing and NPOV. As long as we have instant accounts for anyone with a click of the fingers, this is always going to be an option for paid editors who want to do the right thing but can't because of the blinkered dipshits who want to drive paid editing away with a stick. News flash: you can either be reasonable and negotiate content with declared paid editors or they will move underground and you won't have the opportunity to negotiate. You wanna change that world? End IP editing and make registration at least a little difficult — I'm on that train. Until then: a little reality, please. Kohs is a good guy. I like him. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Corporate should not be forced to identify his employer - you say the issue is he is editing on behalf of someone else so therefore he must disclose who that is. Why? People who edit on behalf of themselves do not have to tell you who they are or what their motives are, so what difference does it make? As long as he discloses a conflict of interest on that subject, his employer and the company that hired are worthless. Demanding this information as policy is only going to result with paid editors who, unlike Corporate, do not ever reveal a COI. Is that what you want? Be realistic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake, your argument is silly. Read the TOU, please. BMK (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• The TOU are laughable. Say I'm a paid editor. I will disclose I work for Acme Public Relations and we were hired by John Smith and Jane Doe. There you go. It's bullshit but I've now complied with the TOU! —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Closure

CorporateM appears to have recused himself from Invisalign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I propose that the community endorse this voluntary topic ban, which I see as gentlemanly conduct, thus this issue is closed.

• Proposed. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Well, there's nothing wrong with his having recused himself from future edits, except that it doesn't solve the problem which he himself raised at the start of the thread, and he still hasn't done the required full disclosure for the edits on the article he's already done. Given that, I'm not sure that closure is where we're at. CM brought his question here hoping for one answer, got another he didn't want, and then "solved" the problem by actions which do not appear to have fulfilled the requirements of that answer. I'm confused by that, and would like to hear more from him as to what the rationale for his "solution" is, and what he plans to do going forward. I'm not denigrating his contributions to the project, nor am I accusing him of anything nefarious, I simply do not understand why he did what he did, and why he isn't doing what seems (at least to me) to be the clear requirement for an editor in his position. BMK (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  I simply do not understand why he did what he did, and why he isn't doing what seems (at least to me) to be the clear requirement for an editor in his position - most probably because he is bound by contractual terms that prevent him from doing so, which would mean he needs time to amend those with his clients, and may not be at liberty to discuss it with the ANI peanut gallery until it is done. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  If so, it perfectly illustrates the problem with paid editing: conflicting loyalties. In any case, what is to prevent him from saying exactly what you just said? BMK (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

True, but that does not mean we have to play the game of immoveable object v. irresistable force - CorporateM now understands the issue and will fix the issue for this article by walking away. Problem solved, IMO. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The policy is stupid. If the edit would otherwise be allowed under the rules, who cares if it's being done for someone else? Apparently entirely too many people with nothing better to do. Jtrainor (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse (as uninvolved users were requested)- there's no way to resolve the issue otherwise, and the rest will work itself out. The reason we're not a suitable source for citation for papers is because things are constantly changing here. We just don't like for it to take time; we want what we want and we want it NOW!! (or yesterday). Therefore, any issues there are now will work themselves out over time. We seem to think that what we write is set in stone, always accurate, and should be relied upon as legitimate advice, when in reality we don't make that claim and never have. MSJapan (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• No Endorse - I am uninvolved in this particular mess, so I'll give my views, which I have expressed elsewhere. The Terms of Use are the ultimate law here. Paid editing is an abomination and I don't buy the argument that we have to endure it or the paid editors will go underground. If they do, the WMF should apply enforcement. Is this an encyclopedia, or a Public Relations website? Jusdafax 10:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  Why is paid editing an abomination? The idea here is to build an encyclopedia, and that encyclopedia should abide by WP:5P, including neutrality. If paid editing helps towards that goal (including the neutrality aspect) then it is a benefit, not a hindrance. Money is changing hands, but our encyclopedia gets extra stuff for free. What is an abomination, of course, is POV pushing, marketing, and attempts by companies and individuals to falsely paint themselves in a better light than is backed up by reliable sources. As long as the COI editor discloses fully who he or she is working for, and what the nature of the COI is, on every page edited in a COI manner, so that other editors can monitor it, then I have no problem with it.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes and No. I'm certainly fine with endorsing the topic ban from Invisalign, but I don't think that being instituted actually provides closure regarding the topic of the original thread, which was "Does CM have to disclose what the ToU say he has to disclose with regard to the work he has done/is doing?" Now, he's said that going forward, he will provide all relevant disclosures, so that part of it can be put to bed, but I am still a little concerned about the lack of disclosures thus far. Not believing the ToU applied to you is not an excuse to not have followed them, nor is it an excuse for not going back to bring your work up to the ToU's disclosure standards. I would vastly prefer that CM go back and disclose all required disclosure details to any paid edits he has made since the ToU were instituted and/or they began to apply to him. On the other hand, I understand that he may have mistakenly given privacy guarantees to his clients, and that to provide these disclosures now may harm his business. I dislike the idea of real-world harming someone who was trying to play by our rules, even if they messed it up.

  So it seems to me we have a couple of options here, with regard to the partially-undisclosed work CM has done in the past: we can ignore it, extending him one-time amnesty for this failure with the understanding he will disclose in his work going forward; we can require him to go back and provide all relevant disclosures, which may have the effect of making him choose between onwiki sanctions (for not cooperating with a requirement to do so) and real-world ones (for breaking contracts with his clients); or we can require that CM provide retroactive disclosures where he is contractually able to do so, and that he attempt to negotiate permission to do so in cases where he currently can't, and then we can extend him the good faith of forgiving any past disclosures he remains unable to make after doing those two things. If, after that, people wish to attempt to use onwiki processes to deal with articles he can't fully disclose on, that's up to the community (but I suspect it would ultimately be unsuccessful, as CM's work is generally pretty good otherwise). The last option seems like the best balance to me: CM owes the community at least his best attempt to provide ToU-compliant disclosure on all his paid work, but mistakes happen and I would rather have someone commit to not making the same mistake in the future than eliminate them and their future, non-mistaken work from the project. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It wrong to suppose that CorportaeM has been "Not believing the ToU applied" to him. CorporateM explained in April "I explicitly and knowingly do not comply with the requirement to disclose any marketing agencies involved, when there is one.". See User talk:CorporateM/Archive 20#COI declarations and ToU. Thincat (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I...what...ok, wow. That puts a different spin on things; I have been operating on the assumption that - and CM's initial statement in this thread certainly implied that - he believed he wasn't required to disclose what he wasn't disclosing. I'm much less willing to extend amnesty to someone who consciously chose to not follow what they knew to be the rules. If he was writing contracts guaranteeing confidentiality while knowing he was misleading his clients about Wikipedia's Terms of Use, it's not the community's responsibility to bend over backwards to keep him from the consequences of his own choices. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, can you comment here, please? Sarah ^(talk) 20:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I believe somewhere in this string I explained that I knew I was violating the technical letter of the Terms of Use, but the feedback I got from Wikipedians and a WMF staffer when the ToU were created was that common sense was triumphant; that since my disclosure did not fall under "deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation" that the ToU were intended to prevent, that this was fine. Astroturfing firms have sometimes used privacy arguments to justify their tactics and I have always argued that there is a way to protect privacy/confidentiality, while also avoiding the deception the ToU are referring to. It seems sentiment has changed.

It is very frustrating to participate in a discussion in which I have strong views, but discussion is not going my way and I have no intention in endlessly arguing in my defense. I'm moving on. CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I honestly don't understand why Corporate M is so worried about his identity being disclosed. Unless I'm hallucinating, he's attended WMF sponsored events under his real name, and I'm pretty sure he's openly written about and been on podcasts (such as Wikipedia Weekly) under his real name. I can't imagine what harm would come from requiring him to disclose? Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin, the issue is that CM doesn't want to say who is paying him to edit. CorporateM, thank you for the response. The problem is that you're working on articles (e.g. Yelp) after saying there is a COI but without specifying the nature of it. You've said elsewhere that this might mean you're being paid, or are doing what you've called pro bono work, or have some other association, so it leaves people none the wiser. The question here is whether you're willing to say who is paying you to work on the articles you accept payment for. Sarah ^(talk) 22:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, yeah, I misread the initial worry as his name versus his client's name. Disclosure of client's names certainly seem to be necessary, especially since presumably politicians will be involved in paid editing sooner or later (to the extent that they aren't already,) it really does seem that disclosure of the actual client is required. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: The case in question is an example where I disclosed having a financial connection with the article-subject's PR agency, but didn't identify the agency by name. Another example was when I was hired by a family member of the BLP and I said I was hired by "a concerned relative", but didn't identify them by name. In another case, I am working with the article-subject's daughter who is handling her affairs and I don't feel her daughter's involvement is something Wikipedians need to know. In all cases a COI is disclosed, just not the names of individuals. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: But that's the thing: what you feel and don't feel isn't the operative point here. By editing Wikipedia, and accepting payment for doing so, you are saying that you will abide by the Terms of Use, which you acknowledge require you to disclose the things you're choosing not to reveal. If someone wants to pay you to edit Wikipedia, they need to be ok with having their identity revealed accordingly, and I would assume they know this, because an ethical paid editor would be informing their clients what is required of them. The disclosure is not optional; it's not a judgment call you get to make. Either you abide by the ToU or you don't use the website, and the more you go on about how your feelings and preferences overrule the ToU, the less it sounds like you're interested in playing by the (quite lenient, given that they don't prohibit you profiting off the project or bar you from editing articles) rules. You can't just say "Ok guys, I'm done with this discussion, I'm tired of talking", because the point you're leaving on is "I don't have to abide by the ToU if I don't think it's necessary, and I don't happen to think it's necessary a lot of the time. But I'll totally do it sometimes, probably,", and if that's the only ground you're willing to give - that you'll probably abide by the ToU in the future, if you think it's relevant and you haven't promised your client otherwise - it's not enough for me, for one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As I understand it, he disclosed the ultimate client, but did not/would not disclose the name of the agency though whom the work was contracted. His stance seems to have been that since the ultimate source of the money was disclosed, the name of the middleman was not relevant and would not in fact be demanded, even if technically required. He apparently had some grounds to think that, and it is IMO not an outlandish position. But in this thread it was not accepted. DES ^(talk) 23:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• This isn't about one case or about exposing individuals. CM's practice is to say that he has a COI, without specifying the nature of it. He then proceeds to rewrite the article, and asks other editors to copy the drafts over, so that whole articles are being written on behalf of the subjects. This is especially tricky when dealing with medical issues. Respecting the spirit of the bright line, and naming who is paying for the edits, would help a lot. At Yelp, for example: is someone paying, and if so, is it Yelp or is it a PR company? We need this information for each article. (Pinging Coretheapple, who has been editing there.) Sarah ^(talk) 23:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the rule was well thought through or well written, it remains quite clear, all three must be disclosed. While most normal people would understand the conflict if you said I'm working for X while editing X's product article means you may well be biased to its good. And the normal people also would understand if you said I'm working for X's (un-named) PR company doing the same thing to mean the same thing. But alas, the standards for disclosure are aimed to essentially make it virtually impossible for you to remain anonymous under your circumstances, so perhaps your effort would be better served not editing where you're conflicted and not fully disclosed or work to change the policy before continuing. For whatever reason, the powers that be want full disclosure beyond what a normal person would probably need to assume/impute the bias/conflict, so you either play by those rules or use someone else's website. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just noticed the ping. Yes, CorporateM has to abide by the TOU, and I don't recall specifically how good his disclosure there has been. His behavior on the talk page there has irritated me because he has been off-the-charts aggressive in advancing the company's interests on the talk page, bringing RfC after RfC and generally behaving in a manner extremely wearisome to those of us who don't have a COI but are simply interested (in my case mildly) by the subject matter. CM actually invited me to that page and I assume he regrets having done so as my patience with him there has reached its limits. But to get back to this topic, he has to disclose his employer, including the name of the PR company employing him, and not wikilawyer about it. Either he is transparent or he doesn't edit the article. Coretheapple (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• And your comment, Core, perfectly illustrates why paid editing must be ended and rooted out with determination. A paid editor, bank accounts augmented by special interest cash, has all the time and energy in the world to game Wikipedia with every tactic permissible to achieve their clients' goals, while protected by "Assume good faith" rules that are rendered absurd by fiduciary renumeration. Or to put it more bluntly, paid editors are, by definition, bribed to wear volunteer editors down. Corporate M simply needs to, as you say, come clean. Since to do so threatens his livelihood, he will not. My patience is not only exhausted by such self-evident COI editing, it is also strained to the limit by the failure of editors here to demand that the hard work of volunteer editors is protected from mercenaries pushing public relations propaganda. This failure to put an end to the flood of slanted editing is a grave danger to the concept of a truly free source of honest information, the core goal of Wikipedia, and threatens to drive away volunteer editors, leaving behind tireless foot soldiers for monied interests. Jusdafax 10:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse - He had the class to just walk away, surely we can as well. His intention wasn't to slide by with any wrong doing, he said he now gets it, lets not flog him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Best practice for Paid Contribution Disclosure

I wonder if some of this could have been prevented with a better FAQ, better information at WP:PCD and better templates to make this easier. The FAQ and PCD both give a list of options - disclose on user page, disclose on article or disclose on edit summary. That may be the minimum, but I'd like to see a preferred option listed at PCD as a "best practice" for what to disclose when and where. Ideally, I'd like to see something like:

• Full disclosure of all articles a user is paid to edit on their user page (or sub page prominently linked)
• Full disclosure for a particular on the article talk page
• Something in the edit summary that says this is a paid edit (even just "Paid edit" at the start)

The {{Connected contributor}} was suggested on WP:COIN as a means of disclosure but it doesn't include everything needed for a ToU disclosure. I think specific templates for such disclosures might reduce some confusion, help more paid editors remain in compliance and improve the ability to identify those edits. The templates could add categories to users and to article talk pages that would indicate this user is a paid editor / this article has edits from a paid editor. Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A lot of editors prefer that paid editors list the work they have done for pay on their user page, in one place. In my view, that is where the primary disclosure should happen. The {{Connected contributor}} template has a parameter for "otherlinks" and what I generally put there is a link to the disclosure (so that would be a link to the dif where the paid editor disclosed that particular "client, employer and affiliation". The ToU are not rocket science. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I'm currently working on this template. If anyone has anything they wish for me to add, drop me a note on my talk and I'll see if I can pop it into the code. Mdann52 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hounding by Hijiri 88

Hi, I there I was unsure to yet again bring up the issue but recent events do not leave me with no any other choice – that’s if I still want to be able to edit Nichiren Buddhist related matters. Recently I filed a question at ANI if edits by Hijiri 88 on Kokuchūkai [8] might violate the current IBAN. In the course of events they were blocked form editing Wikipedia for 72h [9]. Much to my surprise they became active on the talk page on Soka Gakkai. Prior to the 72 block they were all of a sudden active on [10] and [11]. Since Nichiren related matters are the most prominent on my watch list of about 200 articles these edits did not slip my attention: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Ever since the events that led up to the IBAN I reduced my activity within articles considerably (except the odd talk page). My prime activity within Wikipedia is on Nichiren Buddhist related matters, therefore I want to file this complaint on the basis of WP:HOUND and ask for a TBAN against Hijiri 88 on articles that fall within the category of Nichiren Buddhism. The field of my activity is fairly limited but the latest activities by Hijiri 88 do seem to be aimed against me as an editor. I would also like to extend the TBAN on the article on Nippon Kaigi as this is an article that I created and do want them to give editors grief who extended the article considerably. I would also like admins to have a look at the somewhat foul language used within notes accompanying some of the edits by the editor in question. I was warned by admins and editors that an IBAN might not bring about the desired effect, but I was not prepared to what lengths some editors might go. I await admins response as I find the latest incidents to be irritating to say the least.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for purposes of clarification, this seems to be a request for a topic-ban from Nichiren Buddhism related content and pages with an additional extension of the ban to the Nippon Kaigi page? John Carter (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@ John Carter Yes! I do not think that anybody owns an article and since I initiated the one on Nippon Kaigi and since I believe the editor in question actions are aimed against me I’d hate to see the work and effort by editors on Nippon Kaigi to be affected just because an editor holds grudges against me. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 You both edit the same pages and the same topics, as we all know. How is it WP:HOUND exactly? It seems Hijiri88 is just editing those pages still. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I think the above statement might be a bit perhaps oversimplified and not necessarily supported by the evidence. From my own, admittedly weak, memory, given the time elapsed, I don't remember having ever seen Hijiri particularly editing content related to Nichiren Buddhism until the argument at Kenji Miyazawa between Catflap and Hijiri. While I myself have not been the most active in those pages myself, I only remember seeing Hijiri showning up since then. Certainly, I think a review of the statistics indicate that Hijiri did not edit the Soka Gakkai talkpage until August 16 as seen here and he has yet to edit the article itself at all, at least under the name Hijiri88. That being the case, I think there reason to believe that, in terms of at least this article, there is some reason to think that Hijiri88 may be stalking/hounding Catflap, who has been involved in discussion and editing of that particular article for some years now. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Oversimplified like, say, slyly leaving out a huge chunk of timeline in order to imply that I was blocked for 72 hours for my edits to the Kokuchukai article, when in fact what happened was an extremely dubious string of events that saw an ANI proposal to dissolve the IBAN slipping onto a user talk page and me inadvertently typing the name "Catflap08" on said user talk page, when Catflap08 had previously gotten away with writing extensive criticism of me ("the other user") on his own talk page? Please could someone other than me and Wikimandia notice that Catflap08 has been lying through his teeth about the nature of this dispute for months on end, now, which is probably what led to the confusion that our "common ground" from which we should probably both, at this point, be TBANned is "Japanese culture"? This is getting utterly ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting you have broken the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 06:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh is that what I did? AlbinoFerret, if that's what you genuinely think my above comment then you need to read WP:LAWYER and seriously consider your place in this community. My using Catflap08's name on a user talk page discussion of the IBAN was a dubious violation at worst because (a) Catflap08 had done the same thing previously, (b) where I said "Catflap08" in an otherwise reserved and inoffensive comments, Catflap's included extensive commentary on the literary tastes and religious affiliations of "the other user", and (c) the blocking admin later (after the block had expired) outright encouraged me to discuss the IBAN and Catflap's edits on my talkpage, assuring me that as long as I didn't use Catflap's name he wouldn't block me again.

But all of this is irrelevant. Even if what I did was a violation, I have already done my time. What my above comment was trying to point out was that Catflap's above claim that I was blocked because my edits to the Kokuchukai article constituted an IBAN was a lie. I was blocked because I used Catflap's name on a talk page; Catflap's AN report on my Kokuchukai edits resulted not in me getting blocked but in several users calling for a boomerang against him.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The terms of the IBAN were well known to you. Excuses for breaking it matter little. With each comment here the hole deepens. AlbinoFerret 13:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The terms of the IBAN were either ill defined or not previously enforced; Catflap breeched the IBAN numerous times but with zero repercussions. Hijiri copied Catflap's breeches with no repercussions. Hijiri simply typed Catflap's username (which Catflap hadn't done) and was blocked for it. I don't see at all how Hijiri is "deepening the hole" with the above comment. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The IBan was a standard one, nothing special, but clearly both editors have shown themselves of being incapable of reigning themselves in to conform to it, hence my proposal below. BMK (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been quite a few days since I was active here on Wikipedia. As I said once before my field of activity was quite limited – Nichiren Buddhism – hopefully non-sectarian non-partisan. The only place editors can turn to, in the cases of a dispute of this kind, is this very spot whether you like it or not – this is towards admins. I would like to underline though that there is quite a severe difference between conflicts on content and conflicts which are non-content based. As soon as (and just before) the 72h based ban on H88 was over they popped out of nowhere on Nichiren Buddhist related articles – effectively making it impossible for me to edit the area I have been most active on. Since sectarian views have taken over articles such as the one on Soka Gakkai I hardly even edit this article as it to my mind it is just no use anymore. So to bring the issue back to what I initially requested is me requesting to decide whether H88’s actions can be regarded as being hounded or followed or not. If the answer would have been a ‘No’ that would have been me being taken out the picture (effectively) anyways. If the answer would have been a ‘Yes’ then a TBAN against H88 would have silenced matters, as H88’s activities in other areas is nothing I am neither willing nor interested to comment on. All I can see so far reading this thread is that neither H88’s foul language nor insulting comments will stop. My only intent is to keep articles related to Nichiren Buddhism (except on Soka Gakkai – which I refrain to edit in major ways) as neutral as possible. If you TBAN me that will be out of en.wikipedia anyways. @ H88: you are unable to DISCUSS, if your views do not prevail you victimise yourself and if that fails you insult others. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though I have retired for the time being, except an edit on a talk page yesterday, there are a few things I would like to add before the case closes – no matter what the outcome is. Articles contents may or may not be disputed. The area I edit on is not without controversy, as dealing with beliefs which by definition are only rarely based on facts. For this very reason I distanced myself form the article on Soka Gakkai as it’s like fighting windmills. What bugs me most however is if references and further reading notes are deleted, this to my mind is just not on. We all might quarrel about an article’s content but any actions that are geared at disabling the reader to form their own opinion are to my mind not beneficial to the project. There are many references and notes that I do not agree with but I’d hate to see them go as I still believe the readers have enough brains to form their own opinion. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: Since you are a recipient of the Editor of the Week Award, you know full well that you are the sort of editor Wikipedia can ill afford to lose. We would be sorry to lose you.TH1980 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the best, if still flawed, ways I can think of to address that point is to find out which extent reference sources deal with the topic in question, like SG, and what sources they use to support their own content. I am the first to admit that this method doesn't work anywhere near as well in current events type topics, which is also unfortunately the area in which the problem most often arises, but it is at least one generally broadly supported way to deal with the problem when such sources are available. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

The last run-in between Catflap and Hijiri was closed by Drmies as follows

The result is the ongoing and ever-increasing exasperation of the rest of the editors. Let's see. Sure, the edit Catflap complained about last week as a possible IBAN violation was possibly an IBAN violation--about as much as their edit from 4 May 2015 in the same article was probably also an IBAN violation. So I suppose a block for Hijiri could have been warranted. And a BOOMERANG block for Catflap for excessive whining could be warranted too. Hijiri perpetually tests my patience with the enormous number of words they seem to need, and the bigger the forum the more words... I'm inclined to just block both of them for three months to just be done with it, but I'm a pacifist. So I'm just going to ask both to just zip it. Just f***ing zip it. It's a pity there is no broad agreement on any solution, cause boy would I like to put a stop to this. Grow up, both of you.

As it is quite apparent that neither is able to control themselves, per Drmies' sage suggestion, I renew the earlier suggestion that both be indefinitely topic banned from their common ground which I believe is Japanese culture. The only other alternative I can see is to start a new noticeboard just for the two of them and ban them from AN and AN/I, so at least their ongoing battle will be out of sight. BMK (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. BMK (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please, could any closing admin note that BMK has been corrected on this point numerous times and has not amended his proposal: "their common ground" properly refers to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, an area that comprises probably 80% of Catflap08's edits and 5% of mine. "Japanese culture" is an area that comprises probably 80% of Catflap08's edits and probably 95% of mine. Japanese culture minus Nichiren Buddhist NRMs is an area that comprises 0% of Catflap08's edits, and 90% of mine. The unaccounted 20% of Catflap08's edits appear to mostly relate to German geography and religion in Germany; the unaccounted 5% of my edits are random articles I happen to be reading and decide to touch up a bit. Do the math and you'll see that the proposed topic-ban is both (a) ridiculously broad compared to the super-narrow "common ground" Catflap08 and I share, and (b) appears to have been chosen to disproportionately affect me, despite the unanimous agreement among impartial observers that there is plenty of blame to go around. I have no interest in limiting my Wikipedia activity to "random articles I happen to be reading and decide to touch up a bit", so the TBAN as proposed would amount to a de facto site-ban for me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It might, maybe, be worth reviewing the history of the editors in question relating to their interactions with other editors. If one (or both) of them act similarly in terms of their interactions with other editors, that might be potentially grounds for thinking that the problems might be more due to one than to the other. Also, I think it might be worth noting that Catflap above has more or less indicated that he is limiting his input to Japanese culture, or at least Nichiren Buddhism, which probably falls within the broad scope of Japanese culture, and that, I think, Hijiri may also be if not an SPA particularly focused on Japanese culture. If true, then the proposal might, in a sense, be considered tantamount to a site ban for one or both, if the defined field is, effectively, their primary or sole area of interest. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, if you mean what you earlier implied (that we should unblock Juzumaru, JoshuSasori and so on, and unban Tristan noir) you are clearly insane, and are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Please drop the stick and grow the hell up already. Stop following me, and stop trying to go back through the archives and bring back every user who has ever harassed me. You hounded me in this way from March to May, then disappeared for three months and then immediately come straight back after me -- what gives? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose @ BMK: I have been active here for a quite number of years my area of activity is limited and I do admit the issues are sometimes controversial. I neither support a complete ban on issues regarding Japanese culture against Hijiri 88 nor against me (that would be stupid) as my activities are limited. I do believe that I am fairly neutral on Nichiren related matters, but if you ban us both this will not resolve matters, but just make your job easier and therefore negate current guidelines. Please do keep in mind that all what led here was mentioning a so called poet’s religious affiliation. Banning us, effectively, wont’t help the project and its content. All I am asking is to decide if current guidelines are affected or not. If current guidelines are found not be affected I will piss off anyway (please do note I do not usually use this language usually).--Catflap08 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I will refrain from !voting in this matter given my own history with both editors. Having said that, I have to agree with Catflap above that, in the time I have been to varying degrees involved in Soka Gakkai and NB related content, he has impressed me as being primarily interested in keeping the material from resembling advertorials, which is generally a good thing. I also note that the specific nature of the dubious interaction does seem, as per the initial statement, to be related to Nichiren related content. While Nichiren related content is very significant in the history of Japanese culture, I think limiting the scope of potential sanctions to NB rather than Japanese culture would probably be called for, given the history of this interaction, and I at least would very strongly hope that Catflap not be sanctioned to basically remove himself from his primary field of editing, in which he has been successful and productive in preventing POV pushing by supporters of groups, who often outnumber the less biased editors in those areas by a great number. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I've read a lot recently from a wide variety of editors about how relentless POV warriors create toxic editing environments which drive quality editors away from the site, and just a couple of days ago we lost one of our best admins to a sockpuppeting troll with a throwaway account. Above, Drmies has asked you both to lay off, and you obviously haven't. Listen to Drmies!! If they were to come by here and block both of you right now, I don't think there's anyone here who would object, saving maybe John Carter who makes a compelling argument about Catflap's persistent NPOV in this topic area. WP:CIR applies: if the contributions you make aren't worth the "ever-increasing exasperation of the rest of the editors", you shouldn't be here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Who's a relentless POV warrior? I think you would be hard-pressed to identify any kind of "POV" on my part in any aspect of my interactions with Catflap08 -- I am not a Soka Gakkai member (I don't even much like the group), nor a member of the Kokuchukai, and it wouldn't change my life even a bit if it turned out that Miyazawa Kenji was in fact a "nationalist". I just want Wikipedia to accurately reflect what the best scholarly sources say. The only relentless POV-pusher here is Catflap08, who has been spending years distorting sources and jumping through hoops to make Wikipedia say what he wants it to about various neo-Nichiren groups, both ones he likes (Nichiren-shoushuu) and doesn't (SG, etc.). If your argument is that we should both be TBANned because we are relentless POV warriors, I would ask for evidence of this. Additionally, which "topic" should we/just Catflap08/just me be banned from? "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad, as it bears no relation whatsoever to Catflap08's disputes with me -- "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism" would be a much better proposal, and if the TBAN were mutual I would actually support it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: No, let me be clear about this: I don't care about your or Catflap's POV, or what topics you both edit or don't edit. My only interest in this is not seeing your two names plastered all over this noticeboard any more. My opinion is that you should both be banned outright, since you've both been happy to game the IBAN and it seems likely you'll both be intent on gaming whatever TBAN we're likely to impose. It's ridiculously broad because your ongoing conflict is ridiculous and will require ridiculous measures to stop, apparently. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence that I have gamed the IBAN? I reported Catflap08 for violating it. I only accepted the IBAN (as proposed initially by Catflap08) because I was under the impression that it meant no more interaction between us. I didn't know that it meant that he could revert my edits with impunity and then when I reported him on ANI I would be the one treated to repercussions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This thread is utter nonsense. I have been editing the area of Japanese Buddhism since before Catflap08 even registered an account, and have indisputably contributed more to the area in recent months than he has -- simply editing in the area is not an IBAN-violation, as was decided by AN-consensus when Catflap08 wasn't blocked for doing the same thing (as well as directly reverting my edits). BMK's assertion that our common ground is "Japanese culture" is equally ridiculous. I have only ever been interested in editing articles on "Japanese culture", and 99% of users who share this area with me would vehemently oppose the idea that I be TBANned from this area: just ask @Nishidani: @Shii: @Sturmgewehr88: ... (almost none of whom agree with me 100%, but all of whom legitimately understand this area as well as my contributions to it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your post is an example of WP:CANVASS. Any comment these editors make should be taken with a grain of salt. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support (non admin observation) Enough is enough. This continued disruption is never ending and ongoing where one or the other is on one of the boards giving enough evidence for either of them needing a ban. It doesnt matter what good they have done or how nice the things they have added. This is a behaviour issue. One my new essay WP:NOTABOVE covers nicely without a lot of words. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC) I would also support separate or single bans. AlbinoFerret 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Albinoferret: Please explain how arbitrarily banning me from every article I have ever edited will help end disruption and improve the project? You are the one who needs to drop the stick in this situation, as you have had it in for me for months, every time this or another issue in which I have been involved comes up on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I watch and contribute on AN/I in discussions, I think more community members should do this. This isnt hounding you, its the community saying enough is enough. If more people frequented this board regularly they would be saying the same thing. The topic ban will just remove an area of WP. You will still be able to edit and show that you are a constructive member of the community, or use it as rope. AlbinoFerret 23:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that you should be indefinitely banned from every article you show an interest in editing because you post on ANI regularly? Your argument makes no sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I am saying both editors consistent gaming and breaking of the IBAN that was the result of constant behaviour problems leading up to said IBAN is a good reason to topci ban them both so there is no winner in a content dispute. That the topic ban needs to have sufficient border so that it doesnt spill into other areas that both editors want to edit and if not able to edit their favourite articles will still stay in the general topic area. This needed to end months ago, its an ongoing behaviour problem. AlbinoFerret 15:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support I have ANI on my watch list and 2/3 of the time it has something to do with Hijiri. Frankly, I am annoyed and I had to peek into it all. It's nothing but disruption and lack of dropping the stick by the file reporter and possibly hounding them as well but that's another matter. It's best that these two editors get topic-banned to end this drama-filled editing between them. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirelal: Excuse me? You claim it's always me, but in reality all the times you are referring to it is me and Catflap08, and you above refer to me as the "file reporter" -- you very clearly have not read this thread very closely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Uhmmm... Way to give it a go. Please search up who filed this report, hence "file reporter". I have never claimed it was always you. I said what I saw as new sections had something to do with you. Never have I ever claimed it was always you at fault. Please reread my post. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: (sorry for the bad ping previously -- this whole thing has me super stressed out, as what is essentially being discussed here is a one-way de facto SBAN for me) If you do not think that I am always the one at fault, then why are you supporting a TBAN that is tailor-made to force me, not Catflap08, off Wikipedia? Catflap08's main area of interest (Soka Gakkai International) arguably does not fit into "Japanese culture", but is a part of this dispute; my main area of interest (classical Japanese poetry) most certainly fits into "Japanese culture" and has nothing whatsoever to do with this dispute. The proposed TBAN would block both Catflap08 and myself from every article I have ever shown any interest in editing, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my long-running dispute with Catflap08 regarding Nichiren Buddhist NRMs. If the TBAN for which you above expressed "Strong support" were to pass, I would be forced to retire from Wikipedia, since I would be TBANned from the only (very broad) topic area I am interested in. The TBAN would also negatively affect Catflap08, but so would a TBAN on Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, which is the area actually under dispute. If the TBAN was worded properly, it would effectively solve the dispute between me and Catflap08, and allow other users to eventually work out all the kinks in the very narrow group of articles in question; as worded now, it disproportionately affects me by randomly banning me from the thousands upon thousands of articles that are in my area of interest/expertise but have nothing whatsoever to do with my dispute with Catflap08. If you sincerely meant that you support "some kind of two-way topic-ban" for myself and Catflap08, then you and I are actually in agreement, but I would ask that you clarify this position in light of the actual (very narrow) area covered by this dispute (see full list of article Catflap08 and I have disputed on below). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral. Why? Well, it's like this...although I also have pretty much had my fill of these two editors' antics, the conflict between them seems to go far beyond the subject of Japanese culture (or any other topic). I mean, there's an IBAN in place and they still won't cut it out? Maybe general blocks for both of them (length to be determined by closing admin) is in order instead. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support topic ban for Hijiri88 on Japanese culture and history-related topics - I said what needed to be said the last time a topic ban was proposed on Hijiri88. I noted Hijiri88's disruptive and uncooperative pattern of editing in this field and all Hijiri could do in response was openly threaten me with "harsh repercussions". This is Hijiri88's typical reaction to anyone he disagrees with. Catflap and I are just the latest to take this sort of abuse. I'm sorry Catflap has gotten tied up in yet another one of Hijiri's never-ending crusades. This is now the FOURTH time this year (at least) that this kind of sanction has been proposed against Hijiri88. When is the Wikipedia community or an admin finally going to say, "enough is enough"?TH1980 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• In light of the above, it might not be unreasonable to perhaps break the proposed sanction down into separate proposed sanctions for the two as individuals, and, perhaps, if others see fit, to specify the exact nature of the scope of the proposed sanctions. It seems to me that the scope of the disagreement is Japanese Buddhism, not Japanese culture (but, like with most historical religions, the distinction between the religion and the culture gets blurry), and it might make sense, maybe, to consider limiting the scope to Japanese Buddhism or Nichiren Buddhism. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would strongly object to any alteration of this proposal. If you want to make two additional separate proposals, one for each editor, go ahead and do so in separate sections, not this one, but I guarantee you'll only muddy up the waters, which will end up once again with a continuation of the status quo. In any case my proposal stands as is, clear, equal treatment for both editors, who are equally responsible for the IBan between them not working. BMK (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken:: The proposed variation was only made in light of the !vote above supporting sanctions against one editor only. I have a feeling that such variant !votes might lead to the result Blackmane mentions below, no consensus and ArbCom. Not that ArbCom would, necessarily, necessarily be a bad place to thrash out the whole histories of all involved here, to see if there are any differential levels of guilt as some indicate they see above. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, closers are intelligent enough to figure these things out without having to slice up the conversation for them. Probably best to leave it alone. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Supported it last time, but it was closed without consensus. This is ridiculous, at this rate, ArbCom is the only remaining option. Blackmane (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

After a moment's thought, I'll expand on this. Both are substantial contributors in the content but seem to be unable to restrain themselves when they get together, much like 2 like magnetic poles constantly repelling each other. To remove one without the other could be seen as a validation of either one. I believe BMK's proposal is less about their content contributions than it is their collective behaviour towards each other on articles they have in common. Given they have little in common outside of this single field, it is at least my hope that this will stop. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane is correct. The ideal here would have been for the IBan to have worked. We'd get the advantage of both editor's contributions, and there would peace across the land. But, unfortunately, for whatever reason (I won't hazard guesses as to why), these two people just cannot get along without bringing their conflicts to the community again and again. My feeling is that the only way to get through to them is with a topic ban. "Indefinite" does not mean permanent. My hope would be that when the two combatants start to tire of not being able to edit in an area they both really enjoy working in, they may begin to see the value of cooperating with the terms of the IBan. Obviouslyt, right now, it means more to the both of them to keep fighting then it does to keep editing. This would change that, and provoke (I hope) a change of heart for both of them. I don't expect them to ever be bosom buddies, but the community does expect them to follow the rules of the IBan. They clearly can't do that, so this is the next available option. BMK (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were proposing to block them both outright, and my earlier comment reflects that. I'll also support a double topic ban, although I expect we'll see them back here again very soon and be discussing blocks for violating the topic ban. I don't support only banning one of them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban is much easier to enforce than the IBAN. Any activity in the topic would be a violation of the ban. But in the IBAN there is the ability to game the system. Making it more difficult to enforce as evident by the sections that have happened in the recent past. But I plan to collect the names of oppose votes and ping them every time this pops up again if the topic ban doesnt pass. The way I see it is they only see part of the problem, whereas most of the supporters recognise this isnt an isolated incident and that its an ongoing problem that never seems to be taken care of. My support of the topic ban isnt tied to this one section, but many going back months.AlbinoFerret 19:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As a stray thought we could use an edit filter to enforce an IBAN, up to a point. I have created an example filter in 1 (logging only). It could be refined to ignore specific name-spaces, or noticeboards. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose (for now) What did Hijiri 88 do? I don't see how he is hounding Catflap08 or why this ANI has any merit. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm sorry Beyond My Ken, but I do not support a topic ban for Catflap. A narrow topic ban for Hijiri, who has broad interests, would not take Catflap out of the Wikipedia picture, and while the case for hounding isn't airtight, I do think that Hijiri is following Catflap--Wikimandia, in the two or three of the articles that I looked, Catflap has edited for a long time and Hijiri is a recent visitor, as on Talk:Soka Gakkai. In other words, I support John Carter's clarification, in the section above. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the edits and it seems they all pertain (mostly) to the Japanese language, etc, which is I think is one of H88's interests. The edits H88 made appear to my eyes to be helpful. I fail to see a solid case for hounding. It seems IMHO that this is more of a "stay out of my area" type of thing ie "I edited here first so it's mine." —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 is being paranoid, and Drmies (despite my history with him) has not looked closely enough at my edit history. I am interested in Japanese religion, and probably know more about Japanese Buddhism than Catflap08 does; my very first edit to Wikipedia back in 2005 was about Shinto. In fact, I think if you went through all of Catflap08's edits and checked his sources, you would find that I have actually contributed more over the years to this particular topic area than he has. TBAN me from NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism except for the Kokuchukai and Miyazawa Kenji (which I would guess accounts for roughly 80% of Catflap08's edits but a relatively small proportion of mine; the two exceptions are to allow me to contrinue to work on two articles to which I am essentially the sole contributor) if need be. Catflap08 hardly ever edits articles related to Nichiren Buddhism before 1900, and almost never edits any articles related to Japanese Buddhism other than Nichiren Buddhism. The "disruption" between the two of us was exclusively in the area of "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism"; the TBAN proposal of "Japanese culture" seems to be a slight against me specifically, since TBANning both of us from "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism" would likely force Catflap08 off Wikipedia, but not me; "Japanese culture" seems to be specifically designed to spite/SBAN me, since the present "disruption" has hardly anything to with "Japanese culture". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Topic ban everyone - God knows his own. Although I see the threat of topic banning them both has actually got them to agree. From past experience of their work - Hijari's would actually be a loss to the encyclopedia, however if they cannot learn to work together, at this point its a hit WP might have to take. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Only in death: Your comment clearly shows you haven't read the thread. Why did you misspell my user name? Why do you think Catflap08 and I need to learn to "work together"? We are already IBANned! What topic do you propose? "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad, and seems to be tailor-made to drive me off Wikipedia; the actual topic area under discussion is "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism". If you had actually been following this dispute long enough to be as frustrated with it as you claim to be, you would not be making these mistakes. Sorry to pick on you, but it's difficult to follow all of this. It seems that a whole bunch of people (friends of BMK?) are ust showing up to support a ridiculous proposal, when virtually everyone who actually understands the dispute in question oppose it. Please read through the past thread if you are taking the "this is incredibly draining on the community" argument to heart, and please consider what topic area you are talking about when you say "topic ban everyone". If it is mutual, I would actually support a topic ban on both of us from the area of "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism"; but the proposed "Japanese culture" has absolutely no logical basis, and no support whatsoever from the community of editors who actually contribute to the area of "Japanese culture". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Whatever past irritants, I do not see what the latest matter is about. What is the evidence of hounding on which Hijiri is supposed to be banned? I do not see any evidence of breach of IBAN either, or at least none has been provided. This kind of reminds me of Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first, verdict later" (or perhaps not at all?) Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As far as I can see it the mood is towards topic banning us both. Fine go ahead that will leave me out of the game, an outcome H88 has previously hoped for as I “dared” to highlight Kenji-man’s religious affiliation and nationalist tendencies. I wonder these days what ever happened to good faith vs bad faith edits. The diffs I showed in the beginning of this thread had no other purpose than to piss me off – and they did. I can well understand that admins are annoyed about this carry-on but I tried to adhere as much as possible to current guidelines … call it hounding or Wikimandia, but please do be so kind and ditch all current guidelines and means (such as ANI) to highlight a problem and turn to a thumbs up or thumbs down policy only. If the latest edits by H88, keeping in mind the IBAN, are found to be okay and thereby effectively disabling me to edit articles on Nichiren Buddhism – as I would then myself violate the IBAN – fine, so be it. Please do have the guts to admit that the strategy used by H88 then does seem to work, congrats to you H88 btw. Due to the articles I edit I am used to conflict and disagreement but this is an issue I am sure not willing to use my spare time on any longer. In the guideline on hounding it says: “The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. …” Ever since this conflict started I was insulted, followed around even some smearing remark left while H88 edited the article on my hometown (Oh yes SURE he did not know it was my hometown … yea right). I created a few articles, in my books had a more or less neutral input on Nichiren Buddhist related articles, but there is no enjoyment being part of this project anymore. Conflicts can be productive or unproductive - this one is unproductive. I am no longer willing to participate and the “enjoyment” of dealing with H88 is here to stay, bad faith edits, insults and foul language do seem to work then. I guess they will continue to be an issue here in days to come. Good riddance!-- 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08, you don't know a damned thing about Kenji Miyazawa; everyone who has ever contributed anything to the new and improved version of that article has agreed with this. Your edits were highly disruptive, and did not "highlight" anything other than your own hatred of any form of Nichiren Buddhism other than Nichiren-shoushuu. Please drop the damn stick -- it's been more than a frickin' year! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, I thank you for so clearly indicating in the above comment your habit of almost instantly taking recourse to irrational, probably unsupportable, insults and obscenities directed against those with whom you are in disagreement, a habit of yours which I have noted repeatedly. One could just as easily say that, after the 9 years of being an editor that you so regularly boast of, you don't know a damn thing about the policies and guidelines of this site. The fact that you so regularly engage in purely counterproductive personal attacks, as per the above, is one reason why I think that the concept of some sort of stronger sanctions against you is getting a lot of support, whether alone or in tandem with Catflap. You are in control of your own actions and vulgarity, and cannot blame anyone for your own regular displays of obnoxious arrogance, which, as Drmies has said elsewhere in this thread, would decidedly wear on him too. John Carter (talk)

@Catflap08: - I have no idea what this means - "please do be so kind and ditch all current guidelines and means (such as ANI) to highlight a problem and turn to a thumbs up or thumbs down policy only" What are you talking about? —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I think he means that he wishes that there wasn't all this beauracratic mess to push through just to establish that there's a problem, or to have that problem delt with? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I see what edit you mean. It was a while ago, when both of you were up at arbitration, and it is very, very hard to escape the impression that it was done to get a rise out of you, since I don't think Hijiri edits a lot of those articles. All the more reason for me to reiterate that a. both editors have something to contribute to Wikipedia and b. topic-banning Hijiri from some narrowly construed area, the area that Catflap is most active in (I understand it might not be easy to demarcate this, but we could try) keeps both editors on board. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Catflap08 and another user were in off-wiki communication about the edit in question. And I think consensus should be gathered on whether only myself or both of us should be TBANned from Catflap08's preferred area (NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism) -- I think the broad consensus from users involved in editing this area would be that Catflap08 has been highly disruptive over the years, while my relatively few edits have mostly been quite good. I would be happy to take a hit, though, if it meant less disruption to the project from Catflap08, who after years of lectures from me and others still doesn't know how to properly cite sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

My dear Hijiri, if I'd had to sit through years of your lectures I'd be exasperated too. Now, it looks as if BMK's proposal, for a topic ban for the both of you, is gaining plenty of traction; if "take a hit" means you'll accept a limited topic ban, then you're probably making a wise choice. Now, Catflap wasn't in email communication about that edit with me but it didn't take me long to find it. It's a while ago, and it was made at a time that was stressful for the both of you, but it just signifies that...well, what editors here have been saying, editors who want the both of you gone. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 Do you have diffs that expressly prove that there was off wiki communication that goes against PAG? Also please tell us what PAG they violate. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret

19:56, 25 March 2015: John Carter makes his first ever edit remotely related to the poet/children's author Kenji Miyazawa, making a flawed analogy that show his ignorance of (lack of interest in?) the topic.

03:50, 11 April 2015: I make an edit to an article on a German city I happen to be reading (it was over four months ago; I don't remember why).

20:27, 15 April 2015: Catflap08 claims, on-wiki, for the first time ever, almost five days after my edit, that the city in question is where he "currently resides".

21:25, 15 April 2015: John Carter refers to the city as Catflap08's "home town", despite Catflap08 never posting this information on-wiki. Note that during the intervening five days, I never touched the article, and Catflap08, John Carter and I were relatively active in editing, making 10, 217 and 33 edits respectively, and interacting with each other constantly. Catflap08's suddenly noticing my edit several days later and John Carter's immediately picking up on it (having also, apparently, failed to notice it for for five days), and the two of them making it their main talking point all of a sudden, is extremely suspicious. John Carter's knowing a piece of information about Catflap related to this dispute that Catflap never stated on-wiki means he heard it from him off-wiki. John Carter was at the time engaged in off-wiki contact about me with at least two users, and Catflap was engaged in off-wiki contact about me with at least one user, User:Sturmgewehr88, who graciously forwarded said contact to me.

05:14, 17 April 2015: IBAN between Catflap08 and myself put in place.

01:26, 19 April 2015 and 01:27, 19 April 2015: Drmies, at the request of John Carter (why does he care?), reminds both Catflap08 and myself that we are subject to an IBAN.

14:23, 22 April 2015: I make a self-revert to the Kenji Miyazawa article in line with previously-established consensus (my earlier edit of 27-28 March 2015 had been a conditional concession to a vocal minority in an RFC -- who later violated said conditions -- but was never claimed as the "consensus" until 14:14, 15 April 2015, which claim was overruled within a few days). Two hours later, my edit is reverted by John Carter, who has never edited the article before.

16:26, 22 April 2015 - 17:56, 1 May 2015: John Carter suddenly posts 52 times on the Kenji Miyazawa talk page, and reverts me five times in a 31-hour period. Why the sudden interest in Kenji Miyazawa? And why the curious knowledge of how the dispute had gone from June 2014 to March 2015 but with certain key features that didn't support Catflap08's story left out? Did he go through the talk page and read everything that had been posted previously? If so, why did he not know that a unanimous RFC had determined that Kenji should not be referred to as a "nationalist" without further evidence? Or did he receive a summary of the dispute from Catflap08 that left out those details? I of course don't have any conclusive evidence that John Carter definitely was acting as an IBAN-violation proxy for Catflap08, but his suddenly developing an enormous interest in this article that falls so far out of his normal editing area, immediately after the imposition of the IBAN, and his knowing obscure details about the dispute before he joined in but completely missing the massive, unanimous RFC seems highly suspicious, don't you agree?

21:08, 28 April 2015: Catflap08 shows up suddenly on the talk page discussion between John Carter and myself (in what by Drmies' recently-stated definition almost certainly qualifies as a borderline IBAN-violation and "hounding" of me) indicating that he was aware of it (more aware than John Carter, in fact) and following it quite closely, which supports my belief that he had been in contact with John Carter about it prior to his showing up.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You forgot the most important part, what PAG do they violate? Dont go into pages of dialogue, just present the PAG. Seconddly, all I see is circumstantial possibilities that you have jumped to ABF and are casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I want a diff where they admitted emailing each other in order to harass you, again without long explinations from you on how it couldnt be any other way. Present the evidence and let others draw the conclusions. AlbinoFerret 04:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Surely you are not suggesting that requesting an IBAN with another user while at the same time making plans to immediately violate said IBAN via proxy is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Let alone that the specific edits Catflap08 apparently requested John Carter make in his stead were blatant NPOV and NOR violations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• • @ Drmies As much as I welcome your support for finding a solution to all this I still believe that the willingness to come to an agreement has to be present on all sides. I once hoped that the IBAN would resolve matters as the issues I am dealing with are fairly limited. But there is no winning when dealing with an editor on a complete different agenda – an agenda I am unwilling to understand. Me retiring is the only way that the editor in question will be preoccupied with other topics – and conflicts, and in future other, hopefully unbiased, editors will tend to Nichiren Buddhist related matters. I do care about the subjects I edited on and welcome input as long as it is constructive. H88 has so many conflicts going on that I can only hope that articles on Nichiren Buddhsim will continue to grow and flourish without me being part of it. In the end the reader should be informed. I am sure that admins will be kept busy dealing with H88. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support WOW! This battle has been raging for over half a year. By this point in time, a far-reaching topic ban is probably the only reasonable solution, or else this will go on forever. I see disruptive behavior on both sides. Ahiroy (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ahiroy: Who are you? You have never been involved in this dispute before, so I'm curious as to why you are using an arbitrary (and inaccurate) start-point for the dispute to justify your assertion that a two-way, super-broad topic ban is the way to solve it. So far, virtually everyone who has actually been involved in this dispute for at least several months believes (1) the proposed TBAN is far too broad (the topic-area under dispute is NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism, not "Japanese culture") and (2) the aggressor throughout 90% of the fourteen months this dispute has been running (throughout this time strictly confined to articles related to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs) has been Catflap08, and my "disruptive behavior" has been mostly reactionary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad. I would agree to a week-long block for both users, a TBAN from Nichiren Buddhism for Hijiri, and a page ban from any and all articles that Catflap has been disruptive on (Kenji Miyazawa is the only one I can think of off the top of my head) for Catflap. No more and no less is appropriate. And for those above users who !voted "support" because they got annoyed at seeing either of these editors names a few times here: go do something besides hanging out at ANI. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Japanese culture" (and I actually should have written "Japanese history and culture", but it's too late to go back now) is no broader than "U.S. Politics", which ArbCom used as a topic ban not too long ago. I don't think that anything will come of this unless the editors really start to feel that they're missing out on something they really want to be involved in, and that means that the topic ban needs to be substantial and the time period needs to be indef so they can't just wait it out and then return to the same behavior, as has happened before. If you read this thread, you'll see that some people think Catflap is at fault and some think that Hijiri is at fault -- and, of course, both of them think that the other is the bad guy. This circumstance is the very reason why it must be an equal sanction, with no determination of percentage of blame (pace Drmies). They're clearly both at fault, in one way or another, to one extent or another, and the ongoing tangoing has to stop. Blocks and IBans haven't worked, this is the next step. If this fails, it's either ArbCom or mutual indef blocks -- at some point the net value of the editor just drops below zero. We're not there yet, but that's the direction we're heading in. BMK (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad. The disruption in question has taken place exclusively on articles related to NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism. To extrapolate from this that a mutual TBAN from "Japanese culture" is warranted is equivalent to proposing a TBAN on "U.S. politics" for two users who have been fighting over articles related to Hillary Clinton. Or rather, it is equivalent to proposing such for two users who have been fighting over Hillary, when one of those users is an SPA whose every edit on Wikipedia has been to insert BLP violations against the woman, and the other user has been making a large number of constructive edits to the broad topic area of "U.S. politics" for years. Such a proposal would be an obvious attempt to needlessly spite the latter user. So far as I can see, Sturmgewehr88 is the only user to so far way in here with any interest in or knowledge of "Japanese culture", and he says the proposal is too broad: ask any other user in WikiProject Japan and they will say the same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I hardly need to ask the editors of WikiProject Japan, since you have already WP:CANVASSed them with a non-neutral pointer to this discussion threatening to quit Wikipedia if the proposal goes through. BMK (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The part of that post , which is not neutral, But I find it interesting Hijiri 88 said Another user and I are up for a mutual topic ban from "Japanese culture" because our mutual interaction ban has been an absolute failure. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: @AlbinoFerret: How was my pointer not neutral? How could it possibly violate WP:CANVAS? The only member of WikiProject Japan to express any opinion at all so far has been User:Sturmgewehr88, who thanked me. Was our mutual interaction ban not an absolute failure? And why do I not have a right to quit Wikipedia if I am indefinitely forced out of the only topic area in which I have any interest? It's not a "threat" -- it's an observation that I frankly have no interest in contributing to areas of this project that don't interest me and in which I have very little knowledge. I don't see why I should have to explain why I would want to leave the project if I was forced out of the project, when thus far BMK has made no effort whatsoever to explain his ridiculously-broad TBAN parameters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Its as far from neutral as can be with a threat to have to leave WP, what else do you expect people who agree with you to do other than come here and defend you? AlbinoFerret 04:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• It isnt annoyance that they have shown up a few time, its more than a few. Its that their behaviour over the span of months is bad. Constant problems with one or the other and nothing is done and I think some editors think it will all go away if we just get past the most recent blow up. Well it hasnt, and I think that the problem is that nothing has happened to them other than an IBAN that they both game. I think when nothing happens it emboldens one or both making them believe that nothing will happen this time, they got away before, and the project suffers. As for telling editors to go someplace else, we all help the project in our own way. This board is open to all members of the community to post on. AlbinoFerret 15:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am myself still undecided that this is the best way to go. It is strictly a personal opinion, of course, but I think that maybe ArbCom might be a preferable alternative. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, are you going to take it to Arbcom? If not who is? If no one is willing to step forward, Arbcom isnt realistic. AlbinoFerret 16:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I remember Catflap already sought input from ArbCom once, prior to the i-ban. That being the case, I think that if this thread closes without a clear decision to do something here, he might do so again, or, failing that, I certainly would be willing to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Such a topic ban would be too broad, and the quarrel in question doesn't concern "Japanese history and culture", it concerns a much smaller subset. If the topic ban is re-scoped towards Nichiren Buddhist topics, I wouldn't find it as concerning, however there is a net loss of benefit from a topic ban for "Japanese history and culture" to the project, especially in regards to the improvements made to articles outside of the realms of this current dispute. Don't get me wrong: I can see the wrongdoings, I'm just looking at the long term effects, and weighing out the pros and cons of such a topic ban. There is definitely a better way to handle this. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• The "quarrel in question" is simply the specific instance at this moment in time of a battle between the two editors that has been going on for over a year, and has wound up on the noticeboards at least a dozen times. Use the search box at the top of the page and put in each of their names (one at a time) and feast your eyes on the time and energy these two have sucked out of the community because they cannot get along. It is their mutual long-term behavior which sparks this proposal, not this relatively minor dispute. BMK (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: Please don't listen to him. The "quarrel in question" is simply the specific instance at this moment in time of a battle between the two editors that has been going on for over a year that has always been confined to a small group of articles related Nichiren Buddhist NRMs. User:Beyond My Ken and others supporting the proposal are simply showing their ignorance of "Japanese culture" (or perhaps their ignorance of my dispute with Catflap08 -- BMK has only been involved in two of the "dozen times" it has appeared on noticeboards, and most of the others even less so) by claiming otherwise. The full (not especially long considering the dispute has been going on for fourteen months) list of articles on which I have disputed with Catflap08 is as follows:

1. Kenji Miyazawa (in a very narrow capacity concerning the subject's relationship with the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
2. Kokuchūkai (a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
3. Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō (I still don't know what Catflap's problems with my edits were, since all I did was RM the page per WP:COMMONNAME and cut down several very long quotations that bore no relation to the article text, but Catflap apparently thought I was editing the article to be more amenable to the POV of Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; note that I was hiding from an off-wiki stalker at the time so my edits were made under the IP "126.0.96.220")
4. Daisaku Ikeda (a figure notable as the leader of Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
5. Nichiren Buddhism (in a talk page discussion of the Nichiren Buddhist NRM Soka Gakkai's status within Nichiren Buddhism)
6. Karlsruhe (say what you want about me editing our article on a city that Catflap08 claimed was his current residence five days after my edit -- how on earth could I have known this when he never stated it on-wiki!? -- but it apparently is what Catflap08 and some others are discussing further up this thread as "evidence" that I was hounding him; additionally, the timeline of these events was highly suspicious and seems to prove pretty handilly that Catflap08 was engaged in off-wiki contact with another to violate our IBAN by proxy both before and immediately after it came into effect; given this information, I think most good-faith Wikipedians would conclude that Catflap08 was hounding me, not the other way round)
7. Korean influence on Japanese culture (Catflap08 violated the IBAN by showing up suddenly in an ANI discussion and supporting a PAGEBAN for me -- not really relevant, though)
8. Gyōson (as part of a massive drive by me to complete Wikipedia's coverage of the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu poets, I recently created an article on this prelate of Tendai Buddhism; in a manner of speaking, Tendai Buddhism looks kinda-sorta like Nichiren Buddhism, since they both revere the Lotus Sutra; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my creating an article on a monk with a super-vague relationship to a sect of Buddhism that arose centuries after his death, which centuries later still gave rise to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs like Soka Gakkai and Kokuchūkai, may have possibly contributed to Catflap08's, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
9. Nichiren Shōshū (recent edits by me related the group's relationship with Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM, apparently led Catflap08 to believe that I am "hounding" him, although we have not directly interacted on the page and to the best of my knowledge the text I edited was never edited by him)
10. Nichiren Shū (I RMed the page recently in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME; three years ago Catflap08 was involved in a dispute with another editor on the page about the groups relationship with Soka Gakkai International, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
11. Soka Gakkai (a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
12. Nichirenism (a religio-political philosophy espoused by followers of the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
13. Shakubuku (not exclusively about Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but the way Catflap wrote the article it certainly looked that way; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
14. Criticism of Buddhism (nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but also nothing to do with this dispute; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently part of what led Catflap08 to the, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
15. Nichiren (my recent edits here do not relate to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs specifically, and no rational observer can claim to see any problem with said edits in and of themselves -- I was just trying to reformat the references so the tag at the top of the page could be removed -- but Catflap08 apparently believes that I am "hounding" him because I have been interested in Nichiren Buddhism since 2007 and have recently started editing Wikipedia articles relating to it; if someone thinks my edits to this page have been "disruptive", then please PAGEBAN me from this specific article, and TBAN me from NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism)
16. Muju County (nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but also nothing to do with this dispute; I inserted a disambig note linking to our article on Mujū, a Buddhist monk and contemporary/enemy of Nichiren; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page -- Catflap08 has never edited either page -- but my recent activity in an area even remotely related to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs is apparently part of what led Catflap08 to the, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see Law of holes BMK (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Are you insane? Why have you not fixed your TBAN proposal to accurately reflect the "common ground" between myself and Catflap08? Why do you insist on trying to get me indefinitely banned from the 90% of articles I regularly edit that have nothing whatsoever to do with Catflap08? Are you illiterate? Or am I missing some major area of this dispute that I have been involved in for over a year and you have only shown up recently to and pretended like you understand it better than I do? Or User:Sturmgewehr88? Or User:Wikimandia? Or User:Ubikwit? Or User:Nishidani? Or any of the other countless editors of Japan-related articles who have commented on this dispute and would be flabbergasted by your proposals? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I don't think it's particularly helpful to you or to the civility of this discussion to call me (and another editor) "insane", or to ask if I'm "illiterate" (especially since I'm quite obviously not - all these letter going together into words that make coherent sentences is rather proof of that). Your characterization of my motivations and actions is similarly incorrect, as anyone who reads this thread can verify. It's not about your content work, it's about your behavior and your attitude which are clearly a significant part of the reason why you and Catflap cannot get along. That this suggested topic ban would take you away from a subject area you really want to edit is no one's fault but that of the two of you, who could not exist under the previous IBan. In fact, the topic ban is devised to make you want to return to editing the subject area so much that you're willing to behave better to do so. Both of you. BMK (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand BMK's reasoning for "Japanese culture" (although I see it like killing a fly with a cannon), but his comparison with a TBAN from "US politics" by ArbCom recently is a little flawed; were the circumstances around that TBAN at all similar? I'm just guessing but I'm assuming that that case was an editor who caused problems across a random swath of articles that could only be grouped by "US politics". In this case, where the problem occurs specifically within articles related to Nichiren Buddhism, such a broad TBAN is unnecessary and overkill. You said that their net value as editors hasn't dropped to zero yet, so why treat them that way? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, you're kind of making it more difficult to argue for you here. I know you're feeling frustrated, but please try easing up on the attacks, they don't reflect well on you. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: You are right, of course, and this is why I have already apologized for the epithet on my talk page. Several users, including Drmies and BMK himself just above hear, have told me (threatened me) that BMK's own ignorance of "Japanese culture" and his stubborn refusal to admit that he is wrong about the scope of this dispute despite everyone telling him so are now quite likely to result in me getting de facto banned from editing Wikipedia. Just because of a stupid misunderstanding on the part of one user with whom I have never disputed before. But questioning said user's sanity did go too far, and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Having a quick look through each of the different article rating categories of WikiProject Japan, I'd estimate that a topic ban on Buddhist topics, even if enforced with a wide filter, would constitute 15-20% of all Japanese historical culture articles. That leaves around 80% of the remaining articles for Hijiri88 to continue working on, hopefully without any further violations of their interaction bans with other users. Hijiri88's ANI shenanigans don't appear to significantly fall outside of these realms, so it seems reasonable to provide a few inches of breathing space. You could even try working with a carrot-and-stick approach here; if, by any chance, the problem continues to worsen and their behaviour continues on articles outside of Buddhist topics, the response can be made more severe in reasonable and logical increments. If you allow them to dig deeper into their hole, you can justify further sanctions against them ("give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves"), and if they do end up having less conflict working outside of Nichiren Buddhist topics, then it's a victory for everyone, is it not?

  I'm trying to point out the implications of a wide-filter topic ban on an extremely broad topic, from an outside perspective. A topic ban on Japanese culture would prohibit them from editing articles such as Guadalcanal Campaign, Enka, Bonsai and History of Toyota, topics which are completely unrelated to the string of ANI issues in question. Then there's the issue of proportions: I'll use myself as an example. These days I tend to steer clear of topics and articles on Wikipedia that I anticipate will bring me into a large conflict against another editor, however assume that I have caused a huge debacle, and needed to be topic banned. There are many different areas that I am involved with on Wikipedia; if I was topic banned from China-related articles I wouldn't be too overly concerned, since they only constitute around 20% of articles that I'm involved with today; the same applies for videogame articles, military history articles and language articles, each of which spanning anywhere between 20-25% of all content that I write. Now in regards to Hijiri88, it isn't far-fetched to state that 95% of what he writes is related to the topic of Japanese culture. After a topic ban, what would you like him to write about? I'm not arguing that he should be "let off", of course they'll need to learn from these long chains of ANI events, and take full responsibility like any adult should. My point is that the punishment needs to suit the circumstance, and a topic ban for Japanese culture doesn't seem to be the most constructive solution that will benefit everyone. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, if the ban isnt wide, it just moves to a different set of articles in a different area Japanese culture. There needs to be a wide area, so that if one of them follows to an area outside of their normal area its easy to spot. Otherwise its an area they both want to edit in. AlbinoFerret 04:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in narrowing the proposal myself, I'm satisfied that, if there is sufficient support for the proposal, the closing admin can evaluate the discussion and decide on that basis if the topic ban should be narrowed or expanded, or kept as originally set. BMK (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, BMK: Where is the evidence that the dispute will move onto a different area of "Japanese culture"? It started fourteen months ago with a Nichiren Buddhist NRM, it was about a Nichiren Buddhist NRM when the IBAN was put in place, and is about a Nichiren Buddhist NRM now. Additionally, could you please define "Japanese culture"? Would I be banned from writing articles on 12th-century waka poets? If so: why? Catflap08 has never edited in this area, and he and I have never disputed over it. If the claim is that if a mutual TBAN were placed on "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs" then Catflap08 would follow me to 12th-century waka poets: AGF obliges me to disagree, and even if such a thing happened it would be a clear IBAN violation and could be dealt with if and when it happens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support It seems both editors have failed to get the message from the IBAN. The underlying problem is not that the sanctions aren't well framed; the underlying problem is that these two editors refuse to grow up and learn to edit constructively. Then crying, "But... but... a TBAN will hurt my editing!" is missing the point. The easy way to keep editing where you want to edit was to cut the crap out and get on with it. That point is past. GoldenRing (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:GoldenRing: Have you read the above discussion? There is near-unanimous support (including from both me and I think Catflap08) for a TBAN from our shared topic area, but there is disagreement over what topic area this is: Beyond My Ken and AlbinoFerret say it is "Japanese culture"; Catflap08, Drmies, Sturmgewehr88, Benlisquare and I say different (the others appear to agree with me that the area is "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs", but I don't want to put words in their mouths); everyone else has been ambiguous. Please bear in mind that not only have Catflap08 and I never interacted on "Japanese culture" articles not related to Nichiren NRMs -- Catflap08 has never gone near such articles. Furthermore, the quote you give appears to be your own interpretation of something Catflap08 or myself has said -- please refrain from citing your own interpretations as though they were direct quotes, especially when said interpretations are not necessarily backed up by anything the other users said. Neither of us have said that the problem is that it would affect our editing -- of course it would! The problem, as stated by both Catflap and myself, not to mention several other users, is that the TBAN (as proposed by BMKand AlbinoFerret) bears little-to-no relation to the actual dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, from the above discussion, that you find it hard to believe that anyone who disagrees with you could possibly have read the discussion. You're not exactly drowning us in contrition, are you? GoldenRing (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Its also possible, that having read most of the sections in the last month, that the surprise is because of the wall of text this has become, just like the others. AlbinoFerret 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm... you didn't answer my question. I asked if you had read the discussion because your post didn't make any sense -- which of the proposals do you "support"? Are your sarcastic comments about me meant to indicate that you want whatever will spite me the worst just because you don't like me? If so, may I ask why? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to get a message through to you. Inelegantly and imperfectly, I'm sure, but a message nonetheless and a message for your good. My comments were not sarcastic: your standard response to anyone who disagrees is to question whether they have read the discussion. Perhaps it is time for you to question whether you have understood the situation instead. You don't seem to understand that you have caused a problem which the community now has to deal with. I don't think you should get to quibble over the scope of the workaround the community comes up with to deal with the fact you two can't get along. You don't seem to understand that any editing restriction put in place is not a solution to the problem, it is a workaround; the solution is for you to go and learn to work together with other people, both of you. Try going and doing that, instead of sticking your nose in to where the community is trying to find a way of limiting the damage you cause. If you don't, this is very likely to end up at arbcom and there, I suspect, a broad topic ban is less than you can expect. If that's where you want to go then ignore my advice, by all means. GoldenRing (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You are still insinuating that I have somehow causedx damage to the project even though no evidence has been presented of such and several users who have looked through my edits disagree. You say this damage needs to be limited by imposing the maximum possible sanction against me (a de facto site ban): why is a two-way topic ban from the topic area in question insufficient for this? You tell me to go and get along with other people and stop interfering with the community's deliberations -- you do realize that as long as this discussion is open I am unable to continue my normal Wikipedia activity since ALL of it involves "Japanese culture", don't you? You say you support BMK's proposal of a two-way TBAN from "our mutual editing area of Japanese culture" -- which is it, though? Our mutual editing area, or Japanese culture? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, ignore my advice. And the advice of BMK below, which amounts to the same thing. I wish you well of it, but I don't hold out much hope. GoldenRing (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What advice? Seriously, all you're doing is telling me my contributions are worthless and I'm no longer welcome on this website. I'd much rather listen to the advice of Drmies and Sturmgewehr88 and stay the fuck away from Catflap08 and the articles he edits -- why can't I just do that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, there you take us into deep waters. Why indeed? If you both did that — or, even better, learned to just get along — we wouldn't be here, would we? If you can't see any advice in what BMK writes below, I suggest you read it again, carefully. GoldenRing (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You do understand that I've been trying to do one or the other of those for over a year now, right? Nichiren Buddhism falls into my normal field of editing anyway -- hence my editing those pages, and hence the majority of objective commenters agreeing that my editing those pages didn't qualify as hounding to begin with -- but I am willing to step away from those articles. There was the time I tried to initiate a talk page discussion on the Miyazawa Kenji article and Catflap08's immediate response was to complain about me on AN, or the time said AN thread was closed as abusive and instead of discussing with me he immediately opened an RFC, or the time the RFC turned against him and he violated it anyway, or the time I reverted his consensus violation and he opened another RFC rather than discussing with me on the talk page, or the time I posted a request on the Kokuchukai talk page to call it quits and work together and he spat in my face, or the time he requested an IBAN so I could not directly revert him, while at the same time striking a deal with another user to revert all my edits to the Miyazawa Kenji article once the IBAN was in place, or the time he himself reverted all my edits to the Kokuchukai article once the IBAN was in place ... When during this process have I been the one behaving in a belligerent manner? How can you justify the clearly-punitive-and-not-at-all-preventative nature of the proposed TBAN when the subject of the punitive measures is the one who throughout has been the one trying to make peace while being met with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Hijiri88 just left a harassing message on my talk page. It is more evidence that Hijiri88 will never stop making a nuisance of himself to other users editing in this field unless he is topic banned. When is enough enough with his disruptive behavior?TH1980 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Some clarification might be required. In the past four months TH1980 has logged in to Wikipedia intermittently to post ad hominem remarks about me on article talk pages. He has followed me to four articles, and two ANI threads, all the while insisting that I am following him. He insists that he is sick of my "hounding", but every time we have interacted it has been TH1980 who has initiated it. I keep telling him to move on with his life and forget about me, but somehow he just keeps coming back and just keeps insisting that I am following him. It was amusing at first, but I am frankly getting a little fed up with it, which is what prompted the boldface in the above diff. I'm going to request the nearest grown-up to come and take a look at this because I don't have the energy right now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88: I suggest you take a couple of deep breaths, and then re-read your most recent comments. You are coming off in this discussion as such a total and complete asshole that I am sorely tempted to withdraw my proposal for a mutual topic ban for both you and Catflap, and replacing it with a proposal for an indef ban for you alone. You, sir, are your own worst enemy, and the fact that you are totally unaware of that is a matter of concern. Now, if you would take my advice (which I am sure you will not), I would suggest that you shut the fuck up until this thread is closed, and you may have a chance of coming out of this with only a topic ban, and not being banned from Wikipedia entirely. BMK (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note from your talk page that you told another editor that you couldn't apologize to John Carter and myself for your insults to us, because both of us have asked you not to post to our talk pages, but there's nothing stopping you from apologizing to us here for the remarks that you made here (calling both of us "insane" and myself "illiterate"), is there?. BMK (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, what exactly is so bad about my above summary of my (unrelated and entirely off-topic) dispute with TH1980 that it merits me being called an "asshole" and being told to "shut the fuck up"? I asked you "are you insane?" and was made to apologize, which I did multiple times, but your above epithets are by any measure worse.

Furthermore, my comment wasn't even that bad: TH1980 has posted in multiple venues about me "following" him, and has asked me several times to "leave him alone", and each time I have responded by, as politely as I could under the circumstances, pointing out that he was the one who had followed me to said venue, and that if he wanted me to leave him alone the best way would be for him to leave me alone. I have now done the same thing here, which resulted in him adding the above off-topic commentary to this thread.

As I am sure you can tell I'm quite exasperated with this at the moment, so I'll refrain from further comment until Nishidani or some other user with experience of TH1980's antics helps to deal with the matter.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't care two figs how "exsperated" you are, I -- and I suspect many other editors -- are totally exasperated with you and Catflap, who cannot coexist with each other, cannot conform to the IBan you both agreed to, and constantly bring your conflicts back to the noticeboards, over and over again. What this proposal says is ENOUGH. You two have exhausted the patience of the community, and you need to be stopped. BMK (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

BMK, please don't refactor my posts. When I split my comment into several paragraphs, I prefer to place my sig directly below all of these paragraphs, not attach it to the final paragraph as though said had special significance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: from your tone in the above comments and the fact that you yourself made this proposal (which I already see resulting in nothing again), I would say this isn't about "the community" being fed up, but just you. If the community were truly fed up, this thread would've already ended with TBANs or blocks with near-total consensus, but that's not the case at all. So go ahead and change your proposal to a one-way site ban, you already know that's not going to fly. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri asked me on my page but I prefer not to meddle. All I would note is that anything TH1980 has stated here should be ignored. He is totally incompetent in the Japanese Korean area, as the talk page where I interacted with him will document. He has no idea of polioy.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That's your prerogative. At this point I really only wanted you to comment on TH1980 issue, which you have done. Thank you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Let the record show that Nishidani is an ally of Hijiri 88 who also harasses Wikipedia members. His "He has no idea of polioy [sic]" personal attack on me speaks volumes in this regard. Hijiri88 is also a hopeless liar about how I am the one harassing him, not vice versa--but that is no surprise, given how it is standard practice for bullies the world over.TH1980 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. Also, Nishidani is only my "ally" in that we both understand and make it a habit to follow Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. I call him in to help me deal with issues on talk pages from time to time because (1) he's damned good at it, and (2) he and I hardly ever agree on anything other than the fact that you and that other guy are messing up the articles with your OR/CRUFT, so it cannot reasonably be called canvassing. (The same could be said, mind you, for my requesting WikiProject Japan to weigh in -- the majority of that project's members have a history of disagreement with me, and I'd say any given member probably agrees with my edits less than 40% of the time, but virtually all of them would be flabbergasted at the idea of me being TBANned from "Japanese culture" because of my recent edits to the Soka Gakkai and Kokuchukai articles.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I've remonstrated with Hijiri often as any interaction talk page will show. On the other hand, I have had to revert you far more often, because of your incompetence in subjects like Japanese and Korean history.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Support per BMK - I think Hijiri88 has been editing in a fairly problematic manner in a variety of articles in this general field. I agree with user BMK that a topic ban should extend broadly into Japanese culture and history. Users who have already posted here like BMK and AlbinoFerret are evidently aware of instances of non-collaborative editing by Hijiri88 even well outside of his dispute with Catflap, but apart from those who have already commented, there are other editors who have noted the exact same thing. For instance, the user Snow Rise stated in a Japanese culture case from May unrelated to Catflap that Snow Rise "supported a topic ban on subjects relating to Japanese history and culture, broadly construed, since this is obviously an area where Hijiri cannot edit collaboratively with others and I suspect we shall be seeing him here again soon on a similar topic." Snow Rise proved correct in his theory that Hijiri's non-collaborative approach to editing would bring him back here again and again. User Jayron32 noted in the same case, unrelated to Catflap, that there was "a convincing case that Hijiri is not here to work with others, but has major WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNership issues." The user Silk Tork was said to have reviewed Hijiri's editing based on information collected by the user John Carter, and concluded that Hijiri is "a brittle and hostile user who makes things difficult for themself and others". This last comment is of course amply proven by this very thread. Many of Hijiri's comments are clear violations of Wikipedia's policies on civility, and the shocking direct threats Hijiri was quoted above as making against the user TH1980 should not be considered acceptable in any context whatsoever. I think there are a lot of other good editors like Catflap08 and TH1980 who at first would have been more than happy to work with Hijiri if Hijiri hadn't spoken to them with such insulting language almost from the outset of meeting them. Actually, based on such evidence, Erpert may be right that even BMK's topic ban will not solve these far-reaching editing issues, but between Erpert's proposal for a site ban, and BMK's proposal for a broad topic ban, I suppose BMK's lenient solution can be attempted first before any harsher sanctions are resorted to.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you meant "BMK's proposal for a topic ban, don't you, CurtisNaito? ;) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume by "non-collaborative editing by Hijiri88 even well outside of his dispute with Catflap" what CurtisNaito actually means is "non-collaborative editing by me with Hijiri88 even well outside of Hijiri88's dispute with Catflap". Just look at the histories ofTalk:Emperor Jimmu, Talk:Soga–Mononobe conflict or Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture to see me working collaboratively with a large number of users (Nishidani, Sturmgewehr88, Curly Turkey, Ubikwit, Phoenix7777 ...) with whom I almost never agree (and had several disagreements with on those pages) but still working together to find solutions to the problems those articles faced, while CurtisNaito was complaining the whole time that we "weren't editing collaboratively" because we were excluding him from most of the deliberations. Ask anyone (Nishidani would be particularly good at answering, IMO) why CurtisNaito is generally not listened to on talk pages relating to Japanese history and culture, but the answer will always be the same. Additionally, CurtisNaito himself appears to have some ego problems -- he recently declared that my contributions to classical Japanese poetry articles were crap because I used so-called "tertiary" sources like Keene's The History of Japanese Literature and the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten, while proclaiming his articles on the Sino-Japanese War to be "Good Articles", even though they are mostly sourced to right-wing magazines, and only passed the "GA" review process because (by the reviewers' own admission) they do not speak Japanese and were unable to check the sources themselves.

If CurtisNaito is right, and BMK was in fact looking at my past disputes with CurtisNaito while forming the wording of his proposed TBAN on me and Catflap08, then I would kindly ask BMK to please be more open about his thought process, and maybe keep off-topic discussion to a minimum. Also, if the proposed TBAN is based on the history of CurtisNaito's disputes with me, Nishidani and Sturmgewehr88, may I ask why exactly CurtisNaito, Nishidani and Sturmgewehr88 are not also up for TBANs for these disputes? Why am I the only veteran of the Korean Influence and Emperor Jimmu disputes being discussed in this manner? Pretty much everyone who was involved in these disputes agreed that I was editing constructively and working hard to end disputes before they started, while CurtisNaito's own passive-aggressive, IDHT behaviour and constant reverting were not helpful and tended to drive other users to the point of using profanity.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

insert point

• Comment In my opinion Hijiri 88 is causing trouble in this discussion as a means of wearing people down to the point this latest proposed ban regarding him gets dropped. I do not think we should cave in here and let him have his way yet again.TH1980 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, I have asked you before to stop pinging me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There's also the fact that a sanction discussion which is elongated unnecessarily by Hiriji's wall-of-text comments is much easier for editors reading AN/I to skip over, thinking that the issues will probably be too complex to get involved. Ironically, the issue here is extremely simple, and has nothing to do with subject-matter competence, it's simply that two editors cannot get along and keep bringing their beefs against each other to the noticeboards. I rather doubt that Hiriji does either of these things (wearing down and stretching out) deliberately as a tactic, I think he's just built that way.

I'm going to try to keep away from this discussion for a while, until it's run long enough to request closure, but let me say this as a final point. Catflap may be the more disruptive editor, I don't know, some people clearly think so, but there's one thing you have to say for them: they know when to stop talking and stop digging, something that Hiriji simply cannot seem to understand. But in any case, my proposal doesn't work unless both are sanctioned equally, and, despite the hopeful remarks of a few partisans, it has indeed gained a fair amount of traction: ignoring the two subjects, I believe we're at 9 supports and 4 opposes, with some days left to run. BMK (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point there has been (in fact, at the point I started posting my wall-of-text comments there already had been) more than enough participation both from involved users and outside parties to form a consensus on the proposed TBAN one way or the other. The TBAN is not supported by the community. A TBAN on the common editing area of me and Catflap08 has some support; a TBAN on Japanese culture has some support; there are some users who oppose any form of sanction against me until it can be proven that I violated the IBAN or engaged in disruptive behaviour of some sort. Clearly nothing will come of it and ... well, has anyone else actually noticed that Catflap08 announced both here and on his user page that he was retiring, and hasn't edited at all in days? Is any of this still even necessary? If anyone still thinks my edits in such-and-such area were disruptive a TBAN discussion can take place, but wouldn't it make more sense to do so without all the clutter of "this isn't about your edits -- it's about your inability to work together with another user who has already left the project"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the decision about whether the discussion has run long enough is not yours to make. The proposal has been open for only 4 days, which is less than the usual amount of time that sanction discussions are allowed to run, unless, of ocurse, they are runaways. Please stop trying to make this about me (another of your habits -- attempting deflection), it's clearly not about me, never was and never will be, it's about you and Catflap and your inability to get along without disruption to the community. BMK (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

BMK, did you even read my post before responding? I ask because your response appears to bear no relation whatsoever to my post.

I did not say the discussion had "run long" in a temporal sense: I said it was longer in terms of word count than probably any other ANI thread currently open, and had already seen more community participation than most such discussions, with no consensus in sight. You, AlbinoFerret and Ivanvector are in favour of a super-broad topic ban against me and the now-retired Catflap08; Drmies is in favour of a narrow topic ban against me but not the now-retired Catflap08; Sturmgewehr88 and Benlisquare are against a broad topic ban and appear to be ambivalent on a narrow topic ban for either me or the now-retired Catflap08; Wikimandia and a coupla others are against all sanctions proposed against me, with no explicit opinion on the now-retired Catflap08; several other users expressed support for some kind of topic ban, but given how your initial proposal was ambivalent on whether the topic ban should be on "our common editing area" or "Japanese culture", they can't reasonably be counted unless they explicitly state which of the proposed topic bans they support; John Carter, before Catflap08 retired, expressed neutrality on your proposal but favoured taking it to ArbCom, but it's really not clear how taking my dispute with the now-retired Catflap08 to ArbCom could be of any help when, as I hope I have now made clear to you, one of the two parties appears to have left the project.

When in my above comment was I "trying to make this about you"? You accuse me of making a habit of this, but as far as I can see this is in fact another instance of your habit of either failing to read other users' comments properly or deliberately ignoring the bits that don't support your argument. (Hence your complete failure to acknowledge my diligently listing every single article Catflap08 and I have disputed over or is even remotely related to the dispute -- if you actually read the list you would know how inappropriately broad your proposed topic ban is.)

You spend half of your response to me talking about how I am trying to make this about you when it is about me and Catflap08, but ... you ignored the half of my comment that was about Catflap08 having already retired. Could you please address what my comment actually said, rather than what you wish it said?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore: You earlier criticized me for "threatening" to retire from the project if your super-broad topic ban against me passed. But what about the other party, who actually did retire because of the mere suggestion that he be topic banned? (Let alone the distinct possibility that, like Catflap's earlier "retirements", it is just a stunt to gain sympathy.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Elongation, wearing down, deflection. BMK (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a question regarding whether Hijiri88 is even able to acknowledge that anything he does might ever be counted as really "wrong," at least in situations where he is actively being discussed, such as this one. And the preposterous attempt to impugn Catflap08 in the above just once again calls to attention Hijiri88's attempts to rush to judge the conduct of editors with whom he is in disagreement in such a way as to deflect attention from his own misconduct. Catflap08 has been questioning whether editing here is worth the aggravation he receives from editing here, most recently almost exclusively from Hijiri88 himself, for some time now. To assert, despite the I think rather obviously visible evidence, that it is a "stunt" seems to me to be, considering Hijiri88's own recent conduct regarding this discussion, a rather blatant violation of WP:KETTLE. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: When have I ever performed such a stunt in the past? We know Catflap08 did -- he pretended to retire in March, and the result was an overall increase in his editing output. And what you call a "stunt" on my part is me stating in a matter-of-fact way that the proposed super-broad TBAN is worded in such a manner as to drive me off Wikipedia. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the common editing ground of myself and Catflap08. No one has yet been able to locate a single edit by Catflap08 in the area of "Japanese culture, not Nichiren Buddhist NRMs". This is proof enough that BMK's assertion that in order to prevent further conflict between me and Catflap08 we need to both be banned from "Japanese culture" is overkill at best, and a deliberate attack on my editing without a hint of controversy in unrelated areas at worst.

Please, someone find one single edit by Catflap08 in the proposed TBAN area. ONE EDIT.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have just been subjected to another harassing message from Hijiri88 at my talk page. He is now threatening to request that I be blocked if I make an edits on a page he has contributed edits to. I submit his latest personal attack on me as further proof of his disruptive behavior.TH1980 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• If he is topic-banned, I think that there is perhaps a real chance that, if the article is within the scope of the topic ban, that any discussion to that effect might itself be a violation of that topic ban, and, on that basis, grounds for some sort of block or other sanction. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

TH1980, if you keep following me around like this you should be blocked per WP:HOUND. It is extremely frustrating and more than a little terrifying when you suddenly show up everywhere I do. Give it a break. Do something else. STOP FOLLOWING ME!

Also, if any topic ban is put in place, given John Carter's above threat, I would like it made clear whether other users are allowed unilaterally go around reverting my edits in such-and-such area.

But this is all beside the point -- "editing articles" I contribute to is not the real problem with TH1980's edits, and is not something I highlighted in the above diff. That's just more disruptive misrepresentation by TH1980. It's showing up any time I am involved in an ANI discussion and, without even reading the discussion, requesting that I be SITEBANned for unrelated past disputes with him.

23:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Its simply amazing. People show up and support site bans for you based on your behaviour. Then you blame it on them. I suggest you find a mirror next time you point a finger to find out who else is involved. AlbinoFerret 23:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, how do you explain TH1980's article edits and talk page comments, then? If he were simply a good-faith user doing his duty by supporting "the community"'s efforts on ANI, then why was he already haranguing me on articles and their talk pages before this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Counterproposal

I'm going to say exactly what I said last time. This needs to go to ArbCom. ANI is clearly unable to deal with this situation. Editors here are recommending punitive measures purely for being sick of it all. To me this has become the equivalent of two little kids fighting in the back seat of the car and being told to stop it or else; one hits the other who bursts into tears and the frustrated parent punishes them both, even though the kid who got hit didn't do anything, and they both start fighting again. How many ANIs have these two been involved with? It just has to stop and it should come from ArbCom as any topic ban etc would likely result in appeals to them anyway. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• It does not require community consensus to file a case request at ArbCom, but as long as this AN/I report is open, ArbCOm is unlikely to take the case. Their recent history has been to allow the community to handle the problem first. BMK (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, ArbCom won't raise a hand until ANI has been thoroughly tested and it's been repeatedly shown that community sanctions haven't worked. At this point, there is an existing iban and now a topic ban proposal. If the TBAN doesn't work either then by all means feel free to raise an request at ArbCom. 60.240.52.73 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to log in. Blackmane (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Some might be surprised if this fails, that an arbcom case is started, I wont be. The editors in question should not be hoping for arbcom, because imho its more likely to end in blocks rather than topic bans. Topic bans, even if they are indef can end if the editor goes elsewhere on WP and shows they can work well with others, blocks are much harder to remove. AlbinoFerret 15:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As an individual, I think that there may well be unique circumstances in this particular situation which might best be handled in more formal arbitration. I hesitate to say what they may be, but I believe this may well be a rather unusual situation in at least some regards which might benefit from what might be a more thorough review than might necessarily be possible here. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly unique in two editors being unable to get along, it happens all the time. Also, as AlbinoFerret points out, an ArbCom case for this is a crapshoot. In many situations it's fairly easy to foresee what the Committee is going to do, but in this one, I think it's just as likely that they'll deal out indef blocks for one or both as it is that topic bans will be the result. BMK (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything unique about this that ArbCom could speak to, or would be likely to act upon. It's two editors who don't like each other, who refuse to collaborate, and who are wasting far too much of the community's time with trying to police their ongoing conflict. Topic ban them both. Indefinitely. If they can show that they can edit constructively in other areas then they should have the opportunity to appeal in no less than a year. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly should I have to prove I can edit constructively in areas I have no interest in and/or knowledge of? The proposed TBAN parameters were arbitrarily selected to ban me from editing every article in any topic area I am remotely interested in, rather than to prevent me from editing in the (much, much narrower) topic area where there has been disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The topic area really doesn't matter, except to be selected to prevent ongoing disruption. You should have to prove you can edit constructively at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: if you don't think Hijiri can edit constructively "at all", then you've obviously never looked through his contributions. Here's] your proof of constructive editing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe what Ivanvector is referring to is the two editors' inability to edit without disruption. As I've said repeatedly, this is not about the ability to create content, it's about the behavior of Hijiri and Catflap. BMK (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Could Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, and Ivanvector please stop and consider -- who is it that has been/still is causing disruption here?

Where is the evidence that disruption on my part led to an IBAN? The initial IBAN discussion saw two users (Catflap08 and John Carter) claiming I was abusive, two users (Sturmgewehr88 and myself) saying Catflap08 and John Carter were disruptive, and a whole bunch of other users saying "I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but the best solution here would probably be to separate them".

Where is the evidence that the recent disruption since the IBAN was mine? Virtually everyone except maybe Drmies (who gave Catflap08 a slap on the wrist for his violations but blocked me) has acknowledged that Catflap08 and not I had violated the IBAN numerous times.

Where is the evidence that any of the proposed solutions would solve whatever problems still exist? A mutual or one-way (for me) TBAN on "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs" is the most logical solution and appears to have the broadest support among the community -- even Drmies backs it, despite early comments by BMK and Ivanvector misrepresenting him as being on their side. But is even that necessary when Catflap08 has been "retired" for over half a week already? Is the insinuation here that I need to be restricted to prevent me from grave-dancing? Where is the evidence that I will do something like that? I haven't gone around systematically reverting all of the edits of any of these users -- when in the past have I ever either done or threatened to do such a thing?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have thought about it again, you two still need a topic ban. Every post you make makes me (and probably anyone who reads them) believe you need a topic ban. You are digging a deeper hole. AlbinoFerret 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I keep suggesting this topic be brought to ArbCom is because ANI has failed so far to deal with this, over and over. Yes, Hijiri88 is long-winded, but there's nothing that says one must be brief here, and I truly don't believe it is some malicious plot. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, you're free to file a case request at any time, but a number of editors have reported as to what the expected outcome of that would be at the moment. BMK (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't misrepresented anyone. I referred to exactly two comments made by Drmies: one, the "the ongoing and ever-increasing exasperation of the rest of the editors", and two, "just f***ing zip it". I interpret one as an accurate observation that you are wearing the community's patience thin, and two as an expression of frustration that we keep having to hear about the two of you. Sturmgewehr88 is right, I have never looked through Hijiri's contributions. Editors who are constructive and collaborative contributors don't get blocked for crossing ibans because they don't have ibans in the first place, and don't have 18,000-word, 120,000-byte threads at ANI about their conduct after having been asked by an administrator in a previous ANI thread to shut up. I'll add a three from Drmies' previous close: "boy would I like to put a stop to this." Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Admins, are we closing this yet? Consider issuing a narrow topic ban as outlined above, the kind of topic ban which, if I read their comments correctly, even Hijiri agrees with. Someone cut this Gordian knot. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion was opened on the 20th, before Catflap, apparently from what I have been able to determine, finally may have retired outright due to the misconduct of others involved in this thread, with much of that misconduct directly visible here. That being the case, I suppose it might make some sense to let the discussion wind down naturally, after the full seven days have elapsed. Somehow, I have a feeling at least one person here is perhaps going to continue to argue every point he can think of, be it rational or irrational, and on that basis I suppose it might make sense to give him as little reason to argue later as possible. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• We must keep in mind, though, that the very large majority of editors commenting on this case favor the broad topic ban proposed by BMK.TH1980 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's currently 10 in favor, 6 against, and 1 neutral, with some of the supporters prefering a narrow TBAN. Hardly a "very large" majority. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Well... not really. It's true that both Catflap and Hijiri gave "oppose" !votes, but all that really means is that, if the mutual topic ban proposal is implemented, it's not being done voluntarily -- so those two opposes can be ignored. That means 10 supports and 4 against by your count. (Who is the neutral, BYW?) What's interesting is that virtually everybody in this discussion says that there is ongoing disruption, the difference is that the "supports" see a potential solution in the mutual topic bans, while most of the "opposes" point the finger of blame in various directions. It's virtually unanimous that there's disruption which needs to be dealt with, a fact which I hope the closer of this discussion will take into consideration. BMK (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the fact that we just got another editor's opinion is an indication that this thread is not, at least, overripe for closure. I was thing of waiting for 7 days after the opening of the thread, presuming that there hadn't been any new !votes in the previous 24 hours, before asking for closure. BMK (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: John Carter cast the neutral !vote. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, thank you. BMK (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to note here that the above support counts appear to include both TH1980 and CurtisNaito, two users who were quite open about their !votes being based on their pre-existent opinions of me rather than any actual evidence relevant to THIS situation. Both users have an established history of wiki-stalking me, as Nishidani attested above. It should also be pointed out that TH1980's claim of broad support for a "Japanese culture" TBAN is unfounded. Disregarding said wiki-stalkers, we have only three explicit supports (BMK, AlbinoFerret and Ivanvector) for the super-broad TBAN that covers mostly articles irrelevant to this dispute, and one explicit oppose (Drmies said he would support a narrow TBAN, not a broad one) being inadvisedly counted as a support. Additionally, it should also be noted that Catflap08 appears to have left the project, and the proposed super-broad ban covers mostly topic areas he never edited to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And I would like to note that the above comment is at best only at best partially supported by the facts, on this same page, What Nishidani said above, and I quote, is "All I would note is that anything TH1980 has stated here should be ignored," along with some other comments about that editor. At no point that I can see did he say anyone has "an established history of wiki-stalking" Hijiri88, as he attests above. The fact that Hijiri88 is once again engaging in transparently dishonest representations of the statements of others to support his own statements is I believe a serious enough problem as per WP:HONESTY to in and of itself raise questions.

Also, I think it worth noting that the reason I had stated earlier that I would not offer an "official" !vote was because that I was somewhat sympathetic to one of the parties involved, User:Catflap08, who has, so far as I can tell, finally done what he has been considering doing for some time and retiring from wikipedia. I hesitated to cast a !vote to limit him based on the conduct I had had with him earlier. I have never had any particular objection to sanctions against Hijiri88, however, and the conduct he has engaged in on this thread is to my eyes sufficient to believe that he should not be allowed to continue in like manner without facing the prospect of some sort of sanctions. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It does look like Catflap08 has retired. In that case I think this thread should be closed. I don't see much proof that H88 was really hounding in this complaint, so perhaps it's time to retire this thread as well. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the retirement was in April. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, is it actually standard practice to disregard the !votes of users directly affected by a two-way TBAN proposal? I have never heard of this practice before. I can understand not counting a user's individual request that they not receive a one-way ban if everyone else agrees that they should be banned, but in this case both the initial proposal and most of the "supports" have been for a mutual TBAN, and Catflap08 and I have expressed conflicting views on it. Catflap08 opposed any TBAN for himself, apparently rejecting all sanctions that weren't one-way sanctions on me; I expressed pretty strong support for a two-way TBAN on the relatively narrow area Catflap08 and I have in common, while opposing the super-broad TBAN. Drmies explicitly opposed both a mutual TBAN and a broad TBAN, saying he might support a narrow TBAN on me. At least two other "supports" were unclear. Several more users expressed explicit opposition to sanctions against me than opposition to sanctions against Catflap08. Of the three users who aren't explicitly in favour of a two-way, broad TBAN but appear to be in favour of some sort of TBAN (Drmies, Sturmgewehr88 and myself), all three are explicitly opposed to a broad TBAN. Of the six editors in favour of a broad TBAN (BMK, AlbinoFerret, GoldenRing, Ivanvector BMK, John Carter, TH1980 and CurtisNaito), the lattet two almost certainly need to be discarded since they are not !voting based on the evidence presented here but based on their personal dislike of me, as indicated by their complete reliance on external, unrelated "evidence", their not expressing any opinion at all on whether the MUTUAL TBAN proposal should apply to Catflap08 and one of them not knowing who originally made the proposal (clearly not having read the discussion). AlbinoFerret and TH1980 have in the past couple of days been spinning this highly-complex !vote breakdown as some kind of a 2.5-1 advantage in favour of a broad TBAN, when it really isn't borne out by the numbers. When 3/4 of the people asked what they mean by "support" say explicitly that they support a narrow ban and oppose a broad one, we can't just go assuming that everyone else must be supporting a broad ban.

Also, John Carter has explicitly stated above that the mutual nature of the proposal is why he has remained "neutral" on whether a ban should be put in place at all -- in layman's terms, he likes Catflap08, and he doesn't like me. Why, then, is he not equally neutral on the scope of the mutual ban? Why does he care whether his friend and his enemy are equally banned from "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs" or "Japanese culture"? It couldn't be that one of these options is actually mutual, and the other is tilted against one party more than the other, could it? A large number of users have explicitly pointed out that "Japanese culture" is not "common" to me and Catflap08; it is my area of interest. Our actual common area of interest is much narrower, and John Carter is propping up the option that hits my harder and hits Catflap08 the same either way.

Nd if, as John Carter has been claiming above (Ctrl+F "stunt"), Catflap08 is sincere in his recent "retirement" statements, this whole debate is moot anyway, since my dispute with Catflap08 can't cause further disruption if Catflap08 is no longer part of the project.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stabila711 (talk • contribs) Note: SineBot seems to be referring to this edit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For once I agree with Hijiri88. Since we seem to lack the willingness to put a stop to clearly disruptive editors before they drive other productive contributors away from the project, we have allowed yet another clearly disruptive editor to drive another productive contributor away from the project. The damage is done, then; we can't do anything more here to prevent it. Any new blocks coming out of this are clearly punitive which is not allowed by policy. All we're doing here now is wikilawyering about whether or not different editors' comments are valid or not, and there's no point to it. I withdraw my support for any sanctions for Hijiri88. I'm sure I'll see you all again when Nichiren Buddhism becomes yet another general sanctions cesspool. Good work, team. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its also common for users canvassed into the discussion to have less effect on the outcome. There are posts by Hijiri88 above that could be considered canvassing. 2 Where he pinged editors[17][18] and one that deals with a non neutral notification on a project page[19], and one a post to a user page of an editor who helps him with other users who he disagrees with [20]. If these factors are taken into account he has very little editors comments to support his desired outcome. AlbinoFerret 14:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sure Catflap will be back--"retired" here means "temporarily driven off", possibly in disgust. Hijiri88, for the life of me, I don't understand how you can go canvassing around for a thread like this--are you just trying to make yourself look bad? Don't answer that. Some admin might block you for it. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting closure

I think the required seven days have passed. If anyone wants to weigh through the wall of words this thread is and draw a conclusion regarding the outcome, that would be most appreciated. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, high time to close this. If it results in no sanctions, I'll be disappointed; the discussion above on its own highly merits them (and note that Hijiri is sticking his very sizeable oar into another discussion further down this page). GoldenRing (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I too will be disappointed if no sanctions are levied. We have a situation here that is clearly out of hand that warrants strict corrective measures.TH1980 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added a request to WP:ANRFC AlbinoFerret 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hi admin--please consider looking for a consensus for the narrow topic ban proposed above for Hijiri. Topic banning both editors the same way is highly unfair to Catflap, who was not the bad guy here and who would suffer in a very different measure. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting that Catflap will probably remain active in the WF entities in general, probably particularly the German wikipedia. But this is also a controversial content area here, particularly regarding Soka Gakkai and a few other related topics, and the more informed, competent, and effective editors we have available the better off we will be. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: "Catflap, who was not the bad guy here" are you kidding me? He constantly, although following the letter of the IBAN, showed total contempt for the spirit of the IBAN. I'm also convinced that he asked John Carter to proxy for him on the Kenji Miyazawa article via email (plus there was that "you editied my hometown" conspiracy). And now he is yet again pulling this retirement stunt. He deserves blocks or bans just as much or more than Hijiri. Both should be banned from Nichiren Buddhism articles. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am not kidding you, and if I were you I would be very careful about making unfounded accusations about proxying. That is a pretty serious violation of AGF, and thus of NPA. I got more acronyms if you need them. As for the "hometown conspiracy"--there is no conspiracy, and Hijiri made that edit. As I said before, it was a while ago, so it's not that big of a deal, but it did happen. That you can't seem to find the evidence is your problem, not mine. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• It should be noted that I when I sought to send information to Hijiri that I recovered from various databanks, it had to be through Sturmgewehr. I have no reservations whatsoever actually about allowing access to my e-mail records to someone trustworthy. I wonder if Hijiri and Sturmgewehr can say the same thing. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Some points the closing admin may wish to consider:

• This is a long term dispute. I was going to comb through the archives and post the large number of noticeboard threads concerning these two editors, but, frankly, the thought of doing so was onerous, so I'll just suggest that you use the search facility and check for yourself.
• In other words, my proposal, which seems totally out of scale for the reported problem, is provoked by the history of disruption to the community caused by the length and public nature of the conflict, and not by the specific incident.
• My proposal was for standard indefinite topic bans from the subject area of "Japanese culture" for both editors involved, Catflap09 and Hijiri88.
• This is clearly not a slam dunk in terms of support for my proposal, but, as I mentioned above, it is nearly universal that all commenters see disruption, that the locus is these two editors, and that something needs to be done.
• The difference between the supporters and the oppposers is that the opposers cannot agree as to which individual editor is responsible, pointing fingers in both directions.
• Despite there not being a snow consensus for my proposal, there is a clear consensus that something needs to be done here. Failing to levy some kind of sanction would be, I think, a disservice to the community.
• The previously imposed IBan has not been effective in quelling the disruption.
• As Drmies says, there is sentiment -- from opposing voters, primarily -- that the scope of my proposed sanction is too broad, and that it may be possible to see a consensus for narrower mutual topic bans. While I wouldn't object to that, I do agree with AlbinoFerret that the dispute is just as likely to move to another area. However, again, some sanction, some attempt to stop the bleeding, would be better than nothing.
• Catflap09's "retirement" should not be considered, as it's been up since April, and he has continued editing. In all likelihood, he will return to editing.
• Finally, it's worth noting Hijiri's misbehavior in this very discussion: personal attacks, failure to AGF, borderline harassment, and, worst of all, blatant canvassing, both in the thread and elsewhere, when he posted a non-neutral pointer to the discussion at the Japan Project containing an implicit threat to quit editing Wikipedia if he didn't get support from the editors there. Such behavior should not go unsanctioned.
• Good luck!

BMK (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This editor User:FreeatlastChitchat is constantly removing sourced information and content and pushing POV

This editor User:FreeatlastChitchat is constantly removing sourced information and content and pushing POV. I know that he will more than likely edit up edit warring with me so I am trying to nip it in the bud. He has a track record of WP:guideline violations just look at how many warnings he has and is constantly removing content to push his sectarian POV. He is removing sourced information and is trying to censor wikipedia because some of the content is offensive to him. I've tried warning him and telling him several times to no avail. Sakimonk ^talk 17:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

here are some examples of his soapboxing / censoring / pushing POV and violating WP:NPOV

• Adding content not from the source just to push his anti-wahhabi sentiment
• censoring the information that Ahmadiyyah is a messianic sect simply because it offends him, he lies and says it isn't in the source but the source is the official Ahmadiyyah website and a text explaining how Ghulam Mirza is their considered Messiah
• HERE
• HERE
• and HERE He reverted three times while a discussion was going on to establish a NPOV as per WP:BRD cycle. He ignored the talk and constantly tried to push his POV and censor wikipedia because he didn't like Ahmdiyyah being listed as Messianic or as Minor.
• His removal of content which is fully sourced to a reliable reference simply because he is pushing his Anti-Jamat Islami POV
• More removal of content which is sourced simply because he is anti-wahhabi and lying that the link is fake even though it is an official university website biography

This user was actually reprimanded for edit warring and disruptive editing only two days ago yet he is at it again!

I kindly ask that you deal with this user in an appropriate way because it is a headache to have to undo all of the damage he is causing Sakimonk ^talk 17:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

And after FreeatlastChitchat you, you reverted him to be reverted in turn by User:Rothorpe. You've made it pretty clear at Template talk:Islam that you are editing with the pov that Sunni Islam is the original and orthodox form of Islam, and that " The only sects in Islam are Sunni'ism and some shia groups, khawarij and sufis. The rest of the groups mentioned here are mostly not actually part of the religion of islam but are offshoot religions." This seems for you to particularly include the Ahmadiyyah. Doug Weller (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Defence, and Proposal to T-Ban Sakimonk from Islam and related topics

I edit in areas which are highly controversial and therefore sometimes editors think that what I have added is "offensive", "anti religious", "propaganda against their particular brand of religion", "an attempt to violate their religious doctrine on wiki". Such editors either edit war with me or try to report me. The user who reported me is one such user. His edit history will show (I can provide diffs but almost every single edit in the last month has been this way so its quite easy to see by just clicking contributions) that he wants to remove anything from wikipedia that he feels is offensive to his version of Islam. Therefore seeing that a large number of editors are being forced to placate him in Talk pages, and seeing that long, long walls of text are being generated just to try to convince him, I've concluded that he is a time sink. In light of this I'd like to propose that Sakimonk is T-banned from Islam and related topics for 6 months and allowed to appeal this ban after six months. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

How ironic, you're using my argument against me? You're the one who is offended by my edits and you are the only one who is censoring information on wikipedia. You're the one who has been warned several times by multiple users for edit warring. The only time I've ever had a problem with editing in recent history is on the Israel page because I accidentally violated the 1 revert policy on Arab/Israeli articles. By the way Doug Weller, if you had even bothered to read what I had actually said you would have realised that I made a clear distinction between my POV which is indeed biased and my intention to have a template which is in line with WP:NPOV guidelines. I do personally believe that the tenets of Islam are violated by groups such as Ahmadiyyah and Mahdavia (as do the vast majority of Muslims) however all I wanted to do was make a clear distinction between mainstream Islam (which literally over 90% of the circa 1.5 billion Muslims follow) and fringe groups who are messianic in nature. How on earth is it POV to call ahmadiyyah messianic? Furthermore, their ideology is actually based on their conviction that Ghulam Mirza is the messiah. I believe that my edits are the most informative and true to the topic's nature whereas removal of this content is simply being politically correct and censoring wikipedia just to not offend Ahmadis. Freeatlastchitchat and Peaceworld are both ahmadis and strongly utilise all means to push their POV and censor wikipedia. You're just enabling them. I've made clear what my personal beliefs are on the matter and I made a clear distinction between my personal feelings on the matter and what I believe that wikipedia should say. Sakimonk ^talk 04:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I just have to point out the hilarity of FreeatlastChitchat 's opening statement. His edits are antithetical to every word he has said. It reminds me of the Hosni mubarak trial. Sakimonk ^talk 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Sakimonk/Archive 1 has multiple edit-war templated warnings, several other notices about various disruptive editing, and indications of multiple times being hauled to WP:AN*. His saying "You're the one who has been warned several times by multiple users for edit warring" about someone else might be true, but it doesn't lessen his apparent involvement and history of the same behaviors. Pot/kettle, etc. DMacks (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that User:Drmies has given a Sakimonk a final warning at Template talk:Islam regarding edit-warring on that template. Other admins have full-protected multiple other pages in which he was involved in edit-wars on Islam-related articles. The general theme is as others have noted: Sakimonk taking an editorial position on what is the "true" Islam based on majority/mainstream and various political/governmental pronouncements, rather than just what is majority/mainstream with more academic sources. That's a series of pretty bad patterns, which don't usually lead to the user's desired outcome. DMacks (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• DMacks, thanks for the ping. I was not aware of this thread, though after I warned the editor I saw that they were edit warring in a number of other articles. Had I seen this thread and dug deeper I might have blocked them on the spot. I don't have to take an opinion on the content of the edits; the edit warring and the budding consensus here about POV editing is probably enough for the next admin to make a swift decision if their editing behavior continues in this vein. But I'll leave that for someone else, perhaps you, DMacks, since I'm done for the day. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That is simply not true. I actually find it quite insulting that you insinuate that I am (sic) taking an editorial position on what is the "true" Islam based on majority/mainstream and various political/governmental pronouncements, rather than just what is majority/mainstream with more academic sources. Time and time again I've made it brutally clear what I believe is my personal POV on the talk pages but I've also made it clear that I don't edit with this POV, I always intend on simply providing an accurate and balanced edit in line with WP:NPOV guidelines. We all have our own biases, at least I am honest unlike other users who do the opposite - hide their agenda and wreck articles with the false pretext of asserting NPOV. Sakimonk ^talk 05:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support based on comments of the editor here, which seem to equate the views of extant Muslims with what should be presented in wikipedia, as per his statement above about his intentions to "make a clear distinction between mainstream Islam (which literally over 90% of the circa 1.5 billion Muslims follow) and fringe groups who are messianic in nature". Unfortunately, such a view is pretty much completely antithetical to wikipedia policies and guidelines, in this case particularly WP:NPOV. The views of the majority of Muslims at this time are not that which we should base our content on, because religious doctrine in most religions is more or less constantly in flux to one degree or another, and majority groups can sometimes die out to be replaced by others. We are supposed to base our content on what the best peer reviewed sources say, and there are numerous such sources, including those of a broadly encyclopedic nature, which do not make the distinctions that Sakimonk seems to consider so vital. He seems incapable, at least at this time, of differentiating between current majority POV and academic POV. If and when he is able to effectively understand and recognize that distinction, it very much seems to me that he will be ultimately just continuing the current internal majority POV, not the more neutral academic one. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, John Carter why is it that the Christian template has Eastern Western and Nontrinitarian? The seal of prophpethood is a key theological aspect of Islam. A group which espouses that a new messiah or prophet has come is not what is (in the wider academic viewpoint) not a typical form of Islam. It is unfair on readers who are unfamiliar with the topic to be presented with a multitude of "versions" of Islam when they are more than likely to want to read about what is the more prominent, relevant and pertinent topic at hand (which innervates into all other areas of importance such as News, Theology, Socio-economic matters etc.) which is the dominant forms of Islam; Sunni and Shi'ite. You talk about "flux" and so on, in reality Islam has always had a majority sunni following for over 1400 years, this has never fluctuated. It's simply a ridiculous assertion that being "Poliically correct" and not making an objective differentiation between what is normative Islam to what is atypical is simply being truer to the content. Why is it that articles on sciences and philosophy will always point out key influential figures or main branches of philosophy etc. By your logic we might as well list Jim Jones' cult along with Roman Catholicism. Sakimonk ^talk 01:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Sakimonk was previously involved in a dispute discussed here[21] surrounding his wish to have the derogatory term "Qadiani" described as the commonly used term for Ahmadi Muslims, among other things. Editors like these is what is turning Wikipedia's content about Islam into a useless, conflicted mess.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I still stand by that edit, there is no substantial proof that the word "qadiani" is derogatory, it is actually the term most widely known to people to describe followers of those of the ahmadi faith. The term is used as the ahmadi religion emerged in the town of Qadian. It's like calling someone from London a Londoner. This is surely a violation of WP:NPOV since the only POV shown is the Ahmadi one and not the objective POV. The source I cited was an official government document, and you claim I'm being disingenuous? Sakimonk ^talk 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

All your claims have already been addressed at Talk:Qadiani which is the page where it should be discussed. Human Rights Watch describe the term as derogatory.[22]--Anders Feder (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks and Drmies he has started disruptive editing once again inserting POV material into the Mujaddid article. TP consensus clearly shows that EVERYONE is against insertion of such POV. Can we at least give him a warning? Pretty frustrating to revert him every time and then try to explain things to him on the TP when he is not even going to listen. I have requested gold lock on the page for a couple of months so that this can be settled on TP but until then can anyone just warn User:Sakimonk. Regards A tiredFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I can't do much with the information here. Sakimonk's POV is not clear to me "by just clicking contributions". That POV needs to be much more clear to an outsider like me, and that their edits are disruptive, I can only establish if they go against, for instance, clear consensus on a talk page. That was clearly the case in the major/minor thing on Template:Islam, where they were edit warring, but they haven't done that since I warned them. Sakimonk's comments certainly seem a bit tendentious, but that's not much to go on, not for an administrator. I would need to hear more informed opinions by more editors. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. My experience of dealing with Sakimonk has only been good; his/her edits have not been disruptive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support This user pushes POV across a range of articles and some users are encouraging his behavior it seems. For example he labelled the Barelvi movement a sect because he doesnt believe that they are a valid sunni movement [23]. Another editor pointed out that the edit was not NPOV [24]. He regards Barelvis as uneducated and innovators (bidah) [25]. Its clear that his POV is not restricted to "just" tp as he claims. Misdemenor (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite appalled at your behaviour freeatlast, you've reverted three of my edits across the pages and you're quite clearly harassing me. My edit on Mujaddid which you've claimed I pushed POV is clear indisputable evidence against you. I welcome everyone to go and see exactly what my edit was - I did exactly as requested on the talk page by the administrator who was resolving the conflict. I listed every POV and created subheadings for each. You've also removed my edit on Bin baz because you have immense hatred for 'wahhabis' you don't like that I added sourced content explaining he's a Hanbali. You simply are a very disruptive angry editor pushing your POV and you've hurled all of these accusations to throw off attention to yourself. I've been editing Islam for 6 years on Wikipedia and I've never once had any accusations of pushing a POV which was taken seriously. Also Misdemenor, you've literally hurled extremely vulgar insults at me on several talk pages, if you want to go there you've got some nerve. Why is calling brevlis a sect insulting? Sakimonk ^talk 21:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And the POV, hate speech insertions just continue from Sakimonk. In his latest edit on the Mujaddid article has has again added his own version of Islam which is classic IDLI , OWN and STICK. DeCausa then had to tell him that his edit was, once again, POV. Sakimonk has now started to feel like a time sink to be frank because he cannot even understand what the consensus is. This comment by DeCausa, regarding Sakimonks latest POV edit, is ample proof that Sakimonk has serious competence issues.

As for his Highly Rude language, here is one nugget from that gold mine. The two "mujaddids" of the fourteenth century are both extremist and heretical sectarianists who are rejected by the majority of sunni muslims. The rest of the actual mujaddids are all removed from the list because for some reason my edits are censored. Why is this? My version lists every single school of thought and is fully sourced and it is the most accurate. The current one is a POV car crash and embarrassing to even look at. Shame on you admin User:MelanieN for enabling such an abuse of the WP:BRD and violating WP:NPOV guidelines.

So any admin who goes against him be ready for backlash like this. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature

This article is mainly edited by a few editors who only edit this article and two related ones (Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos). Although I have tried to explain clearly what problems I see with the article as it currently stands, I continue to be accused of editing with a political bias by John sargis (as well as an IP editor, 165.120.27.172, but I assume that is the same person who forgot to log in). I consider this a personal attack and have notified the editor of this. This was again answered with a personal attack. The editor's user page and talk page show that this person has a history of such attacks. The editor also has a COI with this article, having published himself in this journal several times (e.g., [26] and [27]). In view of these repeated attacks and persistent failure to AGF, perhaps some editor here can have a look. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• You assume wrong what you think is my IP address. It is not me. You should be sure about your "facts" before making veiled presumptions against me. After I repeatedly showed you the irregularities about the way wiki rules are applied in terms of what you see as "problems" with the article, you blame me for attacking you. I am pointing out the foolish consistencies in the way the rules are applied in that there are many other articles that suffer from the same "rule", but it seems they only apply to D&N, even after it has been pointed out to you those other articles. If there are wiki rules that are “double standards” and an administrator enforces them, then logic dictates that the administrator is biased. This is not a personal attack. Furthermore, I do question your motives since if you think I did attack you personally, you threatened to take me to the WP:ANI board to get me banned. I question your motives, because before you post a grievance against a user with the board, you must FIRST try to resolve the issue on my talk page. Which you did not do. Thus you are harassing me. And I am asking now that an administrator can have a look for proof at my talk page. Thanks. John sargis (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• The issue was discussed at Talk:Democracy & Nature, so there was no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page. And apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules... --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but again as I have repeated, I want the rules to be evenly applied, which you did not do. The rule says that you go to my talk page to iron out the personal issue(s) and not at the article page which is inappropriate. You bypassed and undercut the rule so that you could preemptively get me banned by going immediately to the administrators. This is harassment. So again a foolish consistency underscores how you use or not use wiki rules for your convenience. John sargis (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Your insinuation, Randykitty, is I am hypocritical when you say, “apparently there are situations where you do want those darned Wikipedia rules.” implying I am biased is a personal attack. I replied, above, I want the rules applied evenly, but yet you are insisting not to use them evenly as evidenced not only in your discussions here and especially at your post at 19:36 (UTC) above, but also at D&N page where last year you tried the same editorial tactics with no success of deletion—and now you are at it again. It is difficult for it not come to mind that you have a political bias, but I do not know. John sargis (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh man... Could somebody not involved please have a look at this? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• And ongoing PA by another editor, Panlis, who exclusively edits topics related to the ones mentioned above. Given the vehemence and the accusations, I feel almost like I am dealing with a sect here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• User Randykitty, as demonstrated in Talk:Democracy & Nature, has consistently tried to impose his way of editing the article, by adding repeatedly tags and requests for citations, that were effectively shown to him that are at least irrelevant to the article and constituted the -to my mind as well- justifiable assumption that he indeed maintains a bias toward the entry. His recurrent editing "spree" has been accompanied by his unwillingness to answer to documented and logical questions brought to his attention in the Talk Page. So the assumption of his maintaining a bias towards the article does not constitute a Personal Attack, as so easily and conveniently Randykitty accuses me and other editors of, and this is because all criticizing was aimed at his activity in the entry, accompanied by documented and -to a decent degree- laborious argumentation on his recurrent and lately almost totally exorbitant actions showcased in the Talk Page. And this is particularly so, when in the meanwhile and while he accused the other editors, I tried to contribute to the article by particularly addressing his demands for citations, from the moment they seemed somehow sensible. At the same time, the only thing Randykitty did was mainly deleting, and adding tags!..

Then, Randykitty didn't take the time to activate the Dispute Resolution procedure, before bringing the matter to the Administrators' board. On the contrary he accuses the other editors involved in the discussion, with a striking nerve, of being a "sect"! But this is to say easily when an editor is short of answers to the points raised by me or anybody else who out of necessity does not spend his life in checking wiki entries and he resorts to the facile ‘accusation’ that "I exclusively edit topics related to the ones mentioned above”. But why specialist knowledge on a topic is something wrong when editing an article in an encyclopedia and in Wikipedia, when of course it's not a field for advocacy? Yes, I do have specialist knowledge on the topic and this is why I take party on discussions related to it rather than on brain cancer surgery. Unless of course, according to Wikipedia rules, people with no obvious knowledge on a topic or on the meaning or the function of a theoretical journal should have more say on any topic, as long as they have memorized some wiki rules. Of course rules are needed but the issue is how (as every rule) are interpreted. Panlis (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to give any more rope to this group maintaining a walled garden, per WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Randykitty increasingly acts in -to say the very least- bad faith and total unwillingness to follow any gradual protocol required by Wikipedia before dropping in the row and without any documented reply his "allegations" in this board. Now he demonstrates once again his blatant unwillingness to take part in the discussion in the Democracy & Nature Talk Page and to reply to the concrete arguments posed against his theses, when at the same time, he continues adding tags that have been demonstrated to him to be at best irrelevant and at worst, totally biased as [I (and other editors) have tried to prove here, without any at all, further participation to the dialogue by this obviously Disruptive Editor. It's also becoming now more than clear that the same user uses his "credentials" of thousands of edits in articles and of being an administrator, so as not only to impose his unacceptable editing methods to the D&N entry, despite my and other editors' best attempts to concretely and in detail show his inconsistency (and, ultimately), bias in this case, but to also throw mud against all other editors with whom he simply does not agree with: By putting at the venture labels on them of the sort of "WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA" etc..

And all this when

(a) positive response to some of his sensible demands was accurately applied to the entry,

(b) his blatant inconsistencies were meticulously shown with specific examples and passages in the Talk Page, without him caring to give any concrete reply to my and others' argumentation in the Talk Page,

(c) he jumped without any constraint to blame me and other editors of WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NPA etc., without any effort on his part to follow a normal procedure of the many available in WP:DR and elsewhere before resorting to these accusations and before bringing me and others to the WP:ANI, and finally,

(d) he continues even at this moment his disruptive editing and undocumented reverses without giving any explanation at all in the talk page for this, while at the same time he has the "nerve" of accusing me (with the non-argument) of "not addressing the underlying problems" (!), something that I tried to do in -I think- a decently laborious and well-documented attempt! Hence Randykitty's action that suits to his case could also be showcased vividly in the following clear passages from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

"A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: (...)

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." (...)

1. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." (...)

Panlis (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving article title without discussion

This user, Jarmur (talk · contribs) is moving a mass of article title without discussion. The discussion was made on this page, and decided we are not moving to the new title despite the changes made by the badminton organisation. --Aleenf1 12:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as the talk page goes, 2 editors one asking a question and another saying "I think" or "I believe" without any real strong conviction does not a consensus make. It was barely even a discussion, just a question and single returned opinion. However I agree that Jarmur should be engaging as they have been questioned a couple of times on their talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 15:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath

He is problematic, moving page title without discussion, revert back the undiscussed move, move a sandbox to a userpage. Does this behaviour doesn't warrant him a warning or block? --Aleenf1 14:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the User page back to his sandbox. Canterbury Tail talk 18:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Alarm bells?

Yes, Jarmur is setting off alarm bells on both Move Stats (Jamur is the dot at the top left of the chart) and Move Watch (first "red listed" entry further down the list). However, they haven't edited in over 24 hours. But I'd advise updating here if they start up again... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikicohen, WikiShanwnio, and IP at Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo

At the talk page of Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo, there has been an ongoing content dispute that has descended into severe incivility, including claims that one editor is the subject of the article themselves as well as a criminal while the other editor is a stalker who has faced charges. I originally reported this to the oversight email yesterday because I saw it as attempted outing, but that was not acted upon, so I assume that the lack of specific names here means this is not a privacy issue. Still, both editors have ignored warnings on the talk page to keep things civil, and I doubt anything short of a block will stop the incivility at this point. Please note that based on both self-identifying as "Shawn", the IP and WikiShawnio are almost certainly the same editor. ~ Rob^Talk 14:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wikicohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiShawnio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.26.73.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Rob, it is the same person. i was briefed by the toronto Police spokesman about a Shawn (redacted by WikiShawnio) who was arrested and charged with criminal harrassment of Ms Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo. He seems to think I am her. He has so many obsessive content all over the internet about her and the cops in a long email told me that it was endless work while Ms Omololu-Olunloyo was in canada. Shawn built blogs, stalked Ms O-O's Youtube videos, duplicated and defaced her content, DCMA filings all day. Im telling you what a detective and a spokesman told me. this blog was cited using Kemi's name http://olukemiolunloyo.blogspot.com/ Shawn said she's not a Pharmacist, not a Journalist, wanted fugitive which is still not proven, says her name is not Kemi, says he has her birth certificate, says he's her non official biographer, says her pharmacy license was revoked 10 yrs ago. All these have been proven wrong and I cannot keep editing his page for libel and slander. This guy outed himself and should be blocked from editing this page but of course he'll create another profile. I am a new wiki writer and just fed up! When you start editing pages of hated ppl, these wikistalkers arrive and something must be done

Wikicohen (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The way to settle this is at AfD. I predict it will be deleted, but nobody can accurately predict afd. DGG ( talk ) 12:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you Rob for taking the time to enter me into this discussion, I resent the fact you believe I am being uncivil, I have been more than such, you can see by Wikicohens rhetoric that she is upset that someone is adding sourced information to her own authored biography page, I don't think I have anything more to add to this, the fact you believe that I might be concealing my identity as the IP user is uncalled for, I was told to register, I did so. This issue was looked over by the admin because I believe you might not understand the whole picture here, one glance at the Talk page on the Kemi Olunloyo page and you can see what is going on, please don't pool me into what ever facade the user Wikicohen is doing. thank you. WikiShawnio (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunate combination in this article of blatant promotionalism and overstatement along with excessive detail of no encyclopedic interest on the one side, along with some relatively minor alleged criminal activity reported with similar over-detail on the other. I suggest AfD, or possibly G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DGG in that this article looks to have been created with a promotional or self-promotional point of view - either way, It isn't neutral. This article has been the subject of uncivil discussion between editors on it's talk page. I think it should also be known that, looking at the contributions of Wikicohen, WikiShawnio, and 70.26.73.164 - the majority of of their edits have been to either the Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo article or its talk page. I highly recommend that these users step away for a bit, cool down, and let others help with the dispute. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When I first looked at the article, I thought that Ms. Omololu-Olunloyo probably met the general notability guideline, but I'm less convinced now. When you check what's claimed by WikiCohen with the sources, much of it wasn't supported at all and sometimes even contradicted by the sources. AfD might be the best way to settle this. Sjö (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on the point of self promotion, I am new to wikipedia and only doing what I have seen others do, I have tried to be as civil as possible, I agree this article is nothing more than a dramatized resume but at the same time I do believe that Olukemi has earned herself enough notoriety online this page might be what Wiki needs, it's hard for me to be unbiased when I am constantly being bumrushed by the subject matter editing and reverting edits, you can plainly see what is going on with this back and forth. WikiShawnio (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Shawn you are not new to Wikipedia, you edit with two accounts, you libel and slander Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo under the controversy section. May I remind you that you said she is not a pharmacist nor Journalist and her license to practice pharmacy was revoked 10 yrs ago, you even claimed to have someone you stalked's (according to Toronto police) birth certificate. you lied that you were her unofficial biographer? Wikipedia edits is about the good the bad and the ugly, not the libelous and slanderous. Your sources are not credible. You keep sourcing from Nigerian blogs and not Nigerian media. Blogs in Nigeria copy whatever each other writes. they write based on celebrity and public figure tweets which may be deleted by those figures later. Ms O-O has not bowed out of Journalism, i will take off that edit AGAIN. Look for better sources and stop destroying the article. Certainly you have a COI with this subject and its a huge one. Also pls stop posting primary sources when secondary sources of her criminal case was reported by 3 Toronto papers. nobody knows if those charges are still pending.I will contact that police department on the update of their website if I have to. Stop posting things you are not sure of. DGG this article was created with neutrality but has been edited and altered too many times by Wikishawnio with false information. there is no self promotionalism. It simply describes a person, their career, their activism and controversy in their life. their numerous achievements and awards were taken out because of that very reason before it was approved. Wikicohen (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but is anyone else reading this drivel, bottom line, you keep editing your own biography, seems every day you come to this article and "buff it up" for the readers, all of wikipedia can see your edits and the patterns of your behaviour, I don't know how to handle this situation, I add credible sources., events that actually transpired and you seem to keep deleting sourced information based on the facts you "feel" it paints yourself in a bad light. one day this section is allowed the next day it isn't, then you make these long winded allegations about the internet is attacking "you" when the whole time you are writing your replies like you are not Kemi Olunloyo, do you even comprehend how your actions are being viewed right now? can someone please resolve this issue? WikiShawnio (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Both of these editors have continued their personal attacks on the talk page since this thread was started. Both of them are SPAs that aren't here to build an encyclopedia, in my opinion. ~ Rob^Talk 14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

COI editors or not, both of them have shown that they can't maintain a neutral point of view. Sjö (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

you can see from my contribs that I am adding events that transpired with sourced references, it seems like there is a bit of interest in "breaking up" a fight that is not even happening, you have a new contributor to Wikipedia here trying to complete his first rounds of edits on a topic I am very familiar with, it seems like instead of doing some research and reading the interactions between us you are just injecting your opinions without knowing the full picture, I contribute to an article, she deletes it, I try another avenue, even rewording and doing what the mod asks, she deletes it. I am getting the impression because someone has a wikipedia page and is reverting their edits because they might tell the real story, I am now being ganged up on and roped into what ever the user wikicohen is doing., so let the record state that I am simply trying to paint a picture here of the subject matter backed up with credible sources, apparently to some this is not wikipedia material? I don't get that at all. right now I am watching her use her cell phone to revert edits that have been resolved by 3 different moderators. I would like to know how I am not being unbiased here, I do research, I find events I post them with credible sources, she deletes them, so that means that I am like her now? please elaborate here. thanks WikiShawnio (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

the user wikicohen is now following me around and attempting to slander me with accusations I was arrested. I am requesting that it ceases immediately. she is also roping in another person not associated with wikipedia and I keep having to redact the names from the talk pages, wikicohen has even gone ahead and created me a user page without my permission> I don't know what the angle is here but it's hindering my use of the service here. I don't want to be lumped into wikicohens behavior as I am legitimately trying to help this article here with sourced material. The user wikicohen appears to be deleting large chunks of well referenced material because it doesn't tell the story she wants to tell. can someone please look into this, thank you. WikiShawnio (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Both users have now begun edit-warring and have violated WP:3RR. I've warned both. WikiShawnio appears to have backed off the personal attacks, which is appreciated. Wikicohen definitely has not, based on: [28] [29] [30] ~ Rob^Talk 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please let the record state what I am reverting is well sourced material, I believe that wikicohen is attempting to paint the subject in a good light, unfortunately there is alot of controversy to add to the article even yet and I fear we will never come to an impasse on the issues of reverting edits if wikicohen has a COI with the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiShawnio (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to paint Kemi in a good light, Wikishawnio's edits have no encyclopedic value based on Facebook posts. He needs to stop reverting MY edits and that is why I have been reverting his. The edit war has to stop, you cannot cite Nigerian blogs using non existent Facebook posts on Nigerian blogs. People go back to those posts and if they cannot see them, it presents a source issue. Use sources from legitimate Nigerian newspapers who actually write the stories not hearsay on Facebook posts that is not even valid some times. Stop posting libelous information. I will continue to go after you for that. For example you say that Kemi is not a Dr. Have you heard of a Pharm.D? Its a doctor of Pharmacy. Do your homework. wiki has no say n that. It is her title on every Medical Journalism platform she has. Now I will continue editing this article and pls do not revert my edits either.

Wikicohen (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rob, Edit warring is not why Im here, I will not be harassed outside wikipedia by Shawn (redacted by wikishawnio) who already outed himself from the beginning of this. Harrasing me on twitter (which he tracked me to) will not be tolerated. He can do that with Kemi not me. It is important to know that this is someone that has a long history of harrasing Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo and was arrested in 2011 in canada for it. To edit this articles with facts, I go beyond articles and hearsay. wikishawnio should stop roping me into whatever got him arrested by Detective 5050 of the Toronto Police on harrassing Ms Omololu-olunloyo. I am requesting page protection and a dispute resolution Enough is enough. I'm not kemi and Im sure she won't be happy reading all this edit war going on because of her. Wikipedia should be about encyclopedic articles backed up with solid relevant sources. Wikicohen (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Wikicohen: [31]. ~ Rob^Talk 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have backed off from directly interacting with wikicohen, I have even gone and found additional sources to back up my references, I even use the same sources that wikicohen is using, it's frustrating. I will let the admins/mods come to their own conclusions, the personal attacks and libel needs to cease immediately.I am all for locking the page for review, I don't want it deleted nor do I want to hurt Kemi Olunloyo in any way, the story just needs to be told, this is Wikipedia. I/O (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikishawnio, pls stop reverting my edits. When I added that Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo still writes as a Journalist for her websites and a VIP blogger for Pulse Nigeria, you REMOVED them. They were sourced. You went on to call it a temporary position when the website has an entire section of her profile. Also there is no extradition order for her as of August 2015. Nigeria does not extradite it's citizens according to the united Nations. The only extradition order was when she was in Canada and it failed. I have sourced that from the Toronto Sun so pls do not post false information. I have also moved your Nigerian personal hygiene story to the controversy section as its not a career issue. She did not write it as an article. I am still expect a page protection and a dispute resolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicohen (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• COMMENT These editors are causing great havoc on this page, and action needs to be taken. For me, I would recommend a Topic Ban from the article, and an Interaction Ban with each other. The talk page is a horrendous mess, and the article needs a complete review. It should be locked down, and a couple of uninvolved editors should go through it line by line. Scr★pIron^IV 20:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would support a topic ban, but I think an interaction ban is not necessary. They are both SPAs interacting only over this topic, so functionally the topic ban should take care of interaction as well. If it doesn't and personal attacks continue, blocks or an interaction ban can be handed out at that time. ~ Rob^Talk 14:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with a lockdown. I already requested for a page protection Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo must be going crazy if she's reading it all. Wikicohen (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo must be going crazy if she's reading it all." guys, please don't lump me in with wikicohen, please. I/O (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Blatant case of WP:OWN

This diff shows one of the most blatant cases of WP:OWN I've ever come across. To save you reading the diff, the Edit Summary says "cease from this. This is not a requirement and it looks awful. You're not a main contributor, so your opinions are not important." It is the culmination of a series of such actions. When User:John and I discussed it at Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn (Royal Navy officer) and User talk:Dapi89#Malcolm Wanklyn (Royal_Navy officer), we were both treated very rudely (and I admit I could have been less confrontational, but I think my suspicions that I, like John, would be treated with contempt were borne out). I bring it up because:

• I don't think this sort of behavior is acceptable.
• I shudder to think how a new user would be treated, and that's important to me.
• I think not discussing it here (if this is the right place) would be an abrogation of responsibility.

Shem (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin but I agree that is hardly civil and a totally inappropriate attitude. I'm looking over this user's other edits - this one is inappropriate as well, removing perfectly good sources and calling them "ridiculous." User appears to be an SPA who only edits WWII-related articles. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Page protected for a week before somebody does something they regret (3RR). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Why would you page protect it so nobody can edit it ? The problem is one user's attitude and belittling of others. I at least left a notice reminding him to be civil. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

While the edit summary on the first edit was inappropriate, WP:CITEVAR is relevant as there is no requirement to use citation templates in articles, and editors shouldn't edit war to introduce them.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Because while nobody had got to 3RR it looked as if an edit war was breaking out. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: That's not going to change anything as this is a WP:OWN situation. This editor has 200+ edits to this article and is not going to stop insisting on having the article be the way he wants it when the protection expires. It is not simply two editors having a disagreement, please look at this third editor discussing it here. This is problematic beyond this article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If they start up reverting again after protection expires then it is easy enough to block them. However, blocking should notbe the first reaction and they should be given an opportunity to discuss. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's indeed a totally inappropriate edit summary, but @Wikimandia: re: SPA, Dapi89 has 32,000 edits. Definitely not an SPA, irrespective of topic area focus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Shem1805 is trying to use WP:OWN to get his way. Ownership is not the issue, as is apparent to anyone with a shred of common sense. Stick to the issue. And what is this stuff about SPA? Because my edits are World War II-centric I am automatically incorrect? Not worth taking into account? Or somehow obstructive? What does that mean and why is it relevant? I edit a broad array of topics in this subject and others.

Shem1805's initial excuse for changing the bibliography came with a link to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Actually, he misquoted, or ignored the following: Online books. When a book is available online through a site such as Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, or Google Books, it may be useful to provide a link to the book so readers can view it. There is no requirement either to add or remove such links. A link to a Google Book should only be added if the book is available for preview.

Moreover: WP:CITEVAR is clear Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page.

So, it violates two fundamental guidelines.

Shem1805 shouldn't be allowed to distract us from the real issue, which is in the above. Moreover, all bar one of the commentators here should monitor his comments more carefully. If you want to criticise my for WP:CIVIL then perhaps you'd like to read the last post he made to my talk page, which is typical of someone who has no real solid case. Dapi89 (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• You should never fight perceived incivility with more incivility. The original issue that was raised was your edit summery that you included with your revert. The phrase "you're not a main contributor, so your opinions are not important" is a violation of WP:OWN. Their opinions do matter and belittling them because they are not a main contributor is not in line with policies. Anyone can contribute to an article, you are not the owner of an article simply because you are its main contributor. Instead of saying what you said you should have used the article's talk page or discussed it on the user's talk page. Their misuse of CITEVAR does not give you the right to say someone's opinions do not matter. It was not vandalism, it was not blatantly disruptive but your comments were insinuating that your owned the article and they aren't allowed to touch it. That is a problem. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment as an uninvolved editor. Dapi89 is correct. There is a citation style already present in the article, and Shem1805 was edit-warring to change the style without consensus, in violation of WP:CITEVAR. It is completely understandable that Dapi might be a bit frustrated when someone is f'ing up an article that he's put a lot of work into. Warn Shem and be done with it. GregJackP Boomer! 06:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• This case is about Dapi89 not Shem1805. Dapi's behaviour is totally unacceptable. Let it be known, but no admin intervention required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well it should be. Shem1805s edit warring is why we're here, another violation that the admins here seem to have glossed over. Stabila711's language is very interesting. I don't perceive incivility. It is there. And you chose to describe his "misuse" of guidelines casually while apparently condemning my attempts to comply with the manual of style and WP:CITEVAR as WP:OWN. Its terrible judgement and you're allowing this individual to use this phoney charge to lend some legitimacy to his position. He has no case, as you've already alluded to without actually saying it.

Concerning article ownership (and don't think this comment is an invitation to engage me in a discussion about this): I've never discouraged editing on articles that I put allot of work into or otherwise. I oppose incorrect sources, information or formatting. I'm entitled to do so. I'd refine my understanding of WP:OWN if I were you.

As I said, you're letting him distract you from the main reason of my reverts. He's wrong. Dapi89 (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Administrators do not hand out sanctions based on who is right or wrong in a content dispute. Enforcing MOS is not an exemption from the edit warring policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What is irrelevant? Explain. I didn't say they should. And I didn't start an edit war in contravention of standing policy. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't consider your actions as an example of WP:OWN. I consider your words as an example of WP:OWN. Big difference. Continuing to not own up to your mistake, your comment in your edit summary, is not really helping your case. You did discourage editing on the article by saying someone else's opinions do not matter since they were not the main contributor. Saying your won't be engaged in a discussion on the very reason you were brought to ANI is a problem. Formatting issues is something that should be discussed in a calm manner on a talk page. Reverting it and using the edit summary to say someone opinions don't matter is a problem. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A mistake it most certainly wasn't. As the often quoted guidelines say: the original contributions (no distinction from the original contributor) stay in the event there is no consensus or the new editor cannot rationalise his case. He can't and most of you have acknowledged that to varying degrees. The guidlines are also clear linked bibliographies are only useful of they are available for preview. They are not.
  • I hasten to add that I wasn't brought here. I could have chosen to ignore this. But it isn't in my nature to let logic flutter away without a fight (or discussion, if fight is too harsh).
  • And by the way, I was the only one that tried to discuss it on the talk page. Read it. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Wait a tic, back up. Let me be absolutely clear on this. I had assumed that you misspoke when you said that "You're not a main contributor, so your opinions are not important." Are you now telling us that this is actually your position? That other editors don't get to have input? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh dear, I wouldn't want you as my lawyer. Well let me spell out the obvious; his opinions on the bibliography are not important. Certainly in view of the guidelines I've mentioned umpteen times. They side with the main/original editor. Do you understand now? Does it sound like I said he couldn't contribute? Did I say I didn't want anyone to contribute? Unless he achieves consensus he can't edit war to get his way and his desires are irrelevant.Dapi89 (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your statement here is a great example that you don't get it (WP:CIVIL), or at best are poorly expressing it. Opinions and desires for ways to improve articles are important. They might be against consensus (or WP:BRD prior to discussion). They might be poorly thought-out due to unexpected side-effects or conflicts with guidelines. But the opinions themselves are fine, as are having editors express them. What's not-fine is saying otherwise, in the absence of the opinions themselves being abusive. Your concern is at best about how another editor is acting on those opinions. DMacks (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I get it. You don't. While we're on the subject of opinions: I'm entitled to them. You seem to be saying that I am not. Given other editors have offered opinions on my edits, I think I'm free to do the same. I've already made it clear his actions are what I'm concern about. Opinions are irrelevant when when a user cannot justify them, and then worst still, edit wars to keep them in. Dapi89 (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have little to say on the accusations about my editing except to let the facts speak for themselves. I went to the article to check on some edits by a user I've been mentoring, and found other stuff that was wrong (mainly MOS:CAPS, but some spelling and other stuff). Once I'd fixed it, I noticed that one of the ISBNs in the bibliography was showing a red link (which I understand means it has failed the checksum, and is therefore an invalid combination). So, I fixed it at this diff using RefTag. While I was there, I did not just use {{cite book}} for the incorrect ISBN, but the rest of the bibliography for consistency - and I think that's the right thing to do. User:Dapi89 reverted all of my edits, re-inserting the incorrect spelling and formatting, reverting User:John's edits in the process and removing the {{cite book}} templates at the bibliography (and at the same time, re-inserting the incorrect ISBN). Now I have never contended that the {{cite book}} template is better than the original, but I do think the correct ISBN is better, I do not agree that the edit summary "original biblio is better. New is messy and doesn't really add much. Hardly any of them can be viewed through google books" is either correct or appropriate. If "it doesn't add much", then it has added something, and if "hardly any of them can be viewed through google books" then at least some can. Presumably those are both improvements? And where is the "change of citation style"? The reader sees no difference apart from an extra link at each book. How is that "messy"? Two of the examples of WP:OWN behaviour are:
• An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
• An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

Even if I didn't think my edit was an improvement, I think our "owner" has tried to assign priority to his version, and that is the issue I brought to ANI. Thank you to all those who have taken the time to comment. Shem (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • You have nothing to be greatful for. You have no support for the changes in the bibliography. Once the page expires it will be reverted in line with guidelines.
    • That is quiet clearly a lie Shem. My reversals were aimed at at your editions to the bibliography and information you deleted and were wrong to do so . Other edits to the main body were reinserted. If you'd bothered to engage in meaningful discussion you could have avoided all this.
    • "If it doesn't add much it must have added something".....really? I was being polite. It adds nothing Shem accept a list of false links. That is why it unworthy.
    • You need to learn edit warring against guidelines will avail you nothing. Dapi89 (talk)

• I can't take admin action here, but I would definitely recommend a block for the above threat/promise to resume edit-warring. --John (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I concur. And since a major part of the issue here is Dapi89's civility and the fact that they've been blocked several times in the past for that, I've given them a 3 week block (up from their last 2 week block.) Though since the previous block was 4 years ago, any other admin is free to reduce the length if they feel appropriate though I'd recommend against lifting the block given the huge list of warnings for personal attacks, threats and incivility on their talk page. Tempted to go further in all honesty. Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And here is another perfect example of what BS content creators have to put up with. You get someone who doesn't have a clue about the citation style in an article come in and f' things up by ignoring WP:CITEVAR, the guy that created the content and who has policy on his side gets understandably a bit upset, the guy without a clue complains, and some admin with more concern about civility than content or policy blocks the content creator instead of telling the guy screwing up the citations to stop. Brilliant. GregJackP Boomer! 19:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• God, I don't have the energy or enthusiasm to make this a sacred cause, but... this "incivility" is pretty tame by almost any standard. It's frankly not that much different than the "incivility" of the complainant (does no one else see the irony in the sentence "I admit I could have been less confrontational, but I think my suspicions that I, like John, would be treated with contempt were borne out"?) We tell people "don't respond to rudeness with rudeness", but then we block the responder, and not the initiator?

This just seems so trumped up and unnecessary and harmful. A three week block of someone who's made like 30,000 edits on WWII stuff (or, in Wikipediaspeak, a "WWII SPA" (no, seriously, look above!?!?!)) for responding to garden variety rudeness with garden variety rudeness? And "edit warring" that consists of reverting exactly the same number of times as the complainant at ANI?

Please unblock and everyone just try to... oh nevermind, no one's reading this anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What.the.fuck?! The trend of blocking long-time contributors for three weeks for "incivility" needs to be stopped NOW. Yeah, Dapi89 was aggravated and was acting like a jerk; @GregJackP:: actually, I consider this revert of Dapi89 the most obnoxious action of his: he summarily reverted massive copyediting of John's just because he was lazy to execute a partial revert of Shem's citation style changes. But nonetheless, this smacks of "punitive civility blocks executed by trigger-happy admins". Where is justification of this block under blocking policy? The edit-warring stopped two days ago since CambridgeBayWeather protected the article. Dapi89 should be given time to calm down, but as we all know, the worst way for someone to calm down is to issue a calm down block. Somebody unblock, please, or at least reduce to something sensible. No such user (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is mad. You have an admin thinking they're dispensing justice or something here. We're short on help, get them back on the job. Is the blocking admin prepared to take on the tasks that the content contributor was doing if the latter retires? Is the admin even capable of it? Then unblock and let's get on with the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think anybody that contributes enough content is above the rules the rest of us mortals must obey at all times? This mentality of "I've done so much for Wikipedia so I should be let off the hook every time I break the rules" is remarkable. If anything people that have done so much for Wikipedia but break the rules anyway should be punished more severely because they should damn well know better. After 6 blocks prior to this one relating to civility and edit warring, Dapi89 CERTAINLY should know better. —Frosty ☃ 09:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. Content creation is what WP is all about. Content creators are inherently more valuable than non-content creators. Besides that, Shem1805 was violating WP:CITEVAR and screwing up the article. What makes you think that someone else could step in? Who would that be, you? I don't see that you've created a single article. Nine redirects does not make you a content creator. Unblock him, trout the admin, and let's get back to creating content, or if you can't create content, staying out of the way of those who can. GregJackP Boomer! 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"Content creators are inherently more valuable than non-content creators", that sir, is a load of horse sh#t, and is why the project is such a sh^t show, imho, --Malerooster (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am nothing short of amazed at your arrogance. I've been reading this thread and several others on RfA and talk pages and you seem to almost resent every user that doesn't write articles. You fail to note how much goes into maintaining Wikipedia that isn't content creation based. Vandal reverting, redirects, categorizing and so forth. How about I ask if you'd be willing to take on these jobs to in place of the users that do it all for you so the content you write stays in good shape? I don't give a flying toss what you do for Wikipedia, if you violate the easy to follow "don't be a dick" rule you should be blocked, nobody is above that. —Frosty ☃ 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I appreciate the vandal fighters and all. Done some of that myself, but I've found my time is usually more productively spent actually creating content. And if you think you're amazed at my arrogance, you should talk to my partner. GregJackP Boomer! 15:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Canterbury Tail: Please post a link showing the incivility that is claimed requires a block. A three-week block? Some of the above seems to suggest that Dapi89 has a block history and so should get hammered, but the last block was in January 2013 which is ancient history. The diff showing the OWN problem reveals a mistake, but it was not a WP:CIVIL problem. Dapi89 made two mistakes: badly phrased comments that allow the OWN issue to distract from the content, and an unwillingness to do an edit to remove the citation style changes while keeping John's changes. People should not be blocked for saying "I get it. You don't." That is not ideal, but I think it's just the editor's poor phrasing—the point is that WP:CITEVAR supports Dapi89 and the comments were factually correct: Dapi89 understands CITEVAR and Shem1805 doesn't. The OWN issue just needs to be talked through—again, I think it's poor phrasing and Dapi89 is correct on the facts, namely that if someone builds an article using a certain (acceptable) reference style, that style should not be changed by passers-by who then seek to impose their will via ANI. On the facts above, I support an unblock. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• I am sympathetic to much of the above. The thing that took it over the line for me and made me think a block was required was, after all the discussions, and after being told by a couple of ediotrs they were out of line, and after being the subject of discussion at this board, Dapi89 stated that he would resume the edit-war after the protection expires. At that point, yes we do need a block to prevent disruption. --John (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @John:, if a block was warranted to prevent disruption, then Shem1805 should have been blocked for changing the citation style without consensus and then edit-warring to his preferred style. That's a direct violation of the WP:CITEVAR policy. GregJackP Boomer! 11:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That is an available interpretation of Dapi89's "Once the page expires it will be reverted in line with guidelines" above, but I read that differently. Dapi89 does not excel in collegial comments, and I see that text as a simple statement of fact—WP:CITEVAR is the guideline and someone will ensure that it applies. I wouldn't recommend Dapi89's words, but if we assume good faith and read them as written without wondering about internal motivations, I don't see a comment that needs more than engagement to explain that we have to get along with people, even when we are right. The paragraph opening this section suggests that Shem1805 has engaged on the article talk page, but that is not correct—Shem1805 has never edited that page. Instead, there is a section from a few days ago where Dapi89 explains why some of Shem1805's edits needed to be reverted—there is no reply. Instead of worrying about whether someone should be able to change the citation style without seeing a blunt edit summary, it would be better to investigate whether Dapi89's claims on the article talk page (that Shem1805 had introduced an inaccuracy, among other things) were valid. Johnuniq (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Bad block, support unblock. I also call for a link showing the so-called incivility. Shem1805 does not get to change the citation style of an article without first obtaining consensus, per WP:CITEVAR. Please explain why this policy was not enforced. Struck, Canterbury Tail unblocked Dapi89 a few minutes ago. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 11:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You know what, I'm going on vacation shortly so don't have the time on this. I've unblocked him as there seems to be no other Admin support for the block on here. I will say this, it doesn't matter if you have 5 edits or 500,000, you're part of a community and have to act like it. You don't get to go around being condescending and incivil to others just because you do a lot of edits. Was Dapi89 edit warring, without a doubt, while trying to talk he was also reverting continuously. Were they uncivil, absolutely no doubt in my mind. Did they act under WP:OWN? I also feel so. The attitude that they feel they can undo anyones edits they like and it's up to someone else to reinsert any good edits that were lost is completely wrong, and it's also not that difficult to only undo a little bit. Is Shem1805 also in the wrong for edit warring? Yes, however Shem1805 was much more civil and acting in a communal manner than Dapi89. If you think they way Dapi89 is talking to and treating other editors and their edits is acceptible due solely to their number of contributions, and you would find the same okay in your workplace, then so be it. I believe that attitude is the reason so many have left Wikipedia, there has become a trial by media over everything and the rules are not applied to all, people who make acceptible edits part of the time are given free passes. This is why I took such a long break last time, and is very much the reason so many have quite the project. So if someone wants to reblock the go ahead, I'm off to enjoy my vacation. Canterbury Tail talk 11:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the unblock, given the support for it here. As for content creators - if you want to propose that Content Creators (whatever that means) are exempt from WP:CIVIL, then by all means - toss it out and see what happens. But I guarantee you that I'm not going to check someone's edit counts to see how high their article-space edit percentage is before blocking them for spouting "cocksdickslol" all over the place. I'm just gonna block them. Either we have one community or two. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Being a content creator is not a free pass to anything; however, I don't see the block was proportionate, and the root of the problem largely seems to have been the filing editor who didn't understand CITEVAR. Perhaps the two editors should stop interacting. But it wasn't a real OWN situation, hadn't become a real or serious edit war, and the filing editor was not doing anything at the blockable level either. Did not / does not require serious intervention. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption at WOP AFDs

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), User:Jytdog is playing Joseph McCarthy by categorizing WOP and non-WOP members to create some sort of enemies list. This kind of attacks are not appropriate. 166.170.50.131 (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Neither is it appropriate to file an ANI report as a sock IP. Cassianto^Talk 10:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this case? It's a moot point since the AFD was closed but still it's not a nice way to AGF. 166.170.50.196 (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The AfD should be reopened and the close undone. NAC closures are for non-contested cases and while we regularly allow experienced non-admins to NAC close such cases, it is completely inappropriate for an IP editor to close a contentious AfD marred by significant sockpuppetry and possible canvassing issues. --Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• AfD close undone. IP blocked (again - see below) for disruption. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Someone is going a bit overboard with the SPA tags in that AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

NPA means nothing 166.170.51.211 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for 166.x.x.x editor

Last week I blocked 166.176.57.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the latest in a parade of IPs for this range - the previous incarnation, which received the warnings that led to the block, was 166.170.51.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - for persistent disruption on WOP-related articles. They twice evaded their block to comment (exactly as before) on the AfD mentioned above using two more IPs in that range. There have been persistent problematic contributions from this range, which is unfortunately far too large and busy to rangeblock. I propose a topic ban on all WOP-related pages for all contributions from this range that are clearly operated by the same person.

• Support as nominator. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I really need to sleep but just wanting to chime in regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Longevity requesting the return of discretionary sanctions. The way the last ANI discussion went, we'll need it. - Ricky81682 (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support While I do support it (as this is getting a little ridiculous), I wonder how enforceable it is without range blocking the whole thing. From what I understand about TBANs, they don't physically prevent the user from editing the page like blocks do. A clear disruptive user is just going to ignore the ban anyways and the admins will just have to continue to play whack-a-mole. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• With a TBAN we can simply revert and block on sight, though; and if necessary semi-protect articles. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of it like that. Thanks for the explanation Black Kite. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The above mentions of WOP are presumably a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People. Since some comments in the AfD imply that members of that project might not be neutral on this question, I recommend posting on that WikiProject's talk page to alert them of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, but note that I strongly suspect the IP is simply trolling for whatever reason. It could be someone involved in this area who was previously banned or a troll using this dispute as a means to spread chaos. Regardless, a topic ban allowing their edits to be reverted on sight will be helpful. I believe a small range-block was put in place yesterday but this will be helpful for the future. Ravensfire (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Absolutely. BMK (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - this editor has been disruptive at AfDs, WP:WOP project pages, and articles. Blocking hasn't helped so a tban is next. Full disclosure: I've been working in this same area lately. Ca2james (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose You'll likely hit a lot of innocent users. 166.170.51.211 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support...however, as Stabila711 hinted at, it would be pretty difficult to topic-ban these IPs without a full rangeblock. SN: I notice that the only "oppose" !vote is from another IP that just happens to be from the same range (btw, IP, comments like this aren't the wisest idea). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

attacking everyone who is q member of the WOp project isn't helpful. It's about working with people who are the experts not marginalizing them in favor of nonsense. 166.170.50.141 (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry; we're attacking you? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as per Ca2james. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Not because I think it's a bad idea, but because it's not going to be a deterrent to a joe-jobbing troll, especially when a rangeblock hasn't been effective. Is the range of pages too wide to make semi-protection a problem? 207.38.156.219 (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the stance is that a rangeblock hasn't been effective so much as that a rangeblock hasn't been attempted. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There was one attempted on 166.170.48.0/23 - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#Rangeblocking the IPs mentioned just above. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support While I have not been as active in the area as Ca2james or Ollie I can still see that the user has had a disruptive and noncontributive behaviour. 930310 (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support This user is not contributing to the WOP project in a positive manner; on top of that, he has made up false death dates in the past. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think the discretionary sanctions currently being discussed by the arbitration committee are a positive step. Not sure how effective a topic ban would be here, though I'm obviously supporting one. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some long term semi-protection or pending changes on most of these longevity articles. The area is a disaster. AniMate 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I was going to oppose at first, since both IPs come back under a mobile provider (see here and here), but I agree that it is beneficial since it will allow reverting and blocking with less "red tape". I don't see many innocent people being caught in this net, and I feel that this is going to be a net positive. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Knanaya

An anonymous editor, or group of related editors, have been disrupting the Knanaya article for over a week. Various IPs have hit the page recently, the ranges are often similar, though sometimes they claim to be different people who just agree about everything. The most recent one is 117.248.62.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); other recent IPs include 117.202.53.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 117.215.199.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 61.3.43.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Their edits are too full of problems to explain fully here; I laid out some of the bigger issues here. In general, it appears they don't like what some of the reliable sources have to say, and want to replace them with their own poorly cited, uncited, or falsely cited material. The article was semi-protected for a week, and they reverted to their version almost immediately after it expired. Dealing with this may require a range block, and/or further semi-protection.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You might want to request full protection then. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Stalking and stealth reverting by user TWaMoE

I have recently been notified that in the past few months, several of my edits relating to MoS issues, most especially unit presentation, have been reverted by TWaMoE. He has done this without pressing the revert button, meaning that his reverts have gone undetected until now. Looking through his contributions, this seems to be the sole purpose of the account. I have contacted him on his talk page to explain patiently that the MoS describes a standard which is supposed to be adhered to, which he has rebuffed on my own talk page, with an argument about edit summaries that I do not understand. He has resumed his behaviour today.

My suspicion, given the history of previous disruption related to units of measurement, is that this is an SPA dedicated to pushing non-metric-first unit presentation styles, in violation of the MoS. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:

Mr. 2488 is making a mountain out of hurt pride here. He has merrily been scything his way through dozens, if not hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles making unexplained changes to the unit precedence. He has then complained to me when I made fully explained modifications to his edits to bring them into agreement with the edit summary he provided. I explained all this on his personal talkpage about 30 minutes ago. Now he has come whinging here. The irony is too, that he clearly was not monitoring the pages that he edited, as he needed someone else to tell him about my changes. If he had an interest in the articles, he would surely monitor their content himself. I think he needs to be educated about the importance of clear and unambiguous summaries, and not blame others for his own mistakes.

Best,

TWaMoE (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

From looking at the talk page thread that TWaMoE pointed out, it appears that s/he might be correct in reverting. At any rate, this seems more like interlinked content disputes and not a matter for ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My edits, to the best of my knowledge, were in compliance with the Manual of Style. I do not understand why reverting an article to a style which is disfavoured by the MoS would be considered correct. This seems to be a malicious SPA we're dealing with, as can be seen from the obnoxious message left on my talk page. I do not accept that an edit summary which was not written to the satisfaction of one person is sufficient reason to stealth-revert. The fact that it is targeting one specific editor (me) in an extremely passive-aggressive manner is, I suggest, a good reason not to regard it purely as unrelated content disputes. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Archon is right to be concerned about this editor. An examination of his edit history reveals a string of edits entitled "no reason given. On checking a number of them, most were concentrated on Archon's edits. Certainly I would agree that Archon's edit summaries could provide more information on occasion, but this does not explain or excuse the apparent stalking. Michael Glass (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism by FreeatlastChitchat

Hello Mods/Admins,

FreeatlastChitchat, who is already under investigation for 2 cases here, and another 'meat puppet' case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan has been vandalizing the Ghulam Ahmed Pervez page. He deleted most of the content on the page, which was sourced from: ["Introduction - Biography of G.A.P, taken from "The Life in the Hereafter (Translation of Jahan e Farda by Ejaz Rasool)"" (PDF). Tolue-Islam-Trust.] This page is classed as starter page, most of the information on that wiki comes from a few sources. However, everything there is sourced, but the user FreeatlastChitchat claimed that he deleted everything because it was "unsourced", which is simply inaccurate. I have already informed said user that I will be reporting his actions here, and he responded by saying: "let the reporting begin", signaling a confrontational attitude. He has already tried reverting my revert, and I reverted it again, this is turning into an edit war.... I've also consulted Human3015 on his talk page, as I noticed he has warned this user before. I sought his advice regarding this matter as this is my first escalation report on a user regarding vandalism. Thank you Code16 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) I have yet to look at the edits, but one thing concerns me is WP:CANVASS. You have discussed this and pinged an editor here that has never edited the article or posted to its talk page. AlbinoFerret 20:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the edit,[32] and his revert [33]. None of the claims he removed were referenced in the article. This appears to be a content dispute and your reverting of unsourced material to a biography of a living person raises concerns. You should have placed the citations in the material when you replaced it. AlbinoFerret 20:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing is present but turns us to an equally (or more) serious policy. On the talk-page, User:Code16 mentions the source...it's the <ref> in the first sentence. The content is WP:COPYVIO from it. I responded on the talk-page noting that, and with a warning of a block coming if he doesn't follow our copyvio policy. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@ DMacks I've replied on the Talk page as well: I understand the concern of copyright and I will rework the copy and summarize the text without "copying verbatim". At present, recent edits have completely removed most of the page with stubs (even partial sentences) remaining, it will take me some time to fix. Once it is fixed, if the same user deletes sourced material again (keep in mind, his original claim that the material was unsourced was still not true) I will raise another flag here. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Code16 While it may be sourced, I recommend placing a reference to all the claims that have been deleted, even if the same source is used multiple times. A source at the top or the bottom of the article will lead editors to question if the rest is sourced and removing unsourced material is a good faith edit most of the time. AlbinoFerret 00:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another IDLI

When I first saw that there were no citations etc I thought that this was unreferenced material and I removed it. This was my bad I should have checked the source at the very start but it never occured to me that this may be the source of the material mention after it. . The second time he inserted the text I read the source but found out that the entire section I removed was almost 100% complete copy vio. There are almost no other sources except one(i.e the copyvio one) so I removed it again. I could have done a rewrite but history can be used for rewrites so as this was grounds for immediate deletion I deleted it. I'm not sure what I can do here. Perhaps I should have apologized to this guy, as 'Almost everything' he creates is mentioning Tolou-e-Islam and Pervez, but I did leave a msg on TP of article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@ AlbinoFerret Will do, and I'll also insert additional sources. Code16 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with User:Curly Turkey

For the past few days, Curly Turkey has been bombarding conversations here on wikipedia with unrelated, unfounded and false personal attacks towards myself (including bringing up how many times I was blocked -which he's wrong on and I proved it to him on his talk page, though he deleted it- and senseless name-calling):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677707527&oldid=677705521
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677711348&oldid=677708614
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677716306&oldid=677713982
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677442028&oldid=677441513
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677443918&oldid=677442232
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677444545&oldid=677444457

I have done nothing to warrant being called a troll.

He has repeatedly called me out on what pages I choose to edit and even said I "have no interest" or "stake in" editing these (like as if he knows me or something or I need to clear my editing with him in advance):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&type=revision&diff=677423927&oldid=677423413

When I moved one of my comments (and explained why), I was goaded in an edit summary as apparently "running away from him" and, when I questioned him about it on his talk page, all I got were more false comments about the number of times I've been blocked (which I finally just had to laugh off and leave be... which is when the swear words started). I've tried to avoid him, even going so far as to say I was removing myself from the consensus talk he was also apart of but, that got me nowhere because, instead, he just started a different conversation about me on someone else's talk page.

Then, today, he edited the Baxter Stockman page which, as I pointed out to him on his talk page after he began edit warring, I find odd given his recent comments about "driveby editing" on pages an editor "otherwise has no stake in" and "has not previously made edits to." He even went so far as to say my edit is something worth being "barfed at."

This, to me, shows a potential plan on his part to begin wikihounding (especially since the Baxter Stockman page is one of the pages he listed here in his list of pages I've edited that he doesn't like). I've had it and I don't know what to do.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Cebr's been bombarding my talk page with comment after comment, even after I made it clear he was not welcome there. Cebr made contentious edits to Baxter Stockman while in the middle of an RfC about those very edits that has yet to close. After seeing that, I did some light copyediting to that article—nothing even remotely contentious, and I did not edit in the area under discussion at the RfC. Cebr has made it clear in the RfC that he will "just going to keep on doing what [he decide[s] to do"] regardless of consensus and is not willing to carry a conversation with me that does not involve ad hominems. Aside from the contentious edits, he's pushing as many buttons as he can. Cebr is a disruption and is distracting from people getting actual work done on the encyclopaedia. He has also failed to notify User:Argento_Surfer that he is talking about him at ANI. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I've never been told to stay away from Curly Turkey's talk page nor am I talking about any other editor but him.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

While I agree Cebr's "Lol" messages are entirely unhelpful to any conversation, I believe the situation could have been handled better by both sides. Curley Turkey is a long-time veteran who I haven't worked with as of yet, so the user has obviously done something right to keep contributing. I understand any frustration the user had and I believe a warning to both sides is suitable for now. Of course, I'll need to look into this more because I feel some parts of the story are being left out. Now please let's get along and move on if that is what admins want.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point made below. I'm not the only one who's made "Lol" comments.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything involving Curly Turkey in this report (as I've listed here) has been unhelpful. After so long, one can simply "Lol" it off. My recommendation for the future would be "looking into this more" before offering a (non-)resolution.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Careful, Cebr1979—someone might actually examine the evidence, and then where would you be? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Uhmm... that's exactly what I want to have happen (and exactly what I just advised TheGracefulSlick to do before making recommendations).Cebr1979 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Cebr1979: after reviewing the evidence you presented, and looking through your contributions, block log, and talk page history, I'm staunchly in agreement with Curly Turkey that you are a troll making disruptive edits. I would advise you to cut it out before you get blocked for a fourth time. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never been blocked a third time and there is nothing in my edit history to denote me as an internet troll (and, especially, not any sort of "staunch" anything). If you're gonna look at contributions, block log, and talk page history, you should look at his too (though, I am going to point out that we are only talking about the issues from the last few days).Cebr1979 (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: I've never had the pleasure of working with Curly Turkey, but I've extensively seen his work in my main field of editing. He has been editing for years and has more edits than you and me combined. Even if I went drudging through his dirt, it would not change my opinion of your behavior. And the WP:IDHT is either more trollery or a WP:CIR issue because a) your block log clearly records three entries and b) you removed all three notifications from your talk page. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My block log notes TWO blocks. One of them was edited mid-block. And, by admission, you're one-sided and should refrain from this report. Lastly, I'm allowed to remove block notifications from my talk page. I'm allowed to remove anything from my talk page. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says so. Deleting messages is actually considered an indicator of the messages having been read. Cebr1979 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, but how about we turn this "report" around and focus more on your trollery and disruptive editing? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, how about your evidence of my being a troll? But I'm not going to accept you bringing up any old issues from the past that have already been dealt with.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Cebr asked me to look over the "evidence", my new resolution is to immediately boomerang this report as I've found the user is a total troll. Initially, I was sympathetic because I know how feuds can cause us to act carelessly, but I've also found I hold exceptions when dealing with trolls. Curly Turkey, I apologize for not taking a firm stance in your favor as I now see you are not at any fault.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• "...unfounded and false personal attacks towards myself (including bringing up how many times I was blocked" Somebody needs to review what a personal attack is defined as.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Somebody needs to read the whole sentence I wrote.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang for User:Cebr1979

I've seen trolling blocked instantly, and I'm surprised that this went on as long as it did. This just goes to show that this user is unwilling to change or take advice. Per WP:IDHT, WP:CIR, WP:TROLL and anything else this user's recent conduct falls under, I'm asking for them to be blocked for a period of no less than 48 hours for their recent behavior, or the next time their trollery crops up (probably soon). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. EDIT: support indefinite block. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh? I did take his advice and haven't come back here until just now when you pinged me. Plus, you still haven't shown any trolling on my part so what right do you have to ask for a block at all?Cebr1979 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Cebr1979: you literally handed me all the evidence I need on a silver platter. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No, I really didn't. That Graceful guy said to drop it and I did. I'm hoping I won't be pinged again.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block or one-way IBAN for Cebr1979. Curly Turkey is an intelligent, learned and diligent editor who gives freely of his time to fix problems on Wikipedia that most are too complacent to deal with. I know from experience how hard it can be to shake trolls like this, and how annoying it can b when they claim you are the troll, and just keep coming back. Block Cebr1979, and if the blocking/closing admin has time to through my edit history to figure out who I'm talking about (hint: their username is not dissimilar to Cebr1979)maybe have a look at that too. I can't open a new ANI thread for a while after the fustercluck Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret and my IBAN partner caused several sections up. But, most importantly for the present discussion, a block or a one-way IBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering the off-topic personal remark he has made about me and the evidence of wiki-stalking against me in this very thread I think a one-way IBAN for Curly Turkey is not enough. Cebr1979 is a troll who does trollish things to any user he finds remotely problematic, and is a drain on the community's patience. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are you getting wiki-stalking from (and off-topic personal remarks are exactly what this whole thing is about but... no one seems to be paying any attention to that)?Cebr1979 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not providing the diff. This quote was taken from a comment I made in an entirely unrelated discussion. You found it because as soon as I started posting in this thread about your behaviour, you clicked on my edit history and started looking around for "dirt" on me. This is wiki-stalking, and is almost guaranteed to make anyone to whom you do it want to see you blocked. The diff you continue to cite (hence the above RPA template) was me discussing another user who doesn't like me, showing up every time I post on ANI and requesting that I be site-banned; the user had not actually looked at any of the diffs under discussion in that thread, but was doing so solely out of personal resentment of me. I on the other hand have no prior personal resentment of you -- my only interaction with you has been in this thread, and your continued stalking/harassment/disruption/trolling in this very thread has made me very much want to see an end to this discussion. Good night. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop editing my comments! I never clicked your edit history, I couldn't care less! I read this page over and your comment was right here. I'll also point out, I didn't click anyone else's edit history either. I don't have any "dirt" on the guy with the Chinese letters for a name, Guy Macon, or the Graceful guy. I only read this page and saw your comment (which I've now said multiple times).Cebr1979 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You read every single post on ANI? Or did you Ctrl+F for my name? Or did you click on my edit history? The first option is completely ridiculous -- you'd need to be the fastest, best reader in history to read that much, that closely, while at the same time posting in this thread. The latter two options both imply wiki-stalking, of a user with whom up to that point you had had no argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to get over yourself. I most certainly do not have any interest in following you around or whatever.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And STOP REINSERTING THE OFF-TOPIC PERSONAL REMARKS! Take a damn hint and give it a break. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop editing my comments. I've told you that numerous times now.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant, off-topic personal attacks is pretty common. Why do you think the RPA template exists? You on the other hand altered Sturmgewehr88's post in order to refactor this whole discussion in your favour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I also think Cebr1979's multiple, highly-disruptive attempts to shut down this discussion when it started turning against him are probably grounds for an immediate, temporary block to prevent further disruption while this discussion of his behaviour takes place -- is there an admin who does that kind of thing? I seem to recall Nyttend did on a thread I was involved in some years ago, but there were special circumstances there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also (forgot to comment on this earlier): trolling someone to the point of driving them to use foul language, and then requesting they get blocked for using foul language is the lowest of the low. All users who attempt to game the system in such a manner should be immediately removed from the project. I've had my fair share of trouble with this in the past/present (again, admins, feel free to tell me I'm wrong about this...). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend responded to you below. And just like he responded to you, I was responding to Curly Turkey... And I posted that in my initial report. At this point, you're going around in circles.Cebr1979 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh goddamnit, just give it a break already! I admit you might have had an edit conflict with my post to the effect that I would drop the talk of your deliberately disrupting this conversation, but the moment you saw the edit conflict you should have read my comment and decided not to post yours, rather than just pushing it through anyway. You realize how hypocritical it is to say "I was asked to drop it, and I did", while at the same time continuing to force a talking point about another user who actually dropped an issue he may have been wrong about, don't you? Your continuing to troll this issue is, if anything, an indicator that I was wrong ... in my initial assumption that you were just making a good-faith mistake by trying to unilaterally close this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't even get what you're trying to say?Cebr1979 (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Again apologies to Curley for not being more precise the first time round. Such users who have been around for so long should not have to deal with troublesome trolls. A 48 hour block would be a little too light to me since we all know a troll doesn't just go away. Unless Cebr is willing to genuinely apologize and show actual improvement, I don't see why anyone should have to waste any more time with this. A block of at least a month would be more appropriate if an indefinite is not on the table.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I just don't get you guys, you told me to drop it and I have.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: The fact that within eight hours or so of me getting involved here, he was already trolling/stalking me as well makes me think an indef, not subject to appeal for at least six months, is the best way to go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never stalked you. OMG, I can't believe how insane this has gotten!Cebr1979 (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You clicked on my edit history, rooted around for edits in unrelated topics that you could use as dirt against me, and slung it at me almost immediately: how is this not stalking? (Full disclosure: I added the above diff after Cebr1979 posted the above claim that he didn't know what I was talking about, so technically his initial post did not look as ridiculous as it does now. One of about a dozen edit conflicts I had with this user in the course of thirty minutes. I'm having LittleBenW flashbacks.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I never clicked your edit history, I couldn't care less! I read this page over and your comment was right here. I'll also point out, I didn't click anyone else's edit history either. I don't have any "dirt" on the guy with the Chinese letters for a name, Guy Macon, or the Graceful guy. I only read this page and saw your comment (which I've now said multiple times).Cebr1979 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the exact same comments in multiple places. It makes it look like you are not carefully reading and responding to others' comments, which is highly disrespectful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The time to change your behavior was when you got all of those warnings and blocks,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] not when it looks like ANI may apply an indefinite block. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ya... I'm not going back two years. I was told to drop this and I did. The rest of you need to do the same.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you want me to compile every warning Curly Turkey has ever gotten? That would be time consuming and, as far as I'm concerned, ridiculous. Like I said, you guys wanted this dropped... so drop it. I did.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Woah, hold on there, buddy. You know how many ANI reports I have filed that I would have liked to "non-admin close" the moment I realized they weren't going my way? Non-admins are allowed close ANI discussions, but only when they are uninvolved. You lost your "uninvolved" status when you started this thread, and now it is turning against you you want to close it? What if the moment after you filed the initial complaint Curly Turkey had done that? Given that, at this point, a highly likely result of this thread is you being blocked, I don't think anyone would accept a non-admin closure anyway, since non-admins don't have the authority to issue blocks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with what was or wasn't "going my way." It had everything to do with me being told a long time ago (before you even got involved) that I should drop this... so I did. Ever since I dropped it, people keep coming back to it (including the one who told me to drop it). I thought the blue box was the way close it as dropped. If it's not, so be it. Thanks for letting me know. P.S. There has still been no evidence of me being a troll presented and, considering you state above that, "two users who were quite open about their !votes being based on their pre-existent opinions of me rather than any actual evidence relevant to THIS situation", I'm sorta thinking you should follow your own advice and quit with the block talk.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't bring up entirely unrelated material that indicates you are following me, even though (as you say) I was not even involved with you until a few hours ago. This is yet another reason why I think you should be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Do not edit my comments and your comment that I read is posted right here on this page so I read it. That's not stalking.Cebr1979 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think the RPA template exists? If someone else removes a personal attack you made against them, the proper thing to do is apologize, not repeat it, deny you did it in the first place, and then revert the initial removal. I have templated both instances again; I will drop it for now, but don't do it again. Good night. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's you hiding your hypocrisy. Quit editing my comments!Cebr1979 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No hypocrisy. I said that users who have not read the relevant discussion should not be allowed show up out of the blue and spitefully request that such-and-such a user be blocked based on unrelated prior disputes. You and I have had no unrelated prior disputes. I looked at the evidence here, and said you should be IBANned or blocked. Insisting that someone's arguments should not be counted because in your opinion they have engaged in what you dubiously call "hypocrisy" is a personal attack, because it is the very definition of Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. You then trolled through my edit history to dig up dirt on me and inserted it into this discussion in order to intimidate me over and over and over again. It most certainly is a personal attack to insert off-topic personal commentary on a particular user when you could be addressing their arguments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

[triple edit conflict] Hijiri88, I'm only seeing one attempt by Cebr to close this discussion; it took place over several minutes and several edits because Cebr wasn't sure how to do it from a technical perspective. Unless he repeats, there's no reason to block or otherwise sanction him for this incident. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Nyttend.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and don't do it again, especially as it looks more and more likely that you'll be blocked following discussion here. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend: (Sorry for the edit conflict.) If you read (pronounce like the colour) the above discussion the way I way did, it would look very much like Guy Macon telling him that he's not allowed to close a discussion just because it stopped going his way, and he attempted to close it after said. But given Cebr1979's above response, I guess I have to assume that it was just ignorance of the policy on his part. (Given the evidence presented above that this user has IDHT issues, it seems equally likely that it's a ruse, but I won't hold it against him as long he drops it now.)

Cebr1979: Understood. I will drop the issue of your attempting to close the thread (please don't call it "the blue box", by the way) as long as you stop it now.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well... good night, all! I dropped this a long time ago, not sure why the rest of you won't (especially since I dropped it at some of your recommendations). Anywho, I'm off to bed and, even when I wake up, I'm not coming back to this (supposed to be) dropped topic.Cebr1979 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cebr, hunting down unrelated edits by the users who think your behaviour here warranted sanctions, and quoting them as evidence that said users should be the ones facing sanctions, is an indication that you have not dropped this: you are just trying to save yourself for the time being so you can move on to your next target. Give it a break already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I don't even understand what you're talking about???Cebr1979 (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just give it a break. Good night. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a mess... Wow. And still everyone involved has admitted they haven't even looked into what happened on THIS issue, they've only gone through *my* block log and other such things of the past. Only *mine* and only of the past. Like I said... Wow. Also, still no evidence of me being a troll which is what this whole block thing is over so... OMG. Wow.Cebr1979 (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not assume that I failed to look at the edit histories of the other editors involved in this. I am nothing if not thorough, and I have examined "what happened" very thoroughly indeed. As usual when I look at editor's histories, I found a few things I could fault some of them on, but your history stood out as being extremely disruptive and stands out for your annoying habit of deleting legitimate warnings with comments like "lol".[61][62][63][64][65] Again, you need to change your behavior in response to the multiple warning you have received, not laugh them off

Your behavior on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Your only realistic chance to avoid an indefinite block at this point is to convince us that you understand what you did wrong and convince ANI that you will not repeat the behavior in the future. Blaming everyone else as if we don't know how to recognize a disruptive editor when we see one is just an example of the law of holes at work. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "other editors," there is only one other editor involved. In any case, I've already done what you said by dropping it way back the first time I was told to. Cebr1979 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

All of those examples you just brought up are old and have been dealt with. I got my block and served my time. I'm not discussing that old stuff with you just because you weren't around at that time. That's all over with.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979 when I told you to drop the report, I meant to take the appropriate steps to do so. Which means apologize, say what you did wrong, and how you need to improve. You continue to do the complete opposite. I assumed since you have been involved in quite a few of your own blocks, you would know by now how to try to amend some of the damage. I guess I was wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979 has reinserted the same off-topic personal commentary on me at least five times (search the code for this section for "RPA" or "8964". Also, in case no one has noticed, these posts are somewhat disturbing. Who is Diannaa, and what is their relation to this dispute? Going through the whole ANI page looking for a random admin's username (when we have a list for that kind of thing) and then asking them on their talk page for advice on getting a discussion closed once it has started turning against you seems super-weird, right? Or is it just me who thinks that? Additionally, his stating several hours after he had been told he was not allowed to close it himself that "oh, I wasn't allowed..." seems somewhat dubious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: "I don't know what you mean by 'other editors,' there is only one other editor involved", Before commenting on this case, I looked into the behavior of Curly Turkey, Hijiri88, Sturmgewehr88, TheGracefulSlick and Nyttend -- the other editors who have commented in this ANI thread. Of course some of those names I know well and it just took a moment to convince myself that, as expected, they are third parties not involved in your content dispute, but I had to check just to make sure. Everyone deserves a fair hearing on ANI, and everyone is subject to a boomerang if it turns out that they were involved and a part of the problem.

Clearly you do not understand what you did wrong and thus we have no reason to believe that you will not repeat the behavior in the future. Nor have I seen a shred of evidence that your previous warnings and blocks helped you to understand what you did wrong or avoid further misbehavior. Just as clearly, my words are not reaching you, so this will be my last comment on this matter.

Support indefinite block of Cebr1979, with the understanding that Cebr1979 will be able to get the block lifted if he can convince the uninvolved admin who reviews his appeal that he understands what he did wrong and convinces that admin that he is committed to avoiding such behavior in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Again: you don't have any merit for that. Everything you have brought up is old and already been dealt with (you went back two years). That's all long since over with. I'm sure if if I went back two years, I could find lots of stuff on other people (maybe even you) but, I'm not about to do that. And you shouldn't have either.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block of either party. That's a totally unreasonable reaction to a pair of editors being WP:JERKs to each other. And it is clearly mutual, not a one-way problem with Cebr1979. Curly Turkey has a habit of inflammatory straw man posts (I was considering raising an ANI thread about this behavior pattern myself, as its use at WT:MOS has been both uncivil and disruptive, despite numerous requests to stop distorting other's views and putting words in their mouths). Support a mutual interaction ban of some period, e.g. 3 months, and let the tigers show their stripes. Both of these editors exhibit anti-collaborative problems. One does not get a free pass and the other a permanent ban simply because one's been around longer; see WP:VESTED, and two years is both plenty of time to demonstrate that one is not a troll as well as too far back to go digging for dirt to make a case against someone here, and you all know better. An indef block as a WP:BOOMERANG result is absurd; the point of BOOMERANG is to discourage wiki-litigious parties from wasting all our time with vexatious, unclean-hands complaints, not to execute them on the spot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, it may be two users being jerks to each other, but we need to ask (1) who started it, (2) who was trying throughout to stop it, (3) who shows no signs of improving, and (4) who has been hounding other, uninvolved members of the community just for commenting here. Someone (I'm pretty sure it was you) made a lot below of going back two years and counting the block warnings, but we need to consider the sheer mass of those warnings. It comes out to more than one a month by my count. That's more even than me and I edit articles on Japanese history, poetry and religion! ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't start it, I was trying to stop it, I've shown signs of improving, and you have not been hounded. You need to stop with that. Me reading one comment you made on this page is not hounding you. You haven't been victimised in any way shape or form.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Hijiri88: Hmm. 1) Doesn't seem relevant and usually is not a consideration here, especially if the party B has unclean hands and keeps escalating right along with party A. 2) Clearly, neither of them; Cebr's diffs show that CT was just as dismissive and hostile, and in fact behaved that way in response to Cebr asking him to stop calling him names (instead he just called him a troll again, but last I looked a request to cease name-calling is not trolling). 3) Clearly, both. Neither of these editors appear to take disagreement much less criticism well, and keep trying to get the last word, and to deny any wrongdoing. 4) That, I have not been looking into. Cebr is not hounding me, though CT is blatantly, shamelessly lying, four times back-to-back, about my posts here, so you can guess what my initial opinion is. And I'm not a fan of Cebr; I really hate that nuke-everything-off-my-talk-page stuff he does (it interferes with easy tracking user behavior and interaction issues enough, I'm wondering if user page policy should't be changed!), and I don't like his flippant attitude. But of the two editors in question, Cebr's has been the less disruptive in the WT:MOS thread in question. He's been staying on-topic more, and more involved in trying to find consensus, while CT has done very little by try to make everyone who disagrees with him look stupid by making up bullshit about what they said. I don't contribs-stalk either of them, so I can't speak as to their other edits. I've had both negative and positive interactions with both before, and I agree and disagree with both of them on various things. Both have been here several years, and both of them know better that to engage in a multi-page, mutual baiting war.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish was considering ANI (on Cebr's talk page) at a time when he totally misunderstood the discussion—for which he shortly after admitted and apologized for but now seems to retracting it so he can make the same accusations (note the lack of diffs to prove it). Not even Cebr accused me of such a thing, and nobody else backed SMcCandlish up on it. Please, someone wade through that discussion and demosntrate all the alleged "strawmen" I put up. Curly Turkey can't be allowed to get away with this. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I what I actually retracted and apologized (conditionally) for [66] was possibly misconstruing one of your own arguments, and I suggested you do likewise, but you never did. I even documented why the argument was so easily misconstruable.[67] It certainly is not the case that I "totally misunderstood the discussion". You've simply lied about this, as you did about many other statements by others on that page. If you'd really like a diff farm of all your blatant mis-castings of other's statements in that MOS discussion, used by you to try to denigrate them and to "WP:WIN" the argument with FUD, I'll be happy to provide such a list, and you will not look good in it. Be careful what you wish for. (Compiling the list won't take long; just search the thread or the recent page history there for me objecting and mentioning "straw man" and anyone can find a lot of them in seconds.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Curly Turkey is actually demanding proof of his straw-manning, I'm in the process of gathering the diffs, but have to go pick up someone at the airport who has arrived almost an hour early, so I'll get to it when I return. Have found 4 instances already and there are at least 3 others to diff.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Update: Posted in separate subthread below, with a suggesting that CT be warned.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose SMcCandlish makes a lot of sense. Nothing here rises to the level for indef bans or blocks. An IBAN for a limited time sounds about right. AlbinoFerret 04:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This from AlbinoFerret, the genius of perspective and proportion who believes I should be indefinitely SBANned for having the audacity to post a coupla times on Talk:Soka Gakkai and fix some refs on Kokuchukai and Nichiren. And the thorougjly-demonstrated, blatant, ceaseless CIR/IDHT/TROLL actions of Cebr1979 over two years don't merit any kind of block or ban? Cebr1979, this is what rational people call "hypocrisy". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I do have to point out that I made it clear I wanted Cebr to stay off my talk page and deleted four of his contentious trolling comments in a row: [68][69]"lol""I was just wondering..."—yet he continued commenting on my talk page. This is not the behaviour of someone who acts in good faith—this harassment is trolling, or commenting to invoke a negative response rather than to communicate or contribute to developing a consensus. As the other commenters who posted above have remarked (after examining the evidence, I have to emphasize), Cebr has not demonstrated a willinglness to alter his disruptive behaviour, nor has my behaviour been shown to be disruptive (despite diff-less accusations from SMcCandlish, an involved party who has launched similar contentious accusations against other contributors he disagrees with in the RfC). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey: I have pointed out that I asked you three times to stop bringing up unrelated blocks in a consensus talk and you didn't. Cebr1979 (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh? I brought it up once, long before you made your comments on my talk page. That you asked me three times says nothing more than that you couldn't drop the stick long after I already had. Your comments were harassment. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, I haven't "accused" anyone else of engaging in straw man disruption at all in that discussion, only you, because it's only you doing it, again and again and again. But since you're asking twice now for diffs everyone can see of you doing it, I'll start building that list. Seems like a rather self-destructive demand on your part (not unlike much of Cebr1979's behavior in this ANI thread, I might add; cf. my comment "it is clearly mutual, not a one-way problem", above), but not my problem, I guess.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't "accused" anyone else of engaging in straw man: where did I say you did? I'm of course referring to your accusations of bad faith on Darkfrog24's part—that's what "similar" means. Slow down and read what people wrote, SMcCandlish—then you won't make ridiculous statements like this, which you've already admitted was 180° the opposite of the truth. You've also yet to demonstrate a single strawman—because there are none. So let's see those diffs and how you spin 'em. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another lie by you; I specifically stated it was not an accusation of bad faith, but observation of an judgement error.[70] All you're doing is digging your own hole, after others have been trying to dig one for Cebr1979. Would you like a bigger shovel?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It was still 100% unfounded, irrelevant to topic at hand and pretty darn rude. SmC, you have a problem understanding what people actually mean when they post things. You need to ask more questions and make more suggestions instead of jumping to conclusions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's just hope you're not going to frame my comments as accusing people of prohibiting animate pronouns in in-universe writing. You've already tried that, and have already admitted you were wrong about that. In other words: as you've already acknowledged that the entire conversation from first word to last was framed in the context of out-of-universe writing, recontextualizing my comments: Here you are accusing me of lying, (I fully expect this to be on your "evidence" list) and then admitting less than an hour later the argument actually was strictly about out-of-universe writing all along. You're not going to pull this again, are you? That would be the height of dishonesty. Any attempt to paint me as having accused anyone ever of trying to prohibit animate pronouns in in-universe prose will be a flat-out lie. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Another obvious member of the list is the falsity that anyone has accused anyone of trying to force "it" onto a sentence like "Superman is famous for its strength and its ability to fly." This is a logical conclusion from the prohibition on personal pronouns in out-of-universe writing meant to demonstrate where even the supporters of the prohibition would admit that inanimate pronouns would be unacceptable. Nobody claimed that the prohibitioners proposed that such a sentence should be enforced (good luck finding a diff to prove anyone asserted any such thing—nor is it originally my argument, as you are well aware). That you disagree with the premise of the argument does not make it a straw man—the argument itself is sound, and you recognize it by suggesting to recast to avoid both the animate pronouns (which you oppose) and the inanimate (obviously unacceptable). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And you've already suggested rebooting the RfC to be clearer about it, which I've agreed with as a good plan. We don't have any dispute on these points. Why would I raise any question at all about anything to do with pronouns and your position on them? ANI is for behavioral matters, not content matters. Speaking of which, you're also misrepresenting diffs again; that's three times in the same ANI thread. In the first one I was not "accusing [you] of lying"; I said clearly "Curly Turkey's 'The question is whether MoS should prohibit the use of personal pronouns...' is a misstatement of the debate, another in a long string of straw man arguments CT has been clouding this discussion with." Not the same thing. This is important since its you engaging in a straw man in order to attempt to evade evidence of engaging in an earlier straw man. All you're doing is proving my point with diffs I hadn't even thought to include. In the second diff, you putting words in someone else mouth again [71]; the two diffs are not connected in any way, and what I really said in that one was "For once I agree with CT." (and nothing further), in response to your observation that the discussion was not really about in-universe context after all, in turn in response to someone who thought it was. (We've come to final agreement that the thread has been confused on this point and should be rebooted, remember?). So, by all means, keep doing my work for me. At this point, we should probably open a separate subthread just about this problem of your seemingly habitual misstatements of what others have posted. I can't believe you're actually trying to use diffs to prove you're not doing it when all they do is prove you're doing it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Updated: 07:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"We" agreed to reboot the discussion because you had derailed it so badly with accusations such as "To him this debate is only about "banning" the use of "we" and the like in fiction"—despite my having stated explicitly and repeatedly that the discussion was strictly about the opposite and the discussion was framed as such from first word to last (the inciting edit was an out-of-universe one, as you have acknowledged). Because you had done so much damage to the discussion it had become nigh unreadable, and you've admitted how badly you've misrepresented the basis of the discussion. Notice I'm stopping just short of calling you a liar, despite your comments being demonstrably the opposite of the truth and the huge disruption they've caused. Perhaps you should step back and consider whether the diffs you are assembling are actually strawmen rather than merely statements you disagree with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is not the case that I "totally misunderstood the discussion". You've simply lied about this: wow, you went there. Fact: you misunderstood the discussion as badly as anyone possibly could. Fact: you have admitted now that the discussion was strictly about out-of-universe writing and have agreed to reboot it to make that more explicit—not, I must emphasize, to reframe the discussion. The discussion was always about out-of-universe writing, you did in fact "totally misunderstood" it, and are now resorting to lying about it. Honestly, in the context of that discussion you've been a far worse disruption that Cebr ever was. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop telling other people what they "admitted"; you've misused that word about a dozen times in this discussion to mischaracterize others' statements. I "admitted" no such thing, and it was not true. A large portion of the discussion in question has been mired since day one in confusion as to the scope and nature of what (if anything) MOS should address regarding personal pronouns for fictional characters, both in-universe and out-of-universe. I certainly had nothing to do with that commingling of topics, as I arrived at the discussion quite late (at least three counter proposals were already floated by the time I even commented the first time, and these confusions were all already manifest, as was the personal dispute you and Cebr1979 had imported to WP:MOS from WT:COMICS). What I did do (besides provide a fourth and later sixth variant proposal) was concede that you later in the discussion appeared to be more clearly distinguishing the in- and out-of-universe use cases (though failing to recognize that the discussion in question had moved on well past that question and into a discussion of MOS advising to rewrite to avoid confusing use of pronouns with regard to fictional characters, generally speaking). I also clearly documented, in a series of diffs posted in the very thread, why your position on the matter appeared to be confused and was confusing. I've already diffed that above, too. So you're just engaging in circular rehash now, as well as for the fourth time in the same ANI thread engaging in a straw man about what I posted. I think I'll just rest my case here and let everyone else at ANI deal with your WP:GAMING. I have way better things to do that entertain your circular proof by verbosity. Which is remarkably, remarkably similar to very the same "trolling" you accuse Cebr1979 of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I "admitted" no such thing, and it was not true.: So go on the record, SMcCandlish—do you or do you not admit you were wrong? Because you were wrong. (I'm not expecting a straight answer.) Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A large portion of the discussion in question has been mired since day one in confusion as to the scope and nature of what: no, the commenters (including Cebr) before your arrival almost unanimously understood we were talking about out-of-universe writing. You mired it, particularly with statements claiming the exact opposite. The problem is you.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here to facepalm at you of all people brigning up proof by verbosity. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose indef block - I'm going to focus on the subject of this ANI thread, which is Cebr1979's history and the information that is relevant to such. It's obvious that his behavior has been disruptive, consistent, and that it has continued despite many attempts by others to get him to understand and stop. However, I think we're jumping the gun by proposing an indefinite block. SMcCandlish made some great points that I agree with, and I think that we should make a more practical decision rather than this one. Instead, (if it were up to me to suggest something) Cebr1979's should be put on a Final Warning basis for some time; if this behavior continues or happens again during this time, a 14-day (or longer) block can be imposed by an uninvolved admin. Subsequent incidents will result in longer blocks. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm suprised so many reasonable users are against a block for Cebr. Even if you are one who opposes an indef block, it should not just drop any sort of punishment. A block of at least two weeks should be in place to make a point trolling is not accepted and give Cebr an opportunity to learn from this. Otherwise, it encourages Cebr to push the limits further until yet another ANI will be presented here shortly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's still you going off Curly Turkey having done no wrong, though (and also using a crystal ball method of deciding how the future will play out). I've said I'm fine with Oshwah & SMcCandlish's proposals. Coming back for more is pretty undue.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, the "it should not just drop any sort of punishment" sure sounds like a punishment is proposed. . AlbinoFerret 06:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct, and if we were to block Cebr1979 for "trolling" just because he responds aggressively and flippantly at ANI, and retorts unhelpfully to criticism with comments like "LOL", Curly Turkey would be in the same basket for comments like this [72]. How is "*snigger*" any different at all from "LOL" other than spelling? It means precisely the same thing and is intended in precisely the same dismissive "I laugh in your face" way. I repeat: "a pair of editors being WP:JERKs to each other. And it is clearly mutual, not a one-way problem with Cebr1979". It's best to simply separate them for a while so they go do something else other than bait each other. This comment by CT is particularly uncalled for and misleading: "Can someone do something about Cebr's trolling? He's contributed nothing to the discussion" [73]. Cebr1979's participation in the thread has in fact been constructive; it's just that its arguing for an option that CT doesn't like. This one's even worse: [74]; Cebr1979 objected to being labelled a troll in this discussion, and asked CT to stop name-calling, but CT's sole response was "You need to stop trolling." Blatantly uncivil. I don't think either of them should be blocked, because this is a conversation from several days ago; nothing preventative would happen by a block, only punitive. But they both need to stop antagonizing each other and disrupting WT:MOS in the process, which I why I suggested a mutual, time-limited interaction ban. PS: I'm not particular defender of Cebr1979, and have posted critical messages on his talk page only to have them deleted dismissively. Last I looked, though, annoying people a little wasn't a blocking offense.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret is absolutely correct - blocks are not punitive, but instated to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. This policy is what I took into account when proposing that we instead implement a final warning basis for Cebr1979. If, after this discussion (and for x number of days), Cebr1979 continues this behavior again, he will be blocked from editing Wikipedia (starting with a block to be no shorter than two weeks, then grow in length for any subsequent conduct observed). ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If Cebr1979 had written "lol" in a response to Curly Turkey, I would have ignored it as I ignored Curly Turkey's use of "snigger". That's just low level incivility and both of them are engaging in it. What Cebr1979 actually did was to repeatedly respond to warnings on his talk page by many different people by deleting the warning, often with "lol" in the edit summary. A rude editor laughing off a comment by another rude editor is one thing. Laughing off repeated legitimate warnings -- warnings where Cebr1979 was clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy -- is another thing altogether. BTW, my supporting an indef block for Cebr1979 says nothing about whether I do or do not support sanctions against Curly Turkey. I have not expressed a view on that one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I just say that, as far as the 'Lol' edit summaries when deleting things off my talk page goes, that's something I've learned from other editors in my time here so didn't think there was anything wrong with it (though, in hindsight, I will admit, I didn't exactly feel the greatest when it happened to me so... shouldn't have continued it when dealing with others). If anyone wants evidence of that, they can check mine and Arre9's interactions (I don't know how to tag her from my phone so, will leave a message on her talk page as I know she needs to be notified that I'm talking about her here... even though I'm sure she'll support the "Support" side of things). Anyways, I am now heading out of town for the weekend and won't be back until Monday (and I don't know what time). If a decision is reached by then, I'll just have to live with it. If not, I'll follow up when I'm back.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Boomerang for User:Cebr1979 in full.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I think I can clear up why people oppose an indefinite block: Cebr1979's user history goes back only to 2013. From this conversation alone, it's clear that Cebr1979 thought that Slick's "drop it" meant "stop making comments in this thread" (and initially did so) and that he or she was allowed to close the request that Curly Turkey be investigated. The idea that the person who posed a request can withdraw it isn't how things work here, but it isn't unreasonable either. A lot of us forget something: Wikipedia's rules and etiquette are freaking BYZANTINE. Wikipedia has a learning curve the size of Mt. Ranier, and YES it can take more than two years to figure out how it all goes. How many places on the Internet is "lol" considered inappropriate? In how many places on the Internet is checking someone else's public user history a big deal (if that's even what Cebr1979 did)? Not that many. The idea that a relatively new user wouldn't yet have the half-intuitive sense of "What is consensus?" isn't all that out there This doesn't mean that Cebr1979 should get a pass, however. Guy Macon was good enough to look up many cases in which Cebr1979 was warned in polite terms by many different editors unrelated to each other. I personally think that any block should be non-permanent. This might be a good candidate for mentoring, possibly as a condition of unblocking. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose indefinite block, in the short term. I agree with Darkfrog above that there seems to me to be sufficient reason to think that mentoring might be effective, and I would like to give that a chance first. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: While User:Cebr1979's most recent behavior hasn't been ideal, I do feel compelled to point out that his behavior has improved since the last time I interacted with him. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey's uncivil and disruptive use of repeated straw man tactics

Following on some of the above discussion, here are some (not all – I don't have all night for this) diffs from just one discussion, relating to Curly Turkey engaging in the fallacious straw man tactic of miscasting others' statements. This does not include the four (in three posts) mischaracterization and misstatement ploys CT has engaged in so far on this ANI thread above, nor have I done any digging in other discussions to see how far this behavior pattern goes, but at least 8 times in the same thread is way, way too many, especially after multiple editors have objected to his putting of words in their mouths. He also dared me to take this matter to ANI, thinking he had a counter claim. But he's already presented his "smoking gun" above; I misunderstood where he was coming from, and explained why, and retracted it with an apology. Not hard to do, but so far CT simply will not do it himself. These are in order of CT's original posts:

1. Straw man at 02:08, 21 August 2015: [75]; my objection to it (the third; my responses were not in chronological order of Curly Turkey's own posts, but as I encountered them): [76]

   Objecting to an example doesn't make it a straw man. You may or may not have invalidated the example—there is no more to it than that. (I have more to say about the rebuttal, which missed the point entirely, but that's not for ANI.) Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   Content discussions don't belong on ANI, so this should not be about who is or isn't wrong on the content. However, SMC's assertion that CT is guilty of repeated straw-man arguments hinges on ... well, whether or not CT is actually guilty of repeated straw-man arguments. I have looked at this, and, depending on who he was addressing by "you", it either (a) most certainly was not a straw-man -- Cebr1979 said exactly what CT accused him of saying, and Cebr1979 was wrong on the substance, and deserved to be called out on it, or (b) was probably not a straw-man -- Darkfrog24 said he agreed with Cebr1979, and in the indented example worded it so as to imply he agreed with the point in question; CT called Darkfrog24 out for this, and did not use a straw-man argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

   I'd describe it as more "Curly asking me what I meant when I said something," but yes, not straw man. For the record, I didn't actually agree with Cebri. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

2. Straw man at 04:23, 21 August 2015 :[77]; my objection to it: [78]. This was an especially shameless example, taking a fragment from a carefully qualified statement and trying to spin into a reductio ad adsurdum bearing no relation to what I actually wrote, and also put words in my mouth like accusations of "incompetence" that I never actually made; cf. Cebr1979's complaint about the same put-words-in-my-mouth tactic Curly Turkey tried to use against him as well, in diff #8, below (an objection that predates mine).

   I defy anyone but SMcCandlish or Cebr to demonstrate how this is a strawman. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but this also isn't a straw-man. You (SMC) said something that was patently inaccurate, and CT called you out for it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

3. Straw man at 06:49, 21 August 2015: [79]; my objection to it: [80]

   This is even worse than the last one. How does this fall anywhere near anything resembling a straw man? Did you paste the wrong diff? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   CT is wrong in saying that it looks less like a straw-man than the previous one. It looks slightly more like a straw-man (CT might have been accusing Trovatore of saying it sounded like slavery). But it is obviously tongue-in-cheek, and to post on-wiki that you think it is a straw-man is actually an AGF-violation, since the only way it could be read as a bad-faith straw-man rather than a joke would be to actively assume bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

   It was neither tongue-in-cheeck nor a strawman. It was an honest question why use of "she" would make the sentence sound like slavery where the use of the name (which the pronoun replaces) doesn't. A "straw man" involves "refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent"—no arguement was refuted, let alone one not advanced by the opponent. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

4. Straw man at: 09:46, 21 August 2015: [81]; my objection to it: [82]

   Again, you're framing this as if the proposal ever included in-universe writing, which we've established it never did. The "never" refers exclusively to out-of-universe writing, as you are well aware. This is not a strawman but you recotextualizing my words to make them appear so. In the established context my words are true—unless you are now saying you accept "who" in out-of-universe writing. If you go on record saying you do, I will retract the comment, but a strawman it is not—it is what I have been led to believe is your position. Otherwise this and every other error you've made becomes a strawman. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, SMC, but do I need to read through the entire discussion on MOS to establish whether CT was in fact accurate in his description of your arguments? Your objection didn't address it at all, and in fact is a fairly off-topic discussion of user conduct for an MOS talk page. Could you explain which part of the above post by CT you believe was a straw-man argument? Was it a straw-man to say that the proposal was to lift a restriction rather than place it, or was the straw-man his saying that you and Cebr1979 claim "who" is never used? Because all I see on examining the above is CT making what looks like a fairly accurate break-down of who says what in the debate, and you making an off-topic personal accusation against CT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

5. Straw man at 14:06, 21 August 2015: [83]; my objection to it and the disruptiveness of it: [84]

   A statement of fact, as far as I know. I have seen no editor either proposing or doing the opposite. Meanwhile, your "Except everyone else understands that it happens more than one way" lacks any sort of evidence. If there is evidence, then I was wrong (and I'll retract the statement), but being wrong is not the same as a strawman. Do you really have so poor a grasp of the concept of a strawman? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   This is not a straw-man. It is debatably an accusation, but whether it is false or true on that point determines whether it was inappropriate for CT to make it. I'm sorry, SMC, but I'm inclined to agree with CT here: either you do not know what a straw-man is (this is the AGF option), or you are making bad-faith accusations of straw-man arguments in order to set CT up for a fall he doesn't deserve. Your response to CT was an off-topic personal accusation that didn't address the issue (you should have presented him with an example of someone going around and systematically changing "that" to "who" if you wanted to say he was wrong). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

6. Straw man at 22:18, 21 August 2015: [85]; my objection to it: [86]

   We've already established my statement was the plain truth and you got things horribly, horribly wrong. This is as black-and-white as it gets. Where does the "strawman" come into this? The closest thing is where you put words into my mouth with your "To him this debate is only about "banning" the use of "we" and the like in fiction"—the debate started with this very out-of-universe edit and followed with out-of-universe examples. Your statement was a jaw-dropper. Do you stand by it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   Sorry SMC. You would be right that CT was using a straw-man argument, if you were right on what the RFC question was. But CT knows what the RFC question was -- he wrote it, apparently -- and his description was accurate; yours was not. If you think CT's original RFC question was an inaccurate straw-man, then ... that is an issue I don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole. Sorry, I've had enough of that shit over the past year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

7. Straw man at 22:22, 21 August 2015: [87]; my objection to it: [88]

   The "strawman" here is you ascribing motivations to the writer. I'm not the only one in the discussion who pointed that out to you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   @CT: Or was the straw-man your saying "The rest of your comment is a mess of ad hominems and bald assertions that your own evidence disproves."? I'm not going to go through it further to figure out whether you were right to say that, because my head hurts at this point (it's not your fault), but if you were wrong ... it still wouldn't be a straw-man. A false accusation at worst. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

8. Straw man at 02:26, 21 August 2015: [89]; Cebr1979's objection to it: [90]; my objection to it: [91]

   Yep, you brought it up, just as I predicted above. Scroll up to see my rebuttal. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

   Okay, I'm not going to go back up and see the rebuttal. I don't frankly care at this point whether this was or was not a straw-man argument. Even if it was, it is one flawed argument. It doesn't justify all the other crap SMC apparently put CT through accusing him of straw-mans left, right and center, before the above potentially-legit straw-man. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

   There's no flaw to the argument—the rebuttal to it that SMcCandlish supports is to recast to avoid it, which is a tacit acknowlegement that the prescription is problematic (a large part of my basic point). This has been brought up by other editors in earlier discussions, which is why I revived it here. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Everyone misinterprets someone else's view occasionally (and I even did so with one of CT's, as already noted). But this is a consistent pattern of intentional, uncivil, disruptive mischaracterization as a debate tactic, to make other editors look stupid, dishonest, or trolling, and with the effect of derailing an RfC. It's extremely uncollegial, reminiscent of dirty political campaigning, not collaborative editing and consensus formation. It's also noteworthy that some of it was directed at, and objected to by, Cebr1979, whom CT continually lashes out again as "trolling". Who's trolling whom? CT not only has not retracted or apologized even once, to anyone, for any of these fabrications and distortions, he's escalated the behavior right here in this very ANI thread, as if daring the community to do anything about it. I don't think this should go unaddressed. I wasn't going to raise it as a behavioral issue to deal with right now, but CT has essentially forced this examination of his own behavior, by his escalation, further distortions' of others posts, and demands for the very diffs with which to hang him out to dry, so we might as well deal with it now. If it's as habitual as it looks, we'll just be back here to deal with it again when it arises in another discussion later.

At a minimum, Curly Turkey should be warned to stop engaging in willful falsification of others' statements, with a repeat of this pattern leading to sanctions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• We'll let the kind folks examine the evidence and decide who is disruptive and who has distorted others' comments. While we're waiting, you might want to read the straw man article.
  
• Food for thought: anyone who bothers to plow through that mess of an RfC might want to pay attention to different editors' tones with each other. Masem and I totally disagree with each other, yet manage to keep things congenial. Notice how quickly things devolve to ad hominems and accusations of bad faith once Cebr and SMcCandlish arrive on the scene. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I'll go through SMcCandlish's complaints more thoroughly later, but as someone who's worked with him for a long time, let me say that SmC regularly overreacts to benign and only moderately problematic posts, treating them as if they were malicious. It's usually not that big of a deal. I was a participant in this whole discussion and my principal reaction to the interactions between SmC and Curly was "There's SmC being SmC again."

Here's a relatively benign example of SMC's level of ability to communicate with others [92]: SMC: "This fails to do X." DF24: "'Fails' suggests I was attempting to do X." SMC: "It suggests no such thing." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1. This isn't a straw man. It's Curly asking me what I meant when I said something. I responded with a clarification and moved on. If SmC is referring instead to the time-travel comment, I don't see that as a straw man either, just an example. Not every example that doesn't fit perfectly is a straw argument.

2. This shows Curly Turkey providing sources to back up a contested claim. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. (@SMcCandlish: Your "and my objection to it," is the same link for points 1, 2 and 3. Error?)

3. Curly T giving a perfectly benign opinion. I see this as part of the communal effort to develop proper wording for a proposed addition to the MoS.

4. Okay, it's possible to consider this a straw man argument, but it's more likely to just be a mistake. Curly claims, "SmC is saying that [animate pronouns] are never used in this way" and that is not SmC's position, but at that point in the discussion, it wasn't unreasonable to make that kind of mistake over which editor believed what. This is what I mean when I say that SmC overreacts: He's saying "blatant misrepresentation" when it's probably just a mistake. To my memory Curly did not continue to say that SmC held this position after it became clear that SmC did not.

5. I'll say here what I said on the page itself: These are just two editors who value different things. Curly is saying, "But it hasn't actually happened that way; let's base our solution on observable evidence from the past and present" and SmC is saying "But it looks like it would; let's base our plans on logical extrapolation for the future." These are just two different ways of thinking.

6. This is just Curly saying that we should invite more people. I don't see the problem here. Oh, I see. Curly is framing the issue as, "whether the MoS should prohibit personal [animate] pronouns." Yes, that's not exactly the issue, but it is how the issue got started. Here's what happened: A) Another user was changing "a character who" to "a character that" under the belief that Wikipedia prohibits using "who" (the personal/animate pronoun in question) for fictional characters because they are things and not people. B) Curly T started a RfC at WT:MoS asking, "Is it okay to use animate/personal pronouns for fictional characters?" C) The answer came back "Yes, in fact that's standard" overwhelmingly and almost immediately. So at that point, no, there was no question that anyone was going to start prohibiting using "who" for fictional characters. Qualitatively, phrasing the issue like that while attempting to recruit new participants could be considered alarmist or even WP:POINT, but if you're just talking about it like that on the discussion section of an RfC that was started because someone thought they were already prohibited, then it's not that big of a deal. Did Curly Turkey use that language to recruit new participants or frame a new RfC?

7. Here, Curly Turkey says that he/she thinks SmC is reading too much into a specific source. No issue.

8. Curly Turkey is not saying "You did say this." He's saying "Would you say this?" He's trying to point out a flaw in someone else's reasoning. This is a perfectly constructive way to work out what everyone really thinks.

Summing up: Two of these cited examples, #4 and #6, could be less than desirable under certain circumstances, but they could have been resolved with, "Actually, I mean X, not Y" and "That's fine if you're just brainstorming, but don't actually phrase the official notice like that." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In the previous thread (Boomerang for User:Cebr1979), I kept my focus on Cebr1979's conduct; I'm going to be fair and do the same with Curly Turkey in this thread. The topic of concern here is Curly Turkey's conduct towards other editors, and the method in which he presenting his arguments in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I'll start with the obvious: Curly Turkey's interaction with Cebr1979's can also be viewed as uncivil and unnecessary ([93] [94] [95] [96], to name a few). Two wrongs do not make a right, and if you honestly feel that you're being trolled, the last thing that you want to do is feed them. However, I've looked through the diffs provided by SMcCandlish, and I do not see any blatant or purposeful attempt to Straw man arguments in an attempt to win an edge over the debate, or contribute disruptively. The discussion being held on the WP:MOS talk page involved setting fourth requirements to use certain pronouns when addressing fictional characters in Wikipedia - and it seems like he was legitimately discussing his views. If anything, I saw that he was trying to keep on topic [97]. Unless I'm missing something, or more context needs explaining, I'm not seeing anything disruptive as far as "straw man" is concerned. Could some of his tone and word usage in his arguments been better? Yes. But was he disruptive to where action is required? No. The incivility I observed was mostly in response to Cebr1979's behavior (again, two wrongs do not make a right). However, I don't feel that any action is needed regarding Curly Turkey. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Turkey being uncivil? Well I'll be. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem with that analysis is that very little of CT's straw-manning was directed at Cebr in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis is that nobody agrees that I posed any straw men, yet you continue to act as if it were an accepted fact. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a strong feeling here that CT has a slightly shorter than average temper and therefore must be at least partly at fault here. But I have actually had harsh disputes with him in the past, and never got the feeling that he was an overall drain on the project. Within eight hours of my first interacting with Cebr1979 I had someone going through my edits and misquoting me on an unrelated thread. I'm pretty sure I've dropped my fair share of F-bombs on this site in the past, and called other editors "troll" and the like. But the result was those editors getting blocked and me being given a slap on the wrist because ... I wasn't wrong when I called them trolls. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I just posted the evidence that CT demanded against himself, thrice, and would just let the community (or ANI regulars, anyway) deal with the matter; I decline to respond to the CYA scrambling by CT and his micro-entourage. I would clarify for Hijiri88 that I'm not suggesting that CT is "an overall drain on the project"; he's just presently, recalcitrantly, and perhaps habitually (need more evidence) engaging in a particular uncivil and disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, a "forget why we're having this discussion, the important thing is to make sure everyone who disagrees with me looks like an idiot or liar by twisting their words or just blatantly making up nonsense about what they said" technique, and it has to stop. I also think there's insufficient evidence that Cebr is an overall drain on the project either, especially given the nature of his participation in the WT:MOS thread at issue (which has arguably been more constructive than CT's) and the nature of the "evidence" against Cebr mostly being only in relation to CT, even illustrative of the fact that CT has been just as hostile and dismissive to Cebr as vice-versa, or where it doesn't relate to CT it's about two years too old to be relevant. I repeat that I have my own concerns about Cebr, but ANI is not a fishing expedition, nor is it a "gang up, for extraneous reasons, on whomever irritated me the other day" party.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

<tongue-in-cheek>Firstly, I object to the term "his entourage". I think if you went through all the prior friendly interactions between me, Sturmgewehr88 and Curly Turkey, you will find that in all incidences I was the "ringleader" and they both agreed with me. If anything, CT is a member of my entourage, not the other way round!</tongue-in-cheek>

Secondly, "drain on the project" was not meant to imply anything about your view of CT (I actually wasn't replying to you specifically -- I haven't looked at your diffs yet, and if you look at where my post was originally placed yet it was pretty obvious). "Drain on the project" was referring to something of which I highly suspect Cebr1979 of being. My point was that, unless you show CT deliberately and proactively antagonizing Cebr, all this talk of CT using strawman arguments and dropping F-bombs is pretty irrelevant to the present discussion. Engaging in passive-aggressive CIR and/or IDHT and/or TROLL (even the "polite" kind) and then posting on ANI when the other user gets frustrated and tells you to "f*** off", is itself almost always block-worthy behaviour. And when other users have told the user "yeah, y'know, effing off probably would have been a good idea, and your best bet now would probably be to eff off as politely as possible and apologize profusely for the trouble you've caused", and the user's immediate response is to unilaterally close the discussion of his own behaviour, contribs-stalk and edit-war with random ANI commenters and otherwise be deliberately antagonistic ... well, I frankly think discussions of CT's short temper as expressed in previous and/or unrelated disputes are off-topic at best. If you don't think that CT is a drain on the project, why are you presenting negative arguments about CT to justify your opposition to sanctions against Cebr1979 who has shown incredibly disruptive behaviour in this thread?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SMC, I've just spent over an hour going through your diffs and trying for the life of me to figure out what you thought was a straw-man argument in each case. As far as I can see, you agree with Cebr1979 on a content issue, and disagree with CT on the same issue, and so are trying to derail an ANI discussion of the behaviour of both users. Ignoring serious user conduct issues in order to win a content dispute is frankly quite ugly. Please do not discuss content issues on ANI, and if you have any legitimate evidence of mitigating circumstances for Cebr1979's atrocious conduct, you should present it. Otherwise, let the community deal with the matter based on what evidence is presented us. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, except a) I don't actually agree with Cebr on the content issue, and have moved away from his position to an evolving compromise draft, for seven days now; b) this is a thread about CT's behavior that has been hijacked into a thread about Cebr's behavior before I even arrived, and I'm actually returning it to the original topic; and c) the issues I raised with regard to CT are entirely behavioral, about putting words in other people's mouths and twisting their words to misrepresent and denigrate their views, and these are objections that would hold no matter what the topic is or the content of the discussion, no matter whose position I agreed with, to what extent. PS: I never said anything about anyone dropping F-bombs; you seem to be confusing me and my arguments with someone else['s].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)SMcCandlish responded with this, then went here (diff). ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. I objected to the boomerang discussion as a distraction away from CT's own behavior in the matter. Diffs relating to that behavior were demanded. I provided them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And they've been shown by three editors besides myself to be nothing of the sort. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I frankly think this entire section should be collapsed as off-topic time-wasting. I won't do it myself since I've already tried that above and the resulting edit-war shitstorm put me in a bad mood, and I don't need that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what editwar you're referring to (I've been doing other things), but you don't seem to be in a position to hat a discussion you're clearly negatively involved in, to hide away arguments about the original topic because they don't suit your present interest in pursuing a boomerang side action that at this point is such a stale idea it would be 100% punitive and vindictive. The entire tripartite thread should be closed by someone uninvolved in the discussion, with warnings against both of these parties and if a new dispute involving similar behavior patterns arises with either of them, there'll be a basis on which to act, in an actually timely manner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

warnings against both of these parties: you keep talking as if the community has agreed that I am a disruptive party. They seem to agree I've acted in good faith and the "strawmen" and "lies" you've accused me of simply aren't there. As for who put words in whose mouths ... Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Telstra, Australia IP vandalism

The last month or so, there has been a long list of IPs, all belonging to Telstra, Australia, vandalising the Israel/Palestine articles. Look at User talk:McSly, Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut, Talk:Judea, Talk:State of Palestine, Talk:German Colony, Jerusalem, Palestinian territories. He reminded me of my old friend, due to edits like this, but, AFAIK, "my old friend" is still in the US.

However, I wonder, is it possible to block a range of Telstra-Ips? Or would that catch too many innocents? (Btw, he is active as I type) Huldra (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Block the entire ISP. If they have a problem, it should remain their problem, not ours. Any decent editor can register an account. Likewise Vodafone DE. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another death-threat against me here from the same; please rev-del and protect. Iow: please do full JarlaxleArtemis-routine when dealing with this guy, Huldra (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, you *really* have to refuse them the possibility to edit their own talk-page; to avoid death and rape-threaths, Huldra (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gilliam, for that. (Perhaps rev-del the threats?) Also, the same IP was discussed here a couple of days ago: see here. --Huldra (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:NeilN. I have made a list of (some) of the Telstra socks, used in July/ August this year (not a full list):

• 58.168.146.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.230.123.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.230.34.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@
• 60.230.39.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 101.160.19.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.160.129.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.160.137.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 110.149.115.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@

• 121.214.145.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.219.62.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.219.134.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.220.110.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@
• 121.220.10.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.220.80.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) @@

• 124.176.153.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@
• 124.180.215.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) @@
• 124.180.198.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.181.101.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@

• 137.147.7.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.147.7.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) @@
• 137.147.152.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.147.169.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IPs with @@ after them have issued Grawp-like threats, mostly rev-delled. Feel free to add more IPs, as you find them, Huldra (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like any rangeblock has a lot of collateral, apart from 2-5, which are caught by 60.230.0.0/17. Page protection is the only real solution here from that point of view. Mdann52 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In a case like this that's too easy: we'd have to protect every page in the project where they might show up or where they might follow someone. I don't know what the limit is, what too much collateral damage is, but not rangeblocking also has a lot of collateral damage, and I prefer our own editors not fall in that category. Rangeblock away, I say. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you would also advocate rangeblocking large sections of Comcast in the US or BT in the UK, this is a really stupid idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We've had to do it before to stem death threats. Not to mention that this is pretty much the only way to slow him to any appreciable degree. Even then, his abuse of open proxies is quite legendary (which is why he's showing up on BT and Telstra). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an alternative. Contact Telstra abuse and tell them that we are considering a range block because of the actions of one Telstra user. They may very well block the user on their end to protect their other users from collateral damage if we do it on our end. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's an open proxy (and considering who we're discussing it almost certainly is), then it's not exactly on Telstra, but rather on who owns the TOR node/anonymising service/compromised server. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is my old friend, (who, for sure, knows how to make use of TOR), then why does he *only* appear on Telstra IPs? I´m making some enquiries (off-line), in the mean time, I´ll ask all admins to be very vigilant when it comes to Telstra IPs: remember to block their user-page access too. And could some admin please rev-del 124.181.101.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) death threats? Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oddy enough I have done this before when I was a Sysadmin, unless Telstra's policies have changed they will file such a request in the nearest bin. It took a court order for me to get them to prevent one of their script-kiddie customers attempting to DDOS one of my domains. The main problem with rangeblocking large sections of Telstra however is that in many parts of Australia it really is the only provider. There is no alternative. Unlike the example above which affected Houston - a city with many other options. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So logged in editors can still edit, and IP editors get a notice that they can either log in or complain to Telstra for allowing one of their users to abuse Wikipedia, forcing Wikipedia to block IP edits from Telstra. Not ideal, but not a disaster for the Australian users either. One could also contact a few news outlets in Australia and let them know what is happening. If they choose to run a story or two on this, Telstra is likely to become a lot more cooperative. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that some of these are proxies, not all are in Australia by the looks of things. While blocking Australia may seem a good solution, I don't think this will be productive - partly as there are ways to easily get round this. Now, I can tell you millions of people will be caught up in any rangeblock with this - and it is incredibly hard to tell who is and isn't vandals when it comes to people like ACC dealing with requests like this. Rangeblock is the easy solution, just not the best one here. Depending on what is being inserted, a note to the ISP or police (I haven't seen the edits, but the police are likely to be interested if they are death threats) is likely to be the only solution, unless we want large swaiths of Australia waking up and wondering why they can't fix one typo or suchlike, leading to the problem building up elsewhere. Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

All the above IPs with @@ at the end have rev-delled rape or death threats, mostly death threats. I have no idea as to how Australian police react to this (I am not in Australia), Huldra (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic Editor Two

Requesting some kind of warning/block on contributor Againstdisinformation (talk), by an admin: they have repeatedly committed NPOV violations which may count as disruptive editing, engaged in edit wars despite previous blocks and also are generally combative and view any attempt to warn them about their actions as a personal attack and respond with attacks of their own. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question. GAB^Hello! 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, I will provide a full answer shortly. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I sure as hell can't wait for that. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's all remember to be civil in this discussion. That applies to everyone. - SantiLak (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Echoing what SantiLak said, I would suggest that everyone be patient. Reaganomics88, you are relatively new here. Be patient. Impatience or incivility could WP:BOOMERANG on you. GregJackP Boomer! 02:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I must say that I find Reaganomics88' behaviour very strange. At 12:24, August 24 he left a warning on my talk page reading "If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at , you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a place for activism or sardonic commentary." I had never before interacted with that editor and I was a bit puzzled. Looking at the article 'George W. Bush' that he had mentioned, I found out that the edit he incriminated was a typo which had since been corrected. I told him so and added that I found it negative, even aggressive, to search for old defective edits that had already been corrected and issue threats to their authors. He replied that he did not believe that my typo was a mistake and that I had to follow the basic rules of Wikipedia. He also complained that I had erased his warning. I told him (on his talk page) that I found his warning offensive for a first contact with another editor and that I could hardly believe he was a new user, as his talk page seemed to indicate. He finally told me that he had no time to argue with me and ended his last message with 'adieu'. I replied that I agreed with him on that point and ended with 'farewell'. I then proceeded to delete the section he had opened on my home page and thought that that was the end of it. Today I see that he has mentioned me on the administrator's noticeboard for "NPOV violations", "being combative" an "viewing any attempt to warn him as a personal attack". Frankly I can't believe this is a new user. It seems to me more likely that this is someone who has already interacted with me under another username and, for some reason, is bearing a grudge against me. I have strongly objected to the title "RT mouthpiece of the Kremlin" in the article 'RT' and that may have irritated some. Having chosen to edit on controversial issues I may have unknowingly elicited enmities. But, contrary to what my accuser says, though I defend strongly my opinions on what I think should be the standards of an encyclopedia, I have always been polite and ready to listen to others. If it turned out to be the case that someone is using a second account in order to tarnish my reputation while remaining in the dark I would find it unacceptable and, above all, very sad. I just read his message on the noticeboard and, alas, it confirms my worst fears. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've been following this situation for a while, but while I may not agree with ADI's and/or R88's points of view. I do not think any parties have violated Wikipedia policy and I do not believe that there is anything actionable here. I suggest all sides consider dispute resolution and would like to remind everyone that this topic area is under Eastern Europe DS. Additionally, ADI I would recommend reading WP:1AM as it gives good advice for editors in your situation. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Winner 42, I salute your levelheadedness and neutrality. However, something troubles me. I completely agree that I have found myself in a 1AM situation on the topic of Eastern Europe. It is a sensitive issue where feelings run deep. I chose to start with it because, in my mind, it best illustrates what I consider to be the falling standards of neutrality in the way Wikipedia treats current affairs issues. For example, in my opinion, "RT mouthpiece of the Kremlin" may be fine in a newspaper, but certainly not in an encyclopaedia. But, if I am not mistaken, this subject is not what brought us here. We are here because Reaganomics88 mentioned me on the administrator's noticeboard after having warned me about an edit I had made on the article George W. Bush. It turns out that this typo had already been fixed, so that I didn't understand how he had become aware of it and what he was getting at. I asked him for clarification, but none was forthcoming. Now, I hope he is not acting on behalf of a group of people who prefer to stay in the backstage, that would be very dishonest. Otherwise I would sincerely like to know how misplaced quotation marks, a corrected typo anyway, could induce him to directly mention me on the administrators notice board, without following due process. Againstdisinformation (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A) Something worries me too. So let me explain how my first interaction with this editor came about. I read that George W.Bush was one of the most frequently vandalised articles so I decided to see for myself. So I found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=676956719&oldid=676384540%7Cthis edit|, which put quotation marks around the word American, this (coupled with their username, which appears to suggest some kind of agenda) suggested that the edit was made so that "American" would be read in a sarcastic on insincere tone (After all, while arguing with other editors, ADI has said "I like humour and I tend to have an ironic, even sarcastic tone") that would suggest that enhanced interrogation techniques had in fact not preserved American lives. I saw that someone else had reverted the quotation marks later in the day and when I saw that ADI had a history of being blocked for disruptive editing and had already been warned about NPOV violations after being blocked but had not been warned about their edit to Bush I decided to warn them about their edit, assuming that would be the end of it.

B) ADI's reply highlighted my main problem with them: their attitude towards other editors. If they had just left me a quick note telling me that the edit was a mistake then I would never have to interact with them again. However instead ADI called my message "aggressive" and said "Do you spend your time looking up old versions to send threats to editors you don't like? Wikipedia is not the place for such negative behaviour." I found this incredibly bizarre: how could I not like someone I had never met or had any meaningful interaction with? And also I never considered my behaviour "negative", if anything I was trying to help ADI avoid getting blocked again in the future; but most of all I was offended by their comments.

C) So I replied to ADI saying that it was okay they had removed their warning (I had not complained about its removal as ADI claimed, I had even said "it is after all your talk page") but while I was sorry that they felt strongly about my warning they still had to to follow the rules. I was surprised when in reply they said "it makes me really suspicious about your real motives or who is behind your username", and found these accusations strange, rude and offensive.

D) The issue is not about Eastern Europe, I have little interest in topics relating to Eastern Europe, my main interests are British Politics and Scottish Independence, the issue is about ADI's general attitude towards other editors: it seems being confrontational and replying disproportionately is symptomatic of them. I can point to all the personal and unsubstantiated accusations ADI has made against me in the responses to my noticeboard placement alone:

• He has suggested that I am only pretending to be a new editor and am someone who is "acting under a second username" and has "taken a grudge" against them.

• He has suggested I am using a second account to "tarnish" his reputation "while remaining in the dark."

• He has suggested that I am "acting on behalf of a group of people who prefer to stay in the backstage" and "very dishonest".

These accusations are wild and obviously untrue, again I have little interest in Eastern European topics or RT, I simply wanted to help an editor avoid being banned again for NPOV violation.

E) When I ended my message with "adieu" I did intend to never interacted with ADI again. However what changed my mind was that I realised that ADI's argumentative behaviour was not just confined to me, but appears symptomatic of his general attitude towards other editors.

For example when Xx236 (talk) questioned his name's neutrality he responded with "personal attacks are not welcome here" and "in the unlikely event that you are in good faith".

This was what prompted me to raise this issue, I think ADI needs to be far more civil in his dealings with other editors, realise that when people question his neutrality they are not attacking him as a person. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this exchange with Reaganomics88 could go on forever and, also, that it is getting tiresome for everyone. Therefore, unless I am asked to clarify some point, this will be my final answer to Reaganomics 88 contentions. I first became aware of his existence through the following warning he left on my talk page: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at George W. Bush, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a place for activism or sardonic commentary." Reaganomics88 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC) I had to look up the article to see what he meant. The edit incriminated concerns the phrase these enhanced interrogations "provided critical information" to preserve American lives. I wanted to change it to “these enhanced interrogations provided critical information to preserve American lives.” , since the whole phrase is from George W. Bush. Alas, I changed it to these enhanced interrogations provided critical information to preserve “American" lives. This was a typo, perhaps a Freudian slip, I am willing to concede, since I read that article because of a discussion about waterboarding with another editor, but it was unintentional and had anyway been corrected the following day. Of course, I felt somewhat irritated that Reaganomics 88 assumed bad faith on my part and refused to accept it was a typo. I told him I found it negative to dredge other editor’s history and to send them warnings about mistakes long since corrected. Indeed I find this user’s whole attitude weird. He claims that “if anything I was trying to help ADI avoid getting blocked again in the future”. But, after I told him at 19:43, 25 August 2015 that I found his attitude negative, he reported me for ‘vandalism’ at 22:09, 25 August 2015 (without letting me know) and, after we finally both agreed that the matter was over at 01:18, 26 August 2015, he decided nonetheless to mention me on the Administrator Noticeboard at 23:31, 26 August 2015 without any intervening interaction. I find this weird. I also find unfair, to say the least, the way he uses my discussions with other editors to support his bizarre contention that I made that typo in order to subliminally suggest that the Bush Administration’s enhanced interrogation techniques were ineffective at saving American lives. I have since learnt that he has been doing the same with other editors. I am sorry to use harsh words, but I find all this very silly and a loss of time which would be much better used constructively. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you find this silly then you can only imagine how silly I find your wild, unsubstantiated accusations that I am part of some kind of shady conspiracy working against you while "remaining in the dark". I find them absurd, tiring and offensive.

I did not view your edit history to find the Bush edit, like I said I viewed the George W.Bush page edit history, don't spread disinformation.

And may I ask, if your edit really was a typo why did you not, after realising that the quotation marks from the word American had been removed, add quotation marks to the section so that it resembled "these enhanced interrogations provided critical information to preserve American lives." as you supposedly intended to?

From this it can been determined that your so-called typo was in fact intentional NPOV violation and I was right in warning you about it. Even that is only part of the issue, the main issue is your behaviour.

And, between you and me, don't worry, I will accept your apology.

--Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin observation) This has all the characteristics of a failure to drop the stick by Reaganomics88. First talk page, then the vandalism noticeboards, now here. All over quotation marks that were removed the same day in successive edits [98] that he was not involved in? This is very close to WP:OWN behaviour and its possible a flying piece of wood maybe nearby. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how I could WP:OWN a article I have never edited, nor have much of an interest in. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That makes it even worse, not better. Who appointed you the investigator? AlbinoFerret 20:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I never intended to investigate anything I simply looked at the page's edit history. Besides I wasn't trying to punish ADI, only help him avoid being blocked again in the future. If you actually read what I have to say you will find that the edit itself is not the main issue. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So a new editor wasnt trying to investigate on an article they have no interest in or has edited by going through someone elses edits, bringing it to the vandalism noticeboard, and then to AN/I? Have you ever heard of the Law of holes? AlbinoFerret 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, Law of Holes, what a lovely aphorism. I think you may be the one in the hole. For a start I did not go through anyone's edits, I went through the edit history of the page warned a user about NPOV who had not been warned. Besides what's wrong with taking action against disruptive editing?--Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

First off, you brought a editor to a noticeboard. Above I linked to WP:BOOMERANG, I suggest you read it. Me in a hole, no, I didnt open a section here, and I am uninvolved, you on the other hand should be on the lookout for flying objects. AlbinoFerret 20:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not involved, really? You got involved the moment you started commenting, you simply latched on and hoped to engage in some merry Ochlocracy. If you understood the situation fully then you would realise that I never threw any 'boomerangs'. You a neither the judge, jury or the executioner, witch hunts, while exciting for the participators, are not fun for the victim. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your WP:POINTy post and your aggressive nature are poking through. You are investigating another editor and failed to WP:AGF. When it is pointed out to you to WP:DROPTHESTICK and you are in a situation where you may have a WP:BOOMERANG tossed at you, you think its ok to attack the person telling you. You keep digging and have no idea that when you bring something here the community can and will point out the problems with what you are doing. But, you dont have to listen to me, go ahead grab a bigger shovel. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay so i'm going to ignore all of your "aggressive nature" and digging a hole jibes and cut to the chase. It is clear that there was no need to assume good faith because the edit in question was obvious vandalism, evidenced by what I have pointed out in the last addition to the discussion before your comment. This shows you do not understand the situation fully. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals quotation marks are not vandalism. This is at least the second editor you have done this to. There is another section below that involves you doing the same thing. AlbinoFerret 21:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your welcome. Anyway I did not leave a warning on ADI's talk page about vandalism, I left one about NPOV violation. As for the other editor, have you actually read the conversation? I apologised for the additional warning and the editor admitted they were " incentivised to the addition of the epithet to the page by malice". I will reiterate, my main issue is with ADI's behaviour, not their original offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaganomics88 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, could we all get back on track as to this ANI being about Againstdisinformation. Another ANI has been for Reaganomics88 below. I can only see this as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If there's a BOOMERANG in it, it should be discussed here.

There appears to be a lot of bad faith going around on both of these sections. Both parties seem to be new users. I have no knowledge of user Reaganomics88 (nor do I intend to do any ferreting around), but I do now have extensive experience with user Againstdisinformation. This is not the first time we've had new editors clashing with regular (or other) editors in the name of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it going to be the last. Some editors take a while to understand WP:TL;DR and a multitude of other policy and guideline 'sins', but that doesn't automatically mean that they're WP:NOTHERE. If new editors dive straight into contentious articles (and Againstdisinformation has certainly done so on many such articles), the only thing to do is to give them a little time and assistance in understanding how Wikipedia works in order to evaluate whether they're WP:LISTENing or not. Instead of going straight for the WP:BITE, I'd suggest exercising a little more patience. If the behavioural problems persist, then it may be time to open an ANI. Editors don't have to like or agree with each other to work collaboratively, and trying to get rid of editors who could potentially evolve into good editors once they've gained experience is counterproductive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Offensive edit summaries

WCM has used edit summaries that include the expression FFS [99] [100]. I find this in edit summaries to be unacceptable. A check of his last 500 edits reveals that I have been singled out for this abuse. I asked the editor to stop [101] but this provoked another outburst. [102]. Could an administrator look into this, please. Michael Glass (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In the future you must notify any user you wish to bring to ANI on their talk page. I have done this for you. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and we do not punish editors for using the "F" word—and especially not when they don't even spell it out. Are the edits disruptive? If not, then ignore it and move on. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is this here? I don't see a personal attack. GregJackP Boomer! 07:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been known to use FFS in edit summaries when I'm grumpy (and will doubtless do so again in the future I'm afraid), but I do agree that it's not a good practice - it's obviously not civil. WCM, I'd suggest that you knock this off given that Michael has asked you to stop. Michael, if you're so offended by edit summaries like that that you think that an ANI report is warranted, I'd also suggest that you reconsider your occasional use of snarky summaries such as [103], [104] and [105] - they're also not terribly civil. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Think I'm being snarky? Try dealing with an editor who makes a habit of scrutinising your edits, reversing them and then stonewalling when he's outnumbered. I think you'd be snarky, too. Michael Glass (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

FFS is not really that offensive. It is not as though you were called a name, it is an expression of frustration. Chillum 13:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's no more offensive than SNAFU or FUBAR. And it could stand for "For Freedom's Sake". That's why initials get used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs and Chillum. Also, even though the use of edit summaries for purposes other than the name indicates should not be encouraged, it has become something so common to Wikipedia that it isn't something that should always require administrative intervention (in other words, it requires good personal judgement). Optimally, both users should stop pushing emotional buttons that can lead to actionable behavior. Regardless, I do hope that this AN/I report's purpose isn't used to artificially inflate a case where none exists.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"For freedom's sake?" Well, that's kinda funny, but most of the adult population of the English-speaking world knows what "FFS" actually means. And, yes, it is UNCIVIL, especially when used repeatedly, intentionally, and directed at another particular editor. My suggestion to WBM: knock it off, and quit trying to intentionally offend another editor. At some point it crosses the line from a spontaneous outburst of frustration to obvious incivility to a calculated provocation, none of which is consistent with WP:CIVIL and at some point becomes disruptive editing. None of it advances the goals of the project. So, please just stop. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• • There's a strong distinction to be made between "FFS" and "FU". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Chillum, it's just an expression of disappointment or annoyance. Discussion in WP sometimes heat up a little, but we cannot get an administrator involved for every editor who takes it personal.--Darius (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It also stands for "Fat Finger Syndrome", which describes my one handed typing. Point noted gentlemen.

However, as Nick notes above, Michael is fond of rather snarky comments himself and these do needlessly inflame discussions. I believe he should be reminded that is also unacceptable. WCM_email 12:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

disruptive editing , removing of content bu dl2000

Dear Dl2000 is continuously harming wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._K._Thakker by disruptive editing and roll back. He is removing the information which is sourced from reliable sources.

Changing the heading " Early Life & career " with "Education and career" does not make any logic. Dl2000 remove the education history from the wikipedia on the name of copy right material.

The educational degree earned by some one can not be changed replaced and substituted , once achieved it become a fact. for example if you did LLB from a certain university with certain % it will become a fact. so removal of the education earned by Justice c.k.thakker from his wiki does not make a logic.

Dl2000 also converting the real information to fake information intentionally and also removed the reliable link through which the source of information can be varified. DL 2000 - " Thakker was appointed as Part-Time Lecturer in Law in Sir L.A. Shah Law College, Ahmedabad, in 1970 and continued as such until he was elevated to Judge of the High Court of Gujarat on 21 June 1990" Though the truth is that Justice C.K.Thakker -

Enrolled as Advocate on February 28, 1968. Started practice in the High Court of Gujarat. Rendered services as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor from December, 1975 to 1982. Appeared in a number of Civil, Criminal and Constitutional matters. The information can be verified by the official website of Govt. of india http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/cjshow.php?auth=amdldGlkPTMyJnBhZ2Vubz00. Dl2000 Removed the all information from the biography of justice c.k.thakker.

Dl2000 is intentionally removed the words " His loardship , Honourable juustice before the name of honourable judge c.k.thakker and stated using thakker. which does not make any logic. THe justice c.k.thakker is a public figure , a retired former judge and his name to taken & written with respect. Removing the word which pay respect to this respectable personality does not make any logic.

Their is continuous voilation of the wikiguidelines. There is no copyright material as claimed by Dl2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyadarshivishal23 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, first things first. Please read WP:RS, WP:HONORIFIC, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:3RR. Secondly, if you are going to title a section "early life" there needs to actually be information regarding the subject's early life. The section that you are talking about is regarding the man's education not his early life. Early life is childhood. Third, you have not actually discussed this with the other editor at all and instead have brought a grievance straight here (please also read WP:DR on that subject). So, this seems a little premature and frankly a little unnecessary. In addition, there was definitely a direct copy from an external website that you used in the article violating Wikipedia's copyright policy (even the grammar mistake was included making it really obvious that you copy and pasted the information). So please also read WP:BOOMERANG. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll lay it out in simple terms. The content at [[106]] is copyrighted, and if it gets reintroduced, the person who does so will be blocked. Further, this is an encyclopedia, not a tribute to personalities, no matter how respectable. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Same complaint at WP:BLPN. Doug Weller (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

And this isn't the only copyvio, there's too, another 16K of copyvio. Priyadarshivishal23, stop this immediately, or you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned out the copyvios (inserted by the OP) from Law of India and Hindu Marriage Act while MLauba has taken care of C. K. Thakker. There are a few more articles left for anyone else volunteering to help, ironically all of them law related!—SpacemanSpiff 10:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Euthanasia in India contained copy/pasted content as well (cleaned up, now revdeled), and damaged the article layout to boot. GermanJoe (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is a copyvio too. Still there on the current article. --Stabila711 (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court of India has it too unfortunately. Lifted from a blog. --Stabila711 (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleaned up the Civil Procedure one but I am not sure what to do with the Supreme Court in India one. There has been so many edits in the interim that a blanket revert is going to cause a lot of collateral. --Stabila711 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've revdelled Euthanasia in India and Civil Procedure Code, 1908. I've cleaned out Supreme Court of India, don't think RD is going to be easy there, will leave it to one of the more capable admins out here. Is that all, or do we have to look further? —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: There was a previous copyvio on Allahabad High Court that was cleaned up. I am going through the user's past contribs to try to see if there are any more. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been reverted a while, so I'll leave that as is. —SpacemanSpiff 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just took out a section at Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that was copied. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is getting weirder, the OP has also been editing as IPs and inserting copyvios. We might have to move this over to a CCI. See this edit. Will need to look at the IP range to see what other IPs have been used, this one looks to have been in use for a couple of months and static. —SpacemanSpiff 11:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't even look at that one. I was only looking at the edits done under the user's name. This may be a much larger problem if they were IP editing as well. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

IP range is 182.71.124.0/24. It's not that bad: I dumped a list of non-trivial edits for this range at User:MER-C/Sandbox (permanent link). MER-C 12:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious, that the user either has a COI with Eastern Book Company or is trying to popularize Indian law literature in general. We could certainly do with more non-Western sources, but spamming indiscriminate links, especially to webstores, is the wrong way to go about it. GermanJoe (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What User:Stabila711 and the other non-OPs said. Perhaps the reverts were a bit WP:BATHWATER but that seems far outweighed by copyvio. With that, plus the edit summaries and relevant talk page postings (actually a lack thereof), and without prejudice to addressing any BLP issues on C. K. Thakker, I rest my case. Dl2000 (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Reaganomics88

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh&diff=prev&oldid=678037900, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh&diff=prev&oldid=678099119, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/677766229, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/677760025

This user adds warnings to users' talk pages when they have already been warned and usually ages after the incident in question. I don't know if anything can be done, as I'm not sure it's against the rules, but it is greatly irritating me and, judging by the great argument about it between the reported user and user:Againstdisinformation, it is causing the latter a great deal of upset.

If possible, could something be done to stop user:Reaganomics88, what they're doing is ridiculous and hurtful. The incidents are in the past and have been dealt with already, they need not be unnecessarily dredged up. Indeed, I find it vile and antagonistic to sift through past edits to find stagnating and hitherto forgotten misdeeds and then animadverting to their, already cautioned, authors.

I have attempted to resolve the matter with them on my talk page, on which they had written, but they show no signs of stopping their absurd crusade.

Gotha^☭  _Talk 11:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As for diffs 1 and 2, I apologise, I viewed and still view adding 'Tory Scum' as a name the Conservative Party is referred by constitutes as vandalism rather than POV related offence. However in hindsight maybe one kind of warning was enough.

As for diff 3, that's already being discussed.

As for diff 4, I'm disappointed that you included this because if you actually look at the situation you will see that Mateka9911 was a prolific vandal who (as admin TigerShark (talk) who blocked him after I reported him for vandalism) put it has "a long history of gaming the system by vandalising until you get a final warning and then stopping for a few days, before resuming." To say this is unfair when it is in fact as successful anti-vandal operation is misleading. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Reaganomics88:Thank you, very gracious of you and I am very grateful, perhaps I was quick to report you. I do understand your point and, while I maintain that it is a common name for them, I'll happily concede that I was incentivised to the addition of the epithet to the page by malice. However, I am not the first and I would appreciate it if you would apologise to the other users to whom you have given these supplementary warnings, such as user:Againstdisinformation, and cease giving them, as the offences occurred a great deal of time ago, had been dealt with prior to your intervention and you have caused a great deal of upset in your brash actions. Apologies for any offence, diff four was ill-researched. Thanks again,

Gotha^☭  _Talk 12:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Tory scum" is not a "common name", it is a nasty POV push against a political party. A warning for that is deserved. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 12:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Scourge of Trumpton: A warning may well have been deserved. But, the user in question gave me a second warning half a month after the offence and without my repeat offending, indeed I did not so much as restore the edit and I admitted above it was motivated by malice towards the Tories (whom, as you can probably tell, I loath unremittingly). Secondly, Mr(s) Trumpton, you seem to ignore the fact that I am not the only victim, in fact, had I been, I would not have reported the incident.

Gotha^☭  _Talk 12:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be a disturbing pattern. There is another section here where Reaganomics88 has engaged in the same WP:POINTy behaviour. Somehow he has appointed himself an investigator. AlbinoFerret 21:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, this type of disturbing behavior seems to be on the increse on WP. I've run across several new registered accounts this month whose first or recent edits are to begin warning users, oftentimes incorrectly. These include User:Nrwairport. Whether these are sock- or meatpuppets of each other, or of other blocked users, or some new fad that new editors have picked up, I don't know. Gven the fact that, in this case,a newly registered user has immediately begun warning users upon creation of the account, and has done so distinctively, a check user may well be warranted. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh, would you please close this thread. There's already a section discussing user Reaganomics88 open above. This is an unnecessary double-up. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see why an ANI opened by one editor about a second one should be closed because this second editor has himself opened an ANI about a third editor. Why not the reverse then? Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:JordanGero editwarring to drastically change the wording of an ongoing RfC

Having been twice requested not to and informed of the talkpage guidelines, JordanGero (talk · contribs) is currently editwarring at Talk:European colonization of the Americas to change the wording of an ongoing rfc to what he considers the RfC should really be about. Admin and arbitrator Dougweller (talk · contribs) has already informed him that this is a bad idea, but he seems not to take the hint. Could someone with greater patience than myself teach this user how to deal properly with disagreements over wordings in an RfC?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

After two months of editing, JordanGero has certainly leapt in with both feet to controversial areas of Wikipedia with fully-blossomed knowledge of how things work, yet a decidedly disruptive bent. My Spidey-sense is tingling: is there any chance that Jordan has visited us before? Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The user ·maunus worded the Rfc inaccurately after having entered an ongoing conversation between myself and another editor about the issue. All but one of the responses to the Rfc came after my edit of it, and all but my own have sided with ·maunus. This is not necessarily evidence that my version was "better" or more neutral, but it does contradict ·maunus's contention that the Rfc was changed after most editors had already responded. JordanGero (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Elizium23, the condescension aside, I've never professed to have "fully-blossomed knowledge of how things work", though I have edited articles on Wikipedia in the past through IP accounts without registering a user name. And as far as the "decidedly disruptive bent", although I've never possessed or professed a desire, direct or otherwise, to disrupt, that is why the policies, guidelines, and processes exist on this site and others like it, precisely to deal with situations such as this one. I consider it one more brick on the road to attaining that "fully-blossomed knowledge" you mentioned. JordanGero (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My RfC was not worded "inaccurately", it is simply about a different question than the specific one that worries you. Which is why it is totally impossible for you to rewrite the RfC to ask an entirely different question. It is only more problematic that you editwar to do it, violating both the talkpage guidelines AND the RfC guidelines in the process - after having been politely told that what you were doing is wrong. Your editing at this point is non-collaborative, disruptive and out of line with basic policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was worded "inaccurately", and it is incredibly disingenuous to purposefully word the Rfc to a question different than the one over which the contention is. That way, you are able to sidestep the actual contention by replacing it with a form that is more favorable to you, meaning that when the Rfc is resolved in your favor (since there is a higher chance for this given that you have inaccurately framed the contention leading to it), you are able to effect a change on the article that is not necessarily reflected by the survey of the Rfc- a very clever exercise, for which I salute you, though certainly not very "polite". The question, from the beginning, was whether the use of the word "seize" was appropriate in a specific sentence, not whether it is an appropriate descriptor for an abstract concept describing an abstract subject. This is what I meant about you "jumping in the middle" of a conversation between me and Rjensen. The edit of the word "seize" did not happen in some abstract realm; it happened in a specific sentence in a specific paragraph in a specific section of the article in question that followed directly from another specific sentence in that specific paragraph in that specific section of the article in question. Anyways, the issue is resolved. And regarding my editing being disruptive, non-collaborative, and contrary to established basic policies, I was unaware about the policy of editing the Rfc. Please excuse my natural reaction to change an inaccurate framing of the underlying contention. Edit: Or apparently the issue is not resolved, given that a suggestion has been made by User:KoshVorlon that the current Rfc, given the disagreement over its content, be closed and a new one be opened that better reflects the issue at hand.JordanGero (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually this isn't just about the RFC, this is a continuing argument that appears to have started at this discussion. You're each changing the RFC to support your view points. Why not close this RFC and re-open with both sets of wording as a choice, that would allow an RFC to be used to decide which one consensus favors.  ? KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, this is exactly what I was attempting to do from the start. I am agreeable to this option, but do not wish to take such action myself, given that I am still relatively new on the site, and do not wish to get into more hot water by modifying Maunus' Rfc.JordanGero (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Blatant and nasty personal attacks from IP

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

---

68.172.52.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This IP user began a concerted and foul-mouthed series of rants after being asked not to call other editors "dumbass"[107] when correcting their edits. The IP responded with the following comments, which I will not deign to type here. Suffice to say they are the height of WP:NPA: [108], and doubled down [109]

I removed the comments, with a "Removing personal attacks" edit summary[110] and received the following biologically impossible suggestion in response[111] I reverted and warned[112], and have since received accusations of being Hitler[113], and other suggestions[114] When warned that the next step was AN/I, I received this[115]

Submitted for Admin review of my actions and the IP's. Scr★pIron^IV 21:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• IP's first reaction was to post a personal attack in this very thread. Not sure how much there is to discuss, really. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 68.172.52.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Ashley Madison data breach

The Ashley Madison data breach page could use some admin attention. There has been a lot of adding/deleting material that may or may not be a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe full protection should be requested this time? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting pages created by User:MusicAngels

(this has been copied from ANI's talk page) Bgwhite (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

About a month ago User:MusicAngels created long, complex poetry pages without any scholarly consensus and has in the past week or so, most likely as teachers are returning from vacation, individuals have begun chipping away at these pages. User:MusicAngels has refused to allow editing, has labeled all editing vandalism, and disallowed any conversation. Some of his/her pages have been tagged for deletion but they should all be investigated. 64.9.146.210 (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The article you refer to was created and patroled about six months ago. You appear not to be reading the link provided for you at WP:BRD. You are not supposed to be editing on the article page until consensus is reached on the Talk page. Please stop misattributing dates of article creation to other editors at Wikipedia as you have been doing here. You should not be editing on the article page until you make consensus on the Talk page of the article. MusicAngels (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Something odd is going on.

1. A copyright problem tag has been applied to the articles MusicAngels has created by MusikAnimal.
2. MusicAngels asked for a GA review of W. H. Auden over a week ago. Review is here. It appears MusicAngels has copied someone else's critique of Auden, struck out another editor's comments they didn't like, left several upset message. In the meantime, MusicAngel is leaving messages on other edit's talk pages to visit the review. Macspaunday has been involved in this.
3. MusicAngels is adding links to other poet's to articles they have created. The links have been reverted by multiple people, including IPs with claims of consensus being reached, but I see nothing on the talk pages about this, little alone consensus. An ANI discussion was started a couple days ago by MusicAngels on their links being removed by Macspaunday. They were told it was valid to remove the links, but MusicAngels has been adding them again.

Some investigating needs to happen to ascertain if copyright violations and POV pushing are happening. Bgwhite (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no copyright violations of any kind in the article which fully attributes all of its many citations. The policy about valid forms of using old material in Wikipedia in new articles which have been reviewed and patrolled by WikiProjects and WikiPartrol are documented in WP:CWW (Copying within wikipedia) and in WP:Forking for Valid forms of use of old material within wikipedia. There is no copyright violation anywhere in the article of any kind and I have gone out of my way to bring the references up to date and ensuring that the links are working. Any flags for copyright violations should be removed since there is no copyright violation in the reviewed article. Item (3) above appears to refer to a "See also" section addition which I added to related articles which appears to be the form which in preferred. MusicAngels (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Attribution is absolutely required, end of discussion. I don't see that anywhere in the articles or page histories. From what I could tell there is a section on each poet, with content copied from that poet's article – so potentially a lot of work to fix the lack of attribution. To clarify, the issue is someone authored that content, which you copied and pasted, so now it looks like you authored it. I'm sure this wasn't intentional, and again it can be fixed.

I briefly looked over the hatnotes, and I agree there might be some misuse, particularly WP:RELATED. Also we should be using a template, and not bare bones formatting.

Finally, there might be some concern with ownership of articles. How I originally got involved was an AIV report about MusicAngels removing user's comments from the articles' talk page. You can observe this behaviour at here, where they are removing constructive comments from anonymous users, with rationale that they did not properly format their comment (e.g. was unsigned), among other nonsensical reasons. See User_talk:MusicAngels#IP_editor_identified_for_vandalism_by_three_separate_bots for more on that issue. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also why is this discussion here? We should probably move it to WP:AN/I? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There are over 80 (eighty) citations in the bibliography which are fully documented and which I have gone out of my way to make sure they are up to date and functioning. The attribution is as full as it can be and there is no copyright violation in the article of any kind to my knowledge. If you have something unrelated to this is mind please indicate it, since I know that there are no copyright violation in the article of any kind and the banner notice should be removed. If you can provide any example of the type of attribution or notification which you want to see then point me to it and I will do my best to follow any well intended advice. The comments from the IP-user with dynamically changing IP addresses, to me, has looked more like graffiti to me rather than having content. I have maintained it on the Page at your request, and have tried to provide further links to help the IP-editor to try to communicate more effectively. There is no ownership of any article at Wikipedia, and I claim and assert no type of ownership of the article of any kind. The edits there yesterday by another editor adding various links to the article done by another editor looked perfectly reasonable and done fully responsibly. The eighty citations in the bibliography of the article have all been fully researched and fully attributed, there are no copyright violations to my knowledge of any kind in the article and any flags stating otherwise should be removed from the article. MusicAngels (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you bother to actually read the above, you see the copyright infringement they are talking about. If you take prose from a website that uses CCBYSA but don't properly attribute the source, that is copyright infringement. Wikipedia is a website. That means if you borrow from an article here, you still have to give attribution, except that it is trivial to do. If you have been borrowing a lot from articles here, you may be forcing an audit of all your edits to that article, which is a major pain in the arse to do, because you infringed copyright. Do you not understand this? Editors at Wikipedia have the same rights to attribution you would give editors from other websites, you can't just lift their work and act like it is your own. Are they wrong, have you not been doing this? Since they saw no attribution, can you stand here and say you didn't take any content from other articles at Wikipedia and put it into this one? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Proper attribution is always important. In the version of the article that is posted, I had made sure that the original articles were all linked (each and every one of them) in both the lead section and elsewhere using double-square brackets to link directly to the original pages. In fact one of my purposes in creating the article was to get more people to read the related full biographies of the leading poets mentioned. There are more ways to enhance the attribution of the related articles and biographies by using the "Further" template or the "Main" template in each one of the subsections of the article. I am fully supportive of this type of attribution and would like to add them into the article myself. MusicAngels (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not attribution, that is simply page integration via links. We need it to say "text taken from this article at this time", etc, and when it entered your article. The problem is you took text from numerous pages and compiled them into one (times three to account for all of the concerned articles). That would have been easier if you had used edit summaries when you created the page. I'm sure you didn't intentionally introduce copyright infringement but we do need to fix this. I thought about posting at WP:CP but I'm not sure if that's the right venue given we know there's a problem, we just don't know the best way to fix it. To other observers, I've explained the full, safe way to do belated attribution at User_talk:MusicAngels#Copying_from_other_articles, but that route will surely take quite some time to implement. It's unclear to me if we could get away with dummy edits and informative edit summaries. Advice is needed — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Dummy edits should be fine, imo, as long as we cover each article and carefully document each instance. The key is getting that info into individual edit summaries. Personally, I would compile a complete list first, and post that on the talk page, then work from that. That should clear up any confusion and provide a single record of all previous attribution as a bonus. It's also the best way to insure we get them all, and is simply the easiest and fastest way to get the job done in a case like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just saw in your link where you talk about using talk pages as well, so that sounds like I agree with you, MusikAnimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see comments by me and another user at [116] both saying it would be easiest and best simply to delete MusicAngel's "Poetry in XYZ" pages and asking an admin to Speedy Delete them. Why do all that work fixing pages that shouldn't be there at all? 86.175.175.114 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• My concern is that, for example, Poetry in the early 21st century isn't actually about that subject. 90% of it is about influences on C21 poetry by earlier poets. Given that the whole thing's a copyvio anyway, wouldn't it be better to just delete it and start again? Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm coming around to that as well. The articles are essays on American, English, and a little French poetry--their lack of globality is quite striking, almost as striking as their sheer size. So content-wise there are plenty of problems already, and while it's a shame to delete something with such bibliographies, the combination of content problems, essay-style, and copyvio is insurmountable (I mean, simply documenting where the sentences came from is for Sisyphus, not for us). So yes, I favor deletion, as harsh as it may sound. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought that as well, but didn't like the idea of deleting so much material. I read some, wasn't particularly impressed with the tone and scope, but this is so far out of my normal areas, I didn't want to judge. That said, I wouldn't oppose deleting. I surely don't want to have to do the ground work for copyvio myself, to be honest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• The whole point of permitting speedy deletion for copyright infringements is to save admins and other good-faith editors from having to do the ground work themselves. This is no different from any other copyright infringement: our license clearly states This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. As any other copyright infringement case that I've worked in, I've deleted the infringing pages and issued an only warning. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't normally delete in-house copyright infringement when we are able to simply correct the attribution, but here it seemed the pages were almost entirely borrowed content, and in large quantity. It's difficult to justify a standalone article when there is no substantial additional prose. Furthermore it was copied from so many articles, rendering it quite cumbersome to properly attribute to the original authors. A book may be the more appropriate way to compile such content — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Nyttend, I appreciate your comments here, which should also tell our readers that we don't do these things lightly. (As it happens I just deleted an article with a very similar background but nowhere near as good as the ones we were discussing here.) I am inclined to let things slide more easily with content copied internally, since that's often an easier fix, but even that would have been very difficult here. MusicAngels, please take these comments to heart, and take some comfort in the fact that it took six admins to make this decision. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• And a lot of readers and editors will admire the way you reached this decision. This was obviously a difficult situation, and the admins did a perfect job of resolving it. Thank you. 86.147.174.79 (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism, attacks.

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

---

75.107.214.12 has been making personal attacks: [117][118] and vandalizing Battle of Kursk and my talk page: [119]. This came after I warned them for making personal attacks on another user. GAB^Hello! 00:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, the IP has been blocked. GAB^Hello! 00:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

GregJackP on RFA ( Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wbm1058 )

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

---

This is a complex page (project and its talk page) to try and figure out where it went off the rails, but there is both a lot of GregJackP harassing people for voting for the RfA, and a lot of people harassing GregJackP for harassing people. It's not clear what came first.

I don't understand it enough to do anything yet, but I don't think the totality of the conduct is OK and it needs more attention. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have read through a lot of the posts and I really don't see a problem. Part of the process of RfA is the discussion process. An editor's comments regarding a potential admin will not dissuade people who are in support of that admin anyways (unless a large problem is uncovered like gross incivility). Asking for an explanation does not equate to harassment especially since !voters can just ignore the request. In the end, it is up to the bureaucrat to decide what consensus is and which (if any) !votes to discount. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the timeline here, as I'm sure others are. I can try to clarify later if someone decides it's necessary, but I don't think there is anything that needs to be done. Gregjack has strong feelings about this RFA, other people have strong feelings about Gregjack's strong feelings, blah blah drama. The RFA will end in a few days and we can all move on. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy1221 and Stabila711. Earlier today, I had already went to Greg's talk page and left a kind but clear message that he might have overdone it, he agreed and understand and that he might have got a bit caught up, which is encouraging and would make any action here seem punitive. Others contributed to the verbosity at the RFA as well. It is an ugly RFA in many respects, but I think it is a systemic problem that we are working on, and Greg's actions aren't "the problem". Actually, he made some valid points about how supports should be supported by reasons, and that opposers shouldn't be badgered, but then it just went too far on both sides. Regardless, I don't see a need for action against anyone at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree that this is typical RfA drama that will end with this particular RfA. This is part of a larger issue that's literally continuing at this very moment. Greg fairly recently became an active RfA participant. Since then he's been vetting candidates primarily off of his standard of content creation. His standards for content creation are particularly high within the context most people's requirements and as such his opinions generate a decent amount of controversy. Obviously this is par for the course at RfA, but the problem lies not there but in his responses to the controversy. He could, of course, civilly debate the merits of his rationale and the responses, or merely not reply to them, but instead he engages the people who challenge him in a most disruptive manner, clashing viciously with them. He refuses to listen to what other people are saying, instead claiming that he's being "harassed" or "badgered" because he's "not part of the hivemind", he employs passive-aggressive, uncivil, rude, and outright belligerent commentary, lambasting others for behavioral problems while ignoring any and all on his part. It's been getting progressively worse as time goes on and it's now gotten to the point where he's challenging numerous people in the support section out of obvious retaliation, and is taunting admins to block him. What started as a minor controversial opinion at RfA has escalated into progressively pointy behavior. I suspect many if not most of his edits at RfA can serve as evidence of his conduct there. Swarm ♠ 02:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I thought it was odd when he suggested I might block him[120]. I had to explain that admins can't just block people they disagree with. Chillum 02:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• He told me to either block him or leave him alone rather than address the comment he was replying to at all.. Swarm ♠ 03:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And might that be because he's sick of receiving your endless, repetitive, pompous lecturing? IHTS (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily agree with Greg's views. I believe that every single constructive person on Wikipedia is equally important. From the content creators down to the WikiGnomes. I also believe that everyone has the right to put themselves through the hazing that is the current RfA process regardless if they are a content creator or not and if the community wants to give them a mop so be it. I don't support Greg's views but I support him voicing them. Was he a little pointy with his views? Probably. But people with strong views usually are. Pretty much everyone who has been on Wikipedia for enough time to see the "behind-the-scenes" action knows that the RfA system is broken but that nobody actually knows how to fix it. Greg's vocalness regarding RfA candidate's content creation stems from the pretty arbitrary guidelines that the community has set up for admin candidates. Obviously this has been discussed many many times before leading only to a massive waste of time and no changes and this isn't the venue to go into that discussion again but the problem still exists. I really don't see what path is bring proposed here for Greg (or ultimately for RfA). Any action against Greg would seem far more punitive than is necessary. His baiting of admins was unnecessary but not something that rises to a bannable/blockable offense. I really think everyone needs to step back and breathe. Ultimately, it is up to the bureaucrats to decide who to give the mop to. They are the ones tasked with going through all the comments and deciding one way or the other. Reading through their discussion on Liz's RfA showed that they took into consideration Greg's objections then and, likewise, they will do so this time as well. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the key issues is a questionable process followed by nearly everyone to evaluate consensus. Generally closers use the expressed votes as a straw poll, and try to discount votes based on strength of argument. This is fundamentally problematic, though, since it ignores each person's evaluation of the relative merits of the situation and only looks at the net result. Because of this, discussion participants feel a need to convince others to agree with their evaluation of the acceptable tradeoffs, in an attempt to change the raw counts. If instead closers would try to determine a consensus view of what the community feels are the appropriate weights to give to a candidate's pros and cons, then there would be no need to argue with someone whose weighting is in direct opposition with the community's view. The net "support/oppose" would not be the key contribution of a participant; the relative importance placed on the good and bad qualities of the candidate would be the primary input towards establishing a consensus view. isaacl (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why is this here? Disagreement, even at length, is not disruption. The RfA itself (with an unexceptional number of actual votes, interestingly) is fine, without any more insults or harassment of the candidate than usual; it's just become the site of some lengthy accompanying meta-debates. GJP has the option of not posting if he finds being disagreed with so disagreeable; meanwhile, turning a long discussion into an "incident requiring administrator attention" is just validating the impression that people are watching his posts and waiting for an excuse to shut him up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• This conversation should be closed. As this is a project to build an encyclopedia, Greg's opinion that a prerequisite for administratorship ought to be creation of high quality encyclopedic content is not exactly out of line. Every editor is entitled to their own RfA criteria. There is no need to exchange eleventy-eleven criticisms and replies. Greg is far from the only one who has engaged in making the same point over and over and OVER again. All should desist, but there is no need for an administrator to start waving mops and buckets around. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. I've done it below and I want someone to top it off here. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• The annoying part isn't Greg's obsessing wonkishly over his one pet issue. He's free to choose any RfA criterion he likes. After all, we've previously tolerated people who opposed every RfA with "prima facie power hunger" and "we currently have too many admins" type rationales. But I do think that, if Greg is going to purposely talk to people in a dismissive and smug way, he should not be surprised to receive more objections and disagreements than usual, and the amount of butthurt he is emitting over it is truly extraordinary. But I'm not seeing any reason for administrators to get involved here. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• I've put the brakes on the discussion. It started out being somewhat helpful but now it's just a waste of time. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I really don't see the problem. Everybody knows the RfA process is flawed and not fit for purpose. You know it's a complete laughing stock when you have people say things like: "sure", "I don't see why not", "seems like a nice guy", and "just to counter the content creator bullshit" in their reasons to support. Jack, like me and others, don't want the tools handed out to every Tom, Dick, and Harry; but they are and that has to stop. Cassianto^Talk 09:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cassianto: Every Tom, Dick, and Harry? That is simply not the truth. According to statistics there have been 36 RfAs so far this year. Out of those only 12 have been successful. That is a 33% chance for success. Not really an "everybody" situation. Since 2002, the successful RfA percentage is 47%. Adminship is certainly not given to "everybody" and it certainly is not given to everyone who applies. Sure, some of the reasons given for granting adminship to this individual are a little ridiculous but that is to be expected during a community driven, wide ranged, discussion. --Stabila711 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree this should be closed. I will admit to being struck by the thoughtful nature of some supports, which clearly required much agonizing pondering following a painstaking and searching inquiry into the candidate's qualifications and suitability.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Microwave auditory effect

In what was previously a stable article, Microwave auditory effect, new editor Baphy93 inserted changes that were reverted by three different established editors. He/she was warned of 3RR, violated the 3RR, then self-reverted. Afterwards, new editors 71.74.145.138, TANA WINKLER, 67.80.126.54, and Darthhumpalot resumed inserting the changes. I suspect these are sock or meat puppets gaming the system. It's not clear to me the proper method of dealing with this. Q: Should I take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? Thanks! - Location (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to take it to SPI. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Make sure to list the IP 75.137.124.104 from South Carolina, since that IP edited the article at 7:34 on August 23, followed by the 7:35 registration of the Baphy93 account, followed by a 7:36 edit by Baphy93 to the article, that account's first action. It looks like the IP person decided to register as Baphy93 after making one edit. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baphy93. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right that I edited without an account first but it ends there. Good luck trying to prove something that isn't true User:Location. People disagree with you, you don't own the site. Baphy93 (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Baphy93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and socks is likely someone with a grudge against AndyTheGrump as evidenced by troublemaking on his talk page followed by self congratulations. As a single purpose account devoted to inserting fringe "mind control" conspiracy POV into articles, it's obvious they are not here to build an encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this person is NOTHERE, which is why they were previously blocked under another account, probably related to edit warring over Voice to skull (See a related AfD, a sandbox MfD, a related MfD of AfC, and another MfD of AfC), which means the account Synsepalum2013 is likely the master. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that Synsepalum2013 is topic banned on this kind of conspiracy theory. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump is just as bad with edit warring and refusing to enter talks. The notion that I'm using sock puppets is also as much conspiracy theory as these additions, the exception being you will have no proof whatsoever to support the accusastion because it simply isn't true. If I were going to troll I'd be a bit more inflammatory, what I've done has been in good faith. Speaking of sock puppets, I noticed three user names with variations of the word 'Louie' in them while editing over the past two days on the same two pages. Is it just a popular name among Wiki contributors having taken interest in this subject or is that more than coincidence?

It's very clear that none of you wish to compromise despite Wikipedia policies. Baphy93 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This is actually slightly humorous to read you all speculate on my identity/ies here. Baphy93 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and pretty sure all of you are meat puppets as well. Who honestly cares about this subject besides those with a vested interest in it? Baphy93 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to suggest that the last comment alone is sufficient evidence to block Baphy93 as WP:NOTHERE. Just plain stupid... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would I even bother to write and cite what I did if I was WP:NOTHERE to contribute to an encyclopedia? Fallacious accusations. Baphy93 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This addition is a blatant violation of WP:BLP, making unreferenced negative assumptions about a living person, psychiatrist Alan Drucker. The sock accounts repeated this BLP violation. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin needs to be overturned

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

---

Admin User:Ricky81682 needs to be overturned immediately. He's totally out of control. This is Malik Shabazz round 2. He's issuing crazy topic bans and blocking new editors without stopping. Look at the editor who tried to help here. A block, deletion of their sandbox and nothing but attacks. Stop him immediately. A level 1 Desysop is needed right now before he goes overboard. - 166.170.47.240 (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• So first things first, assuming this is blocked user since this is your first post. So this is block evasion which just means a boomerang is coming. Secondly, Ricky explained himself quite well on his talk page as to the name block. Level 1 desysop is only for emergency cases. This doesn't qualify. Not even close. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:HughD

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

---

HughD needs help. He's been unfairly targeted by an admin who does nothing but attack and attack. 166.170.51.220 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Directly related to the Kochtruth situation complained about in the previous section: Ricky81682 is the abused admin in both cases. Nyttend (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The abus***ing*** admin. Why is a one year topic ban appropriate for forgetting why you didn't edit an article? I mean that's just nuts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.220 (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(Got caught by an edit conflict- I'll post below not inside the archive (Got archived while I was writing this ) )

This appears to be related to this back and forth on HughD's talk page. I would question Rick81682's quick block of Kochtruth, as typically I've seen admin's ask a user to change their name first, he/she was given no such warning, second their contributions were not vandalism nor disruptive, it looked to be good faith contributions with some good sources (rolling stone ) and some not-so-good sources. The posted once, then when it was reverted, went to the discussion page to talk about it. I'd say this block was a bad block, revert the block and give the user a change to change their name and remove the ban on the Tea Part Movement for HughD, as he appears to be getting blamed for someone else's actions. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed my close to allow discussion of these points, however, it really needs to be HughD raising this issue, not a block evading IP, and if he doesn't raise the issue here soon, it will need to be closed again. Normally, a discussion at WP:AN is used for reversal of an admin, but it's here so no need to be slavish to the bureaucracy. If the block evading IP comes back, I will reblock again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• This section should really be closed per DENY, because this (block-evading) IP editor, it seems, is not going to stop running to ANI every time Ricky81862 makes an administrative decision. This is effectively harrassment related to sections above. If HughD wants to raise the issue here (or at AN, or elsewhere), then that's fine. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have noticed Ricky81682 doing excellent admin work recently, and there was an obvious need to apply the user name policy per the comments at Talk:Koch Industries#Update. Anyone wanting to appeal the topic ban should study this. This section should be closed as there has already been far too much noise generated in relation to the users concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Please re-open. Respectfully may I please be allowed to contribute to this discussion? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Its been closed twice. It might just be better to start a new discussion at WP:AN to address your concerns, without the baggage of the block evading IP being involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, new discussion. May I ask your advice, I have never appealed a discretionary sanction. I have just now read that WP:AN and WP:AE are possible venues. I am optimistic the charge of collaborating with a new user with a bad user name will be handled quickly, and I need to focus on once again explaining an alleged misleading AE filing. Might there be some marginal utility in WP:AE, where the alleged deceit took place? Or are you specifically recommending WP:AN? On the other hand, the AE filing is still open, and I think it is important and I do not want to interfere with it. How does one decide between the two? I would greatly appreciate your advice. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Just saw the AE. I don't recommend you rattle any more cages right now. What you do is up to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications says:

"Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org)."

The definitions section of the same page says:

• "AE ("arbitration enforcement noticeboard”) is the venue for requesting, applying, discussing and appealing most enforcement requests.
• AN ("administrators’ noticeboard") is the alternative venue for appeals.
• ARCA ("Requests for Amendment") is the venue for appealing to the committee."

(The ARCA route would be if you want to request that the US politics pages no longer be under discretionary sanctions, not for appealing your topic ban)

Also, using Template:Sanction appeal is highly recommended.

I would strongly that you give serious thought to what it would take to actually get the topic ban reversed. You will have to show that you understand why you were topic banned and give the community reasons to believe that you will change the behavior that resulted in your topic ban. Blaming others or claiming innocence in the face of multiple uninvolved editors and administrators all telling you that your behavior is a problem is not helping your case. See Law of Holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous picture posed on Alfred de Grazia's page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken This editor appears to have restored a picture that is being used by Arab sites, Holocaust denial sites and possibly other anti-Semitic and anti-Gypsy and pro-Nazi users. It is not of the person indicated or the person whose page it is. It is of an unknown individual. I am John Sebastian de Grazia, the son of Alfred de Grazia, and I have seen pictures of him at the age indicated by the picture. He does not look at all like the individual portrayed, without getting into his war record and the possibility that he was at the place indicated, and may have even held the camera. It is an error, period. Page the picture has been uploaded to; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_de_Grazia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtig (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I quote BMK's comment at the talk page. An editor who claims to be the son of the article's subject want to remove the image of de Grazia at Dachau., as he insists it is not a picture of his father. However, the picture appears in de Grazia's self-published book, A Taste of War: Soldiering in Woprld War II. It can be seen here (you have to flip forward about 7/8ths of the way down the scroll bar to the photo before page 482), where the person in the image is identified as the subject of the article. It seems highly unlikely that de Grazia would include in his own book a picture of someone else and identify it as himself. For this reason I restored the photo. BMK (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Therefore, Jagtig, how do you answer this? Has your father used a picture of someone else and claimed that it's a picture of himself? Please supply solid sourcing (e.g. a scholar discussing his book and noting that he mislabelled the picture in question) as evidence for your answer. Nyttend (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that I am aware of this discussion. BMK (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As a Commons admin, I've got viewdeleted over there, so I can assure everyone that the deleted Commons:File:Alfred de Grazia awarded Order of Chevaliers France.jpg (uploaded by Jagtig) is quite plausibly the same person as File:French Medal of Honor Recipient helping celebrate WWII Victory Day in France.jpg (also uploaded by Jagtig), taken six years earlier, although he's obviously aged by several years. Un-age him by five more years, and File:Alfred, 27 August 2003.jpg is reasonable. This isn't even a case of plausible error. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll also note that the photograph in question was uploaded to Commons by an editor, User:Aldegraz, claiming to be the subject of the photograph, Alfred de Grazia, and the image was cleared by Commons OTRS, which means that the editor musthave presented evidence of his identity. See here. BMK (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Found this while Googling. Alfred de Grazia's life story. The author is stated as being Anne-Marie (Ami) de Grazia. - X201 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It also contains the picture. BMK (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/50.159.208.113

should be blocked for this: [121]. 80.132.93.75 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Horse breeds of France#List of French horse breeds

User:Montanabw has repeatedly removed my talk page discussion [122], [123], [124] due to the fact that "the issue was dismissed at TfD". That TfD s/he is refering to was closed by an involved user because of a previous offense I committed. In good faith, I took the patience to post on the talk page of my concerns but his/her actions are preventing any sort of discussion from taking place. I have no other choice but to file this incident here.Curb Chain (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)