Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

If the Wikipedian cannot comply with the Terms of Use due to some special circumstance, it is the Wikipedian's responsibility to refrain from editing until such time as it is possible to remedy that circumstance, or until the relevant rule has been modified or amended. Deliberate violation of the clearly delineated Terms of Use should result in blocking the user's editorial privileges.166.173.248.141 (talk) 03:24, 2 September 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)

• Comment It would seem that full disclosure is required. However, it is not stated that this needs to be in public. Is it possible that {u|CorporateM}} could make such disclosure to WMF privately. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Full disclosure is required MastCell sums it up perfectly for me. -- Shudde ^talk 00:25, 3 September 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)

I agree, and if I had my way paid editing would be absolutely banned, but it isn't so we have to deal with this in the usual way: a Wikipedia fudge that recognises the world as it is, rather than as we'd wish it to be. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 3 September 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)

• This isn't something I particularly want to keep going, but I only realized yesterday that CorporateM outed himself on 12 August on the Wikiconference USA site, six days before he opened this thread. His interpretation of this thread – that we forced him to out himself, and that therefore he can't continue to do volunteer work [8][9] – doesn't reflect that chronology. It has left me confused about what the problem is here. CorporateM, we need a clear commitment that you'll disclose employer and client for any paid contribution. Part of the point of this, as was explained to me when the TOU came into force, is that it helps us keep track of which PR firms are paying for content. Sarah ^(talk) 19:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What a fascinating timeline indeed. Thanks for the update, SV. The class to run away, more likely. Disclosed paid editing just means that many business interests play at disclosure to look transparent, while socking like mad. I'm afraid I'm getting a very bad feeling from all this. Jusdafax 07:49, 3 September 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)

Mdann52, would you be able to do something to fix {{paid}} so that there's a space for employer and client? That would separate paid contributions from a general COI, and would make it easy to see on talk pages which companies have paid for content. Sarah ^(talk) 19:58, 4 September 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. [redacted per WP:OUTING] 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. [redacted per WP:OUTING] 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: [10] [11] [12] ~ 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) [redacted per WP:OUTING]. Harrasing me on twitter (which he tracked me to) will not be tolerated. He can do that with Kemi not me. [redacted per WP:OUTING] To edit this articles with facts, I go beyond articles and hearsay. wikishawnio should stop roping me into [redacted per WP:OUTING]. 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: [13]. ~ 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)

• comment An article on this nigerian self-publicist has been deleted once before see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kemi_Omololu-Olunloyo 78.149.122.149 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked the WikiShawnio (talk · contribs) account. It is easily verified on the web that there has been a long-standing harasmment campaign (or mutual feud?) involving these persons, and the WikiShawnio account is clearly (and barely disguised) part of the same pattern, so I've blocked them for harassment. At the same time, I also consider it quite obvious that the Wikicohen account is indeed the subject of the article – they said here on this board that a Toronto police spokesperson personally gave them information about the case involving that "Shawn" person, "in a long e-mail". I'm pretty sure the Toronto police would not give out such information to somebody who just happens to be a Wikipedia editor interested in Ms Olunloyo, so either that claim is false or the recipient of that communication from Toronto police is Ms Olunloyo herself. Therefore, I warn Wikicohen (talk · contribs) to cease all COI editing on that article immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As a result of you blocking Wikishawnio, he has started posting comments on Ms O-O's blogs which I read daily and have a right to. Wikishawnio thinks Im Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo. I am not. All Toronto Police records of his arrest and harrasment case is PUBLIC and online. The claim is not false and I am not Ms Olunloyo. Below is what was revealed this morning.

AI have only one account on Wikipedia and have no time for sockpuppeting. It may be of interest to see a comment left by someone on Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo's Gun violence blog which I read daily. You should be investigating her confirmed stalker Wikishawnio [redacted per WP:OUTING] Pls don't accuse me of false and unwarranted investigations. I appreciate it. I repeat, I do NOT have multiple accounts and have no time for that. The comment written is typical of comments written by Wikishawnio on Kemi's blogs [redacted per WP:OUTING]

The Writer feels they are talking to Kemi and feel she felt for their "ploy" Unfortunately, I'm not Kemi. I created her page and once again I know the history of Kemi and Shawn McQuaid as told to me by Toronto Police. Never met or spoke to them both but their history is all over the internet. INVESTIGATE Wikishawnio properly. Wikicohen (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• You may be misunderstanding the remit of Wikipedia. There's no police force here, and blocking Wikishawnio is the be-all-and-end-all of actions that can be taken against him. If, outside of Wikipedia, you believe that Wikishawnio is harassing you, then your sole recourse is through the legal system. We don't need to "investigate" Wikishawnio worth squat; that editor's already been indeffed. Ravenswing 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats

I filed an SPI against Wikicohen based on fairly obvious IP edits being used to fake support for their edits and edit-war. As a result, they have threatened me with legal action here: [14]. As per WP:LEGAL, they should be indef'd until the threat is withdrawn. ~ Rob^Talk 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Pinging Future Perfect at Sunrise as the admin who previously warned Wikicohen

Rob, while everyone keeps accusing me of being Kemi or even 4 sockpuppets, you should be watching the comments on this thread on Kemi's blog which I subscribe too. I already notified the administrators of this. Who is posting these sort of messages? They are obviously "talking" to kemi thinking she is Wikicohen (which is me) I cannot prove it is Wikishawnio who was blocked but don't you think when someone posts that they set up someone for a ploy, obsessed about Kemi's tweets which have nothing to do with this page and even more comments like getting dragged out and KILLED? I have a right to seek legal advice when someone else is the sockpuppet. [redacted per WP:OUTING] I need a feedback on this in the investigation. Wikicohen (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm focused on what's occurring on the wiki, not what's occurring off the wiki. If those comments are genuine, then they're certainly deplorable, but that does not allow for legal threats to be made on Wikipedia. You have the right to seek legal action whenever you want, but it is Wikipedia's policy that you cannot make legal threats on the wiki, period. I encourage you to withdraw your threat. ~ Rob^Talk 02:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not to sound completely dumb, but as an uninvolved user, I'd point out that IPs here on WP (and the blog comments offwiki, for that matter) are both "anonymous." I'm not sure how, without CU (to avoid outing), it is possible to be sure that the IPs in question are definitely one person's or the other's without opening an SPI for both of them (which we haven't). Anybody can copy old reverted text, and I'm going to guess that because these people are known to one another, they're going to geolocate to just about the same place anyway, even though there's a lot of play in "location". Shawnio may be doing it, or Cohen may be fluffing "evidence" on her side, but we can't tell based on the extent of procedures at SPI as they currently stand. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand; the alleged socking is by Cohen, who is claiming Shawnio is "setting him/her up". I'll let the SPI run its course, but the behavioral evidence is strong. When a bunch of IPs appear in an otherwise low traffic article around the time that an edit war breaks out and heavily favor one side of the war, using the same odd turns of phrase that are rarely used, that points to one thing. Either way, that's not the issue I've brought to ANI. The issue that remains unresolved is that Wikicohen has made legal threats toward me at the SPI. ~ Rob^Talk 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Outing

I have removed several portions of the above discussion because it appeared that the "outing" policy was being violated. Given the quickly changing nature of the WP:AN/I page, it may not be feasible to use suppression (oversighting) or revision deletion here, but at least I can do ordinary deletion on the material. The "outing" policy is taken very seriously — regardless of whether you believe the redacted material is correct or not, do not reinstate or repeat it here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, or you risk being blocked from editing. 03:22, 5 September 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)
• 101.160.148.8 (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)@@

• 120.144.129.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.144.134.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 121.214.15.161 (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)@
• 124.180.155.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · 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)

I note here that if Telstra is not one of the biggest ISPs in Australia, it would have to be up there. Rangeblocking the entire ISP will result in a whole load of collateral damage. A complaint should probably be made to Telstra first, although I'm not at all confident it'll be actioned. If it's not, perhaps a message in the rangeblock stating that Telstra failed to respond to death threats originating from their network? Nothing like a bit of media coverage to encourage an episode of corporate responsibility. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Range blocking Telstra would definitely attract media coverage in Australia, and probably overseas given how large an ISP it is (it's by far the largest telecommunications company in Australia). Telstra has an online form to report abuse here, though it may not be applicable to this case. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As these IPs are making threats of harm, the Wikimedia Foundation should also be informed, and will hopefully be able to help with a response - the procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

These IPs seem to be from Victoria, and one appears to be from the town of Warrugal. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. Also, I believe there is an Australian Wikimedia chapter? I would assume they were closer to dealing with Telstra than WMF? (Yeah, I know: this is a "hot potato", and everyone´s reaction is to pass it on the the next person. Sigh...) Huldra (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Chapters don't handle issues like this (they're essentially clubs of like-minded people) - the WMF is a better point of contact, and seems to take issues like this seriously. I'd suggest that you contact them if you haven't already done so. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I contacted Philippe B, by email last week, as he had been dealing with "my old friend" earlier. However, that was obviously not good timing, so I forwarded it through the "standard channels" earlier today. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I did a bit of poking about and came across |this site. While it deals with some nasty business with regards to anti- vs pro-vaccination groups not relevant here, but what was relevant was the inclusion of part of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Quick summary of this is that it is an offence in Australia to use a "carriage service", such as phone, mail, but also including electronic services, to make threats to kill or threats to cause serious harm. You could turn such evidence as you have to police in that particular state. Cybercrime reporting is somewhat in its infancy in Australia but police do respond to it. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Extra comment The IP's largely originate from around Melbourne, Victoria with one geolocating to a town 50km north of Melbourne. This would put it in the jurisdiction of the Victorian State Police, although depending on how they respond to the threats it may escalate to the Australian Federal Police (our version of the FBI) if it is viewed as a Commonwealth crime. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Extra extra comment Range blocking Telstra basically means you block pretty much the whole country. Telstra is the largest telecommunications company here but it used to be government owned till its privatisation. As such, most of the other ISP's here piggy back off their hardware. Far better to report to the abuse team on irt -at- team.telstra.com. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, User:Blackmane. I will email irt -at- team.telstra.com. I contacted WMF, they could confirm that this was, most likely, *not" my old friend, but some copy-cat. Besides that, they were basically doing nothing; just telling me that I should contact local police. I´m on the other side of the world, I doubt police here would do anything about a threat "down under". Also: if I went to the police, my RL name would get known, and could possibly be leaked. (Yes, I´m a bit paranoid after 5 years with constant death and rape-threaths, I´ll admit!) Lets hope the telstra-team does something; if not, I will be back in a short while asking for you to range-block the whole area: *that* would wake them up, I´m sure! Huldra (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please keep us informed User:Huldra; while I'm not in Victoria, I'm still interested in seeing that this situation is dealt with, preferably without my own access being blocked! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

RefHistory

RefHistory (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account out to promote Philip Benedict. We had to go through a RfC to determine that it's inappropriate to add the books written by his students, with no sources other than those books. That doesn't stop RefHistory from re-adding the very same content over and over again: [15] That was after a rather unambiguous warning I left at their talk page. RefHistory obviously is unwilling to accept the community's consensus, and I tire of trying to educate him on what constitutes a third-party source. I propose they're not here to improve the encyclopedia and should be dealt with accordingly. Huon (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing promotional about the content. All content is sourced by articles and university press books. There is no community consensus on the two sentences in dispute. Huon refuses to allow any information on the page that he doesn't like. When he loses a battle on one ground, he simply deletes the material again and makes up another reason. Though I do not believe that prize-winning academic history books published by academic presses constitute a primary source; Huon needs to be reminded that Wikipedia allows for the use of primary sources.RefHistory (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow this is still going on? @RefHistory: you need to give it up here, the RFC result and consensus are both against you. The material is not going to stay in the article, and continually re-adding it isn't going to change that. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There has been no justification that these two sentences are inappropriate. The debate was over the sentence that came afterwards. It is fine.12.47.233.82 (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (RefHistory)

Propose article/topic ban for RefHistory on Philip Benedict and related articles, as WP:NOTHERE. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• RefHistory seems to suffer from a severe case of I didn't hear that. Support topic ban. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Support indef per NOT HERE. If he doesn't get it then he doesn't get it. Pulling the same wikilawyering and copious amounts of "I didn't hear ya" at another article doesn't help the project at all. We would just be revisiting this another day. Socking/Meat has been going on with that article.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per BH. If you aren't here to build an encyclopedia, you are getting in the way of those that are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban of indefinite length (until there is no need for the ban) widely construed on Phillip Benedict to be enforceable by blocks of escalating length (1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, indef). User has had more than enough opportunities to become educated with the rules of the road, but still feels the need to push their content without any new argument as to why declined content should be added. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see much of an effective difference between an indef-block and a topic ban in this case and would support either. I'm obviously involved in the article. Huon (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Can someone who is suggesting this change please make a concise defense for the most recent deletes by Huon? These particular sentences were never part of the original complaint.RefHistory (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • We are currently discussing your behavior and not the actual content. Three different editors have reverted you and yet you come back today and go against that implied consensus and revert yet again while this thread at ANI is ongoing and an open thread is on the talk page concerning the matter. The last two editors that reverted you aren't Huon. Your fixation on that editor combined with your subject interests makes me wonder if you ran these accounts. The level of I didn't hear that and wikilawyering are on par with that.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• "The RFC never covered this last sentence. Did it?" Yes it did. "Aspect 1) Does a student mentioning/giving thanks to Philip Benedict in the acknowledgment or similar page of the book rise to the level of importance that the student/book should be covered in this article..." His other recent edit to an unrelated article removed parts of a quote explicitly marked as one, in quotation marks, backed up by a reliable source confirming that quote, and commented that there's "no support for this sentence". So either RefHistory lacks basic reading competence in English, or he's editing with an agenda so strong that it takes precedence over obvious facts. Either way, this is no longer just topic ban territory; thus I support an indef-block. Huon (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This editor has not yet made 500 edits, and has become fixated on one article. A topic ban sounds about right so than perhaps they broaden their editing and learn to work with others. If they do not, this will give them enough rope and a block will soon follow. AlbinoFerret 23:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban over indefinite ban, but support both. The history indicates that the individual could very easily be an SPA, and efforts to "reform" them by trying to get them to learn elsewhere very rarely work. Having said that, idiot optimist that I am, it might be the case here. I think, maybe, the best way to go would be to impose the topic ban, and if it gets violated more than let's say two times with no reasonable contributions elsewhere, then drop the site ban hammer on him. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa

Gob Lofa and myself were recently blocked for a 24 hours, with the blocking administrator Callanecc making the following statements at our talk pages [16] and [17], making it clear that they would be looking into a IBAN between us and a TBAN for either one or both of us. Nothing as of yet has come of this and I would like to request that action indeed be taken. I would ask Callanecc directly however I noticed on their talk page that they won't be as active as normal until 14 September, but I will notify them of this AN/I.

This editors problems have not been altered by their recent block and warnings of further action being taken, and it seems to me that they are intent on going back over previous "flashpoints" and trying to elicit a reaction from me, and whilst I have performed a few reverts I have kept them to the most contentious edits and have done my best to remain civil, however I am coming here hoping to get this nipped in the bud before it escalates further with either an IBAN, and a TBAN on Gob Lofa or both of us or whatever action is deemed merited. It needs to stop.

Callanecc makes it clear that such a decision will be based on mine and Gob Lofa's actions, for example about civility and usage of sources [18]. Callanecc also requested in his block notice to me (linked above) that I remain civil and leave Gob Lofa's talk page alone, and for my part I feel that I have done that except to place an AN/I notice on their page to notify them of this. Unfortunately Gob Lofa seems to have reverted back to the issues I had originally raised here before deciding to close it and go to ArbCom Enforcement instead, and seems to be intent on carrying on before as well as trying to provoke some form of response from me by revisiting previous debates/flashpoints, starting here (23rd August) and most recently today here (30th August) and here.

I deem a TBAN on Gob Lofa in regards to Troubles related articles is more than justified going by their actions I raised previously and the following recent edits:

• Despite previously being informed [19] of the problems with their attempt to add a "Terrorism" category to the article, they decided [20] to put it into the start of the second sentence of the lede in a clear violation of WP:UNDUE (talk page discussion makes it clear why). I reverted [21], asking Gob Lofa to go to talk about it, to which they did and this was the result. Note the incivility from Gob Lofa towards Snowded [22].
• They are also still at the inaccurate edit summaries. Here they state "NPOV, link, reword etc", however what they actually did was reword a more NPOV sourced statement and changed the entire context of it and made it more POV. They also reworded another sourced statement (at the end of the edit) that was inaccurate as my reversion edit summary makes clear. They made the same edit and misleading summary at this article as well.
• This is another contentious edit. The government was not involved in the violence, and it is highly contentious and inaccurate to state such.
• This talk page however clearly reveals the real level of bias with their arguments for their edit, an argument that is clearly at odds with the facts, which I make clear with responses of block quotations from several verifiable and reliable sources by respected academics. Most notably Gob Lofa explicitly stated on 15th July: "the BA put it up to republicans first, starting with forcing through Orange marches with violence in March 1970" [23] however this direct quote from one of those sources I provided on 25th August [24] states "On Easter Tuesday, 31 March 1970, the Junior Orangemen had permission to march in Belfast. On their way out they marched along the Springfield Road without incident, but on their return that evening Catholic youths began to throw bottles at the bands and when about seventy soldiers of the Royal Scots Regiment arrived they were attacked with stones and petrol bombs.". There is some difference between Gob Lofa's version of events and what actually happened, and from an editor who frequently states that they are making things more NPOV.

They also now seem to be trying to provoke/hound me:

• [25]. An IP was trying to enforce a word change, and after a few reverts I had asked an admin to semi-protect the page, however a completely new IP appears to change it again. Upon reverting, Gob Lofa appears out of the blue, stating I "Take it to talk", even though there is no basis for such a statement or revert considering I was reverting an IPs edit to the stable version. This new IP and Gob Lofa also both edited this article on the 28th August leading me to wonder are they linked.
• The following (ab)use [26] of their rollback privilege yesterday (not the first time) to make another inaccurate edit summary and what is clear incivility directed at me with "Undo convoluted POV replacement for Britain". That is in regards to me reverting an edit of theirs back on the 1st May [27]. How that edit summary was merited is beyond me.

Mabuska ^(talk) 13:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Also in regards to the Dromore, County Down article, a clear attempt at provocation by highly dubious admonishment [28], though my response to it shows the holes in it. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Having failed to elicit some form of uncivil response from me at Talk:Dromore,_County_Down they decide to do it instead [29]. They have also decided to follow me to the Ulaid article in an attempt to find something to argue with me over to see if they can get a reaction out of me, in this case removing a WikiProject tag I added [30], though my response discounts their reasoning in their edit summary for it [31]. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:E.M.Gregory again

Coming here to avoid 3RR. As a result of a dispute on Matthew C. Whitaker, I have been keeping an eye on User:E.M.Gregory's contribs. He started 2015 Ikea murders for political reasons only per the edit comment). He supported this political view with sources from Breitbart. I knew these were not RS, but tried to stay uninvolved - I notified the Sweden Wikiproject to keep an eye on the article here. They did so, and some cleanup was done, including the addition of failed verification templates on all the sources in the Impact section (the "political part" which is the article creator's claimed focus) at the time. EM Gregory has removed those templates twice and left the sources they are tied to in the article. I restored the templates once, but I'm not going to editwar about it.

In the interests of disclosure, substantial errors were found and corrected on the aforementioned Whitaker article by myself and others, as evidenced by the Talk page, where I and others have documented several and I would note that there was no engagement by E.M.Gregory on the article talk until the initial matter was brought to ANI as the the result of a PA towards me. There is also a pattern: aside from the massive puffery removed on the Whitaker article, another sourcing error was found on another article, apparently due to a typo (because "Whitney" and "Bingham" are very close together on the keyboard, I guess). These "mistakes" seem to be far too prevalent, including what the initial PA was claimed to be. I'd note that I have also been accused of POV-pushing on illegal immigration, which is an issue I don't even edit. The intermediate diff showing the strikeout of a comment disregarding consensus is pretty interesting, too.

However, if that is, instead, the focus of EM Gregory's editing (aside from combating supposed "academic injustice" via Whitaker), that is a problem if not done fairly. The editing pattern is damaging to the encyclopedia (like moving an article during AfD), and the unwillingness to assume responsibility for the "mistakes" and errors (instead claiming "accidents", "wikihounding" and "SPAs") is a detriment to collegial editing. I'd take an interaction ban if this were indeed a personal issue on my part, but it isn't; EMG's editing pattern (and the IDIDNTHEARTHAT associated with it) is damaging to the encyclopedia, and it's simply not an isolated problem anymore, because it's cropping up on every article he edits. MSJapan (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly I am fed up with User:MSJapan's persistent WIKIHOUNDING. This editor has been WIKIHOUNDING me since I made a simple editing error the week before last, for which I swiftly apologized, and has repeatedly stated that s/he would be glad if I left Wikipedia. I believe that her/his goal is to chase me off Wikipedia. At first, I thought the WIKIHOUNDING was a mere overreaction and have refrained form bringing this to ANI. I hate the aggression on Wikipedia. Today the editor's language leads me to suspect a POV motive. Or, perhaps, a nervous breakdown. Whatever MSJapan's editor's motives, his/her behavior is an overreaction to any actual errors I have committed. Certainly, however, MSJapan's approach is an excellent way to convince rational people to avoid editing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Then stop editing contrary to policy. You keep adding sources to articles that do not support the statements you want to make. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research, and you don't understand that. Nobody should have go around cleaning up your messes because you didn't do youe due diligence. You don't start a bio article to do nothing but write about scandals, and you don't start an event article to talk about politics. You especially don't remove "verification failed" templates from sources. Respond to issues instead of making ad hominem attacks. Actually, when someone disputes your sources, you need to engage in discussion, not just revert "because it's sourced." Your problem is that you think your opinions trump policies and procedures, and they don't. In short, act like a good contributor, and perhaps people will treat you like one. Until that time, you need to deal with the consequences of your editing behavior. On another note to the admins, have I not provided enough diffs to show the pattern of behavior and lack of engagement to resolve the problem? MSJapan (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If more diffs are needed, this was my removal for clear synth, the talk diff where I explained such, and a wholesale reversion of the edit, despite the talk thread being opened. That's the behavioral point - I made an edit in accordance with policy, explained why on talk in accordance with policy, and was reverted rather than engaged on talk. The substance of the edit is not at question here in this thread.

I'd also note that this AfD diff on an article EMG is a good indicator as well; the user thinks that writing a BLP focusing on a perpetrator is OK even when it is substantially about the event, and feels that following policies in such cases is "against consensus." The same went for the substantive version of Matthew C. Whitaker before any other editors got involved - a BLP with little to no BLP. There is a similar sourcing discussion on EMG's page here, and prod after prod after prod. EMG has refactored comments at least twice, and has a copyvio notice. I would note that a university bio was OK as a source for David_Mikics (who "automatically passed PROF" on that source), thought a "self-referenced description was OK" on Susya for an NGO, but a uni bio was "unsourced hagiography" on Matthew C. Whitaker. Again, this isn't content, it's editing conduct. When the source suits his purpose, it's OK, and when it doesn't, it isn't, no matter what.

Wikihounding seems to be a common fallback when someone disagrees with his editing and he can't get his way. He did that to Auslondoner after previously having falsely accused him of abusing SPEEDY and canvassing. He also goes after editors who tag his work as if they're in the wrong for tagging unsourced and single source articles. No one is responsible for the EMG's lack of competence other than him, and he's clearly not willing to accept that. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• This series of edits by E.M.Gregory violates NPOV by exaggerating the connection between the IKEA murders and the rise of Sweden's anti-immigration politics. E.M.Gregory's sentence, "The attack is said to have contributed to producing a major uptick in support for the Sweden Democrats Party, which pledges to limit immigration," falsely portrays the two sources, both of which only mention the IKEA murders as a recent element rather than as a major influence. Challenged on this point, E.M.Gregory expanded the problem, adding a source written before the murders (!!) as well as an opinion piece from the UK which fails to describe the IKEA murders as having a major influence on the popularity of the Sweden Democrats Party. This looks like political advocacy to me, not encyclopedic writing. I'm seeing poor work by E.M.Gregory, not hounding by MSJapan. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Here's a statement directly from E.M.Gregory that shows exactly why there's an editing conduct issue: [32]. MSJapan (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And apparently he's attacking other users as well, later apologies aside: [33] MSJapan (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if a problem has been identified, can we please have some actual disciplinary action on top of the problem identification? The user's behavior is getting ridiculous, to the point of effectively inventing things to change. It's actually a minor improvement for once, but the behavior around it negates the whole thing, as the change was made only as a way to attack me (not to improve the content). This should not be the level that it takes to get a minor positive contribution out of the user, either. Said user, by the way, despite being notified of the ANI, hasn't actually addressed anything stated herein (of which there is a substantial pattern illustrated by diffs in several articles, talk pages, and AfDs) other than to accuse me of POV editing and mental instability. I consistently address content, and he consistently addresses me, not the content. Maybe I simply haven't been clear in what I wish to be done, so here it is: The shoddy disruptive POV editing all over Wikipedia and the personal attacks in response to content edits from this user need to stop, by sanction if necessary. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And some NPA [34]. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

which the user attempted to refactor out of the discussion, removing another editor's comment as well: [35] MSJapan (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Still more disruptive behavior:

• citing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS implicitly in an AfD by referring to his own articles' existence as reason to keep, also illustrative of POV editing with respect to articles relating to illegal immigration (a position he claimed I was pushing).
• Another personal attack on me in an AfD.
• Auslondoner cites EMG's disruptive behavior on another AfD, where EMG has brought up a totally different article.
• I'm also mildly concerned, given EMG's involvement with Susya and 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush to see notability tagging by EMG on Arabian Business magazine, an article we've had since 2008. MSJapan (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It is becoming apparent that when E.M.Gregory does not get his way, he edits disruptively, pushes back against editors who do not agree with him, and generally causes a problem. For that reason, I'm retitling this ANI, as this has really gone well beyond one article. There are too many issues across the contribs at this point to call this isolated or personal. I've found at least three other editors he has caused problems with at this point. By ignoring this, his behavior is being validated. MSJapan (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note — As a heads up, I've added {{Ds/alert}}s to editors involved with the BLPs and warned E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) about a clear personal attack. To be fair, I do understand why he would feel he was being followed around, but clearly random accusations on talk pages or AfDs is not the proper place to go about dealing with the issue. --slakr^\ talk / 08:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• EMG has removed all of the failed verification tags from the Al-Bazi article, and I have notified slakr, as well as provided full support [36] as I also did in a briefer format in the AfD already. That's a clear violation of the sanctions, so I'm placing it here for documentation purposes. I will also note in the AfD diff, he states my claims are unsupported, but does not address any of them, relying on attacking the editor instead of engaging with the information. MSJapan (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• And perhaps a solid WP:COMPETENCE issue here, because in ten years at Wikipedia I've never seen these policies used to support exactly their opposite position by anyone who'd actually read them. MSJapan (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User interactions with AusLondoner

I've mentioned these before, but I'm going to drop them into a subsection to see if Auslondoner wishes to participate in this discussion, because there's a lot of interaction between them, too.

• [37] - where EMG falsely accuses AusLondoner of CSDing
• [38] - where EMG goes from lightly reprimanding AusLondoner to notify editors from the previous AfD, and then accuses AusLondoner of violating canvassing by doing so
• [39] - EMG then returns with the wikihounding accusation MSJapan (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment having had a brief look at some of the articles created/edited by EMG, over and above the quality/misuse of sources, tag removing and general uncooperativeness referred to above. The articles seem to be written in a very WP:Coatrack manner, in which the main purpose of the article is to link immigration and criminality. Some of the articles currently at AfD, might well pass, but need major cleanups. If MSJapan and others have been obliged to follow this editor to ensure reasonable standards of sourcing and neutrality, they are doing us all a favour, not 'wikihounding'. Pincrete (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Firstly, I am perplexed why no admin is replying to this matter or addressing the concerns. I have had some difficult experiences with E. M. Gregory in the past. My perspective is that this editor seems to seek to seek to pursue a political agenda on Wikipedia to a significant extent. This relates mostly to Islam/immigration and related topics (and in the past LGBT issues). This includes misuse and misinterpretation of sources and continual false allegations against other editors. While E. M. Gregory has made some helpful contributions, they also fail to follow some behavioural and editing guidelines. My response to his false allegations against me was fairly robust, as we have clashed in the past when I nominated an article relating to a book about gay "conversion therapy", resulting in false accusations of bad faith and agenda-pushing. AusLondonder (talk) 09:04, 5 September 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., [40] and [41]). 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." (...)
2. 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)

• This thread had been archived. I have restored it in hope of solliciting some input about this case of SPA editors owning some articles. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Having completely lost the argument, Randykitty now returns (as was fully expected of him!) with yet another wp rule: owning. However, once again, he simply distorts another wp rule. He has no evidence whatsoever to support his new allegation apart from the fact that the editors who tried to make sense of his multiple tagging (like John Sargis and Panlis) were involved before in exchanges related to D&N and related entries. However, the owning rule itself stresses that “It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert” and Panlis himself admitted his special knowledge on the topic. Randykitty has to show convincingly that “this watchfulness has become possessiveness” and he NEVER MANAGED TO DO SO, particularly as the editors involved (as well as myself) tried repeatedly to improve the entry following those of Randykitty’s suggestions which were specific enough and looked reasonable,e.g. providing the citations and the links to references he asked for. I also supposed that as long as he does not just put tags all around, without usually giving concrete advice on what has to be done, the editors already involved –and hopefully others as well—would continue helping to improve the entry. Unless of course his real aim is not to improve the entry but simply to have it deleted, after his failed attempt for deletion last year.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Still no comments from uninvolved editors. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• According to Randykitty’s “interpretation” of wp rules, all comments from ‘involved’ editors can easily be dismissed or ignored, irrespective of the quality of the arguments concerned, just because these editors are interested in a particular topic on which they happen to have some knowledge. On the other hand, his own heavy involvement in this particular entry in the past when he tried (and failed) to have it deleted, does not matter simply because he has managed to make 62,000 edits in the short period of 2 years and 10 months - obviously working on a full-time basis - i.e. over 60 edits per day, apart from starting over 60 new entries!165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• After the personal attacks, we now progress to taunting. Directly ON Ani... --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• I am not personally attacking or taunting anybody and that was obviously not my intention. I simply stated some OBVIOUS FACTS and Randykitty, instead of trying to dispute them, resorts to his familiar tactics of playing the victim.165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I really need not to "dispute" anything you and the other editors above have been writing. It is there for everybody to see and what is true of it is equally simple to see. Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Randykitty, please avoid this "self-defeating" rhetoric. The way you set the demand, i.e. for some non-involved users to intervene in order to clarify if it's that "we" ("the sect" according to your -at least, humiliating-, accusation about me and other editors of the Democracy & Nature entry) "are correct", something meaning that you will have to be "swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here" (!) is at least disorienting for any user that happens to see this debate. No one asked or suggested such a "response", which shows that you probably have personalized the whole debate. In fact no one asked anything from you, apart from the logical need to show where you believe the editors are mistaken in the first place as regards the editing of the aforementioned entries, particularly when they explicitly claimed that their intention was not Personal Attacking and that they tried to a more or less degree to address your sensible "demands" for citations etc.. On the other hand, you brought two editors before this Board, with a (at least slanderous against me) row of accusations, when, as I tried to show above and in the Democracy & Nature entry's Talk Page, it' s your mistake that you haven't tried to reply to any of the significant arguments raised against your activity, (by abstaining from any dialogue in the entry's Talk Page despite my and others' effort for precise argumentation) and secondly you continued to bypass the fact that significant effort has been in the making to collectively improve the article, even by newer editors like Niceguyedc and Fusedmilk. You didn't even TRY to follow a Dispute Resolution procedure but you jumped directly into here when you saw that not all your demands would be "fulfilled"...Panlis (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Jaronie

Please block Jaronie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at least temporarily for repeat self-promotion despite warnings. Thank you. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but AN/I needs a little more substance than that. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, going through their edit history, here is some substance:

• The following edits: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] add a reference to a paper co-authored by Jaronie Mohd Jani
• The following edits: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] add a reference to another paper co-authored by Jaronie Mohd Jani
• The following edits: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] add a reference to a third paper co-authored by Jaronie Mohd Jani
• The following edits: [61] [62] [63] add a reference to a paper co-authored by Jaronie Mohd Jani

Of the user’s other edits, one adds a seemingly-unrelated reference, one is on an unrelated topic, a couple added copyvio images (which is how I got pulled into this), all others are minor.

User:Ohnoitsjamie warned them yesterday but this morning here we are again. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• So, we are lucky enough to recruit a published author in a technical field and what is WP's immediate reaction? Call for a block! How the hell is this reckoned to be a positive action?

What content we used to have here was not constructed by people who were very conscientious about enforcing policy, it was built by people who understood a topic. Why are we now seeking to drive them away as rudely as possible? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hyrdlak

A story as old as time. On 19 September 2009 User:Hyrdlak (a single purpose account with 204 edits since: 2009-09-19) created an entry called Tomasz Kamusella and by the next day increased its size to 18,780 bytes (most of it unreferenced), with a few quotes from filfak.ni.ac.yu (Server not found). By 8 July 2012 Hyrdlak increased the same bio to 26,744 bytes at which point it became glaringly obvious to me I began to suspect that Hyrdlak writes about himself. By 26 February 2014 Hyrdlak expanded the entry to 29,467 bytes with a bunch of junk from his own filing cabinet (no third party assessment).[64]

I tried to help him write a better article about himself his single purpose, but ... no can do. He reverted me twice without addressing my concerns, and instead, by 10 February 2015 expanded his the bio to 31,960 bytes. This is where the whole thing went through the roof. Please, check out his aggressive and dismissive outbursts when other Wikipedians (i.e. Voluneer Marek) began reacting to his silly game. Hyrdlak pasted the same series of rants on several talk pages including Talk:Tomasz Kamusella: I suspect that Volunteer Marek and Poeticbent may be the very same user. --Hyrdlak 14:41, 23 August 2015. Meanwhile, Hyrdlak also created an entry about his work called Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki Glosariusz regionalny Województwa Opolskiego, a fringe glossary in the Polish language which sparked outrage by his Kamusella's own employer. See: "The university distanced itself from the author of a glossary" in Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper. What Hyrdlak does not understand is that we do acknowledge his academic accomplishments of one Tomasz Kamusella, but treating others like shit is not going to get him Hyrdlak anywhere around here. Poeticbent talk 18:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Relevant diffs

• First revert by Hyrdlak
• Second revert
• Third revert
• Fourth revert
• Fifth revert
• Revenge editing on unrelated BLP because it was created by me
• Rant on my talk page
• The same rant copy-pasted into Voluneer Marek talk page
• Same rant copy-pasted into his own talk page
• Same rant copy-pasted into the talk page of his own WP:BLP bio

Reply to Poeticebnt: Regarding your claim that I 'revenge-edited' the entry on Per Anders Rudling. How about I applied your own medicine of 'expert edit,' as formulated by you here:

"18 May 2015, Poeticbent reinstated Volunteer Marek’s version of this entry {on T Kamusella} and remarked: “restored expert edit by Volunteer Marek → you have been advised against writing about yourself User:Hyrdlak and if you persist, I will personally report you to AN/I for the breach of Wikipedia core policy/guidelines which can result in serious remedies.”

By 'expert edit,' here you mean removing information on most of T Kamusella's books and on all of Kamusella's journal articles and book chapters. Basically in my edit of the entry on Rudling, I removed the scholar's journal articles and book chapters, in line with what you endorse.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 8:59, Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)

• This could be exciting, but let's do small things first. a. Poeticbent, are you in fact Volunteer Marek, and are you also an Auburn fan? b. is that fringe dictionary notable by our standards? If not, put it up at AfD. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• As for Tomasz_Kamusella, that does not look very notable. DGG, Randykitty, do you have an opinion? Drmies (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Wait a minute, Poeticbent et al. I was looking at this version of the biography, which is indeed too much like a resume. But the references in note 23 aren't in the current version of the article anymore, and that's unfortunate since those references could easily make the subject notable per WP:PROF--if legit, they would show that the book, The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe, had a significant influence. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

He's probably notable. 6 books by major English language publishers, include Palgrave Macmillan, an important publisher for this subject. I cannot see the article on the fringe dictionary, but I suspect that it may be a disagreement over the status of a particular dialect. I would redirect the article on it--I cannot imagine that would be sufficiently important by itself, unless it stirred up a very major controversy. (As a general rule, trying to write an article on an author & also one on a minor book does indicate a tendency to promotionalism (which is why we discourage autobiographies) , but the bio article in its present state seems acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Kamusella is probably notable. The glossary is not. DGG, you edited one of these articles at some point (I recall seeing your name in the page history), and put in a POV tag on one of them, which was then removed ... by Hyrdlak.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Found it: here and here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Kamusella (maybe he is notable), but I'm also for deleting the article about the glossary. It's not even sourced now... Peter238 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether Kamusella is notable. Quite probably, given the books with major publishers as remarked upon by DGG, although the long post on the article's talk page about how Kamusella meets many of the criteria of WP:PROF mainly betrays inexperience with how this guideline usually is applied. I don't think the fellowship of the Royal Historical Society confers notability, given the large number of fellows listed on that organization's homepage. In this case, notability most probably will come from multiple book reviews of his books (positive or negative, that doesn't really matter). I don't think his citation record is strong enough to indicate a pass of PROF#1. Below mention is made about "crazies vs non-crazies", with Kamusella in the former category. However, given the readership at St. Andrews, apparently obtained after the controversy in Poland, I'd actually be surprised if he really were a fringe/crazy. The article needs a lot of work, though... --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is indeed some excitement to be had here. But strictly speaking it's a (regional) glossary not a dictionary. Anyway, the excitement... this is actually about a manufactured controversy which has been used as a way of self-promotion by one Tomasz Kamusella, which started off in the "real world" and then, thanks to the efforts of User:Hyrdlak made its way onto Wikipedia. Some serious BLP violations and slander of several individuals included along the way.

I started writing it up but then realized it'd end up being TL;DR. So here's the run down: Tomasz Kamusella = fringe "Silesian Nationalist" activist of borderline notability (this version). Publishes this glossary in 2004. The glossary has some wacky ideas in it (Opole's not really part of Poland, Polish-German border is illegal, eastern regions of Poland are really "Germany under temporary Polish occupation" etc). Kamusella in the glossary claims that it was published with backing and financial support from some local politicians and government institutions. When the book comes out these politicians freak out because they don't want to be associated with these loony ideas and apparently they neither gave money to Kamusella nor "supported" him in anyway. They want the passage which mentions them removed. Minor controversy of local regional significance ensues ... for like a week or so. Publisher also says "oh shit, I didn't realize the kind of crap that was in there". One of the said politicians makes an off-hand comment to the local town newspaper to the effect that he wouldn't mind seeing copies of the book burned. Publisher pulls the book, I'm guessing cuz they didn't want to get their ass sued.

Kamusella then runs around yelling about censorship, about how his book was burned and claims it was the "first book banned in post-Communist Poland". Which is all kinds of nonsense. He writes numerous letters to big name politicians who studiously ignore him. Kamusella publishes these letters himself on various websites and tries to make as much noise as possible. Like I said, a manufactured controversy designed to sell copies of the glossary and give him name recognition.

Volunteer Marek, have a look at the screenshot from the catalog of the Polish National Library, which you removed from the entry on Kamusella. It is quite a tangible proof censorship. You can also read about the matter in this newspaper article: http://www.nto.pl/wiadomosci/opole/art/4475287,glosariusz-bedzie-dostepny-marszalek-nie-chce-byc-cenzorem,id,t.html.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 9:10 Sept 4, 2015 (GMT)

On Wikipedia User:Hyrdlak, who is a single purpose account dedicated to promoting Kamusella (see Poeticbent's links above - all articles created and edited by them promote Kamusella in some way or another), brings this whole sorry situation to Wikipedia. This version of the article basically gives you the flavor. There's a ton of misrepresentation of essentially the single source ([65]) on the topic in there and host of BLP violations. There's a bunch similar in related articles started/edited by Hyrdlak. To keep this at least a bit short I'll let you figure out what those are, but I'll be happy to elaborate upon request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, if someone gets the idea that this is some kind of Polish-vs-German thing, think again. One of the people being slandered in Hyrdlak's version of the article is Ryszard Galla, probably the most notable member of the German Minority Party in Poland. It's not Pole vs. German, it's rather crazy vs. non-crazy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that Volunteer Marek believes I am R Galla. Perhaps he did not read the references. I realize R Galla is a respected politician and leader of Poland's German minority. Nevertheless, it was him who appealed for burning the Glossary by saying 'Ogromne oczy zrobił wicemarszałek Galla z MN oglądając zapisy w książeczce, w której wydawca (Oficyna Piastowska) dziękuje mu za sponsoring. - Spalić to' see: http://opole.gazeta.pl/opole/1,35114,2062655.html#ixzz3koOJCw4U. If we don't like an unappealing reality, should we deny it? Is it the principle of objectivity in action as Voluneer Marek and Poeticbent see it. Is this interpretation of the principle of objectivity upheld by the majority of Wikipedia users?

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 11:44, Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)

I obviously DON'T believe you're R Galla, since I said above that you're using Wikipedia to slander R Galla in violation of WP:BLP. Not that hard to sort out is it?Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well said, Volunteer Marek. I was just wondering. Would it be possible that User:Hyrdlak created User:Franek K. on 2012-08-06 to beef up the ethno-nationalist fight for Silesia already known from the "glossary" article? Franek K. was featured on this AN/I page in October 2014. He said about himself: I live in Poland, I am a teacher at school (bingo!) and I know - most of informations by POlish authors about Silesians and Kashubians is propaganda. – On 22 October 2014 Sandstein blocked Franek K. with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) - with a rationale: (Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: Ethno-nationalist battleground editing, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:AE&oldid=630623388#Franek_K. (not an AE block)). -- Poeticbent talk 05:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is anybody aware of WP:OUTING?

"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. ... Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia.

..attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block"

Poeticbent's claim that in 2009 "User:Hyrdlak (...) created an entry about himself" clearly violates these basic rules of privacy. Poeticbent is very well aware of this policy because his own identity was disclosed some years ago in the context of WP:EEML. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek about some basic principles of courtesy and objectivity in discussion as confirmed by the Wikipedia regulations.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 11:47 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)

• Read again what you just posted, HerkusMonte. Your quote from WP:OUTING contradicts your own statement because writing an article about yourself amounts to self-disclosed information which is not considered outing. Please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF and follow the WP:NPA rules. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 13:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It's just your claim, it's just your conclusion of what you think might be the real identity of Hyrdlak. If you just could tell us where and when did he admit to be Kamusella. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please stop beating around the bush and propping up claims with willful ignorance of policies directed against WP:SELFPROMOTION, HerkusMonte. You have a history of edit warring in articles devoted to Silesia and other parts of Poland from similar viewpoint. Your single largest contribution to Wikipedia is adding two thousand German names to locations in Poland ... as if the Empire never ceased to exist.[66] Poeticbent talk 18:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: In the Polish Wikipedia there's a page called pl:Wikipedysta:Hyrdlak/Dariusz Jerczyński with a wall of text (13,017 bytes) of pure, resourceless promo about one pl:Dariusz Jerczyński, article deleted twice (in November 2013, and February 2015) and nominated for deletion for the third time on 30 August 2015.[67] – If we were to believe what we read, Tomasz Kamusella and Dariusz Jerczyński are writing friends from the ethno-nationalist publishing venue called Wydawnictwo: Narodowa Oficyna Śląska,[68] citing each other as experts wherever they can.[69] – In the linked paper Kamusella demands that the Council of Europe send a fact-finding mission to study the situation of the Silesians in Poland, similar to Morgenthau mission to Poland in 1919. Henry Morgenthau, Sr. was sent in to investigate allegations of pogroms against Jews, not ethno-nationalist writings of a few local ideologues who believe that: "policies in Czechoslovakia and Poland convinced the majority of the Slavophones [sic] ... to be Germans, rather than Czechs or Poles (Jerczyński, 2006: 83-233).^{(page 51 and 66, or 10-25/33 in Kamusella)} Poeticbent talk 19:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wonder why the entry on D Jerczynski in the Polish Wikipedia must be removed and vilified like that. He is the author of the single and quite extensive (however imperfect) on the history of Silesia and the Sliesians written from the Silesian point of view. This national/ethnic group with is Poland's largest national minority (see Polish censuses of 2002 and 2011) continues not to be recognzied by the state, their organizations are refused registration, and the same happens to the Silesian language. Fortunately, the Silesian Wikipedia is well and active. But if Volunteer Marek and Poeticbent have such a negative approach to matters Silesian, I won't be surprised when they propose the Silesian Wikipedia be phased out, as well. Is it not a symptom of having difficulties to see beyond the ideologica perimeter of Polish antionalism?

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:12, Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)

May I just quote WP:SELFPROMOTION:

"==How to handle conflicts of interest==

===Avoid outing===

Further information: Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information

Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Wikipedia:Checkuser. In asking an editor if they have COI, the request should clearly indicate that it is entirely optional for them to answer."

WP:COI explicitly warns not to disclose an editor's real life identity. WP:OUTING is a serious harassment and you should really stop your personal attacks against me. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

HerkusMonte looks to be right here, Hyrdlak never appears to say anywhere on Wikipedia that he actually is Tomasz Kamusella, so, stating that Hyrdlak is Tomasz Kamusella is indeed an act of outing , as such , the claim made by Poeticbent needs to be removed and oversighted as outing is flat not allowed on Wikipedia. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek about some basic principles of courtesy and objectivity in discussion as confirmed by the Wikipedia regulations.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:15 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)

• You're not being serious. No-one in Wikipedia ever admits to writing an article about themselves, but that's not the point. I did the digging myself (not you, not anybody) and posted the results above for all to see proving WP:conflict of interest based on readily available external sources. That's it. I admit that after my investigation I can no longer say who is who ... and so I redacted my opening statement above. The only conclusive proof is edit warring by a WP:SPA with probable WP:COI, as well as suspicion of sock-puppetry. Everything else stays. Poeticbent talk 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Poeticbent, but rules are rules and they should be observed by all, unless I am mistaken.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:17 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)

The problem is that one cannot say "this person is obviously engaging in shameless self-promotion, is slandering people they've had real-life disputes with on Wikipedia and is obviously editing with a serious conflict of interest" without at least suggesting that that person is... actually doing that. In other words, that they are that person.

Anyway, you can oversight any claims about Hyrdlak's supposed identity, but the fact remains that Hyrdlak is a single purpose account which is engaged in masivvely promoting Tomasz Kamusella and who uses Wikipedia as a platform to attack people who've had disagreements with Kamusella in real life in a way which slanders them and which involves some very serious BLP violations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Since you chimed in, are you going to answer Drmies's question a. Poeticbent, are you in fact Volunteer Marek,? I ignored it the first time, but now, since you've responded to something PoeticBent said, it would be a pertinent question (not just that one instance, but that and the other instances Drmies mentioned ) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh.... I don't think that was a serious question, just Drmies joking around (he's feeling insecure about Bama's upcoming season so he's getting his kicks in while he still can). But for your edification I'll answer it: no, I am not, in fact, or in otherwise, Poeticbent. I did write a poem once. Wanna hear it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Spare us! Poeticbent's writing style is eloquent and elegant. Let me guess... Your poem goes a little bit like this: "Freakin', freakin', freakin', freakin', freakin', freakin', you are out of your freakin' mind." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek are not the same person, but for sure they do work as team. They keep removing my edits and references in tandem. One cuts, and the other confirms that such a cut is legit. When, as an example, I apply the same medicine (that is, no book chapter or journal articles in an entry on an academic) as in the case of Per Anders Rudling (an entry created by Poeticbent), they take offense and revert my edits

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:21 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)

What you are doing at the Per Anders Rudling article is plain ol' revenge editing aimed at making a WP:POINT. I actually had no idea why you decided this particular academic to pick on until now, when you stated that this article was created by Poeticbent. So you went in and started fucking up that article to get even. Nice. So on top of violating WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and most likely WP:COI you've now taken to making disruptive revenge edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear All, I have no time for that. I wanted to add to the Wikipedia on matters Silesian, as the corner is a tad neglected. I started my discussion with Volunteer Marek and Poeticbent in March. They never replied to my questions and concerns, apart from Poeticbent threatening to report me to the Wikipedian powers that be. Fine, now the discussion has run its course. But when I have some I will go around removing my account. I guess many entries on matters Silesian will be free game. Unfortunately so.

--User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:20 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)

Dolovis and page creation problems

Apologies for the length of this report. The tl;dr version is that I believe Dolovis (talk · contribs)' page creation habits routinely ignore policy, guidelines and past consensus, and represent a drain on community time that far outweighs what little value they provide. I recommend this be stopped. Resolute 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Dolovis is an editor with whom myself and a few other editors have had a long and contentious history with regarding article creation. He first came to ANI back in 2011 in which he was creating and/or moving pages and gaming the system as part of a diacritics war that was brewing at the time. He was briefly banned from moving pages, and later re-banned from moving any pages related to diacritics after immediately breaching a promise to reform his behaviour in that area. To the best of my knowledge, that ban remains active. (He is also under a BASC imposed one-way interaction ban with Djsasso, whom Dolovis has targeted more than once, and most recently with scrutiny-evading sockpuppet - that condition placed as part of an unblock request that a clearly divided ArbCom reluctantly granted.)

I have long been an extreme critic of Dolovis' habits of creating one or two sentence sub-stubs of marginally notable or completely non-notable hockey players, often relying on the bare minimum allowed by the WP:NHOCKEY SNG (recent example: Simon Suoranta; literally a couple thousand more examples available) - inevitably using just a stats sheet or player profile page from a league site as the sole source. His other big habit is to create redirects for non-notable players to any random article that might kind of fit, pretty much just on speculation that said player might become notable someday. I have long felt that these creations are ego-driven efforts to simply grab the first edit for as many new pages as he can, and not done out of a true desire to improve the project. Or, as Ravenswing recently put it: "This isn't any attempt to improve the encyclopedia; this is a manic rush to Game High Score for article 'creation.'" Dolovis' only real goal with Wikipedia is to create as many new pages as he can, and he has shown complete and utter contempt for virtually every policy or guideline that stands in his way. The result is that editors who also monitor in this space have to spend an inordinate amount of time curating and reviewing these articles, while his contempt for policies has caused a great deal of wasted time for editors and admins at WP:AFD, WP:REFUND, WP:RFD - By my count, Dolovis has had over 100 articles deleted at AFD alone; Ravenswing targeted about 75 articles of his for AFD in January 2014. Only ONE ended up as a keep. Four others were no consensus closes, the rest deleted. This represented a massive waste of time for those of us who had to do the research after creation because Dolovis clearly and obviously did not do any research before creation.

The problems with his creations go far deeper than just a disregard for notability criteria. He has created two speculative articles on NHL teams that don't exist - Quebec NHL team and Las Vegas NHL team - that, aside from being failures of WP:CRYSTAL, I have realized are unattributed copy-paste jobs from Potential National Hockey League expansion. In short, Dolovis is creating copyright violations because it is easier to rip off someone else's work to try and grab that first edit for any future NHL team. Another of his recent creation, 2014 KHL Junior Draft, is likewise an unattributed copy of someone else's article (in this case, 2013 KHL Junior Draft). He has also previously tried to speculate on future NHL teams as well - in this case, ironically, one of the few examples of his putting real work into something (assuming it wasn't likewise just ripped off from someone else's work).

Dolovis has deliberately created articles on non-notable players and failed to defend them when PRODded (most recent example: Pavel Karnaukhov), because he knows he can just run to WP:REFUND and request a history undeletion to get that first edit back if the player later becomes notable and someone else recreates the article. This is something that has been picked up on by others. This only wastes the time of three separate editors: whomever reviews the article, who deletes it at PROD, and who restores the article later. This is blatant gaming the system. In that thread, Ravenswing also shows numerous links of Dolovis misrepresenting sources to try and claim a player meets an easier criteria of NHOCKEY or misrepresenting NHOCKEY itself to try and justify these creations.

Dolovis is even worse when it comes to redirect creation. When he knows there is no chance of an article surviving more than a few hours, he just redirects pages to random, somewhat related targets with no regard for the fact that his actions actively hinder the search function. In fact, despite having these redirects deleted at least five times in the past two years, I STILL had to take two more to RFD this week, which are again heading to a delete. As of right now, he has 17 redirects listed at RFD, and every single one is leaning delete. And I am preparing to RFD dozens more for the exact same reason.

His non-hockey creations are no better, This article was clearly created as a synthesis of Van Gogh self-portrait (1889) - Dolovis obviously does not have those sources and never read them. He simply copied them from the latter article and reworded a couple passages to "create" his version. And then there is this. That might be the laziest article creation in Wikipedia history. He only expanded it (likely a cleaned up version of Google Translate) after someone else reviewed and prodded it.

All of this is just a long winded way of saying that Dolovis' page creations are of such a low value, that his continual disregard for policy and guidelines - including policies on copyright violations - and that the time wasted in cleaning up, PRODding, AFDing and RFDing is so high, that allowing Dolovis to continue creating pages like this represents such a drain on the community that I believe it needs to be stopped. This has been going on for years. As such, I would like to propose that Dolovis be indefinitely banned from creating any new pages in Wikipedia main space. Given he brags that he has started over 5800 pages, I would suggest that he could direct his future time into expanding those 5800 two sentence sub stubs. Resolute 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, Dolovis. Indef-blocked after a drawer full of socks and unblocked with a minor edit restriction--see this note by Thryduulf. That seems to have come about quite easily. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• I completely endorse all Resolute has said and support an indef ban on new article creation by Dolovis. Dolovis is not only a disruptive presence, who's created an appalling amount of work for those who've had to clean up his messes, but he's been extremely tendentious over the years, filibustering at great length to keep his edit count high ... often at times in complete contradiction to arguments he made the week before. As you can see yourself from his edit history, he's far less interested in improving the encyclopedia as in racking up his new creation count, and has found the creation of implausible, desperately obscure redirects an easy way to do it.

  Honestly, I would really appreciate hearing from those in the BASC process who felt that Dolovis' well-merited indef block ought to be reversed. Leaving aside the minor edit restriction to which he agreed (and which he just last week sought to overturn), what led them to believe that he had changed his ways, what assurances did they receive that he would do so, and what monitoring did they undertake to ensure that he did? Ravenswing 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone give some background here? The block log only says that it was a block evasion block (which seems odd to create new accounts since they wouldn't inflate your edit count) since the 2012 block and thus the standard offer that was the main basis for the unblock was for sock evasion and this doesn't seem to be the problem here. Is there a discussion about a redirect or article-creation ban (I think there's at least one other user with an ARBCOM ban with that kind of wording)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

From the sockpuppet investigation, you can see that another account was being used to request deletion of articles created by Ravenswing and Djsasso, using the same rationale used in requests for deletion of articles created by Dolovis. isaacl (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so still nothing related to this specific problem (ignoring that the only response seemed to be "look at my edit count, I couldn't have done this"). Again, I'm not seeing a history of the new article abuse problem so examples of recent antics (there isn't a huge deleted edit history so there actually aren't a lot of editing articles that became deleted) would be helpful and then we're back to potential solutions: a proposal that Dolovis be banned from six months from creating a new article or redirect without the approval of an admin? (I'd suggest AFC but requiring admins would be a higher standard and one I've seen here before). Is so, suggest that and see if there's a consensus supporting that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to go too far into his SPI stuff since it is tangental to his article creation problem, and this was long enough as it is. But that was a hypocritical example of Dolovis using a sock in bad hand fashion to revenge target some of DJSasso and Ravenswing's oldest articles created using the exact same rationale as Ravenswing presented in nominating seven dozen of Dolovis' pages for deletion. Part of the reason why his deleted contributions list is deceptive is the fact that he knowningly creates articles that won't pass a PROD or AFD, but wants the first edit in history so he can request a history restore at WP:REFUND when someone else re-creates an article after the subject does become notable. But in short, he's had over 100 articles deleted at AFD, he's got about 100 redirects at RFD right now - he continues to create redirects of the type that have been consistently deleted at RFD for a few years now even though he is well aware of the consensus against them - and god only knows how many have been deleted through PROD, only to be restored later at REFUND. The long and the short of it is that we are at several hundred pages deleted or about to go, and what does stick, sticks only because they meet NHOCKEY or other SNGs by the skin of their teeth. Even then, those sub stubs themselves offer no value. Given his history of misrepresenting sources, it would honestly take more time than what any of us has to investigate and verify all of those pages as well. Ravenswing spent close to a month last year reviewing and AFDing less than 20% of his creations, at that time. And Dolovis is now getting into creating copyvios, which was the final impetus for this report. He's damned lucky I only picked up on those after his ill-advised request to have one edit restriction removed was archived, otherwise I would have presented this to arbcom in that process. As it is, it wastes our time to have to review this junk, it wastes an admin's time to deal with PROD requests on articles he knows won't stick, it wastes an admin's time at REFUND and it waste's everyone's time at AFD and RFD. Resolute 13:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Break

• At the moment, there are 103 such redirects up for "discussion" (read: deletion) at RfD:
  • Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#Pier-Olivier Pelletier (2 pages)
  • Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 31#NHL Draft redirects (13 pages)
  • Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1#NHL team draft pick redirects (88 pages, not all Dolovis)

as well as

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 23#Victor Rask (1 page, deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Eamon McAdam (1 page, deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Yan-Pavel Laplante (1 page, deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 6#Anton Karlsson (ice hockey, born 1996) (2 pages, both deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 22#Tommy Vannelli (3 pages, all deleted)

Anton Karlsson is archetypal of the page creation problem. Dolovis created this as an empty redirect to a page with no information about the player on 20 February 2014. It was prodded; Dolovis removed the prod; it was listed and then deleted at Rfd. Another editor created a page about this player some time later, when they became notable. Subsequently, Dolovis requested the history of their redirect be merged with this page, and is now credited as the creator of this content, even though they contributed exactly nothing to it. This is an WP:EDITCOUNTITIS problem, but a problem nonetheless.

The bigger problem, of course, is that of the 111 pages listed above, none have survived a deletion discussion (counting the 103 currently listed which are very likely to be deleted shortly, their discussions are really formalities at this point) and this wastes the community's time (it takes, by my count, 312 edits to list the 103 currently listed, not counting the actual discussion, plus subsequently taking up admins' time closing those discussions and deleting the redirects, plus time wasted when Dolovis requests history merges when someone else creates an article). Banning Dolovis from creating pages will not harm the encyclopedia at all, and will give other editors the opportunity to be given appropriate credit when they create pages about notable hockey players, which will further encourage the creation of those articles, which greatly benefits the project.

Thus (tl;dr) I support banning Dolovis from creating pages in any space, because I'm sure they'll just find a way to game a more limited ban. I have no comment on the socking issue as it seems unrelated to the page creation issue, and doesn't seem to be a current issue anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support I am going to keep this pretty brief because Resolute has done a very good job of summing up the issue. Dolovis continually creates articles he know will be almost instantly deleted. And when he can't even remotely argue an article is valid he creates a redirect to some random remotely related page that often has no information on the subject. He has been an extremely disruptive editor in all manner of ways from his ban on diacritics editing to the sockpuppeting to the creation of clearly non-notable pages that are a waste to the communities time. I actually support a full site ban. But I am happy to accept a page creation ban as a first step to see if that helps the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support a six-month topic ban against Dolovis creating articles or redirects without having it approved by an administrator. Proposing a dozens redirects will just annoy someone but if there's a new article, there's a chance to get it approved. I'm going to give a bit of leeway to see if Dolovis can propose articles of any worth to be created which would give us support to remove the ban in the future. Otherwise, there's no way to tell if the problems have been resolved or not. If there's no examples or new articles of the right quality to base this on, we can evaluate extending this in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable response; certainly Dolovis should be allowed to create articles if they are worth creating, and not just redirects or stubs on players which they admit are non-notable. However, I propose that this restriction be placed for 14 months. Why 14? Because this will actually prevent Dolovis from creating the mass of redirects from players drafted in the next year's draft. Otherwise, it's not really a sanction, they will pretty much automatically wait it out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

In six months, Dolovis can either show that this restriction is no longer needed (by pointing to actual articles created after approval by an admin) or we'll see that Dolovis has done nothing in that way because Dolovis only wants to create stubs and redirects. If there are literally zero edits because this topic ban is essentially a de facto ban for that person (for a lot of editors, a minor topic ban causes a complete meltdown, but we'll see here), then we'll all better off I guess. The personality type that sockpuppets that much and argues that much just after agreeing to restrictions tells me it won't take six months for another problem to surface that this restriction won't matter much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it, this sounds reasonable. My worry, however, is that at no stage in his Wikipedia career has Dolovis embraced the premise of "You're right. I'm wrong. I recognize that I broke the rules, I'm sorry and I won't do it again." Over and over again, he argues for delay -- that some other appeals process be brought into play, that he'll agree to an entirely voluntary, short-term (and unenforceable) moratorium on objectionable behavior, that deadlines be extended for further comment. What would a six-month restriction solve that his nine-month block didn't?

Beyond that, who's the poor bastard admin who's going to get saddled with doing all the notability research on dozens of new articles, an area in which Dolovis is notoriously indifferent? Ravenswing 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Mentorship, is the route to take. We can't just destroy an editor, merely because he/she may annoys us. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• No one's advocating "destroying" anyone. Nor is any editor prevented from being a productive contributor to the encyclopedia by being enjoined from new article creation. Not counting redirects, I've created fewer than a half-dozen articles a year, and I've only created two in the last three years. Over 40,000 edits in, I figure I've found other ways to contribute. Ravenswing 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Response by Dolovis

• Response by Dolovis: When I joined Wikipedia in 2010, I came across thousands one line stub articles about professional ice hockey articles. I found these articles helpful as they encouraged me to become active as an editor to work to improve such articles. One editor in particular, User:Patken4, had created thousands of stub articles about hockey players, (see Roy Mitchell (ice hockey), Randy Murray (ice hockey), and Darrell May (ice hockey) for just three of such examples) and I could see that much more such work was needed in this area. Following the example of Patken4, I volunteered myself into the IceHockey Project to create and improve articles about notable hockey players pursuant to WP:NHOCKEY. Working diligently as a GOOD FAITH editor, I created starter articles for not only NHL players, but also for other major and “Top level” leagues as defined by WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA, including Swedish Hockey League, the Finnish Liiga, Kontinental Hockey League, Czech Extraliga. I dedicated myself to creating articles for all 808 major league players who played in the now defunct World Hockey Association, completing this task on June 4, 2014 (see talk page “thanks” for my efforts). Along the way I have also made many thousands of edits to improve other existing articles.

I believe in and have remained loyal to the Wikipedia Project, despite what I have perceived as bullying from some editors, including Resolute and DJSasso, who I feel have been harassing me since first joining the IceHockey Project. I have certainly made mistakes. I used to be involved in discussions, and often found myself disagreeing with Resolute and DJSasso – but following such discussions, I always tried to follow the consensus - whether I agreed with it or not. I now try to avoid such discussions.

I firmly believe that creating stub articles encourages others to add, build, improve, and work collaboratively on on this never ending project called Wikipedia, and yes, I am proud that I have contributed over 5,800 new articles to Wikipedia. I am not concerned if some have been since deleted, because I do not own them and I welcome the efforts of others to contribute to Wikipedia. The harsh welcome felt by most new editors discourages the creation of new articles, but I believe that new articles are the life-blood of Wikipedia. If one takes a look at my edit history, you will find no disruptive editing (yes, I have made mistakes, but I have never tried to disrupt Wikipedia). Despite Resolute's numerous and loud claims that I am a bad faith editor, I am not. Following Resolute's criticism that I was making one line “stub-stub” articles, I tried to take his criticism constructively to improve my stubs to be better. A look at my recent creations will show a pattern of making stub articles for notable subject pursuant to WP:IDEALSTUB, as a starting point for other editors to build upon. Resolute is trying to make the claim that I am disruptive because I am creating too many articles, so therefore I am creating work for the other editors. Following Resolute's thinking, if there were nothing there, there would be nothing to complain about. Look at his uncivil comment following my creating an article for CalgaryNEXT where he writes “As usual, someone else is left to clean up a lazy mess created only as an ego trip” [70]. This was not created as an "ego-trip". It was created because it is a notable subject pursuant to WP:GNG and deserves to have an article. That is but one example of the incivility that I have been forced to accept from Resolute for many years.

Concerning the redirects I have created: The redirects under discussion here were created over the past 5 years by a number of different editors including myself, User:Alaney2k, User:Canuckian89, User:One95, User:Shootmaster 44, User:Uncleben85, and User:USA1168. What was once considered an acceptable and even helpful edit pursuant to WP:RPURPOSE as a ”sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article”, are now vilified as “bad faith” edits. I don't believe any of these redirects were created in bad faith. If there is a new consensus and guideline stating that it is wrong for players to be redirected to a list of players drafted by NHL teams, then I would happily follow it. Dolovis (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, stating that you have created 5800 new articles doesn't do much to tamp down on the concerns that you are game-playing everyone by creating nonsense stubs that get deleted and trying to jump back in when someone else eventually does create the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just addressing the issue of “5800 articles” as raised above by Resolute above. These are not “nonsense stubs”. These are deserving articles created pursuant to WP:Stub. Resolute claims that I have had “over 100 articles deleted at AFD alone”, but what he doesn't say is most of those were AfD'd only after the IceHockey Project lowered its WP:NHOCKEY bar and then targeted such articles for deletion (only articles created by me, not the hundreds created by others). He also doesn't say that these articles were brought directly to AfD where they were summarily deleted pursuant to the new standards for inclusion (when a PROD likely would have been more efficient and less time consuming). I do not create article knowing they will be deleted. I create articles so others can build upon them. Dolovis (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

They were AfD'd because they lacked any substantive coverage so as to pass GNG. We raised the bar on that one section of NHOCKEY because you were abusing the hell out of it and trying to use it as a shield to justify creation of articles on non-notable subjects. If you actually looked for sources to ensure a GNG pass before creation - rather than make the rest of us do it for you - the number of games a minor league player had in his career would never have entered the equation. Resolute 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Dolovis, not buying it for a second. It is hilarious for you to claim there is no bad faith editing in your history given you have two active edit restrictions already, one for bad faith editing in the realm of diacritics, and the other for bad faith use of sockpuppets.

You claiming now that you will suddenly follow any "new consensus" about not redirecting to draft articles now is curious given I hauled you to RFD FIVE TIMES in the last 18 months or so with such redirects deleted every single time, only to have you come back with yet another run of such creations afterward. This promise today is only being made because you are staring down a page creation ban, not because you respect a consensus that has existed for a long time.

You have failed to address your cut and paste copyvios. You have failed to address your history of misrepresenting sources. You have failed to address the problem of you creating articles on subjects you know are not notable so you can have history restored later via REFUND. You have failed to address the fact that you will always do the absolute minimum per NHOCKEY - and in most cases, how you never even make the barest effort to look for sources beyond a website that is nothing but a stats page. I haven't mentioned it yet in this complaint, but in the cases where more stringent criteria has forced you to put bare effort in, I would also like you to address your habit of using blogs and other unreliable sources, WP:ROUTINE sources and sources with obviously trivial mentions while making little to no effort to find substantive coverage. This goes well beyond your habit of creating one or two sentence sub-stubs that are of no value, virtually never even bothering to look for sources that cover players in non-trivial, substantive fashion that WP:GNG requires. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you started here and offered to work with you. And even though you were creating conflicts with others right out of the gate, I still tried to offer constructive advice - the very same advice you are being given four and a half years later and still ignoring four and a half years later. If my attitude towards you is negative today, it is because I have five years of bad faith actions to judge you by. In the end, the ultimate question is still to ask why the community should be forced to spend so much time cleaning up after you. Don't you think five years of having to fix the messes you create is more than enough? Resolute 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolute's argument is false deductive reasoning. He argues that because he has taken my edits to RfD, therefore I have made disruptive edits. Again, what Resolute fails to mention is that out of the hundreds of existing redirect edits, he targeted only my edits for deletion - even going so far as to apologize to another editor[71] who he inadvertently RfD'd with my edits. If there are any copyvios, they would inadvertent and minor, and should properly be be addressed through copy editing or appropriate attribution. Clearly, his RfD campaign is a personal vendetta against me and not against my editing, which falls within the standards of what other editors are doing. Dolovis (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I apologized for Alaney for failing to notify him that one of his redirects was taken to RFD. My error there was simply assuming that they were all yours. As to the rest, you're just lashing out in desperation - much like you did the last time you were hauled to SPI and tried to accuse me of using a sockpuppet that voted against myself in deletion discussions to try and distract the discussion. I will once again note that you have failed to address any of the points I raised above, and you failed to answer the questions at the end. So I once again ask: how long should we be expected to fix the messes you leave behind? Resolute 01:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dolovis, can we resolve the current issue here now? Would you be willing to agree to even a temporary ban on creating articles and redirects? Resolute's argument is that he has taken your edits to RFD which has deleted the redirects in the hundreds, you have an incorrect version of policy. The point is that the redirects and articles you created before (even years before) have been brought to RFD and a number have been deleted. My proposal is simply that you get an admin to approve of it which isn't a terrible chore if you've completed a decent drafts. If the issues with hockey redirects have resolved with your acknowledgment of the current policies, then I see zero issues at all here with my proposal. Else, you currently came back from an block for sockpuppetry, with an edit restriction, which I see that you're currently arguing to remove already and for which the few ARBCOM members who allowed you to return have said you either need to follow or you can retract the agreement and go back to the ban. So if you want people to think that you've seriously reformed, it would be a good idea for you to pre-emptively agree to resolving the problems that got you in trouble before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a rather gross oversimplification of my argument, actually. His redirects are only one part of the overall problem which, in short, is to do as little work as possible while trying to gain a "high score" for article creation, and leaving behind a morass of sloppy work that achieves so little value that it cannot hope to make up for the time spent cleaning up after him in multiple venues. Resolute 01:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The only person who appears to be concerned with my edit count is Resolute, and I will be happy to remove the “Userboxes” from my user page if they are annoying to Resolute or any other editors. Until now, my understanding was that editors should be aware of WP:REDDEAL when creating redirects, and that RDs to draft lists were otherwise acceptable for nn players. But if this is no longer the consensus, then I will refrain from redirects to NHL draft lists, and even help to start tagging other such redirects for deletion.

As for article creation, I have long since demonstrated the ability to create sourced articles on notable topics (which is the benchmark for article creation). Viewing my edit history will confirm this. If there are exceptions, then please PROD them or otherwise bring them to my attention so the shortcomings can be addressed. Expecting me, or any editor, to create WP:Good articles on the first draft is not reasonable. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As discussed at WP:Article development, creating sourced Stub articles is an encouraged activity. If the notability of a subject is disputed, then it should be properly PRODed, or otherwise dealt with pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Requiring Admins to move my drafts to main space will just create extra work for everyone. Dolovis (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That is all pure BS. You know damn well that his argument isn't about the edit count on your page. It is the actions you are taking to boost it that are the issue. Creating articles that you know don't meet the notability requirement. That you have been told time and again don't meet the notability requirement. That are sourced to stat pages and blogs, which don't meet WP:GNG. All of this has been pointed out to you by a number of editors, your standard response to most people when they point it out is "Its not my job, its up to other people to come along and do it later". Except that it is your job, if you are creating an article you are expected to source it with reliable sources and to make sure they meet the WP:GNG. You have not demonstrated the ability to create sourced stub articles, a quick look through your created pages show that the vast majority are sourced to non-reliable sources. Then when the articles are inevitably deleted for non-notability you wait until you can ask at refund to restore your edit history once the person meets notability. I have even seen cases where you copy and pasted the content of deleted at afd articles (created by other people) where you then pasted the exact copy a month or two later as a "new creation". -DJSasso (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Resolute, I agree that it's a simplification of the concerns but given that ARBCOM very recently unblocked Dolovis and the little evidence that the actions are ongoing now, you'll be unlikely to find any admin will to block on that basis so I'm focusing on a resolution as to what can be shown now. Otherwise, Dolovis doesn't believe it's a problem at all. Just want everyone to be clear. We'll see from others but I still support the proposal as it provides the least amount of disruption to the project overall in exchange for resolving the largest number of concerns at the moment. And Dolovis, are you actually checking these sources in your hurry to create these articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Very easy to see it going on right now. Here is one he created within the last month. Only added to it (weeks later) when notified of a prod. [72]. Resolute also showed current examples of his lack of attribution on copy pastes which are current copyvio issues. You can't just focus on the here and now, because that is what the problem has been, here and now we issue a new minor restriction of some sort and he goes on and finds a way to circumvent it or some other policy to flaunt. Perhaps its at the point where it needs to go to Arbcom for a full case. -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree but it's not totally objectionable for people to create basic stubs and to pull the information from cross-wiki. ARBCOM is really the place for that kind of thing not ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• No pulling cross-wiki is fine. But his creation of the article consisted solely of "Marek Sikora is a Polish astronomer." with the only reference being his staff profile. Fine if that is the first edit in a series of edits. But he didn't go back to it until weeks later and it was about to be deleted. Either way I was just using that particular one as an example of its on-going nature. -DJSasso (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Marek Sikora (astronomer) was a listed as a hat note on the Marek Sikora article. Given that he appeared to be notable per WP:NACADEMICS, and had a Polish Wiki article, I chose to create the article rather than just wash the hat note (as I first thought to do). I agree it was a very weak start, and I have since expanded the article with text translated from the corresponding article in Polish. It is currently facing a PROD, and will be deleted unless another editor takes an interest in keeping it. Dolovis (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah so that's basically you guessing that there's enough notability, copying the Polish wiki text (without you independently verifying if it's true at all) and then leaving the really hard work for others, which is why I support the temporary six month topic ban from creating new articles at the moment. Do something else rather than create new stubs as it does sound disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly, and that therein is the problem. Guessing at notability without going to the effort of actually providing the sources necessary to prove it. Wasting other editors time who have to prod it, then admins who have to do their own research to see if it is notable and then them deleting it. Even worse if it ends up at Afd where then multiple editors have to do that. If you can't source it to reliable sources then you shouldn't be creating it, if you don't know its notable then you definitely shouldn't be creating it. -DJSasso (talk)

• @Ricky81682:. I'm not asking for a block - though I believe Ravenswing did. I am asking for an end to the time wasting caused by his mass creation of negative value pages. Due to his history, we already have to routinely check for both the existence of sources to meet a GNG pass, and to check that he isn't misrepresenting the paltry sources he does use. And now, given his cavalier response to the copyvio issue, we will have to check for that as well. And this rabbit hole still goes deeper than I have presented here. He routinely creates WP:CRYSTAL articles on potential draft picks a month or two before each year's NHL Entry Draft even though most of those players are not yet notable. For me, that is one instance where I just don't bother because I hate wasting the time of admins and editors at PROD and AFD when some of those articles would just be re-created a month later when notability IS achieved, but it is just another example of Dolovis looking for page creation high scores. In my view, the solution here is an indef ban from creating pages, to be lifted only when he demonstrates - via expanding a good number of his past creations - his willingness to (1) look for and accurately use sources that meet GNG before creation - meaning no more one-reference substubs relying exclusively on a stat sheet or blog ans (2) stop gaming the system via deliberate creation of bad redirects and of topics he knows aren't notable. Ravenswing, DJSasso and myself have been trying for years to hammer home the fact that GNG means non-trivial, substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources. Perhaps once he demonstrates that he will no longer ignore that via expansion and referencing of his past articles, and perhaps once he commits to follow that process going forward, such a ban could be lifted. Resolute 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support a six-month topic ban of Dolovis creating articles or redirects (uninvolved non admin) This is insane. It creates tons of work for others. Its inconsiderate and is simply gaming the system. I would also Support an indef ban on history merge requests of deleted pages more than a month old to stop the disruption in the future. AlbinoFerret 03:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Pursuant to WP:Notability a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the GNG or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (i.e WP:NHOCKEY or WP:ACADEMIC). Once created, an article may still face deletion pursuant to the deletion policy. This is how Wikipedia works. The Marek Sikora article is the exception to the majority of the work I do on Wikipedia. That article was well-intentioned, and I did verify the sources used in the Polish article, and I still believe he is notable. I fully intended to go back to build the article, which I have done. I believe that my good work far outweighs the weak, and in the interest of resolving this issue I will make a proposition; I will take a voluntary one month break from creating articles, with the hope that Resolute and DJSasso will stop their uncivil comments and harassment towards me. I am a good faith editor who is doing my best to build and improve Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You need more than a month off for those games. Your denail of a problem and trying to lessen the ban time is just IDHT. I think anyone who reads this section will support the bans. You are making work for editors and disrupting the project. AlbinoFerret 04:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So, Dolovis -- you are admitting to doing nothing wrong, and you make no stipulations that you won't start the same behavior all over again 32 days from now ... nor does anything enjoin you from doing so 32 hours from now. What leads you to believe this would be an attractive offer? Ravenswing 06:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Per AlbinoFerret, I likewise support an indef ban from the WP:REFUND process. For anyone following this discussion seeking evidence concerning Dolovis' motives, he doesn't have merely several dozen requests at WP:REFUND, he's featured in several dozen archives. [73] I am very hard put to find an unselfish reason for such Wikilawyering, nor one justifying the time and energy spent by those active in that area to go through his requests. Ravenswing 06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that a possible contribution history problem? I mean, that's assuming there is actually is a connected history, a refund request would have to required. Isn't the issue that WP:REFUND policy be so liberal (just any request) rather than asking if the request is actually related on a separate editor from the current history which is a different problem? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If it was a article that had some long term editing that was recreated maybe. But whats being merged is redirects and tiny subs. It takes away the incentive to create them in the first place. To make sure that he is creating articles likely to survive an afd. If it looks like a problem the exception can be added that he ask an admin and point to this section as the reason for asking and an admin can decide if its a real article or just more "Im first" games before asking for a merge. AlbinoFerret 07:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support temporary article creation ban, also endorse indef REFUND ban. It looks like Dolovis has a long history of creating articles that have some serious issues with notability, so I think that a temporary ban from creating any new articles in any space (draft, mainspace, redirects, etc) is reasonable. Dolovis, I see you trying to justify your article creation but at no point do I actually see you really owning up to the fact that you've made several articles that had a lot of major issues with them. I feel that giving you a temporary ban will give you the incentive to go over policy and learn how to properly source articles for notability giving purposes. I'll be extremely blunt with this: this has been a long running problem and if things don't change after the temporary ban, you'll likely be facing a permanent ban from creating new articles - if not from editing altogether. I also endorse a permanent ban from requesting article history from REFUND, as I do think that the others make a good case showing that you're really only requesting the article history so you can have the article creation credit - not so you can improve the article. The thing is, numbers mean absolutely squat on Wikipedia. You can make a lot of pages but that doesn't necessarily make you a good editor or even really an asset to Wikipedia if the article quality is poor and others have to run behind you in a struggle to prove notability or delete the articles. Case in point: I remember a user named User:MoonMetropolis that created multiple pages that had serious notability issues. While they were ultimately blocked for sockpuppetry, their poor article creation history definitely gave people another reason to indef them. This is not your first time at ANI, as you've been reported multiple times in the past - and you've already been banned from moving pages. Heck in in 2013 you tried to ask for a topic ban to be removed but everyone successfully argued against giving you these permissions back. You really need to shape up because right now all you're doing is giving yourself enough WP:ROPE to justify someone arguing for you to be indefinitely blocked from editing. To be honest, I'm actually mildly surprised that they aren't asking for an indefinite ban, considering that you've repeatedly been reported at ANI and other boards since you signed up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd actually endorse a longer article creation ban than six months. I'd actually endorse a year, followed by a year's probation where he's only able to create articles via AfC. Considering that this has been an ongoing problem for years now, I'd actually also support an indef ban on mainspace creation and then after a year, he can create articles via AfC. As far as REFUND goes, that's still an indef since it looks like he's only doing this to grandstand, not to actually improve the article - a process that I think could really, really be disheartening to the people who took the time to create a newer version of the article that did pass notability guidelines. If someone other than him requests restoration then that's fine, but I don't think that Dolovis should be allowed to request article restorations any longer. But yeah... the more I think about this the more I support an indef on mainspace creation until he can prove via AfC that he can make a quality article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well a new indefinite ban is unlikely since ARBCOM just unblocked Dolovis back in June. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like he was unblocked from an indefinite block, but I don't think that this would prevent us from giving him an indefinite block from creating articles in the mainspace. From just what I've seen here, it looks like there's plenty reason to justify restricting Dolovis to AfC for the time being (after the year's block is up), until he proves that he can responsibly create articles. The way he's going, if he keeps getting reported at ANI like this then I'd like to think that ARBCOM would likely approve a new block. (BTW, do they need to approve any future blocks on this user? I always got the impression that if the user kept causing trouble and refused to play nice, they could always be re-blocked.) But seriously though, we've restricted other editors to AfC for far less than this and I think that an AfC restriction and a block from REFUND is a reasonable outcome here. He's abused the system and now we need to make sure that he can edit responsibly before giving him the keys to the car/mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Tokyogirl79 Keeping in mind that a previous editor we referred over to AfC for remedial page creation scrutiny eventually gave up the topic space that they were precieved to be disruptive in and give up new article creation entirely because AfC didn't review the submissions fast enough for their taste. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm aware that this might be a problem, but I'm not sure what else will really be beneficial overall. I think that they need to have their work scrutinized before it goes into the mainspace and a temporary ban from mainspace article creation might not solve the issue. I think that turning him to AfC is probably one of the best case scenarios here. On a side note, if he wanted to ask for people to review his submissions (and anyone would be willing to volunteer for that), I have no problem with him asking qualified editors to review his work after he completes an AfC article. The way he's going, I think that a little one on one will likely be quite helpful. I'm willing to volunteer to shoulder part of this load, if he's limited to AfC only for the time being. I'm just worried that if he's allowed back into the mainspace he might do this without actually having learned anything, given that he doesn't seem to really understand why people find his editing habits problematic and even in violation of part of the spirit of Wikipedia. (IE, the landgrab nature that you referred to below, since Dolovis seems to feel that there's a contest for who gets the most entries created.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note to Delovis: Basically while I know that you're trying to say that you're operating in good faith, if a large amount of people believe that you're doing this for your own personal glory, then that should be a sign that you should stop, pause, and look to check to see if maybe you're doing something wrong. You've been on ANI a lot for various things, all of which tend to center around the same things: creating poor articles and potentially unnecessary redirects and the general consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that you're creating these because you want your article creation numbers to shoot up, not because you're here to edit in a beneficial manner. At some point you really just need to take a look at your editing pattern and ask yourself "maybe it's not them - maybe it's actually me?" Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support your version willingly, Tokyogirl79. And as Ricky81682 suggests, the art of the possible is what's in play. Ravenswing 10:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Support If we're going to be shunting this editor over to AfC, we probably should make sure they're aware of the influx they're about to get. Also I'd like to see some way of allowing editors reviewing this to have a pre-approved "This submission is not qualified for inclusion" deletion process to deal with these in a more rapid timeframe than CSD:G13 (6 months unedited) or many WP:MFD nominations. If we're going to put pressure on the editor to change their behavior with respect to these creations, we need to not allow the editor to keep the crystal ball collection and then make the land grab of "created the article" once someone else did the work of properly creating the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

AFC allows pretty much any autoconfirmed user to move articles and numerous articles have been accepted with very questionable results. As such, I propose that Dolovis be restricted to six months unless an admin approves of any drafts in the user's draftspace. It's a higher restriction and a greater burden but it then creates a single point of accountability after the fact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• It is unfair and punitive to ban me from using WP:REFUND when I was only following the lead of Admin Djsasso who demonstrated to me that such was the encouraged practice when he undeleted the histories of several recreated articles including Anthony Nigro (he now argues such practice is gaming the system). I have never been warned against using WP:REFUND to restore edit histories, and in fact I was under the impression that it should be done for proper attribution. Dolovis (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Restoring an edit history, and creating articles you know will be deleted only to just so you can have the history undeleted to claim the first edit are two very different things. If nothing on the page is from the old version of the page then there is no attribution necessary as I am sure you know. If you are not copying anything why would you need to attribute to authors who didn't contribute to that version of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Beyond that, Dolovis, I'll bite: why would you care? What is the benefit, to the encyclopedia, for one name over another to be cited as creator of an article? Our interest should be in complete articles, not in the original one- or two-sentence sub-stub that might have been there in the beginning, right? We're not in this for the glory, after all. Just out of curiosity, how many times have you sought to restore an article history that wouldn't wind up having your name listed as the first edit?

  That being said, "unfair?" It is not "unfair" for us to check your abuse of a process. No one gets gets a free pass to abuse a process just because someone else suggested it to us, in good faith, and expecting us to employ it in good faith. Ravenswing 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• It matters because there's a userbox on Dolovis' page to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count (and as a "tool"). Currently at 111 although the userbox claims to be 43rd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban on creation of new articles, based on my random look at five creations: 1. Stig-Göran Johansson is a Swedish hockey player in the national hall of fame [74]. Nice find. 2. Sergei Yemelin is a young fully professional Russian hockey player. That's an auto-keep at AfD, no problems. Single sourced but there are two links that could have been made into sources as easily. 3. Dallas W. Anderson is a medical devices entrepreneur. The piece has a bit of the gross paid editing smell and would be less than 50-50 at AfD, in my estimation. 4. Mikael Saha is a fully professional Finnish hockey player. Another auto-keep at AfD. 5. Lukáš Jašek is a fully professional Czech hockey player. It was created without diacritical marks, and I suppose therein lies the rub with some people.. Still, this looks like a legitimate content person who is helping Wikipedia and I see no issues either with the creations or the sourcing, at a glance. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• His mass creation of two sentence sub-stubs of European elite players is annoying, but ultimately not at the root of my complaint. Also, given he has created thousands of these two sentence sub stubs, the odds of you finding many of them at random are high. To give you a good idea of my complaints, and perhaps the scope of what you need to look for should your offer to mentor come to be, I would point you to his most recent creations:

1. Santeri Vuoti - Source does not explicitly support the statement it references. Probably would be WP:ROUTINE anyway. (Player is barely presumed notable for having played 15 Liiga games last year, however. No indication a search was done for substantive coverage in reliable third party sources though).
2. Vladimir Eminger - Source is basically the hockey team's main page. In short, source does not support the statement it references.
3. Quebec NHL team - Plagiarism, internal copyvio, crystal balling. Blatant attempt to score first edit on a proposed hockey team that does not exist.
4. Las Vegas NHL team - Plagiarism, internal copyvio, crystal balling. Blatant attempt to score first edit on a proposed hockey team that does not exist.
5. Chris Durand (ice hockey) - WP:XY-violating redirect of a non-notable player, created to get a first edit, and despite having links of this exact type deleted multiple times at RFD. This is routine.
6. Pier-Olivier Pelletier - Same as above; 100 more at RFD now, and I'll be nominating 33 more later today (Mostly, but not entirely, created by Dolovis)
7. NHL coach of the year and NHL Coach of the Year - not a great concern as they are marginally plausible search terms. He may not be aware that the search engine ignores capitalization, so didn't realize he didn't need to create both.
8. 2017 Stanley Cup playoffs - Unnecessary redirect created massively prematurely and only to score a first edit. This is routine.
9. Self-portrait without beard - WP:SYNTH as he clearly has not read or used the sources, and only copied from another article while rewording statements from that one.
10. Flower Beds in Holland - Standard redirect to an alternative title. No issues there.

• Going a little farther back, we have the one-sentence, CSD A1 eligible creation of the astronomer that he was shamed into expanding via a PROD tag. Without people there to PROD him into putting bare effort into things, he does things like this, where he simply throws an {{Update}} tag on one of his own articles because he can hardly be bothered to update his thousands of creations himself. And given he creates articles on not-yet-notable players (like Pavel Karnaukhov) and then fails to defend them at PROD because he knows he can just abuse WP:REFUND later, I would say that bans from various processes, including and especially REFUND and redirect creation, are strictly necessary. But as demonstrated above, even when he creates articles on players that strictly pass SNGs, he misrepresents sources and makes no effort to find substantive coverage. That is something I would like to see him demonstrate he is capable of without being watched before I would back down from requesting a page creation ban entirely. Resolute 16:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Not wanting to spend my whole day on this, #2 above (a clear SNG Keep) could have the fact of first season documented from one of the external links showing just as easily. #3 above (and presumably #4) could be de-crystal-balled with a retitling to 2015 Quebec City NHL bid, which would be a GNG pass. Agreed that the "2017 Stanley Cup playoffs" is massively premature, but all this all smacks of gross exaggeration of the actual problem presented by what seems to be a good-faith editor... Carrite (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Passing a SNG does not automatically mean a keep. If they fail to prove the notability when challenged (and a player that close to the bare minimum likely would be) they still can end up getting deleted. It specifically lays this out in the SNG. Not to mention the external links to stats pages are not reliable sources to proove notability. But as Resolute points out he creates thousands of articles so its not surprise you would find some two sentence ones, no one is claiming every single article is bad, just that a significant percentage to the point of being disruptive are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be entertained if you could show me a couple times when a bio of a hockey player in a fully professional league has ended in deletion at AfD. It simply does not happen. If he was doing stubs of professional croquet players, those might be close. But hockey? Uh, no. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure I will look some up. Dolovis, himself has had a number deleted. Non-North American professionals are very frequently deleted due to the varying coverage of fully professional players in different countries. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I respect that you wish to AGF, Carrite, but I've been seeing these for years. These mistakes are not new, and they are not going away because Dolovis does not care. He is not here to improve the project, he is here to get his high scores and leave the clean-up to others. And that has been his MO for the entire time he's been a Wikipedian. And for the entire time he's been a Wikipedian, the only times his behaviour has been altered is through either community imposed restrictions, or a block for sockpuppetry. Six separate RFDs were not enough to cause Dolovis to stop creating bad redirects. It was only after this report and the risk of shutting his game down entirely became apparent to him that he suddenly decided that he would honour "a new consensus" - which is actually a year and a half old, at least. Ravenswing, DJSasso and I have been dealing with the mess he makes for years, and we'll all tell you the same thing: He will abuse any process he can as far as he can abuse it. And I think Arbcom recognizes this as well, given his attempt to have one of his restrictions lifted ended with a blunt "you can be restricted, or you can be blocked" response. To respond to your comments above: #1 and #2 above could be fixed by finding non-trivial sources that properly cite his claims and then properly inserting those sources, but he won't do that. #3 and #4, could have just waited until teams were actually announced - but that risks his not getting the first edit (and the expansion bid stuff is already covered at Potential National Hockey League expansion). They are also plagiarism. And his massively premature examples are ongoing and annual. It's all about getting first edits. Always has been. Resolute 19:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Carrite, you're missing the forest in favor of picking out a handful of stumps. Quite aside from that notability is a dynamic process -- someone who hasn't achieved notability might well do so years down the road -- of course Dolovis has created some articles that pass notability muster. It would be astonishing if, with the several thousand articles and redirects he's made, he hadn't scored the occasional hit. And I know this as well as anyone; when I filed those 75 AfDs on sub-stubs he'd created a year or so back, there were several stubs I didn't file on, because I judged they passed notability muster.

  That's not the point. You've been around the block, and you know that any number of banned or indeffed editors made some productive edits along the line. Some have had many thousands of productive edits -- people like Betacommand and Mick McNee come to mind. They were sanctioned because the disruption their antics caused not only outweighed the productive edits they made, but caused good editors to quit the project out of frustration.

  Never mind the effect they have on editors who don't quit. Take a look at my contribution history from January of 2014 [75]. I made over 500 edits that month, and easily two-thirds of them involved AfDing non-notable sub-stubs Dolovis created. That time spent didn't count, of course, research I did to ensure the ones I AfDed weren't notable. That time spent constituted time I didn't spend building the encyclopedia; it was time spent cleaning up after messes. Frankly, I don't consider the occasional sound contribution Dolovis makes worth that much time. I don't consider it worth your time as a "mentor," or worth the time it's going to take you to review a subject's notability, not when it takes away from article creation you could be doing. I don't consider it worth the time it sucks from the likes of JohnCD at REFUND. I don't consider it worth the time we've had to spend tightening the NHOCKEY guidelines you cited because despite overwhelming and frequent consensus in a number of discussions, Dolovis routinely ignores consensus where there isn't an explicit black-letter rule.

  I'm unhappy enough at a six-month ban, because just like every other time, we're going to have this all to do over again seven months from now. I think he's had too many chances as it is, over too many years. Ravenswing 05:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban on article creation, unless pre-vetted for notability as Carrite has helpfully offered below. From working at WP:REFUND, I am aware of much time wasted on the following often-repeated cycle: (1) Dolovis creates an article about a hockey-player, (2) it is discussed at AfD and deleted as non-notable, (3) months or years later the player becomes notable and an article is created, (4) Dolovis comes to REFUND to ask for his deleted edits to be restored to the history beneath the new article. Steps 1,2 and 4 of this cycle are pure waste motion and do nothing for the encyclopedia. Examples here (3 instances) and here (another 4) on just one archive page. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been through the ropes at AfD and if it is judged that Dolovis needs a pre-check on notability of new creations from a mentor before being able to launch them, I hereby offer to serve that role for a six month period. I will report back at the end of that period with the results. Ping me if you wish to go this route. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Quick reference to the Special Notability Guideline for hockey might be of use for this debate:

Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they
[1] Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;
[2] Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant;
[3] Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues;
[4] Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);
[5] Were a first-round draft pick in the NHL Entry Draft;
[6] Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship); or

[7] Are an honored member of a national or multinational hockey Hall of Fame.

A large percentage of the recent work by this editor has involved the creation of stub bios of young professional players and prospects. There seems to me to be good faith, given how low the SNG bar is set (just one game played in a fully pro league is a Speedy Keep at AfD). Carrite (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how SNGs work. They do not cause a "Speedy Keep". It lays out right at the top of them that meeting these does not mean an article must be kept. Not to mention these particular ones don't mention "fully pro" as a number of fully pro leagues do not meet them as explained in the note below the list which you didn't copy over. Some fully pro leagues require 200 games, other fully pro leagues require a first-all star award win etc. -DJSasso (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's not reality. SNGs are special "low bars" to inclusion (or "high bars" in the case of politicians) to be considered in conjunction with GNG. And trust me when I say that a nomination which clearly passes a SNG criterion is almost invariably shut down at once with a Speedy Keep. One NHL game played and the debate is shut down, regardless of what it says at the top of the page. This is also true for baseball, soccer, American football, and basketball — one game in a top professional league and we're done... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I'm unsure as to the relevance of the point. We're not talking about sub-stubs that Dolovis has created for players who've played in top-level professional leagues -- although I grit my teeth that he seldom, if ever, bothers with anything more than the two sentences of fact and the bare reference or two that's the irreducible minimum required to clear WP:BLP. We're talking about articles he creates of players who do NOT qualify, over which there's been many a tussle over the years, followed by the inevitable PROD, followed by Dolovis' inevitable removal of the PROD with a bald "Is notable" (if he bothers with an edit summary at all), followed by the inevitable AfD, followed by Dolovis going straight to DRV or REFUND should the subject achieve notability down the road.

And here's the effect on our workload: in the last two years, judging solely from the edit summaries on his talk page history, he's received notification of seven CSDs, seven copyvios, nine prods, 81 RFDs, 131 AfDs ... and despite his suggestion that the fuss is due to a vendetta a couple editors have against him, these have been filed by over two dozen different editors. After five years, over 50K edits, six blocks, multiple topic bans and edit restrictions, and several hundred articles going through deletion processes, at what point do we admit that this isn't a case of him not knowing any better as opposed to a massive IDHT? Ravenswing 15:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out on my talk page that I inadvertently omitted the word "top." We are speaking of TOP fully professional leagues: NHL, not AHL, for example. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think that there is general agreement that there is a problem. I do think that a process of "pre-approval" of new starts for notability which does not tax the bogged down Articles for Creation queue should be sufficient rather than destroying the editor's usefulness to the project, which is making sure that our hockey coverage is as complete as it can be. There is a pretty clear consensus that his redirects of drafted players with no biographies needs to stop. The inclusion rules are fairly definite for specific hockey biographies and AfD outcome can be projected with great accuracy. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggested he get an admin's approval so it's not just one person and it's not just a giant slog at AFC (which lets some problematic things though anyways). I can't recall where but that's been done before. It's mostly been redirects being created anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:The Spartan 003... again.

After receiving a 24 hour ban a month ago for OR and altering sourced content, he's returned to doing the latter. Actually, he returned to doing that about two weeks ago (see [76]), and I warned him about that (see [77]).

Now, the following edits ([78], [79], [80]) are another instance of altering sourced content. Fortunately, I have that book, and I can confirm that what he added is not what the source says. Peter238 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is also this edit, where his edit summary clearly indicates OR. --JorisvS (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's more of a ref falsification than OR. That vowel is quite noticeably fronted, at least according to the vowel chart in Jassem (2003). Peter238 (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, both then, basically. From the edit summary it sounds like the listened to the audio file and concluded that he didn't really hear it. Inappropriate anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. My question is: is anyone going to do something about that? I don't think it's a complicated issue. Peter238 (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Beukford

Beukford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to include contentious WP:BLP material in Ali Khamenei. The consensus on the talk page[81] prior to their arrival was that the source was not reliable enough. Despite being informed that both the burden to demonstrate reliability of the source and the the onus to achieve consensus for including the material, they flaunted both as well as the talk page consensus and reverted multiple times to re-insert the disputed material[82][83][84]. They will continue doing so until an admin intervenes.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• There was no such "consensus", only you objected the cited content, which was in the article long time ago. And several reliable newspapers reported it, including Globalnews from Canada, The Slatest, CNN and Jerusalem Post (not to mention it was published by Khamenei himself in his twitter account). It's not a BLP violation. Just a pertinent and related comment about Israel reported by several reliable sources in an impeccable place.--Beukford (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• As predicted, the user has now reverted another editor too over the same material[85].--Anders Feder (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I went to https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir which also contains tweets that aren't in English, scrolled down, hit auto translate and am pasting results below.

Extended content

Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Aug 1Infanticide is the policy of savage and wolfish Israeli regime. 7/23/14#AliDawabshe #WasBurnedAlive Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Jul 20#Israel's security will not be ensured whether there will be an #IranDeal or not. 11/27/2014https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4lPGXmXb3c …#Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Jul 17‘Down to US,’ ‘Down to Israel’ slogans changed country’s atmosphere and it was not only in Tehran or big cities. Khamenei.ir retweeted Ayatolá Jamenei ‏@Khamenei_es Jul 9 ~#AlgoQueNecesitoYaEs :#Libertad dlos territorios palestinos ocupados por el #Israel. #DíaMundialdeAlQuds,#Palestina Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir May 16The cause of insecurity& massacre in #Yemen are some so-called Islamic countries which are actually deceived by US&Israel.#YemenUnderAttack Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir May 13Terrorist groups in #Syria under various names work to the benefit of #Israel& those who seek instability in region to impose their own will Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir May 6In the world of deception, the most racist govts become flag-bearers of human rights#US #Israel #BlackLivesMatterhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PPeQP-bY38&list=PLP9XKFcmDYv4hmgwVEXplXrfnVeZQk-St&index=1 … Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Apr 21If Israel can achieve victory in Gaza,Saudis too will achieve victory in #Yemen.Their noses will be rubbed in dirt over Yemen.4/9/15#REVIEW Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Apr 21Saudis established a bad tradition in region;they made a mistake.What Saudis did in #Yemen is exactly what Israel did to #Palestine.#REVIEW Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Apr 9Israel’s military is bigger than Saudi’s& #Gaza is a small area,but they failed;#Yemen is a vast country w a population of tens of millions. Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Apr 9What Saudis did in #Yemen is exactly what Israel did to #Palestine.Acting agnst Yemenis is a genocide that can be prosecuted in int’l courts Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 17Once people in the West realize … #RachelCorrie #KillerIsrael Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3US is now facing a #dilemma. It should either stop unlimited services to #Israel or they’ll lose more face in the world.10/1/11 Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3We can't overlook #Israel's crimes agnst Palestinians;we can't remain silent towards Israel's role in regional unrest. #IsraeliApartheidWeek Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3US officials are obliged to show consideration for #Israel & cover up its #crimes. Zionists corporations' money & power have troubled them. Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3For +50yrs, Israel’s tried to destroy Palestinian nation w US supports but Palestinians disgraced Israel w bare hands. #BeliefInGod10/14/00 Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3All what US has paid to protect #Israel faced a big obstacle:#Palestine has won the hearts of justice-seekers of world.#IsraeliApartheidWeek Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 3In the past 50 yrs, how much money and #reputation has it cost US to support #Israel’s crimes? Who other than its nation has paid for it? Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 2Increasing global hatred of #Israel is a sign of divine help. Today Israel is more isolated&its supporters are more embattled#ShutDownAIPAC Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Mar 2Zionists’ hegemony over US officials is such that these poor ppl have to show consideration for #Israel& cover up its crimes. #ShutDownAIPAC Khamenei.ir ‏@khamenei_ir Feb 23+50M US blacks are deprived of human rights b/c their national interests are spent on covering the costs of #Israel's crimes.5/6/92#MalcomX

While I sympathise with views such as Israel should withdraw from settlements and the West Bank inc. East Jerusalem and perhaps further territories that it has taken - the above content seems pretty venemous to me. I see no reason to doubt the JP content which is inclusive of a screen shot of at least one tweet. If the jpost had falsified the story then it would be big news.

I also scrolled through the twitter feed in hope of find content such as of an incitement to love but saw nothing. GregKaye 15:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Anyone can access the Twitter account and analyze it for themselves. That is not the point. What gives you reason to believe that it is even Khamenei's account? What gives you reason to believe a source like JPost, which have previously has propagated such ridiculous "stories" as the Norwegian Finance Minister having shouted "Death to the Jews" in a demonstration[86], would have bothered fact-checking such a critical point? In any case, this is not the place where the source should be discussed. The user could easily have respected WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS and talk page consensus and gone through normal processes like WP:RSN or WP:RFC if he disagree. Instead he is engaged in edit warring. If your attempts to defend such behavior is considered good practice, it isn't surprising so many editors have quit Wikipedia.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: "What gives you reason to believe that it is even Khamenei's account?" It seems i had no basis other than my own gullibility. Apologies. Have you asked similar of User:Beukford and, if so, where? GregKaye 16:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not engaged in any analysis of the account, no. I have requested any evidence that the source is reliable.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

For interested editors, I've done a bit of research regarding the extent of usage of quotes from the account in reliable sources and added it to Talk:Ali Khamenei GregKaye 18:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• And again, as predicted, the user has now reverted a third user over the same material.[87]--Anders Feder (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ankhsoprah2 engaging in WP:HOLYWAR and accusing Beukford of being a "Jewish POV pusher"

Ankhsoprah2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted Beukford while refering to him as a "Jewish POV pusher." On the talk page in response to a Shia editor he comments "Shias are always looking for excuses to eat porks, what's the big deal? lol. As long as sanction are in place, they have a great excuse... Maybe that's why Khamenei is against Iran Deal?" Can someone please permablock this fellow?Brustopher (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

For completeness, link to 3RR discussion against the same user yesterday.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked Ankhsoprah2. As to the edits, I've responded on the talk page and tried my hand at a re-write. Just repeating tweets without a real context (or point) just made Ali_Khamenei#Zionism_and_Israel a random set of insulting tweets and comments. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• With Ankhsoprah2, the question was really when this was going to happen. As for Beukford, they are clearly edit warring. They're also, of course, a brand-new account with a distinct POV, walking into a hot-button issue with guns blazing and a pretty decent knowledge of how Wikipedia works. In other words, I have no doubt that this is a returning editor, and I will block the account accordingly. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Between the two blocks, a modicum of order should have been restored. Thanks.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ankhsoprah2 has apologized and I have unblocked the user. I assume the situation has calmed down nevertheless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Question His history of reilgious insults and claims of "propaganda" are extensive; [88] calling an editor "a Jewish POV pusher," [89] "illegitimate Israel #1 terrorist" on an editors talk page, [90] addressed to a Shia editor - "Shias are always looking for a reason to eat pork," claims an editor is part of "Jewish Propaganda" [91], and these are just a few from the past few days alone. Given this, should the block be reinstated.? Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You already got the answer from the admin who blocked me and then unblocked me,[92] why post it here again? BTW, after posting the question here, you reverted this edit of mine, stating in the edit summary that my edit was POV. Actually, you readded unsourced POV that is not related to the biography.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm extremely shamed of my actions, & I promise not to act that way again. I would like to point out a few things: the Shia editor, with whom I had a lighthearted exchange, actually misunderstood me as a sectarian editor and attacked me first, which another editor redacted [93]. Although I didn't mind, and didn't even think of it as an attack. Although, it was lighthearted, we ended with agreement that sectarianism is ignorant[94]. With User:Iran nuclear weapons 2, he was claiming that Iran has most record of assasination and would assasinate him for editing Wikipedia![95]. I again apologize for my actions, and promise that I will not repeat them. Thank you and best regards to all.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Feuding between two COI editors

• Grump International (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BC1278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over at WP:COIN#Brickell_Flatiron, we have a dispute between two editors. BC1278 has an acknowledged conflict of interest regarding some Internet companies in Israel. Grump International denies a conflict of interest, but is involved mostly with articles about certain condo developments currently for sale, primarily Brickell Flatiron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and 520 West 28th (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and bio articles about their architects. (Yes, this was the "integration of volumes that flow into each other, following a coherent formal language" ad, although that language has been removed.)

BC1278 has been toning down or proposing deletion of some of the Grump International articles, while Grump International has been proposing deletion of some articles created by BC1278. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo) The latter is probably retaliatory; the articles involved are old. There's some incivility [96][97] bordering on harassment.

Grump International, while denying COI, is very insistent about the notability of the buildings in which he is interested, and their architects. Other than a few unrelated issues, that account is more or less an SPA. However, he makes a good case for notability. The buildings involved are very expensive (condos from $2 million to $20 million per unit), designed by famous architects, and have received press coverage due to extensive PR. On the other hand, they're not finished and occupied, and they don't really need to be in Wikipedia this early. Especially because the developers are trying to sell units before construction to finance the project. I'd be inclined to delete now per WP:CRYSTAL, and let them back into Wikipedia if and when they're built. Brickell Flatiron hasn't even broken ground yet. Wikipedia is being used here to sell real estate.

There may also be sockpuppets of Grump International, but it's hard to tell. Some people are just interested in buildings.

The editor behavior needs to be brought under control, which is AN/I's department. I think we can deal with the content issues at WP:COIN. Grump International needs to stop doing some things. Warn? Block? Topic ban? Up to AN/I. John Nagle (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with BC1278, and am willing to withdraw from the situation entirely. I put the article Ronen Shilo up for deletion via AFD, and have been attacked ever since, as it is one of BC1278's paid clients, and put a News Release banner atop the Conduit (company) article after someone else had already put a COI tag atop it. Beyond this initial act, I have been attacked over and over again by BC1278, and simply tried to defend myself, as I actually don't have a conflict of interest. But yes I'm only really interested in architecture. After a significant level of bullying, I made an effort to improve one of the only articles I have created that was PROD'd, after which the editor who PROD'd it did not move to AFD it, which I invited them to if they felt it was a good move. The other article that I added one edit to was PROD'd by the same editor, and then de-PROD'd by the person (who I do not know) who created it. If someone would like to edit any article I have edited, please feel free to do so. I do not WP:OWN them of course. If they should be deleted, please feel free to AFD them. Other than being constantly accused of being a bad person, by someone being paid to edit on behalf of Conduit (company), I haven't had any issue with Wikipedia. If you wish for me to stop engaging with BC1278, I will simply stop responding to him, as I have not once ever begun an engagement with them--I have simply responded to their posts about me. If this is being seen as disruptive, I am absolutely fine with engaging no further with BC1278, his articles, or his postings that repeatedly PING me on my page (I have pinged nobody in my entire interaction with them). I will not even ask for him to stop pinging or posting about me, I have no issue with just withdrawing. I will state outright that I have no confict of interest, and have never edited under any account but this one. Grump International (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also point out that the poster of this section is stating that my edits were retaliatory, but if you look at the timeline it was BC1278 that began his tirade against me after I made the posts on the Conduit and Ronen Shilo pages--I did not do this in response to anything that BC1278 did. BC1278 started going after me once I made the edits to pages that, unbeknownst to me, he is paid to maintain. I added the two edits on these dates August 18 August 20, followed by BC1278's first aggressive edits towards me five days later. Grump International (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle's summary is correct except that I've never directly edited, tagged or proposed for deletion any articles with edits by Grump International. I no longer do direct editing on articles that have anything to do with business, even those where I don't have a COI, just to avoid the possibility of any issue under WP:COI (in a couple of instances editors have reviewed my proposed changes on Talk, then said I should make the edits directly, which I'll only do if they explicitly ask me.) I used Grump International's Talk page to point out the COI and promotional tone of their edits (a cluster around condos, their developers, management personnel and architects), then moved the discussion over to WP:COIN#Brickell_Flatiron when he/she deleted the post. "Blatant promotion" was identified by User:Nagle on two articles. User: Ronz, who deleted Grump's specific content on Brickell Flatiron noted in the edit history: "coi, grossly undue at best - whole article needs rewrite with eye to SOAP and CRYSTAL." See the Brickell Flatiron: Revision history. User: B137 independently noted on Grump's talk page that their contribution was "borderline on spam", language Grump removed. See the full post by B137 in the revision history of Grump's Talk page. Please note that after Grump uploaded a photo of an architect in an article he created, that architect's firm e-mailed Wikipedia to give permission to use the photo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3GATTI_Francesco_Gatti_photograph.jpg so I don't think there's any disputing that he/she has contact with subjects he writes about. (He explicitly denies even this aspect of COI at the bottom of the COIN post.]

User:Nagle proposed a couple of articles for deletion. Grump International's content was removed from one, Brickell Flatiron, (the article was not deleted after COIN editors found other reasons for notability, but Grump's contributed content was removed) and on the other 520 West 28th, Grump International removed the proposed deletion tag after adding new content, but without removing any of the identified promotional material. It was then I suggested to User: Nagle that admins needed to get involved in reviewing this account because the undisclosed COI editing was recurring after much notice about not putting promotional material into articles and disclosing COI.

The undisclosed COI overlaps with articles where I have a disclosed paid COI because at the time I complained on COIN, Grump International was using a largely single purpose account, with just a few promotional edits, to post simultaneously a deletion request, edit and post flags on articles that have come under repeated attacks over many years, to the point where they had to be placed under protection by admins. I pointed out on the deletion request page for WP:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo, where I a disclosed paid COI, that I don't think an undisclosed COI account, that shows evidence of possibly being a sock puppet because of its sophistication in Wikimedia mark up and policy relative to small number of edits (an observation originally made by admin User: Graeme Bartlett at WP:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo), should count toward consensus in the discussion of the article. Grump International made all his/her challenges almost immediately after User: Graeme Bartlett decided to split the article Conduit (publisher network and platform) into two articles (starting Conduit (company) because of the sale of the main platform discussed in the article). User: Graeme Bartlett used a draft I suggested on my sandbox, to start it off and asked other editors to help improve it, pointing out a disclosed COI editor was involved. User: Graeme Bartlett moved over the history of my sandbox, which show my edits there, but none of it was made on the article at Conduit (company). User: Graeme Bartlett also cleaned up Conduit (publisher network and platform) a bit, but it's an article with a very long history of editors inserting biased attacks backed up by unreliable sources like online discussion boards and single user blogs. Talk:Conduit (publisher network and platform) The violations were kept out by admins for years but mostly slipped back in after the article became unprotected. I've pointed out them out in its Talk page here: Talk:Conduit (publisher network and platform)#Request for assistance correcting poorly source material There are plenty of serious criticisms of the company in the article backed up by WP:RELIABLE sources, but that doesn't mean other attacks backed by no sources, original research, online forums or other unreliable sources should also be allowed.

I bring this up because I suspected something was amiss with Grump International when he placed a "news release" flag on the split off article, Conduit (company), almost immediately after it was posted and, when I tried to engage with Grump International on the article's Talk page, asking him/her to point out any issues to me, or work through the article with me section by section, or make changes him/herself directly, they declined in a nasty way: "feel free to gut the article of non-neutral material and I'm sure the tag will be removed." I pointed out to Grump International the article had very little original content -- that it was split off of another article with dozens of contributors that had been heavily patrolled and protected by two admins for several years. But I said I'd be happy to help him improve it, or, encouraged him to do it him/herself. The reply was just that the entire article was "spam." Given the user's unwillingness to engage in discussion, the simultaneous deletion request for Shilo, and the long history of biased attacks on these articles, I looked up Grump International's account and found the suspect history I discuss on COIN. I'd strongly suggest a WP:Checkuser here if policy allows - I'm not sure what the standards are for that but as admin User: Graeme Bartlett has noted,User: Grump International "is almost a single purpose account, but one that looks to have had previous experience before using this login due to their knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo

The subject of the Conduit (publisher network and platform) article approached me a few weeks ago and I found the state of the article's poorly sourced attacks now and over many years to be really egregious. They just put up with it because they had no idea what to do, even though it injured them very badly. I am a paid consultant to them - I agreed to help them if we strictly abided by WP:COI. I go beyond WP:COI by disclosing my real name and job history at User: BC1278. I don't do anything on Wikipedia that I wouldn't want revealed with my actual identity. I stay above board to the best of my abilities. When I began this account in 2014 I was a total novice without a clue but I've studied pretty vigorously over the past 18 months, interacted with a lot of experienced editors, and am just now feeling comfortable enough to complain about a serious issue with another editor. I'm trying to be proactive here because I think Wikipedia is very poorly served by undisclosed COI, personal bias and undisclosed alternate accounts, all of which can end up badly damaging the encyclopedia.BC1278 (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

I'm not experienced enough to track how this happened, but User: Grump International's specific denials of the various types of COI and sock puppetry have been deleted or hidden from WP:COIN#Brickell_Flatiron and I think it's important to note he went on the record to the following questions I'd seen, in part, on the COIN board. I asked: "a) Do you have any connection with any of the people or companies you have edited about? (by that I am asking if you know the people, if you work for the companies, or work for an agency that works for/with the people or companies); b) Have you ever been paid, or expect to be paid, for editing Wikipedia?; c) Do you have an alternate account(s) on Wikipedia (or IP addresses used as accounts) and if so, what are they?; d) Have you contributed to Conduit (publisher network and platform) using an account other than User: Grump International?; d) If you don't have alternate accounts, given your small number of edits and almost total lack of interaction with other editors prior to your mark ups and nomination for deletion of Shilo, how/when did you acquire your Wikipedia mark up and policy skills, evident in the deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo, the mark up and Talk discussion in Conduit (company) and your own tirade against COI editing on your use Talk page User talk:Grump International?" User: Grump International answered: "... Answering your Questions? a) no, b) no, c) no, d) no, e) Wikipedia is not rocket science and I've been here over a year. Anyone with even a moderate knowledge of computer coding should find Wikipedia fairly rudimentary...[remainder of post not shown for space] (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 " (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Finally, a point on a legal threat. I've been clear in challenging the Grump account as a COI and probably a sock puppet. Grump's response on one occasion was to make a hardly veiled legal threat against me: "I just don't see enough here to meet GNG, something mixed with rather slanderous accusations above." WP:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo He avoided saying "libelous" but slander is just the verbal form of libel. This violates WP: THREAT and is especially challenging to me as I openly disclose my real identity on my user profile. BC1278 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Hi BC 1278. I had no intention of issuing a legal threat to you, my apologies if you took it that way. I also have no conflict of interest, as I explained in my answers to the quiz you demanded I answer for you at COIN :) I posted my delete vote and a news release tag on articles you are being paid to edit without knowing that you were being paid to edit them, in fact I had no idea who you were before you began interacting with me a week later, so I am secure in those decisions as they pre-date our actual interactions. Anything since, if there was an air of incivility to them, I apologize to you for that as well--no point in being stubborn on this board. Beyond that, how about we return to neutral here, and let bygones be bygones. I will stay away from articles you are being paid by Conduit to edit, as it appears we are perhaps unable to remain WP:CIVIL to each other, beyond what I have edited thus far, and we can decide not to talk to one another further. Or, if you prefer, we can try to be more amicable to one another. But if it has gotten this disruptive to Wikipedia, such that this appears on ANI, I am making the personal choice to step back from our interactions and move onto something else :) Grump International (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

BC1279 points out on my talk page that he didn't edit or propose deletion of Grump International articles. He was only arguing at length against an AfD started by Grump International at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronen_Shilo. Since bringing up the issue here seems to have induced both parties to cease their disruption, this can probably be closed out. (Longer term issue: how to prevent COI editors from using up so much volunteer editor and admin time. See my comments at WP:AN about that. Thanks.) John Nagle (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just been waiting for a decision from admins. I have nothing more to add because I think it's pretty clear the User: Grump International's near single purpose account should be blocked or topic-banned around real estate and, I would hope a WP: CheckUser initiated to discover the alternate account(s) and check for sock puppetry. (I'd be glad to assist if I knew the alternate user accounts and IP addresses as I know likely articles to check based on the user history.) I pointed out non-disclosed COI that seems obvious. Aside from all the clustered promotional editing you can read about at WP:COIN#Brickell_Flatiron, one of the architects Grump created an article for even had his company write to Wikipedia to give permission to use a photo Grump International uploaded. The editor has explicitly denied knowing anyone related to any of the articles he edited or created. I don't think my status as a paid COI editor makes these issue I've pointed out less valid. I used the designated Wikipedia discussion forums to raise my issues. I used a similar amount of space (a lot, but the evidence was abundant and complex for me, at least) to present my arguments just as I've seen on other discussions about COI issues. Look, if obvious non-disclosed COI editing on near single purpose accounts isn't brought under control, even after a bunch of warnings to stop and disclose, then you're sending a bad message to those of us who try to convince companies and individuals in real life that they should abide by the rules. And if it's just too complex and time consuming to keep up with, then it's better to at least hire a paid consultant who knows and follows the rules rather than one who doesn't. Believe me, it's very difficult to convince companies and individuals that they should abide by COI policy rather than doing covert direct edits themselves. And it's made far more difficult by the abundance of undisclosed COI editors who offer fast, cheap results precisely because they ignore policy. Finally, I don't believe I've done anything wrong or disruptive here - unless the consensus is that any WP: COIN complaints are a waste of time and space by anyone who also does paid COI editing?BC1278 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

User:DPGCMonsta

Over the past several months, DPGCMonsta has been adding erronenous edits to the Ice Cube discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page. Ice Cube's sales figured were inflated without any viable source and chart positions were modified without any supporting evidence. As shown on the RIAA reference pages, the certifications for all of Ice Cube's albums are indeed much lower than stated. This isn't accidental reproduction of fiction; it's all pure and intentional vandalism to this page.

Reference 1 Reference 2 Reference 3 Reference 4

Users such as myself and Mmrsofgreenhave reverted his/her's edits on multiple occassions, only to have our edits reverted back. It's rather annoying having to fix this page constantly just to provide the most accurate information. If you could look into this situation, that would be well appreciated. WolfSpear (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. User:DPGCMonsta was blocked back in June for a week for copyright violation. Your edits show the reversions (both before and after the block) even though the editor has done a ton of edits in the page in sets like [98][99]. These seem to be reverted in full, is that all nonsense? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding to what Ricky81682 said; I notice that no discussion had been made on the article talk page, or DPGCMonsta's talk page. It is usually best to try to initiate a conversation (AGF and such). For all we know, DPGCMonsta may not know what they are doing wrong (although, it does not seem entirely likely that he is ignorant). -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that I recommended WolfSpear come here after seeing a report at RFPP. Protection is of little use here and the situation is too complicated for AIV. If DPGCMonsta is deliberately adding factual errors they should be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Reference source #11 is providing accurate information for the RIAA statistics (Gold, Platinum awards). The edits being made are inconsistent with that source and are purposely being made to enhance sales figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfSpear (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sietecolores

Sietecolores (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I strongly dislike coming here, but there's an ongoing issue with an user that needs resolving, and some community input. Sietecolores, presumably a Chilean user, has been, for some days, nominating for deletion several articles related to Pichilemu, a provincial capital of Chile, given that these articles were written by me. I feel the user is harassing me, because we've had different points of view before on other stuff.

The nominated articles are Marta Urzúa, Radio Entreolas, José Arraño Acevedo, Antonio Saldías and Heredero de tu Amor; all of these but the one about the radio were written long ago, and have stayed here because they pass notability guidelines. There is plenty of material about these individuals, mostly offline, I have pointed out such a thing to Sietecolores, but they have omitted discussing objectively, instead distorting arguments and reasons, prefering to disrupt the project.

A block (or at least a warning) should be in order. Sietecolores should stop pushing their bias against articles about so-called third-world people and stuff. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You're required to provide them with an notice to the ANI discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa shows that it's not a clear-cut nonsensical AFDs as does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Arraño Acevedo. There are going to be difficulties in finding supporting sources online but at the very least, notify Sietecolores as required above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sietecolores notified. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• OK, that notification is great. Thanks. Now to the matter at hand: Ricky81682 already noted what I saw as well. I looked at all of them hoping to find easy bad-faith nominations, so I could close them early and we'd be done. But that's not the case. It may well be so that the nominator is picking on this particular community, but that in itself is not in violation of anything--all the nominator would have to say is the magic word, "walled garden". These AfDs by themselves are valid. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A note of background. All these non-notable Pichilemu-related articles have been around in Wikipedia since 2009-2010 when Diego Grez-Cañete joined the project and begun creating them. Prior to that coverage on Pichilemu was equally bad to the coverage of other Chilean towns. Much good content on Pichilemu has been created but also much that is not notable. The non-notable content has survived not because of notability or a "test of time" as Diego suggests but because nobody has cared about the issue. Pichilemu (pop. 13,000) and Chilean towns of that size in general are not a hot topic that might attract scrutiny. Also, users who don't read Spanish might have felt incompetent to evaluate the "notability" of the content that relies on Spanish language sources. Sietecolores (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. When someone finds one, then two articles that need AFD, it isn't uncommon to expect a nest of them and go searching. Maybe by article creator, maybe by Wikilinks or some other method. This isn't picking on someone, this is looking for low hanging fruit. Unless a nefarious motive can be demonstrated, you have to assume it was old fashioned hunting and finding within a group. The AFDs themselves each seem reasonable, the number generated won't put an undue burden on the system, the community can decide just as they do all AFDs. Some of the language below the nom is assuming bad faith, which really should be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• The nominations are reasonable, there is something of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN going on here with Pichilemu content. See Template:Pichilemu for examples. I applaud Diego Grez-Cañete for his efforts but some rationalization through mergers/redirects/deletions is needed to keep this content in line with notability standards. Vrac (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• There is a lot of articles about Pichilemu in Wikipedia, most of them are completely unessential. --Keysanger (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

New user Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, article Proportional representation

• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A new user, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, is being disruptive on the Proportional representation page, pushing an anti-PR view while ignoring sources. His (I assume he) first edits (16-17 Aug) referred to PR as an electoral system, a beginner error (see first sentence of the article), and that these had no districts (or ridings as he prefers) - all voting systems have districts (if sometimes only one). So I reverted it (on Aug 18) with just a comment assuming it to be frivolous. The changes were re-introduced on 18-19 Aug (partly anonymously) so in seven entries on the article's Talk page (on Aug 20, Aug 23, Aug 24, Aug 25, Aug 26, Aug 27, Aug 28) I tried to explain his errors, some of which are fantastical, reverting his changes four further times (Aug 20, Aug 23, Aug 24, Aug 25). This grudgingly produced some mostly minor corrections but important errors have not been reversed. On Aug 26, wearying, and in the hope of encouraging cooperation, I didn't revert, and instead required him to revert his changes and then integrate them into the article. This was not successful, the serious errors have not been reverted (for example section "Wider benefits to society" remains deleted without a word, closed and open list systems still have no districts, and that remains unsourced). An important sentence in the lead, that MMP "is usually considered a distinct PR method" has been replaced by "is considered a mixed system, which is a distinct voting system", a wrong, pointless statement which misrepresents the sources. This unnecessary and confusing use of "mixed systems" has caused confusion in the past (last autumn, see e.g. Talk Archive 3 - search for tier), and for this reason the term was replaced by me on Dec 11 by "two tier systems", sourced, and entirely uncontroversial. This has now affected the structure of the article (Sep 1), a renamed section "Mixed Electoral Systems" (capitalized) is no longer part of "PR electoral systems" - misleading and confusing - and "List of countries using proportional representation" is now unhelpfully "List of countries using proportional representation or mixed systems". On the Talk page his tone and arguments are not indicative of good faith, throwing my arguments back at me. For example, that I should respect WP:VERIFY, or, when I attempted to invoke WP:BRD, warning me against re-inserting "the same flawed text" and that I should post to the talk page before making any further changes. But I'm not making any changes, I'm only reverting him. When I pointed out that MOS deprecates small sub-sections he replied that they help readers. He changed the Talk section name to read that it is he reverting me, which of course he isn't.

I don't have the time or energy to continue composing reasoned criticisms of his changes, and no one else is keeping an active watch on the page, so I would like the user blocked from the page. Then I can revert a final time and add some words to the "Link between constituent and representative" section to emphasize that this is an FPTP (first past the post) advantage, his original concern.

(Full disclosure: I have rewritten most of this article (down to "History"), basically in two chunks on Aug 2 2014 and Dec 11 2014), and have since been trying to preserve the article from the usual decay, from which it has suffered much in its past. Only the section "Party list PR", which User:Ontario has changed, not for the better, remained from before Aug 2014, not because it was good but because I haven't found the energy/enthusiasm to research and re-write it; neither, of course, has any one else). --BalCoder (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you trim it down more - it is rife with "original research", parenthetical observation, and in a few cases actual misstatements. It does not cover "vote weight proportional to the number of voters" (found in some labour unions), seats reserved for specific groups, and a large number of other systems competing with the traditional "first past the post" system so widely found. Take out all the editorial opinion and work with what remains, and be open to understanding that there are many different flavors of "proportional representation" indeed. Collect (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Collect: Once User Ontario's "original research" and misstatements have been dealt with, if you add a few words to the talk page identifying the other instances, and providing sources demonstrating the relevance to PR of your other points, I'll be happy to make the changes. --BalCoder (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet of banned spammer

82.232.81.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the latest IP of banned editor Archiboule. Eik Corell (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Archiboule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The 4th Coming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Archiboule's account has been globally locked by a steward, but they are still evading the block with IPs. I'm semiprotecting The 4th Coming for three months and leaving a ping for User:Materialscientist. His name is mentioned at Talk:The 4th Coming as having issued some blocks in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio

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

After receiving warnings from multiple users about WP:COPYVIO, Esufalim has once again posted the same damn material as last time. WP:CIR block needed. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Indef blocked. I don't know what it is about that source. That's at least the fifth editor I've come across copying from it word for word. And the source itself is very likely a copyright violation as it copies a chunk of text from a 11,000 page, $750 book. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

92.40.249.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is likely linked as I just reverted a copy paste to Nizari. NeilN, given your familiarity with the source, you may want to check the other stuff and revert or see if there's a connection to the other editors. (Dynamic IP, not used since Aug 22, so not notifying). —SpacemanSpiff 15:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Got them. It'd be easier to check for connections if [insert standard rant about how the WMF dev department lacks competence or professionalism]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User: springee and Koch Industries

Complaint regarding Springee and the Koch Industries page:

I (VeritasVincintUSA) am a new Wikipedia editor, and attempted to make a substantive change to the Koch Industries article, which I believe to have been deliberately whitewashed. Following the complete reversion of my entire edit, springee and others have attempted to completely shut down or delay discussion on the numerous substantive problems identified with the article. Instead, springee filed a frivolous "sockpuppet" investigation against me and posted a spurious accusation on my talk page about association with a conspiracy theory site.

In the context of the Koch Industries talk page, springee has:

1) analogized my edits to arguing that the "confederate flag isn't racist"

2) initially repeatedly argued broadly against the entire substantive edit, while refusing to engage on the substantive details (even after a detailed edit summary was posted for each proposed change)

3) when he did engage with one of the proposals (see the particularly egregious current language under "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" and springee's defense), he again would only say broadly that "I do not support the new language as better than the existing entry" and reverted my attempted edit without posting any sensible justification

It appears that springee has also been active on the talk page for the related Americans For Prosperity where he also analogized criticism of the Kochs with "racism." The discussion, to date, on the Koch Industries talk page, coupled with the text of the page, itself, seems to confirm my belief that the entry has been deliberately whitewashed.

I hereby request redress both, specifically, regarding springee, and more broadly regarding the integrity of the Wikipedia entries concerning Koch Industries and its affiliates. There were allegations of paid PR firms "airbrushing" these specific entries back in 2011, and both the activity and text that I observed seems to suggest that some form of shenanigans is ongoing. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Springee Initial Reply I don't want to snap at a new user. In this case I think he is misunderstanding things and has filed this in frustration. To address some of his specific points.

• Sockpuppet investigation: Yes, I did ask for an investigation because VeritasVincitUSA (same user as blocked Kochtruth). I was correct they were the same user but I was wrong in thinking that making a new account was not allowed in that case. Please see Ricky81682's comments on the KochTruth's talk page. Note that I never mentioned the investigation. It was "brought to his attention".[[100]]
• The user misunderstood my analogy. I was attempting to explain that having a user name like KochTruth suggests a strong POV and thus other editors may be suspicious of claims to a NPOV when a user has such a name. My analogy is here [[101]] and the follow up statement mentioning the confederate flag here [[102]].
• VVUSA's initial article insertion was 8600 bite [[103]] and reverted by another editor. I have only made one revert of 215 bites [[104]]. VVUSA added a lot of information to the talk page (which I'm OK with) but it's taking myself and others a while to get through it (20,500 bite addition [[105]]). Asking the user to slow down so others can have a proper look seems very reasonable.
• The question about the KochTruths blog seemed reasonable given the previous user name. I think my phrasing could be better but I think the question was reasonable regardless. Please see VVUSA's talk page for the question and my reply.
• The implication that I'm no a company payroll is a bad faith claim.

Overall I think VVUSA may be expressing frustration that things aren't going his way. I believe Ricky81682 was worried that the user might be problematic. I think the user has a clear and strong POV on the subject and clearly wants to make BOLD changes. But I also think he has thus far played by the rules. I would ask that this ANI be closed. Springee (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that a thorough impartial review of the talk page as of the time this entry was filed will tell a different story other than "things not going my way." Specifically, there was a strong-willed reluctance to engage with the facts and sources as presented, coupled with an attempt to circumvent discussion with the frivolous "sockpuppet" investigation and attempt to discredit me by asserting that I was associated with a conspiracy theory site. While I did not mean to assert that springee, specifically, was "on the dole," I continue to believe it is advisable to call the integrity of the articles for Koch Industries and its affiliates into question. The combination of the entries' checkered past, and current presentation, cast down on their integrity.

springee has repeatedly (on the talk page) tried to cite his belief that I have a "strong POV" to discredit my edits. However, he seems incredibly reluctant to actually engage with the proposed edits and sources, themselves, while the nature of his participation on the Americans For Prosperity and Koch Industries threads demonstrates that he, himself, has a "strong POV." Engagement with the sources would show that the current article suffers from a clear "POV problem." In at least one instance (which I outlined in "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" on the talk page), the text of the existing article is so biased and misleading that it is my contention that the language in question could only have been written by somebody on the company's behalf. It should be noted that springee reverted back to the problematic language without adequate justification or explanation. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

VeritasVincitUSA, not only are things "not going your way", but, when last I checked, no other editor had agreed with any of your 10 suggested edits. As I said before, an editor who actually wants to improve Wikipedia would only introduce one or two of these suggestions at a time, and allow time for discussion before adding controversial material. As for the thinkprogress.org reference, I believe it was considered "disproved" in the actual Wikipedia investigation. I could be wrong, but at least one item from criticism of Wikipedia is without evidence of actual problems with Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: Your claim that "no other editor has agreed with any of your 10 suggested edits" could just as easily be re-framed to state that, at the time of this ANI, only 3 of the 9 proposed edits had any objections or rebuttals since they were posted days ago. One of the three, to which an objection was raised, was the disputed "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" entry. As I indicated, I expect an independent, thorough, review of the Koch Industries talk page as of this ANI will refute your assertion that things were "not going [my] way" or challenge the relative strength of the facts, sources, and arguments that I presented to defend my proposed edits.

Your assertion that I might not "actually want to improve Wikipedia" is unfair and, again, I rest on the specific facts, sources, and supporting arguments that I have cited on the talk page to support my criticism of the existing article and the need for substantive revisions. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not appropriate for content disputes. VeritasVincitUSA, you started with the name Kochtruth which made me question whether you are here with a proper purpose or not. Many admins would have blocked you outright and moved on. I'm again presuming that you come here with the intent to create a neutral article and not to create a hit piece. The subject matter, as you are well aware, is extraordinarily controversial, is subject to numerous restrictions at the highest Wikipedia levels due to the behaviors there and as such, sources need to be neutral and reliable. Your starting comments here don't indicate that you are treating the views of others with equal respect as required here. An accusation that someone is "whitewashing" an article is no minor nor laughing matter as it's a direct personal attack on the editors. The article exists as it is exists either due (a) to some massive conspiracy of editors to whitewash the article or (b) because that's the consensus view over the years this has been topic. One allegation is frankly not productive here and is likely to get you topic banned if not blocked. At the moment, you've proposed ten separate edits and have opposition to all which is normal for new content proposed on controversial pages. Accept that opposition with an modicum of respect and try suggesting re-wording to provide a consensus viewpoint that supports the views of those who disagree or otherwise, try one of these other remedies for broader support (this is not one of them). However, I warn you that most people would presume that someone who comes, make a demand for a number of specific wordings, received opposition and only responds by making further and further attacks on their opposition is not the kind of editor wanted here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682: Your assertion that I have "opposition to all" of my edits is not supported by the discussion (or lack thereof) on the 9 specific edit proposals on the talk page. I just checked again and no specific objections or rebuttals were made to most of the edits as of the time that I started writing this post. "Accept[ing]...opposition with an modicum of respect and try suggesting re-wording" is precisely what I have done on the specific requests where there was opposition. For example, the version of "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" that I attempted to insert (which was promptly reverted by springee without explanation or justification) was not the original proposed revision and reflected the earlier input that I received from other editors. I have not made "demands" for wording as you indicated above. All of this is borne out by the content on the Koch Industries talk page submitted with the ANI request.

I have also not been the one "attacking." As a new editor, I was immediately met with a "username ban." When I continued the conversation with a new username as directed to by the notice I received, I was met with a "sockpuppet investigation." After posting my detailed edit requests, I was accused of association with a conspiracy theory site. Accusations have been repeatedly made (including in this thread) that I have too "strong a POV" to be an effective editor. And, yet, there is a remarkable lack of engagement from my "opposition" with the specific substance of my edit requests despite all these "attacks" that I have been subject to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVincitUSA (talk • contribs) 09:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign) - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

VVUSA, you actually are attacking via implication. You just again implied that editors on the article are Koch affiliated. That does not help others assume you are coming with a NPOV. You now have three editors on the article who have asked you to slow down and give people time to read over your proposed edits. Please heed their requests and let the process take it's time. Springee (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Where did I "again impl[y] that editors on the article are Koch affiliated" in the paragraph immediately above? I merely responded to the accusation that I was "attacking" people by illustrating how I, in fact, was the one being "attacked." In fact, I explicitly made clear that I was NOT leveling such an accusation against any individual editor (and you in particular, springee) in a preceding paragraph. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that an admin also address Springee's tendentious editing. On multiple articles and with multiple editors, Springee reverts material or demands a consensus before well sourced information gets added to the article. This is an explicit example of tendentious editing. As per WP:TEND , "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first." A cursory search of of the article in question or Springee's contributions supply evidence for this on multiple occasions. I can provide diffs if necessary, just ping me. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you were not involved in the recent edits on the page in question. Perhaps you should review them and all of my "changes", all one of them, before accusing me of tendentious editing. If you think there is evidence that I was in the wrong please present it. Springee (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the evidence of Springee's tendentious editing by ways of removing material from articles for the reason of "no consensus":[106][107][108][109] What's even worse is that Springee is not consistent with his barrier of gaining consensus before material gets added into the article. It appears when Springee finds the material agreeable, he's more than happy to keep it in the article without requiring consensus and even reverts others who remove the material. Here [110] Springee commends the adding of material by Rjensen though there was no consensus to add the material. In the first diff above, Springee reverted removal of some of this material while citing "no consensus", though that material never had consensus in the first place. As explained above, WP:TEND specifically identifies that removing material from others with the complaint of "no consensus" as tendentious editing. Springee has applied this barrier of editing to multiple users on multiple articles.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for administrator to close this ANI Though I think VeritasVinvitUSA was not acting in bad faith, this is an improperly formed ANI. I ask that it be closed. Thanks Springee (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I reiterate my request an impartial review of the referenced Koch Industries talk thread in the context of this ANI thread. The hostility, persistent insinuations and accusations regarding my POV and motives, and absence of meaningful, specific, constructive engagement on the substance of the individual edit requests that I have proposed should be obvious to a detached observer. That said, if Springee and others are willing to cease their "attacks" on me, and similarly work constructively as part of the editing process, I do not object to the ultimate closing of this ANI without sanctions being applied. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Springee - We're past that, I think. You might wish to read WP:BOOMERANG, however, as it may become relevant. VeritasVincitUSA - OK, let's start over. However you intended your statements, some editors have taken them as attacks. The term "Whitewashing" is taken very seriously around here, and you've got to understand that people take that sort of statement very seriously and, frequently, very personally. They don't know you, they just know that a newer editor is demanding sweeping changes to a very controversial article, and that this new editor seems to be accusing people of shenanigans. I'm not saying this is the case, but look at it from their side - we get a lot of that sort of thing. So you're clearly upset, and they're clearly not agreeing to your edits - whether because of perceived bias on your part or because of flaws in the edits themselves, I don't know. So take a deep breath, acknowledge that there were misunderstandings, and start over - pick one of these edits, propose it, and discuss ways in which the core information (who did what when with whom, etc) can be added to the article. Perhaps the references can be supplemented with sources from other editors, or assertions can be corroborated. Discussion is your path forward, here. We have lots and lots of very new editors who come here to right great wrongs - many end up blocked for reasons best laid out at WP:NOTHERE. If you can work with us, we welcome your input, just as we require you to be open to the input of others. If not, then perhaps this is not the project for you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As you can see from the Koch Industries talk thread, I am not only welcoming of input from others but eager to collaborate with other editors to arrive at the fairest and most objective treatment of the facts. In fact, I incorporated feedback from other editors in each revision of language that I proposed. I am still eager for a constructive dialog and very open to new information, such as additional sources that challenge the facts or narrative in the sources that I initially supplied. Per springee's earlier suggestion to start with a single edit, I recommended that we start with the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" entry, and even he admitted that the language in the existing article "could use improvement". It would be great if we could start there and work collaboratively and constructively on that topic. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I think you do want to discuss and actually I'm pleased that you have elected to put your proposed changes on the talk page rather than on the article. All I, and others are asking is that you slow down and understand that people are going to assume you have a strong POV on the subject. As I've said before, a strong POV is NOT a problem and doesn't mean that you will make bad edits. You just have to understand that people have to be given time to digest the edits you want to make. As I said on the talk page, you should come at this with the assumption that the editors think the current article is fine and thus you must sell them on the idea that your changes will improve things. Often you have claimed a fact is significant but how do we decide that? We have to assume you have a bias towards including those facts based on your strong POV. That means we need something other than your opinion. That's not an attack, just explaining things from the other side of the table. Springee (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment All articles that are related to the Koch brothers have seen a fair amount of both whitewashing and blackwashing, but there are also a lot of editors who are working hard to maintain a NPOV. There has been some actual misbehavior on both the whitewashing and blackwashing sides but there are a lot more claims of misbehavior where no misbehavior -- just a content dispute -- exists. Normally I would predict that this was going to end up at arbcom with the result of discretionary sanctions, but the articles in question are already under discretionary sanctions as part of the american politics case. As the US elections grow more heated, I expect we will see a lot more of this. I think the best answer is to be liberal with the admin-issued warnings and with short blocks when we see misbehavior, meanwhile referring content disputes to WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I accept springee's implicit argument, above, that my own having come on too strong and been too aggressive, coupled with some measure of Status quo bias, is responsible for the current dispute.

I think it appropriate to apply a metaphor that illustrates what I believe to be the misunderstanding on both sides:

From my perspective, it was as if I was driving through an unfamiliar neighborhood (Wikipedia) and saw what I believed was a body in the middle of the street (a problematic article). My first instinct was to apply CPR (edit the article), which was completely rebuffed by the local authorities (reverted in its entirety by the existing editors). When I went to file a police report (on the talk page), I was repeatedly reprimanded about the way I was filing the report, asked why I would file a report since it isn't my neighborhood, and repeatedly told there was no body in the street by police officers who had not yet fully read or thoroughly engaged with the police report, itself.

From the perspective of the local police (existing editors) in a dangerous neighborhood (defending a controversial article), however, my behavior as a proactive and seemingly aggressive newcomer was seen as both against the neighborhood code of conduct, and an implicit "attack" on the quality of service that they had rendered to their local community. Their defensive and skeptical behavior is both understandable and possibly even justified (maybe the newcomer will increase the body count rather than merely help deal with the existing body).

Given this set of facts, it was inappropriate for me to assume that a murder coverup ("ongoing shenanigans") was being committed. If there is a body in the street (as I contend there still is), it is entirely possible that somebody died of natural causes, and/or that people in the (dangerous) neighborhood are so used to there bodies there that it had not occurred to them to question its presence.

I look forward to working constructively and collaboratively with the existing editors once they have had a chance to read and digest the proposed edits that I recommended. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparent reference abuse in Indian music/actor articles

JithDominicJose04 (talk · contribs) has been an active creator and editor of articles related to Indian actors and actresses (many of whom also have a singing career) and their associated films. However, their contributions have been markedly suboptimal. Specifically, seemingly cognizant of the need to provide references, all of these articles do just that—but the references provided rarely, if ever, make even passing mention of the topic of the article. They do not support the claims that they cite. Rather, this is pure reference abuse, making the appearance of cited sources to avoid quick-deletion processes like BLP-PROD or CSD. Several have been deleted recently, and another has only just appeared at AFD due to a defective prior listing. It is worth noting that the deletion nominator of all these articles, @Josu4u: is clearly not a native speaker of English; his complaints about "invalid URLs" may have allowed others to overlook or disregard the actual nature of the problem.

This situation is ongoing. JithDominicJose04's most recent creation was two days ago. Unni maya ( Singer ) suffers from precisely the same reference manipulation problem as the deleted articles listed above. In this case, it is possible that the topic of the article was intended to be "Devi Unnimaya", who is at least mentioned in the first linked source. However, sources that appear to actually support establishing notability (like the one for her purported involvement in Rani Padmini, do not mention "Unni" or "Maya" or anything that could remotely be interpreted as referring to this article's topic). Most of these articles don't have even that level of support in the "references".

JithDominicJose04 has never posted to an article Talk page, a User Talk page, nor have they participated in any of the extremely numerous deletion discussions for their articles (see their Talk, which is surely not comprehensive), except to strip deletion templates. Competence is required, especially in articles like these, where WP:BLP is potentially at play. It is also worth noting that there's a probably sock account, Jithdominic (talk · contribs). @Randykitty: raised the issue with both accounts in late June, but naturally, no communication was forthcoming. The Jithdominic account has been inactive since July but remains unblocked.

I hate having to be here, but this is taking up a lot of time at AFD and, frankly, I would consider every single contribution this account has made as suspect. Fraudulent sourcing and reference manipulation can be challenging to detect and are in significant conflict with the project's goals. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that there may be copyvio and promotional editing concerns too. For example the article KKonnect 24x7, (correctly) deleted as A7, was a cut-n-paste of the second para here. Cannot take a deeper dive at the moment so pinging @SpacemanSpiff and Drmies: who live for such stuff. Abecedare (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, Spiff got me involved with that, with the promise of money. I have yet to see a dime. Why don't you ping RegentsPark? or Crisco 1492? Drmies (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I looked at the four AfDs. These are indeed serious concerns. I had a quick look at Unni maya ( Singer ), where two or three of the "references" do mention (yes) the person, though spelled entirely differently. At the very least there is some serious incompetence here, and this editor should not be creating articles until they a. have better command over the language and b. use reliable sources properly. I have not looked for copyvios--I assume someone here can plug this stuff into a URL and come up with some answer. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I know there have been at least some copyvio issues. In addition to the one Abecedare mentions above, they got pinged by CorenSearchBot for Bol Baby Bol ( Surya Tv) and Dj Vispi back in June and July. And their image uploads are problematic. A whole bunch of uploaded images are up for deletion at Commons as is another slate of them uploaded by the other account. Commons missed this one so far; there's some chutzpah in claiming a watermarked image as own-work. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that every image they've ever uploaded is a copyright issue falsely tagged. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Add WP:COI concerns to the mix. See Draft:Jith Dominic Jose (created by one of the accounts, citing a website run by article subject) about producer of film Smrithi (edited by both reported accounts), with music by Unni maya ( Singer ) etc. And KKonnect 24x7 is also, er, connected (off-wiki evidence). User:Sanilps62's edits also need review. Abecedare (talk)
  • You mean the Sanilps62 who created Jith_Dominic_Jose? Hmm, yes, the plot thickens. Can we get CU to come by, and block a whole bunch of them at the same time? I think it's blocking time--promotion, copyright violations, incompetence, socking. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• • • I think Squeamish Ossifrage has typed what I wanted to a few threads above. I've been meaning to look into this a while back when I first saw these odd articles and the associated A1/A7s but it slipped my mind after a few image deletions at Commons. I hadn't seen the copyvio bit earlier. If sockpuppetry is suspected (and I did) Commons is a better place to figure it out as there are at least a couple more more throwaway accounts with image uploads over there. I suspect this problem might have started at ml.wiki and Josu4u followed the ed from over there to here. —SpacemanSpiff 02:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary and update Sanilps62 is clearly related to the Jith accounts, but given the autobiographical stub Sanil ps that he created, this may be a case of meat-puppetry rather than socking. JithDominicJose04 and Jithdominic are obvious socks and the latter has been blocked by Spaceman. And there are more accounts involved eg Kreativekkonnect (talk · contribs), so CU search would definitely help. In any case, here is the list of articles created by the users that still remain:

Articles needing review

Unni maya ( Singer ) (at AFD) Arun Shekhar (at AFD) Rajaganapathy (now a redirect) Vaishnav Girish (now a redirect) Pranav Pradeep (at AFD) Unto the Dusk (at AFD) Aakashvani (film) (at AFD) Saniya Iyappan (at AFD) Anju Kurian (at AFD) Ajith Mathew (at AFD) Anu Krishna (at AFD) Draft:Anu Krishna Hari Baskaran Rathnam (now a redirect) Hari Bhaskaran Rathinam (at AFD) Draft:Theertha Vinod Daniel Annie Pope (at AFD) M Chandramohan (at AFD) Sidharth Prabhu (at AFD) Sunu Lakshmi Draft:Sunu Lakshmi Hemachandran (actor) (at AFD) Draft:Jith Dominic Jose Theertha Vinod (at AFD) Palakkattu Madhavan (at AFD) File:Jayan Cherthala Actor.jpg Smrithi (at AFD) Meen (2015 film) (at AFD)

Unless someone is willing to just IAR-delete the bunch, help needed to review the articles individually and decide if prod, AFD, speedy-deletion, redirection, merge, or clean-up are appropriate. Any objections to indeffing User:JithDominicJose04 and User:Kreativekkonnect for socking and mass COI/disruptive editing?

PS Can't review this area w/o running into promotional/paid /COI editing at every turn. Example, see Ivanshanti (talk · contribs) promoting Reelmonk; or article history of Viviya Santh. Abecedare (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JithDominicJose04. I've blocked a couple of accounts as obvious socks. There's obviously way too much COI and paid editing here, I don't see the value of replicating this discussion at COIN which is already overloaded. —SpacemanSpiff 16:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you all for realizing the truth. I reviewed the articles mentioned above and all the articles except Arun Shekhar used references as abuse (also: almost all references used are from gossip websites/paid article creating websites) and i feel there's no importance of all that articles in Wikipedia, if these Articles are not deleted from Wikipedia all visitors will surely feel that anyone can create Articles about themselves, and there's no-one in Wikipedia to remove these kinds of abuse. Hope Wikipedia admins will remove the articles except Arun Shekhar and keep the trust in Wikipedia to a higher level.Josu4u (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • On a spot-check I believe you are right about the sources. I have nominated Smrithi for deletion and will start looking over the others. Help would be welcome! Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Update OK, I have reviewed all the above listed articles and all mainspace creations are at AFD (or redirected), except for Sunu Lakshmi who may be notable enough (although article needs clean-up). Interested editors are invited to participate at the AFDs. Note that more potential members of this PR group have been identified at the SPI; their sock/meat-puppetry remains to be confirmed and their edits need to be reviewed. Finally, does anyone know what CSD criteria can be used to delete the duplicate/autobiographical draft articles in AFC space? Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Abecedare, you may want to check the link with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanju Vishnudas. —SpacemanSpiff 19:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hello everyone, I know its not the right place to report this. Now i found another user who creates articles similar to this discussion, This is the user page Patelhime (talk · contribs).

Articles I found to be used reference abuse by the user are :

1. Sulakshana Khatri
2. Chaar Choughi
3. Mere Angne Mein
4. Faraaz Khan
5. Satrangi Sasural
6. Loveleen Kaur Sasan

Some of the articles use references as YouTube, some others use some gossip websites. Hope someone check check these and will report these articles to the concerned Wikipedia team.

WP:BURO bullshit

A procedural question, really. Somebody about whom there's a thread closes it. (And does so neatly and cleanly, though without signing.) Someone else reverts this. A third editor reverts the second editor (re-closing the thread), with the comment "It doesn't fucking matter who does it." Question: Does it fucking matter who closes threads? -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Was the thread going to result in an admin using the tools? Had it played out to its conclusion? Who needs to be blocked as a direct result of the discussion therein? The thread was ended. We don't demand that rules are followed just to follow rules, where there is no future action required. Let me make it blunt. Should the named editor in that thread be blocked? If not, there's no point in keeping the thread open anymore. Nor is there any reason to have this thread, unless you want someone else blocked. Name some names and give some reasons if that is the case. --Jayron32 02:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't matter. It is unwise but very understandable to close a thread on oneself, becasue people will assume that the close is suspect, and either revert it, or waste time checking that it isn't.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

I agree with Rich – "self-closing" ANI threads is probably not advisable, but is acceptable in certain cases (e.g. the equivalent of a WP:SNOW close when the odds of no Admin action are near 100%, or when the OP "withdraws" the ANI complaint). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Jayron32, my intention was to spend some time checking that all the problems had been undone, and whether there were other issues, and if everything was fine, then to close it later this evening. If you wanted to close it, that's fine. But it isn't fine to close it by scolding me and cursing at me. People ought not to close threads about themselves, especially not over an objection. That's particularly true of an editor who has been asked to respect consensus and procedure. Your close didn't send a helpful message in that regard. I was shocked to see your response, so I'd prefer to say no more about it. Sarah ^(talk) 03:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• @SlimVirgin: I apologize. It was rude of me to be so gruff, and also to cut you short in what you were trying to do. I should have probably investigated more fully. I have no excuse, and you are of course, entirely correct in being upset at my rash actions. I apologize for them, and will try better next time to hold my tongue and also to be more cautious in stepping on toes. --Jayron32 16:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Jayron32, thank you for that, and of course it's completely accepted. Sarah ^(talk) 18:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Back to my original, general question: I think that only Rich Farmbrough has given it a direct answer. This answer surprises me: If it's so clear that a thread can be closed, then surely somebody else can close it. Can we have this compromise: If somebody closes a thread about themself, they should at least avoid any ambiguity about who closed it. (This is as simply done as typing "~~~~".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC) ..... PS I missed IJBall's comment. Sorry: I blame caffeine deficiency. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• FTR, if I had been asked in this case, I would have advised against Tortle closing that one down themselves. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

When a user tries to close a thread about themselves, they can be seen to avoid sanctions and it is right to revert those sorts of closes and just get on with the business that ANI handles. In this case, there was an acknowledgement of the problem, a commitment to do better and everyone can move on amiably. Isn't it moments like this that WP:IAR was written for? Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jakesyl

Jakesyl (talk · contribs)

• Editor for 5 years, with a few score edits, have reviewed his edits briefly, can't spot a good one.
• Regularly wipes warnings from his talk page.
• Vandalism such as this in 2012
• Today he fake-AfD'd a bivalve article, and templated a dozen editor's talk pages.

Suggest user is not here to contribute, and should be indef blocked.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

• You want somebody indefinitely blocked from editing because...they remove things from their talk page, which they are allowed to do, and because of an edit from three years ago, which I personally believe you falsely labeled as vandalism? As for the AfD, it seems to be the first AfD Jake has tried to open, and they may not have understood how to properly complete the process, as opposed to deliberately wanting to disrupt. Yes, they've been here over six years, but in that time they've only made 172 contributions to the site. Perhaps we should show them how things work around here, instead of trying to get them indefinitely banned from editing. Azealia911 _talk 02:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I've tried to learn, and have tried to be adopted in the past to no avail. Also would someone please tell me what was wrong with the AFD? The article is a stub on a non notable topic? Jakesyl (talk)jakesyl

Maybe I was too harsh. Lets try a fresh welcome instead. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

Except that this has happened before more than once Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

… and this is a little odd. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

Rich, Unfortanutely, I log on from a public computer, and will occasionally forget to log out/stay logged in for some reason. Additionally, wikipedia doesn't offer MFA Jakesyl (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)jakesyl

A bit early for WP:NOTHERE I think, but their talk page hardly inspires confidence. [111] [112] [113] [114]. I'm not sure if trolling or WP:COMPETENCE, but probably a bit of both. Suggest an admonition, and a warning that further behaviour of this ilk will lead blocks. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I went over this, I work a lot from public computers and will occasionally forget to log out. Someone sees a Wikipedia account with a few hundred edits and I guess they figure you're less likely to revert. I also want to mention that I think as dedicated editors you lose sight of why I have a Wikipedia account. It's not to maintain the site or be an active contributor, its so when I'm browsing the web and I see something wrong on Wikipedia I can change it and make the Wikipedia project better. What I did with the AFD would never be considered vandalism in open source software, but the mark of an inexperienced user and would be corrected. If you delete someones account every time they attempt (but fail) to make a change you'll end up with no users left. If you're really committed to building Wikipedia as a community and a reliable source of information, consider telling me what I did wrong rather than outright banning me with no explanation of why my edit was wrong. I did everything on the afd page. Additionally, I may have been "an editor" for 5 years, but I've probably spent less than an hour and a half editing. After doing some reasearch and trying to figure out what I did wrong, I looked at some of your edits to try to see how a proper deletion would go. While I was there, I came across many edits that conflict with WP:DNB. I'd hate to boomerang, but suggesting to delete a new users account after a ill-formatted AFD is wrong. We all make mistakes. Jakesyl (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)jakesyl

The problem with the AfD was that you didn't create the actual AfD page itself. With such a number of notifications, including Jimbo Wales it looked disruptive.

It's also worth knowing that some discussions have been had so many times that the outcome is a foregone conclusion, for AfD there are some examples at WP:OUTCOMES - in particular WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

Mock RfA

A newly registered user with just 12 edits put me up on RfA. It's hard to judge whether it's just a good faith newby, or just one of the countless trolls I deal with on my talk page. In any case, I'd like the RfA page deleted. As far as action on the account is concerned, I'll leave it up to the admins though it does seem like a fake account IMO. Mar4d (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done deleted the page. I also suppressed some early userpage edit. Leaving the rest to another admin's judgement. Keegan (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action Keegan. Mar4d (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Not actually newly registered, Mar4d; they registered on 23 August ands made a couple of edits then, that Keegan has oversighted. The user's contribs list shows the classic "back-and-forth-to-get-autoconfirmed" pattern. All edits are from today, excepting only the two from 23 August. I presume the oversight of the earlier edits prevented the autoconfirmation? But the contribs pattern itself is a bad sign: it's characteristic of a sleeper intended to be used for vandalism at semi'd pages. Or alternatively, in this case, to be used for creating Mar4d's RFA (I'm not sure if you need to be autoconfirmed to create an RFA, but it does involve creating a page). Altogether, it doesn't look good, and I'm pretty sure this is a troll amusing themselves. Please note, AGF-warriors, and feel free to execrate me below.

Keegan, I presume you had a reason for oversighting those early edits. Abuse or merely self-outing? Anyway, it might be interesting to watch for when they actually become autoconfirmed, on 7 Sept 06:54 UTC. Not a very good time in my timezone, so perhaps another admin or two would like to keep an eye out as well. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

Can these pointless TP nil-edits be redacted too? That way the user will go back to zero count, and will at least have to make sensible edits to become auto-c. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I don't think deleting edits effects autoconfirm. Even if it did that is not what revdel is for. Chillum 15:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion or suppression of a user's edits has absolutely no effect on their autoconfirmed status. Graham87 08:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

My logic, a) If they know how to bypass autoconfirm and how to file an RfA then this is not their first account, b) From WP:SOCK: "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.", like creating an RfA. This seems like an inappropriate use of an alternate account to me. Chillum 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion request / Can anybody speak Hebrew?

LizT800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded several images from http://www.rabbikohane.org with the claim that Kohane has released them into the public domain. I doubt this for several reasons:

• The files are of varying age. This makes me suspicious that the webmaster does not own the rights.
• At the bottom of the gallery pages which are given as sources, there is a notice which, according to Google Translate, says "(c) All Rights Reserved".
• Several files are photos of people's writings and so derivative works.

I nominated one for speedy deletion but then thought it would be better to post here to get a unified response an in case any Hebrew-speakers could bring to light anything relevant on the site.

To be clear, I think these should be presumed copyvios and deleted. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Meir Kahane (listed as the author) was assassinated in 1990, so unless she's got a good medium, it would be interesting to know how he managed to give permission to release them into the public domain. However, as he is in most of the photos, I don't think he is the actual author. You are correct about the translation of the copyright though. Number 57 12:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Number 57. Pinging Diannaa because she has just tagged them for F11. Does this information make you think they should be F9? BethNaught (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) These images all qualify for deletion under criterion WP:F11 (no evidence of permission). There's a source and a license, but no proof that the images are released under the license provided. F9 is not the correct criterion in this instance. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Even where Kahane is patently not the author? BethNaught (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It is obviously against copyright, just delete it. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 14:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@BethNaught: That's the way I have been interpreting the criteria. Off to work now, ttyl. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Request block of 141.239.155.158

The contributions speak for themselves, really.

• 141.239.155.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Idiopathic environmental intolerances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit warring to include copy-pasted conspiracy theorizing and egregious BLP violations, with a generous portion of vicious personal attacks in his edit summaries. Would place the block myself, but I reverted him yesterday and it will save some nuisance unblock requests if someone else does it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for egregious personal attack. --Randykitty (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Semi-protection of the article might be required, too, but we'll see. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Deflategate

Hello, can someone take a look at Deflategate? It appears that there are people vandalizing the page. It just got reverted again but he's been fairly persistant. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&oldid=679306770

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&type=revision&diff=679305314&oldid=679304787

Some kind of troll I think. the profile is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.218.237.3

Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, looking at his history it's almost [115] entirely composed of vandalism to football articles. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for approximately the same duration as it has been used to vandalise articles.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hounding by User:‎Pluto2012

‎Pluto2012 has been hounding me for some time now. I have asked him to stop stalking me but he continued to follow me and revert good edits. I list only reverts on pages he had never edited before.

1. Susya, Har Hebron‎ - Removing material under bogus claim while deletion dicussion was taking place in which he voted 'delete'.
2. 2006 Jerusalem gay pride parade - This article was merged with Jerusalem gay pride parade after swift discussion. Pluto reverted claiming "no such discussion on the talk page" only to reply to it later (and not revert). I have followed protocol for a merge, to which Pluto didn't bother comment, and then finally made the merge.
3. Yaakov Havakook - His edits were decent but one in which he claim 'Category:Israeli anthropologists' is only for scholars though Havakook is mentioned by many sources as an anthropologist. I am not sure about this but the hounding is clear.
4. Anarchists Against the Wall - Deleted text b/c I mistaken page 83 to 82. Good edit. Still hounding.
5. Ta'ayush - Like the above.
6. At-Tuwani - Deleted two RS. The first is an Israeli encyclopedia used 41 times on wikipedia. The second was essentially copied from Susya and the source was discussed here.

I asked him to self-revert but upon playing games and repeated refusal I am asking for this discussion for his practice of hounding me as well as unjustified reverts. Settleman (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Just one comment: that "Ariel Encyclopedia" is used 41 places on Wikipedia, is absolutely no argument in favour of it being WP:RS: I have several times removed fake sources (like palestinefacts.org), used here many more times. However, I´m not familiar with "Ariel Encyclopedia": does it have anything to do with the Israeli Ariel-settlement on the West Bank? Huldra (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: No, it's nothing to do with the settlement. The encyclopedia was written by Zev Vilnay, a renowned geographer and Israel Prize winner. The first volume was published in 1969, almost a decade before the settlement was founded. There is an article on the he.wiki about it if you would like to read further. It is almost certainly a RS given its author's credentials and the fact that it was published by Am Oved. Number 57 22:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this but this is not wp:rs. According to its article, Am Oved was created by Histadrut "with a goal of publishing books that would "meet the spiritual needs of the working public" and according to his article, Zev Vilany was not a "reknown geographer" but a "a military topographer in the Haganah, and later in the Israel Defense Forces". I don't know that man but having in mind his personal encyclopedia (in 10 vol. indeed) was published after '67, has the name of the main Israeli settlement of West Bank at the time, and published books titled "Legends of Judea and Samaria", "Sinai, Avar Vehoveh", "Golan Vehermon" he may have some ideas in mind...Pluto2012 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ariel was established in 1978; the first volume was published in 1969, so Ariel was clearly not "the main Israeli settlement of West Bank at the time". In addition, your pooh-poohing of Am Oved suggests a distinct ignorance about the subject (for instance, it published Correcting a Mistake: Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel, 1936-1956 and several Amos Oz books). Number 57 22:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right. There is no link with the settlement.
Regarding Am Oved reliability at the time (a Publishing house evolves as society. The left at the Birth of Israel was not the left at the time of Morris and Oz and is not the left today), as well as Zev Vilany reliability, that requires more study and I don't know that man. His background doesn't talk for him, not at all. But he can be found in numerous bibliographies. I would have expected to find references of his "books" in academic publications but could not. He is also notorious, without doubt Pluto2012 (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Irrespective of the content or of their political leanings, Am Oved is one of the leading Israeli publishing companies, and Vilnay a leading geographer. This is certainly a reliable source; though it does not appear to have been cited or paraphrased accurately in the edits under question. RolandR (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't "hound" Settleman. I am one of the many contributors who see what he does. For some points I have supported his mind (eg here) but for many I am opposed.

Settleman is frustrated because the reliability of the sources that he uses is questionned as here or here for Arutz 7, because he has no answer to provide and because nobody supports his points.

He created the article about "Mr" Havakook on 10 August after he found a source with him and because he wanted to use it, thinking that would create notoriety for him. But he doesn't know anything on the topic or that man and has never had a book of this man in hand or studied what he could have said. He just "needs" him.

Same for Ariel Encyclopedia. He has just discovered this and doesn't want to know what it is but just wants to use an information from there because it does interest him to push a point on an article. And that's it.

He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to explain to the world that the Israeli settlers claims on Susiya are legitimate. No more, no less.

The issue for me to manage him is that he really looks really good faith but just doesn't understand. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What's said above is a good example of inappropriate stalking: regardless of the "good" or "bad" in your edits, if you're editing to stalk another user, you don't belong here. Blocked for 48 hours with a reminder that recidivism will result in longer blocks. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The material from Ariel on Tuwani article supports the Palestinian side b/c it is an evidence of the village existence prior to 1967. I checked Ariel at a request from Huldra and found the info so I added it.

The Susya article was solely PNPOV (Palestinian Nerrative POV) before I started editing it. The view Regavim writes about is similar to the official Israeli position. Even if it wasn't, Wikipedia aims to be neutral so I don't see why it shouldn't be on the article. Settleman (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Cause-of-death vandal -- rangeblock him?

The Cause-of-death vandal just got blocked for a week, but this guy doesn't respect any of our blocks. Can we rangeblock him to make it more difficult for him to disrupt the project? The IPs 86.174.160.xx to 86.174.162.xx are often involved, along with other very different IPs in the same geographic area. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you give me a range to block, I'll do it, but I don't trust myself to select the right range in the first place. Best format is to give me a link to Special:Block/replacethesewordswiththerangetoblock. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Too much collateral damage. unfortunately. I asked for an edit filter about two months ago but it hasn't been actioned. I'll add some more information now. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Pgbrux

Pgbrux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Atacama skeleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Steven M. Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pgbrux is a single purpose account, used for no other purpose than the promotion of a fringe POV regarding extraterrestrials in regard to our article on the Atacama skeleton, and to the related Steven M. Greer biography. As our article makes clear, the skeleton has unequivocally been demonstrated to be human, by DNA evidence. Pgbrux has however repeatedly edited the articles to refer to the skeleton as 'humanoid', and to otherwise promote the discredited 'extraterrestrial' hypothesis. Despite repeated requests to engage in discussion, and despite repeated warnings over edit-warring (see User talk:Pgbrux) the contributor has refused to do anything but restore the fringe material - frequently using entirely bogus edit summaries. (see e.g. [116][117]) Given that Pgbrux seems to have made no useful contributions to Wikipedia, and instead seems to think that relentless promotion of fringe material is an appropriate way to behave, I would have to suggest that an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE would be the best course of action. It has been suggested that Pgbrux may possibly be a sock of User:Schladd and/or (blocked) User:Stickleback987, given the similarities in edit history, but frankly I don't think a SPI is necessary - sock or not, we can do without this sort of 'contributor'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Diffs on Pbrux' talk made in preparation for an ANEW report. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: even after being notified of this ANI report [118], Pgbrux has continued to add the disputed material. [119] Evidently nothing but a block is going to have any effect whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Talk:History of Japan

Despite warnings to stop [120][121][122], User:Signedzzz continues to add and re-add an unsigned and unhelpful message to an already bitter talk page discussion at Talk:History of Japan.[123][124][125]

Before this I'd already already declared I'm giving up copyediting the article as there are too many serious problems and—more frustratingly—too many editors who are unwilling to work in good faith on improving the problems—rather, they'd rather attack me when I even bring them up. Discussion and cooperation are impossible, and this hostility will clearly continue without me. Signedzzz isn't the only problem, but the editwarring to keep a message designed to bait and avoid working toward article improvement is a concrete issue that needs to be dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied to "warning" on my talk page. This is ludicrous. zzz (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Am I mistaken, or is the subject of an ANI report allowed to delete his name from the report heading? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure editwarring on ANI is not permitted. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Request move to temporarily block user Ritsaiph for personal attacks

Hello Wiki admins, am I coming to the right place? I hereby wish to make a request to you all to take action against User:Ritsaiph for making threats, personal attacks, insults, harassment, and using derogatory language against other users while discussing on a thread.

The case issue can be read at here. This user, who has never made any single contribution to this template, came onto the thread went on whacking another user rudely, who has been contributing to this template for many months, out of sudden just because consensus has reached a deadlock. I hope the Wiki admins consider looking into this manner properly and take further appropriate action against him. We only want to continue our civil discussions but he had to keep attacking and issue threats somehow. Thank you. Myronbeg (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As it clearly states at the top of every edit block for this page, “When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user page.” I have done this for you. Now please provide specific offs of what you need help with. --Adam in MO Talk 16:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Obsessive cursing on Wikipedia?

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

---

I've run across a user who adds "fuck you" or "bitch" to messages and especially to edit summaries (four examples in three days), and claims not to be able to help herself. This is her explanation: I have obsessive-compulsive disorder… Perhaps my strangest symptom is typing out curse words… hovering over the Save or Post button... and pressing on the left-click button… without releasing it (for obvious reasons). Sometimes, I do accidentally release. This explanation came only after I wrote to her about the pattern, with diffs. She resented my diffs ("playing gotcha", "compiling mounting "evidence"", "waiting to pounce") and altogether thinks I'm inconsiderate. She says she has stopped using e-mails because of the problem, but would still like to contribute to Wikipedia. I have to say I'm dubious about this, in more ways than one. Thoughts? Unless she herself want to contribute to this thread, it may be as well to not mention her name here, but people will easily find her talkpage from my contributions. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

You've got to be kidding. Doc talk 08:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not therapy. I think there is probably an essay somewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's WP:NOTTHERAPY. You're not even trying. :P -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is it disrupting anything? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  This is a strange report. It took me less than a minute to determine who was being... sorta(?) reported. And it's a semi-secret? Doc talk 08:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It does not sound particularly offensive in the adult community either way. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree. Having taken a crawl through the editors edits the offending items almost always show up when they get into a conflict situation. This may not be overtly aggressive, it might just be a content dispute, but the editor doesnt make a content edit and add on a swear word. Its always when in dialogue with another editor - either in the edit itself or the summary. This gives the impression (ignoring their intent) they are being directly offensive to another member of the community. Now I do know personally someone who has a disorder which means when stressed they cannot moderate their internal monologue - so they pretty much always say to people what they actually think about them, I have never heard about someone who cant stop writing/typing it. However I am not a mental health professional but then no editors are expected to be, and we end up back at WP:NOTTHERAPY. I would say I find it a bit odd that the expletives are not in the same place. Sometimes they are at the end (Bitch) sometimes at the beginning (Fuck you <editors name). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Per all of the above, Wikipedia is about results, not reasons. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, and just as we don't carve out special exceptions to our NPOV and OR policies for people who claim special credentials, we ONLY care about article content and reliable sources, we should ALSO not carve out special exceptions to NPA and CIVIL because people claim special credentials. It doesn't really matter WHY someone is disruptive. If aliens had kidnapped their brain and forced them to be rude, it doesn't really matter. They are still creating a hostile environment, and as a collabortative project, that environment objectively and directly leads to quality editors leaving, which then leads to quality editing declining. --Jayron32 10:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you, Only in death does duty end and Jayron32, you have restored some of my faith in humanity, which was teetering on the brink. 'Is it disrupting anything?' 'Is it a semi-secret?' 'It does not sound particularly offensive'. I'm hereby page-banning myself from ANI for three months, in the hope of regaining some of my patience with the uselessness of so much of the commentary here. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

Take in mind Curly Turkey's question was pertinant however. Your description didnt really identify if it was swearing directed *at* someone, or random expletives (eg Tourettes). The former is disruptive, the latter not so much. I take a strict line in regards to civility but knowing someone with Tourettes means you do tend to learn what is/isnt a directed insult. My own take on the above is given the circumstances and fairly consistant nature I am not inclined to be leniant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Even if they have tourettes, it doesn't really matter. Results, not reasons. If the actions disrupt, it's a problem for the encyclopedia, and something needs to be done. Full stop. 2) Tourettes is not a swearing disease. It's a tic disease. I know of no tic so complex that it compels a person to go through the complicated set of actions necessary to type and hit "save page". So, even if it WAS tourettes or something like it, it wouldn't matter. And it's not tourettes or anything like it. --Jayron32 12:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I know that :P (Although there are some OCD actions that can get quite complex but they would not really be considered tics) I was pointing out tourettes as the closest example that makes a reasonable excuse. Since what is currently happening does not seem to resemble the closest reasonable excuse, the only option left is unreasonable. Otherwise I concur completely with yourself. If was an OCD issue I would expect it to be all the time in the same places. If it was something akin to tourettes, I would expect it to be a *lot* more random. I am left with 'intentionally being offensive' Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to introduce myself fully here, and I don't think I've been completely fairly represented by Bishonen. Her implication that comes with the statement that I gave the explanation only after the diffs is possibly incriminating, while the true reason, as you can see, is because I was afraid it would be too difficult to explain in short (after explaining to the best of my ability, I realize that this fear was somewhat misguided). Also, my "resentment" didn't come from her presenting of diffs (my explanation, by the way, could only come after her diffs, because that was her very first message.), and her "phrase quoting" of me only represented part of the responses I wrote, made toward my perception of her tone, and again, not of her diffs. Finally, I would like to add that edit summaries, with a couple of possible exceptions which I don't believe I have off of the top of my head (at least, that I haven't reverted immediately), are the only places where I have included such obscenities, and that the timeframe Bishonen chose was the most (for lack of a better term, prolific) period of time for my adding bad words to summaries. As part of a last attempt to convince even an administrator with the reputation of being one of the most patient or tolerant ones in the community, I'll post the full exchange here—if only because some administrators might read it again, and reconsider:

This is an interesting pattern of edit summaries:[126][127][128][129] Do you have "fuck you" on a hot key or something? Or "bitch", for that matter.[130] "An accident"? "Not malicious"? That's wearing a bit thin. Just stop it before you're blocked. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

I never expected others to understand, and I think, in at least the first and this second case, my expectations were right. I've also edited back every obscenity on the article page immediately after I clicked the Save page button, as your investigation has hopefully shown. The third source you cite explicitly states that "I apologize again, the short explanation* was that it was an accident" before I put in another "fuck you" at the end. I knew I couldn't explain it all in time in the edit summary (which, at least on mobile appears to have a character limit, and hoped that those who frequently edited the page would understand. Nobody got back to me with the exception of another administrator who asked me to stop vandalizing, even after I had quickly edited it back. I've deleted the warning now, but, as you know, it's in the page history, where you can find my response.

Instead of an an administrator snarkily asking whether or not I have the phrase on a hot key, compiling mounting "evidence" (there's more that you've missed, if you're intent on collecting it all) and a "gotcha" (Did you read my exchange with Pepperbeast on his talk page? I felt like I was being fairly courteous [After visiting again, I think I'm zero for three, as he took a single line in my edit summary as my address to him, not what I actually typed on his Talk page. I initially believed that because his second reply didn't mention my language, and that he understood]) demeanor regarding my claims that I didn't mean what I typed, I was hoping (with futility, I now realize) that reception would be more accommodating or understanding.

I have no intent to harass other users, am aware of the guidelines within the links Pepperbeast sent me, and have the same goal as most editors on Wikipedia. I can't assure you that I'll stop, and *this peculiar aspect of my editing will take an explanation possibly longer than this response. But for now, I'll be directing any potential individual on the receiving end (or one who notices) of my words and their meaningless intent to this section of my talk page. I hope you'll understand, but will likely not be too hurt if you don't. I'm not a victim here, nor am I the offender. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you won't be too hurt if I don't understand, because I don't. If you think edit summaries matter less than what you "actually type" (?) on pages, you're completely mistaken. It's more important, not less, to be reasonably courteous in edit summaries, as you can't go back and change them, and people look at page histories. Dawnseeker2000 is not an admin, but I am, and I will block you if you offer more bad language and attacks in edit summaries or on pages. If you think you're "not the offender", you'll have to explain how the persistent additions of "fuck you" are "accidents"; if not on a hot key, where do they come from, without your volition? If you're saying you can't help yourself, Wikipedia may not be a good fit for you. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

(I really want to get this response out as soon as I can, so expect some typos.) You're not being considerate, and I honestly think you're wielding your authority as a weapon. I was already worried given your lead into your issues with my edits, as if you were waiting to pounce. You know that I don't have "fuck you" on a hotkey, and you've assumed quite a few points that are wrong—never once in my response did I state that edit summaries are less important than the actual edits on the article pages and that I am "attack[ing]" other individuals (Doesn't my willingness to engage courteously in discussion mean anything?) I'm aware of edit summaries, and you can go back and scroll through my contributions, which I am confident include edit summaries are reasonably courteous sans the admittedly oddly placed obscenities (Is there not, then, a clear pattern here?). It isn't logical for me to secretly send hateful messages to others because most of them have more experience than I do and are aware of page histories too, like you said. That's because I'm not trying to secretly send hateful messages.

If I can't convince you that I'm not the offender (and that nobody is, in this case) with this attempt, then I'm truly at a loss (Maybe I can see if another admin will understand, if you don't?):

I have obsessive-compulsive disorder, an anxiety disorder which you likely know of, being an avid user of Wikipedia. Perhaps my strangest symptom (and undoubtedly the most difficult to intuitively characterize as OCD) is typing out curse words in emails or various places on the Internet, hovering over the Save or Post button (or an equivalent), and pressing on the left-click button (or directly on the screen, if I'm using a mobile device) without releasing it (for obvious reasons). Sometimes, I do accidentally release, and by now if you've inferred that these aren't isolated incidents, then you'd be right. Most of the people on the receiving end have accepted my simple, incomplete apology, at least, when I met them in person, and some haven't. Regardless, I don't use email anymore, at least as of now, mostly due to this symptom. (I am somewhat hurt [this is, of course, easy comment to ridicule, but I hope you refrain], however, by your dismissive comment about Wikipedia not being for me.)

I still would like to contribute to Wikipedia, and I think I have been reasonable and cautious in my editing, especially recently when I began to read into more of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I don't want to lose my right to edit, and certainly hope these incidents don't put me under. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Lu, I'm sorry that you have an illness and have difficulty exercising self-control. I'm very sympathetic, but unfortunately it's just not our problem. Edit summaries are more or less permanent, and it reflects poorly on the project when they contain more than the rare expletive insult. I think you have to either figure out how to control yourself, or stop contributing here. - MrX 14:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You said that "[e]dit summaries are more or less permanent." Is it possible to remove them? I really don't want to lose this privilege. Please, help me on this. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what diseases you say you have. Wikipedia's purpose is to build an encyclopedia, and if your actions on Wikipedia interfere with that purpose, you can be asked to leave. We don't really care why you're making it hard for us to do our work, but so long as your actions get in the way of others efficiently working, you're going to be stopped. --Jayron32 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• You've been here for quite some time, yet this compulsion only seems to have started on 19 August, unless I'm missing something. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• You're right—these were pretty recent occurrences. But my compulsions do change, and frequently. A similar compulsion began earlier in what I'll call the "email fiascos" mentioned above, which began to occur at the beginning of 2015 (when I sent the first obscene email). This itself branched off from a somewhat embarrassing compulsion that involved clicking (or pressing) on a button (or power button on a computer or laptop) and dragging off of it, thereby avoiding publishing/turning off/acting on unnecessarily a program that would have otherwise had some detrimental effect if I had clicked and released (however, as evidenced by the proceedings above,I would occasionally "slip" and my action would cause that effect, whatever it was). Also, I wasn't aware of edit summaries in the beginning. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• The 19th August example wasn't in an edit summary (and you started using edit summaries on 8th September 2014, probably about 65% of your edits have been since then). You were fairly active in April and May of this year. So it does seem a bit strange the problem is suddenly so severe when it didn't seem to show at all in the past. Perhaps you need a new mouse since your current one is being accidently released too easily all of a sudden?

  Any way, the only suggestion I have is you see if you can beg someone to make a Wikipedia:User scripts for you which will prevent the submission of edit summariesedits with any cuss words. Failing that, perhaps you can find a browser or general OS addon which will prevent the typing of cuss words completely.

  Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I know it wasn't—and I understand that it's a bad thing no matter the place in which place words are typed (I may have also forgotten to mention that the inappropriate words or phrases can appear in any form, even in the form of a general insult, but if I quickly revert them, you can reasonably assume that my intent was not to offend), but as Bishonen noted above, edit summaries are perhaps more important than edits themselves, because edit summaries can't be reverted (I'm a bit confused about MrX's comment that they're "more or less permanent". By the way, I reverted the "fuck cunts" edits immediately after they went live. I also don't think the mouse (or my finger) is the problem, because if you pressed down on the left-click hundreds or even thousands of times, there likely would be at least a few times in which it would cause an unintended action, such as publishing cuss words (the problem arose before, but the difference is that the first time it went live for all to see was on August 19).

Finally, I thank you for being to one to offer help (although I think I understand that administrators might not be able to dedicate as much time in helping errant users as in using their authority to warn users to stop doing whatever is objectionable and in generally in contrast with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines) on what I may be able to do in order to help with this problem. I'll see if I have the courage to ask another for this service (without, of course, typing cuss words when addressing them), particularly if further incidents do guarantee a total loss of my editing privileges. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, this was the point I was going to make. I work with young people with obsessive-compulsive disorders, including tourettes, and in no person I have worked with has that compulsion "come and gone", or "suddenly appeared". You made 134 edits to Wikipedia over a year before this behaviour occurred. I am assuming AGF, but you're going to need to explain this. Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There's another aspect to this that nobody has mentioned. If an exception is made for this particular editor on the grounds of illness, we set a precedent for others to claim the same illness as an excuse for posting offensive language. Personally WP:OR, I think this editor may well have the illness he/she claims, but it's not the cause of the behaviour, merely a claim made to mitigate any censure handed out. Akld guy (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you come to the conclusion that it's not the cause of my behavior? The additional aspect to this, I think, is valid, but in the end, still a shortcoming of Internet anonymity, but please, tell me how you came to the previously mentioned conclusion? (I'll correct Jayron32 for saying that it's a tourettes symptom. It's a result of OCD, which is quite fundamentally different and does involve sometimes complex rituals such as typing an obscenity after an edit and pressing (but not intentionally releasing) the Save page button on a Wikipedia article.

By the way, if it turns out that we can work through this, I want to be as least disruptive as I can if further incidents do happen. If any editor finds issue with such a potential incident, perhaps I can link them back to this discussion, my talk page, or a future user page, in the hope that they can understand and continue to discuss the matter regarding editing at hand without being too hurt or negatively affected (I consider myself fairly polite when engaging others, both offline and online, and you can decide for yourself by going to my list of contributions). Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

How is it you managed to get through this entire discussion without giving in to your "compulsion"? If you can do it here, you can do it at other times. And if you can't -- well, not everyone is cut out to edit Wikipedia, you may just need to stop editing and find another hobby. BMK (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I was expecting a suspicion about my symptom not appearing to pop up throughout this thread. The short answer is: it has. The longer one is that my symptoms are not consistent, and will fluctuate in their intensity. Referring back to my shorter answer, I say that my symptom has popped up, because most of the time, I can stop myself before publishing the edit summary live. I estimate people who visit the recent page history would have seen 5-10 expletives if my "success" rate in publishing the edits was 100%. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me make it clear, Lu. I don't care what reason you give. Absolutely no one does. It doesn't matter whether you are intentionally attacking users, OR if you are incapable of stopping yourself. The event happened, and unless it stops happening, we will stop it for you. It makes not a lick of difference whether or not you can control your disruption as to whether or not the disruption is allowed at Wikipedia. It will stop. There's nothing you can say that will allow us to let you continue abusing other editors. You can stop abusing other editors all by yourself, and we'll let you go about your business. If you don't stop, whether or not you have the ability to stop yourself, we'll send you on your way. --Jayron32 03:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, call me Laurence. At this point, I don't think I have anything to lose by being addressed personally and putting my full name out in the open. Most people close to me already know about my condition, so it's not a concern of mine that they find out.

Anyway—I don't mind you being blunt, and I think I can empathize with any frustration an administrator might have dealing with vandals day and night. But there's one aspect of your message that stands out, and one that doesn't seem to be just a matter of semantics. Your passing comment that I'm actually "abusing" other editors appears to have been a part of your message that you didn't give significantly more thought than other aspects, but while you may deny this and claim that it's all for the sake of the encyclopedia and thus concerns your more than it does me, let me assure you that it's the other way around. Now, you may not care about my feelings, to which I don't (and shouldn't) take offense. But when I say that it's more than just semantics, I mean it. "Abuse" of others implies pretty clearly malicious intent, which I don't have.

Now, the evidence is there, so it's meaningless to assume good faith on the question of whether or not I typed out these obscenities. Rather, I think that you've jumped the gun (made significantly more easy with your authority to assume any tone and ability to use a very wide range of options in dealing with vandals [which I wouldn't be wrong in assuming that you think I'm one, correct?]), taking an extra step to think I'm probably lying in my explanation of these obscenities.

Finally, partially again in response to BMK's suspicion that I'm fabricating my story because I haven't had any incidents involving typing cuss words in edit summaries (or typing directly into the article phrases or parts of sentences that would be compromising [e.g. "Jayron32, I don't mind you being abrasive" (This is not a veiled message, if you were wondering), or "Ha ha you fell for it I'm lying about it all"] or have a negative effect as a direct result), I'll reference Godwin's law in a dark resemblance: "Even if Laurence Lu has typed no obscene messages or words in edit summaries and/or edits themselves, the absolute probability of Laurence's typing of said messages or words increases, approaching 1 with every subsequent edit he makes." I say this because I'm afraid of typing obscenities here and administrators immediately shutting the case because they've seen it firsthand, and perceive it to be directed at them. (Admittedly, I'm most afraid of typing them in a message to you, and I say this regardless of how I suspect you'll feel about my being afraid.) Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It really strains my mind to assume good faith and believe the story as given. I have Tourette syndrome and this is nothing like anything I have ever encountered. For me it is bursts of impulse, never amounting to the complexity of going through multiple steps involving fine motor control. However I don't think it matters if the story is true or not because the result is the same and the result is disruptive. We are not therapy and if you cannot figure out how to not type insulting language and click save against your will then the result is the same as if you were doing it on purpose. Chillum 01:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I know that this thread is long, but to respond, I think one should read the whole thing carefully. I never said that my symptom was the result of Tourettes. I'm not sure who gave you that impression, but I explicitly said that it was a symptom of OCD, which includes more complex rituals than just a vocal tic, a clapping of the hands, or flick of the wrist (my Tourettes syndrome has gotten better, but I'm personally familiar with the first and last symptoms included in the list.)

Also, your reminder that it doesn't matter whether or not I put curse words in my edit summaries isn't the first, or second, or even third time I've heard it in just this thread. I know it's still disruptive, but if I don't mean it and apologize (and possibly link them to this thread or my Talk page by way of explanation), I think that's different. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Encyclopedia Lu: Would you kindly stop inserting your posts between the posts of previous commenters and instead simply append them. I noticed that you inserted two posts timestamped 03:55 before Chillum's one at 01:43, the first of which gave the impression that you had claimed to have OCD before he commented about Tourettes. As it turns out, the claim was actually made in the repost by Bishonen at the very start of this thread, but I hope you can see that inserting posts may lead to misunderstandings. Akld guy (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Edited Akld guy (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. However, the timestamp of the post you mentioned, at 3:55, never mentioned OCD before Chillum commented about Tourettes. By the way, the fact that the very first post quotes my mention of OCD should make it pretty clear I'm not referring to Tourettes, which Chillum suggested in passing when questioning the truthfulness of my "Tourettes" claim. Also, I forgot to say: If I chose to append my message to BMK, I think it would give an equally if not more misleading impression that I was responding to Chillum, given that my message would appear under the latter's. Finally, timestamps, such as the one you presumably noticed quickly in my case, are fool-proof enough, aren't they? Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well they are foolproof as a record of what was said at the timestamped time, but the reality is that insertion forces readers to interpret what the context of the post is in relation to those around it. If you wish to reply to another poster, simply address him/her by username and append your post to those already present. That way, we don't need to figure things out. To ping another editor and be guaranteed of a response, take a look at the edit of my previous post to see how I pinged you (two curly brackets, 'ping', etcetera). Akld guy (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Akld guy: It works. Thanks. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"[T]he timestamp of the post you mentioned, at 3:55, never mentioned OCD before Chillum commented..." As I stated, you made two posts at 3:55. The upper one did mention OCD. Akld guy (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Did I? I'm certain there was only one edit at 3:55, and no other edits inserted above Chillum's comment that could give a misleading impression of chronology. Anyway—I think Bishonen's reposting was enough, don't you agree? I only ever linked my symptom with OCD, never with Tourette syndrome. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron32's comments. They became a bit harsh but only after you failed to hear them the first time. The point is that explanations, understanding, and credibility of the explanations are all beside the point. Either you can meet community behavior standards or you can't, and we're asking for big trouble if we start handing out exemptions. I happen to be a very slow reader, which I attribute to undiagnosed ADD. That means I can't read and absorb large amounts of written information, which puts me at a disadvantage when it comes to Wikipedia policy and guideline. I pick it up a little bit at a time, and I don't claim an ADD exemption when I screw up. It also means I have to skim large discussions like this one and I sometimes miss something important. If this made it impossible for me to meet community standards I would leave, reluctantly but without objection. The project must come before the individual. Others could honestly attribute their Wikipedia behavior problems to any of a number of recognized personality disorders; should we give them a pass, too? I encourage you to pursue available avenues of treatment; if treatment is not possible or ineffective, you should accept that Wikipedia is not a good place for you, or find a way to contribute that does not involve communicating with other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Akld guy: can't say I agree with your advice. Inserting properly WP:indented threaded discussion in the proper location is common behaviour and fully supported, in fact encouraged by our guidelines (earlier is an essay but see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards and Help:Using talk pages#Indentation and probably others). In some cases, particularly long discussions, it can be confusing, especially since many people fail to follow good indented discussion protocol, you sometimes want to reply to multiple threads in a single comment, and there is a risk your comments may be missed by most participants if you locate them properly but it's fairly early in the discussion.

But when people do follow proper indentation protocol to the best of their abilities considering whatever the state of the discussion, we shouldn't fault them. If people fail to check time stamps of indented posts, that's the own fault. People continually adding their posts to the end can in fact make the discussion very confusing, when a simple properly threaded discussion would have been far clearer.

This isn't to say I feel all of Lu's replies were well located. For example, I don't understand why they replied only to Drmies at 17:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC), it would have made more sense for them to reply to both Drmies and Black Kite. But your particular advice seem to be discouraging all forms of properly indented threaded discussion.

Also in case there is some confusion, Lu said they had OCD here [131] and [132] (the later one specifically mentioned it wasn't Tourette syndrome) before Chillum replied here [133]. And as I think was already mentioned, it being OCD was what was said at the start of this discussion. I myself was aware when replying, also before Chillum [134] that Lu said they had OCD (not Tourette syndrome). Note that I'm not sure if Chillum was suggesting the Lu had Tourette syndrome or instead that they would have expected to have encountered someone like that before given that they may have experience with support groups, research or whatever.

Either way I think this is largely an aside to the main points namely that it doesn't really matter whether the claim is genuine or not, and there's nothing wrong with properly indented threaded discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• This should be closed with a final warning in the terms patiently explained by Jayron32. Someone is either able to edit collaboratively or not. There was a case like this a couple of years ago at ANI, although as I recall the editor there was much more blatant. The details do not matter—stop or be stopped. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please, not quite yet. (Also, could you link me to that editor's incidents a couple of years ago? I'm genuinely interested.) I still think I am able to edit collaboratively—you can see the discussion with Pepperbeast (and, if you look deeper, Dawnseeker2000) I had about an edit regarding the Atheism article page. I've maintained that I'm fairly polite and courteous in discussion, and I still think that remains true. I intend to collaborate (and, if it's warranted, provide an explanation for my obscenities) with other users, and believe most can understand. I want to improve Wikipedia with others.

Maybe you can get Jayron32 to explain the terms, although, being on the receiving end, I have doubts about his "patience," at least in this case. I've read his comments to me multiple times already—I understand what he's saying, but I want to see if there is even a mathematical possibility that I can somehow stay on Wikipedia with my symptom. Maybe the final warning and this thread can serve as an example to others, but I do not need Jayron to explain the guidelines to me again.

I expect that this issue will be resolved when I wake up the next morning, regardless of the outcome. If, as likely everybody expects, the outcome is that my typing obscenities in edit summaries (and, occasionally, edits themselves [which I can thankfully revert]) cannot coexist with my editing privileges, then I'll at least have a sense of closure.

Believe me when I say that I thank you all for at least considering my case. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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

André Gayot and Wikidemon

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

---

At the article André Gayot is/was a link to gayot.com. This is a blacklisted link so Cyberbot II repeatedly tagged that article for that. Wikidemon is in effect editwarring with this bot to get the warning out again. I have requested him a few times to follow the proper route and file a request to get the link from the spam-blacklist. Something he refused to do. So the bot replaces that tag and Wikidemon removed/hid the tag and on and on and on.

Interested thing is that he refuses to notice that he is edit warring with a bot and that the warnings are valid. But restoring the tag or removing the link is something he considers vandalism. Even a page protection did not convince him about the uselessness of his action, he considered it Nice way to poison the editing environment for no discernible improvement to the encyclopedia. Don't you have anything better to do than to harass good faith editors in stupid process wars?.

This absolutely no useful behaviour. The Banner talk 15:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The useful behavior is that but for the above editor's vandalism the article would be just fine. The editor deliberately sabotaged the article about Andre Gayot by removing the link to his official webiste, as they have done in the past to a few other articles, knowing that it couldn't be restored without going through a laborious and bureaucratic white-listing process. That's not a good faith edit, it is not intended to improve the content of the encyclopedia. It's sole effect is to force me and other editors to do time-consuming process work to restore links that are incorrectly blacklisted. Most bots that edit articles in automated fashion have a work-around so that human editors can use their discretion: some do their edit once, but won't repeat it if reverted by a human editor. This one leaves a warning template that includes a flag that can be set to hide the template, intended exactly for situations like this one and that's exactly what I did after inspecting it. Poorly programmed bots like this one are an occasional problem on the encyclopedia. Editors like the above who purposefully flummox the work of others just to prove a weird WP:POINT about bots are also an occasional problem. Nothing to see here and no problem to solve, although this editor does seem to be making a Wikipedia career out of griefing other editors. Actually, if an admin with access to the whitelist is watching, could you please whitelist gayot.com (the landing page of the official site) so the bio article about this particular food critic can point to his professional site? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is the link blacklisted? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the links here due to spamming. The Banner talk 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It was a behavioral issue, not an issue with the site itself. Gayot.com is a restaurant guide, just like perhaps Michelin or Forbes Travel Guide but less prominent. Generally not reliable because it's critical opinion, but it can be reliable for sourcing certain facts about restaurants, chefs, and food movements. The problem was that about four years ago somebody affiliated with the guides was adding a number of links to the guide site, and didn't immediately understand why this is considered COI spamming behavior. The blacklisting was to deter the COI accounts, not a judgment on the link. They appear to have long gone away at this point. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Then why did you not request whitelisting? And why did you do everything to keep the link alive? The Banner talk 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it was not necessary to do so. It is not a mandatory process. There is no policy or guideline to say that I must request whitelisting if I disagree with the bot's application of a tag. If the bot behaved like other bots, simply removing the tag would work. But this bot is poorly designed, and sporadic in its function. The tag it leaves does have a parameter to hide the link, something I did that remained in place for more than a year and a half. In July the bot inexplicably removed the tag, and a few weeks later added it back again. I fixed it again, and the article would have been fine for another year and a half if you hadn't taken it on yourself to renew your edit warring over this. You're not editing to improve the article at all, you're just trying to force me into an obscure Wikipedia process that I have chosen not to use. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Aha, so that was why your were disguising the links with nowiki and are now turning the article about a person in something promotional for the guide ([135])? Sorry, but seeing this and combined with your aggressive behaviour when removing the link, I get suspicious. The Banner talk 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I'm not going to waste brain cycles trying to figure it out. Just try to concentrate on productive editing of the encyclopedia, not broadsiding other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"productive editing" as in edit warring with a bot instead of solving the issue? The Banner talk 19:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, productive editing as in going away and working on some article content of your own. Perhaps being a little courteous and respectful if that's not too much. Could somebody please close this stupid topic so I don't have to keep answering vexatious accusations from this person, also whitelist the gayot.com site so we can add it back to the article about gayot? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have anything positive to add? You are accusing me of vandalism harassing, uncourteousness and unrespectfulness, but in fact is that just your own behaviour. The Banner talk 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Parroting my observations is not going to help you. Anyway, please do disengage. I'm trying to actually deal with some content and sourcing issues here to improve the article in question. Look, you won your vexatious little battle, your sabotaging the link forced me to go through the bureaucratic process you were demanding of me instead of the simple process setup by the bot. There is nothing more to discuss here, so please respect that. If you can try not to provoke me with more accusations, and perhaps even if you do, I'm going to ignore this and get back to other things. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It is about time for that... The Banner talk 21:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've un-blacklisted the URL. If spamming resumes to the point that we need to re-blacklist it, we'll need to whitelist it for this article per WP:ELOFFICIAL. Hint: if someone's having difficulties with a bot, don't automatically assume that the bot's in the right, and don't waste our time with frivolous and bad-faith complaints at the admin boards. Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

Hi all, would this edit summary by 197.248.92.82 (talk) count as a legal threat? Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a legal threat, not even by our definition. Chillum 16:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Nevertheless, the IP has created an account to do the work: see here. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the large amount of edit warring being done by multiple IPs and new accounts that appear to be the same person for an extended period of time I have semi-protected the page temporarily. Chillum 16:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There may well be other issues at play, and blocks and protections may need to be issued for those other reasons, but I also do not see it as a clear NLT issue. The phasing "the government of Uganda has spoken" could also be an attempt to cite a source of information. Of course, that ALSO does not excuse edit warring, but it isn't a legal threat, at least not unambiguously so. If he had said "The government of Uganda will deal with you if you put this back" or something like that, THEN we have an NLT issue. But the phrasing used, while it could be interpreted as a threat, is also ambiguous enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable for using that as the rationale when issuing sanctions. Sanctions, of course, may be well deserved under a multitude of other rationales. --Jayron32 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

After I semi-protected the page it seems that a discussion has started on the talk page, I will keep an eye on the page. Chillum 19:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope somebody will reply to what I have said on my talk page, but it's becoming increasingly unlikely. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 21:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what's said above. "The government has spoken" sounds to me like "The government already announced what happened", or "The government already announced its position" — in other words, "It's already possible to know the government's position on this matter". I can't imagine someone understanding my rephrasings as legal threats. Meanwhile, "The government of Uganda will deal with you if you put this back", or "You risk trouble from the government of Uganda if you do X" isn't necessarily a legal threat: it's perhaps saying "Watch out, because you can get yourself in trouble". This sense isn't particularly different from saying "Stop infringing copyright on Wikipedia, because it makes you liable to a lawsuit by the copyright holder and possible criminal charges." Of course it could also be a legal threat, but we can't make a blanket statement: we have to examine the context. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User violating WP:NOTWEBHOST on his talk page

The user in question is User:Aerppab. After having some of their articles speedy deleted they are now reposting what appears to be the same content on their talk page, in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOT#OR. This user appears to be here only to add their own original research to Wikipedia, whether in its own article(s) or as wikilinks to other articles (namely cosmology). This seems disruptive and so I think an admin should intervene. Everymorning (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Gave them a final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page abuse by blocked school IP

24.186.147.139 is currently school-blocked for 2 years. As soon as the IP was blocked, the IP said that they were crying, violating WP:NOTFACEBOOK and WP:NOTFORUM (and maybe WP:PRAM). Then the IP removed the {{anonblock}} template disruptively. Also, before the block, there was a personal attack by the IP and some other abuse so this already warranted a talk page revokal already, but talk access was not revoked. --TL22 (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

How long did you allow the tantrum for? Did they return after several days to continue? Or would it be best to just leave them alone for 24 hours, with no response from us, until they go away for the day, never to return, and then we can clean up their mess? --Jayron32 03:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

legal threat from 54.147.55.196

[136] Bentogoa (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd block as it's a fairly open and shut case of WP:NLT, but looking at the storied history of Nanak Shah Fakir it looks like they have plenty of IP addresses at their disposal, so I'm not sure that blocking just one will achieve much. Paging User:Jayron32 to the discussion since it's his talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Macon, Georgia

The Macon, Georgia article is seeing a slow-motion edit war by IP editors (and one new registered user) about the population. One of the regular editors laid out the sourcing on the talk page, but no discussion resulted, just more reverts. Might I suggest short-term semiprotection to encourage the edit warring IPs to discuss the evidence on the article talk page? Full disclosure: The city was named after one of my ancestors, but I have no other connection to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:SuperFriendlyEditor

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

---

I'm involved in a dispute at the Martin Heidegger article with SuperFriendlyEditor. Unfortunately, this new user, whose well-intentioned but unhelpful edits I have reverted, has directed a stream of personal attacks against me. See here where I am accused in an edit summary of being a "liar". I informed this user about WP:NPA here, but the personal abuse has continued. Here the user comments, " I can smell bullshitters like you who have failed to do the assigned reading a mile away. You get an F, friend". There's yet another example of personal abuse in an edit summary here; I am the user SuperFriendlyEditor is insulting. I request that this user be given a short block for personal attacks, or at least a warning to stop this abusive behavior, just to make it clear that WP:NPA is a policy taken seriously here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

My edits were not "unhelpful." I collaboratively worked to improve a page with at least 4 other editors, as the record shows. The editor who has brought the complaint has no collaborators on his side. My "attack" was to ask if he has ever read Heidegger. He was unable to name a work of Heidegger's he has read. The talk page for Heidegger contained requests for over 4 months to improve the lead, which was referred to by several other editors as sophmoric, factually incorrect, etc. These are not insults. These are the opinions which any professional in the field would have had of the state the article is in. I have listend to this editor's complaints, which solely consist of the charge the "lead is too long." I am actively, and selectively removing material. The editor who has brought this frivolous complaint has made no such efforts to constructively contribute to the article. Not only has he not read Heidegger, he has not even been able to name one of Heidegger's works. Again, many editors had been complaining that the lead was completely factually mistaken about Heidegger. 4 other editors approved my edits. I am continuing to shorten the lead in response to this editors's complaints. No one supports his side. He was unable to demonstrate even a basic familiarity with who Heidegger is.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I said, the fact that other editors did not revert you doesn't necessarily indicate agreement with your edits. Your asking me whether I have read Heidegger, etc, is an example of game-playing behaviour; it just distracts attention away from your inability to make a persuasive case for your edits. I could ask you whether you have read Heidegger, too, but what would be the point? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

They collaborated with me and made changes to my edits. I can name some of Heidegger's works. Can you? I have made a persuasive case for my edits. Everyone agrees the previous lead was bad. See the talk page. No one likes your lead. You do not even have a basic familiarity with the topic. You seem to be highly intelligent. I have great respect for you. Please contribute knowledge where you have knowledge. If you wish to contribute to Heidegger, collaborate with me in selectively reducing the length of the lead, as I am in the middle of doing, and as you are interrupting with this, instead of your WIkilawyering and destruction of the total content en masse. I asked if you had read Heidegger because the only reason why you would just mass revert rather than selectively reduce length of something you found "too long" is that you lacked sufficient familairtity with the topic to do so. Please. Enough with these attacks. We are both here to add knowledge to the world and your attacks are incomprehensible. You find the lead too long? I am in the middle of shortening it as you bring this case! Help me shorten it instead of wasting both of our time with this garbage.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your repeatedly insulting me and failing to apologize for it, and suggesting in edit summaries that I be blocked (visible here) suggests that you do not, contrary to your claims, have "great respect" for me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I have consensus, he does not, he has not even read the author, and he is attempting to make Wikipedia a worse, less informative place by Wikilawyering. Sad. Why dont you just create free knowledge somewhere where you are well informed on the topic? I have repeatedly said you seem like a smart person, please contribute where you know the topic, or if you know this topic and find the new lead too long, help me to reduce its length, rather than just destroy the whole thing en masse, when everyone agreed on the talk page that the previous lead was horrible and ridden with factual errors? 4 other editors agreed with me; none of the editors who regularly contribute at that page agreed with you. Why exactly are you pursuing this pointless administrative nonsense when you have lost the argument on the page?SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comment shows that you don't take WP:NPA seriously. I have taken matters here because of your ongoing and unapologetic abuse. I see no awareness on your part that your insults are unacceptable. That's exactly why you deserve at least a short block. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Asking you if you have read Heidegger is not a personal attack. My mother has never read Heidegger. Neither have you. This does not constitute an attack on my mother, nor does it constitute an attack on you, dear colleague.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No, calling me a liar and a bullshitter were the personal attacks, for which you deserve a block. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow! How many years did it take for you to finish your J.D. in Wikipedia Law? Please friend, enough with this. I have told I find you extremely intelligent and I am sure you are a fine contributor to Wikipedia. I have great, deep, abiding respect for you. Why can we stop this trite, childish nonsense and get back to improving the article? I notice you have made no edits to that article aside from mass reversion of my work this evening, in which you also reverted the hard work of 4 other editors I collaborated with, who helped improve the work I spent several hours on. Why exactly can we not stop with this useless war which helps no one, contributes nothing to the mission of the encylopedia, and helps no poor souls undertake the extremely difficult task of understanding Heidegger, which I would have thought was the point of having a Heidegger article in the first place? What exactly is the point of this? Who does this benefit? What are you getting out of this? SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I take the mission of Wikipedia seriously. Do you? that means I contribute where I have contributions to make, and I do not destroy the work of others, and remove knowledge from Wikipedia to make points. Please stop this harassment. Take the dont bite the newbies, assume good faith, etc policies seriously I could say to you but I am not an amateur Wikilawyer and I only ask you to make selective contributions to Heidegger, or contribute where you have more knowledge to share, as you seem like a highly intelligent individual who loves knowledge.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

SuperFriendlyEditor, whether or not FreeKnowledgeCreator has ever read, or can even name the works of Heidegger may not be a PA, but it is almost totally irrelevant. WP is not a senior common room debate about whose interpretation is correct or who knows more about the subject. Going round in circles on that issue, just clogs up discussion here. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue is the personal insults ("liar", "bullshitter") the user has directed against me, not the (irrelevant) stuff about what books I have or have not read. The insults are the basis of my request the user be blocked or warned; I don't care about anything else, including those comments that are simply uncivil. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, the point is this: I undertook work this evening, along with 4 other editors, who assisted and gave away their time to your project. Rather than tighten up the lead, FKC decides to destroy that work en masse, giving no justification, and no evidence of having read the edits or having any previous interest in the topic. Multiple parties on the talk page had been begging since May to fix the lead, which was ridden with so many errors as to have been called an "embarrassment" on the talk page, months before I got here. I am in the process of shortening the lead, as FKC requests. He or she makes no contributions to that effort. There is no point to this. Why can we not get back to fixing the page, which everyone agrees was factually so long as to have deserved deletion in its previous form, as anyone who read the previous lead of the article would have come away knowing less about Heidegger than when they began the article? If you consider this an idiosyncratic opinion, please check the history of the talk page, in which you will see an uproar of voices protesting the completely misinformed, factually mistaken, faulty lead. I am trying to improve the article, and have asked FKC to contribute in a collaborative way. I have gone out of my way to tell him or her how deeply I respect him or her, and how intelligent I consider him or her to be. What the hell can possibly be the point of this?SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, FKC made numerous uncivil remarks. And committed the gross incivility of destroying a great deal of work without reason or ANY discussion beforehand, when massive changes had been requested to the lead for months on the talk page. Please check the talk page and you will see how fully I am exonerated. And It is not uncivil to ask for qualifications or to say that someone else has told an untruth. This is absolutely a scandal. Why would you waste your time on this rather than improving pages? Outrageous. This is the most childish, preposterous thing I have ever heard of. No wonder so many philosophy articles are in such great need of work if this is how people who are qualified to edit them are treated around here, with open harassment and hounding and lawyering over ridiculous technical nonsense.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

One does not normally insult people one deeply respects. You called me a liar and a bullshitter. That's why I'm here requesting you be blocked. WP:NPA is not "ridiculous technical nonsense". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And additionally, I have repeatedly asked you in several places to tell me how long you would like the lead to be (rather than simply destroy what myself and 4 other editors worked on this evening.) Your silence of any constructive feedback or opinion of a general word length appropriate for a top-top importance philosophy article is rather deafening. Why no interest in any constructive collaboration? Why only interest in trying to see penalties meted out on me, rather than working with me to improve the article, if you are indeed a deep reader of Heidegger as you claim? What can possibly be the point of the present thread? SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You have demonstrated zero interest in improving the truly decrepit Martin Heidegger article, described by multiple contributors as "an embarassment" on the talk page, a judgment with which I sadly concur. You demonstrate an extremely strong interest in handing out punishments for the usage of swear words. Ergo, you are far more interested in ridiculous technical nonsense than the actual mission of Wikipedia. Q.E.D. Any other obviously logically fallacious arguments for me to dispense with this? The sooner you stop wasting my time, the sooner I can finish shortening the lead, per your request, your majesty. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop. I think you have brought enough evidence here for a review for now, and the discussion between you two gets quite heated here. I recommend a short break here for you, while others can look at what was reported, by both sides. Further arguments without additions from others are not likely helping any of you two.Müdigkeit (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

OK.User:SuperFriendlyEditor, you have said that FKC has made uncivil remarks. Can you provide difflinks, please? Why did you call others "liars" or "bullshitters" instead of simply telling them that what they said is factually incorrect and why? User:FreeKnowledgeCreator, why did you revert outright, when it seemed too long for you, instead of removing excessive material manually and leaving improvements in place? (See also:WP:DONTREVERT)--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• I just went through the history of this conflict and, like Müdigkeit, I find fault with the behavior of both editors. @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, you were dealing with a new editor, so you should have put in more effort explaining policies and guidelines (with links to them), before starting edit-warring. SuperFriendlyEditor, you're not innocent here either. You just barge in and when your edits are challenged, instead of pointing out clearly what errors there are in the lead and explaining all your edits (that indeed did make the lead way too bloated), you just told the other editor that they should start reading Heidegger, because they clearly didn't know what they were talking about, claiming that because you teach about Heidegger, your edits should not be reverted. Please read On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, which is to say that professional credentials don't count for much here. We do not accept edits on the authority of an editor claiming superior knowledge. Edits need to be accepted on the authority of the reliable sources that they are based on, regardless of whether the person writing them is a street sweeper or has a Nobel Prize in the subject at hand. I have found no incivility from the part of FreeKnowledgeCreator, so please drop the stick. I suggest that you both take a deep breath and discuss the matter on the article's talk page in a reasonable and civil way, using arguments based on reason, not authority. Anybody deviating from that can look forward to a block for disruptive editing. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't care to see FKC punished. I'm sure he has made excellent contributions here. I simply think it was uncivil to delete in mass. People on talk page requested that the existing article, specifically the lead, be changed, as it contained an embarassingly wrong presentation of Heidegger. I don't remember what FKC said that I thought was a lie, or bullshit. I hope his or her feelings have not been too badly hurt by this. Can we all stop the mass deletion, and collaboratively work to improve the article? Selectively removing content we find irrelecant, or overly long, while contributing content of our own? And also, not simply PRESSING DELETE and destroying several hours of work on an article that had been openly begging for someone to change the "embarrassing" lead which contained gross errors and misrepresentations for months? I really don't see how anyone benefits from any of this. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Free Knowledge Creator: Violations of the Following Policies: Harassment, Not Here to Build an Encyclopedia, Wikilawyering, Don't Bite the Newbies, Incivility, No personal attacks, Edit Warring, No Assumption of Good Faith, No Consensus

The evidence speaks clearly enough for itself. I have no desire to do this. But his insistent harassment has forced my hand. I prefer to see no punishment meted out. I only wish for him to leave me alone, and let us both get back to work. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I just picked up the changes on the watch list and I'ver reverted SuperFriendlyEditor changes as they read like a personal essay. I was promptly reverted with a false edit summary so I've gone back to the stable state again and put a 3RR warning on his/her page. This may be just an over enthusiastic newbe so bringing it to ANI is a bit OTT. If the editor can't learn to use the talk page then they will end up with a block or two and hopefully learn from it. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Reporting IP user 31.50.140.54

This IP user 31.50.140.54 (talk) was vandalizing the article Deep Fear with this edit [1] and this edit [2]. I reverted these edits and notified the user on his/her talkpage. Now, problem is that this user posted on my talkpage and calling me an idiot and telling me that what s/he is doing is right. I really have no idea what to do so that's why I require an admin help to resolve this. Thanks. Ayub407^talk 11:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked and explained to him/her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ayub407^talk 11:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR

Is this an acceptable user name? It just looks like Spam to me and is not reader friendly. It's offputting for people to approach somebody with a name that long and that incoherent, I urge somebody to change this user's account name to 1Wiki8.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• We have another user that is a very regular contributor with a similar name and length, I can remember for the life of me his name, quite obviously. I agree that it is problematic, but I don't think policy disallows it unless there is a clear showing of an attempt to be disruptive. Of course, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me because I agree it is a bit annoying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, you're right. Policy discourages, but does certainly not disallow it - WP:UNCONF. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should introduce something which prohibits a user name over 20 characters length for one word, 33 is just ridiculous. It wouldn't be so bad if it actually meant something but it looks like spam. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started a thread proposal at Wikipedia talk:Username policy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by Indian Historian Ramshankar

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

---

Indian Historian Ramshankar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned (#1, #2) for adding copyrighted material on Goa (#1, #2; admitting in the edit summary for the second edit that it was ripped from somewhere else), removing the warnings and thus showing that he has seen them. In spite of that they have added more copyrighted text twice today (#1, #2), edits where most of the text added has been ripped from the text accompanying this video on You Tube, which is covered by the YouTube standard license and thus AFAIK not free to use on WP. So could someone please stop them? Thomas.W ^talk 13:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Diff for ANI-notice since they have removed it from the talk page, so that no-one thinks I have failed to notify them... Thomas.W ^talk 13:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked, can be unblocked once they show an understanding of our copyright policy and acknowledge that they will adhere to it. —SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor Jytdog's none neutral GMO edits

Editor Jytdog frequently removes content from pages related to GMOs which doesn't seem to fit his personal opinion. He is also the most frequent editor on GMO pages. Most of the time he acts like he would own these pages, as a recent example: Jytdog removes most of other editors contributions, ignoring existing talk page discussions. Jytdog insists on framing organisations (or here) like Union of Concerned Scientists or Greenpeace as advocacy groups. However, this kind of framing doesn't extend to other entities, and presents a very narrow view.

Many editors have problems with Jytdog's frequent accusations, as is evident from this discussion where several editors (Jusdafax,Tsavage,DrChrissy,SageRad) wonder about claims by Jytdog that i broke 3RR. He later redacted his claim in that discussion. However, then later eventually reported me, but then withdraws his request (time stamp Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)).

• In his report he states: I will add here, that I have functioned as a steward of this and related articles for a while now. Some consider me a whore of Monsanto etc. They consider as they will - I try to keep POV-pushing from all sides tamped down, and as mentioned, so far have helped keep these articles clear of arbcom and from wasting the community's time with too much drama board action. Apparently his words are in stark contrast to reality. Hence, this editor is creating a lot of drama, wasting time with his unclear actions.

When i challenged the editor about his claim that my edit is advocacy he responded: And I told you - look at every single edit you made in the past day or two. Every one emphasizes negatives of GM or promotes the goodness of organic. Every. Single. One. And cited this dif for his claims. That was the only dif Jytdog provided.

Yesterday Jytdog filed an AfD on a page i created, and then begun to remove reliable sources from that page. In his AfD he states, Group advocates for FRINGE science. However, Jytdog again ignores questions in the AfD discussion to explain his accusations.

Maybe even more concerning, Jytdog added or maintained on around 6 articles original research for several years, claiming that there exists a scientific consensus. Recently after several editors objections and a RFC, he begun to accept different wordings in that matter, even though it can still pretty much be regarded as to much synthesis. None of his cites actually supports his synthesis.

Jytdog was recently reported for edit warring (here), and uncivility (here). Jytdog wrote in response to Mann_jess, just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck. I know what NPOV is and I spent about 90% of my editing keeping FRINGE and quackery out of Wikipedia.

That was in March this year, apparently Jytdog's edit history, and frequent problems with other editors, his disruptive style, are evidence that the editor is not able to understand what NPOV edits means, and is not able to work in a community environment or to contribute in a neutral way. I therefore ask the community to topic ban Jytdog from everything which is related to GMOs. Wikipedia does not require a special self proclaimed steward for GMO topics, but maybe the attention of Arbcom. Thanks.

These pages all contain talk page discussions with Jytdog, where he defends his reverts against various editors. Not a single discussion can be considered resolved, not even after months.

• Genetically modified food controversies
• Genetically modified food
• Genetically modified crops
• Genetically modified organism
• Séralini affair
• Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms
• Monsanto legal cases
• Glyphosate

prokaryotes (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Jytdog due to his WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:DE in that area. GregJackP Boomer! 17:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Jytdog is over involved in the topic. He has made 6593 edits in the area by looking at his edit history on X's tools. Those are only the easily seen ones, there are most likely thousands more if you could all the edits to drama boards like here and WP:AN/3 also question boards like WP:RSN and WP:ORN for the subjects. He shows obvious WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:DE in that area.AlbinoFerret 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that GregJackP has a grudge against me as well, and continues steering into me although we were advised to steer away from each other. I have been honoring that, he has not. Both editors continue their pattern of bias, which only brings disrepute upon them. Unhappy, but not a surprise.Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban/Send to ArbCom. That Jytdog is willing to spend his time and effort in this topic area so fraught with POV pushing by agenda editors is a reason to commend them, not sanction. I see the bandwagon of editors who have been been in editorial conflict with Jytdog has started to show up above. Yobol (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yobo is an involved editor, as he reports in his comment below.Minor4th 18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (uninvolved editor) - I have not edited in the GMO area, but I have looked at all the diffs from the OP and from Jytdog and have found a clear attitude of ownership by Jytdog in GMO related articles, as well as NPOV edit patterns, edit warring, forum shopping, and tendentious editing. I believe this set of issues is probably too much for ANI and should be addressed at Arbcom. Minor4th 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not uninvolved. Fellow traveller with GregJackP and edits and !votes in lockstep with him. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am uninvolved, as I have not edited in the topic area, nor have I participated in the GM RfC'z and noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior.Minor4th 18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That would appear to be incorrect; you reverted Jytdog's edit here on a page regarding Monsanto to return the page to a version that GregJackP had previously worked on; you also have clearly "participated in...noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior": in this ANI report you agreed with GregJackP's position and call Jytdog "one of the most battleground editors I have come across on WP" and then !voted to have him topic banned, you also participated in this ANI thread, where you came to the defense of GregJackP and again commented on Jytdog, and then you showed up at another thread where GregJackP had tried to get Jytdog sanctioned. In fact, the only threads you have ever showed up at ANI this year have been in threads where Jytdog have been involved as a participant. You might want to correct your misstatement above. Yobol (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Jytog from all GM related articles, as I have been saying since roughly 2012. His edits to pharmaceutical articles are equally non-neutral. If the true story of his edit history and interactions with the community was viewed, including his recent doxxing of Atsme, a ban from this site altogether would be the only proper response. This case should ultimately go to ArbCom in my opinion, where the edits of his supporters and the larger picture can be considered (see Yobol's recent work at Seralini Affair rejecting addition of good science, and assisting Jytdog with reverts without interacting on the TP at Genetically modified foods as an example). [Diffs forthcoming, forgive me, I am stuck on iPad for now.] What he is trying to pull in the sections below is actually shocking, when I didn't think that was still possible with this user. petrarchan47คุก 18:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban for Jytdog and support a one month topic ban from AN/I for editors who support topic ban. I think the circus show needs to stop. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Jytdog continues to think he owns articles and won't allow anything into them if he is against it. He also repeatedly misuses guidelines to get his point across (I am an uninvolved editor).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment some of the complaint has nothing to do with the topic area. For instance, the warning about incivility (directed at me) was months ago and concerned climate change. I don't edit the GMO topic, so I'm unfamiliar with these issues, but I'm getting a very strong sense that several editors are pushing an anti-GMO stance in this topic (in opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment) and they are attempting to pile on to remove an editor who supports the mainstream pov. Topics such as this one encourage a lot of advocacy and coordinated bad behavior, and we should not be sanctioning editors for having the patience to uphold our policies against fringe theories, if indeed that is what is going on here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Response

So, this kind of case is not going to work very well at ANI. Analyzing my edits for a pattern of POV editing is going to take a lot of careful work, and ANI too easily turns into a circus.

Complicating that, there are longterm anti-GMO advocates Petrarchan47 chief among them, Jusdafax (who recently, in discussion with Petrarchan, said that I am "a boil that must be lanced"), David Tornheim who showed up more recently, and generally pro-altmed/anti-WP:MED editors like AlbinoFerret and others who will reliably show up on the other side of whatever drama board action is filed against me. Likewise, DrChrissy, whom I was rude to a while ago and apologized too, has carried a grudge and will surely show up here too.

I have been contemplating an ANI myself, but it is too messy so I haven't filed it -- there are too many separate issues/agendas here and this is going to devolve into a mess. But since it is started, here we go. I am putting these in separate subsections, which I will post in a bit, one by one. Things have come to an ugly head of late, so this is going to look like Saint Valentine's Day Massacre or something. I have been putting up with a lot of crap for a long time, and since Prokaryotes has brought this to a head, I will go ahead and lay out all the bad behavior and abuse that has been going on of late - some of it a continuation of things that have been going for a long, long time. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The story is not so complicated. You have a clear case of ownership and have been bullying other editors, whilst twisting the most basic guidelines and disallowing normal edits on any article to which you've laid claim. The result will ultimately be that you find yourself here almost weekly, if not more often. But go ahead, convince us that everyone else is wrong. petrarchan47คุก 19:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes

The GMO articles have been very roiled as of late, as Prokaryotes, who wikignomes these articles, showed up again recently and started editing very aggressively. This started on August 26 with this dif, and if you look at their last 525 edits, you will see that they have very almost all been on GMO-related articles, and every single one of those edits was adding negative content. (the "spark" for this, seemed to be that they just learned about a WHO committee report released in March that classified glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen", which was the subject of their first few edits; we incorporated that when it came out). And yes, I do serve as a steward on these articles, and push back on pro-industry and anti-GMO advocates, on both sides.

These articles are very controversial, and Prokaryotes' aggressive editing has destabilized them. And rather than slowing down and discussing things on Talk, as I urged them many times (e.g. here on their talk page and elsewhere, they just barrel ahead. When they do write on talk, it is ... nonsense, like phttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGenetically_modified_food_controversies&type=revision&diff=679487133&oldid=679486461 this]: "Greenpeace is not just an advocacy group, yes it advocates for stuff but it is also a campaigner etc." and misrepresentations/insults like this. Controversial articles require patience and an ability to talk through things, which Prokaryotes has demonstrated none of.

Prokaryotes should be topic banned from GMO-related content. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I would support a topic ban on prokaryotes, who has previously been blocked and indefinitely topic banned from vaccine related topics (see ANI thread here) for disruptive editing, given their similar behavior here in this topic area. However, I predict that there will be a pile-on from editors who have historically supported prokaryotes' position in this content dispute to show up (especially since they specifically pinged them in the original post), which will likely lead to a large, meandering ANI thread consisting of accusations and counter-accusations. Yobol (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes your very involved. It also appears your involved with Jytdog quite a bit. Looking at the Intersect Contribs you have edited 319 of the same articles and the Editor Interaction Analyser shows 49 articles that you edited an hour or less from Jytdog. How many of these do you have an opposite view than his? AlbinoFerret 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said I was uninvolved. But my involvement in the specific pages under discussion here is limited. I was involved in 1 RFC on 1 of the pages. In that RFC I focused on PAG which were not being followed. AlbinoFerret 19:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest idea, as I don't compare notes with Jytdog about his views on topics (he probably didn't appreciate I reverted him only a few days ago, though). For true transparency, AlbinoFerret, you should probably have noted your own previous conflict with Jytdog in a topic of area now at ArbCom, given your own previous experience at ANI, which Jytdog was involved in. Yobol (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This appears to be an attempt to silence those who Jytdog believes are wrong, as to content. And who recently were in a content dispute with Jytdog where Jytdog was the lone voice arguing against including legal material edited by a subject matter expert. We don't topic-ban people because they don't agree with others, especially when they are not being disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 17:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This goes to all three editors reported by Jytdog. To me, this just looks like Jytdog trying to block anyone who happens to disagree with him. Disagreeing is the whole point of talk pages, but when consensus is not in your favor, it's time to move on, which Jytdog repeatedly failed to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick to be frank, I don't believe that you reviewed everything. All of the editors I mention here, edit with one - one - POV on these topics. I have added all kinds of content, both positive, negative, and neutral, to these articles and do my best to uphold NPOV in the face of advocacy from industry as well as anti-GMO advocates. If you are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff to work over, that is one thing. But your vote is not helpful and doesn't reflect what has actually gone on. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well Jytdog "to be frank", whether you think I reviewed everything or not is just your opinion, with absolutely nothing to back it. I looked over every diff you brought up and the fact is you have a content disagreement and this was your "solution" to it. I'm more than capable in concluding this so don't try to undermine my vote again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking a second look. I am sorry that you cannot see the POV pushing and campaigning across this whole set of articles. The claim that "there is absolutely nothing to back it up" is not true. I meant what I said about his last 550 diffs. If you go there and click randomly, you will find that every single one adds some kind of negative information. Here I will do it and provide ten diffs - this will literally be random and selected from edits to articles, not Talk or drama boards:

1. adds content to article about a FRINGE-POV pushing article he created based on two WP:SPS sources and a meeting agenda. Padding to try to add credibility to a FRINGE group.
2. dif adds content about how humans use glyphosate to kill weeds, and lack of weeds means that butterfies starve, to article on GM food controversies. This has nothing to do with GM food (the weed stands are along roads and the edges of fields, not in the fields) Glyphosate could be used for these purposes regardless of what is growing in the field.
3. puffing up credibility of anti-GMO groups.
4. removes content about impact of Seralini's glitzy and manipulated press conference on his rat study, which the journal ended up retracting. Deleted text is a quote, yet the edit note says "too much SYN".
5. adds content making Seralini's support seem stronger than it was
6. dif modifying "Consensus statement" on relative safety of GM food, reflecting a tentative consensus on the the talk page of the GM food article. This is kind of OK.
7. dif add content about an advocacy group suing the EPA over regulation of glyphosate
8. removed statement that per WP:PSCI gave the science-based reality where FRINGE claims are presented.
9. dif adds content to Golden rice article about Tufts study that was retracted due to investigators not getting appropriate consents for testing with people
10. dif adds content trying to discredit the Science Media Centre

there you go. Exactly one POV. One. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog I was refering to the fact that you said I never reviewed your diffs. I don't need these other ones but I will look through them as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy

I am seeking an extension of DrChrissy's topic ban (he is already topic-banned from discussing MEDRS/human health content) to include agriculture, and an iBan. I would like to edit peacefully (as possible given the topics I work on) without him carrying his grudge into articles I work on.

DrChrissy tends to edit content about animal health/welfare; I tend to edit content about health (drugs, food, etc) and ag biotech. We overlapped a bit at the Foie gras article back in March, which didn't go well. I was rude to him, which led him to open a thread here against me for incivility that was closed with a warning for me, which I accepted, and I apologized to DrChrissy at that ANI and at DrChrissy's talk page.

DrChrissy wasn't happy with that outcome, and [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Request_review_of_closure_of_ANI_against_Jytdog|sought to overturn the close AN to get more severe action. To no avail.

Still unhappy, DrChrissy pursued conflict with me, editing health related articles outside his normal fields, like Scrambler therapy and Acupuncture, over which he filed an ANI case (closed no action) in mid-April. By mid-May his behavior at Acupuncture got him topic banned from discussing MEDRS.

In his anger, he also started to make probing edits into genetic engineering ag content, as you can see here on the GMO article, here on the Genetic engineering article, all back in the Spring.

Most recently he has pushed heavily into article that I usually edit, often incompetently and often aggressively and up to the edge of his topic ban and over into it.

You can see the editing pattern here on Glyphosate (examples of incompetent include adding in this dif content that says "Glyphosate can be lethal to non-human mammals." ("X can be lethal to Y" is true of any X and Y per The dose makes the poison - water can be lethal to humans.) That dif also has content about toxicity that directly reports the tox experiments used to established minimum exposure levels for humans). He also proposing using a very unreliable source here for the glyphosate article, and actually edit-warred over content in Colony collapse disorder here and here based on a FRINGE source (as determined at RSN.

Along with Glyphosate and Colony collapse disorder articles, DrChrissy has extended the scope of his editing to include Genetically modified bird (which he created and edited to include the ludicrous content that RNA is a small molecule), Genetically modified fish (per this; and Genetically modified food per this. There is more, and I haven't linked to talk discussions.

I asked him not to extend the field of conflict with me here and even tried to have a neural editor who seems to be OK with both of us mediate, here. To no avail.

I am very sorry that I hurt DrChrissy so deeply but his carrying a grudge around and actually seeking conflict is not OK. So as above I am seeking an extension of DrChrissy's topic ban (he is already topic-banned from discussing MEDRS/human health content) to include agriculture, and an iBan. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ban creep, this was all discussed and addressed by Adjwilley on Dr.Chrissy's page.[137][138] The admin who banned DrChrissy months ago. This is WP:FORUMSHOP AlbinoFerret 15:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Ajwilly was dealing with a specific instance. I am showing a larger pattern of bad behavior here that was not raised at DrChrissy's talk page. It is ban expansion; this is what happens to editors who act badly. They lose their editing privileges, bit by bit by bit. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you were unhappy with the decision of the admin in the first link[139] not doing all that you wanted. So you started a discussion on the same topics discussed here in the second.[[140] Since it doesnt look like your going to get your desired outcome, you have brought it here, thats WP:FORUMSHOP. AlbinoFerret 16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a flat out lie. I did not actually seek to extend their topic ban - I said I was thinking about it. Nor did I seek an Iban there. Stop lying. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you keep pushing for more, editors are free to read the sections. As for the IBAN. How about you show that your capable of doing it. Like staying off their talk page? AlbinoFerret 18:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen an editor list a series of editors he wants removed.While I have no experience with the other editors, in the case of Dr Chrissy, I know that Dr Chrissy and the admin, Adjwilley, who applied a topic ban are in communication as to the boundaries of the topic ban. For example [141] I see no reason for Jytdog to look elsewhere to find support to extend Dr Chrissy's topic ban. Doing so undercuts the admin who has been thoughtful and consistent, and is forum shopping. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC))

• Oppose. This appears to be an attempt to silence those who Jytdog believes are wrong, as to content. And who recently were in a content dispute with Jytdog where Jytdog was the lone voice arguing against including legal material edited by a subject matter expert. We don't topic-ban people because they don't agree with others, especially when they are not being disruptive. Also, this is another attempt for ban creep, as noted by AlbinoFerret. GregJackP Boomer! 17:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax

This editor is active in the GMO articles for exactly one reason, and that is to care of "a boil that must be lanced") on August 27. The amount of bad faith boiled into that statement is enough to ask for IBan and for him to also be topic banned from GMO articles. Jusdafax has no interest in the content there - is WP:NOTHERE in that topic to build an encyclopedia, but just to come after me, and you can see him actually starting to try to "lance the boil" around the time he wrote that.

Here are diffs where all he is doing is ripping on me on various talk pages or rather mindlessly parroting people disagreeing with me and specifically naming them:

• Aug 26 dif and dif within moments of each other, each just agreeing with prokaryotes
• Aug 26 just praising whoever is disagreeing with me
• Aug 27 again, and this goes on and on. No content contribs, just BATTLEGROUND behavior on Talk pages.
• Aug 27 more
• Aug 27 more
• Aug 27 more - this one is important, for two reasons. Apparently prompted Petrarchan's remark discussed below, and shows the hysteria, and the way all these editors are feeding off each other (the comment is in reaction to a claim by DrChrissy)
• Aug 31 personalizing content dispute with high drama. "Something is wrong..."
• Aug 31 more of same
• Sept 2 yet more
• Sept 3 calling for early close to ongoing RfC (one of several launched of late over trivia)
• Sept 3 this comment in particular, shows no desire at all to actually try to talk through issues. It just expresses no clue that we resolve content disputes by actually talking at article Talk pages, in good faith.

When I filed at 3RR against Prokaryotes and then withdrew it because it had gone stale and the article had settled some (finally), Jusafax responded at Prokaryotes with this which was really surprising to me, as it egged Prokaryotes on instead of advising him to actually use the Talk page to work things out. I responded to him there with this.

And at 3RR where we have been three times due to Prokaryotes aggressive editing, you find this kind of dismayingly clueless stuff, trying to turn that acute-crisis board into a drama board:

• this
• this

And there is more of that.

My interaction with Jusdafax goes back to 2013, when they accused me of being a paid editor without grounds, on his talk page here. He appears to remain convinced of that, even though I have bent over backwards to prove I am not.

Yesterday when I asked Jusdafax about the "lance the boil" comment, instead of responding in a simple human way, (like "gee that was an ugly thing to write. i am sorry about that") he responded with this truly incredible rant. Really? Watching someone's Talk page is hounding them? The hysteria is way too much.

So yes I would like an IBAN and for Jusdafax to be topic banned from ag biotech/pesticide articles. They seem incapable of AGF with regard to me. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This appears to be an attempt to silence those who Jytdog believes are wrong, as to content. And who recently were in a content dispute with Jytdog where Jytdog was the lone voice arguing against including legal material edited by a subject matter expert. We don't topic-ban people because they don't agree with others, especially when they are not being disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 17:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This section shows Jytdog's WP:OWNERSHIP if someone disagrees with him, that person is fodder for him to ABF. Its also a content dispute. I wonder what PAG outlines consequences for disagreeing with someone over content? What one outlines using the drama boards to win content disputes by getting the opposing editors banned? The last sentence of Jytdog's post is really telling, he expects everyone to AGF with him, but not the other way around. AlbinoFerret 18:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

section break

TheGracefulSlick I have added the break above but feel free to change its title. I appreciate that it is your edit below. GregKaye 17:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - (I'm an uninvolved editor) Jytdog why is it on an ANI that was supposed to be about your behavior, you are pressing all these demands for topic bans and ibans? Even if you think you have a point on some of these claims, reporting them now just seems like a way to avoid discussion about your editing. Hopefully other editors will realize this and not fall for it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• A complaint at ANI (or any other dispute resolution venue) is not the Wikipedia version of a free throw. It's not at all uncommon for the person bringing the complaint to be sanctioned themselves. This does not speak to the validity or otherwise of Jytdog's arguments, only to the idea that the thread is "supposed to be about [his] behavior" without regard to other participants. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

But Short Brigade Harvester my point was more about the two other users Jytdog brought here. It has nothing to do with being boomeranged since they never even reported this ANI. Jytdog should have made seperate ANIs to avoid the enormous confusion and scrambling that will follow.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, you seem to have a misunderstanding as to what the purpose of this board is. It's not the Editor Conduct Complaints Department, it's the place one comes to report incidents which potentially require administrative action. Since all three editors' actions are alleged to be part of the same incident, discussing all three in a single section is both correct and appropriate. ‑ iridescent 17:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No I completely understand what ANI is for, I've had my share of the mess users like to create here. I just know how the users will act here and it will quickly develope into a circus. If you want to handle it, be my guest, but I'd rather have this be an orderly civil discussion. Regardless, I'm no longer commenting on how anyone wants to sort this and want to look over the evidence as of now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for further clarification if you are still reading (and for other folks), the underling issue is that many of us science editors at this topic have patiently tried to work with editors that take a very strong WP:ADVOCACY approach, mudslinging, paid shill arguments, etc. It might have been better to nip each problematic editor in the bud by bringing them to ANI earlier instead of letting things draw out with additional such editors coming in over time. That has resulted multiple editors coming up in one case instead of spread out over time. It's tough because on one end good-faith is needed to work in controversial articles, but you also need to draw a line somewhere when behavior issues don't stop. A lot of science editors are more interested in content than going to drama boards, even in topics that attract editors like I mentioned above, so you get the situation that finally came to a head here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It might have been better to nip each problematic editor in the bud by bringing them to ANI earlier. You do realize that Jytdog has, in fact, been brought to ANI for his problematic editing numerous times, don't you? GregJackP Boomer! 17:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Everybody here realizes that you are here with an ax to grind GregJackP. And yes everybody here knows that I work on controversial articles and topics and get dragged here pretty often. I have been sanctioned here twice, and that was my own fault for losing my cool with DrChrissy, which I acknowledged and apologized for and have not repeated and the other, where CorporateM asked for an Iban, which I accepted. Just those two times. In any case, as I wrote in my initial response, there has been too much going on all at once to manage this gracefully and I have been doing the best I can to just manage the surge of disruptive editing across all these articles calmly. But this is what aggressive editing on a whole set of controversial does - it creates disruption and drama. None of the actual content issues are unworkable - the behavior of these disruptive editors is what is breaking things. I have gone ahead and aired the extent of what is going so the community has more insight. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Following one set of encounters with Jytdog I took some time to a previous ANI that was brought against h' following threads on GM related articles and, while it certainly was not my area centering on my main areas of background knowledge, it was apparent to me that h' was both evasive and assertive on an argument that didn't seem to me and most other editors to fully hold up.

I am particularly perturbed by the content of the second paragraph of the OP and regarding issues of incivility presented later. While I respect the general intention of Jytdog's involvements, I think that he takes things to unwarranted extents and certainly. There is certainly no excuse for the incivility and the borderline obstreperous behaviour. It would be wrong if no sanction were given although I would not recommend this to last for any lengthy period of time. Some time out to think things through I think would be potentially to h' advantage. GregKaye 18:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Frederick Achom

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

---

Could someone please protect the page Frederick Achom please? I placed a request in at WP:RFPP but the situation is getting too far out of hand for me to wait any longer. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by MrSean99

MrSean99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – continued disruptive editing after final warning. Inserts apostrophes into decades (e.g. changing "the 1990s" to "the 1990's" contrary to MOS:DECADE. Never responds on talk, never provides an edit summary, so no clues as to motivation and no prospect of participation in any form of dispute resolution. Diffs provided are for illustration – there are others:

• Edit | Edit
• Warning #1 | Edit | Edit
• Warning #2 | Edit | Edit
• Warning #3 | Edit
• Warning #4 | Edit | Edit
• Warning #5 | Edit | Edit
• Final warning | Edit

Adding to the difficulty of understanding this editor's motivation, there have also been some edits that are constructive:

• OK | OK | OK

– Wdchk (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If permitted please copy my response from talk page to the archived discussion.

Link. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)