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)
Proposal: a site ban for Joinopenaccess (talk·contribs) and any other editor representing OMICS Publishing Group -- mainly on grounds of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive, which shows long-term and on-going attempts to use sockpuppets for promotional purposes and to remove well-sourced negative content. In addition, implied legal threats e.g. here (with emphasis on alleged "defamatory" editing by other editors). This disruption has been going on for many years now -- see this section of the OMICS talk page, giving other sockpuppet cases, as well as the archive indicating the nature of the "participation" from representatives of the company. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomoskedasticity is making a fair request. A sympathetic perspective of the other side is that seemingly, a series of staff have been hired by this company to promote it. The company seems to be in India. Perhaps they employ 1000 people - they say this. I expect that they are hiring educated academics. At the level of the individual, I have sympathy for the scholars who work for this academic publisher with good intentions. At the level of the company, OMICS actions seem to have little regard for Wikipedia volunteer time, and seems to not support the paid contributors who are being directed to make heartfelt pleas to Wikipedia.
Companies can change over time, but OMICS does not seem like they are here to make an encyclopedia. I have not seen evidence that staff of this organization wish to learn or consider Wikipedia community guidelines. They have an agenda. I cannot summarize all conversation because there are years of exchanges, but in brief - OMICS has not ever offered to give what Wikipedia requires in Wikipedia:Competence is required. I wish that OMICS could repeat back what has been told to them to demonstrate that they care about what they are being told. Maybe they have had 10+ staff engage Wikipedia - who knows. It is rough for volunteers to give this organization the time it requests, and they request a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (to be clear I did suggest this in the first place). They've been given many opportunities to contribute constructively but have repeatedly tried to deceptively manipulate the article and we have to draw a line somewhere and ban them from contributing here any further. Most recently, several editors have been arguing that they are listed in pubmed when as User:Randykitty has pointed out, only very few of their papers are included there due to the work being published by NIH funded authors rather than the whole journal being indexed. User:Goattender started advocating changes, but as I explained here and here it became obvious that they were also being paid to represent OMICS, despite not being related to the Scholarscentral group of socks (not that they edited again after I confronted them). It's gotten to the point where they cannot be trusted to even suggest changes and a ban would stop us wasting even more time. (Just in case anyone is wondering this source is the most recent RS, published in August, and confirms that the current article is still accurate). SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an unsavory company publishing very-low-quality academic journals and organizing equally low-quality conferences. Given the sources, our article is treating them lightly... The OMICS editors keep insisting that we include information about handwritten notes, make claims (like their journals being included in PubMed) that are demonstrably incorrect, etc. Just as in real life they don't seem to be interested in delivering quality products, they don't seem to be here to produce a good encyclopedia either. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, after having seen the sockpuppet investigation of Scholarscentral, the continuous unjustified de-defamatory edit( request)s on OMICS Publishing Group, and a quick verification in the NLM catalogue. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as there is only so much good faith you can give before you've run out of patience. Seeing the sockpuppet case, this is a no-brainier at this point. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support re assume good faith. If this is areputable company acting in good faith then they are incompetent. If they are not then we don't want them any way. Op47 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the behaviour of Joinopenaccess is indicative of the behaviour of representatives of OMIC group, then a site ban is definitely due. Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The master account User:Scholarscentral is already de facto banned with a long history of spamming/whitewashing OMICS articles, sockpuppetry and copyright violations, but a ban on any editing on behalf of this company is needed to prevent proxying as was threatened here by a recent sock. January (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is an unacceptable move, i never edited the main article OMICS Publishing Group, I Only kept comments and asking permission to do editing at talk page. My question is why few editors are interested in this article from last three years. Any way I respect the decision of editors and administrators. Joinopenaccess (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After looking at some the relevant talk discussions and that massive sequences of SPIs, I have nothing but sympathy for the editors who have had to wrestle with this company over the years. That being said, I have serious misgivings about the solution being suggested here and question whether a handful of editors on ANI are empowered to employ a sanction of this scope against an ambiguously-defined and potential large class of contributors. It's possible I am unaware of a relevant instance, but to the best of my knowledge, a siteban has never been instituted against all editors, present or future, associated with a given organization. That's a huge leap from the normal processes accepted under community consensus and any such move would require extensive and broad discussion in the community at large, especially when there are other more conventional oversight/administrative procedures which have not even been discussed as yet; for example, why was this exceptional action been deemed the best approach before the notion of taking the matter to ArbCom, which is ideally situated to deal with this manner of issue?
As a matter of longstanding and overwhelming consensus, editors are generally treated as individuals and their actions accordingly judged on an independent basis rather than by the company they keep or the associations they have, on or off the project. What would happen if, for example, the company hired a non-SPA, experienced editor to try to rehabilitate their image here within the framework of policy? This sanction would have such a user mechanistically site-banned, regardless of whether they knew about this ruling going in. For that matter, its not outside the realm of possibility that the company might send some of its employees here as SPAs and that one or more of them might make an honest study of WP's protocols and work within them. Regardless of whether or not that is likely, this proposed ban would judge and ban those individuals before their first contribution to the project, an action that is manifestly against some of Wikipedia's most deeply-held and critical open-collaboration principles. For the present time, paid editing is not cause for censure. Nor is the conduct of editors judged solely on the basis of the the span of topics they edit upon or their reasons for choosing them, even be they closely related to said topics. I understand the frustration of the above editors and others who have had to reign in what seems unquestionably to be a dodgy company here to manipulate process to its own ends--believe me, I've been there with regard to such editors. But I just don't see how a solution such as that proposed above is within the purview of a handful of editors on a noticeboard to institute, in seeming defiance of some of this community's most extensive and important consensus, especially prior to pursuing all available conventional administrative channels. Snowlet's rap 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The post from Snow-Rise is unfortunate. No one is proposing to be unreasonable here. If someone from OMICS decides to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly, then we can discuss rescinding the ban. To object to a ban because such a thing is possible is entirely beside the point -- because years of experience have shown that this is not what we should expect. The behaviour we have seen is the behaviour we should expect. It's thoroughly disruptive, and we should use the tools we have to deal with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound contrarian here, but I think it's indicative of a profound confusion about how consensus building proceeds on this project that you would describe another editor raising their concerns as "unfortunate", especially when we are talking about the possibility of making a huge departure from pre-exisiting policy and process regarding community sanctions. Either those concerns are superfluous, in which case they can be easily addressed or else they are well-founded in policy and community consensus, in which case it is manifestly a good thing that I have raised them. But it is in no event "unfortunate" that an editor chooses to provide their perspective, except for those instances in which comments are made with intention of offense or otherwise in bad faith.
So let's review those concerns, none of which you substanaitvely responded to, and consider your own assertions, and see which is consistent with our community standards and practically beneficial in this context. You say that "we should use the tools we have to deal with [the disruption]". But if you review my comments, you'll see that one of my principal points is that we (meaning the handful of editors who happen to be engaged on this one thread on ANI) do not "have" such "tools", in that this would be an entirely novel sanction, without precedent and extending well beyond existing community consensus on the scope of sanctions and the conditions under which they are to be applied. And all of this before actual existing tools and processes have been substantially explored, not the least of which is ArbCom; and frankly I can't remember the last time I saw a case that was better suited for ArbCom, which is the one collection of users who actually are empowered by the community to extend sanctions in the manner being proposed. Implementing such a decision independent of existing conflict resolution guidelines would require much broader community discussion if we ever expected the administrative corps to enforce it. Frankly, I think it's highly unlikely that any experienced admin would effect the action being proposed here, no matter the proportion of "support" votes, exactly because of how obvious it is that this "solution" would only complicate matters further. But let's presume for a moment that one would; I can almost guarantee that the first time a user is blocked for suspected association with OMICS, even though they have not violated an existing policy, there will be at least one admin (indeed, almost assuredly a great many) who will unblock them on the basis that they actually haven't done anything wrong under existing policy and community consensus. So if you were to prevail here, all you would accomplish is to drag more admins and more users into the contention surrounding this topic, amping up the disruption to the n-th degree.
But let's even put all of that aside for a moment. Let's consider if this solution you are proposing is even in any sense workable in practice, because I can't see how it could be. For our actual and existing policies on community sanctions we have methods for establishing when a user has engaged in disruptive behaviour. If a user has violated one of our behavioural or content policies, we provide diffs to show where this misconduct took place. If a user is suspected of socking, we have checkuser and other technical tools to investigate the matter. And note that the standard for evidence in imposing sanctions in these cases is, by design fairly high. If the "misconduct" you suspect is that a given editor is associated with OMICS, how are you going to prove that? Will you just move to have every relatively new user who edits the article to reflect a positive view of the topic banned as a presumed agent of the company? You don't see it as problematic to have "the suspicion of involved editors" be the standard of proof for this new class of misconduct you would have us create here, on an ad-hoc basis applicable only this namespace? And again, you expect this to decrease disruption on the target page, even though it would certainly lead to a constant block/unblock cycle with accompanying AN/ANI discussions and who knows what other kind of voluminous community discussion on the appropriateness of these actions within the framework of our existing policies? And if this company is really determined on side-stepping policy, making a statement by banning their overt involvement isn't going to stop them; it's just going to stop them from ever having their employees reveal their association with the company when operating here, making it more difficult to track their efforts with regard to the article and leading to yet more argument on trying to determine whose actions constitute evidence for a block. How is that an improvement on the current situation? I just don't think you've thought this approach through.
And all of the above can be weighed without considering the broader questions of whether the proposed action is consistent with our principles of open collaboration and never judging them on the basis of who they are but rather solely on the nature of their contributions to the project. Those issues are of massive importance, and entire discussion and of themselves. Snowlet's rap 02:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise You are raising fair points that need to be acknowledged.
One thing that OMICS does in compliance with Wikipedia community guidelines is use paid staff to request support from the Wikipedia volunteer community and engage in discussion. At a glance, it seems likely to me that this group has requested and received not less than 100 hours of volunteer time. While it is allowed to request volunteer support, it is extraordinary to request so much over so many years and all to seemingly come to no resolution or even progress.
An expectation of contributors to Wikipedia is that when they engage in Wikipedia, they find a way to productively contribute in accord with community norms and guidelines. Considering the amount of volunteer time donations this organization has been willing to accept, I think that it would be fair to do accounting of what OMICS has given back. May I ask you to please make a short list of the positive contributions that OMICS has given in exchange for the volunteer resources which it has continuously consumed for these past few years?
A normal exchange on Wikipedia is that someone needs about 15 minutes of an experienced Wikipedians time to be able to contribute several hours of their own time productively. This balance seems far disrupted in this case. The coverage of OMICS in this article has a lot of community review and consensus behind it. The article may not be perfect, but Wikipedia community process has settled on this version and I am comfortable saying the article is a product of Wikipedia's crowdsourcing process and not anomalous as unreviewed fringe content. Still, after all that OMICS has been given, they have the same requests without acknowledgement of the huge investment of attention which they have already received. Staff and consultants who over the past few years have demanded volunteer time have demonstrated no interest in supporting Wikipedia. I feel for OMICS, but protecting volunteers here is the priority. If you have seen positive contributions from OMICS then please share. It would be extremely helpful to have a list of the good things which have come from this organization, and you seem to be one who might have seen these things if anyone has. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I had no experience with this article until I saw this ANI discussion, so I'm not in a position to make such a case for the net value of OMICS' contributions to this project. But more to the point, I'm not trying to make any such case. Indeed, I made a point of introducing my comments here by noting that I am sympathetic to the editors who have had to wrestle with the company in many instances. I think you may have profoundly misunderstood my comments here and if that's the case, all I can suggest is that you go back and read them in detail, because I've already been, if anything, excessive in detailing them here. But in brief, I'm not making an argument for the cost-benefit value of OMICS-backed editors relating to the article or the project at large. By concerns are solely related to the solution being proposed here, which A) is well outside the scope of community consensus and policy on sanctions, B) would require broad community discussion well beyond a handful of editors on ANI, C) is being considered well before normal dispute resolution and oversight procedures have been exhausted and before the case has been proposed to ArbCom, D) is probably unenforcable as a practical matter, and E) attempts to address a problem that is already better resolved through our existing procedures for socking and disruptive activity.
I happen to agree that OMICS seems to be obviously intent on getting its way and, from the evidence I've seen so far (the SPI records in particular), seems to have often tried to brute force its preferred vision of the article into existence. Their socks can and should be banned on discovery. However, Wikipedia has never banned an entire organization nor a class of editor defined as being associated with an organization. That is a radical move that would need to be discussed broadly and, frankly, I can't fathom (per my comments above) how that would work on a practical/technical level. I'm sympathetic to the non-SPA volunteers who have dealt with this family of articles and that's why I've been volunteering some time the last few days on the OMICS Publishing Group talk page to try to iron out some matters.
But the solution being proposed here is, if I am to just be perfectly blunt, a hysterical and irrational one which not serve to stabilize the article but rather just introduce more battleground mentality. Contrary to your proposed ratios, there is no community rule (firm or rough) about how many hours or how much vaguely-defined benefit an inexperienced editor has contribute in order to validate their being taken for "legitimate" users by "more experienced" editors. Everyone is volunteering their time here and, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, they can choose when to disengage with the project in whole or with a particular topic, at will. But the flip side to that is that when and where they do opt contribute they don't have the right to leverage those lost hours as an argument against the value of others they voluntarily engage with, UNLESS it can be proven that the party in question is behaving in a manner that is defined as WP:Disruptive under our policies. To the extent that OMICS continues to send people here as sock or meat puppets or otherwise flaunt our rules, I have no objection to those accounts being blocked. If ArbCom wants to take up the case, they might even consider the extreme action of range-blocking OMICS' offices for a time--and for those who are really concerned about the influence of this company on WP, I really suggest you consider an ArbCom filing. But as for blacklisting an entire organization, that seems to me to be completely incompatible with WP's ideals and mission statement and, in any event, it would require broad community discussion.
One last point that is not directly connected to the above but which I think is worth stating here since I have had to go on at length anyway. While I think the OMICS-backed editors deserve "credit" for the lion's share of the adversarial atmosphere that now gripes that article and its talk page, it's clear that they are not the only ones who have adopted intractable positions as a result of the prolonged contest of wills. It looks to me from observing that TP the last week that at least some of the editors who have had to keep the company in check for years on end may now be over-correcting in how they look at the content and consensus building in that namespace. With respect, your absolutist back-and-forth with Tiptoethrutheminefield below is pretty indicative of how little either side is willing to budge; one camp says that the article is ideal and perfectly (or at least "acceptably") neutral, while the other insists that is a POV-ridden mess of an attack page. Having come to this debate as fresh set of eyes in the last few days, I feel fairly comfortable saying that I don't think most experienced and previously uninvolved editors would classify it as either. The article is not an attack page and does attempt to distill the essence of reliable sources which are generally quite critical of the company. However, there are also not-insignificant problems with consistency with policy in the way those views are written in the article which undermine its encyclopedic tone and neutrality. And there is huge resistance amongst the non-SPA editors there in making even small changes in these areas, even where policy is unambiguous (see the current discussions on SYNTH and PIPE issues for example), simply (I believe) because they are used to dealing with SPAs and have become overly defensive of maintaining the status qou there.
But no article is perfectly formed and there is always room for improvement. As there are now more eyes on the article and hopefully the socks will be caught out quite rapidly (and while we are on the subject, a thanks to bbb23 for his attention and alacrity in this regard), I hope that users will begin to let down their guard and begin to actually work on improving the article, rather than feeling they are defending it from the barbarian hordes and accordingly demanding the maintenance of its exact current wording, because ti certainly can stand from some adjustments. In any event, as I feel I have exhausted just about every last thing I can say on this topic, I hope you will not be offended if I do not respond further in this thread. I do, however, hope that you will join me on the talk page in trying to diffuse the situation there and iron out the kinks in the content! Snowlet's rap 03:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise I think that I understand you, and I feel comfortable in addressing you directly to disagree. I will respond to your lettered point -
A) The community is free to protect Wikipedia. In this instance it is doing so in the least disruptive way that anyone has imagined. All alternative courses of action that anyone proposes would be considered. Alternatives have been tested over years for many hours and everyone has had time to speak up. Even after this action there is time for people to propose alternatives.
B) There are enough community members here to make a decision. The case can be escalated, perhaps to WP:ArbCom, and you are correct to say that an organizational ban is an extraordinary measure. I hope you also would agree that the organization being discussed has extraordinary bad behavior, and has with dozens of accounts continually for several years.
C) I disagree that obvious alternatives remain. They have been used.
D) OMICS is interested in articles related to OMICS. Right now there is only one of those on Wikipedia. Routine oversight of that article combined with dismissal of staff engagement with is is a plausible remedy to the problem.
E) A huge amount of volunteer time has already been consumed on this matter and continues to be requested. There is no routine option left to try.
A) "The community" ≠ eight random editors (none of whom are an arb, a bureaucrat, or an admin) on a random ANI/talk page discussion which has been advertised in exactly zero additional community spaces in which a radical, highly problematic and demanding sanction are being propsed.
B) Yes the company seems to have acted in extreme ignorance of basic policy and often outright bad-faith. It's nowhere near the worst group we've had to deal with, and the project survives. And again, and maybe more importantly, our existing policies already do a better job of handling this manner of disruption without creating more disruption.
C) WP:DRN, WP:MEDIATION, WP:ARBCOM.... I'm looking at the archives right now and there's not even a single instance of an RfC.
D) It's not plausible because there are no such things as "OMICS-detecting" tools. We have checkuser to look for the socks of those who have previously been banned for disruptive behaviour (and our intuitions to know when to employ them), and we'll use them as necessary. But on an article where hostility to any change between two extremes has taken hold, how can you think it's a good idea to allow people to ban for "suspicion of being in league with the devil"? That's going to achieve the exact opposite of stabilizing discussion there. Look at the recent talk history on that page. You don't think that's problematic? Anyway, we do not blacklist organizations on this project; if you want that to change, you are going to need a huge community effort to make it happen.
E) WP:ARBCOM...WP:ARBCOM? WP:ARBCOM, WP:ARBCOM, WP:ARBCOM? I mean, I don't mean to be rude friend, but I'm beginning to feel like I am typing into a void. You (and others) keep making this assertion that all conventional alternatives have been pursued, and yet you never respond to the references to the actual conventional procedures that have not been availed of that prove that assertion to be patently false. Even if you argue that mediation and DRN would be a waste of time because the company operates in bad faith and always will (and that's a leap in itself), you still have ArbCom, which exists to handle exactly these problems. It is composed of highly experienced and skilled individuals elected by broad community vote and thereby empowered to do exhaustive investigations and consider the possibility of exceptional sanctions. We, a random of collection of editors who happened to be around to see a given ANI discussion, do not have such a community mandate to allow us to consider actions which go deeply against community standards on the scope of sanctions. Especially when the proposed solution is potentially so ill-conceived that is unlikely alleviate any disruption but rather likely to create more. Snowlet's rap 20:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise Probably the reason that you feel that you are "typing into a void" when talking to me is that we are starting from different premises. You seem to believe that OMICS is a rational actor and would be responsive to mediation. I believe that most mediation options are unavailable in this case, because mediation can only be used in contexts without overt maliciousness. OMICS presents only malicious behavior. It is not possible to accidentally get 50+ blocked accounts in the context a good faith effort to learn to use Wikipedia. To clear the void and make it easier for us to communicate, could you please give your opinion about the likehood of OMICS staff intentions being anything other than achieving their self-promotional goals without regard for the wellbeing of Wikipedia or its volunteer contributors?
A) January is an admin and DGG is an arbitrator, so you are mistaken in saying no admin or arbitrator is here. I think you are further mistaken to call the people commenting here a random sample of editors because highly experienced Wikipedians (judged by edit count and contribution quality) are commenting here and this is the noticeboard for discussing issues like this one.
B) Do you agree that this organization has many years of history of sending many paid staff to subvert Wikipedia without regard for Wikipedia or its volunteer community? That is the problem I would like to address, and I think the remedy being discussed here is fair for that problem. How would you frame the problem? If you would frame it as I do, then how would you address it?
C) DRN and mediation are for content disputes. This is a behavioral dispute, and should not be brought to those places. Arbcom rules on disputes when there are two perspectives in the Wikipedia community. In this case, OMICS' position is that they should be able to break Wikipedia community guidelines. Since that is not a defensible position, there is no need for Arbcom, and this can be resolved without them. Arbcom is not the place for all serious disputes - it is only the place for resolving difficult ones.
D) Yes, anyone who edits OMICS in a promotional way should be presumed to be "in league with the devil", as you say. This is a small Indian company with very little Wikipedia traffic and yet it gets more attention than other major Indian companies, and far out of proportion to the attention that low-traffic Wikipedia articles should get. Anyone fanatically passionate about this article and who makes a WP:SPA to edit this Wikipedia article in an inappropriate way can safely be presumed to be a paid affiliate of the organization. Previously editors have WP:AGF, but this discussion is about ending that assumption for this article.
E)I asked you in the beginning what good things OMICS staff have done on Wikipedia, and you said "I'm not in a position to make such a case for the net value of OMICS' contributions to this project. But more to the point, I'm not trying to make any such case." Yes, you are the person making the case for the value of OMICS' contributions, and now is the time to do your accounting if you have any. I will help you file a case at Arbcom if you draft out the worthy things OMICS has done and excuses for their bad behavior. There is no reason to go to Arbcom if no one has anything nice to say about OMICS and no one to defend their actions. Arbcom is based on an adversarial process and there needs to be two sides to argue. Arbcom is only a judge, but the power to execute is left to the community.
You have the power to execute here too. There is no assertion anywhere than there is more left to say, and I am not seeing any proposed arguments or remedies which have not bee considered. What is your perspective on OMICS' behavior? What more do you think there is to learn about it, and what information are you lacking that is a barrier to your making a decision on what to do in response? Based on what you know, what remedy would you propose to protect Wikipedia? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A ban should make it easier to avoid the need to repeat obvious stuff on the talk page, and easier to block editors who mention words like "defamatory". According to the article, OMICS are seeking $1 billion in damages from a critic, so it is unlikely they will ever understand Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find a lot of troubling editing and troubling content on OMICS Publishing Group. However, some of it has been done by the proposer of this site ban, Nomoskedasticity. The wording in the lede that he has been supporting has discarded all semblance of reasonableness and the type of content that a lede would normally contain. A lede should summarise the article's content. "The United States government have questioned the validity..." we are told boldly in the lede. Yet nothing in the content backs up such a claim. What we actually have is a trademark violation complaint by the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of the National Institutes of Health [2]. That is not the "United States government"! Yet not only is Nomoskedasticity insisting this wording is correct, he is claiming here that an objection to this obviously faulty wording amounts to an "implied legal threat". A lede would normally state what the article is about, then some undisputed facts, then what the subject of the article says it is about, and then third party opinions about that subject. But the current lede mixes everything up, mixing facts with opinions. The article is full of vague "it has been suggested" and "some observers" wording, and appears to be solely intent on piling up as much criticism of OMICS as it can find, regardless of the quality of that criticism. Any site ban for representatives of OMICS should be accompanied by an article ban for Nomoskedasticity. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are suggesting misbehaviour on my part, I think you'll need to provide diffs for the assertions you make about the editing of the article itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here [[3]] is a revert that restored the "United States government" wording, and that went back to a version created by you. The edit [4] which was cited by you at the start to be an "implied legal threat" specifically complains about that wording. Here you inserted an opinion into the lede, and presented it as if it were a fact: [[5]]. You have done this many times - here is an identical revert done some months earlier [6]. You did not originate that content, but by reverting you are taking ownership of the content you restore. This was the edit that did originate it [7]. Despite this content being added by an anonymous editor, and its content going completely against Wikipedia norms, multiple editors allowed that unsatisfactory wording to remain for almost a year and some repeatedly restored it when it was removed (including Randykitty [8], [9] and Joel B. Lewis [10]). This, to me, raises questions regarding their ability to edit this article impartially. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly content to have others assess whether that edit constitutes misconduct on my part. Thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then extend the same courtesy to others. You are wanting editors site blocked for misconduct they have not done but MIGHT do. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And who is to decide who is "representing OMICS Publishing Group", and how are they to decide it? What does "representing" mean? Why propose something that is impossible to enforce correctly? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is impossible to enforce such a blanket ban since it is impossible to know who is "representing OMICS Publishing Group" other than by using evidence from an editor's actual edits. If such edits are at fault, there are already plenty of Wikipedia procedures in existence to deal with such problems. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would some of the supporters of this proposal answer my points made above. How exactly do they envisage this site ban being enforced? Can they cite any past examples of such a ban proposal being accepted as an appropriate solution? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: By their very nature bans are to some extent unenforcebale because a banned user can create a new account. It's a matter of whether the community is happy to continue the cycle of socks and paid editors complaining about the article or draw a line in the sand and say that we've had enough. There have been at least 3 unrelated groups representing OMICS in the last few months. It's not exactly the same, but there is a precedent in the banning of scientology back in 2009. As with that case the decision to block would be reliant on behaviour - it's not hard to spot them. SmartSE (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the point though--if someone is socking, then they can (and should) be blocked for that. It's an action which the community broadly recognizes as inherently disruptive and, in contrast to most other kinds of disruptive behaviour, we generally don't even give warnings before banning in cases of socks. However, paid editing is not a blockable offense; this is a clear and unambiguous matter of consensus arrived at after considerable debate amongst the community and the WMF. So users cannot just be automatically banned for their association with a company. They can face sanctions, as individuals, if they operate in a disruptive fashion because of the fact that they are paid to contribute here, but that cannot be blocked for that reason alone.
Notice that this distinction is completely consistent with the ArbCom scientology case you referenced; the Arbs in that case blocked specific accounts for specific disruptive activities. They did not suggest that all people associated with the church of scientology had become persona non grata on Wikipedia and would be blocked upon discovery, which is what is being considered here, so that case clearly does not present precedent in the sense of validating the overreaching solution that some editors have asked for here. There is the possibility of range-blocking the offices of OMICS as was done in the scientology case. Perhaps that's an intermediate solution that those who are most vexed with OMICS would consider beneficial. However, that action is in itself extraordinary and would need to be validated by ArbCom rather than us, the random collection of editors who happen to be presently contributing thoughts to an ANI thread. Still, it's a notion. Snowlet's rap 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note. Wikipedia should publish the truth from reliable prominent sources, not the opinions by competitors/representative from companies engaged in similar business.Yes OMICS Employees about 1000+ employees, there are all educated academics mostly from India, please don't highlight the nationality and criticize. There is no ban on OMICS Publications as explained, US Government never questioned OMICS about quality, the letter is about trademark infringement. After receipt of letter from DHHS/National Institute of Health OMICS rectified the error and later OMICS Published 2000+ [11][12] articles from last three years funded by DHHS/National Institute of Health , it is a clear evidence that there is no ban of OMICS Publications.
We request the redrafting of first paragraph OMICS Publishing Group as there is a clear evidence that few Wiki editors framing sentences to make OMICS Wikipedia page defamatory
The word predatory should be kept at controversies section only, as wiki editors following for other Academic publishing companies like Bentham Science Publishers, Dove Medical Press, Libertas Academica, MDPI and recently added Frontiers Media etc. Wikimedia should publish the truth then only people respect if it is becoming a platform for defamatory content for competitors then no one is going believe wikimedia content. Please don't spread lies through wikipedia, Please respect the truth. Refer the links for proof [13][14]Joinopenaccess (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Related note: an AfD has been created about the OMICS Publishing Group, apparently in response to an OTRS by the subject. LjL (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear the article will be kept. So this is still a live issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part support a topic ban, normal COI applies. A workable prevention of the disruption would help - SNOW keep further AfDs etc, and if continues a measure like this. Widefox; talk 08:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am shocked to see that even in this discussion the organization uses socks. I can only trust the checkuser process that socks were used. If socks were used, there seems to be no end to the demands on volunteer time. Wikipedia volunteers need protection from never ending demands to bypass Wikipedia community guidelines. This organization seems to have money to hire staff to indefinitely and continually seek to circumvent Wikipedia's community review process. Banning the organization and keeping protection on the page seems like a fair option to protect volunteers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those suffering from the heat of demands on volunteer time, better to get out of the kitchen for a while rather than knock holes in its walls. I think that a securely written article would be the best defense against those seeking to influence its content using illegitimate means. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoethrutheminefield Thanks. The OMICS article is fine as it is and would not be easy to criticize with comparison to any other published source. It has been through a lot of community editing and been thoroughly reviewed especially for an article which gets such low traffic. I think anyone would have trouble finding a less read article which has received this much attention from experienced Wikipedia editors. This is a securely written article that has been stable for a long time and I expect that it can remain as it is, which is good enough. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is NOT fine - it is a pov-riddled mess of an attack article, a status supported by longterm editors of the article (for which it has got personal), that gives to it an open-door for OMICS representatives to edit war. This seems to have gone on for years. Rather than propose an extreme one-off sanction that is unworkable, the article should be fixed. Then there would be no openings for those reps to exploit, no extremes for them to protest about, and when they offend they could be easily dealt with using existing sanctions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoethrutheminefield The article is "fine" in the sense that it is the kind of content which Wikipedia tries to produce. When you say the article is "not fine", my thought is that you must not like Wikipedia's usual editing process, which is to summarize the existing published sources giving fair weight to sources according to their prominence.
Do you feel that Wikipedia is not summarizing the available sources? Do you see some better review of this topic other than this Wikipedia article? If there is something better, then Wikipedia can summarize and mirror the better source. Is Wikipedia citing sources that do not meet WP:RS? What problem do you see here? I think the article is rather good and wonder what you are seeing that I am not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the site ban. The simplest way to handle this is to think of them as meatpuppets. People with direct COI have a right to contribute only if they do it reasonably; The continual advocacy that has marked their contributions is unacceptable. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I just blocked Peak2015(talk·contribs·count) for mass canvassing relating to this. Do what you will with the posts. —SpacemanSpiff 09:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted all the canvassing. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Detrimental to the Project, since WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge closure on Climate change denial talk page
I am following WP:CLOSECHALLENGE#Challenging_other_closures. I claim there is a problem with the close by User:Jess of the RFC on the Climate change denial talk page at Redirects to this page. My grounds are: Jess is "inextricably involved". Jess started the RFC here with non-neutral wording about redirecting to denial, and supported redirecting to denial here, and so it's no surprise that Jess closed with the comment "Consensus appears to support having these redirects point to climate change denial." I discussed this with Jess, see here, here, here, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are challenging a close of an RfC that had a ratio of two to one. What point would there be undoing the close and then having someone else reclose with the exact same result? I happen to be one of those editors who think "denier" is about as wrong as letting anti-abortion groups call their opponents "anti-life" but a clear consensus is a clear consensus whether or not you and I happen to disagree with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And of course we're here... Earlier this year, climate change denial was expanded to cover "climate change skepticism" explicitly, and the relevant redirects were fixed. Reverts ensued, and discussion started at Talk:Climate change skeptic and a few other talk pages. Peter apparently wants the redirects pointed to an article which treats the topic more favorably (by not discussing it in detail), see edit summary. Peter refused to engage substantively in discussion (e.g.), but refused to let the redirects be changed ([15]). The dispute went to AE twice ([16], [17]), and there appeared to be some agreement that disruption was evident, but no action was taken. I started an RfC October 10th, advertised broadly ([18], [19], [20], [21]...), and adjusted the wording based on input ([22]). Pete objected to the RfC, claiming we should instead go back to the stalled discussion he had refused to answer questions in. When the RfC expired, and no new comments had been generated for days, consensus appeared to me to be exceptionally clear, so I implemented the changes and archived the RfC, noting that formal closure was likely not necessary ([23]). Peter then objected to my archiving the discussion, so I told him he could request formal closure if he felt it necessary ([24]). He didn't, and brought it here instead. I'm tired of this... I think enough editor time has been wasted on this nonsense. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I will be away from a computer for an EMT exam for at least the next several hours. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we do have somewhat of a problem, in that User:Peter Gulutzan seems determined to refuse accept the community consensus and continue to engage in WP:FORUMSHOPPING. After it was clear consensus was not behind Peter Gulutzan's position at the second CFD in a two days, he subsequently posted to WP:BLPN trying to circumvent the proper community process of category discussion. Now he has forum-shopped to here. AusLondonder (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP/N is a proper noticeboard for discussions concerning certain types of categorization of living persons. Collect (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the place to object of the existence of a category because you dispute the outcome of two CFD's. Thanks. AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Peter received a routine CC DS last March.[25] It is unclear to me if he has breached the DS or not, but if he has, he should be blocked. He's been at this for three years now. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update, based on Jess' comments up above, it looks like a block is needed per DS. Three years of disruption is long enough. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gobsmacked While there's nothing wrong with an involved editor starting an RfC to resolve a difficult question, is it really acceptable for that editor to close the RfC with her preferred outcome? And then someone who thinks this isn't quite right is threatened with a block? When I went out for a couple hours, did I return to Bizarro-pedia?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are a neutral admin on this issue, but you do appear to have been at it longer than Peter.[26]Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following. Why the snide comments? What do they have to do with anything? Have I called you names?--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a claim upthread that the support had a ratio of "two to one".
I count 20 editors with a bolded position. 12 expressed Support while 8 did not. That is not remotely a 2-1 margin. It means, if as few as two of those expressing support were changed to Oppose, we'd we talking 50-50. I don't know that any of those weighing in were on the fence, I am simply point out that it is closer that " two to one". I also suggested, that one editor who !voted with the simple explanation per WP:ASTONISH should be viewed as an oppose, because I think that point is better evidence for Oppose than for Support. I wouldn't literally do that if I were closing, as I know the editor, and I know their position, but if it were removed, becasue their explanation isn't consistent with their !vote, we'd be much closer to a push, which would mean you ought to have a responsible, experienced closer weighing the arguments.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your suggestion is that we count all the editors who didn't !vote as opposing (even though they didn't), and then switch one of the supports to an oppose against that editor's wishes because in your opinion it fits better... and then assess consensus based on vote counting... and if we do all that, we end up with something that's not quite as skewed. If you really think an uninvolved editor would assess consensus that way, I guess you could have requested a formal closure. In reality, the support votes actually do outnumber the oppose votes by 2:1, and this proposal perfectly elucidates why the current climate of this topic area makes reasoned AGF discussion practically impossible. — Jess· Δ♥ 04:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn't my suggestion. Try rereading.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...current climate of this topic area makes reasoned AGF discussion practically impossible. On this point, we are in complete agreement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just rechecked my count. 12 support, 6 oppose. Does anyone other than Sphilbrick get a different count? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Folks who want to spread tales about me should start their own threads in more appropriate places. I'll only reply to statements that were made about the topic, a challenge of Jess's close. (A) Jess has said that the close was not "formal". I thought that "formal" meant going through the formalities with the templates for marking a closed discussion ("The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it" etc.). I'll leave it to an expert to decide whether Jess is right and whether it matters. (B) Jess has said that I should have asked for a close myself rather than challenging. That's impossible since Jess had aleady closed and refused to re-open by self-reverting, and in any case I am not the person who wanted a close, I was happy to let it peter out. (C) There has been no dispute that Jess is an involved editor, and no dispute that that's a criterion for a legitimate challenge according to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. (D) Discussion of this matter had already taken place on Climate_change_skeptic#Centralized_discussion_plus_list_of_redirected_pages. There was no consensus. Jess decided that wasn't good enough so made this second discussion, "starting fresh". But it's possible a conscientious closer would have realized that it's the same topic and so must be taken into account, which would mean that the policy-related objections there would have been observed. By the way, by counting the editors there as well as the editors on Jess's thread, and counting editors who called for dismissal as well as editors who opposed, I get 14 versus 9 -- but admit that the strongest objector has been topic banned now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you aren't allowed to fabricate pretend votes from another discussion and apply them to an RfC as if they were RfC !votes, any more than Sphilbrick gets to turn clearly labeled support !votes to oppose !votes because he doesn't agree with the rationale. The count is 12 support, 6 oppose. The consensus is support, by a 2:1 ratio, no more, no less. The close is valid, no matter who made the close, because anyone else would have made the exact same call. It is time to drop the WP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
S Philbrick's counting method is more reasonable than Guy Macon's -- editors who said this RFC should be dismissed / is improper are against the RFC's motion, and anyway the exact formal word "opposed" was not one of the options (Jess changed the RFC's wording after those comments had been made). As for my method, I counted as not in favour of changing the redirect: Ssscienccce Markbassett Philbrick Morphh JaykeBird Gulutzan Capitalismojo Connolley Tillman (9), tell me which of these is supposedly fabricated and I will supply a diff. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice fantasy world you created; it would be a shame if something might happen to it, such as reality intruding into it for just a bit. Let's see, Tillman was indefinitely banned from the CC topic in August, yet you feel his opinion from before that ban should apply to an RfC held in October. Are you feeling okay? You are way over the edge here. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support climate change topic ban for Peter Gulutzan based on the above nonsense (whether rooted in incompetence or deliberate disruption) that is incompatible with editing Wikipedia. I would support it for Sphilbrick as well but since the community elected him as an admin, he's automatically immune and exempt from all policies that regular editors must follow. Some editors are more equal than others. Oink. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This thread was archived by a bot. I restored manually and added a do-not-archive-until-21 template. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong venue. This belongs at WP:AN. The filer, Peter Gulutzan, claims to be following WP:CLOSECHALLENGE#Challenging_other_closures, but that states clearly twice that close-challenges belong on WP:AN. Not only that, when this thread was archived after three days of inactivity, he resurrected it and made it unarchivable for 21 days. I recommend that an admin close this thread immediately, or move it to WP:AN. Softlavender (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC); copyedited 20:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender is correct, I'm sorry for my mistake. I am removing the do-not-archive-until template. If/when the conversation is archived, I intend to copy it to WP:AN with the same heading, unless an administrator moves or closes first with different advice. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Widefox
The above-mentioned user criticized my conflict on Irvington, New York, and then began hounding me on issues of my conflicts of interest (see his talk and COIN). His recent tricks include editing Wikipedia's policies, directly, with very little discussion, and then telling me I'm not following those policies he just created. He's also making up his own interpretation of the Terms of Use to mean that every single edit I make to any talk page, main page, or sandbox should include that I'm an editor with a COI and that I should link my disclosure. That's ridiculous, something no COI editor has ever done or should ever have to do. They should only need to disclose it on their userpage, once on the COI article's talk page and whenever editing the COI article directly (discouraged). He's also been changing the rules to ban putting your disclosure on a subpage of your userspace, something I saw no problem with, as long as it's well linked. Please help me out here. Please address his hounding as well, I feel he should be penalized for that as the policy suggests, his harassment of me over all my work is overbearing and simply awful. Thank you.
My work isn't perfect, if you want to bring that up here, go ahead. It's impossible to cross every 't' and thus Widefox has pointed out a few places where I could do better in being a COI editor. Please note that I'm still very new to this, as bound to make mistakes as a first-year prep cook. However note that I've been involved on Wikipedia for a relatively long time. I've gotten to know most rules, except maybe not as many as others of similar age; I try to stick with content creation. I like writing Good Articles, and I'm honestly very proud to have written two FAs. That's where my enjoyment in Wikipedia stems from, not these tendentious discussions or editing under conflicts of interest. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 17:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am uninvolved in any article or dispute, and initially just warned both edit warring parties.
The accusation of hounding was made here User_talk:Widefox#Your recent edits and was challenged to provide evidence three times, even pointing out that it can't be hounding per my "concerns over your editing" in WP:DWH. Just now another editor said to remove that warning from Ɱ as unfounded [27].
Latest summary is [28] at WP:COIN#Ɱ (where yes I even state that as I've emergency edited the policy to make it comply with the ToU, I'm quoting other editors about Ɱ's compliance level, not mine - which is characterised by other editors - as outrageous to hide it.)
There's agreement from others (will ping them only if needed) to ensure WP:PAID complies with ToU with no dissent, and scrutiny of several creators/admins/other editors (see those talk pages).
In summary, yes the policy is more explicit, but [30] summarises what others say about Ɱ's old (and current) collapsed (hidden) disclosure. Widefox; talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate a more cohesive answer; it's very hard for me to follow. The evidence that you are hounding me is simple. Look at the edit history for my talk page. Look through all of it; I removed most due to your illegal harassment over my work. You first criticized my handling of the Irvington issues, and then went on to criticize my handling of my COI articles. That is hounding. Read the definition, especially at the bottom where it says it could lead to blocks. The editor who called it 'unfounded' had no involvement in any of these issues, was not directed to where the discussions were taking place, and simply was stating my warning to not include details backing it up. Also don't tell me to follow rules you and one or two other editors decided and published yesterday or the day before. It's not right. There are dozens if not hundreds of COI editors. Hound them for not following your new PAID rules too. Yet I object; edits to policies should only be made after a sincere and concise proposal is made, discussed, and voted on with a strong turnout of editors. Even if all of that doesn't happen, at least some of that should in order for a fair and agreeable consensus to be met. Yet none of that has happened here. I am disgusted by your wording "emergency edited the policy". That should be ban-able behavior. The policy WP:POLICY backs me up on all of this, especially WP:PGLIFE. Cease and desist.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 05:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It would be appreciated if there was a bit more clarity about the problem. The COI issue was raised at WP:COIN with regard to edits by User:Ɱ to Interactive Brokers, an article which read too much like a brochure. I removed some promotional material (a list of features) from that article, added some material about some litigation, and considered the problem solved.[31] That was four days ago, no one has objected to those edits, and that does not seem to be the issue. Over at Irvington, New York, there's been some edit warring there over bold text vs. headings between Ɱ and Beyond My Ken (talk·contribs).[32] Widefox has only one recent edit to that article, and it's trivial.[33]. Ɱ is drafting a paid article about some musician in a sandbox, but that only becomes a COI problem if they try to publish it. There's lots of argument on various talk and noticeboard pages, but few diffs. I've been reading notice boards and talk page histories for ten minutes and still can't figure out the underlying issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagle: I can clarify. The original list of features was in the article long before I started editing the draft. I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable. You're incorrect, I had objected to those edits similar to how I am now. I'd like to reiterate that the Irvington conflict was not 'edit warring'; I explained this in great depth to Widefox on my talk page. Widefox was involved in the Irvington issue on the Irvington page, as well as on Beyond My Ken's talk and my talk. He was pretty thorough in scolding how I handled the conflict, and went on to criticize my COI work, also in great depth. I honestly won't be surprised if he starts to criticize some of my volunteer article writing here too. I haven't been providing diffs because most of this is talk page discussion, most of which is still live on the talk pages; therefore it should all be follow-able. Also most discussion has involved several edits making up one reply, so it's much easier to direct you to the relevant pages (here, COIN, my talk, Widefox's talk, and WP:PAID (Widefox, am I missing some?)). ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 07:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of my comment got lost here; I'm going to restore the comments on my talk page for everyone's ease of access for assessment. I removed them (within user rights) previously due to harassment; they consisted of Widefox's repeated criticism of several different works of mine. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 07:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ɱ, I repeat John Nagle's comment - what's the actual hounding. Do you have any evidence at all - diffs? I've asked that 3 or 4 times on my talk and I'm still waiting an answer, days went past and another editor said to remove your unfounded hounding accusation. Ɱ, further you still haven't answered that as this is just my "concerns over your editing" per WP:DWH, so it is not hounding. (John Nagle - just to inform you, the ToU state that "all paid contributions" must be disclosed, not just articles.)
Nobody has edited the ToU, hardly "tricks". But, a paid editing disclosure that isn't visible (hidden in a collapsed at User:Ɱ) is exactly that - WP:LAWYERING. Other editors agree that disclosure is unacceptable. So far, I've resisted a call to take Ɱ to ANI over this [34].
"illegal harassment" really should not be used above [35] per WP:LEGAL. I'm increasingly concerned that User:Ɱ has attempted to contact me offwiki - I've asked what for and don't have an answer. What for Ɱ? Now there's legal accusations. I'm just a volunteer, and Ɱ should not hide their paid editing disclosure on their user page. It's that simple. My concern over Ɱ's editing is not a LEGAL issue per WP:LEGAL#Conflict_of_interest. Attempts to get me "banned" are just that - all heat and no light.
Do I have to put up with this [36] ? That is specifically WP:LEGAL combined with unspecified offwiki communication [37]. Please can this be addressed as it now sits uncomfortably with me. Widefox; talk 08:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "contact me offwiki"? Is there a specific comment that makes you believe Ɱ attempted something offwiki? If so, please link to the section and quote some text to allow it to be found. Re Ɱ's "illegal harassment" remark above: that is probably just clumsy English. The claim appears to be that Widefox harassed Ɱ, and harassment is not permitted = against the rules = illegal (incorrect terminology). I don't see any evidence to support the claim of harassment other than the sweeping claim that inspecting the history of User talk:Ɱ will reveal all. That history shows Widefox posted 15 times on the page in just under 24 hours, starting on 6 November 2015, and with no other edits in the last year. It is hard to see how that isolated burst of activity could be regarded as harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Johnuniq Ɱ did attempt offwiki communication - email. I don't know what for - I asked "You tried to contact me offwiki - why?" [38], Ɱ refers to the offwiki attempt here "how is 'attempted off-wiki communication' not allowed?..." [39]. Widefox; talk 09:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again I repeat: "Widefox was involved in the Irvington issue on the Irvington page, as well as on Beyond My Ken's talk and my talk. He was pretty thorough in scolding how I handled the conflict, and went on to criticize my COI work, also in great depth." These aren't normal concerns over my editing. Right after getting into a confrontation with me, you specifically looked through my work, found I was a COI editor, and proceeded to attempt to have me conform to your wishes, with you going so far as to write policies to accuse me of not following. "Illegal" is a word that means "not legal" or "not following legislation"; "not following the rules". Therefore harassment is illegal here on Wikipedia. I did give you an answer about trying to contact you off-wiki. I'd like to sort things out, and better methods of communication usually help. There is nothing against me doing that, so stop pretending there is. You've made an issue of that as if I'm breaking some terrible law a few times now. As for "hiding my paid editing disclosure"; for so long, any user could so easily find it on my talk page, so prominently linked. Nobody's ever had a problem with that. Now I've got it on my signature and main userpage. When is enough enough? Would you like me to bold, italicize, and highlight it in red in font size 80 at the very top of my userpage? Johnuniq - as I said, read my (now restored) talk page. After he criticized me for Irvington, he's now WP:HOUNDING me over the COI pages and my disclosure. I feel harrassed. There's no written textual or other evidence to that, unless you'd like to read my thoughts of "I really want to quit this whole project, I try really hard to do good solid work and this user keeps 'assaulting' me with different policies, guidelines, essays, and even the ToU that I'm apparently breaking. I'm sick of this". Please read the details of hounding. Such pursual of criticizing me and my work is a bannable offense. It's written right there, why can't anybody follow Wikipedia's rules and at least look into Widefox's widespread accusations? ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 09:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias (talk·contribs) stated "As you have accepted, you [Widefox] have been instrumental in recent changes at WP:PAID, to tighten the guideline, and Ɱ does appear to fall short of the current text. However, as that has only been in place for a day or two, and by your own admission (here), "we've got limited consensus here", I think it is over the top to expect Ɱ to have been adhering to those guidelines, particularly as you are referring to events that occured before you even changed them." "until your edits to it on 6 November, after the start of this discussion, it was not explicit that it [the COI disclosure] must be visible". Please read through these statements. Don't tell me to follow rules you and one or two other editors decided and published yesterday or the day before. It's not right. There are dozens if not hundreds of COI editors. Hound them for not following your new PAID rules too. Yet I object; edits to policies should only be made after a sincere and concise proposal is made, discussed, and voted on with a strong turnout of editors. Even if all of that doesn't happen, at least some of that should in order for a fair and agreeable consensus to be met. Yet none of that has happened here. I am disgusted by your wording "emergency edited the policy". That should be ban-able behavior. The policy WP:POLICY backs me up on all of this, especially WP:PGLIFE. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 09:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I am very busy right now in real life. I'll have limited replies here over the next day or two.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 09:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has edited the ToU. Why all this heat, when you can just fix your hidden disclosure on your userpage? I'm waiting for an answer from Harrias (talk·contribs) "it was not explicit that it must be visible" - factually correct yes, do you really believe an invisible disclosure is OK? Want to get another opinion on that LAWYERING?![40] . As you bring it up here, that's waiting for a reply from Harrias. Widefox; talk 10:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(←) What's waiting for a reply. Never stated you edited it. Don't want to, and I should have the right not to. And yes, having a drop-down (in your words, "invisible" (huh?)) should be just fine! ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 10:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We go by consensus here - what have other editors said about your hidden disclosure? This is WP:BOOMERANG as nobody agrees with you that this is harassment, and everyone who's commented agrees your hidden disclosure is not acceptable and should be fixed. You were unwise to bring here, rather than the slower pace of COIN. Widefox; talk 10:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I count zero uninvolved editors here who are telling me to remove the drop-down. I count zero uninvolved editors who have even looked into this hounding issue in depth, as you keep steering away from it. What all of this shows me is this conversation still needs an abundance of third parties before we go around declaring who should change what. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 10:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point, this is an administrator's noticeboard and yet not one administrator has commented yet. Hold your horses.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 10:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Indignant walls of text are very hard to follow. To show harassment, just post a couple of diffs. I don't know where the comment by Harrias occurred so I can't see the context, but taking a wild guess, the comment appears to miss the fact that the Terms of Use are not something written on a page at enwiki, and certainly were not written by Widefox, nor were they written a day or two ago. As a rule of thumb, someone with a COI who has complied with the letter and spirit of the ToU would post a very short note saying the information is clearly on their user page, so there is no problem. Did that occur? Was there any (claimed) harassment after that? Or, is the situation that compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step, where each step required significant comment by others? Please stop talking about "illegal"—one of the very few places that term arises in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is at WP:NLT which says that editors who hint they may pursue legal action against another editor are indefinitely blocked (people take legal action because they believe something "illegal" has happened).
Re the comment by Widefox at 09:50, 12 November 2015 above: Ɱ is obviously correct that the "email this user" function may be used (if each party has enabled email); if "contact me offwiki" means you received an email sent by that function, I fail to see the problem because responding to it is entirely voluntary. Please don't use code words suggesting some nefarious activity if what you are talking about is "email this user". Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the terms of use actually say is:
"You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
a statement on your user page,
a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."
I have statements on the talk pages accompanying. That appeases (for lack of a better word this late) the Terms of Use. So my user page statement (and signature link) is a bonus, a goodwill effort on my part to tell users of my affiliations. I could blank all of my userspace right now and still be okay under the Terms of Use. I don't think Widefox or Johnuniq got this earlier, so I hope this explanation helps. Wikipedia's policies should not have been adjusted any stricter than the above statement. Widefox is out of line.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 10:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Johnuniq said. Please provide diffs that show Widefox has committed "illegal harassment." —МандичкаYO 😜 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Diff 1 (of Widefox warning me for "edit warring"). Diff 2 (him starting a discussion on my "edit warring"). Diff 3 (me informing him I wasn't edit warring). Diff 4 (him further reprimanding my "wrongdoing"). Diff 5 (him completely changing topics, after seeing my COI disclosure wasn't on my main userpage). Diff 6 (me telling him this unprovoked and unrelated criticism is unnacceptable per WP:HOUNDING). Then the conversations went on, on that talk page. And spread to the above-mentioned pages, to here.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 11:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, he added tags to thesethreepages that I believe constitutes hounding. It's also a completely inappropriate use of the tag, as he put them all on the articles immediately as a notice that I'm involved (even though I already 'tagged' the article talk pages) and never even critiqued their content once. He was simply putting a marker on the articles I contributed to, which reminds me of the barbaric historical marking to indicate a lesser entity, as was done to several groups in the 1930s and 40s.--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 11:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq yes technically, but just because I had left my email on accidentally (to get library permissions) doesn't mean I'm inviting COIs to email me. I choose not to interact offwiki - e.g. would you want this COI [41] in your email? I'm still waiting for Ɱ to say what they wanted to say offwiki. And yes, it is "compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step" - moving the disclosure to the userpage - but it was still collapsed (I see only after ANI it had been unhidden), initially stating drafts weren't covered and then in protest disclosing them on the draft talk (while still stating it wasn't needed). ToU is clear "all paid contributions". I double checked with others and they agreed it covers drafts. Ɱ has consistently tried to close down discussion of their disclosure. Part of that is reasonable, certainly the timeframe is, and our wording was a mess which needed emergency repair as it was weaker than the ToU (which we are not allowed to do). I fixed that in passing. Ɱ was following an outdated essay. I MfDd that. At all places I've pinged the authors etc. This can all be handled at COIN, rather than here. I've consistently said I consider Ɱ good faith. In fact, I felt for Ɱ in the initial edit warring, but treated both parties equally. I welcome scrutiny as I am proud of fixing these things, but have only done them in passing as they fell short of the ToU. The ToU is clear. Is an hidden (collapsed) disclosure allowed by the ToU? There's agreement that it must be visible, and that should be explicit in our guidance. Ɱ brought this here, before doing that, and didn't reply to my request to provide harassment evidence until ANI.
Note that Ɱ's disclosure can't be seen in the history of User:Ɱ as the disclosure is still not on the user page, it is in User:Ɱ/u (and conditionally displayed at the user page depending on date or something from looking at the code). I hadn't even realised this until now - technically it isn't "a statement on your user page," more like "a statement that may (or may not) be displayed on the user page Ɱ". (or Widefox; talk 12:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with Widefox leaving you the edit warring warning, and then trying to explain it to you. Reverting someone twice indicates you are in an edit war. Some people do not know of the 3RR rule and a template warning is perfectly appropriate. I fail to see any hounding or harassment. Often if you see suspected problematic behavior from an editor, further problematic behavior is discovered when you take a look at the account. If Widefox looked at your account and saw something he felt violated guidelines, that does not qualify as wikihounding. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and I used the correct edit war template rather than 3RR template (and explain that difference Diff 4 adding "the incivility on the other edit war party is unacceptable but that's not for your page"). Checking a COI while seeing problematic editing is due diligence in my book. Ɱ - did you even read how none of this is harassment per WP:DWH "civil and appropriate" like I've told you several times? Widefox; talk 13:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The COI tags on 3 articles are easily explained - I was concerned about them, but the amount of volunteer time it's taken to get Ɱ disclose meant that I didn't get back to those articles! The COI tags were removed within minutes [42] and I wasn't going to edit war over them...the next edit User:Nagle[43] added advert tag, so hardly controvercial. Scrutiny was good. COI editing here was promotional, and I'm finding reaction to that normal message agressive. Fix the issues, not complain about the messenger! COIs are allowed to remove the tag, but they really should refrain from directly editing articles when uninvolved editors object. Nagle's cleanup was objected to, so this borders WP:OWN. Widefox; talk 15:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Respectfully, I'll wait for an administrator to tell me you were within rights at such investigation and inquisition. It's too unreasonable; I still haven't even fully resolved the Irvington issue, nonetheless all of this! Widefox, if you're still waiting for me to tell you what I wanted to say off-wiki, then it's pretty clear you're ignoring my comments. I stated it twice already, I'm sick of explaining myself over and over. The Terms of Use describing contributions only pertains to the mainspace, the live area that readers will see. Anything else would be ridiculous and unnecessary. However you disagree and already enacted on that, but seriously, a formal discussion and vote must be made. You cannot serve as sole arbitrator here. Stop calling my work promotional, I didn't even add the products section. I hardly touched it. Some neutral editor probably thought it was a good idea and I'm not a deletionist, I'll respect that editor's decision. Look at the article's history, it's existed in some form since 2006, long before I even started editing. People were okay with it for almost 10 years. Also, the idea of my COI disclosure not being on my userpage is garbage, sorry. I use a mirror so vandals don't edit my userpage. Common practice. The text always is the same, "a mirror never lies". The content may not be in the edit window, but it's on the userpage for all to see. I'm so sick of you trying all these loopholes and workarounds on me. Though your language is civil enough that everyone else has overlooked it, your bugging me over every issue, your twisting of policies and manipulation of a few select editors to seeing your vantage point; it's all far too overbearing. Even if an administrator thinks it wasn't hounding before, they really should know it is now. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the edit warring at Irvington, New York is over a formatting issue of bolding vs. a subhead.[44]. This is petty. Please drop the stick. Someone else will clean it up if necessary. As for Interactive Brokers, Ɱ writes above "I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable". So after the admitted paid editor consults with the people who pay him, he can put an edit request on the talk page. Is there anything else? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes John, I'd like to see this action:
1. consensus (and wording) is ToU covers "all paid contributions". Ɱ's claim above "only pertains to the mainspace" is against consensus. This issue will not go away as it is a legal requirement to edit on WP. (excuse bold, but this is bold if ever there is a use of bold!) Ɱ's statement above attempts to diminish the scope of the ToU (which we are not legally allowed to do), and indicates that Ɱ doesn't feel bound by the ToU or consensus. As such a normal escalation process should start when going against consensus or refusing to abide by the ToU until agreeing to comply with both. (we are seeing this WP:IDHT with several paid editors, and warning templates are currently being written). Per WP:PAYTALK this is disruption, so:
1.1 suggest L3 or L4 warning to be given to Ɱ for disruption (not including wasting everyone's time here over a bogus ANI) and refusal to be bound by full terms of ToU. If not agreeing to fully comply with ToU within a reasonable time, suggest next stage would be 24 hr block etc. I do not rule out an initial 24 hr block due to simply stating they don't feel bound by the legal terms of ToU (which must at some point be enforced by volunteers, then WMF).
2. The userpage User:Ɱ does not have a disclosure on it. Fact. Userpage was last editing 8 March 2015. There is a disclosure on User:Ɱ/u which is sometimes (but not necessarily always) programmatically displayed when viewing that userpage (no popups, no history, no indexing, with the right browser, and other limitations and dependencies such as the right date/other files?!). Ɱ has no disclosure on their user page
2.1 The ToU states one on any of three places so as long as there's disclosure on "all paid contribution" talk pages, that isn't a problem per the ToU. However, best practice (policy/guideline) states to additionally put a disclosure "on" the "main user page". Suggest holding Ɱ to best practice, in a reasonable timeframe (not urgent).
3. Agree with John Nagle suggestion, Ɱ abides by COI best practice - does not directly edit articles with a COI, and uses (paid) COI edit requests. Widefox; talk 11:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of these three (five) points requires administrator action. I think this can be closed at ANI now: Widefox is pursuing a COI issue, and there is a relevant thread at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Widefox's actions, while dedicated, don't cross the line. Ɱ has made clear efforts to adhere to COI requirements, though there are some areas in which things have not been as clear as they should, but I don't believe a block is warranted. Harriastalk 11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, WP:PAYTALK does require admin action IMHO. This is a hundreds of lines of PAYTALK (multiple venues), and we are specifically not meant to do this, and I'd like to see a warning for disruption be given before thread is closed, else due to the legal implications above, I will feel obliged to start a new ANI thread, and I'd really like to get off ANI. Widefox; talk 11:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warnings do not have to be given by administrators. Nevertheless, can you provide diffs for the PAYTALK issues; I would suggest doing so under a subheading of this thread for clarity, and ease of reading! Harriastalk 11:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, will do. (Also, the ToU enforcement, unless I'm mistaken is a new responsibility for volunteers (admins, non-admins). WMF is not policing unless escalated to. My logic is - if someone is explicitly stating at ANI that they are not bound by the letter and spirit of the ToU despite consensus at multiple locations, then what is the suggested escalation path? A procedural issue due to it already being here at ANI (rather than being at the right place of COIN) Widefox; talk 12:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(←) I could argue so many points here. Harrias and Widefox are wrong in so many ways. I'm tired of addressing them. If another editor or administrator wants to address faults in the above statements, feel free. Apparently I'm not violating any guidelines or policies, so I'd like Widefox and Harrias to stop any accusations. I would like an administrator to step in. Regardless of the wording at WP:HOUNDING that editors like Widefox can always weasel their way around, as Louis CK was known to say: "When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." I would also like recent edits to WP:PAID reverted as they lack widespread consensus, which is essential. See WP:PGBOLD. Not a single COI editor was involved in these decisions, making the discussion rather one-sided (not consensus). ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 08:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:IDHT / WP:PAYTALK with the ToU scope, and not having any disclosure on your userpage (it is on a subpage) is not best practice. Consensus about this was over a week ago. When requesting changes to WP:PAID be aware that per WP:COI (and now WP:PAID) you should disclose your COI / paid COI respectively. This WP:PAYTALK just goes on. As for providing diffs, the discussions are linked above and at COIN. I will post the many diffs... Widefox; talk 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your insertion of links everywhere in the above message is muddling your meaning. Regardless "best practice" sounds like an opinion-based statement. I will follow policies and guidelines, I will not follow what a random collective of editors wants to impose upon me without clear consensus and without establishing a formal, written rule. Written rules were historically established so people would be able to know when they are and are not following them, and what the punishment is for not following them. An unwritten rule like a "best practice" does not have that given. Thus, if you want to change things, request edits to policies and guidelines through the proper channels. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAID has been editted by the paid COI editor User:Ɱ without disclosure in the edit or talk [45]. It was undone by another editor. This is against WP:COI and WP:PAID (and possibly WP:TOU). Widefox; talk 13:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. As I disclose in my disclosure I am only paid to write the article on Shiner and improve the IB articles and Thomas Peterffy's. My edits anywhere else are as a volunteer, and thus have absolutely no relevance to WP:COI or WP:PAID, and do not need a COI disclosure!--ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People who have a financial interest in a policy or guideline should not be editing that guideline ever. To do so without noting they have a financial interest is inexcusable. In this case the edit was to make a change in the disclosure requirements for discussing changes in that very policy. Based on what I read about Ɱ's issues with disclosure at WP:COIN I can not AGF here and presume they are here to advance their own and/or others' financial interests. JbhTalk 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is an opinion that may be valid and agreeable, however it is an opinion. Please cite a policy. It highly disturbs me that you "presume [I] am here to advance [my] own and other's interests". I have been editing as a volunteer longer than you. I have created Good Articles, Featured Articles, and Featured Lists. I have a TFA. I have many DYKs. I have researched endlessly about topics I've later created articles on. I've written templates. I've removed so many cases of vandalism. I've taken hundreds of photos and uploaded them to Commons. I've scanned archives into Commons. I've served as an active Wikipedian in Residence. I've been to and even organized and hosted Wikipedia events. Most of that information should be evident if you do enough digging. So for you to plainly state I'm here to support some company I worked for two summers ago or one artist I wrote a page about, both of whom paid me, is pure ignorance. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is all quite wonderful, you should fully understand why volunteers want to know if someone has a financial interest in policy discussions or in edits being made to either articles or contributions to discussions. Even if all of your edits are perfect in all ways we are writing policy and enforcing guidelines for those who are not all sweetness and light. From the behavior I have seen from you here I do not see a Wikipedian who has spent years building the project I see one which is trying to do the absolute minimum to comply with the disclosure requirements when we are just getting a handle on how to keep people from exploiting this project for financial gain. That behavior from any editor is something I will condemn. JbhTalk 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ Removed their paid editing disclosure completly from being visible on User:Ɱ (by removing it in User:Ɱ/u[46]), then an hour later
Ɱ Edited WP:PAID without disclosing they are (or have been) a paid editor[47], undone [48] per WP:COI / WP:PAID. This is highly improper that a paid editor 1. edits the paid editing policy, 2. doesn't disclose a COI, and 3. worse of all made an edit to reduce the disclosure when editing the policy itself - the exact thing they are doing!This is a COI editor reducing the need to disclose a COI on a COI policy. It's past bold and reckless, past AGF, it is subverting policy. Widefox; talk 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ has removed all paid editing disclosures from their user page User:Ɱ with this edit [49] (the one that was actually never put on their user page but on a subpage User:Ɱ/u, but was sometimes visible from the user page). This is against best practice per WP:PAIDWP:COI and (although if technically meeting ToU) is WP:POINT disruption.
Hundreds of lines of ANI, COIN, PAID talk pages this is not best practice<-->outrageous = consensus. Per WP:PAYTALK."Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. ..."
"...WP:Disruptive editing...": Yes editing WP:PAID, attempt at minimising review of drafts [50], ad nauseam claiming ToU doesn't apply to XYZ, COI doesn't apply to XYZ, not abiding by best practice and consensus about disclosure at PAID, COI x2
"...WP:WikiBullying...": Unsubstantiated hounding claim i.e. this ANI, attempt at offwiki communication (my email now off)
"...WP:OWN...": Weak (per above / COIN)
"...WP:Civility...": no
Editor has disclosed they are still in contact with the subject of paid editing articles to justify content that was deemed promo (per above). Widefox; talk 00:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox, you are way out of line.
Bullet point one: PAYTALK is not relevant. I have not been paid to argue with anyone. As my disclosure clearly states, I'm only paid to edit four mainspace articles. I can provide evidence from Shiner that he's paying me for the article, and evidence from IB that I was only paid the summer before last, long before any of these "arguments". Ergo, PAYTALK has no relevance here. This point is moot.
I am allowed to remove my disclosure from my userpage. That's completely within my rights. This point is moot.
You cannot accuse me of not following a policy you instituted, without consensus, yesterday. This point is moot.
(the double bullet points) Again, I am allowed to remove COI disclosures. Policies only require COI disclosure on the article talk pages, which I have. This point is moot. The WP:POINT argument is also moot, my edits are WP:NOTPOINTy as they are not disrupting Wikipedia.
You need to make a more clear and concise argument for your last bullet point with the five sub-bullets.
As for your last point, I see no reason why you brought it up again. That's not against the rules...
Can we please wait for administrators to sort out this mess? I'm tired of all of these accusations getting thrown back and forth. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What remedy should be applied? It is outrageous that Ɱ can wikilawyer (18:47, 15 November 2015 above) that they are only paid to write certain articles so it is fine if they edit WP:PAID. They could make a case for their edit on its talk, but aggressively forcing their "rights" on volunteers needs to be stopped. Volunteers are motivated to defend the encyclopedia and it is important that the community prevent such volunteers from being overwhelmed with nonsense from paid advocates. A suitable remedy might start with an indefinite block for Ɱ until they agree to restore a plain disclosure on User:Ɱ (not a subpage) with no obfuscations. We're talking about ToU violations and disruption, not violation of a policy Widefox may have edited. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is so out of line! They make written rules so people can know what to do and what not to do! I have been following all rules, before Widefox began changing the rules! You cannot block or ban me for me trying to argue my own case! And you can't block or ban me for not putting a COI disclosure on my userpage! Nowhere, at all, in any policy or guideline must a user place a COI disclosure on their userpage! (So long as they have it on the article talk pages, which I do)! This is simply outrageous! ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 01:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. I have no tolerance for paid editors trying to do the minimum. If they are not disclosing in all places they are not being up front. The user page is needed so when people see suspicions edits they can quickly see if the editor has been paid. The article talk page disclosures are necessary to know who has a paid COI, if fact all COI editors must disclose on the talk page not their user page so paid editors do not get a pass there. Disclosure of paid edits are needed if they are not made on the article because others should not have to go searching beyond the discussion at hand to see if an editor has a paid-COI.
The purpose of disclosing paid-COI is so other editors know there is a COI so they can take it into account. Anything that makes it harder to do so is fundamentally deceptive and after paid editor has been told this it is willful deception and we just can not have that here. JbhTalk 01:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PER the ToU and WP:PAID, I am not required to put a COI disclosure on my userpage. No policy requires it. Therefore I can choose not to, and I do. If you want me to, there will be no convincing unless you change WP:PAID. Keep in mind that per the ToU that requires approved by the [English Wikipedia] community and [listing] in the alternative disclosure policy page. ɱ(talk · vbm · coi) 01:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question here at ANI, is when and at what point is an admin going to step in and stop this disruption. Ɱ's edit of PAID is a bright-line for me. I have no faith in Ɱ now, and per Johnuniqsecond third an indef block, topic ban on COI / PAID. I'm sure there's an essay, the fallacy that Ɱ seems to now be holding on to is a right to edit here while WIKILAWYERing, disrupting, following just the letter of the ToU, ignoring consensus and other policies/guidelines such as COI, and subverting policy. This fallacy can be quickly demonstrated as incorrect. Widefox; talk 02:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Per WP:PAID which is a English Wikipedia's policy implementing the ToU. "Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (articles, drafts etc), or, if the talk page can not be used, in edit summaries."}}(emp mine) Seems pretty clear to me. JbhTalk 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've had to be explicit with that wording due to this WIKILAWYERing example, but in fairness to Ɱ, because of that fact we can't really hold Ɱ to those words. We can hold Ɱ to ToU, COI, consensus, (plus that new wording once assessed/bedded down), PAYTALK etc. Just to be clear - that's about the only thing I agree with them on. Widefox; talk 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: user page has finally been edited, but still no disclosure [51]. Widefox; talk 11:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No user should ever edit a policy or guideline particularly where they would benefit from such a change. It's akin to changing legislation to make legal what was previously illegal. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "particularly"? Surely, it must be possible to edit them in other cases when you do not benefit: it's a wiki, although of course (and as the hatnotes say), policy and guideline pages are subject to a higher level of scrutiny and consensus standards than other pages. LjL (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the text was changed from "shall" to "should" which backs up Ɱ's stance. This is highly inappropriate. Personally, I feel that no policy or guideline is to be edited without substantial discussion and consensus on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the arguments made by Widefox, JBH and Blackmane. removing COI notice from Ɱ 's main page does not help transparency and looks deceptive, editing a policy whose change would benefit them from such a change is COI par excellence.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, Ɱ's user page now says "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak." I suggest closing out this issue for now. If Ɱ comes back and does something annoying, there will be little argument about what to do. WP:DENY and WP:ROPE apply here. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that by the editor taking a break they would normally weasel out of avoid sanctions for PAYTALK disruption (per preventative not punitive). However, they have not taken a break [52]User:Ɱ care to explain? And, even if while away we are still missing the disclosure per policy/guideline (and spirit of ToU). We also know they are paid to edit what's currently a draft article, so they will be back as soon as the coast is clear due to profit motive. In the unlikely event they aren't coming back (just seen they're back), when/who's going to add the disclosures to their page and delete the drafts? (6 months for the latter.) I understand admins being reluctant to sanction for disruption, but if we allow paid editors to violate WP:PAYTALK to the extent of subverting paid editor policy then we may as well remove as toothless. Patience has run out for this hounding drain on volunteer time (a plug for my thoughts on where this is going is WP:BOGOF), and we have the bigger picture of legal disclosure where things will only firm up. I, for instance will not put up with this level of abuse and gaming as a volunteer, and suggest either admins take over paid COI (and then they are better covered by WP:INVOLVED) or enforce policy preventing gaming abuse of their fellow volunteers. Widefox; talk 11:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ editing now without logging in [53]. Uw-login given [54]. Widefox; talk 07:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
per LOGOUT "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors..." . But here editor states [55] "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" after three editors suggested indef block (above). Blocks apply to the person not just account, so this is attempting to evade any imminent block while continuing to edit, deceptively.
Damn you. How can I possibly be deceiving others when I plainly state my association with a now-closed account. I resumed editing as part of my job, I hereby cease editing once-more. Your nastiness and harassment have pushed me away from Wikipedia, and I'll probably only ever be back here to resume work on articles I was paid for. Remember that you ought to be permanently banned from Wikipedia, your behavior is vicious and atrocious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:1:FF00:8044:ACC7:FFB0:5155 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(unfounded accusations ignored) With 3 or 4 indef block !votes above, consensus is editor should be blocked, and at that point they deceptively state "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" then make 1 more account edit, then continuing to IP edit, thus attempting to go under the radar of scrutiny here. That trick of avoiding sanctions only works if they actually go away, they haven't. Widefox; talk 08:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should be banned. Ever since I complained to you about your conduct, you have been on a relentless mission to get me banned from Wikipedia. Your attacks are ridiculous. There's no consensus here. Not a single other COI editor commented here. Also, here, on the Administrator's Noticeboard, not a single administrator has even commented. Congratulations for finding three one other (only you and Johnuniq wanted a block) anti-COI editors, there are thousands more biased against what should be considered decent work. Your 'consensus' here is a farce any clearheaded person should see.--2601:643:1:FF00:799F:A536:C6D4:2096 (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now just wait a cotton-pickin' moment there, Widefox. I have already commented at the SPI on the meritlessness of your claim there (short version: an IP editor admitting they are a former registered account that does not wish to edit again from that account may be problematic on some levels, but sockpuppetry it ain't). But as for your clarion call above ... this is AFAIK the first time that I've heard someone call for an SPI on the grounds that someone is planning to evade a block (a block I have not seen any admin agree should be undertaken). My understanding is that policy is purely reactive ... there is no justification for using blocks, certainly not checkuser-based blocks, as preemptive strikes. And what is your evidence that this user is planning to evade a block, even if it were likely that one were forthcoming? Are you reading his mind or something? It has been claimed that you're making up rules here as you go along; certainly this would lend that claim credence. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Daniel Case this is a disclosure issue and wikilawyering with some deception rather than socking per se. The editor removed all disclosure on their user page, an hour later edited the policy PAID to reduce the need for paid editors to disclose when editing PAID, then there was limited consensus above for block, then falsely claimed the editor - not the account aren't editing anymore [61] "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" (emphasis own) then continue with one more edit after (fair enough), then willfully log out and edit war on their paid COI article (while providing only edit summary disclosure), later claiming "There has been no crossover on articles or topics between the IP address and my former account" [62]. That is willful deception. They are the same editor so either they are deceiving about not editing the same paid article (whilst at the same time deceiving about not editing), or they are deceptively trying to claim they aren't the same editor. One or both seem to me a claim of actual socking by them. Several of these claims can't be (and aren't) true.
It may fall between the cracks here but I've not brought this to ANI despite it being suggested to me. Repeating unfounded allegations doesn't make them true. Nobody's asked for checkuser, so that's a straw man. My first two edits of SPI are clear: "Editor has disclosed this IP is the same person as the account" [63] "The main thread is at ANI, this is just to document it, not to forum shop." [64] . Documenting isn't "fishing", despite how useless the SPI seems. Whilst the TOU and PAID / COI say different things, it's wikilawyering season, rather than fishing or cotton-pickin. Widefox; talk 10:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A request at SPI is generally taken as a request that checkuser be used unless it's decided that the case can be proven without resort to it or it is impossible to use in the particular case. Just because you didn't explicitly ask for it doesn't mean it wasn't understood that way. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not new to SPI / COI, having User:BiH (relationship with User:Orangemoody) under my belt etc, but I know nothing about the those internals of SPI, just what I see at WP:SPI "Upon request, investigations can also be conducted by a CheckUser.." (emph own), "CheckUsers will only conduct..." , "CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances." so at no point did I consider checkuser a consideration. WP:LOGOUT "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors.." which by the claims of Ɱ at the SPI is proved to be true. Widefox; talk 11:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox, you've been wikilawyering as much if not more than me. You've been incredibly deceptive. As I said, there's no rule against removing the disclosure. As I said, there's no rule against editing PAID, and it was only to revert part of your bad-faith edit. There was no 'limited consensus' at all. You and one other suggested a block, and you're both out of line. My continuation in editing was really only due to maintaining the Shiner article, and if I didn't have to, I wouldn't have. I only continue commenting now to ensure your accusations don't lead to any blocks, and it's clear you're determined more than anything for that to happen. I never edit warred on the Shiner article, I reverted once. Jesus. And there really wasn't any physical crossover. My user account never edited any of the same pages that my IPs did, except ANI here recently. I was stating that to prove I wasn't being deceptive, and after all, how can I deceive when I'm not even on the same pages with the two different 'accounts'? Your SPI request is so obviously forum shopping, it's disturbing. 2601:643:1:FF00:B4BC:C790:4A99:EE3C (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any evidence/diffs for deception? If not all these places where you've made these allegations then please strike through. The SPI details how this is deception. Widefox; talk 11:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins - no diffs / evidence for these unsubstantiated claims.
User:Daniel Case as you can see from the SPI, Ɱ is claiming no overlap of articles between IP and account and as such the SPI is actually relevant to establish that trivial fact (as it is denied by the editor). Widefox; talk 21:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ's other statements have suggested he no longer intends to use that account. I think it would only count as an attempt to deceive if he had not made such statements (and even if he should change his mind, if he were to agree not to edit any articles he had edited as an IP I would be satisfied). It is not the best way to continue editing, but I don't think he's doing it to be deceptive. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Problem is, he/she did make that statement (and remains unfixed), and it started to sway consensus above. I actually believe they consider that they're not being deceptive (I've mentioned WP:COIBIAS). They've mentioned their rights a lot. They can edit as IP. It's up to them if they want to edit as an IP or account, no problem. If IP editing, then don't falsely claim "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak" as it actually is deception. Anyhow, they still need to follow consensus and policy WP:PAID and disclose on that account userpage, and at each IP userpage & article (draft/moved or not). The problem is editing at all with this statement which is not true, misleading and its placement removed the (sub-PAID level of) paid COI disclosure, together with claiming at the SPI of no overlap (just because the article has been moved). That's not right per LOGOUT (misleading), or WP:CLEANSTART (overlap). The editor has made many statements, including they are in communication with paying clients for a content question and that they are continuing to edit because it is their job. Wikilawyering is the best faith I can call all that. Paid editors do not have a right to edit here unless they follow TOU, consensus, PAID, COI. The difficulty is only not wanting to, and ignoring consensus to hundreds of lines of talk. It is a way of editing that subverts the discussion above, and (not quite) following the letter of TOU (not quite = claiming no need to disclose on drafts or disclosing on all relevant discussions etc), while ignoring the letter and spirit of consensus, PAID, and COI. This is really about disclosure (not SPI), but has progressed to removing disclosure and providing less in the face of consensus - that's WP:POINT disruption. I've consistently said I consider this a good faith editor, but now this is POINT and we're not meant to get drawn into wikilawyering per PAYTALK. Widefox; talk 18:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re Stargrl(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) (for simplicity purposes, I’ll assume by the username that the editor is female): not vandalism in the strictest sense, but a continuing history of damaging edits that require repair by others. Nearly all of her edits of 12–13 November violate RS and/or NPOV (Paige Larson: 123; Theresa Donovan: 1;Hailee Steinfeld: 1 [strike edit: I've re-read the appropriate guidelines re fictional characters and plots; RS doesn't apply except where contentious]). Even her sourced edits have skewed toward celebrities’ personal relationships with a reliance on the tabloid (Billy Flynn (actor): 1; Gigi Hadid: 1; Emma Watson: 1; literally dozens more), and show no willingness to learn how to format citations. She has been advised, cajoled and warned repeatedly for these behaviors, and was blocked once; there is no indication she has ever read her talk page or, at least, that she intends to learn therefrom. The problem with a short block: she may make handfuls of edits, then disappear for weeks or even months at a time. I’m requesting an indefinite block (including account creation) to force her to address her problem editing, engage with other editors, and treat the encyclopedia for what it is. (Moved from AIV.) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a topic ban from BLPs; I'm on the fence about an indef. Erpertblah, blah, blah... 00:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Indef" meaning indeterminate—as in, lifted once she decides to engage. If determinate, given her otherwise NOTHERE, maybe three months or, again, until she so decides. Same effect—assuming she doesn't simply return to current behaviors after three months ... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 05:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef means "indefinitely"; it does not mean "indeterminate". It would not "force her to engage", it would block her from editing. She's only had one other block, and that was only for 24 hours. There's no way anyone would jump from that to an WP:INDEF without demonstrable evidence in the form of lots and lots of incredibly disruptive WP:DIFFS. I don't see a single problem in any of the diffs provided here, except possibly one edit which added Twitter and Instagram citations. I don't even see any cause for any sort of topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I'm splitting hairs, Softlavender, but "indefinite" means not definite—it's why there's a difference between INDEF and PERMABAN. Meantime, if you can't see that virtually every edit she makes requires repair if not reversion—hence, disruptive—I don't know what else to add ... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:INDEF. The burden is on you to provide evidence (diffs) of disruptive editing, and so far you've done nothing of the sort. Softlavender (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have read INDEF, and the entire first paragraph supports my request. Following her block on 2 July:
Her refusal to learn {{cite [whatever]}} is admittedly little more than an irritant; apps like reFill do not always work, making for tedious, repetitious cleanup. It’s the “tedious, repetitious” part that’s particularly problematic; she either doesn’t know how to read the concerns left on her talk page (by more than a half-dozen different editors) or she doesn’t care; conversely, virtually every edit she makes requires significant repair. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 20:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any NPOV vios or any critical BLP vios. The only problem I see is using Instagram as a source. Just tell her not to use Instagram as a source. Have an admin here post a notice on her Talk page warning/telling/explaining to her that she can't use Instagram as a source, and she can't post anything uncited. These two edits she made were actually corrections to errors in those articles: [65], [66]; I don't know why you posted them above or why you reverted the latter one. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specific to your examples: 1) no RS (edit: my bad—apparently I saw the reverse of what she actually did); 2a) no RS, 2b) CRYSTAL.
Specific to NPOV: 1) "best known for [anything]" is almost always a vio, usually the opinion of any journalist/blogger/etc. who doesn't cite it; 2) to assume from the source that Kardashian ended her relationship with Harden violates both NPOV and SYNTH, and turned out to be completely false; 3) "most popular friendship", also NPOV and SYNTH vios.
"Just tell her [anything]" is impossible if she ignores it. "Have an admin post [anything]" is irrelevant for the same reason. This is not a whim; if I wasn't utterly convinced that there is no other course of action, I would not be making this request. If you have an alternative that would actually work, please share it. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 03:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, Hailee Steinfeldis best known for starring in her Oscar-nominated role as Mattie Ross in True Grit. If you refute that, put a disputed tag and discuss on Talk. On this one [67], the source (which was already in the wiki article) specifically states that the Harden relationship ended the previous Tuesday when the divorce was cancelled, and again, Stargrl corrected the wiki article per the already-existing source. In terms of this [68], again, Stargrl didn't add the Pitch Perfect 3 information, she corrected it; and in terms of the already-filmingBesties, that doesn't need a citation any more than any of the other entries in the chart -- it's in her IMDB filmography. All of these edits were improvements to these articles. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* no, sorry. None of the above. "Best known for [anything]" is POV (fans of Asa Butterfield or Orson Scott Card may know her "best" from Ender's Game; young teens may know her best from "Love Myself"; Wikivoice cannot choose). The tabloid cited for Kardashian/Harden specifically says "slowed down", not "ended", hence SYNTH. When adding Besties, the commenting out of the not-yet-in-production Pitch Perfect 3 was removed in favor of adding "Pre-production", hence CRYSTAL (or, more directly, NFF). And ... IMDb? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 09:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best known for is not POV if it is a fact; please cite a specific policy that specifically says so if you think it is. In the Kardashian article [69], I misspoke slightly; Stargrl added the correct and current citation up higher, which states that "On Tuesday it was reported that Khloe had split from her boyfriend, basketball player James Harden" and "The news of the couple getting back together comes just one day after it was reported that Khloe and her boyfriend James Harden, 26, had decided to split after a few months of dating" and "Khloe began to realize she still had feelings for Odom when she rushed to see him in the hospital and just days later called it quits with Harden, who is also a basketball player." [70]. Stagrl simply neglected to add that citation at the bottom as well. I didn't realize that Stargrl removed commented out coding, but she corrected the Pitch Perfect 3 entry from "Filming" to "Pre-production" (which it turns out is still not quite accurate because the film at this point is only announced); what she did was an effort at correction and a rookie move rather than disruptive editing. And again, since it is already filming and Hailee Steinfeld is a well-known Oscar-nominated actor, Besties does not need a citation any more than any of the other entries in the chart. If that one does, all of the others in all of the charts in the article do too. And yes, IMDB is a RS for filmographies, or else we would not allow it as an EL. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In your words, "if it is a fact"—unless absolutely unimpeachable, it is an opinion (and led, among others, to a sizeable argument here). The Daily Mail is widely derided as a WP:RS, per its many appearances on the noticeboard. Making an invisible entry visible for the sole purpose of adding "Pre-production" against NFF is not a correction. Per its lack of editorial oversight, I still have problems with IMBd, even for filmographies. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 10:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are all content disputes about good-faith edits, and I agree with Stargrl on all of them. You're bringing content disputes and apparent wiki-stalking here to ANI. That's not appropriate. Your continuing to argue about them here makes it continuously less likely that you will achieve even your legitimate issue about her edits (Instagram, and uncited information). If I were you I'd lay off templating her talk page, stop stalking her edits, and if you have a content dispute, raise it on the talk page of the article in question, pinging her during the discussion, and follow WP:DISCFAIL. As it is, your claims of any violations regarding any of the edits you've listed except posting uncited information or using Instagram as a source are your opinion at best and inaccurate (and your reversions and templates against policy) at worst. I myself am not going to continue this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Yup. Fuck policy. Fuck the encyclopedia. Sounds about right ... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 11:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
Stargrl is hereby formally banned from using Instagram as a source, and banned from posting uncited information. Any violation of these restrictions will result in blocks of increasing duration. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that When Other Legends Are Forgotten is correct, that the IP must log in to his account, to make sure he doesn't avoid sanctions. I even think that in such a case it should be allowed to stalk the IP, to make sure he doesn't avoid any sanctions.
Can some admin please look into the matter, and take the necessary measures? I have posted a notification on both talkpages. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, @Debresser:, edit warring like you did at Rabbiis against policy. I'm glad you finally found your way to Talk:Rabbi; now maybe you can explain why you want to change language that's been in the article for years -- as I've repeatedly asked you to do. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same policy page you quote also says "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account" - so let me be direct : Do you have an account? yes or no? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, 107.10.236.42. Don't forget it takes 2 to edit war. In addition, as far as I am concerned, you are one of the many pushy IPs with POV contributions, and I am doing this project a favor by stopping you from pushing your POV. And I happen to be very sincere in that conviction of mine in your case, because it is obvious to me you came here with an agenda. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am joining my colleagues in expressing significant concerns about user 107.10.236.42 (talk·contribs).
S/he indeed is quite pushy with POV as demonstrated on countless of occasions, along with suspicious IPs tagging along him/her. WP:SOCK?
But what concerns me the most, is that s/he quickly deletes notices and warnings from talk page, including this notice to Administrators' noticeboard [71], and does this frequently with disparaging remarks as in here: "Taking out the trash" [72]. MarkYabloko 07:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What concerns me the most is that you still haven't read the talk page guidelines. And yet you deleted my messages from your talk page without comment. So perhaps you figured out that deleting talk page messages is not vandalism. I'm sorry it took a little trip to WP:AIV for you to learn that lesson. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to open an SPI on Debresser and When Other Legends Are Forgotten. It smells like a duck pond here. Jabberwock2112 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for a sock investigation into an 8-year editor with 84,846 edits and several edit privileges is not nice. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to note that Jabberwock2112 (talk), who is blocked now, joined wikipedia just today, and his/ her ONLY contribution was to give Debresser (talk) hard time and divert attention from the original complaint.
Can our dear administrators investigate the origin of these, supposedly, random acts, yet familiar insults? MarkYabloko 19:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question was an obvious sock, and is now indef blocked. BMK (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So? Who is 107.10.236.42, and why is he editing not from his regular account. Can anybody anwser that question? Debresser (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that most his edits are reverts. Hundreds of reverts since October 13. I think we have a serious problematic editor here, and ask again somebody please investigate him. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for you to explain at Talk:Rabbi why you feel the consensus language that's been in the article for years needs to be changed. Please don't try to change the subject, as you did above, by accusing me of POV pushing.
PS: If you want to talk about editors whose contributions are mostly reverts, be sure to look in the mirror. WP:OWN much? 107.10.236.42 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All you can do is incorrectly accuse people of all kinds of faults you have yourself. See Tu quoque. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This IP also engages in removal of sourced information, while WikiLawyering, like in this edit. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Koko Jones
The apparent subject of Koko Jones is asking for the article to be deleted. As it stands it is very poorly sourced and probably would go if PROD ed of it went to AfD. A speedy delete is unlikely to succeed as there is some grounds for assuming notability. However, I can empathise with the concerns that he/she expresses here and wondered , given the lack of notability whether an admin could not consider a more direct route to oblivion. The content of the article clearly indicates the reason for concern and, although such personal material may be in the public domain, its inclusion here might be considered harassment particularly in as it relates to gender issues. I think the veiled legal threat in the edit summary may safely be ignored. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 20:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per this diff,[73] it's not a veiled threat at all. They should be blocked until it is redacted, and it should be PRODed if you think it will work. After that, AfD if that fails. Impersonators come and go all the time. Scr★pIronIV 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have prodded it as a BLP and we'll see what happens. I am not certain that "I'll find a lwayer" is strictly a legal threat, it could after all be an indication that he/she wishes to take legal advice and not action but I'll leave that distinction to wiser heads. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not eligible for WP:PROD BLP because there are sources in the article. It is eligible for the similarly-named but separate WP:PROD process. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That said, this article is a minefield because of the (alleged) gender-related issue. On the surface, I'd say the article needs renamed and recast, but I'd want a more exhaustive search of sources before I did that. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are better sources available than those used in the article, e.g. [74][75], and the contested content seems mostly to be available on the subject's own website, but as this is a request for deletion by a marginally notable individual leaving the prod to expire seems best per the advice at WP:BLPDEL. Fences&Windows 21:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to address what was unsourced solely based on that; further investigation revealed more information. As I posted on User talk:Velella:
This Huffington post article [1] makes it harder; looking at that source, the subject has voluntarily disclosed, and also asserts some notability. Her official website[2] is also open about it, as is this interview.[3] There are additional sources in a short google search that lend to her notability. World Music Report[4] is one, and asserts her openness on the issue as well as add to notability. I am not certain we are doing the right thing here, acting on the word of an an editor claiming to be the subject.
I am not an expert in these matters, and believe it would be best left in the hands of those who specialize in these matters.
Please note that I am not making any personal statement or taking any stand here; I want to do right by the subject of the article, and in accordance with the rules. If I have made any error, it is only from a lack of experience in the topic. Scr★pIronIV 22:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the PROD after adding several citations to sources, and there are more out there. It may be that the subject wants to keep mention of being Trans or her former name (under which she initially gained fame) out of the article. But she has discussed both in several published interviews, and can't have things both ways. Still I have emphasized her music and its reception, not her trans status, in the edits I have made, as that is what she is primarily notable for, IMO. DES(talk) 00:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On another note, this edit summary is a clear legal threat. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgebattle(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is anine-day-old account that has been editing disruptively with a strong political POV. The account has received a notice of discretionary sanctions relating to American politics[76] and on 19 October was blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Recently the account created Carsonism and then blanked an AFD for it[77]. (I have re-created the AFD.) I will notify the editor of this ANI report. Looie496 (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The account's editing history goes back to September 2014. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I somehow misread the contribs -- I fixed the statement, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong political POV"? Well, don't most people have that? However, if something seems to be POV'd, then someone can just fix it. That's no reason to block someone. :-\ That's why, after all, Wikipedia is open and free, yea? If something is true, then it's true. If you feel that a certain inconvenient truth has a certain political bias, just remember Stephen Colbert's words: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ;-) Just fix whatever article you think needs fixed. Problem solved. Knowledge Battle 15:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgebattle, it was incorrect for you to blank an AfD and an unwise idea to blank any page unless it contains copyright violating content, personal attacks or vandalism. Please do not do this in the future or you can be blocked. LizRead!Talk! 18:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgebattle is still pulling crap like this: [78] (restoring a mass deletion and BLP-vio refactoring he had made while this ANI was in progress [79]). I suggest it's time to consider a block or another kind of sanction. Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: Excuse you? It was released that the Koch brothers are now engaging in political spying. I'm "pulling crap"? I think you ought to shove that crap down your throat, with all due respect. I'm not in charge of the Koch brothers' activities. I'm not making them do what they're doing. User:DaltonCastle didn't take it to the Talk Page before he deleted it. Use your brain a little, Soft. No need to come after me, when the edit was constructive and relevant. Knowledge Battle 23:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for dragging me into this. Your first task should be taking a step back to calm down, assume good faith, and behave with civility. Now note that the edit you are referencing, my "deletion", was a reversion of your edit that 1. deleted reliably sourced content and 2. added your intended information with a fairly strong POV. Its not a spy agency and its goal is not to "disrupt politics". Phrasing it as you did was a POV violation. If you do not understand that, can you at least understand that the rest of your edit deleting reliably sourced content is disruptive? DaltonCastle (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DaltonCastle: I was trying to figure out what you were talking about just now, by looking back and forth, and now I see what you're talking about. "Educational grants" section. I'm not sure what I did there, but it looks like the "Educational grants" section was removed. That wasn't my intention, it was only to add the new section. If that's the only issue, which was unintentional, then this conversation is over. Knowledge Battle 00:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiBriefed is on a crusade to establish boxofficeindia.com as the one and only reliable source for Bollywood movies.
Judging by [80] this is not any sort of decided consensus on the issue. I believe it would be wise for WikiBriefed to stop removing reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming here to ask admins to take a look at this user as well, because I think I might be marginally involved. The user is demonstrating some inappropriate behaviors including personal attacks like: HOW STUPID ARE YOU? MANEESH SHARMA THE DIRECTOR SAID ITS A THRILLER. YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED. IDIOT! although so far there has only been one instance of that. The unilateral decision that only BOI can be used as a reference is clearly disruptive. I will also note that the editor is misusing the minor changes box. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is BOI a reliable source at all? Certainly not at the expense of other, more established RS, but do links to that site have any value? If the answer is no, then is the blacklist an option? UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 19:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ultraexactzz It's a grander question that you are asking, and one that I'm attempting to answer at User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF FAQ, although with not much help from the community. So far the community seems okay with BoxOfficeIndia.com (there is a BoxOfficeIndia.co.in that should not be confused for this other BOI) but that doesn't make it the definitive resource. Frankly, there are major problems with Indian box office data. There's no absolutely reliable source like BoxOfficeMojo.com is considered for western films. Producers lie about box data to lure more people to view the film, or wrangle some resources into reporting low numbers to hurt their competition. Times of India briefly discontinued their box office feature because they were sick of corruption. And, to top it all off, we have paid editors, sockpuppets, etc. who don't care that the box office numbers are all estimates, they still come back daily, sometimes hourly, to report the newest number even though they're still just estimates. What makes BOI's estimate any more reliable than Times of India's estimate? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The community will decide if boxofficeindia is a reliable source. Meanwhile, a swift block will prevent further disruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.88.180.151 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this blurb is in the disclaimer
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BOX OFFICE INDIA AND ITS AFFILIATES DO NOT CONTROL, REPRESENT OR ENDORSE THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE WEB SITE AND OTHER USER AND MEMBER GENERATED PAGES AND THAT ANY OPINIONS, ADVICE, STATEMENTS, SERVICES, OFFERS OR OTHER INFORMATION OR CONTENT PRESENTED OR DISSEMINATED ON THE WEB SITE OR ON ANY OTHER USER OR MEMBER GENERATED PAGES ARE THOSE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AUTHORS WHO ARE SOLELY LIABLE FOR THEIR CONTENT. BOX OFFICE INDIA AND ITS AFFILIATES RESERVE THE RIGHT, IN THEIR SOLE DISCRETION, TO EDIT, REFUSE TO POST OR REMOVE ANY MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO OR POSTED ON THE WEB SITE OR ON ANY OTHER USER OR MEMBER GENERATED PAGES.
I wouldn't be inclined towards accepting it as a reliable source. Blackmane (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note that we're back to the same concerns we had in 2008, namely that no one actually considers this a reliable source in line with our policy requirements but we acknowledge that some newspapers (which we presume are reliable sources) refer to it so it falls under WP:USEBYOTHERS so it's an issue about the fact that it's been used extensively even if no one has any idea here who's behind it: do we need to have a separate analysis of its reliability or do we just defer to the actual sources. Now all the discussions acknowledged that there does exist actual reliable sources so on that basis WikiBriefed should be warned to knock it off immediately and blocked if the editing continues. Again, as I suspect with the .co.in versus .com confusion, I think we're being used for spam purposes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem with this website is that they simply delete the reference that users use from their website. There are dozens of Bollywood articles, where boxofficeindia links have become deadlink. Today i will use a boxofficeindia report for a movie as a reference. After two weeks that reference becomes dead link. The user considers Koimoi as bad. As if he has some personal grudge against the website. In other sources the link don't become dead link. Few months ago i used to read articles in boxofficeindia about highest grossing movies from 1940 to 2010. Now i don't see those individual pages from 1940 to 1970. Unless boxofficeindia sources don't create deadlinks, we shouldn't use it. Other websites change the URL, while BOI simply deletes the entire article. They revamp their website again and again. Galaxy Kid (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should try www.archive.org on those pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out as well that BOI (.com) writes these ridiculous Q&A pages that aren't attributed to anyone, and in some cases totally contradicts other information on their site. Typically people use these ("What was the final gross for Lingaa?" or something) as unassailable fact. They're really problematic and we should really consider ignoring those. I wish I'd taken note of them when they've come up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how it is possible that this user is still allowed to edit (and disrupt) Wikipedia after several incidents (see: [81]-[82]-[83]-[84], and many more if you search). Last incidents? First, he retired from Wikipedia saying that time was "definitive" because "This is full of shit and it's disturbing to know unimportant strangers harass people everyday on this fading website" [85]. But no, he wasn't retiring, because only 12 days later he returned to revert editions in Pichilemu-related articles and, of course, to insult some users (I don't want to reproduce all here, you can see it by yourself [86]). And last, but no least, he also is starting to edit Pichilemu articles under IP, and now he is attacking me: "the Rancagua guy loves to lie" [87] and "so called laughable President of WM Chile" [88]. For all this reasons, I strongly believe that Diego grez account (and all his sockpupets) must be blocked. He is not contributing to Wikipedia, he is using it for his personal benefits, self promotion, and he is also acting in bad faith. --Warkotalk 22:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the latest on COIN: [89]. Definitely time for an indef or a site ban. I Support and indef or a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked him for two weeks in the SPI case. If the community wants to discuss an indef or some form of ban then this is would be a reason to keep this thread open to make policy-based arguments with reasons to assist the closing admin (it won't be me). — Berean Hunter(talk) 03:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend a more permanent solution, he will most likely return after 2 weeks. Diego Grez knows very well how to WP:GAME THE SYSTEM. Sietecolores (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diego's very first edits were about himself (he would have been very young at the time); here we are almost ten years later still dealing with immature and unacceptable behavior. In between there have been many incidents of sock puppetry, COI, self-promotion, personal attacks, revenge attacks on other editors, edit warring, etc... The history up until 2010 is covered here. Diego was conditionally unblocked under mentorship which, given the ensuing events, completely failed. Warko's opening post in this thread includes some of the more recent problems but there is an awful lot more. Diego's saga on es.wikipedia.org is similar. There is also dodgy behavior on small wikis; Diego is an admin on the Scots wiki (WTF?) where he has abused the tools, has been blocked on the Russian wiki, has spread his COI articles to the Latin wiki and other obscure places.... Like Warko, I am shocked that he has been allowed to continue this long. He has produced some good content and seems to believe that his good contributions excuse his bad behavior. It's time to put an end to this; dealing with Diego has become a major time sink for myself and others. Vrac (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly--I saw Softlavender note somewhere that the editor created all these villages or whatever and that all them should be deleted. Well, lots of geographical features, including villages etc., are notable, but as it turns out all the ones I just looked at are neighborhoods, which are not automatically notable. I started PRODding and did a half a dozen, but there are a lot more. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah: Warko has a big AfD going (for Los Navegantes), and bundled a bunch of articles in there. I hope we're not overlapping too much. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies and Warko: Another crazy-ass list of articles to speedy, prod, or AfD: [90]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh. Well, Julio Waidele was a mayor of that town, so it would have to be AfD, and I don't know if that would lead to delete--elected official. I looked at a bunch of BLPs they created, and while they were all poorly verified, they seemed to squeak by as far as notability is concerned. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Mayor of Pichilemu: Ten Several of his mayor articles have already been successfuly AfDed and deleted. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender Isn't this all systemic bias? Just because you are a New Yorker things from a "population 13,900" town, provincial capital, which you consider a "tiny village" (a discriminating comment) should go? Behave! (BTW, only Cordova's article was AfD'd and deleted, the others (red links) were never created or were redirects). You also claim "Pichilemunews" is mine; incorrect. You guys make fun of many things that happened several years ago (i.e. sockpuppeeting), yet I did not insist on that anymore, go and do me a checkuser. I urge you to! You guys have nothing to claim but "Longterm abuse" for trying to create a neutral, referenced article related to myself and defending it. You guys should really be ashamed of yourselves. (And yes, I'm "sorry" for evading a block -which I think is unjustified- to comment this, which will be the actual last one, how could I anymore like to edit here when there is people who have pissed so much over me and my reputation). Whatever you guys decide, indef, or site ban, it will be actually a favor, I'm not coming back!!! --191.112.59.3 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Indef or site ban
Propose that Diego Grez-Cañete be indef blocked or site banned for longterm abuse including socking, gaming, massive COI, repeated personal attacks and wiki-stalking, and longterm disruption. Definitely not here to build an encyclopedia, and by far a net negative. Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban (or indef block, which to be determined by community consensus or closing admin [or ArbCom, if it comes to that, but I think it is clear-cut enough by now that it shouldn't need to]). Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban. --Warkotalk 13:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban. Evidence above is enough. --TL22 (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban per AndyTheGrump's analysis at the 2014 COI case: he isn't going to stop this gross abuse of Wikipedia facilities for the purpose of personal gratification until forced to - by topic-ban and/or block, as necessary. The time has come. Vrac (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban. I want to congratulate Vrac for summarizing the issue and Warko for having the patience to stand up against unacceptable behaviour. —Sietecolores (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban, long overdue. Max Semenik (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban, as the only way to deal with this user, who has been a long-term issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what's another option? Berean was kind, with a two-week block, but this has been going on for a long time. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Wouldn't a topic ban work better? Maybe also requiring that he acquire a mentor (I volunteer to help here, unless anyone else is more capable and willing to do it). I don't think site-banning Diego is going to be a solution—it would most likely prompt him to IP edit (or create a new account) and continue the misbehavior.--MarshalN20Talk 02:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. He doesn't need mentoring -- he's been gaming and abusing the system for many many years. He doesn't need a topic ban, he needs a full site ban. This has nothing to do with topics, and everything to do with a destructive and manipulative personality across all topics and all Wikipedia spheres. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me wish for the good old days of RfC/U, where this kind of stuff could be discussed calmly and quietly, and all the relevant issues could be laid out and a block or ban was not the desired outcome. Marshal, in a case like this a topic ban is probably the same as a regular old ban. I really don't want to call for yet another ban, though I don't see any options--I don't think mentoring here will work either. What good a ban will do, yeah, who knows. I have little doubt that the editor is not done editing, despite what they said above (as an IP), and the only thing a ban does is make it easier for us to delete articles and revert edits. That and make the banned editor angry, of course. If only that about-to-be editor were a bit more communicative, they could help us figure out a different solution. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those considering mentoring, they really should read this where it was tried. Diego did enough to get the restrictions lifted then back to his old behavior. He has been given many, many chances (see this 8 of 9 lives comment at the end of that discussion, and that was about 15 incidents ago...) How many times does he have to abuse the community's confidence before we say enough is enough? And then there is the cross-wiki abuse, the wikiverse has served as Diego's personal playground for years. If meta had any teeth I would take it there but it's hard enough to even get people to act in enwiki where the evidence is overwhelming. Vrac (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix-created redirects, yet again
I'm sorry to have to bring this up again. Over the last number of days, Legacypac has taken it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner for all of Neelix's many, many, (many) contributions. He was previously brought up here (#User:Legacypac -- NAC closes as "delete") for improperly closing as "delete" deletion discussions regarding pages created by Neelix. Since then, he has moved on to tagging pages with inappropriate WP:CSD criteria seemingly in order to "expedite deletion" (see also this AN thread), and some administrators have been ignoring that the criteria are obviously invalid and deleting the pages anyway.
The vast majority of the discussions that Legacypac has helpfully listed have resulted in a handful of plausible redirects being kept, generally one or two per target. However, starting some time yesterday (as far as I can tell) Legacypac started tagging already-listed redirects with invalid speedy criteria, such as Pieingly which was tagged WP:A11 and deleted by Versageek. Granted, the redirect was stupid, but there are not currently any speedy criteria which applied to it - certainly not A11 which only applies to articles. Today, he listed a number of Neelix-created redirects (see today's log) and seemingly within a few hours tagged nearly all of them with WP:G6 (uncontroversial maintenance). In particular, these three were listed for barely an hour before they were deleted by Beeblebrox, giving no opportunity for discussion.
I'm concerned that Legacypac is pushing to erase Neelix's page creations without allowing discussion, for no other reason than that they are creations by Neelix. I think this is in good faith because otherwise we're going to be at this for a while, but as far as I am aware (and I've been following this since the first thread) there is no consensus to shortcut process here and mass-delete all of Neelix's contribs, or at least we haven't had that discussion. Maybe we should, but in the meantime I think that Legacypac should refrain from closing any Neelix-related discussions or tagging any Neelix-related pages with speedy deletion criteria. He may simply not understand the speedy criteria: earlier I reverted him tagging Chiineses (a 2-year-old redirect) with WP:R3 which specifically only applies to recently-created redirects. That one is not a Neelix creation.
As for the administrators who aren't paying attention to the speedy criteria, I asked Beeblebrox about why they accepted "garbage redirects created by Neelix" as uncontroversial maintenance under the G6 criterion; their response is here - essentially that we needn't wait the usual full week for discussions with an obvious result. I fully agree - that convention is WP:SNOW, but they deleted discussions today that had been listed for little more than an hour and which had no discussion at all. It would be more helpful to act on discussions from a few days ago (such as Singleplayer games which is clear enough), which other administrators have been doing (e.g. Singleoperate) and which probably could use more eyes. I don't think that any of the deleted redirects should be recreated (let's say per SNOW or IAR) but I don't think there's any reason to be this aggressive with the delete button.
Again, sorry for the wall of text. tl;dr: can we confirm that there is no consensus to mass-delete Neelix's redirects? Or, can we agree that we should mass-delete them, and then do it? Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a concern. There are some redirects that should not be redirects to what they currently are, but these are in the minority. Most are simply low-traffic redirects. Even if they are near zero-traffic redirects there is no benefit from deleting them, the database still gets bigger. Clogging up RfD with them makes the overhead hundreds to thousands of times worse.
Of course it is not intuitive quite how cheap redirects are. They cost maybe a few dozen bytes, and generally need zero or near zero maintenance, sometimes a bot fixes a double redirect.
Today's RfD is already 27k, including history this is 571,711 bytes. This waste of resource, mainly human resource, on non-harmful redirects is by no means a new thing, but it is a problem.
I actually think the process has generally played out reasonably and sensibly thus far. We need to quickly delete the nonsense redirects and save weeklong RfD discussions for when they are needed. It doesn't bother me a bit that we aren't spending a lot of time discussing sillinesses such as "blackishblue" and "pieingly." Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is no such hysteria. Scrolling the redirects you can see many are worthless variations with permutations ignored by Google indexing in the first place (plurals, hyphens, etc). These were mass created to boost his edit count. Delete away as far as I'm concerned. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for trying to do what I can as a non-admin. I nominated a whole bunch today that User:Beeblebrox deleted on their intuitive after I listed at RfD. Beebebrox did not accept "garbage redirects created by Neelix" they created that phrase. Kindly don't tag me with Admin decisions here. I absolutely send the most blatant junk for speedy. 90% of the time an Admin deletes but if not I RfD them next. I even sent Muff (genitals) to Rfd but if someone wants to overturn the speedy delete I'll be interested in the rational. Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, I think there is no consensus to mass-delete anything, so RfD is the proper way to go, cumbersome as it is. You pointed to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_13#Singleoperate--yes, I just deleted that set, but if you look at the ones I tackled I think you see my MO: in the case of "Singleoperate", there are three votes to delete (including the nominator's), so yeah, per SNOW, more or less, as you said in your close (thanks for doing that, by the way). As for Legacypac, I don't think calling them judge etc. is totally fair. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since some think I'm out to wipe out Neelix, it is not true. I've actually evaluated dozens of his articles and thousands of his redirects and decided NOT to nominate them. You can look on the subpage archive of his user page and see that the vast majority of nominated stuff is being deleted or redirected. At AN I've just suggested G5 creations of a banned or blocked user as a better code for he is in fact banned from Redirects for a year. Legacypac (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The key here for WP:G5 is that it is in violation of their ban. None of Neelix's redirects are G5 eligible unless he creates one between now and next November. Legacypac, you really need to read the criteria of a certain CSD before you tag them. A prefixes don't apply to redirects, for example. --Tavix(talk) 06:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Legacypac, I thought I deleted that "judge" comment before I posted.
Admins: I share Rich Farmbrough's concerns regarding wasted resources (CSD noms also consume resources) and I agree that there's really no discussion required for redirects such as "singleoperationally" or "egregiosities" or "fussingly". I assume that you'll get 'em eventually. As for us non-admins, would it be more helpful for us to go through Legacypac's lists to find any cases which are questionable (not clearly keep or delete) and just list those, or is mass-nominating them helpful? Or would it be helpful if we just left you to it? Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most of Beeblebrox's deletions from the 18 November log should be restored so we can resume proper discussion. I'm all for early closes via WP:SNOW, but a couple hours is not enough time to allow for that. I noticed that Peter James contested his deletion of Tripleheader, for example. Also, the ones that were deleted under A11 should be restored as well, that was clearly not a valid criteria. I'd lump Anthony Bradbury's deletion of F-hyphen-hyphen-hyphen in that category. --Tavix(talk) 06:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I'm not even going to read this thread. As I said at RFD, a fairly strong consensus was reached at the previous, epically long ANI threads on this subject that the majority of Neelix's redirects were junk and not desirable. Most of the very offensive ones have already been deleted, now we are dealing with the ones that are just stupid, mostly based on made up compound words or extreme over-simplification of broad subjects. If we have a week long discussion of each one RFD will be backlogged for months, possibly years. It isn't worth it. If any responsible user in good standing wishes to recreate any of these they are perfectly free to do so without needing to come here, and without consulting me or anyone else. I do not believe further discussion of this giant mess is a worthwhile endeavor. I'd also appreciate no more pings on this subject, of which I have now been informed four times. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm glad someone else started this discussion, I had meant to yesterday when I declined a bunch of pages Legacypac had tagged for speedy deletion, but I didn't really want to get involved in this Neelix issue and risk getting tarred as an apologist of his as I've seen some people be. Here are the speedy deletion requests I declined: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]. These were all tagged as G8 even though in every case the article/redirect page attached to it did exist and they had no similarities to the distasteful Neelix redirects that have been rightly nuked. They were simply redirects left over from old page moves. I haven't looked through Legacypac's other contributions, but judging from what others are saying, it seems this is not the only case where they have misapplied the CSD criteria. I'd suggest Legacypac refrain from making more CSD nominations until they have a better understanding of the policy. Jenks24 (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, my G8 for talk pages was only because many talk pages redirects started showing up on the Neelix redirect list as deleted based on G8 (see at around 50,000 and on [103] ) and various Admins accepted my G8's for talk page redirects. Let us know when the admins have worked out their differences of understanding about G8 policy as it applies to talk page redirects.
As for WP:THE on redirects, I've now started an RfC to adjust the policy to include redirects (adding two words) here [104]Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably because the actual redirect page was deleted in those cases, so then the talk page should be deleted too. You have marked talk pages for deletion when the corresponding article/redirect pages were not deleted, were not nominated for deletion in any way, and clearly were never going to be deleted. Your response appears to show a complete lack of understanding about what G8 is for. Again, if you don't understand this, I would suggest staying away from CSD. I have no idea what WP:THE has to do with my comment. Jenks24 (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You presume wrong. If you check the link the G8s on talkpage redirects at 50,000 (right near the bottom) are all on talk pages of perfectly valid move generated redirects. I did accidentally CSD two real article talk pages, but that was quickly caught as an error by an admin. The reason for the error was not a lack of understanding its process. To CSD a redirect I follow the redirect link, go back to the redirect page and twinkle it. I was doing them in batches and I just missed a step on two of them. No damage done. Legacypac (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Legacypac, I apologise. The link you provided (I missed it in an edit conflict) does indeed show admins incorrectly deleting talk pages of redirects as G8 for seemingly no good reason. While everyone is responsible for their own actions, I can understand why you saw those deletions and therefore thought your nominations were acceptable. I've just restored one which had incoming links and I would not be surprised if most of the others did too considering the talk pages had been there for a long time before they were moved by Neelix – they would almost certainly have incoming external links that have now been broken. Pinging Liz and RHaworth, the deleting admins, to see if the can explain their decisions (see from around the 50,000 mark at User:Anomie/Neelix list). As a tangential note, Legacypac, I was the person who declined those two article talk pages you tagged – I linked them above – and to just dismiss it as "no damage done" does not fill me with great confidence. Jenks24 (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've literally tagged thousands of redirects this week with twinkle, so accidentally tagging two pages that should not have been tagged and were not deleted seems like not a big deal to me. Legacypac (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jenks24, can you be specific about which deletions you are referring to? LizRead!Talk! 09:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Nyttend restored the first link, it was red when I made the comment at 10:01. Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All restored now. RHaworth and Liz have been actively editing in the interim, so I assume they do not care to defend their deletions. Jenks24 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An appeal to common sense and IAR here is a prime example of what we are dealing with (randomly selected as the first and only CSD decline I've had since this thread started):
Singlelevelers redirect created 28 August 2009 by Neelix, CSD R3G3 by me, declined by User:GB fan as "not recent" [105].
Does applying Wikipedia guidelines so strictly make sense here? Maybe we need to adjust the guidelines to accommodate the present problem. Maybe IAR applies here. Let's see, cause I checked this term before CSDing it, and got this thread in thanks for my efforts.
We find a grand total of 10 search results [106] or let's be generous and follow Google's idea to split it into two words, and get these 478 junk search results [[107].
Maybe you need to be more specific than just giving a criterion. You nominated R3 (not G3 as you state) with no further explanation. No talk page comment, no |reason= field in the CSD nomination. How are we supposed to know what you are thinking? I took the nomination at face value and declined it at face value that it was not recently created. -- GBfan 12:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not leveling criticism at you GB fan, you are literally following the recent part of "Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created" and admins are being called on the carpet for bending the rules. However we all know he created some real junk that looks plausible until you start checking it. Automation is the only way through this, and there is no place in Twinkle to put an explanation for R3. I'm told that the G# are only applicable to articles. And some are complaining about speedy deletes at RfD here. So what to do about Singlelevelers and Argentically and Goldishblacks and other fiction? Legacypac (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "G" stands for general and is applicable to all pages ("A" for articles, "R" for redirects, etc.). I really would recommend reading WP:CSD. Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the |reason= parameter does work for R3, you just have to do it manually rather than with Twinkle. Jenks24 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in my initial response, maybe you need to do a little more work. It might take longer than just slapping on a speedy deletion tag with twinkle but in the end it would probably save time. You can manually add a reason parameter to the tag or you can make a talk page comment and explain your reasoning. When I see an invalid tag placed on a page with no explanation on why the rule should be ignored, it gets declined. -- GBfan 14:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That article had been tagged with issues for years, and the nom to me seemed like a moment of levity for all. Some people lack any sense of humor. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't expect anyone to believe this ham-handed attempt to retroactively turn what was obviously just a stupid deletion nomination into a deliberate joke, do you? There is nothing in your nomination that reds even remotely like humor or sarcasm. You made a mistake. It happens. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is necessary now, or we're going to go around in circles on this for months. Neelix created tens of thousands of redirects which individually are probably harmless but the community believes that as a lot they are harmful for various reasons (several users have stated this, and we had a number of great big discussions about it recently in various venues). However, deletion of the redirects without discussion is not currently supported by any of the speedy delete criteria, except for redirects which have already been deleted, and tagging them improperly is just making more work for admins. So I propose:
Any administrator may delete any redirect created by User:Neelix as uncontroversial maintenance under the WP:G6 speedy deletion criterion, if they reasonably believe that said redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause. and
while (1) is in effect, no user may place a speedy deletion notice on any redirect created by User:Neelix. struck as redundant, see below
This should allow admins to quickly deal with the silliest redirects (the implausible modifications, at the low end anything ending in "-nesses", "-ingly", "-ically", etc) without creating extra overhead (as Rich Farmbrough calls it) and without needing to wait for discussion. At the same time it will prevent obvious discussions getting punted back to RfD when users apply invalid speedy criteria and get rejected. And most importantly as Beeblebrox demonstrated, this is already happening, so we might as well make it official. This should be temporary, either being revoked when the admins involved determine that the most obvious cases are dealt with, or automatically on some date not too far in the future (say November 30, or open to discussion). Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure I understand the rationale for #2. Users, in general, can't be expected to know about this "exceptional decree", and would place a speedy tag as they see fit; and if admins are neglecting a particular inappropriate redirect, I don't see why users should be prevented from doing so. LjL (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(2) is meant to prevent what's happened with singleoperate (see above) - by the letter of WP:CSD, pages that have had a speedy tag removed cannot be re-tagged, they must be listed in a deletion discussion. The overall idea is that pages subject to (1) don't need to be tagged at all, because tagging them is going to add 50,000-ish extra entries to the database for no reason, and admins are already looking at them so there's no need to draw their attention. However, I see that G6 is one of the criteria which can be used after a page has survived deletion anyway, so maybe (2) doesn't matter. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, I don't believe there is any stipulation in WP:CSD that says once a speedy tag is removed it can not be re-tagged. -- GBfan 18:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'm thinking of WP:PROD. Well (2) is redundant, then. Struck. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I Support IAR and auto-delete at will. Will save an enormous amount of time, and God knows the Neelix cleanup is time-consuming enough as it is. Softlavender (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — This will save valuable time and help us focus our energies, and it is in line with WP:NOTBURO principles. Note that this isn't completely curtailing process—WP:G6 deletions can be undeleted on request at WP:REFUND without much fuss if any editor disagrees with an administrator's action, and later nominated for deletion under the proper discussion process if necessary. Mz7 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, please exercise IAR and common sense as needed. There is no point to creating red tape around this. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a bit worried someone will get overenthusiastic deleting Neelix redirects; but that's been happening even without this proposal, and unless it gets completely out of his hand (to the extent where we spend more time and effort undeleting Neelix redirects than we'd spend discussing them at RfD) the upsides should outweigh the downsides. Sideways713 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Per, you know, this guy --> Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support now we are getting somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sympathetic oppose - the most deletionist admin might have a very broad idea of what is included. Happy to support blanket RfD for Neelix created redirects ending with "-nesses", "-ingly", "-ically" and whatever other suffixes are deemed appropriate. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose, I still feel RFD is the correct forum for this. Neelix has plenty of perfectly acceptable redirects and I'm afraid that many of them will be "tossed out with the bathwater" so to speak without the scrutiny that only RFD can provide. At RFD, we can screen and filter which ones are "good" and "bad" and go from there. --Tavix(talk) 22:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems like I'm in the minority here, I'll conditionally support, on the grounds that only the redirects that are obviously unhelpful be speedy deleted. If there's any doubt that a redirect could be helpful, please take it to RFD. I just don't want "made by Neelix" to become a speedy deletion criteria when he has a lot of acceptable redirects. --Tavix(talk) 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I trust the admins' judgement on this of what is obviously inappropriate, versus what should be discussed. Mistakes in that regard are very likely to be harmless, or at least much less harmful then listing every one of 50,000-ish clearly nonsensical redirects at RfD just because none of the CSD fit. If they delete something useful then someone will recreate, or request undeletion. WP:CHEAP goes both ways. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading your proposal, my condition wasn't too far off from what you originally proposed. With that in mind, I'll give it a full support. I'll look over the list again once the dust settles and see if there's any deletions I disagree with. Good luck with the clean-up, admins. I hope this isn't too much of a burden on you. --Tavix(talk) 20:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
meh This is pretty much what is already happening, without any need for a proposal or whatever, but if this is what it takes to calm everyone down about admins just doing their job cleaning up a mess that involves literally tens of thousands of pages and may take months or even years to deal with entirely, so be it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a regular at RfD, I feel the balance between admins autocratically deleting the most stupid, and admins and others making a full listing at RfD, has been reasonably well achieved after a few hiccups and without WP:IAR. (I am not an admin.) Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Speedy deletion criteria are not to win a certain discussion. That way, it is not allowed to instate a speedy deletion criteria just to "stop an user from making disruptive redirects". Anybody can feel free to list the redirects at WP:RFD, and maybe even nuke them. --TL22 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this proposal as short-circuiting discussion. Rather, it's intention is to forgo discussion in cases where it's blatantly obvious what the outcome would be. The goal is to save time and legitimize what's already happening anyway. As Tavix mentioned above, "created by Neelix" should definitely not be the sole deletion rationale for admins seeking to employ this proposal. If an editor feels there is any possibility of contentiousness, RfD should definitely be the way to go. I would support a stipulation along the lines that if any editor contests a deletion under this proposal, either by removing a CSD template or by recreating the redirect, it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion under this proposal. Mz7 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nuke is not appropriate, as many of his redirects are valid and a nuke is all or nothing. But I feel that this is a situation where admins should be allowed some flexibility. there are several examples right now at CSD which are clearly nonsense redirects, but which were added eight years ago. and there is currently no appropriate deletion criterion, assuming that eight years cannot be described as recent.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a statement of the de facto situation, not as a formal action or precedent. @ToonLucas22: If you think it would be acceptable to nuke all of the redirects, why is it unacceptable to take the less draconian action of deleting just some of them? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - an expedited process is necessary due to the sheer volume of redirects we're talking about —МандичкаYO 😜 23:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Going through the full process on some tens of thousands of redirects is not reasonable. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a broad consensus here. Can the ball start rolling? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a reasonable application of IAR. I also second NYB's clarification. ~Awilley (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allie X Topic Ban Proposal
As you can see in the closed ANI post, an admin already put page protections and closed the previous incident report on this page, but the
people, (WordSeventeen(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) and Zpeopleheart(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), involved are still refusing to discuss any of the issues on the CollXtion I and Allie X talk pages. This is obviously not an isolated incident, at least for WordSeventeen; they have been blocked for harassment before: [[108]] They are repeatedly undoing edits like alternative covers on all the Catch (Allie X Song) page.dif here:[[109]] (for being "WP:UNDUE" even though that has nothing to do with this. Undue is for viewpoint is it not? Including such things offers no opinion on the material. WordSeventeen, I have had issues with in the past as well, with another ANI post detailing similar behavior. Cursory looking can show obvious signs of WP:DISRUPT, WP:HOUNDING, WP:VANDALISM, WP:POINT, WP:GAMING, WP:HUSH, and WP:IDHT. Even though they are obviously still on Wikipedia and making edits, they continue to ignore repeated attempts at discussion which is making a negative impact. Zpeopleheart and WordSeventeen have been disregarding established guidelines like WP:MUSBIO, picking it apart like their trying to to illustrate their tendentious view on MUSBIO. And since they are using tools like Twinkle, they seem to be committing WP:TWINKLEABUSE as well.
After filing the premature arbitration request, instead of making comment there, they harassed me yet again on my talk page as well as WordSeventeen proceeding to propose deletion for the locked articles that are very much the same, if not improved articles, from when AfD was voted against before. His AfD was immediately declined [[110]], see there, and yet he refiled , see here,[[111]], with the exact same AfD proposal statement. He has done this in the past before as well, and was told not to do so. He has been violating the same policies over and over for vast stretches of time, exemplified here [[112]] and here [[113]]. Why has he not be sanctioned? It's an obvious pattern in behavior.
Pages that illustrate their refusal to co-operate:
It was suggested to me to pursue moderated dispute resolution, but one of the requirements on that page is that the topics must have been discussed thoroughly on the talk page; this does not meet that requirement because they are refusing to talk about anything. I really feel like a topic ban is the only thing that will make them stop. WordSeventeen's persistence over such a vast span of time is disturbing. It also appears Zpeopleheart is calling me a bitch [[122]]
WordSeventeen practically confessed to his improper behavior here as well : [[123]]
The administrator Beeblebrox(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) also comments on this review page's history "Not done. I'm quite certain that my motivation in asking about this was and is preventative. You have acted quite disruptively and dishonestly in the past. As you say, your record is right there to see, so you must have known..."
So again, this seems very cut and dry that his conduct is wrong, and the amount of hurdles I have had to go through just to ameliorate such an obviously horrible situation is irritating.
SanctuaryX (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) SanctuaryX, after a cursory look, I've placed warnings on the two editors who have repeatedly "warned" you - regardless of who is at fault, it's pretty clear that their actions are verging on harassment samtar{t} 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have prompted them on all the talk page articles CollXtion I, Allie X, and Catch (Allie X Song); Zpeopleheart only bothered to reply to the birth date question in Allie X after Karst began discussing it with me.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why has he not been sanctioned? Because, generally speaking no matter how many times I'm accused of being a block-happy fanatic, we're generally quite hesitant to sanction people. When I locked the pages, I wasn't really suggesting arbitration - just engaging on the talk places, bringing in people through appropriate noticeboards, and then coming back to another board if, after the solution doesn't resolve itself in the time the article is protected, the disruptive parties will find themselves having a hard time editing Wikipedia. WP:DRN was suggested by someone else in the arb request, but I wouldn't even suggest going that far. I'll make a comment on a relevant talk page, but if this is still an issue f complete failure to engage when the protection wears off, the disruptive parties will find themselves the blocked parties. Also, wrote this before taking a full look at the diffs involved, which I'll now do and potentially take action on. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that misquote; sorry. I never meant you were suggesting arbitration. I got ahead of myself.SanctuaryX (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Topic-Ban for WordSeventeen
I propose a topic-ban from all articles related to Allie X for User:WordSeventeen. His or her campaign to delete the articles is disruptive and has aspects of an obsession. The singer is referenced by multiple reliable sources and passed an Articles for Deletion nomination six months ago. So now the editor has again opened another AFD, arguing WP:TOOSOON, when that argument was already considered and dismissed, and then opened yet another AFD (3d nomination) while the second nomination is still pending. That is disruptive editing having aspects of an obsession. I was uninvolved until an ill-advised Request for Arbitration was filed and is in the process of being closed, but it is clear from that evidence that WordSeventeen is being disruptive and should be topic-banned.
Support as proposer. Do I need to move this to the bottom of ANI because no one will read it up here? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Premature. If he doesn't figure out how to behave reasonably well in the next week, a tban will just send him in to another area of ENWP to be a problem. He has the next week to shape up. If he doesn't, well... Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)\[reply]
This behavior has been going on since May, intermittently albeit. SanctuaryX (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my oppose - what I really meant is if he keeps doing the same stuff until I block him for longer and longer periods of time, or he'll voluntarily get the point and stop being an issue (with, which the rather stern warning issued, is the hopeful outcome.) Tbanning him from Allie X will throw him in to being a problem in some other part of the encyclopedia; he needs to either get on board and fix the problem, or get tossed off the ship. Hopefully he'll get on board and be a genuinely productive editor even re: Allie, but if he doesn't, I have no problem personally tossing him overboard. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, but I would hope if he did just go making problems elsewhere instead of just whomever requesting a topic ban at the new place, they would just try to get him flat out banned after seeing his previous history. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 17:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's slightly confusing that we use both 'block' and 'ban,' but I can indefinitely prevent him (block) from editing all articles by myself if he continues to be disruptive, unless another admin strongly disagrees. A ban is much harsher, more like a 'community endorsed indefinite block', requires more evidence of disruption, more discussion, etc. If he was tbanned from this area, I would either have to start following his behavior in another area to see if the disruption persists, or drop it (letting him potentially be equally disruptive in an area no one is paying attention to.) If he's not tbanned, I can just block him for increasingly long periods of time until he either gets the point or is unable to edit effectively permanently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense and either way sounds marvelous. Thanks for explaining. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as initial complainant. It should be noted that Zpeopleheart clearly shares the same ideas, as per his reasoning for the delete vote in the AfD. He filed an ANI for edit warring and he was sanctioned himself [[124]] SanctuaryX (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WordSeventeen has a history of harassment and hounding and it all seems to stem from him either not knowing when to stop or not wanting to stop: [125], [126], [127][128], [129]. It should also be noted that with the last block for harassment, WS's permissions (rollback and reviewer) were revoked. From what I can see with this particular instance, a topic ban seems quite appropriate considering the circumstances (the proposer's note that WS seems to be "obsessed") as well as the user's history of disruption and inability to back off when advised to do so. -- WV ● ✉✓ 00:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question was directly involved in production of the highly controversial film The Hunting Ground, which, by many accounts, was proven to have used a patently false narrative. Evidently, as this article shows, Mr. Alva has, by his own admission, violated the laws on Conflict of Interest over the course of several months, and arguably has violated NPOV and Verifiability by changing articles to match the accusations of the film, rather than own up to the film's factual inaccuracies. Now, rather than apply hard protection to a wide array of articles, I feel that at the very least, for the sake of the encyclopedia's integrity, the issues be addressed with the guilty party, and that this bad-faith editing is halted. Of course, the decision rests solely with you guys. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edits to articles on the film's subjects would seem an even more serious issue, and though it might go on the BLP noticeboard, the two matters are closely related. Our BLP provisions apply to all articles involving living humans, not just to biographies, so they apply to the article on the film also. Further analysis is needed, and I think we should be prepared to block if there are further related mainspace edits. I don't want this issue to get lost in a jurisdictional dispute between noticeboards DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can focus on the different issues. I don't know what should be done though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the COI issue turns out to have press coverage.[130]. Not in connection with the film article, though, in connection with Jameis Winston, who is a subject of the documentary. There. Edwardpatrickalva made edits regarding the rape accusation.[131][132] That's a major BLP issue. Those edits started in March 2015. That article (the subject is a football player) has many edits since then, including some recent section blanking by an anon.[133]. I suggest that the Winston article be referred to the BLP noticeboard for attention. The film article had a little too much PR language, and I toned it down a bit. There's current press coverage and criticism not yet mentioned; that's a subject for the article talk page. In any case, Edwardpatrickalva shouldn't be editing either article. John Nagle (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see more editors paying attention to these articles, though I am a little skeptical of the reasons. From the beginning, I have been upfront about my affiliation, and I have worked to seek consensus among other editors for more substantial changes. I’d ask that Wikipedia admins take a close look at Talk:Jameis Winston, where on multiple occasions I brought things up for discussion. Prior to my involvement, the lead section of the Winston article was at odds with Wikipedia policy (though I don’t think any particular Wikipedia editor had done that intentionally, I think it was an organic outcome of how Wikipedia articles sometimes come together). Nearly every story about Winston in the many months before the NFL draft -- in mainstream media, in sports media, in entertainment media -- centered on whether his off-the-field issues would impact his draft performance. But that point appeared nowhere in the lead section, and could only be found in a “controversy” section below everything about his sports career. I took steps to address that significant problem, seeking input from other Wikipedians, striving at every step to work with Wikipedia’s standards in mind, not to narrowly advance my employer’s interests.
Finally, could an admin consider taking action to deal with the vandalism on my user page this morning? It has been reverted once, which I appreciate -- but I do not look forward to having to deal with schoolyard insults while this issue plays out. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best that you step away from editing in this subject area entirely. There are plenty of other editors who can work on these articles from a neutral point of view. Kellyhi! 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, Edwardpatrickalva acknowledged the COI early on and generally engaged on talk pages to suggest/discuss sensitive changes before making them. That's exactly what we want people with a COI to do, no? Clearly this is an issue that demands scrutiny, and of course using the talk page first doesn't mean there aren't problems with his edits, but I'm worried this COI angle is a ticket to fomenting wikirage to justify edits contrary to his. It should be a red flag that the source leading the charge here is one we don't typically take as reliable for contentious social/political issues. There are plenty of sources criticizing the film and plenty of reason to take the claims seriously, but let's not get sidetracked by COI. @Edwardpatrickalva: will you agree to takes Kelly's advice above and refrain from editing any article for which you have a COI for at least a while until these articles can be evaluated and stabilize? COI editing is a touchy thing, and it would be better to focus on content, I think. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to do a bit more investigating here, and I don't really have the time. But as I now see it, this situation could be dealt with very quickly and justly with a permanent ban of Edwardpatrickalva. There is clear evidence of disruption, violation of the policy WP:BLP, and of the guideline WP:COI. Even leaving out WP:BLP, blatently violating WP:COI and causing disruption is enough for a ban. It is *not* a cause for leniency to say that he complied with the Terms of Use to disclose his employer - that is just a minimum requirement to edit. Flying in the face of WP:COI and causing disruption in and of itself is cause to ban, and I believe that any admin can do it. As I said, I don't have enough time to do a thorough investigation, but those should be the principles applied. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory review of Mr. Alva's edits shows clear disruption, including replacing entire paragraphs that would cast doubt on the allegations made by the movie, replacing them with favorable content, using unreliable sources and dubious wording, shameless self-promotion (where "self" means the film), and stern warnings about his bad-faith editing which he ignored. His declaration of his involvement with the movie was only just added recently, and the user seemingly has not made edits that aren't related to the subject matter of the film in some manner or another. From all indications, this account of his was created solely to give the film a PR boost, while trying to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to a false narrative. KirkCliff2 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the user has been highly disingenuous with both edit summaries and his methodology on this very discussion, in addition to editing on his own where a consensus should be reached beforehand. He has been warned, several times, and in numerous places, to cease with the flagrant gaming, yet even as this discussion is happening, he remains engaged in discussions on the talk page of The Hunting Ground. Again, you, the Administrators have the final say in what happens to him and virtually everything else within the realm of this encyclopedia; I'm just laying out the facts before you. KirkCliff2 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelly and Rhododendrites: I have not edited the articles themselves since this issue came up, and I don’t see why I would, as long as there is a healthy amount of attention from diligent Wikipedians. Before yesterday, there were far fewer editors working on any of these articles, and edits and talk page comments were much less frequent. I did not want to nag, and in some cases was explicitly advised to just make changes myself.
To the other editors who repeat accusations, I would request that you do take the time to look at the issues closely; there is a great deal of nuance in the topic, which I have sought to address openly and responsibly. It’s possible I made some judgment calls that were less than ideal, and I am happy to learn; but the repeated accusation that I’ve been “disruptive” overall is simply not accurate.
One specific criticism I want to address: yes, one user did tell me not to edit The Hunting Ground on two occasions. I did take note of what the user said; in hindsight, maybe I should have explicitly acknowledged it. But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules. I did make sure after that first statement to be more diligent about bringing substantial edits up for discussion.
There are strong opinions on all sides in this issue, which is pretty obvious from the varied takes in media. I do not think I am the only editor working on these articles who has strong opinions; but I have tried to reveal my own bias and to keep it from driving my edits, and to check in with other editors when there might be a question. I am open to feedback if I have made mistakes, but please understand, my intent the whole time has been to improve Wikipedia articles according to Wikipedia’s standards. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo has mentioned this issue and this news story on his talk page. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 09:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably,[citation needed] and I was confident I was not breaking any rules.[citation needed]
Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that? You continue trying to justify your actions whichever way possible, when the reality is, the aforementioned policies exist for reasons such as this; and to that very end, declaring your conflict of interest would seemingly imply you knew better. Either way, regardless of how your edits were received (I, for one, am incredulous to your claim), and irrespective of how many editors these articles had working on them, you should never have been editing everything from the film article, to Title IX, anti-rape movement, and Jameis Winston's article, and certainly not for the purpose of making your film seem accurate when the real facts dictated otherwise. If you can't plausibly grasp these concepts, you have no business editing on Wikipedia. Am I wrong to think so? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plain and simple, Edward: No matter your intentions, no matter what the circumstances may be, the rule is immutable: Where editing the article(s) in question would result in a conflict of interest, stay clear of editing said article(s). Simple as that. You are trying to justify breaking a golden rule of Wikipedia that even Jimbo Wales himself has indicated needs to be upheld more stridently. Are you going to tell me you know better than Jimmy himself, Edward? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. If you have a bias strongly in favor of a subject, your word alone is not sufficient to assure everyone you will not try to push your bias. Nothing personal, Edward, but it's human nature the rules were designed to safeguard against, and it's human nature to want to make something you have a vested interest in look good, consciously or otherwise. If you want to make changes, you should stick to the talk pages and ask uninvolved editors to supply the information you believe needs to be added, and only after it has been verified as accurate. The NPOV of Wikipedia is to ensure the minimization of any bias, or at least as much as possible when presenting information, and as such all things that might insert bias, such as editors with a vested interest in the topic, are not exempt from making sure bias is not inserted, even if the NPOV Wikipedia strives for doesn't make the topic at hand look good. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia strives to be factual, not as propaganda. Arcane21 (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary: I find it rather shocking that Mr. Alva has the audacity to lie about his intentions, stating that everything he did, he did to help articles comply with Wikipedia standards and guidelines, when his edit history tells an extremely different story; and if his intentions were really so pure, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with, nor would Ms. Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner have called him out, exposing the hypocrisy and prompting me to bring this case before ANI, which is where we now stand. Edward, although I'm not an Administrator, I've been around a long time, and I've seen the case files on users banned for life. You are going to end up just like them, if you continue manipulating Wikipedia and its users alike (two different kinds of manipulation, to be sure, but that is hardly relevant or germane) as you downplay the seriousness of your actions, henceforth exposed for what they are. KirkCliff2 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like enough discussion has been made of the subject here and at Jimbo's talk page on this user and his policy violations. Can a consensus be reached on a course of action that would ensure Wikipedia remains relatively neutral and free of potential scandals such as this? If necessary, that can be decided upon elsewhere. KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Enough discussion has been made..."? Most of it is yours. You seem to be pushing this with a vengeance. We're not a lynch mob and can afford to move slowly. No damage is being done. A cursory look at the talk page of Winston's bio shows Alva working extremely well with other editors and his edit requests meeting their approval. I don't know about other articles. Maybe we should let other editors speak. It's too bad that some of the editors who have worked quite well with him aren't here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo personally addressing the topic on his talk page has added a sense of urgency to the matter. As for Jameis Winston's article, even if his edits are well-received, are they factually accurate? And were the editors aware of Alva's Conflict of Interest, which should technically have precluded him from being in the discussion? Meanwhile, many of his other edits are far less constructive, and were essentially revisionism so that his film could be seen by Wikipedia as more accurate. There is never any excuse for agenda-driven editing. Do you not remember when members of United States Congress got caught red-handed on here? The same sort of principle ought to apply here, no? KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KirkCliff2, Jimbo says a lot of things on his talk page. Some of his statements are useful, others less so. There's no added sense of urgency for this matter and disclosed COI precluding someone from being in a discussion is completely wrong. --NeilNtalk to me 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN is right. Back off a bit and drop the lynch mob attitude. A cautionary approach is called for here. I'm going to repost below what I wrote on Jimbo's talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some logical thoughts to consider so we don't look like a kangaroo court or lynch mob:
He did declare his COI. Good.
He did use the talk page. Good.
If his edits were questioned, did he edit war over them? If so, a short block might be in order if he persisted. Did any of that happen?
If his editing was questioned, was he willing to stick to using the talk page and cease editing the article(s) in question? If so, good.
Questions about his editing will naturally tend to call out the worst assumptions made by human nature (such failure to AGF can be a blockable offense): "He has a COI, so hang him immediately, no matter what types of edits he made, and by all means immediately revert all of them, regardless if they improved the article!" We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors.
Lynching is the wrong approach because a COI does not absolutely forbid editing, but rather it's an admonishment to be careful. If a COI editor actually violates policies (not referring to COI here), then judge based on those infractions. While it's wise for them to only use the talk page, it's not totally forbidden to carefully edit and seek consensus.
A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions.
So go through those steps and don't jump immediately to blocks and topic bans unless necessary. We do need topic experts, and even a topic ban should be limited to the article itself, not the talk page, unless dealing with a really hardcore a##hole. Then just indef them. So carry on and good luck with this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an ancient wikimedian who shirks admin duties (I do not envy you guys, thanks for doing what bums like me won't), and I gotta say this ANI discussion addles my already-baffled brain. One, too many words. Two, too too much adhominenmication, which just adds to problem One. Could someone/s sum up the facts of the case? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Serialjoepsycho removing sourced content and not being civil
I am involved in a content dispute with User:Serialjoepsycho on the List of military occupations in several places.
One of the areas is that the lead of the article states that annexed territories are not to be included, and the second sentence and paragraph, then goes on to explain what that means. Based on that, I said that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should not be included.
He responded, that EJ and GH is occupied and should be included. I kept going on in circles, that I never said it's not occupied, but the lead is inconsistent with what the list is and either the list has to change or the lead has to change, I made a passing mention to Tibet as another territory that was also annexed but is not in the list.
I then made an edit to the page and added Tibet to the list. User:Serialjoepsycho then reverted [134] claiming it to be a violation of wp:point.
I then reverted back, and added a comment to the reference part. I then edited again and added two references asserting notability to the claim that Tibet should be included in the list [135].
I then pointed out to him that I edited the page and included links to sources: [137]
I then pointed out that I looked through the archives and found no consensus: [138]
At the end of Archive 2, he even asks for a discussion on Tibet: [139]
Here again, he claims I am including Tibet solely because of WP:POINT[140]
Here he says anyone is free to challenge and take the appropriate action or process, but I am just interested in WP:POINT (This is after he reverted my edits, with the sources): [141]
Here again, I asked him to show me where the consensus was and that his continuous use of WP:POINT violates WP:AGF. I asked him if I had to clear every edit with him first? I reminded him that I did indeed add sources to my edit. He then violated policy by failing to assume good faith and failing to talk about what he obviously knew was a contentious edit on the talk page. [142]
He then claims I am violating WP:CANVASSING by my contacting one of the editors who was involved in a prior conversation with him a while back. [143]
This is very excessive since it makes no actual case. WP:AGF has that become a suicide pact now? Contacting one editor that was involved in a conversation a year ago on the basis that you think they will support your position is canvassing. This is what happened.
When someone makes a change to an article to promote their point of view because an RFC is not going their way, only for the actually purpose of promoting their point of view, this is point making. Consensus is not a matter of Either I get my way this way or I get my way that way. This however is their case here. Either we remove East Jerusalem and Golan Heights or we place in Tibet[144]. What is this really? A fallacy of false choice? A consensus for one thing does not imply a consensus for the other. They are trying promote that it is. This point here is the reason behind their edit [145].
I do have a consensus for the removal of Tibet. I took it to the talk page. I responded to those who had responded. No further response came and there was little discussion anyway. Since making the change it has been maintained with little discussion against it [146]. As far as I can recall I've been the one to seek out these discussions on the talk page since my involvement.If I'm actually needed here for anything else please ping me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no answer to why he removed my insertion of Tibet. Even if we say there was a consensus, I included references and consensus can change. His "evidence" in link 181 is funny considering 1. He specifically asked me to name a country not on the page and 2. The way he interacts in an uncivil manner. I am still waiting for a valid reason why I'm not allowed to edit the page. Sir Joseph(talk) 07:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if I include it, he will then revert, or report me. When I included it, it had references. Can you please add my diff of Tibet? I would even be OK with him adding a disputed tag to that, but it should still be added. Sir Joseph(talk) 14:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you are missing is they are not entering the content dispute as you would like. They are saying a more in depth conversation than what has happened in the past can happen on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it was for years, and that's not WP:POINT. I included references on my edit. If you didn't like it, you could mention it in the talk page, add a tag to it on the article, but there is no reason to revert it. Sir Joseph(talk) 15:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how what was for years? Maybe you could add complete thoughts? You added Tibet in the first place simply as an exercise in point making. WP:BRD Very common practice. You make a "bold edit", I revert, you take it to the talk page to discuss. I already had a consensus to remove Tibet. You need to go get a consensus to put it in. Adding two of the weakest possible sources you can find in 5 seconds is not the same as getting a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) You had no consensus on keeping Tibet off. 2) You keep failing to AGF in me putting Tibet on there. I didn't put Hawaii on there, did I? You don't own the page. Sir Joseph(talk) 16:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some basic points, irrelevant of who's right or wrong. Zerothly, content is not to be adjudicated here, just conduct. Content is discussed insofar as it is relevant to the conduct issue. Firstly, nobody needs any consensus for keeping content off, consensus needs to be found by the person who wants to keep the content. See WP:ONUS. Secondly, just having references is not enough for inclusion of content. See WP:ONUS again. Thirdly, I don't really see anything too egregious here which can't be settled on the talk page. WP:AGF can get strained in heated talk page discussions. I know several editors who can't stand me and often think the worst of my motives, based on past experience. One learns to live with it. Kingsindian♝♚ 17:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph, 1) You don't understand what a consensus is if you consider that I did not have a consensus. WP:Consensus Here's a whole policy explaining it. Regardless of that the WP:ONUS is on you to get a consensus. 2) AGF is not a suicide pact. Your position again is that if we don't endorse this one view then we must endorse this view. This is a False dichotomy to which you are trying to make this edit to promote. This is the purpose behind your edit. This is an exercise in point making. It's very simple matter. Go get a consensus. A consensus to keep East Jerusalem and Golan Heights in the article is not a consensus to place Tibet in the article. If you want to promote this false dichotomy go ahead, and again get a consensus. If you are curious at how to do it, Go to the talk page and try to get one there. If that doesn't work use some form of dispute resolution such as an RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in looking on the talk page, there were at least three mentions of Tibet, Archive 1, Archive 2 , This is also in archive 2 , there doesn't appear to be any others, and in those three sections , there doesn't appear to be a consensus reached in any of them, so I don't think what Serialjoepsycho's saying is correct. It looks like no consensus is present for the inclusion or exclusion of Tibet. KoshVorlon 18:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is consensus. But never the less the onus is on them as they seek to include content.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually prepared to talk about it with anyone or will you keep repeating that you have consensus even if it's just a consensus of you? Other editors do have a right to argue that consensus has changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a discussion underway, which I started. Other editors have the right to argue the consensus has changed. If necessary there's also a central location to determine the consensus WP:ANRFC. Those editors are not free to give inappropriate notification in seeking a consensus [147]. This is not a matter of actually getting a consensus for the inclusion of Tibet. This is a matter of promoting their false dichotomy, that they started promoting first in the active RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I posted Tibet, with a reference. You keep saying there is a consensus. Just because you say it doesn't make it so, a consensus of one is not a consensus. And this is indeed bordering on WP:OWN, if I may say so. Sir Joseph(talk) 19:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, to remove something sourced, it is up to you to achieve a consensus. There was no consensus to exclude Tibet, so my addition did not need a consensus, just being bold and having sources, your removal needs a consensus. Sir Joseph(talk) 19:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it's already been pointed out to you in this discussion, "just having references is not enough for inclusion of content. See WP:ONUS again." Convenient placed blue link there for you to click and everything.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, based on your logic, I had a consensus to include it. Sir Joseph(talk) 20:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then go ahead and apply the logic. Where have you commented on the talk page and received little or no comment in against your change? Where have you placed it in the article and maintained it's inclusion with little or no talk on the talk page? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* block Sir Joseph for disruption. SerialJoe is right, he posted a post in 2014 and only one person objected. He has consensus on that page, no one has any right to be disruptive. 166.170.45.253 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
huh? how is this bordering on disruptive? Sir Joseph(talk) 19:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the IP. It's a sock of an indefinitely blocked user who only comes back to troll. Blackmane (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of formatting the OP's text so I can actually read this thread. Sir Joseph, you really need to learn wiki markup. Don't use HTML; there's no need for spacing between bullet points; for line breaks either double space or use bullets; and please collapse future WP:DIFFS with brackets as I have done. Softlavender (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page was deemed to lack notoriety. It was originally deleted back in 2008, possibly due to it not demonstrating the artists notoriety; however, I believe that I have since done so.
Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (music)
In the new page, I clearly referenced several of the points that are required and this was overlooked by User:Reddogsix and then deleted by User:Drmies
I understand that admins are busy, there are hundreds of thousands of articles that are created, but please refrain from being negligent. If you are not knowledgable or educated on a particular topic, please refer to an admin who is in order to avoid such problems in the future.
The page could have been improved by the admins, rather than deleted. How on earth is a Grammy-Nominated/platinum selling producer not notable?
As can be seen in the history of the now userfied article:
* User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz declined the WP:A7 speedy deletion, due to the article subject's Grammy nomination, though this was without referencing from reliable sources.
* At one point there was a WP:G11 tag added, referring to "aboutmontay"; my (admittedly cursory) comparison did not find this.
* All this appears to have been overlooked in the flurry of edits leading up its speedy deletion
* I think this should have been a WP:AFD nomination, not a speedy nomination.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the pages and Btljs DELETED my comment on Talk:Green Party of England and Wales saying merge was endorsed [155] and reverted my redirect [156] saying it was an "unendorsed action by one individual with a grudge against this page." As a generally liberal, pro-green individual (who is American to boot) I take offense that I have some personal beef with the Green Party of Wales. Btljs then accused me of being a fascist [157] stating "one editor is acting as judge and jury on this decision." This is hardly the case as article was nominated at AfD (NOT by me) and two administrators concluded at AfD and Deletion Review that this was a merge.
It's been explained throughout this process by multiple people that Wales Green Party must meet notability requirements of WP:BRANCH as it is a regional branch of the parent party, which is clearly called Green Party of England and Wales. I have tried to explain, as have others, that there is simply no in-depth coverage of the Wales Green Party outside of Wales. I have tried to explain on the Talk page of Green Party of England and Wales the kind of coverage needed. Members of the Wales Green Party have popped up accusing Wikipedia of "ulterior motives"[158], and now I am a being called a fascist for applying WP decisions and policies. Btljs stated they want an administrator involved (even though the previous administrators' actions are apparently irrelevant). —МандичкаYO 😜 14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking conduct from user wikimandia
The consensus on the talk page was that the wales green party should continue to have a stand alone page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Wales_Green_Party.Indeed after the end of the discussion wikimandia was the only editor still arguing for merger. Any actions user Btljs took simply reflected the consensus of editors on the talk page.If anyone has been 'disruptive' - and should be the subject of a complaint - its the user wikimandia.
Firstly merging the page while a discussion was still taking place on the merits of a standalone wgp page and then - despite a clear consensus against and users supporting their case with numerous examples of 'notability' - unilaterally merging the page again.wikimandia's conduct during this saga has been frankly outrageous and i fear it brings wikipedia's editorial processes into real disrepute.
And not content with flagrantly disregarding the views of users on the talk page on the matter it now appears wikimandia seems to want to get users who challenged his/her autocratic manner banned from wikipedia.Words almost fail me. The strength of the case for a standalone wgp page is there for all to see on the talk page - as it was on the deletion review page created on 2nd november https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_November_2#2_November_2015 - and the wales green party page should be restored in accordance with the wishes of a clear majority of users on those pages.Or doesnt democracy count on wikipedia? If it doesnt then it's sadly wikipedia's reputation that is getting dragged through the mud if it disregards evidence an users views in such cavalier fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been explained to you that Wikipedia does not go by "number of votes." We go by guidelines and policies determined by consensus, and guidelines and policies have been followed in this case. The arguments brought up on the talk page essentially add up to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and poor understanding of in-depth coverage. These arguments were rejected at both the Articles for Deletion and the Deletion Review; that the same people continue to argue them on a talk page does not reverse these decisions. Additionally, I do not want to get other users "banned from Wikipedia" and have never said such a thing. Btljs stated they want an administrator involved so they got their wish. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the decision to get rid of the WGP page was dreadful - just about the worst admin decision I have seen on wikipedia. While I'm not endorsing any disruptive behaviour such as the removal of tags from pages etc, I do think the views of the community have been ignored, and sadly one person who did clearly have a grudge (not anyone who has contributed to the discussion in the last few weeks I hasten to add) has got their way. I completely accept that this was a close call taking into account the requirements of BRANCH, however, I feel that when it is a close call we should err on the side of not deleting articles, especially when there is a strong consensus in favour of their retention. Several sources have been provided to demonstrate notability, and the UK national broadcaster considers the WGP important enough to include their leader in both a UK General Election debate and their coverage of the last NAW election (where they were considered a "major" party, along with Labour, Cons, LD and PC). True, the article was not great in the state it was in yesterday (or back in June when the first AfD was opened), but it could have been improved and the sources available to improve the article were provided. Frinton100 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I inadvertently deleted a comment when I reverted the re-merge of the page byWikimandia. I apologise for my inflammatory language re. using the word 'fascist'. I do not apologise for my severe disquiet at the way that a few very vocal editors have sought to stifle any serious discussion by simply stating and restating WP rules ad nauseam, however many references were cited in support of a separate page. If it is the decision of Wikipedia to remove this page then I see no part in its future development for myself, not because I think that this is a particularly important case in itself, but it represents a clear victory for bullying tactics by the editors in opposition, which I find totally ad odds with my opinion of what a collaborative online encyclopedia should be. There is no overhead in a separate page and, with over 5 million subject pages, there is plenty of room for this subject. The only reason anybody would continually oppose this page when they know it has support from several keen editors is to bolster their own feelings of superiority and power over others. They have yet to put one single good argument for this page not existing for at least a reasonable amount of time to see if it stands on its own merit. I've been an editor since 2006 and I have never come across such a blatant misuse of authority as in this case. Btljs (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Btljs, I don't understand why you apologize for inflammatory language and then say people (ie me) who "oppose" the page are being bullies and need "to bolster their own feelings of superiority and power over others." That's ridiculous. Many people know I am a frequent contributor to AfD and regularly search high and low to find articles that support keeping articles. I am not a deletionist. I was invited to continue the discussion on the talk page of the parent article after the AfD and I did, stating I was neutral and repeatedly informing you of the GNG requirements [159] and even giving you an example of the kind of coverage needed.[160]Frinton100 I do NOT have a grudge against the article subject and the reason why I did not continue discussing it on the talk page is that I'd already explained the guideline and was getting only WP:IDHT responses. It is also unfair to claim "I am getting my way" when again, I was not the one who nominated the article for AfD in the first place, nor the only one to recommend merging it. I don't see why I'm being singled out - anyone could have done the merge. Additionally, the Deletion Review trumps the discussion on the talk page; after I gave up it was only the page supporters discussing the page, so how can it be a true consensus? And finally I remind you again that nothing is being deleted, just moved to a different place on Wikipedia. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh indeed. If you read what I wrote - "one person who did clearly have a grudge (not anyone who has contributed to the discussion in the last few weeks I hasten to add) has got their way" - I made clear that the person who has a grudge had not contributed to the discussion this time around. You have contributed, so therefore I was not referring to you, Wikimandia. Frinton100 (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. As I stopped participating in the discussion on November 7, I assumed you were talking about me. Apologies Frinton100. I don't know how you can accuse anyone of having a grudge, however, without any evidence of such. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence comes from the particular editor's history. It is not based on a simple disagreement. Frinton100 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, one of the original editors proposing deletion was the leader of the Pirate Party in Wales who has attempted the creation of a Pirate Party Wales article at least once. He is a former member of the Wales Green Party, and certainly has a grudge. - Jackgovier (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's system is setup that one editor with a grudge cannot cause a page to be deleted. That is why AfD and Deletion Review both exist. Additionally, the article content was not even deleted, just merged! —МандичкаYO 😜 01:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a brief comment here. Wikimandia`s (or Мандичка`s if you wish) definition of "consensus" appears to be a little odd. For most people it means a ``general`` agreement about something, not "agrees with with my view". Now take another look at the discussion on talk:Green Party of England and Wales and decide, objectively, whether a consensus had been reached and what that was. Bagunceiro (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD and deletion review trump the conversation on the talk page. The discussion on the talk page was started to give further explanation of guidelines after the AfD outcome was challenged so we could try to drum up the appropriate coverage in reliable sources that would support the article's notability. SilkTork (who is an administrator and presumably has nothing to do with the Pirate Party or any rival political group) clearly explained what was missing. To which Btljs responded "You are merely restating the same old arguments which I believe we have already more than answered." These are not old arguments, but guidelines. No matter how many times you are told the type of coverage you need, you refuse to believe it, thus the WP:IDHT behavior. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You see, language like "X trumps Y", "No matter how many times you are told the type of coverage you need, you refuse to believe it" is at best somewhat arrogant and at worst divisive. You assume a position of greater wisdom than other editors about how WP should be compiled. I know there are guidelines and my point about repeating the same arguments is valid: this is not a case of lack of knowledge, but a case of a disagreement of application in this particular case. You say the coverage is inadequate, we disagree. At that point, the decision should be (despite what you say) based on consensus - and, yes, that is the number of people who support something (given that they are not breaking any hard and fast rules, but merely interpreting them in one possible way). If you refuse to back down at that point, at least for a period of time, then I can only assume that you are putting unwarranted pressure to achieve what you consider to be the correct outcome - I call that bullying.
If you want another argument, which isn't "more editors want this than that" or "the guidelines say this", then consider the end-user - which should be our primary goal anyway. Q: Is there any disadvantage to the end-user in one or other of the two outcomes (merged vs not merged)? A: Disadvantage might come from having to go through extra links to find what they were looking for or being confronted with too much surrounding information on a large page. As I stated earlier in the discussion on the talk page, there is a list of GPW election results and it is too long to go in the GPEW page (and the GPEW results aren't on the page so it's against WP:UNDUE to keep it there). So, either this needs its own page or it needs to be part of a GPW page. If it has its own page, it will need at least a summary about GPW in the lede, so it wouldn't be that different to a GPW page anyway, other than the page title. So you have to ask: would a user expect to look for election results on a page called "Wales Green Party election results" or as section on a "Wales Green Party" page? If they weren't specifically looking for election results, then wouldn't it be better for them to have all the GPW info in the same place?
As Wikimandia and I have clearly established our differing viewpoints in this and are unlikely ever to change each other's minds, if another experienced editor, who has not contributed to these discussions, makes a decision, I will accept it and move on. But I would prefer it to be made on the merits of the outcome not on a technical issue such as incorrect procedure in closing an AfD or whatever (this isn't a court of law). Btljs (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the comments in the review were (correctly, I think) that that was the wrong forum for the discussion and that consensus should be worked out on the articles talk page. As it was. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the only person in this discussion who seems "guilty" of IDHT is Wikimandia. Points were made - rightly - about lack of independent RS on the WGP article. Many editors have spent time finding suitable RS. These have been presented in the discussion, and some of the RS have been explained in depth, but still we keep getting the line that there is insufficient notability. I completely agree with Btljs's analysis just above, and am also slightly curious as to why Wikimandia seems to feel there was no consensus because "it was only the page supporters discussing the page, so how can it be a true consensus" - it basically sounds as though you are saying that in a hypothetical discussion involving, say, 6 editors where 5 are in agreement and one disagrees, the one who disagrees can simply withdraw from the debate and then claim that the agreement of the other 5 is invalid because no one was opposing them. Very odd. Frinton100 (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time, please provide any link where the Wales Green Party has received significant coverage (that addresses the topic directly and in detail) in reliable sources outside Wales. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are several in the discussion, from UK-wide media. You have not explained - nor has anyone else - why you believe we should ignore the fact that at the most recent national election in Wales (2011) and the most recent UK election (2015), the Welsh Greens were given equal billing with Labour, Conservatives, LibDems and PC. Surely if a party is treated in this way they are deserving of an article. I am aware of, and have read, WP:BRANCH so there's no need to quote that again - I want to know why a party that is considered in the "top flight" of Welsh parties by the national broadcaster should not be given their own article. I am also interested as to why you think re-creating a WGP article would not improve the encyclopaedia. Frinton100 (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Surely if a party is treated in this way they are deserving of an article" Not to Wikipedia. Please provide any link where the Wales Green Party has received significant coverage (that addresses the topic directly and in detail) in reliable sources outside Wales. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are several in the previous discussion, from UK-wide media (i.e. not just Wales). I am also interested as to why you think re-creating a WGP article would not improve the encyclopaedia. Frinton100 (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion about about the WGP article's ability to improve Wikipedia is totally irrelevant. We have one standard for notability that I am obviously tired of explaining. I don't recall a single article that addresses the WGP directly and in detail per this one standard. I've asked you to post them twice now but nothing. The impetus to support notability is on you; if you can't produce the required information then please kindly accept the consensus at AfD and Deletion Review. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These have all been provided before, but if you really want them again, here they are: [161], [162], [163], [164], [165]. And another couple that were not in the previous discussion, not that strong since they address WGP candidates but still reasonable - [166], [167].
And opinions about whether restoring the WGP article will improve wikipedia are relevant, per WP:IAR. If a rule prevents us from improving the site it should be ignored. So how does not restoring the article improve wikipedia in your view? Frinton100 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The impetus to support notability is on you - yes, in the article; not to you at your request wherever you feel is most convenient. If you can't recall them, then either go and look or just stop your opposition. I suspect you are not tired of explaining at all; I suspect you take great pleasure in the argument, because if you really believe that there are no sources out there then you would let the page fail and then say "I told you so". You are being deliberately obstructive - and you know it. Btljs (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the right or wrongs of this matter this is not the proper forum for it. The article's talk page is where it belongs. Bagunceiro (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Came across this edit: [168] which references a "cease and desist" letter. Honestly unsure if this qualifies as a legal threat or not. No reliable sources that I am aware of cover the requested name change that I am aware of (what ones calls their social media page is hardly reliable) so basically looking for guidance here. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a legal threat against Wikipedia. It appears to be from someone at the USA Roller Derby squad (new name of "Team USA") that THEY had been contacted by the U.S. Olympic Committee on their unapproved usage of the trademarked "Team USA" and explained that they voluntarily (ie without legal action) changed their name. I would support renaming the article to their new name, which seems to be the point of this comment. Their Facebook page has 30k likes and seems to be reliable enough that the team name has changed. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - like I said, wasn't sure. But I also am unsure if it's a representative of the team in question or the USOC posting there. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure it matters who posted it. I doubt it was someone from the USOC as I doubt they would care too much if the page was deleted. I've renamed the page to match their Facebook page, which I don't envision will be controversial. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a reply on the talk page [169] does show that the poster is from a representative of USARS (and not the actual article's subject) seeking to claim the old article name for their own use, which relates to the announcement the poster linked to in their comment - an announcement which was viewed as highly controversial within the community when it came out. If they get to the point of creating such an article (with their version of the team not yet formed, will remain to be seen when that could happen given lack of sources) the existing redirect created by the article move would need to be addressed. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like they will make a new article titled Team USA Roller Derby, at which point the redirect will need to be discussed. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Misc desk question repeatedly removed in error
Help?
I've asked a question on the ref desks (misc) about police brutality and the relationship on race. I am being censored. Can anyone step in and intervene here. It's a valid question as far as I can tell and the removers have no provided any validation for their actions.
That your immediate response is to come to this page is pretty unusual, especially without saying anything about the post or its removal anywhere else. I'd bring it up with the person who removed it, Medeis, and on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk before bringing it here (clearly no admin attention is needed at this stage). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct was to AGF and assume the unsigned IP editor was referring to something locally, not a worldwide issue with black brutality. I don't think any more time should be wasted, though, given Bug's evidence the same user has been posting anti-Jewish trolling. The IP is obviously WP:NOTHERE. Notice these edits come immediately in the wake of a long semi-protection of the ref desks for just this issue, racist trolling. IP User:80.195.27.47 and IP 24.90.133.76 could both use blocking, and IP 80's comments about Bugs fall into line with User:178.104.65.199:I really don't know where Bugs gets his hare brained ideas: obviously a dimmer is used for dimming lights, not for MAJOR appliances. Dimwit!. I am not sure what the rationale is for tolerating this sort of offensive disruption by anonymous users feigning ignorance. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can admin please block the trolls listed here, close the thread, and perhaps consider re-protecting? Thanks, GABHello! 20:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing to be censured from the IP poster. The IP editor asked a perfectly reasonable question. It was not even a racist question - if that were something we should prohibit - in a sense, asking if the black-on-white brutality occurs would be aimed to confirm an anti-racist notion that the races commit similar sins. The fact that the IP reverted a troll's edit (the anti-Semitic one), calling it trolling, is not exceptionally suspicious. The fact that he asks a question about racial violence without happening to confine it to his hometown, given that the U.S. has been in the news about it for the past year, is not suspicious. The fact that he's an IP who knows procedure is marginally suspicious, but not incompatible with him simply having edited from a lot of different IPs in a range over time. Altering his posting without his consent, rather than posting your own comment that his geolocation is whatever if that's any use - that is an abuse. And more "protection" is unnecessary. Bottom line: the only problem on the Refdesk is the would-be police officers who treat discussions of factual matters as an unwelcome diversion from the core Wikipedia mission of prosecuting and banning editors. Wnt (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that User:Drmies has blocked User:80.195.27.47 (geolocating to Gloucestershire, UK) who created the Black Brutality thread diff for a month, will he or some other admin be blocking User:24.90.133.76 (who geolocates to Jamaica, Queens, NY and who says above "I am being censored") for having posted exact same question? Given the sockpuppetry is confessed, I am not sure what else needs to be done. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The socking is continuing, even in the face of a semi-protection, such as here by User:178.33.138.104, a known proxy server. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent sockpuppet to edit war on AE protected articles
Articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are under ARBCOM restriction WP:ARBPIA so it's worrying to see the obvious sock 7uperWkipedan appear with the sole purpose of edit warring on these articles. Not knowing who the sock-master is, I bring it here rather than WP:SPI. The very first edit of 7uperWkipedan was a revert in an ongoing edit-war [170], and from its very first edits, the account is familiar with "POV-pushing" [171], "original research" [172], so obviously not a new account. As seen by its edit history [173], the account is used solely in edit wars related to ARBPIA. Lots of controversial reverts (some examples [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183]) yet not one talk page contribution, showing that the account was created just to be able to edit war in these contested articles. (It's ironic that this sock often reverts other by saying "take it to talk" [184], [185], despite never taking it to talk itself, perhaps leaving that to the sock master). This edit summary [186] is rather revealing as the sock ironizes over Nishidani, showing that this "new" account apparently has both knowledge and a grudge. As edit warriors in ARBPIA are active but not very numerous, I hope the sockmaster could be found and blocked. Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I count 4 sure (perhaps 6) socks, just on experience, tone of edit summaries and a few stylistic ticks, operating there in the I/P area. No background, just a few edits and then straight into an I/P fray. But it is wholly subjective. Most of those, however, that I said were socks, most recently User:Settleman, picked as such from the outset, turned out after some months to be so. This however means nothing administratively. My approach, in lieu of proof, is just to keep working, despite the nuisance factor.
What is obvious in any case with this account is what Jeppiz documents: the editor doesn't 'waste his time' (as opposed to others) on talk pages, has no productive history on Wikipedia and doesn't show any promise of building a record of useful contributions.He just trawls around to make reverts. I think there was some consensus that we should just not allow new accounts to pop up and make serial revert abuses in the I/P area,- it's deeply troubled enough without this nonsense, and yet this behavior continues to enjoy a large tolerance leeway. His edits are pointless exercises in abuse, and there is nothing constructive there. Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can probably be blocked as a WP:DUCK simply based on this diff, but since WP:ARBPIA3 is almost done, such socks will be gone anyway soon. Kingsindian♝♚ 19:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's good news, I'd lost track. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While that is good news, I think it would be relevant to take action against the sock and the sock master. Jeppiz (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the topic ban given by NeilN[187], the sock continues to edit exactly the kind of articles he's forbidded to edit under the topic ban [188], [189]. Time for an indef block, not only is this an obvious sock, they also show their complete disrespect for the topic ban. Could we try to find the sock-master, to whom the topic ban of course also applies. Jeppiz (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7uperWkipedan is indef blocked. --NeilNtalk to me 14:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
143.223.0.1
I would like to report a pattern of disruptive editing by the above IP address, which is registered to the William Morris Agency (I assume the well-known PR firm). The IP address appears to have engaged in several incidents of disruptive editing on Casey Anderson (naturalist) by making changes of a PR (conflict of interest) nature, removing substantive information without explanation, removing sources, and repeatedly making edits after being reverted. Some examples here: Special:Diff/691609003/691609074 and later, again with Special:Diff/691611833/691615434 and then most recently Special:Diff/691617248/691619718. The IP address has been warned by three different editors including myself on the Casey Anderson page alone. When I went to the user 143.223.0.1(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) page to discuss about the most recent reversion, it appeared from the postings on the Talk page that the same IP address had been engaging in disruption on other articles such as Patrick Whitesell. Since this appears to be a pattern of behavior I would suggest that the IP address might need to be banned. It would be good if an admin could please look into this. Thank you, TheBlinkster (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This may be a case for the good folks at WP:COIN as well. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to repost it over there? Sorry if I put it in the wrong place, I have not had to report anyone in the past so I am just getting up to speed on procedures...TheBlinkster (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you brought it up. At this point it's somewhat a toss-up of where it belongs, or whether it belongs both places. If the behavior isn't stopped here, then yes it should probably go to COIN if it hasn't already. It looks like Drmies just gave them a stern warning about the Casey Anderson (naturalist) article. Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A COIN case is much more interesting than some admin warning some IP editor... It may well be that there is more to this; the other editors that warned the IP may have had a hunch but no proof yet. I wonder if COIN regulars like Ronz or Brianhe have any thoughts on the matter. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours, since this easily qualifies as edit-warring. Please keep discussing; I'm not trying to end the discussion, especially since it looks like this may well resume after the block is done. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good, although it just now occurs to me that since this is a work/business account (per the Geolocate info), they probably don't edit on the weekend anyway. Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, you're right. Still, reblocking is procedurally easier than first-time blocking; if we say "You already got blocked once for this; the second block will be longer if you don't stop now", it makes more sense to the average reader. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some promotional content has been removed by regular WP:COIN editors, so the content issues seem to be under control and the article is on watch lists. We'll know in a few days if the suspected COI editor comes back. As usual, WP:ROPE applies. John Nagle (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admin intervention needs to Socialnetwork395 (talk·contribs) for his/her advertisement/promotional article creation. --AntanO 11:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's been deleted now, many were G11 deleted before this report and I've G12ed another now. Left a paid COI notice and a spam warning.—SpacemanSpiff 13:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt action. --AntanO 16:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
San Jose, California
Can we get someone to lockup San Jose, California for a bit ...blanking going on....or block those involved. -- Moxy (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. We have San José acting as a redirect to San Jose, and San Jose acting as a redirect to San José. So one of those needs to be undone. Since San José seems to be the correct spelling per the official website that's what I'm setting it to. Tabercil (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, sorry. Looks like I checked things smack dab in between repair edits and jumped the wrong way. I see Edgar181 set things right - thanks! Tabercil (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything is put back in the right place for now. It appears that the edits were made in good faith, but the widespread change from San Jose to San José would need consensus first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they use both. It's not in the logo but it's there on the front page at least four times. However, it is not widely used (ie San Jose Mercury News, San Jose Sharks etc) but appears to be a relatively new pretentious detail to go with the gentrification over the past 15 years. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Severe COI editor, who in his last edit has identified himself as Konstantin Monastyrsky, making big changes to his own article. I warned him of COI process on his talk page (Sorry, not sure how to link to a diff for creating a new page,) and when ignored raised an issue on the COI page here. Another editor agreed, and also reverted Kmonastyrsky's edits here which were reverted again by Kmonastyrsky here.
Users edit summaries show no intention of following COI process:
"Chaheel Riens, you revisions violates Wikipedia's policy against backlinking. If you revise this page again, please justify your edits."
"Chaheel Riens, you are in a violation of Wikipedia policy of making changes on behalf of interested party. I request that you recuse yourself from modifying this page."
"Your edits are inappropriate. I am not "Soviet" writer, but American. People who have made the negative comments about my work do not represent "scientific community" and use my page to promote themselves."
I'm not sure if this comes under COI, edit warring, disruptive editing, vandalism, ididnthearthat, or a combination of all and more.
Editors informed on their talk pages. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The material Kmonastyrsky was objecting to was not properly sourced so that's been removed along with self-sourced puffery and Kmonastyrsky has been warned. I don't think any further admin action is needed at this point. --NeilNtalk to me 17:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted. There is only one 3rd party source on the subject, and it tells this. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a compromised account, just another user who's gotten tired of being harassed by vandals and socks (check the history of her user page...). Thomas.W talk 17:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really tell us anything of any relevance at all. Have you seen the history of my userpage? Unless someone knows of something off-wiki, this looks like a compromise to me. A checkuser should take a look. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but it's a weird way to go about it. clpo13(talk) 18:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They made nearly 30 normal edits in the day since their userpage was last vandalised, and were editing constructively until just a few minutes before they called themselves worthless scum. It would be very weird to suddenly decide that they suck for no apparent reason. However no one can read this user's mind - only a checkuser, or a next edit, or a contact by the user could confirm what's happened here. -- zzuuzz(talk) 18:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to see if someone sent her an email (which could have been harassment)? I think this mystery has something to with a possible/suspected paid-editing scheme she has been looking at lately. Thomas.W talk 18:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: The account is not compromised in the sense that someone else is using either a different device or editing from a different location. I can't speak as to the issue of someone else using Bonadea's devices from the same location because the other person has access to Bonadea's password.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. My sincere apologies for causing concern and extra work for people. I can confirm that nobody else has been using my account - all edits from this account were made by me, and nobody else has access to my password. As a matter of fact it never occurred to me that anybody other than myself might see those edit summaries - I guess that lack of thought rather confirms the sentiments I expressed... Sorry again. --bonadeacontributionstalk 21:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. Hope all is well. clpo13(talk) 21:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DanDud88
DanDud88 has over 14000 edits and has been editing since 2006. In 2013 he started showing signs of not understanding that he cannot plagiarize content. At the time, circa these edits and later, he appeared to copy large passages of content from Wikia without attribution. Drmargi brought this to his attention in this discussion and DanDud88 failed to rectify it, or even ask anybody how he could rectify it. The burden fell to Drmargi to remedy.
There were other issues as documented on the user's talk page. Circa November 2014, Drmargi brought up a number of problems that Dan needed to address. His response? So basically your saying your a Grammar Nazi There was no indication that he intended to do anything differently or that he even understood the problems.
In October 2015, I was in a position to have to instruct the user not to add interpretive content as he did in this edit. At that point I started becoming more aware of the user. I saw the notice from CorenSearchBot that content he added at Dragnet (1951 TV series) appeared to be plagiarized, which he did nothing to fix, and that had to be remedied by Tek022.
Here he copied content from the main List of Gerry Anderson's New Captain Scarlet episodes without attribution. He did nothing to remedy this after I brought it to his attention and told him that he should use the {{copied}} template. He had already been told about proper attribution in 2013. I've had to remedy the attribution issue here and I don't know that I was able to locate all the sources of content.
In these edits [193][194] (among many others) he introduces large See also sections, apparently with no awareness that there might be guidelines about usage. This seems to be part of a pattern of doing things without researching how to do them correctly.
In these edits he introduces prose that is not written in proper encyclopedic WP:TONE. It includes misspellings, contractions, ellipses, rhetorical questions and exclamations. Drmargi points out that it's likely plagiarized, and it appears that some of the content is coming from here. (Note this pdf contains some of the prose). The content might conceivably be in the public domain, but 1) we don't know that for a fact and 2) it's unclear if the Plot Extension content at OTRR.org is generated by OTRR, or if the content was generated by the Dragnet producers. 3) While OTRR.org appears to be a wiki of some sort, it doesn't have an obvious copyright license, so there is no presumption that content they generate is free for us to use. And 4) assuming the content is in the public domain or free for use under CC-SA, it's not adequately attributed!
In this edit (which I couldn't establish as plagiarized) he introduces significant grammar problems that require at least seven things to be fixed. This was the last straw for me, which he followed up with these edits where he introduces the bizarrely worded "leaving him in a critical condition" and "Friday decides to do his speech about the use of narcotics by teenagers." Like what, Friday's got one speech?
I don't know what DanDud's goals are here, but I don't know if he has the linguistic skills to edit here effectively ([195][196]) and I have serious doubts about his community skills, since his pattern tends to be to add plagiarized or other problematic content, and let other users do the clean-up. This is not cool. Compounding matters, he rarely participates in discussion, rarely uses edit summaries, doesn't seem to acknowledge any problems, and rarely, if ever, cleans up after himself when problems are brought to his attention. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the rest of the behaviour (which does appear to be problematic) it's worrying that an editor is being attacked for poor grammar when these two example ("In a critical condition" and "Friday decides to give his speech") are perfectly fine and correct. Wikipedia has an international editor base; many people have English as a second language. When you see an error you should i) Check that it really is an error and not just a style choice or an international usage, ii) just edit it, with discussion on the talk page if needed. But using it as evidence of bad faith is not nice and you should avoid doing it. (I tried talking to Cyphoidbomb and they were rude in their reply.) Moted Dryly (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am this close to just indef-blocking your account and removing this comment, since it appears this account was only created to mess around with Cyphoidbomb. At any rate, your comment just not do justice to the extent of the problem, and your comments toward Cyphoidbomb are the rude ones. That Cyphoidbomb referred to you as an SPA is hardly a personal attack, since that is what you are. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dryly's comments are a red herring. He seems to be conveniently ignoring the other glaring problems in the same submission, like the missing "a" in "he also steals large quantity of narcotics", the missing comma after "meanwhile", the use of "my" when he meant "by", the misspelling of "adict", the use of "decided" when DanDud should be writing in unfolding present tense, the incorrect capitalization of "Teenage" and the incorrect capitalization of "Narcotics". Are all these mistakes attributable to international usage, or do they demonstrate something else like laziness, lack of proofreading, or a lack of competence? I make occasional grammar mistakes (as Drmies knows,) but this isn't the only instance of this with DanDud. Look at the stuff I've fixed here and here and figure out from the article's edit history who added the problematic prose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't echo what Cyphoidbomb has said strongly enough. I've worked with DanDud88 off and on for a couple years now, and find him to be totally resistant to any guidance, generally adopting a persecuted stance rather than simply admitting he mad a mistake an clearing it up. As C noted, he plagiarized the entire articles of a series of characters on Person of Interest from the Pedia of Interest Wikia to created the POI characters article. When this was pointed out to him, he simply shrugged his shoulders and said that someone else should fix it. When the Pedia of Interest admin objected (justifiably so!), he left several pathetic messages there (I'm so sowwy), but made no effort to clean up his plagiarism. He clearly lacks any understanding of what is expected of him as an editor, or what makes good content; one needs only look at his arrangement of character lists in some TV articles to see that.
How acute that lack of understanding is became clear with the "Grammar Nazi" remark. Beyond the utterly offensive reference, I had tried at length to address his grammar, plagiarism and tendency to invent content; if I recall this incident was in reference to Law & Order: UK, where he created titles for characters and more out of whole cloth (I'll hunt it up and add a diff later). Two additional points need attention. First, DanDud88 refuses to use edit summaries. I can't find more than a handful on his contributions list. He's been warned about that over and over again by multiple editors, to no effect. Second, when DadDud88 can't have what he wants, he resorts to personal attacks. His level of maturity is low, and he becomes petulant when he can't have his own way.
Clearly, he sees WP as a fan site, not an encyclopedia. He's not interested in policy, or in collaboration, just in doing what he damned well pleases. He's not the worst offender around here, but he's damned disruptive, and it eludes me how he's escaped being blocked up until now. --Drmargi (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DanDud88 was last warned about copyright violations on October 18th. Have there been more instances after that? --NeilNtalk to me 20:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NeilN, that depends. Looking at these edits we see the addition of "A lone bandit robs a jewelry store in broad daylight and takes five thousand dollars in precious stones." This appears to be taken from the opening voiceover of a Dragnet episode, per this reference:
"First Line Narrative and Plot: 'A lone bandit robs a jewelry store in broad daylight. He takes five thousand dollars in precious stones.'"
If we assume that these episodes are in the public domain, and they probably are, then that may not be a copyright violation, but isn't it still plagiarism? The user also adds, "Then the robber escapes from the lockup and must be recaptured again", which can be found at the same source:
"Plot Extension: '... Then the robber escapes from the lockup and must be captured again.'"
Clearly an almost verbatim summary. If the source of the plot extension prose is the Dragnet episode, then that might not be a copyright violation. But if this OTRR site generated the prose, then this would represent a copyright violation. He also added the content "a club owner later identifies a drug addict as the probable suspect. The killer is convicted of manslaughter and paroled in 6 years." which is verbatim with the same reference. There are no edit summaries, no talk page discussion that explains the origin of the prose, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason that an episode of the 1951 Dragnet series would be in the public domain, but in any even, until there is evidence (proof) that it is, it must be dealt with as being copyrighted. BMK (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, I will not pretend to be a copyright expert. I don't believe that the theme is in the public domain, but the scuttlebutt (which of course would be totally unsuitable as a fact in a Wikipedia article) suggests that Universal let the copyright lapse on the 50s radio and TV series, which shared scripts. Some eps can be found at Archive.org, although I'm not suggesting that Archive.org has vetted the public domain claim. So tl;dr: I don't know, and yes, we'd have to err on the side of it being copyrighted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that assumption, and I think it demonstrates sloppiness and inappropriate tone. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also not definitive, and not necessarily a WP:RS, is this blog entry, which basically says "maybe yes, and maybe no". If that's case, then we must assume that they're still copyrighted. BMK (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd err on the side of caution until it is ascertained whether it is a copyvio or not. To that effect, an indef block should be levied straightaway. This case is reminiscent of User:Primetime who was sitebanned after prolific copyright violations. Their MO was to adopt a "oh it's ok" sort of attitude until shown repeatedly that they were placing the pedia in legal jeopardy. After that, their articles were picked apart and ultimately mass deleted. They also took on a persecuted victim tone playing the part of some sort of Robin Hood figure who would "steal" copyrighted materials and be seen as a hero. [197] section is telling. DanDud88 seems to have a similar attitude to being confronted about their plagiarisms. Blackmane (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to say? Im sorry? I didn't want to read all your silly rules, I didn't know people took Wikipedia so seriously. D.Dudley (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding plagiarism is hardly a silly rule. clpo13(talk) 16:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
D.Dudley, what steps are you going to take to change your editing behavior? --NeilNtalk to me 16:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do, your all ganging up on me to quit, so I quess I will D.Dudley (talk)
We're not in high school anymore; please give a more appropriate answer to the question. If you don't, if all you offer is sulking and you can't be bothered to address the problems ("copyvio" is not a silly little rule), then you will be indef-blocked, and you will have dug that hole all by yourself. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse when it comes to anything that places the WMF in legal danger. Whether you apologise is immaterial, all you need to do is assure the administrators that you will make sure to read the copyright policy and understand that what you were doing is illegal. Otherwise, I, or another editor, will put up a formal proposal to indef block you right now so you have plenty of time to absorb the policies. Blackmane (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need any further evidence that this is an editor who lacks the competence and maturity to edit, and is clearly WP:NOTHERE? I see no difference in his petulance here than I did in mid-2013 when I first attempted to help him understand his gross plagiarism and lack of response to even the most basic policies was unacceptable. As unforgiving as this sounds, he should be indeffed now, not allowed to continue to flaut policy and behave as he does. --Drmargi (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More sloppy editing after being reported to ANI and thumbing his nose at all our "silly rules": here
"Note: The name Shadow Alpha one is a reference to Gerry Anderson's first 2 live action tv series, SHADO (Supreme Headquarters, Alien Defence Organisation) from UFO and Moonbase Alpha from Space: 1999."
He forgot to capitalize "one", "2" should be "two", "tv" should be TV, per MOS:ACRO "SHADO (Supreme Headquarters, Alien Defence Organisation)" should probably have been "Supreme Headquarters, Alien Defence Organisation (SHADO)", and where is the reference that supports this otherwise interpretive statement? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mesmerate (talk·contribs) is edit warring at Calculus. He seems to believe he is correct despite having been reverted by five separate editors. He has announced his intention to continue edit warring until he has his way (see summary of [198]) Diffs:
The following is writtien by mesmerate. :There was an editor who agreed with me, but decided that it over complicated the article. I, infact, decided to compromise, and try to add a little less complicated comment of it. The person who originally edited my edit, was the same one who posted a "Warning, you are edit warring" thing on me. Then, his friend is now trying to beseige me, how nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesmerate (talk • contribs) 05:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mesmerate, you've racked up quite a number of reverts in your short time editing Wikipedia. Now that you've been informed of the WP:3RR policy, you'll stop reverting and use the talk page to see if your change has consensus, right? --NeilNtalk to me 05:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, I'd be satisfied if we try to work this out at Talk:Calculus. Ozob (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In view of this edit summary I'm a bit pessimistic about taking part in further discussion. But we'll see how it turns out... - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is written by mesmerate: yes. also, I do not know how to properly sign a comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesmerate (talk • contribs) 18:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might i add, a second person agreed with me, but thought i was talking about "old calculus" if you will, what calculus was when it was still being developed. So, i clarified with the user it was not in "history" but instead in "principals". Although i have looked over the section i edited, and have realized it defines dx as a number less than any natural number, more than 0, and smaller than any real number, i argue this is incorrect, and a mistaken use of "old calculus" definiton in a "modern calculus" section. I argue the article should replace that "old calculus" definition and replace it with a "modern calcus" definition, where dx can be defined as the change in x as it approaches 0. I hope continued clarity and talking in the page may let us resolve the issue. For the time being, i think there is enough support of my opinion to at least keep the discussion going. Mesmerate (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved to the other persons opinion, and have agreed not to revert again. Mesmerate (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
10 -- Portal:India/Intro was edited by both Mar4d and Lyk4. Lyk4 with very few edits, can edit complex templates. Article match between them can be justified. They edited many templates and categories. It's very unlikely that Lyk4 with less than 1000 edit count, edited many templates and categories which were edited by Mar4d.
Note-- Previously i gave two evidences regarding their edits in Kannada Wikipedia and Fiji Hindi Wikipedia, which I had removed due to comments by Future Perfect At Sunrise. I have read the comments by Wikimandia and Future Perfect and rearranged the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Avengers (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to readers: The Avengers has also modified and added claims above; responses below may be to previous versions. NebY (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d is the alternate account of Lyk4
Lyk4 account is older. My assumption is that Mar4d account is edited from home and Lyk4 is edited from office. In two AFDs they voted together to change the consensus, and edit warred in Fiji Hindi Wikipedia. Check User can't connect them. Administrators can check the details of the picture uploaded by them. As Mar4d is very senior editor and Lyk4 account is inactive, i brought this case in ANI. The Avengers (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, if this were a sock issue, I would bring it to SPI instead. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 05:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check User can't catch this guy. He is using multiple device. There are edits from Other language Wikipedia. Lyk4 account is inactive for few months. This is the best place as In WP:SPI this case will remain for weeks without any action. Here Administrators and users can give their views. He is an experienced editor. All these years he was not caught, SPI won't show any result today.The Avengers (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do you know he is using multiple devices? SPI is the place to report this. Even if they are using different devices, an administrator can look at the total evidence. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any evidence of socking in what's presented here, certainly not enough for a successful SPI case. The seemingly striking common edits on the Fiji and Kannada wikipedias weren't in fact made there at all – those were edits made on en-wp; the pages in question just happened to get imported to those other wikis later. The picture upload list contains nothing relevant at (if there's something about deleted image contribs, you'd have to provide some other link; but in fact neither account appears to have any further image uploads than those shown). The large number of article intersections appears to be mainly due to the fact that Mar4d did a lot of systematic category edits across many Pakistan-related articles. The common edits at the two AfDs would of course constitute sock abuse if socking was independently proven, but they don't in themselves constitute evidence of socking as such. So, in sum, the only thing I'm seeing so far is two accounts that share a common interest (and possibly POV perspective) in Pakistan-related articles. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a few suspicious edits to obscure articles. Almost all of their edits are on Pakistan/India articles but, for example, Lyk4 made this edit to the Chinese cuisine template [207] that was removed inadvertently by two warring IPs in the following weeks. Mar4d then added the same edit back [208] though he had never edited that template before. They also both edited the Italian diaspora template [209], [210] , and The Sheffield Private School, which having nothing to do with Pakistan/India. If they both had 50k edits OK, but Lyk4 has fewer than 1,000. Additionally, that Lyk4 edited a userpage in Mar4d's userspace, though there was no apparent talkpage conversation between them about the page, strikes me as either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimandia Thanks for collecting more evdence.And @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, can you explain: why two editors without any interaction with each other in their talk page, edits the sub-userpage of another editor? Why both accounts were opened in same time. Both accounts having similar edit counts editing in same subjects can have similarities, but Lyk4 with very small edits had edited similar articles. You simply didn't look at the details. I was expecting this. Its very difficult to pin down an old editor , even with crystal clear evidence. And are you saying those edits in Kannada Wikipedia and Fiji Hindi wikipedia were not made by them, and i am seeing wrong due to software problem? If they didn't make those edits who did? And if those pages were imported from English Wikipedia that means Mar4d was edit-warring in English Wikipedia not Fiji Wikipedia as i mentioned before. The Avengers (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on how the Importing function works. Some wikis have this function of wholesale-importing pages from other wikis including their edit histories. This makes it appear as if editors in that history made their edits in the importing wiki, when in reality they made them before the import. So yes, they did make those edits, but they made them here on their home wiki, which makes the whole coincidence look a lot less conspicuous, doesn't it? Fut.Perf.☼ 08:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now, having said this, I guess it's time to take a good hard look at the reporting editor and start asking ourselves why an account with just two months of visible wiki tenure (but two self-delared alternate accounts used for no apparent reason) suddenly starts investigating an editor he has had no visible interaction with, about an alleged sock that hasn't edited for half a year, dragging up old edit histories from five years back. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter whether or not it was made originally at the Fiji-language or English-language wiki - they made the same edit on a fairly obscure template [211][212] due to an edit war with the same editor who wanted a different image used. Btw I have close to 20k edits and I don't think I have ever edited an image map template. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think having undisclosed alternative account is allowed on Wikipedia, but using it abusively is not allowed. Evidences produced by Avenger and Wikimandia does have some genuine points. Yes, there are many group of editors on India-Pakistan arena who edits same pages and have same interests, but how many of them edit sub-userpage of each other? How many of them edit same article on Fiji Language Wikipedia, how many of them do same edit on some topic on Kanada language Wikipedia? We are ignoring similarities in name of Mar4d and LyK4 but other evidences are very strong. And they have used both accounts to comment on 2 AfDs to change the consensus of the discussion which is violation of alternative account policy. We know Mar4d is very experienced editor and some of us may have some soft corner for him, but this case is very genuine. I had many content disputes with Mar4d but I always respected him as editor, but this will surely break trust on him. --Human3015TALK 10:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before anybody else starts parroting the false claim about editing on the Kannada and Fiji wikipedias: please remove your posting, read the thread above again, and then think again what you think the evidence is. If you don't understand why the thing about the Kannada and Fiji wikipedias is false, think harder. People who keep making demonstrably false charges despite having had the facts explained to them will be blocked for disruption. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't MATTER regarding Kannada or Fiji. The edits themselves are problematic and not on which wiki they were made. This is valid confusion so it is hardly a personal attack. It's certainly not any worse than trying to boomerang and cast suspicion on the reporter who has done nothing wrong. The Avengers, please take it to SPI. Obviously you're not going to get any help here. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Kannada/Fiji thing does matter, as long as drive-by commenters like Human3015 keep falsely citing it as alleged separate evidence. This needs to be rectified, before any other, potentially valid evidence can be considered properly. As for the edits themselves: the template in question is transcluded on hundreds, maybe thousands of India infoboxes. The edits affected a POV issue to which both Indian and Pakistani editors are (understandably) highly sensitive (how to show the international border in Kashmir). Both editors were actively editing multiple articles related to those issue at the time. It is entirely plausible that both of them could have noticed independently, on any of those thousands of India-related articles affected, that the map in question was in a state that would have felt equally unacceptable to most Pakistani editors, and followed the transclusion trail to that template. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@future, even if we remove Fiji and Kannada things still there are sufficient evidences, both accounts created in April 2010. See, I am not saying to block Mar4d and all that, I am not even editing India-Pakistan topics actively these days. But I'm just commenting here because I am interacting with Mar4d right since I joined Wikipedia, he is one of editor who inspired in me in my initial days, DYK icons on top of my userpage I copied from Mar4d's userpage. Contribution template etc on my userpage is also copied form his user page. I don't have any bad faith against him. But this will surely break the trust of India-Pakistan community. I know he will not get blocked, but he no more have moral basis to report other socks which he reports on your talk page, also he has habit of "reverting to pre-socking version" etc. It was not expected from Mar4d. Does Mar4d has courage to come here and say that LyK4 is not his account? Today is Sunday I think, people usually have time for Wikipedia on this day.(Though it is not always correct).--Human3015TALK 10:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators should not threaten anybody for posting comment. He may not have read the importing link from Meta.
You still haven't been able to explain points raised by Wikimandia.
Portal:India/Intro is actually a masterpiece connection between Lyk4 and Mar4d. Future perfect didn't look at intersect combo properly. Lyk4 and Mar4d connects in many templates and categories. Article connection can be justified, but editing so many templates and categories together including Portal:India/Intro together can't be termed as "things happen" when editors have interest in similar area.
You still can't explain why both accounts were created during same time with the number "4"?
You still can't explain why Lyk4 edited a sub-userpage of Mar4d without any interaction between them?
Why they edited so many common articles, while Lyk4 has few edit count?
You can never explain how Lyk4 with less than 1000 edits can edit so many complex templates including Portal:India/Intro?The Avengers (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Future Perfect" is welcome to investigate new editor if he wants. He supports someone who edit warred with undeclared sock account and tried to change consensus in two AFds. I didn't edit-war with anybody or voted in AFDs with my alternate accounts. The Avengers (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite all the more-smoke-than-light around here, I do find a couple of more serious indications too: on 3 February 2012, 02:40 UTC, Mar4d created Khalid Anwer (about a Pakistani politician). Half an hour later, with him still the only contributor, he moved it to his userspace and then immediately asked for it to be deleted [213]. Three hours later, at 06:23, Lyk4 recreated the same page in mainspace, with essentially the same text. That does look suspicious. I also note that a few months later Mar4d was CU'd and found to have been using another alternate account, Drspaz (talk·contribs); Lyk4 hadn't been active in the weeks leading up to this, so presumably that account would not have been detected by the CU if it was indeed him. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@future: You are admin so you can see deleted page, thats good. If we seen contribution of his another account DeSpaz, he also edited Mar4d's sub-user pages same way LyK4 edited. And in this SPI Mar4d was not CU'd, we can read that one admin is saying "Given that Mar4d has admitted a connection, I see no grounds to checkuser this", means CU was not done, that maybe the reason why LyK4 survived. But you have given strong evidence of that LyK4 and Mar4d are same users and they have violated alt account rules by commenting on 2 AfDs. But what should be the next step now? --Human3015TALK 12:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Mar4d
First, I'm not sure why ANI was chosen for this mudslinging Wikifest. From the above, it is obvious some involved user(s) have vested interests behind it. Second, I still don't understand where the user established the (supposed) connection or what link, as he mentions, I have to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LogAntiLog. Having said that, I do edit a lot of articles and categories and there's bound to be cross-overs, especially with thousands of users in the same topic area, or those who I follow or interact with (or even just stalkers). There are Wiki collaborations, and I do tend to help out users in creating articles, templates etc. Just saying, intersection tool is a pretty lame excuse. Examples: Shyamsunder, Smsarmad, TopGun, Faizan (I was called a 'sock' of these users too btw). Thirdly, I didn't edit the Fijian and Kannadian Wikipedias, they are cross-wiki import transclusions as per @Future Perfect at Sunrise: (again, relevance?). Another thing, I don't see why my user page being edited by someone else is odd since I have users editing my userpages all the time (barnstars, vandalism, talk page stalkers, copying stuff etc.). Here's one. This draft was moved from my userspace to mainspace by some unknown editor without me even being asked. I don't have a problem with users making edits or changes to my subpages if they are helpful or constructive.
Lastly, I have some serious reservations as to how a new editor who I don't know, with less than 3 months of record (and two meaningless alt. accounts) knows about SPIs or for that matter, using tools like Twinkle in their first edits. For the record, my talk page has been under attack by trolls and socks of one editor and I've been getting spam emails. There was a blocked sock who put up this flimsy SPI linking me and TopGun. I am pretty sure where this is heading and whoever this user is, they'll be found out. Mar4d (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Making no comment on the dispute between you and The Avengers, I have previously had concerns about their multiple accounts, which I have warned them about. I can see this boomeranging samtar{t} 12:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
samtar For super transparency i am watching this page, would you stop pinging me. You can ask a Check User to Run a CU on me. The Avengers (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I use that template regardless - it allows other editors to quickly get to the mentioned account. I apologise if my use of it upset you, and would recommend you calm down a little. I have no horse in this race, I'm only trying to assist those who have the difficult task of closing this thread. I have no interest in getting you Checked, as I believe you've disclosed all your accounts samtar{t} 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Avengers removed the Fijian/Kannadian Wikipedia edits from the 'evidence'. Since I referred to it above, it's here for reference. Mar4d (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have not made any reasonable explanation as why this other account edited a page in your userspace, which is NOT the same as editing your talk page, nor why they recreated a page you and only you worked on, three hours after you deleted it, with much the same content as your deleted page, and remarked "Fresh start" as an edit summary. I have started an SPI so perhaps you can explain it there Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar4d. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take it to SPI. I don't think you've read my comment above regarding the userpages. Here's the links again. [214]. [215]. Mar4d (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that if Mar4d is not related to the other account, he/she may not be able to fully explain that account's actions - any more than I can fully explain yours or you can fully explain mine. NebY (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d should answer questions related to LyK4, who is this "Avenger" is different matter, attacking on "Avenger" will not justify your own mistakes in past. We can open SPI againt "The Avenger" also.--Human3015TALK 12:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015: I think it would be better if you stay out of this for the moment. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Used Google Translator)... TAICHI: A Panamanian little guy who hides in an alias to attack people. Fortunately people thanks to guys like Wikipedia do not take this seriously.
Stop fooling nonsense and just. We have been a victim of your personal attacks and are not fair. You will receive your deserved because people like you should not be part of prryecto. If there is someone to watch this guy, take him out for Wikipedia.
This article has a serious matter about a suspicious lobby over this politician. Several sockpuppets were blocked in Spanish Wikipedia as Peru2016 and Peruanoamigo, (see local checkuser resolution). --Taichi (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YES THIS GUY HAS PERSONALLY DESTROYED MY PAGES AND BLOCKED ME MANY TIMES. THIS GUYS SHOULD BE EXPELLED AS A LIBRARIAN. MY ARTICLES ARE WELL DOCUMENTED BUE HE CONTINUES TO USE GESTAPO PRACTICES....NAZI TAICHI...HE IS A RACIST INDIVIDUAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmychases (talk • contribs) 08:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not much need to look beyond the post here. Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In all this time, the user's only substantive edits have been to remove "unflattering" material about the subject; which he does repeatedly, intransigently, regardless of source, with flimsy or nonexistent edit rationales.
The user has repeatedly removed content that is not in factual dispute; material that is in the public record, with a WIDE ARRAY of sources available. This is blatant "whitewashing".
The user has been in conflict with multiple users over their removal of material, over the last 2 years. The user does not have "consensus" for these actions, or anything remotely resembling it. The user has had only 1 intermittent "supporter" throughout these disputes. Aside from myself (& i only became involved thus by in restoring inappropriately deleted material), the user has bulk-deleted material contributed by dozens of other users, as well as coming into direct conflict with at least 6 other users.
When "defeated", the user returns weeks or months later, to continue their actions.
The user is completely ignoring talk page discussion.
I really don't like bans or blocks, or etc., & i think we overuse them massively, but i do think it is time to contemplate at least banning this user from editing this one article.
At the very least, a "stern warning" would be nice.
I just looked through the diffs and I agree that this user is whitewashing. As long as that content is carefully sourced it should stay. Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage was, alas, undue, as was the parenthetical aside about his age etc. BLPs are not the place to give undue weight to "celebrity gossip". Collect (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Collect is correct. What do we read here? His wallet was stolen, according to the Daily Mail? Some really sensitive BLP information is sourced to something called "various [full citation needed]"? Who restored that? I have no opinion right now on the editor's behavior or whatever, but can we please look a bit more carefully? Sometimes the opponent has a point, you know. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While Collect has deleted some of the details of the article subject's legal problems, drug problems, etc.[216], enough remains to get the point across. See Edward Furlong#Substance abuse and legal problems, with 13 sentences of negative info. Lx 121 seems rather wound up about this on Talk:Edward_Furlong. Their edit warring complaint from Nov. 15th (same article, different editor) was rejected.[217] I took a look at this from a COI perspective, but it doesn't seem to be a COI issue; no party seems to be affiliated with the article subject. Looks more like a minor content dispute between fans. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Threat of murder
Articles deleted and user blocked. Sam Walton (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this new article, duplicated from the creator's sandbox there is a threat of murder against an unspecified person. Norvoid (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted under G3. I doubt this is a credible threat of violence. — foxj 12:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question has been recreated by the author (or a sockpuppet/another account). I have left another speedy deletion notice on the talkpage of the author. Rarkenin (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, It's the same editor, not a sockpuppet. Norvoid (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Topic ban proposal for Omar-toons
Omar-toons (talk·contribs) is a prolific editor on topics related to northern Africa, particularly Morocco and Algeria. Unfortunately he has a strong pro-Moroccan and anti-Algerian POV that makes it impossible for him to work constructively and collaboratively on those topics. The example that brought me here was the Sand War where Omar-toons is giving prominence to less reliable sources and for spurious reasons either removes or de-emphasizes better source. Examples include [218], [219], [220], [221]. By now there's a rather wide, policy-based consensus established on the talk page; that didn't keep him from labeling those opposing his preferred order of sources "disruptive".
That pattern of edits is not limited to a single article: [222][223], [224], [225], [226]. The standard modus operandi is to revert, possibly quoting some irrelevant policy, and to keep reverting until the other side is exhausted. In my experience talk page comments generally are short, if they're given at all, and do not address the points raised by others; they're more of a diversionary tactic than an attempt to establish a consensus.
For these reasons I'm proposing a topic ban for Omar-toons from edits related to North Africa and the Maghreb. Huon (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my defense I could say that I always try to keep it NPOV, and that disagreeing with me about the edition on one sole article isn't enough to accuse me of being a POV-pusher (I even keep it NPOV about Western Sahara, for example by considering it a separate territory from Morocco, which can be considered illegal here... just to say).
Also, I called M.Bitton "disruptive" because... actually he is. Did you take a look on his TP (in its pre-cleaning version)? He did a mess last time he intervened... [227]. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user is linking Seal in every university infobox he can find. While the link is relevant to the word as it's used, I think it's a good example of over-linking. Specifically, it breaks up a caption used for an illustration in an infobox - as in: Seal of the University of .... We've had a brief dialogue via edit summaries, and he's adamant that this is an important edit. Before addressing the user further (warnings, etc), and mass reverting, I thought it would be prudent to get the community's opinion here. Rklawton (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to mass revert my edits, I will change them all once/if the community comes to a conclusion. I have multiple edits of text and higher quality vector graphic Seals and logos in each edit, so I can go back personally and do it if the community decides the Seal link is overlinking. Threemonths (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest talking about it here to gain consensus Talk:Seal (emblem). Personally I agree it is overlinking as words like seal/logo etc do not need explanation in this context. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is massively overlinking and completely and totally unnecessary: nobody needs to be told what a seal is. It's not even funny. --24.244.29.40 (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking might be a better place for the discussion. For one thing it is likely to be on more editors watchlist - though I can't be sure about that. Wherever the discussion is held WP:CANVASSing like this should be avoided. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any administrator action is needed here; I've warned Threemonths about the canvassing issue and as noted above, discussion at somewhere like Talk:Seal (emblem) is more appropriate than here. Sam Walton (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly sorry. I had no idea that this was considered rallying. I am reverting my edits to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. I have no malice and am not trying to vandlize. I appreciate your assistance in this issue, everyone. I assure this will not happen again.Threemonths (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought linking "Seal" was appropriate and useful; now, after reading WP:OVERLINK (which includes "What generally should not be linked ... Everyday words understood by most readers in context" I think linking "Seal" directly under the picture of a college or university Seal is not a necessity. Contributor321 (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even putting the word "seal" directly under the image of a college or university seal is not a necessity [228]. EEng (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive behavior with ethnic overtones on Blue Army (Poland) Talk Page
I'd like to report User:Faustian for disruptive behavior on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. Several editors are in the process of agreeing on a consensus based on the results of a nearly finalized RfC, which concluded that the there is a issue of undue weight and coat-racking within the article. Unfortunately, despite the outcome of the vote, Faustian has continued to argue that more information should be added, contrary to the RfC results, more importantly his behavior is taking on the characteristics of bullying when Faustian wrote: "So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source" and "Double-standards motivated by nationalism" and "You are presenting with a pattern of dishonesty"[229] . I would request that Faustian is blocked before this gets out of hand. Also, he continues to revert edits which have gained support — here: [230][231] and [232]--E-960 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Darouet's assessment that your RFC is non-neutral and thus rather problematic. Additionally the most support is for the third of three options ("Other possible solutions") so it does not seem as though consensus is really very strong. I don't see that Faustian is doing anything to be blocked for. I would recommend you withdraw the RfC and rephrase it in an unbiased way, plus have only clear options for people to support rather than a vague "other." —МандичкаYO 😜 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—Мандичка, the RfC is a separate item (btw most folks clearly voted for option 3, no need to question the results), the problem I'm reporting on has nothing to do with the merits of the discussion. But, the tone struck by user Faustain, pls address my request. --E-960 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just telling you my unbiased impression. I don't think Faustian has done anything worth banning for and may have a point. You shouldn't be making those changes before the RfC is complete so Faustian is right to revert you. I don't agree with your assessment that it's a nearly finalized RfC. The tally vote math has "Option 1: 1.5 votes/Option 2: 2 votes/Option 3: 3.5 votes to reduce the text / 1 vote to expand the text" IMO this is not very clear at all and not much of a majority. Additionally, the RfC as you formed it clearly violates policy as it is very leading and biased, and thus an admin may choose to close it with no consensus by default. So I recommend starting over with a neutral question. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E-960 is operating as essentially a SPA devoted to removing negative information about the Blue Army. This is part of his disruptive process. The talk-page is filled with his mostly one-editor struggle to do this. He has already been caught deliberately misrepresenting what a source says. On another RFC he claimed [233]: " Also, as noted by Encyclopedia Judaica such actions were the result of "individual soldiers",[2] so the article text should not overemphasize controversial subject matter to tacitly imply that the entire army was a pogroming force." The actual source stated [234]: "Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." This sort of thing has been common with him. He is clearly not here to build an Encyclopedia but to remove information he doesn't like, and to disrupt the efforts of those who are here to build the encyclopedia. If anyone ought to be sanctioned, it should be him. Please do so.Faustian (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the results of the RfC vote, I think most editors who commented have a genuine desire to improve the article, however the recent tone struck by Faustian is counter productive:
Option 3: As suggested by users SMcCandlish and Ivanevian. I think that the proposed "third way" approach is fair and worth pursuing. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Faustian (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Option 3: Certainly keep lead and body material that describes pogroms, but add more information that also describes the causes of anti-Semitic and anti-Ukrainian violence, as we discussed in the Talk Pages above. -Darouet (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Option 3: There is clearly a WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK problem here, but it is not as significant as the nom suggests. I do agree that this material can be compressed by about 50%, but a summary of it should not be removed from the lead. As noted below about Enc. Judaica, Haller's Army is notorious for this; i.e., it's one of the things that establishes WP:Notability. It's not WP's job to do a WP:SYNTH analysis of our own on how significant the alleged pogromming was in relation to the Blue Army's role in the war. Just follow the sources. That said, don't dwell and dwell on one aspect from cherry-picked sources. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Option 3: I wouldn't go as far as option 1, but the emphasis on anti-Jewish violence by the BA completely distorts this article, so a re-edit of some kind is definitely needed. Ivanevian (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Option 1/3 I second Ivanevian; the article currently has an undue focus on this issue. I'd suggest shortening the lead a bit (what are "numerous segments"?), and trying to be more concise in the body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Option 1: Re-edit the sections as recommended. Reason: It is too one-sided, hence POV now. Zezen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
He has now violated 3R. Reversions are here: [235], here: [236], here: [237] and here: [238]. He was warned here: [239].
Most of his reversions involved removing sourced information without consensus and despite a previous RFC having concluded that the information was acceptable in the article (RFC here: [240]).Faustian (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Faustian, the removal of this text was seconded by an experienced user Volunteer Marek, because the text originally cited to back it up was taken out of context and was missing key verses that completely changed the meaning of the statement. --E-960 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
False. The full passage was included and RFC passed with the full passage. Anyone can follow the RFC here: [241], just scroll down. The missing verses actually made the RFC less likely to pass. When I included the full paragraph it was determined that the statement in the article did reflect the original source. Had I deliberately left out information to make my case better (as you falsely claim I did) people wouldn't have disagreed with me initially.
At any rate, this is off-topic, although it does highlight your negative approach to wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, lord. Could we please have an admin involve themselves here? In all honesty, any editors who have had dealings with E-960 have been subjected to his blunderbuss techniques to the point of EXHAUSTion and should no longer be expected to assume good faith. He's an SPA who's NOTHERE being allowed to continue BATTLEGROUND tactics on all things ARBEE. Please see these archived ANIs: here, here, and here. He's a bully, pure and simple. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with this assessment, as I told Faustian, that the current discussion on the talk page, is attracting input from several experienced editors and we are receiving feedback on how to improve the disputed section, however Faustian wants to add material without gaining consensus and reverting text which was seconded by another user. I suggest any admin should look at the ongoing discussion before rushing to judgement. --E-960 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On quick note, my last recommendation was to initiate a cool-off period until other editors can review the proposed edits. [242] I don't think that by making such statement I'm engaging in battleground tactics, just simply trying to get more editor to review possibly controversial text. --E-960 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick note, I don't accept this piece of WP:CRUSH as being 'respectful' in good faith. I'm afraid your reputation precedes you here. Paying lip-service to 'civil' when you believe it serves your purposes is a misrepresentation of the machinations of how and why you edit, and how you interact with other editors. Incidentally, starting this thread and posting this slanted 'request' on the AN is FORUMSHOPPING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Anyone who reads through the protracted dispute on the article's talk page will see for themselves that the context in which you 'initiated' a 'cool-off period' belies your claim not to be batteground... and anyone who knows the first thing about how RfCs work know they are not a !vote... so why do you keep counting !votes? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC has several editor comments and we are in the process of agreeing on how to fix the disputed actions, the votes are just a quick reference point. No need to ridicule my method, also because several editors have lend their feedback, I don't think that Faustian's approach is productive, when he tries to insert more information to the disputed section while the discussion is on how to reduce the size of the text to avoid Coat-racking with in the article. --E-960 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:In ictu oculi continually spreading lies/harassing - please make him stop
This has been going on for years and years now, and it seems to always get ignored or brushed aside. This is not another oops slip-up by In Ictu oculi. I've asked him so many times over those years to stop the lies my fingers are getting tired from typing it. A difference of opinion is one thing, we don't agree on diacritics. Now there are several conversations going on about whether wikipedia should ignore a person's own wishes and sources on how to spell their name in English. And in those conversations, once again, In ictu oculi is making personal attacks and spreading the same lies once again. I did not create WP:TENNISNAMES, I did not even !vote on creating that essay and told the editor I could not support something that didn't take into account all sourcing. In ictu oculi is closer to owning that essay as he edited it. Yet over and over again he attacks me on it with these continual fabrications: HERE and HERE. There are dozens of these off-topic attacks on me. I don't care that he disagrees with me on following a biographical person's own wishes, that's wikipedia. I do care about his continually, year after year, attacking me with fabricated nonsense. Please make him stop this ridiculous baloney and stick to the topics at hand, because I've had it with his own warped version of non-truth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Godson rao uploading from image sites and claiming ownership
Godson rao (talk·contribs) is copying images from image sites, most likely picasa and claiming ownership. Most images of the celebrities uploaded look like selfies. Seems to be ignoring instructional messages on his user talk page. I tagged the images as needing proof of permission but extremely unlikely that will be forthcoming. I would consider his adding the images to bio pages as copyright violations and he is persisting after two warnings about that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Geraldo Perez: I have removed your F11 tags. F11 should be used if the uploader sources the file to someone other than the uploader. If you dispute the uploader's authorship claim, then you should take the file to WP:PUF instead. I found all of the pictures on other websites, so I tagged the whole set for speedy deletion per WP:F9 with links to those websites. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2:: Thanks for proving the copyvios and tagging for speedy. I used F11 as the stated source was picasa with no internal link to the actual image on that site. Source was not the author as claimed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of copyvio template, editing of blanked content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(non-admin closure) More ban-evading trolling from the 166. IP range. BMK (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please be topic banning Ricky81682 from List of German supercentenarians. GreatGreen has been monitoring that page for years and his content shouldn't be ruined by ignorance. Lots of people depend on this site and lies don't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.196 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors from this IP address are topic-banned from world's oldest people topics. clpo13(talk) 23:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been creating unsourced, nonsensical articles on Latin-American TV stations with call signs that do not exist. They have been blocked several times for this on eswiki. The record so far on their creations in enwiki:
All of the above have been deleted from eswiki. They have been warned several times, I also tried engaging them in Spanish (for which they thanked me but did not reply). All to no avail; they continue to create similar content. Aside from the language barrier, I suspect a very young user as their communications on eswiki have been simple. At any rate they are not communicating or modifying their behavior after repeated warnings: WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Vrac (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User Pepsi1500
Would it be possible to temporarily block Pepsi1500 (talk·contribs)? This editor has made a number of good faith edits over the past day, but the edits are a mess. The editor has been following a map through Utah, adding the names of highways that pass through many small towns. The problem is, the edits are a mostly wrong. Towns are called cities, highways have been added that are already in the article, Wikilinks aren't used, and most of the time the editor names some highway that doesn't even run through the town (they called a ski resort a town too). I've been trying to clean up the edits, but it will take a while and it's pretty boring stuff. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little early to be talking blocks -- or, really, for an AN/I report -- since you left your message on his talk page almost 2 hours after their last edit, so it's quite probable that they haven't seen it yet. If they start the same kind of editing again without responding to your comment, that's a different matter. In the meantime, if the edits are not improving the articles, revert them. BMK (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a message on their talk page asking them to respond to your comment before they do any other editing. BMK (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing requiring admin intervention here. Sam Walton (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user is reducing the size of every university Seal in every infobox he finds. I have addressed the user and he is positive that 200px is much too large for an infobox Seal. I was wondering what the community's opinion is, is BMK correct in mass change of university seal sizes in their respective Wikipedia pages. If so, I will respect the user's decision. However, practically every infobox Seal I have come across, prior to BMK editing them, was 200px or very close to it.Threemonths (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not worthy of admin attention. In fact, I am 150% certain this doesn't belong here. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 05:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says to post here after speaking with the user directly. Well, I have done so and it has not been resolved. Where am I supposed to report to if he is acting unreasonably by mass editing all university webpages without documented justification?Threemonths (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also says in big letters when you start a comment on an editor that you are supposed to notify me, which you did not do. BMK (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
he/she did notify you by pinging. sst✈(discuss) 05:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It states it must be on their user talk page.--Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ping in this discussion, and, in any case, pinging is not a substitute for direct notification, that's well establishbed.I note that in about a month of editing Threemonths been the subject of an AN/I report and a number of complaints on their talk page, which does not bode well for their career as an editor. Perhaps they might be better off following what other more experienced editors do rather than trying to ignore them, or report them? BMK (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Threemonths: Assuming good faith on your part, ANI is not the place to address content disputes. ANI is more suitable for disruptive behavior that cannot be corrected without administrator intervention. In this case, take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This definitely doesn't belong here, but there are other channels to address content disputes. Regular discussion may still succeed if BMK elects to explain his changes and engage in a civilized conversation about them instead of blowing you off or responding with sarcasm, as he did on his user talk. If he elects not to go that route, you can try an RfC. ~ RobTalk 05:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Serious editors get serious responses .... nuff said. BMK (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And BMK is almost certainly correct in that belief. (And this is not appropriate for ANI, blah, blah, blah...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kartiktiwary and copyright violations
Would an administrator please consider blocking Kartiktiwary (talk·contribs) for persistent copyright violations? By my count the user has already received over 40 warnings on their user talk page for copyright-related problems (mostly uploading infringing images and contributing infringing text, but also removing copyvio deletion tags, removing comments from copyvio deletion discussions, and contributing non-free files without a fair use rationale). However, they have continued to contribute infringing images and text (e.g., [243] has material copied from [244]; File:Rihand Dam.jpg was deleted as a copyvio at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 November 13#File:Rihand Dam.jpg but was uploaded yet again at File:Attractions in Sonbhadra.jpg). I suggest the block should be indefinite until the user confirms that they understand the copyright issues and agrees to abide by Wikipedia:Copyrights. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely with an explanatory note. --NeilNtalk to me 14:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of copyright violations, but he was one of those users in Indian Television articles , who would insert unreliable websites.The Avengers (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I realise we have a board for requesting closures (and indeed I've sometimes helped with reducing the backlog there), but I'd like us to make an exception for this discussion and close it without delay as the underlying situation has already resulted in three temporary blocks, full page protection and re-protection. There's been no new discussion in almost two days now. Hopefully once a consensus is identified, the to-and-fro might stop if the full protection is lifted. One can hope... Thanks in advance for the closure - admin closing only please, in this case! Alternatively, if you think I should close it, I'd appreciate the mandate. Cheers! Samsara 13:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
98.215.193.216 - Editorializing and POV pushing through the use of categories like "Counterfeit consumer goods"
IP was blocked 6 months by Favonian. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
98.215.193.216 just came off a 1 month block for POV editing and editorializing through the use of hand-selected categories suggesting that certain cloned video game devices are counterfeit and fraudulent. For instance, here at an article about Nintendo hardware clones, he adds Category:Counterfeit consumer goods, though there is nothing in the article about the concept of counterfeiting or fraud. There were other problems as detailed in my comments on his talk page. The user was adding this content without providing supporting sourced prose that indicated, for example, here he implies that the drug store chain CVS is selling counterfeit products, which could be defamatory.
Fresh off his block, the user has continued this practice. Here he indicates via category addition Category:Copyright infringement of software that PolyStation is infringing on software copyrights. Here he undoes a redirect to restore obvious original research and POV editorial content like The Zone consoles are a line of unauthorized clones of the Nintendo Wii that are manufactured by various companies and sold under the false brand name "Ultimate Products" to avoid legal action. (Emphasis mine) And "These consoles are notorious for being poorly constructed." and so forth. Here he decides to POV-up an article, changing content from The N-Joypad is an unauthorized Nintendo Entertainment System clone to The N-Joypad is an illegally sold Nintendo Entertainment System clone (emphasis mine) again, with no supporting, sourced prose to substantiate the assertions.
The user obviously doesn't seem to comprehend that this is a problematic editing style, and I very strongly question their competence to edit here if, after the number of blocks they've received so far, they keep adding this sloppy, OR-laden, agenda-driven POV crap, which may put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry,i wont do it any more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.193.216 (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user Calton
I'm hoping an administrator can evaluate the Talk page conversations between me and user Calton. I believe the user is engaging in continuous personal attacks against me.
After the first series of personal attacks, I wrote a note on his Talk page asking him to refrain from continuing.
I wrote a detailed list (including links) of each personal attack he made against me on his Talk page.
As a response to my note on his Talk page, he wrote a note on my talk page that I find to be abusive, including continuation of his past behavior of using curse words and writing to me "You are dishonest."
Because this user continues to write personal attacks, despite my effort to stop them, I am requesting an administrator to intervene. Fact Checkmater (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. However, your response did not address my post here on this noticeboard. Respectfully, this note on this noticeboard was about the conduct of a user and my feeling that I was/am being personally attacked. Would you mind please addressing this? To address what you did write: I understand what you are saying about the sources and subject matter, and I will work to improve the neutrality of my editing. Thank you. Fact Checkmater (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, one more question. In your response you wrote "I've removed the claim and the source in question." I'd like to view that so that I can improve. I'm wondering which article you are referring to. I glanced at your contribution history and don't see any activity from your account (after I posted this notice here) on any Wikipedia article that I've edited. Thanks, Fact Checkmater (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 08:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
samtar {t} 14:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Checkuser note: The account is not compromised in the sense that someone else is using either a different device or editing from a different location. I can't speak as to the issue of someone else using Bonadea's devices from the same location because the other person has access to Bonadea's password.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
