Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.


When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives


Terms of Use[edit]

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

I am concerned about this for four reasons:

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

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

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

I assume you read the FAQ? It seems that you do have to disclose your employer/client, or don't get paid for editing. On the other hand, the policy does not allow other editors to engage in outing, harassment, or other violations of policy.- MrX 02:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. That FAQ could do with a copyedit (Corp?). And in this case it may not be that helpful, since Corp doesn't work for Acme, but for Hip&Hype's PR firm, so on whose behalf is he supposed to claim to be editing? I'm inclined to say Acme, still, since that's the ultimate beneficiary of Corp's work here (and all the hours I've donated to his service)--which means he wouldn't be required to name the agency he's working for. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: I would say that the Terms of Use do require disclosure of the PR agency and the article-subject and my own business name, which would prohibit me from contributing anonymously entirely. However, as you indicated, I got the impression that this was just poor copyediting due to an overzealous response to Wiki-PR. I didn't think it was ever intended to be used against someone that has disclosed a conflict of interest.
Do you mean to say that my "thank yous" aren't payment enough for your time? ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 02:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: Yes the FAQ needs its own FAQ. Here's the salient sentence: "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." - MrX 02:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The way CorporateM has summarized this is disturbing. First, I haven't "focused [my] efforts on finding additional negative information to add to the page." I've pointed out to CM, as has Doc James, that a Cochrane report concluded that there is insufficient information available for them to reach a conclusion about Invisalign's efficacy. This is clearly stated in the review's conclusion.
That apart, CM has been hired by a PR firm to rewrite the article. He has completed, or almost completed, the rewrite, which he had two other editors add for him. He has not disclosed who he is working for, but the terms of use require this (see WP:PAYDISCLOSE:

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

I have asked CM to abide by the terms of use. This came to my attention, by the way, because he was edit-warring with Doc James. He ought not to be editing the article directly, and getting into battles with a medical expert on a health-related article is not a good idea. Sarah (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The Terms of Use are fairly clear on this topic. CM is obligated to disclose the information he objects to disclosing if he wishes to edit for pay on Wikimedia projects (other than Commons and...I think maybe Russian Wikipedia? Something like that). The choice is to disclose or to not edit in a manner that requires disclosure; while I'm sympathetic to CM feeling put-upon by this, it's really not much to ask that the community be made aware of what, exactly, the relevant COI is if someone wants us to give them the extraordinary level of trust involved in letting them edit on behalf of article subjects. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) ETA (to clarify): Employer, client, and affiliation can all be different, and thus be different COIs. If I work for PR Agency Y, which is hired by Social Media Company X, to run an ad campaign on behalf of Corporation Z, each step in that chain is relevant to the community's ability to evaluate my work for any COI about Y, X, or Z. Just saying "I have a COI" or "I work for PR Agency Y" or even "I'm editing on behalf of Z" doesn't give us enough information to figure out where all/any issues might be arising in the edits. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that there is anything unclear here. The ToU require that you disclose all three "employer, client, *and* affiliation" (my emphasis). Of course if there is only the employer involved, then all you need to declare is the employer, but the PR firm is involved in this - you are affiliated with them if you accept direction from them, or you direct them, or even if you just report to the employer together. "Affiliation" is a very broad term, and we must assume that the WMF put it in the ToU intentionally. We cannot change this rule or interpret this how we feel is "fairest." We must interpret it in the most straight-forward way. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to go in a slightly different direction. Our enforcement of the paid editing aspects of the ToU is erratic at best, and in practice I think the focus should be on keeping to the intent rather than the letter. We also need to balance privacy issues with disclosure. Personally, I'd be extremely happy to see clearly stated disclosures somewhere where people will actually see them, denoting that there is a paid editing COI and the nature of the COI, and if that was there I would care a lot less about knowing the client's name.
With that said, unless WP forms a clear policy on how to handle the ToU, it is going to be difficult to argue that people should enforce some aspects and not others. (Noting that it has proven hard enough to get a consistent idea on how it enforce it in the first place). - Bilby (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The Foundation's terms of use FAQ is clear about this issue: "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." See m:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure, point 1.8. Sarah (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I know the ToU backwards. :) My problem is that we are doing a poor job of implementing it, and the community has some radically different ideas (all the way to ArbCom) about how we should enforce it, if at all. In that scenario, I can't recommend that people ignore the ToU, but I'd like to at least be following the intent if we fail at the letter.
The question for us is how to balance our long-held principle of not requiring outing of editors and respecting their privacy, while still meeting our needs for disclosure of paid editing. I'm worried that people willing to do everything they can to meet the ToU while still retaining some privacy will get burnt, while those who ignore the ToU terms completely get away with no sanctions at all. - Bilby (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure required per SV, Fluffernutter and Smallbones. The TOU is straightforward and clear, and that it might interfere with a particular editor's particular situation is irrelevant. CorporateM, you brought this here despite knowing precisely what the TOU says, which implies that you're looking for a personal pass on the policy. I suggest that is inappropriate, that you disclose it all per the TOU, and return to what I am assured is your excellent work for the project. BMK (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As above, really. I can only advise you that if you feel that revealing the client's name will in some way compromise them, that you decline the work. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure can be, 'Subject's PR firm' I don't agree with several others. The Statement "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." is fulfilled by specifically identifying the client and stating that you are hired by "their PR firm" - that "identifies the PR firm", sufficient to fulfill the TOU obligation. Fluffernutter, who I usually agree with is only correct that we would have to know the name of the PR firm, if the user is hired to edit the article on the PR firm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • WRT the issue at hand full disclosure is required. They need to state both the PR firm and the subject paying the PR firm (some may have multiple PR firms working for them). Corporate's statements above raise additional concerns of competence and promotional editing. CorporateM states "she cited a source where all the information on Invisalign was positive" Now lets look at the conclusions of the source in question "this review has revealed that there was no evidence from RCTs to show that one intervention was superior to another". How is that a positive conclusion?
Corporate raises the concern of bullying as to why they should be exempt from the terms of use. As someone who has had 300 of their colleagues emailed by paid editors. And had tweets send to their university stating they should reprimand for their work on electronic cigarettes I sympathise. But Corporate your editing is not on your own behalf but on behalf of someone else. We the community deserve to know who is paying for your efforts so that we can appropriately address your edits. Our readers deserve to know aswell. Should CorporateM be banned from paid editing if they decide not to disclose? I would say yes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
And if they are banned, then does that solve the problem? And by the problem, I mean, of bad apples doing paid editing without disclosing who is paying them the money. CorporateM is getting paid by TopicOfArticle, in most cases. That the money CorporateM is getting, comes via their employer the HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, is an additional factoid, sure. Do we also wish to know, as further additional factoids, what specific banking institution, is cutting the cheques here, since the money is quite literally in reality coming from the bank of the TopicOfTheArticle, and thence to the bank of HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, and thence to the bank of the editor known hereabouts as CorporateM? It is perfectly legal for wikipedia ToU to demand disclosure of the routing numbers, of all the connected bank accounts, although obviously it would not be ethical. The three banks ... or more or fewer as the case may be ... are just financial service organizations, and their legal names and physical addresses and routing numbers and other such factoids have no impact whatsoever, upon the nature of the COI editing under discussion here. The editing is COI, because TopicOfTheArticle is shelling out money, period.
    The reason to demand the disclosure of HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, one may presume, is on the suspicion -- without evidence -- that maybe just maybe CorporateM is sekritly organizing a meatpuppet army, and if we force disclosure of the HypotheticalSmallPrFirm, we can then easily find all of CorporateM's co-workers, since they also are forced to disclose! Brilliant! Insert sarcastic comment about how well that scheme will work in practice, to actually wiki-apprehend bad apples running meatpuppet-farms. That said, you most definitely are correct that if we are to force disclosure of the employer, the specific name of the employer is very much needed -- just saying something vague like "the PR firm hired by TopicOfTheArticle" is not enough to count as full disclosure, because in some cases there are more than one PR firm working with a given company, and more pertinently, over time there are almost certainly going to be multiple sequential PR firms working therewith. The question is, do we as wikipedians *need* to know the specific name (and from there the specific legal physical address via governmental filings that all corporations must file) of the HypotheticalSmallPrFirm which is the employer or CorporateM, or is it enough to know that the people paying the bills are TopicOfTheArticle, and the means with which those USD-or-Euro-equivalents are transmitted from the pockets of TopicOfTheArticle, to the pockets of CorporateM, are irrelevant? I suggest the latter, but the ToU as currently written requires the former. (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What material difference does it make whether we know the name of this PR firm, if we know that their work is being paid for by the subject of the article? I feel like we have an editor who is doing this the right way - as those good articles will attest - and we're shitting on them all the same. I don't dispute that the Terms of Use require full disclosure. Rather, I'm saying that in this case they are harming the encyclopedia by getting rid of what appears to be a good editor who is committed to following our policies and creating good content. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure required. How the heck is this even a question? It's the Terms of Use. It is the legal agreement you agree to follow in order to use the site. It says you need to disclose. Your options are disclose or leave. Pick one. If you have a problem with those being the only options, you should be talking to the legal team, not to miscellaneous Wikipedians who are not in any way, shape or form, as a group or individually, qualified to introduce exceptions to a legal policy. This is, honestly, baffling. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have my own COI here, because I offered to be CorporateM's mentor through WP:Cooperation several years ago. I did so because CM was completely transparent about his intentions and (uniquely) asked for guidance on how to do this ethically. While our mentor/mentee relationship has been completed, I still feel a sense of responsibility (sort of as an older brother) for his growth in the project. During our association, the user has consistently demonstrated willingness to follow 5P, policies and guidelines and when seeing a contradiction, has always asked for guidance from the community, as he has in this thread. He has found his own way on the tightrope called the bright line, and is widely respected because he has not abused the privilege. It could be reasonably argued that CM wears the whitest hat of all paid editors on Wikipedia. I say all this not for any special handling, but to give context to his request in this thread. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Three issues here:
  • 1. In a way, Wikipedia's (and the foundation's) rules for COI and paid editing have grown up around CorporateM. The ToU FAQ linked above is fifteen months old; CM has been editing in a paid capacity for much longer. His request here today (as noted by Bilby and Alanscottwalker above) is about balancing the ToU need for personal privacy with the ToU need for full disclosure. This is important not just to CM, but to Wikipedia. If the community makes it impossible for an honest COI editor to function under the ToU, then we're encouraging such editors to participate without full disclosure (as I suspect the vast majority of paid advocates usually do). BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone is saying that CorporateM is a black hat or that he has bad intentions. But I also don't think the choice is between asking paid editors to disclose (and keep editing) or to lie to us (and keep editing). We can't stop paid editors lying to us, and I don't doubt that there are many doing so, but the ToU are in place so that if a paid editor does lie to us by failing to disclose the required information, we can revoke their ability to keep editing on that basis. That would be a loss to the project in CM's case, but the choice is the paid editor's: disclose, stop editing because you value your privacy more than your ability to accept money for edits, or don't disclose and know that when someone notices, you will lose your editing privileges and/or be restricted in some way (and thus lose at least some of your ability to accept money for edits). Either of the first two choices are entirely valid and I wouldn't blame anyone for making the second; the third choice is the road you go down if you decide you're not bound by the ToU we all agree to by using the site. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I disclose a great deal more than Corprate does and I do not accept money for editing. It is not a high bar we are requesting they meet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 2. There are many acceptable forms which balance the need for privacy with the need for disclosure. If I create a new alt account but wish to keep it off my user page for one legitimate reason or another, disclosing to a checkuser or arb is sufficient to stay within policy. When for whatever reason the foundation needs an editor to self-identify, we do it directly, not publicly. When we're dealing with BLP issues, an OTRS ticket is sufficient documentation the subject has given input. For copyright issues, an OTRS ticket can document permission from rights holders. In this case, I believe a disclosure statement (possibly through OTRS) stating complete information has been given to a responsible party (like ARBCOM or the WMF) could suffice to meet ToU. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
"As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions". "Telling arbcom" is not on that list; every single part of that list has one thing in common and that is that the disclosure is public. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 3. As to the conflict between a paid editor and MEDRS issues, I'll decline to advocate CM's position. I've been wondering when such an issue would arise. It was inevitable some client would put the paid editor in a position where the company's need for precision conflicted with existing medical documentation. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "need for precision conflicted with existing medical documentation"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my delay in responding. I may have used imprecise language myself. I intended to say something along the lines of "the client's desired language versus the language used in independent peer-reviewed studies". BusterD (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

What we are asking for is CorporateM to state who is paying him for the article Invisalign. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
He clearly identified the company as "Align Technology" in case you missed it. " have a conflict of interest with Invisalign in that I'll be working with Align Technology' and their PR agency to help improve the article " fully complies with the WMF FAQ statement - and was posted 9 January 2014. What more did you wish to have? Collect (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The name of the PR firm was requested. I guess the question is is this one of the PR firms that has been banned from Wikipedia? And if so is them hiring CorporateM okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Where the FAQ contradicts the Terms of Use, it's likely that the TOU applies, not the FAQ. The FAQs are really shitty, but the Terms of Use are pretty unambiguous in that you need to specify employer and client, not employer or client. WilyD 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

(EC)It really is irrelevant unless you want to try to change this part of the ToU in the specified manner (e.g. notify WMF first that you are trying to modify the ToU). The ToU exist and trump all other policies, and we can only try to change them in a very specific manner (e.g. not here). I don't believe that the ToU contradict our policy on Outing (it's voluntary whether to be a paid editor after all, the ToU only state a few minimum requirements of what you have to do if you want to be a paid editor). But if the Outing policy and the ToU did contradict each other, the Outing policy would have to change.
Taken out of context, it might seem that the ToU causes some strange situations involving other rules. But I believe that the ToU are a rock. They stop some things head-on. They also might get in the way of doing certain things, but can be avoided with a bit of contortion. If the contortion seems bizarre, that is not the fault of the ToU, it is the fault of the contortionist. If people fail to follow our rules, that is not a reason to revoke the rules.
CorporateM now has a choice. He can follow the advice overwhelmingly given here, or he can stop paid editing, or he might even be able to go to WMF legal and request a waiver. (I do believe that the WMF has the power to give such a waiver, or at least to ignore what they consider petty violations of the ToU; but I don't think they would give a waiver in this case). Going to WMF legal works both ways of course. Any editor could go to WMF legal and request that the ToU be enforced in this case, which likely would result in CorpM backing down, or even being banned. I won't make such a request, but there's nothing we can do to stop somebody else from doing it. It's CorpM's choice. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Uh.... Smallbones, quite obviously the recent change to the ToU is causing CorporateM to be forced into a choice. That's not a "choice" in the language used on this particular enWiki website, unless you count Hobson's choice. But in fact, the most likely outcome is that CorporateM will be forced -- not by choice but by the newly-revised ToU -- into creating a Delaware-based holding corporation, which does not disclose investors, and which is legally the property of the one-person PR firm which actually employs CorporateM. Thenceforth, the human known here as CorporateM can say, with a straight face, that they are "an employee of PrivacyProtectionShimCorp, working for client NameOfThisArticle" ... all without ever revealing their real-life identity. If you think this is hypothetical, please be aware that I've seen this happen all the time in political situations: major megadonor wants to contribute to the campaign, but FEC requires all donations above $200 to include name of megadonor and name of megadonor's employer, so instead of donating directly to campaign in question, megadonor has their lawyers fill out the paperwork for a shell-corp, and then the donation is made in the name of said shell-corp. Similarly, many (and I mean MANY MANY) presidential campaigns use "nonprofit foundations" with no donor-disclosure requirements, as a loophole for skirting FEC regulations. Wikipedia's new ToU is encouraging socking, either in the traditional sense of using multiple usernames without disclosing the linkage between them, or more likely in my estimation, in the shell-corp-as-a-privacy-protection-sockpuppet sense. As was noted by Dennis Brown, the new WMF regulation is (much like the FEC regulation) simply going to punish the good apples like CorporateM, whilst the bad apples -- who already have sockfarms and already regularly violate the ToU and the five pillars with impunity -- could care less about the latest wiki-rule. (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I do think that everybody would prefer that we take care of it ourselves. And we do have the power to enforce the WP:TOU since they are Wikipedia policy. Of course the WMF also has the power to enforce the ToU. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but we do not have the power to introduce an exemption, and that is what CorporateM is asking for. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure is required. According to the terms of use, this includes naming "employer, client, and affiliation". In the case at hand, the terms of use require CorporateM to disclose his employer (the PR firm in question), the client (which hired the PR firm), and his affiliation (as a paid editor). All three are required. The focus on "outing" is really misguided here. "Outing", in Wikipedia-speak, refers to the involuntary posting of personal information. In this case, it is completely voluntary for CorporateM to act as a paid editor. He can choose not to do so, in which case no personal information is required. Equating his ethical responsibility to disclose his employer with involuntary "outing" is just ridiculous.

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

  • Comment It would seem that full disclosure is required. However, it is not stated that this needs to be in public. Is it possible that {u|CorporateM}} could make such disclosure to WMF privately. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Questionable editing by CorporateM[edit]

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

WRT canvassing

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

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

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

  • Re: canvassing accusations. I replied on my talk page: "CorporateM works by asking editors to review and approve content he's suggested / written, so that he doesn't violate COI policies adding potentially promotional or problematic content by himself. I've reviewed many of his contributions these past years, and he has taken to directly asking me if the requested edits template is taking a long time (several months) or if something requires more than adding a single sentence. I don't find this canvassing, but rather asking for help to do something which our policies suggest he'd best avoid doing himself."
I read and review things he has requested I look at as a neutral party, and my previous interactions with him allow WP:APPNOTE exceptions ("On the user talk pages of concerned editors. ... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"; i.e. his possible COI areas). He asked me to write neutral content for the article ("I know it's a big ask, but I thought if you had some time to spend doing this last leg of the article, it would be a huge help to all parties involved.") similar to what I had done on a previous situation. That is all. It's not canvassing.
I refused to write said content not because of his COI (in fact, I didn't notice the link to User:CorporateM/Invisalign until now), but because I am uncomfortable writing about medical issues. I firmly believe that if editors interested in the article discuss things, they can work everything out. I have no comment on the appropriateness of reversions, on either side. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
This was discussed at the edit-warring board. The article said "As of 2005," whereas there were sources on the Talk page to say "As of 2014". I tagged "As of 2005" with a "needs updating" and mentioned on Talk that there were several sources that could be used to update this to "As of 2014". I'm sorry that I reverted, but I was very frustrated by Doc's extensive efforts to prevent me from even being able to communicate such a trivial issue and prevent any contributions from me that would alter the version he wrote.
Just to be clear nobody is contesting that the last systematic review was "inconclusive", but Doc's contributions make it sound like an alt-med article. A professional in a related field verified that dentists require a lower barrier of evidence than real medicine and the sources do say that Invisalign is proven effective for certain types of cases, but is less effective than braces in some other cases. Also, that review is ten years old. This is a product that relies heavily on computer technology and ten years ago people were using floppy drives still. I don't think it should be the only thing in the lead to summarize the entire body of medical literature.
There are literally only three MEDRS sources published in the last five years, per WP:MEDDATE.[1][2][3] If anyone wants to get involved in the article itself, I'd really encourage you to take a look at those sources. Since there are literally just three sources, it wouldn't be hard to just read three articles, add their contents to the article and get a sense of what's representative of all three. CorporateM (Talk) 16:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Y, Yu; Al., Et (November 9, 2012). "Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment. - PubMed". NCBI. Retrieved August 10, 2015. 
  2. ^ Malik, Ovals; McMullin, Allbhe; Waring, David (April 2013). "Invisible Orthodontics Part 1: Invisalign" (PDF). Dental Update. PMID 23767109. 
  3. ^ Kuncio, DA (March 2014). "Invisalign: current guidelines for effective treatment.". The New York state dental journal 80 (2): 11–4. PMID 24851387. 
So you are stating that dentistry does not need to follow "evidence based" science? That when a systematic review concludes that there is no high quality evidence to support something, because that something is dentistry it is no longer significant and we should just include what "expert opinion" has claimed?
Alt med practitioners have also argued that they should not be held to evidence based standards but I disagree with you that the majority of dental practitioners would make this request for their profession. Some dental measures are supported by the highest quality evidence such as powered toothbrushes.[4] Stating when a measure does not have high level support is something we do equally for medical, dental and alt med topics. Just because something does not have high level support does not mean that we should not do it. But we should at least know it does not have high level evidence supporting it when we do.
Corporate is attempting to misuse WP:MEDDATE. In a poorly research areas such as this we still include older high quality sources. We specifically say "A newer source which is of lower quality does not necessarily supersede an older source of higher quality."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe if someone compares the recent medical literature to the article they would find that the article needs further expansion to meet GA requirements for comprehension and is unfair. I want to encourage people to actually read the sources and make bold edits. We need more editors to get involved in the article in a sustained and in-depth manner. I don't oppose the inclusion of the 2005 item, which is mentioned in current medical literature from 2014 (hence "As of 2014" rather than "As of 2005"). I disagree with it being the only thing included to the exclusion of all else. I don't think the sources require a medical professional to interpret. CorporateM (Talk) 16:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

He has a very strong opinion about paid editing and most of his editing on this page appears to be driven by that. Again, I want to encourage folks to read the sources and edit boldly! There is so much emphasis on wanting to prove that paid editing is bad or this myth that I'm trying to censor the 2005 item. I want to encourage editors as strongly as I possibly could to just read the sources. Please read the sources! Read them! Please!
Edit boldly, add their information objectively and completely. Then from your opinion after reading the sources for yourself. This shouldn't be a competition for whos reputation is better than the other. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Before this recent interaction I did not really have an opinion on disclosed paid editing. Your attempts to dissuade me from editing the article are not appreciated.[5]
That you state that "most of his editing on this page appears to be driven" by his position on paid editing is bollocks. In my initially edits I added a Cochrane review that was missing. I added the most recent systematic review at that time. I added a 2014 review of the literature. At the same time I removed a bunch of primary sources. This is what I do on thousands of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
For reference all the MEDRS sources published in the last five years are here:
I can also provide some older ones, if you feel there is not enough current medical literature and we need to dig older. CorporateM (Talk) 17:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
CM, you're representing yourself here as the only neutral person, when the opposite is true. There are competence issues – understanding certain terms, how to read medical papers, how to use MEDRS, etc. Doc James is trying to make sure the article reflects the high-quality sources. Sarah (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I just do not get it. I mentioned a new systematic review that come out in 2014 above and yet CorporateM still claims their are only three reviews? The have ignored my explanation of the difference between a literature review and a systematic review. I have brought up his misuse of WP:MEDDATE which others commented on here and yet they continue just as before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside the issues of sourcing, I'm shocked by the spectacle of CorporateM repeatedly reverting Doc James on an article where CorporateM has a financial conflict of interest. According to our guidelines, he should not be editing the article at all, much less revert-warring with an unpaid volunteer. I would have blocked CorporateM if I had seen this happening in real time, and for the avoidance of doubt, I will block him the next time I see something like this happen. It's completely unacceptable. MastCell Talk 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Citation for "should not be editing the article at all", please. Even WP:NOPAY says "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral", not "you are forbidden from ...". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
All three of these sources are currently used in the article and nobody has contested their MEDRS compliance. Though someone reading them may have to look up a term or two, they are easy to understand. @MastCell: Please accept my apologies for edit-warring. I was very frustrated by the situation. I will not do it again. It was my understanding that the benefit of COI compliance was AGF, which I did not receive. CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have long had the same concern as Doc James about CorporateM's practice of asking individual editors to review proposed edits. The way this goes is, a request is made, and sometimes an editor decides to implement the proposed edit -- and sometimes the editor decides not to implement the proposed edit. The result is that if CorporateM asks enough editors, eventually he finds someone willing to implement the proposed edit. This business of asking for favours really needs to stop. Form consensus via discussion on the article talk page, and if consensus is present then CorporateM can use the request-edit template. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Another issue that has concerned me is mixing volunteer and paid roles. I've seen CM begin work on an article as a volunteer, make edits of interest to the subject (reverting their COI edits or making edits that they like), then come into contact with the subject off-wiki and start editing on their behalf for pay. This is a difficult practice to negotiate ethically. I would like to see CM not accept a paid role once he has worked on an article as a volunteer. Sarah (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

WMF's position[edit]

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

Response left on Philippe's talk page by Jacob Rogers. Probably not the answer you were hoping for, CorporateM. And sadly, I think the answer will result in more and more paid editors using socks and deceptive techniques. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Jrogers (WMF) has confirmed that "the Terms of Use are pretty clear on this one. You need to disclose your 'employer, client, and affiliation.' If those three things are different (say you are employed by PR company X, your client is person Y, and you are affiliated with company Z) you would need to disclose all three." [6] Sarah (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not buy the arguement that we should not require proper discloser because if we do people will simply sock. One could apply this sort of rational to all sorts of rules. For example why disallow socking when we have no mechanism to prevent it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say to ignore TOU (and clearly so), I said that increased socking is surely one of the outcomes, whether we like it or not, as it makes it more difficult to be a COI editor in a legitimate way. I'm no doctor, but I've gone 1500 SPI blocks behind me, including 300 in one case alone having to do with with paid editing. The reaction by those with power was enough to make me stop working the cases altogether. We can demand all we want, but it is foolish to pretend there is no negative consequences from the policy, just as it is foolish to think the Foundation really cares about COI socking. Dennis Brown - 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Dennis Brown yes agree there is a concern of increased socking. And yes we do have a fair number of paid editors that use through away accounts to write promotional articles. Do we know how many legitimate COI editors we have? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is a template of some kind that they can use, or would use, so to be honest, I don't think we know how many declared paid editors we have with any precision. The same with socks. I'm conservatively guessing 20k accounts created, but that is probably too low by a mile. Dennis Brown - 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that this is the end of the line on this question. The community certainly can help enforce Wikipedia policies, and there is no question that WP:TOU are policy. Corp has gone over our heads on this (which is his right) and the answer has come back the same. It's time to invoke WP:PAYTALK and end this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to enforce this, so be it. But more problem is that if we create an environment where it is far more favourable to engage in covert paid editing than it is to try to work within the ToU, we create a situation where we have no hope of ever managing paid editing. Prohibition on its own doesn't work. Control should have been the target. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Control-rather-than-prohibition is the point of the disclosure requirement (at least to my interpretation): we can't stop you from paid editing, and we're not necessarily seeking to ban paid editing, but if you're going to edit for pay, we require you provide us with enough information to neutrally evaluate your paid edits when you make them. If you follow this requirement, your company can send (competent) paid editors to your article and know they're not doing anything wrong. If you don't follow this requirement, your employee will find themselves blocked and you will find yourself with PR disaster on your hands. There's very little potential loss in disclosing a paid editing COI - sure, your edits might get reverted if they're bad quality, but they're just about as likely to be reverted anyway if you fly under the radar, because our patrollers are like that - and a lot of potential loss in being caught not disclosing one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It should absolutely be that way. But no one has adequately explained why the identity of the PR Firm acting as a go-between is relevant, when the fact that the subject is paying the editor for their work is fully and explicitly acknowledged. That is the disclosure that seems most important, and it does not appear to have been lacking here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
How do we know if it's irrelevant, if we don't know what the other company/s involved in this is/are? We can't fully evaluate the content he (or any paid editor) is working on to see whether it's neutral with regard to the people paying him to do it if we don't know who the people paying him to do it are. Quite possibly it's irrelevant in this case and nothing CM has done has anything to do with, let's call it Jane Doe, Inc. who's the connection between places like Invisilign and him. But until we have that disclosure, we simply have no way to know if that's the case or not, so we need paid editors to disclose these connections so we're able to identify the cases where it does turn out to be relevant. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • I'd like you to be explicit about what you considering disclosing "more" to mean. "More" isn't really the word I would have picked here so much as "everything the ToU require me to disclose", since "more" implies "more than before...but maybe not all". Your agreements with your clients are your business, and you can word it to them however you like, but I would also point out that we're asking you to disclose the names of companies, not, like, stockholders' home addresses. If you work for "Joe RealName, Inc.", then yeah, I guess that technically requires disclosing their personal information, but generally we're looking for "I work for XYZ PR Agency, on behalf of MegaCorp Y", not "here's my bloodtype and mother's maiden name." And again, the agreement here is that if you wish to be given extra trust by the community and allowed to profit off of its work, then you are required to make those disclosures. If you don't wish to profit off the projects, then you're free to be 100% as anonymous as you wish to be. Similarly, companies that sponsor paid editors must decide whether it's more important to them to tweak content to their liking and have disclosed paid editing associated with their articles, or to stay hands-off with content and remain unassociated with Wikipedia editors. Both are ok, but it's their choice they will need to make. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm confused about these references to outing. Align Technology, which makes Invisalign, is a large company. It employs a PR firm. That firm has hired you to rewrite the article. This is business, and you're a PR professional who has written off-wiki about your paid work on Wikipedia. Why would naming the PR firms that pay you entail outing someone? Sarah (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, the PR firm is just a single person. Given the contentious nature of the discussion, I believe there is a high probability of her being harassed/trolled off-wiki if disclosed. The whole "big company" thing is a big misnomer. I am also just a single person that does paid editing part-time. I'm a real human being and so is she. CorporateM (Talk) 19:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Forgive the statement of the obvious, but why can someone who wants to know the PR firm not find out for themselves? It took me all of fifteen seconds on Google to find out who the PR firm in question is. I don't understand the need for secrecy here. ‑ iridescent 19:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM, if someone has set up a one-person PR agency and called it "John Smith Ltd," that was their choice. There's no evidence that supplying the firm's name would lead to harassment, and disclosure has been required for over a year. Also, you're writing as though you're a Wikipedian who does some occasional paid work, but you're a PR professional and have always been here as a paid editor. If some of the firms who hire you prefer not to be named, the solution is not to take the work from those companies. Sarah (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course there's no evidence of that. Evaluating the claim would require disclosing the name of the firm, which is precisely what they are trying to avoid - because that would OUT at least the editor and the firm's principal. And, quite frankly, given some of the comments here? No, I don't think that off-wiki harassment is an unreasonable thing to fear. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what is being claimed here. Some of the PR firms that Invisalign has worked with can be found on Google. They are established companies. CM naming the PR firm that hired him is not going to out CM. Sarah (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
How would you know? As per below, the company name might be enough to do it. But even if not, it's trivial in many countries to determine who a company's principals are, directors or shareholders or President or whoever. And just like that, his real name and address will show up on some BADSITE and he's outed. It might not be enough of a concern to warrant changes to the Terms of Use, or to policy in other ways, but to say it's not a concern is laughable and offensive. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I think this misses the point. If his top priority is to avoid being "outed", then he shouldn't be accepting paid editing jobs. If someone is willing to cash a PR agency's check to edit here, then they should be willing to disclose the name of that PR agency. You can't edit for pay and then stand on anonymity to avoid meeting the disclosure requirements. That's a perversion of this site's commitment to anonymity, which was never intended to protect undisclosed paid editing by PR employees. MastCell Talk 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I was being dense. I saw an editor who disclosed that there was a conflict and seemed, largely, to be doing things the right way (relying on talk ages, etc). I don't get why the name of the PR firm matters at all - the conflict of interest is the subject's, not the go-between. This editor accepted the work and made a good faith effort to comply with their understanding of policy - an understanding that seems to have been flawed, if the consensus here is as clear as it seems. If we intend to require paid editors to reveal their true identities, and thus open themselves up to all of the off-site harassment that our esteemed community is famous for, then we need to be clear about that. Or just ban paid editing, which will not actually end it but just relegate it to editors who can sock effectively, who can be subtle about their edits and avoid suspicion, and who can keep their fucking mouths shut. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Per "so much resistance to using anonymous data like device IDs, IP addresses and analytics to expose sock networks due to privacy concerns" I was not aware there was that much resistance to this. Is this not what checkusers do? Our primary goal here is to write a neutral encyclopdia. We must balance privacy against information required to effectively write said encyclopdia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Disclose more" is not specific. The Terms of Use are clear on what you are required to disclose. Either agree that you will disclose that - specifically that, not "more than you currently do" - or this is not a proposed solution. Let me be clear, here; anything other than what the ToU requires is an exemption to the ToU. The community is not qualified nor permitted to grant you that exception. If "more" violates the ToU it's against reason and isn't satisfactory. Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@ CorporateM. When one finds one is trying to swim up hill against a down flowing river of thick (and well thought out) treacle – it could mean, that one is attempting to perform one's PR on the wrong sort of blog. Wikipedia articles - are not the drones you are looking for advertorials.--Aspro (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

CorporateM, just to be clear, no one has requested real names. The requirement is that you disclose the name of the PR company that hired you and its client. That will usually be Acme PR and the name of the company the article is about. It will only be in less common cases where no companies are involved that a real name might be exposed, but if you make this clear to the client in advance, it shouldn't be a problem. Sarah (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how a voluntary topic ban from a single article solves the problem, endorsed by the community and confirmed by the WMF, that you have to fully disclose the name of the PR firm as well as the company. You've already edited the article on their behalf, so how does an ex post facto ban fulfill these requirements? Plus, I'm not sure that you're taking on board that you must disclose the information all the time, for every article you are paid to write or edit. Finally, I believe that what you're asking for is essentially an exemption, and the WMF has clearly stated above that we, the community, cannot give you an exemption, only they can. Given all this, I do not see how your suggestion can conceivably be tenable. BMK (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned that CorporateM seems to have gotten a takeaway from this conversation that's very different than what (I think) people were actually saying. He's edited his userpage to say "In August 2015, there was consensus at ANI that Wikipedia's Terms of Use prohibit a sponsored editor from contributing anonymously and I was required to disclose personally identifiable information.". That's...not what this discussion, or the WMF, have concluded. A paid editor needn't disclose their name or other such "personally identifiable information"; what they're required to do is disclose who's paying for the edits they're making, all along the line. I'm actually concerned now that, because CM is so active in paid editing-related discussions, new paid editors are going to look him up, read his interpretation of this discussion on his userpage, and think that they do need to disclose their name, address, or whatever. As an oversighter, I'd rather not have to clean up after that mess. CorporateM, would you please consider re-wording what you've added to your userpage today to make it clear that editors are not required to disclose their own personal details, but rather the "corporate" details of those paying for the edits? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, CM. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The only way that CorporateM's userpage statement can be made to jibe with this discussion is if the one-man PR operation he is attempting very strenuously not to disclose the name of is his own, and bears his name - thus disclosing it would be outing himself. If that is so, then it was exceedingly stupid of him to name his agency after himself, but that deed is sone, and the name needs to be disclosed nevertheless, per WMF, TOU, and the consensus of this discussion. BMK (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why you think the company would need to be named after CorporateM. In a number of countries open record laws mean it's often possible to find out who's a shareholder or director of even small businesses. It's sometimes possible to use various mechanisms to try and set up a company with no public connection to you, even in such countries, but while some people may have good reasons for doing so, more commonly it's actually a sign the person is up to no good, so the lack of such isn't particularly surprising. Even without the use of public records, it's fairly common for someone to disclose they are the owner of a certain business in circumstances where it's expected (like when they're looking for clients). And again, companies which don't do so will often be viewed suspiciously. Now the info which may completely out CorporateM wouldn't be on wikipedia, so anyone mentioning it here should be blocked for outing, but it's not clear CorporateM was referring to that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, CM has said that there are three companies involved in this: Align Technology, which makes Invisalign; a PR firm hired by Align Technology, which CM says is a one-woman operation; and CM's PR firm. He says that his own PR firm was hired by the one-woman company, but he won't name it, so we don't know who paid CM to have Invisalign rewritten or why they wanted the rewrite. The question now is what to do with the article. Sarah (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
So that CorporateM doesn’t lead unpaid WP editors into becoming unpaid PR consultants for his client, we should just delete all his edits and let him start a fresh. He created this issue. As a self proclaimed professional, he should at least familiarised himself with our T&C first and not leave us with the problem of sorting it out for him. --Aspro (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It would be far safer to delete every article he has ever edited. Best to be sure. Don't forget the siteban. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Extremely opposedto nuking-from-orbit-type suggestions. Although there have been some specific problems mentioned about specific edits on specific articles, I don't believe that the consensus here is for anything as extreme as deleting all of CM's edits, or for site banning him. Just the opposite, in fact, I see a lot of people talking about the good CM has done for the encyclopedia in his non-paid edits, and, in general, about the quality of his paid editing, especially compared to the dreck we get from some PR reps. So radical solutions wouldn't seem to be the answer. However, CM still must follow the terms of use, and if he refuses to do so, an indef block (which I presume would come from WMF, since it's their rule) would be appropriate until he agrees to do so.
    What I am confused by (once again) is why CM's response to this brouhaha was (at least as of this morning when I read his userpage) to out his RL name (which makes it child's play to find his personal PR website) and withdraw from voluntary (i.e. non-paid) editing of the encyclopedia, since this "solution" has solved nothing. If CM continues to get paid for editing he's going to have top disclose all the company names involved, and since he has (in effect) outed his own company name, and the name of the one-woman PR firm takes mere minutes to find online (so one wonders why he was so adamant about protecting it, and his userpage statement seems to be saying that he was protecting the name of his own firm), so what CM has done doesn't appear to me to be a step forward at all -- or else I'm totally misunderstanding what his intention is. BMK (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, the only firm I'm aware of that has done PR for Align Technology is Gold PR, but that's not a one-woman company. [7] Sarah (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well his website is linked from his userpage, so it's not like you have to search to find it. Reading his userpage more carefully, unless I misunderstood, the reason why he doesn't want to continue voluntary editing on certain pages (not the entire encyclopaedia) is because he feels without the protection of anonymity, he risks too much effect on his real life from his voluntary efforts. (And once he disclosed the company name, the nature of the company meant his real name would be known, so there was little point hiding it.) So from his POV, it does solve something, it removes the, in his opinion, excessive risk he'll be harmed solely due to voluntary efforts. He may still have some degree of risk due to his paid work, I presume he's willing to accept that risk as an expected part of his job. Similarly, the risk for other areas is I presume in his opinion low enough that he's willing to accept it. As for his failure to disclose the PR firm/s who hired him on behalf of other companies in the past, I do agree it's up to the WMF to decide whether they want to ban him for it. Perhaps they will, perhaps they'll feel given the apparent misunderstanding of the requirement, according to him partially a result of some previous communication with the WMF, and his existing partial disclosure, they'll let it be provided he practices full disclosure from now on. If they chose the later, and the community here accepts that, then it seems we have a solution, perhaps not a happy one for many, but sufficient. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • CorporateM, I appreciate that you are a good guy trying to do the right thing. So was Greg Kohs, but that's another story for another day. What the TOU seeks is transparency with respect to paid editing. So, yeah, who are you, who is she, and let uninvolved editors (who are not assholes trying to drum paid editing out of existence — take a number if this applies to you) review your work dispassionately to make sure that no spam has been committed. Does it increase risk of reprisal by said assholes? Yes, sadly — let us deal with them if problems arise. But the rules are very simple: disclose fully, openly, honestly. best, —Tim Davenport, 5010 NW Shasta, Corvallis, OR 97330 /// 541-745-7862 //// Carrite (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem is we actually have really little ability to actual deal with them. We aren't some sort of criminal gang in a lawless country who can kill anyone who does something we don't like. All we can really do is ban the stuff from here (which doesn't help when it's elsewhere), offer legal support (which doesn't negate most of the negative effects on your life whatever it is has) and express sympathy (see earlier). Different people may have different tolerances and perceptions of these risks. It seems CorporateM is willing to disclose the info, albeit with reductions in voluntary work given their perception of the risks that come from such work without anonymity. However they're still reluctant to disclose the PR firms that hired them to work on behalf of the disclosed companies. I presume this is because they're reluctant to expose these people to the possible risks of such disclosures (which frankly we have even less ability to affect), when then weren't made aware that this would be happening when they initially hired CorporateM's firm (unlike future firms who will be made aware). If this doesn't change, the WMF should decide if this is acceptable. I think most of us agree that CM and any firms hiring him should have paid more attention to the TOS, but that still leaves open the question of what to do now. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
For some of the folks puzzled by CM not retroactively disclosing the name of some of the PR firms involved, this may be outside of the realm of their personal experience, but it is very likely that this is due to contractual terms he had signed with his clients including confidentiality requirements. Which means that if he's trying to do the right thing, he's currently talking to them to rectify the situation in order to comply. That takes time. The random assorted ANI crowd is ill-equipped to handle this, which should be, at this point, a WMF matter. MLauba (Talk) 09:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
As an aside, if there's any way we could become a lawless gang who can kill anyone who does something we don't like, I'd be all for that—​with appropriate policies and guidelines in place, of course. EEng (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Carrite: I disagree that Kohs was a good guy trying to do the right thing. He saw Wikipedia and his first thought appears to have been: "how can I make money from this". I do not think CorporateM is the same. Apart fomr anythign else, I don't see CorporateM trying to get the project's charitable status revoked if he doesn't get what he wants. I do not see the two as similar. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
If you actually do the digging, Greg came up with the idea of paid editing — taking money to help those not capable or not willing to navigate the markup language or the culture to establish pages — and was rewarded for his efforts to find out how to do things the right way with a ban at the hands of Jimmy Wales himself. This has evolved into a Hatfields v. McCoys feud with JW that has lasted for going on a decade and will finally end when one of them eats one too many corndogs and croaks it. It was a lost opportunity. Kohs back then and CorporateM now are exactly the same in the way they are trying to do the right thing and bumping into immovable objects in the process. Of course, Kohs has been driven underground — those who think he doesn't edit at WP are idiots. He does and you don't notice because he minds things like sourcing and NPOV. As long as we have instant accounts for anyone with a click of the fingers, this is always going to be an option for paid editors who want to do the right thing but can't because of the blinkered dipshits who want to drive paid editing away with a stick. News flash: you can either be reasonable and negotiate content with declared paid editors or they will move underground and you won't have the opportunity to negotiate. You wanna change that world? End IP editing and make registration at least a little difficult — I'm on that train. Until then: a little reality, please. Kohs is a good guy. I like him. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Corporate should not be forced to identify his employer - you say the issue is he is editing on behalf of someone else so therefore he must disclose who that is. Why? People who edit on behalf of themselves do not have to tell you who they are or what their motives are, so what difference does it make? As long as he discloses a conflict of interest on that subject, his employer and the company that hired are worthless. Demanding this information as policy is only going to result with paid editors who, unlike Corporate, do not ever reveal a COI. Is that what you want? Be realistic. МандичкаYO 😜 12:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh for goodness sake, your argument is silly. Read the TOU, please. BMK (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The TOU are laughable. Say I'm a paid editor. I will disclose I work for Acme Public Relations and we were hired by John Smith and Jane Doe. There you go. It's bullshit but I've now complied with the TOU! МандичкаYO 😜 07:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


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

  • Proposed. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, there's nothing wrong with his having recused himself from future edits, except that it doesn't solve the problem which he himself raised at the start of the thread, and he still hasn't done the required full disclosure for the edits on the article he's already done. Given that, I'm not sure that closure is where we're at. CM brought his question here hoping for one answer, got another he didn't want, and then "solved" the problem by actions which do not appear to have fulfilled the requirements of that answer. I'm confused by that, and would like to hear more from him as to what the rationale for his "solution" is, and what he plans to do going forward. I'm not denigrating his contributions to the project, nor am I accusing him of anything nefarious, I simply do not understand why he did what he did, and why he isn't doing what seems (at least to me) to be the clear requirement for an editor in his position. BMK (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    I simply do not understand why he did what he did, and why he isn't doing what seems (at least to me) to be the clear requirement for an editor in his position - most probably because he is bound by contractual terms that prevent him from doing so, which would mean he needs time to amend those with his clients, and may not be at liberty to discuss it with the ANI peanut gallery until it is done. MLauba (Talk) 17:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    If so, it perfectly illustrates the problem with paid editing: conflicting loyalties. In any case, what is to prevent him from saying exactly what you just said? BMK (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
True, but that does not mean we have to play the game of immoveable object v. irresistable force - CorporateM now understands the issue and will fix the issue for this article by walking away. Problem solved, IMO. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The policy is stupid. If the edit would otherwise be allowed under the rules, who cares if it's being done for someone else? Apparently entirely too many people with nothing better to do. Jtrainor (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse (as uninvolved users were requested)- there's no way to resolve the issue otherwise, and the rest will work itself out. The reason we're not a suitable source for citation for papers is because things are constantly changing here. We just don't like for it to take time; we want what we want and we want it NOW!! (or yesterday). Therefore, any issues there are now will work themselves out over time. We seem to think that what we write is set in stone, always accurate, and should be relied upon as legitimate advice, when in reality we don't make that claim and never have. MSJapan (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No Endorse - I am uninvolved in this particular mess, so I'll give my views, which I have expressed elsewhere. The Terms of Use are the ultimate law here. Paid editing is an abomination and I don't buy the argument that we have to endure it or the paid editors will go underground. If they do, the WMF should apply enforcement. Is this an encyclopedia, or a Public Relations website? Jusdafax 10:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Why is paid editing an abomination? The idea here is to build an encyclopedia, and that encyclopedia should abide by WP:5P, including neutrality. If paid editing helps towards that goal (including the neutrality aspect) then it is a benefit, not a hindrance. Money is changing hands, but our encyclopedia gets extra stuff for free. What is an abomination, of course, is POV pushing, marketing, and attempts by companies and individuals to falsely paint themselves in a better light than is backed up by reliable sources. As long as the COI editor discloses fully who he or she is working for, and what the nature of the COI is, on every page edited in a COI manner, so that other editors can monitor it, then I have no problem with it.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes and No. I'm certainly fine with endorsing the topic ban from Invisalign, but I don't think that being instituted actually provides closure regarding the topic of the original thread, which was "Does CM have to disclose what the ToU say he has to disclose with regard to the work he has done/is doing?" Now, he's said that going forward, he will provide all relevant disclosures, so that part of it can be put to bed, but I am still a little concerned about the lack of disclosures thus far. Not believing the ToU applied to you is not an excuse to not have followed them, nor is it an excuse for not going back to bring your work up to the ToU's disclosure standards. I would vastly prefer that CM go back and disclose all required disclosure details to any paid edits he has made since the ToU were instituted and/or they began to apply to him. On the other hand, I understand that he may have mistakenly given privacy guarantees to his clients, and that to provide these disclosures now may harm his business. I dislike the idea of real-world harming someone who was trying to play by our rules, even if they messed it up.

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

It wrong to suppose that CorportaeM has been "Not believing the ToU applied" to him. CorporateM explained in April "I explicitly and knowingly do not comply with the requirement to disclose any marketing agencies involved, when there is one.". See User talk:CorporateM/Archive 20#COI declarations and ToU. Thincat (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I...what...ok, wow. That puts a different spin on things; I have been operating on the assumption that - and CM's initial statement in this thread certainly implied that - he believed he wasn't required to disclose what he wasn't disclosing. I'm much less willing to extend amnesty to someone who consciously chose to not follow what they knew to be the rules. If he was writing contracts guaranteeing confidentiality while knowing he was misleading his clients about Wikipedia's Terms of Use, it's not the community's responsibility to bend over backwards to keep him from the consequences of his own choices. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM, can you comment here, please? Sarah (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I believe somewhere in this string I explained that I knew I was violating the technical letter of the Terms of Use, but the feedback I got from Wikipedians and a WMF staffer when the ToU were created was that common sense was triumphant; that since my disclosure did not fall under "deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation" that the ToU were intended to prevent, that this was fine. Astroturfing firms have sometimes used privacy arguments to justify their tactics and I have always argued that there is a way to protect privacy/confidentiality, while also avoiding the deception the ToU are referring to. It seems sentiment has changed.
It is very frustrating to participate in a discussion in which I have strong views, but discussion is not going my way and I have no intention in endlessly arguing in my defense. I'm moving on. CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't understand why Corporate M is so worried about his identity being disclosed. Unless I'm hallucinating, he's attended WMF sponsored events under his real name, and I'm pretty sure he's openly written about and been on podcasts (such as Wikipedia Weekly) under his real name. I can't imagine what harm would come from requiring him to disclose? Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Kevin, the issue is that CM doesn't want to say who is paying him to edit. CorporateM, thank you for the response. The problem is that you're working on articles (e.g. Yelp) after saying there is a COI but without specifying the nature of it. You've said elsewhere that this might mean you're being paid, or are doing what you've called pro bono work, or have some other association, so it leaves people none the wiser. The question here is whether you're willing to say who is paying you to work on the articles you accept payment for. Sarah (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, yeah, I misread the initial worry as his name versus his client's name. Disclosure of client's names certainly seem to be necessary, especially since presumably politicians will be involved in paid editing sooner or later (to the extent that they aren't already,) it really does seem that disclosure of the actual client is required. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kevin Gorman: The case in question is an example where I disclosed having a financial connection with the article-subject's PR agency, but didn't identify the agency by name. Another example was when I was hired by a family member of the BLP and I said I was hired by "a concerned relative", but didn't identify them by name. In another case, I am working with the article-subject's daughter who is handling her affairs and I don't feel her daughter's involvement is something Wikipedians need to know. In all cases a COI is disclosed, just not the names of individuals. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM: But that's the thing: what you feel and don't feel isn't the operative point here. By editing Wikipedia, and accepting payment for doing so, you are saying that you will abide by the Terms of Use, which you acknowledge require you to disclose the things you're choosing not to reveal. If someone wants to pay you to edit Wikipedia, they need to be ok with having their identity revealed accordingly, and I would assume they know this, because an ethical paid editor would be informing their clients what is required of them. The disclosure is not optional; it's not a judgment call you get to make. Either you abide by the ToU or you don't use the website, and the more you go on about how your feelings and preferences overrule the ToU, the less it sounds like you're interested in playing by the (quite lenient, given that they don't prohibit you profiting off the project or bar you from editing articles) rules. You can't just say "Ok guys, I'm done with this discussion, I'm tired of talking", because the point you're leaving on is "I don't have to abide by the ToU if I don't think it's necessary, and I don't happen to think it's necessary a lot of the time. But I'll totally do it sometimes, probably,", and if that's the only ground you're willing to give - that you'll probably abide by the ToU in the future, if you think it's relevant and you haven't promised your client otherwise - it's not enough for me, for one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)As I understand it, he disclosed the ultimate client, but did not/would not disclose the name of the agency though whom the work was contracted. His stance seems to have been that since the ultimate source of the money was disclosed, the name of the middleman was not relevant and would not in fact be demanded, even if technically required. He apparently had some grounds to think that, and it is IMO not an outlandish position. But in this thread it was not accepted. DES (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't about one case or about exposing individuals. CM's practice is to say that he has a COI, without specifying the nature of it. He then proceeds to rewrite the article, and asks other editors to copy the drafts over, so that whole articles are being written on behalf of the subjects. This is especially tricky when dealing with medical issues. Respecting the spirit of the bright line, and naming who is paying for the edits, would help a lot. At Yelp, for example: is someone paying, and if so, is it Yelp or is it a PR company? We need this information for each article. (Pinging Coretheapple, who has been editing there.) Sarah (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether the rule was well thought through or well written, it remains quite clear, all three must be disclosed. While most normal people would understand the conflict if you said I'm working for X while editing X's product article means you may well be biased to its good. And the normal people also would understand if you said I'm working for X's (un-named) PR company doing the same thing to mean the same thing. But alas, the standards for disclosure are aimed to essentially make it virtually impossible for you to remain anonymous under your circumstances, so perhaps your effort would be better served not editing where you're conflicted and not fully disclosed or work to change the policy before continuing. For whatever reason, the powers that be want full disclosure beyond what a normal person would probably need to assume/impute the bias/conflict, so you either play by those rules or use someone else's website. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just noticed the ping. Yes, CorporateM has to abide by the TOU, and I don't recall specifically how good his disclosure there has been. His behavior on the talk page there has irritated me because he has been off-the-charts aggressive in advancing the company's interests on the talk page, bringing RfC after RfC and generally behaving in a manner extremely wearisome to those of us who don't have a COI but are simply interested (in my case mildly) by the subject matter. CM actually invited me to that page and I assume he regrets having done so as my patience with him there has reached its limits. But to get back to this topic, he has to disclose his employer, including the name of the PR company employing him, and not wikilawyer about it. Either he is transparent or he doesn't edit the article. Coretheapple (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And your comment, Core, perfectly illustrates why paid editing must be ended and rooted out with determination. A paid editor, bank accounts augmented by special interest cash, has all the time and energy in the world to game Wikipedia with every tactic permissible to achieve their clients' goals, while protected by "Assume good faith" rules that are rendered absurd by fiduciary renumeration. Or to put it more bluntly, paid editors are, by definition, bribed to wear volunteer editors down. Corporate M simply needs to, as you say, come clean. Since to do so threatens his livelihood, he will not. My patience is not only exhausted by such self-evident COI editing, it is also strained to the limit by the failure of editors here to demand that the hard work of volunteer editors is protected from mercenaries pushing public relations propaganda. This failure to put an end to the flood of slanted editing is a grave danger to the concept of a truly free source of honest information, the core goal of Wikipedia, and threatens to drive away volunteer editors, leaving behind tireless foot soldiers for monied interests. Jusdafax 10:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - He had the class to just walk away, surely we can as well. His intention wasn't to slide by with any wrong doing, he said he now gets it, lets not flog him. Dennis Brown - 23:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Best practice for Paid Contribution Disclosure[edit]

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

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

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

A lot of editors prefer that paid editors list the work they have done for pay on their user page, in one place. In my view, that is where the primary disclosure should happen. The {{Connected contributor}} template has a parameter for "otherlinks" and what I generally put there is a link to the disclosure (so that would be a link to the dif where the paid editor disclosed that particular "client, employer and affiliation". The ToU are not rocket science. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, I'm currently working on this template. If anyone has anything they wish for me to add, drop me a note on my talk and I'll see if I can pop it into the code. Mdann52 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hounding by Hijiri 88[edit]

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

Just for purposes of clarification, this seems to be a request for a topic-ban from Nichiren Buddhism related content and pages with an additional extension of the ban to the Nippon Kaigi page? John Carter (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@ John Carter Yes! I do not think that anybody owns an article and since I initiated the one on Nippon Kaigi and since I believe the editor in question actions are aimed against me I’d hate to see the work and effort by editors on Nippon Kaigi to be affected just because an editor holds grudges against me. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Catflap08 You both edit the same pages and the same topics, as we all know. How is it WP:HOUND exactly? It seems Hijiri88 is just editing those pages still. МандичкаYO 😜 07:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: I think the above statement might be a bit perhaps oversimplified and not necessarily supported by the evidence. From my own, admittedly weak, memory, given the time elapsed, I don't remember having ever seen Hijiri particularly editing content related to Nichiren Buddhism until the argument at Kenji Miyazawa between Catflap and Hijiri. While I myself have not been the most active in those pages myself, I only remember seeing Hijiri showning up since then. Certainly, I think a review of the statistics indicate that Hijiri did not edit the Soka Gakkai talkpage until August 16 as seen here and he has yet to edit the article itself at all, at least under the name Hijiri88. That being the case, I think there reason to believe that, in terms of at least this article, there is some reason to think that Hijiri88 may be stalking/hounding Catflap, who has been involved in discussion and editing of that particular article for some years now. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Oversimplified like, say, slyly leaving out a huge chunk of timeline in order to imply that I was blocked for 72 hours for my edits to the Kokuchukai article, when in fact what happened was an extremely dubious string of events that saw an ANI proposal to dissolve the IBAN slipping onto a user talk page and me inadvertently typing the name "Catflap08" on said user talk page, when Catflap08 had previously gotten away with writing extensive criticism of me ("the other user") on his own talk page? Please could someone other than me and Wikimandia notice that Catflap08 has been lying through his teeth about the nature of this dispute for months on end, now, which is probably what led to the confusion that our "common ground" from which we should probably both, at this point, be TBANned is "Japanese culture"? This is getting utterly ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting you have broken the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 06:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh is that what I did? AlbinoFerret, if that's what you genuinely think my above comment then you need to read WP:LAWYER and seriously consider your place in this community. My using Catflap08's name on a user talk page discussion of the IBAN was a dubious violation at worst because (a) Catflap08 had done the same thing previously, (b) where I said "Catflap08" in an otherwise reserved and inoffensive comments, Catflap's included extensive commentary on the literary tastes and religious affiliations of "the other user", and (c) the blocking admin later (after the block had expired) outright encouraged me to discuss the IBAN and Catflap's edits on my talkpage, assuring me that as long as I didn't use Catflap's name he wouldn't block me again.
But all of this is irrelevant. Even if what I did was a violation, I have already done my time. What my above comment was trying to point out was that Catflap's above claim that I was blocked because my edits to the Kokuchukai article constituted an IBAN was a lie. I was blocked because I used Catflap's name on a talk page; Catflap's AN report on my Kokuchukai edits resulted not in me getting blocked but in several users calling for a boomerang against him.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The terms of the IBAN were well known to you. Excuses for breaking it matter little. With each comment here the hole deepens. AlbinoFerret 13:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The terms of the IBAN were either ill defined or not previously enforced; Catflap breeched the IBAN numerous times but with zero repercussions. Hijiri copied Catflap's breeches with no repercussions. Hijiri simply typed Catflap's username (which Catflap hadn't done) and was blocked for it. I don't see at all how Hijiri is "deepening the hole" with the above comment. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The IBan was a standard one, nothing special, but clearly both editors have shown themselves of being incapable of reigning themselves in to conform to it, hence my proposal below. BMK (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Catflap08: Since you are a recipient of the Editor of the Week Award, you know full well that you are the sort of editor Wikipedia can ill afford to lose. We would be sorry to lose you.TH1980 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
One of the best, if still flawed, ways I can think of to address that point is to find out which extent reference sources deal with the topic in question, like SG, and what sources they use to support their own content. I am the first to admit that this method doesn't work anywhere near as well in current events type topics, which is also unfortunately the area in which the problem most often arises, but it is at least one generally broadly supported way to deal with the problem when such sources are available. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal (Hijiri)[edit]

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

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

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

  • Support as proposer. BMK (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please, could any closing admin note that BMK has been corrected on this point numerous times and has not amended his proposal: "their common ground" properly refers to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, an area that comprises probably 80% of Catflap08's edits and 5% of mine. "Japanese culture" is an area that comprises probably 80% of Catflap08's edits and probably 95% of mine. Japanese culture minus Nichiren Buddhist NRMs is an area that comprises 0% of Catflap08's edits, and 90% of mine. The unaccounted 20% of Catflap08's edits appear to mostly relate to German geography and religion in Germany; the unaccounted 5% of my edits are random articles I happen to be reading and decide to touch up a bit. Do the math and you'll see that the proposed topic-ban is both (a) ridiculously broad compared to the super-narrow "common ground" Catflap08 and I share, and (b) appears to have been chosen to disproportionately affect me, despite the unanimous agreement among impartial observers that there is plenty of blame to go around. I have no interest in limiting my Wikipedia activity to "random articles I happen to be reading and decide to touch up a bit", so the TBAN as proposed would amount to a de facto site-ban for me. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It might, maybe, be worth reviewing the history of the editors in question relating to their interactions with other editors. If one (or both) of them act similarly in terms of their interactions with other editors, that might be potentially grounds for thinking that the problems might be more due to one than to the other. Also, I think it might be worth noting that Catflap above has more or less indicated that he is limiting his input to Japanese culture, or at least Nichiren Buddhism, which probably falls within the broad scope of Japanese culture, and that, I think, Hijiri may also be if not an SPA particularly focused on Japanese culture. If true, then the proposal might, in a sense, be considered tantamount to a site ban for one or both, if the defined field is, effectively, their primary or sole area of interest. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
John Carter, if you mean what you earlier implied (that we should unblock Juzumaru, JoshuSasori and so on, and unban Tristan noir) you are clearly insane, and are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Please drop the stick and grow the hell up already. Stop following me, and stop trying to go back through the archives and bring back every user who has ever harassed me. You hounded me in this way from March to May, then disappeared for three months and then immediately come straight back after me -- what gives? Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose @ BMK: I have been active here for a quite number of years my area of activity is limited and I do admit the issues are sometimes controversial. I neither support a complete ban on issues regarding Japanese culture against Hijiri 88 nor against me (that would be stupid) as my activities are limited. I do believe that I am fairly neutral on Nichiren related matters, but if you ban us both this will not resolve matters, but just make your job easier and therefore negate current guidelines. Please do keep in mind that all what led here was mentioning a so called poet’s religious affiliation. Banning us, effectively, wont’t help the project and its content. All I am asking is to decide if current guidelines are affected or not. If current guidelines are found not be affected I will piss off anyway (please do note I do not usually use this language usually).--Catflap08 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will refrain from !voting in this matter given my own history with both editors. Having said that, I have to agree with Catflap above that, in the time I have been to varying degrees involved in Soka Gakkai and NB related content, he has impressed me as being primarily interested in keeping the material from resembling advertorials, which is generally a good thing. I also note that the specific nature of the dubious interaction does seem, as per the initial statement, to be related to Nichiren related content. While Nichiren related content is very significant in the history of Japanese culture, I think limiting the scope of potential sanctions to NB rather than Japanese culture would probably be called for, given the history of this interaction, and I at least would very strongly hope that Catflap not be sanctioned to basically remove himself from his primary field of editing, in which he has been successful and productive in preventing POV pushing by supporters of groups, who often outnumber the less biased editors in those areas by a great number. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I've read a lot recently from a wide variety of editors about how relentless POV warriors create toxic editing environments which drive quality editors away from the site, and just a couple of days ago we lost one of our best admins to a sockpuppeting troll with a throwaway account. Above, Drmies has asked you both to lay off, and you obviously haven't. Listen to Drmies!! If they were to come by here and block both of you right now, I don't think there's anyone here who would object, saving maybe John Carter who makes a compelling argument about Catflap's persistent NPOV in this topic area. WP:CIR applies: if the contributions you make aren't worth the "ever-increasing exasperation of the rest of the editors", you shouldn't be here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Who's a relentless POV warrior? I think you would be hard-pressed to identify any kind of "POV" on my part in any aspect of my interactions with Catflap08 -- I am not a Soka Gakkai member (I don't even much like the group), nor a member of the Kokuchukai, and it wouldn't change my life even a bit if it turned out that Miyazawa Kenji was in fact a "nationalist". I just want Wikipedia to accurately reflect what the best scholarly sources say. The only relentless POV-pusher here is Catflap08, who has been spending years distorting sources and jumping through hoops to make Wikipedia say what he wants it to about various neo-Nichiren groups, both ones he likes (Nichiren-shoushuu) and doesn't (SG, etc.). If your argument is that we should both be TBANned because we are relentless POV warriors, I would ask for evidence of this. Additionally, which "topic" should we/just Catflap08/just me be banned from? "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad, as it bears no relation whatsoever to Catflap08's disputes with me -- "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism" would be a much better proposal, and if the TBAN were mutual I would actually support it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: No, let me be clear about this: I don't care about your or Catflap's POV, or what topics you both edit or don't edit. My only interest in this is not seeing your two names plastered all over this noticeboard any more. My opinion is that you should both be banned outright, since you've both been happy to game the IBAN and it seems likely you'll both be intent on gaming whatever TBAN we're likely to impose. It's ridiculously broad because your ongoing conflict is ridiculous and will require ridiculous measures to stop, apparently. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Please provide some evidence that I have gamed the IBAN? I reported Catflap08 for violating it. I only accepted the IBAN (as proposed initially by Catflap08) because I was under the impression that it meant no more interaction between us. I didn't know that it meant that he could revert my edits with impunity and then when I reported him on ANI I would be the one treated to repercussions. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This thread is utter nonsense. I have been editing the area of Japanese Buddhism since before Catflap08 even registered an account, and have indisputably contributed more to the area in recent months than he has -- simply editing in the area is not an IBAN-violation, as was decided by AN-consensus when Catflap08 wasn't blocked for doing the same thing (as well as directly reverting my edits). BMK's assertion that our common ground is "Japanese culture" is equally ridiculous. I have only ever been interested in editing articles on "Japanese culture", and 99% of users who share this area with me would vehemently oppose the idea that I be TBANned from this area: just ask @Nishidani: @Shii: @Sturmgewehr88: ... (almost none of whom agree with me 100%, but all of whom legitimately understand this area as well as my contributions to it). Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Your post is an example of WP:CANVASS. Any comment these editors make should be taken with a grain of salt. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (non admin observation) Enough is enough. This continued disruption is never ending and ongoing where one or the other is on one of the boards giving enough evidence for either of them needing a ban. It doesnt matter what good they have done or how nice the things they have added. This is a behaviour issue. One my new essay WP:NOTABOVE covers nicely without a lot of words. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC) I would also support separate or single bans. AlbinoFerret 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Albinoferret: Please explain how arbitrarily banning me from every article I have ever edited will help end disruption and improve the project? You are the one who needs to drop the stick in this situation, as you have had it in for me for months, every time this or another issue in which I have been involved comes up on ANI. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I watch and contribute on AN/I in discussions, I think more community members should do this. This isnt hounding you, its the community saying enough is enough. If more people frequented this board regularly they would be saying the same thing. The topic ban will just remove an area of WP. You will still be able to edit and show that you are a constructive member of the community, or use it as rope. AlbinoFerret 23:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So you are saying that you should be indefinitely banned from every article you show an interest in editing because you post on ANI regularly? Your argument makes no sense. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I am saying both editors consistent gaming and breaking of the IBAN that was the result of constant behaviour problems leading up to said IBAN is a good reason to topci ban them both so there is no winner in a content dispute. That the topic ban needs to have sufficient border so that it doesnt spill into other areas that both editors want to edit and if not able to edit their favourite articles will still stay in the general topic area. This needed to end months ago, its an ongoing behaviour problem. AlbinoFerret 15:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support I have ANI on my watch list and 2/3 of the time it has something to do with Hijiri. Frankly, I am annoyed and I had to peek into it all. It's nothing but disruption and lack of dropping the stick by the file reporter and possibly hounding them as well but that's another matter. It's best that these two editors get topic-banned to end this drama-filled editing between them. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 22:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Callmemirelal: Excuse me? You claim it's always me, but in reality all the times you are referring to it is me and Catflap08, and you above refer to me as the "file reporter" -- you very clearly have not read this thread very closely. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Uhmmm... Way to give it a go. Please search up who filed this report, hence "file reporter". I have never claimed it was always you. I said what I saw as new sections had something to do with you. Never have I ever claimed it was always you at fault. Please reread my post. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 23:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Callmemirela: (sorry for the bad ping previously -- this whole thing has me super stressed out, as what is essentially being discussed here is a one-way de facto SBAN for me) If you do not think that I am always the one at fault, then why are you supporting a TBAN that is tailor-made to force me, not Catflap08, off Wikipedia? Catflap08's main area of interest (Soka Gakkai International) arguably does not fit into "Japanese culture", but is a part of this dispute; my main area of interest (classical Japanese poetry) most certainly fits into "Japanese culture" and has nothing whatsoever to do with this dispute. The proposed TBAN would block both Catflap08 and myself from every article I have ever shown any interest in editing, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my long-running dispute with Catflap08 regarding Nichiren Buddhist NRMs. If the TBAN for which you above expressed "Strong support" were to pass, I would be forced to retire from Wikipedia, since I would be TBANned from the only (very broad) topic area I am interested in. The TBAN would also negatively affect Catflap08, but so would a TBAN on Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, which is the area actually under dispute. If the TBAN was worded properly, it would effectively solve the dispute between me and Catflap08, and allow other users to eventually work out all the kinks in the very narrow group of articles in question; as worded now, it disproportionately affects me by randomly banning me from the thousands upon thousands of articles that are in my area of interest/expertise but have nothing whatsoever to do with my dispute with Catflap08. If you sincerely meant that you support "some kind of two-way topic-ban" for myself and Catflap08, then you and I are actually in agreement, but I would ask that you clarify this position in light of the actual (very narrow) area covered by this dispute (see full list of article Catflap08 and I have disputed on below). Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Why? Well, it's like this...although I also have pretty much had my fill of these two editors' antics, the conflict between them seems to go far beyond the subject of Japanese culture (or any other topic). I mean, there's an IBAN in place and they still won't cut it out? Maybe general blocks for both of them (length to be determined by closing admin) is in order instead. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support topic ban for Hijiri88 on Japanese culture and history-related topics - I said what needed to be said the last time a topic ban was proposed on Hijiri88. I noted Hijiri88's disruptive and uncooperative pattern of editing in this field and all Hijiri could do in response was openly threaten me with "harsh repercussions". This is Hijiri88's typical reaction to anyone he disagrees with. Catflap and I are just the latest to take this sort of abuse. I'm sorry Catflap has gotten tied up in yet another one of Hijiri's never-ending crusades. This is now the FOURTH time this year (at least) that this kind of sanction has been proposed against Hijiri88. When is the Wikipedia community or an admin finally going to say, "enough is enough"?TH1980 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In light of the above, it might not be unreasonable to perhaps break the proposed sanction down into separate proposed sanctions for the two as individuals, and, perhaps, if others see fit, to specify the exact nature of the scope of the proposed sanctions. It seems to me that the scope of the disagreement is Japanese Buddhism, not Japanese culture (but, like with most historical religions, the distinction between the religion and the culture gets blurry), and it might make sense, maybe, to consider limiting the scope to Japanese Buddhism or Nichiren Buddhism. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would strongly object to any alteration of this proposal. If you want to make two additional separate proposals, one for each editor, go ahead and do so in separate sections, not this one, but I guarantee you'll only muddy up the waters, which will end up once again with a continuation of the status quo. In any case my proposal stands as is, clear, equal treatment for both editors, who are equally responsible for the IBan between them not working. BMK (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken:: The proposed variation was only made in light of the !vote above supporting sanctions against one editor only. I have a feeling that such variant !votes might lead to the result Blackmane mentions below, no consensus and ArbCom. Not that ArbCom would, necessarily, necessarily be a bad place to thrash out the whole histories of all involved here, to see if there are any differential levels of guilt as some indicate they see above. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, closers are intelligent enough to figure these things out without having to slice up the conversation for them. Probably best to leave it alone. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Supported it last time, but it was closed without consensus. This is ridiculous, at this rate, ArbCom is the only remaining option. Blackmane (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
After a moment's thought, I'll expand on this. Both are substantial contributors in the content but seem to be unable to restrain themselves when they get together, much like 2 like magnetic poles constantly repelling each other. To remove one without the other could be seen as a validation of either one. I believe BMK's proposal is less about their content contributions than it is their collective behaviour towards each other on articles they have in common. Given they have little in common outside of this single field, it is at least my hope that this will stop. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Blackmane is correct. The ideal here would have been for the IBan to have worked. We'd get the advantage of both editor's contributions, and there would peace across the land. But, unfortunately, for whatever reason (I won't hazard guesses as to why), these two people just cannot get along without bringing their conflicts to the community again and again. My feeling is that the only way to get through to them is with a topic ban. "Indefinite" does not mean permanent. My hope would be that when the two combatants start to tire of not being able to edit in an area they both really enjoy working in, they may begin to see the value of cooperating with the terms of the IBan. Obviouslyt, right now, it means more to the both of them to keep fighting then it does to keep editing. This would change that, and provoke (I hope) a change of heart for both of them. I don't expect them to ever be bosom buddies, but the community does expect them to follow the rules of the IBan. They clearly can't do that, so this is the next available option. BMK (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought you were proposing to block them both outright, and my earlier comment reflects that. I'll also support a double topic ban, although I expect we'll see them back here again very soon and be discussing blocks for violating the topic ban. I don't support only banning one of them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
A topic ban is much easier to enforce than the IBAN. Any activity in the topic would be a violation of the ban. But in the IBAN there is the ability to game the system. Making it more difficult to enforce as evident by the sections that have happened in the recent past. But I plan to collect the names of oppose votes and ping them every time this pops up again if the topic ban doesnt pass. The way I see it is they only see part of the problem, whereas most of the supporters recognise this isnt an isolated incident and that its an ongoing problem that never seems to be taken care of. My support of the topic ban isnt tied to this one section, but many going back months.AlbinoFerret 19:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
As a stray thought we could use an edit filter to enforce an IBAN, up to a point. I have created an example filter in Filter 1 (logging only). It could be refined to ignore specific name-spaces, or noticeboards. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Oppose (for now) What did Hijiri 88 do? I don't see how he is hounding Catflap08 or why this ANI has any merit. МандичкаYO 😜 07:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Beyond My Ken, but I do not support a topic ban for Catflap. A narrow topic ban for Hijiri, who has broad interests, would not take Catflap out of the Wikipedia picture, and while the case for hounding isn't airtight, I do think that Hijiri is following Catflap--Wikimandia, in the two or three of the articles that I looked, Catflap has edited for a long time and Hijiri is a recent visitor, as on Talk:Soka Gakkai. In other words, I support John Carter's clarification, in the section above. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the edits and it seems they all pertain (mostly) to the Japanese language, etc, which is I think is one of H88's interests. The edits H88 made appear to my eyes to be helpful. I fail to see a solid case for hounding. It seems IMHO that this is more of a "stay out of my area" type of thing ie "I edited here first so it's mine." МандичкаYO 😜 22:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Catflap08 is being paranoid, and Drmies (despite my history with him) has not looked closely enough at my edit history. I am interested in Japanese religion, and probably know more about Japanese Buddhism than Catflap08 does; my very first edit to Wikipedia back in 2005 was about Shinto. In fact, I think if you went through all of Catflap08's edits and checked his sources, you would find that I have actually contributed more over the years to this particular topic area than he has. TBAN me from NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism except for the Kokuchukai and Miyazawa Kenji (which I would guess accounts for roughly 80% of Catflap08's edits but a relatively small proportion of mine; the two exceptions are to allow me to contrinue to work on two articles to which I am essentially the sole contributor) if need be. Catflap08 hardly ever edits articles related to Nichiren Buddhism before 1900, and almost never edits any articles related to Japanese Buddhism other than Nichiren Buddhism. The "disruption" between the two of us was exclusively in the area of "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism"; the TBAN proposal of "Japanese culture" seems to be a slight against me specifically, since TBANning both of us from "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism" would likely force Catflap08 off Wikipedia, but not me; "Japanese culture" seems to be specifically designed to spite/SBAN me, since the present "disruption" has hardly anything to with "Japanese culture". Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Topic ban everyone - God knows his own. Although I see the threat of topic banning them both has actually got them to agree. From past experience of their work - Hijari's would actually be a loss to the encyclopedia, however if they cannot learn to work together, at this point its a hit WP might have to take. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Only in death: Your comment clearly shows you haven't read the thread. Why did you misspell my user name? Why do you think Catflap08 and I need to learn to "work together"? We are already IBANned! What topic do you propose? "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad, and seems to be tailor-made to drive me off Wikipedia; the actual topic area under discussion is "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism". If you had actually been following this dispute long enough to be as frustrated with it as you claim to be, you would not be making these mistakes. Sorry to pick on you, but it's difficult to follow all of this. It seems that a whole bunch of people (friends of BMK?) are ust showing up to support a ridiculous proposal, when virtually everyone who actually understands the dispute in question oppose it. Please read through the past thread if you are taking the "this is incredibly draining on the community" argument to heart, and please consider what topic area you are talking about when you say "topic ban everyone". If it is mutual, I would actually support a topic ban on both of us from the area of "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism"; but the proposed "Japanese culture" has absolutely no logical basis, and no support whatsoever from the community of editors who actually contribute to the area of "Japanese culture". Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Whatever past irritants, I do not see what the latest matter is about. What is the evidence of hounding on which Hijiri is supposed to be banned? I do not see any evidence of breach of IBAN either, or at least none has been provided. This kind of reminds me of Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first, verdict later" (or perhaps not at all?) Kingsindian  15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment As far as I can see it the mood is towards topic banning us both. Fine go ahead that will leave me out of the game, an outcome H88 has previously hoped for as I “dared” to highlight Kenji-man’s religious affiliation and nationalist tendencies. I wonder these days what ever happened to good faith vs bad faith edits. The diffs I showed in the beginning of this thread had no other purpose than to piss me off – and they did. I can well understand that admins are annoyed about this carry-on but I tried to adhere as much as possible to current guidelines … call it hounding or Wikimandia, but please do be so kind and ditch all current guidelines and means (such as ANI) to highlight a problem and turn to a thumbs up or thumbs down policy only. If the latest edits by H88, keeping in mind the IBAN, are found to be okay and thereby effectively disabling me to edit articles on Nichiren Buddhism – as I would then myself violate the IBAN – fine, so be it. Please do have the guts to admit that the strategy used by H88 then does seem to work, congrats to you H88 btw. Due to the articles I edit I am used to conflict and disagreement but this is an issue I am sure not willing to use my spare time on any longer. In the guideline on hounding it says: “The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. …” Ever since this conflict started I was insulted, followed around even some smearing remark left while H88 edited the article on my hometown (Oh yes SURE he did not know it was my hometown … yea right). I created a few articles, in my books had a more or less neutral input on Nichiren Buddhist related articles, but there is no enjoyment being part of this project anymore. Conflicts can be productive or unproductive - this one is unproductive. I am no longer willing to participate and the “enjoyment” of dealing with H88 is here to stay, bad faith edits, insults and foul language do seem to work then. I guess they will continue to be an issue here in days to come. Good riddance!-- 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Catflap08, you don't know a damned thing about Kenji Miyazawa; everyone who has ever contributed anything to the new and improved version of that article has agreed with this. Your edits were highly disruptive, and did not "highlight" anything other than your own hatred of any form of Nichiren Buddhism other than Nichiren-shoushuu. Please drop the damn stick -- it's been more than a frickin' year! Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri, I thank you for so clearly indicating in the above comment your habit of almost instantly taking recourse to irrational, probably unsupportable, insults and obscenities directed against those with whom you are in disagreement, a habit of yours which I have noted repeatedly. One could just as easily say that, after the 9 years of being an editor that you so regularly boast of, you don't know a damn thing about the policies and guidelines of this site. The fact that you so regularly engage in purely counterproductive personal attacks, as per the above, is one reason why I think that the concept of some sort of stronger sanctions against you is getting a lot of support, whether alone or in tandem with Catflap. You are in control of your own actions and vulgarity, and cannot blame anyone for your own regular displays of obnoxious arrogance, which, as Drmies has said elsewhere in this thread, would decidedly wear on him too. John Carter (talk)
@Catflap08: - I have no idea what this means - "please do be so kind and ditch all current guidelines and means (such as ANI) to highlight a problem and turn to a thumbs up or thumbs down policy only" What are you talking about? МандичкаYO 😜 04:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: I think he means that he wishes that there wasn't all this beauracratic mess to push through just to establish that there's a problem, or to have that problem delt with? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I see what edit you mean. It was a while ago, when both of you were up at arbitration, and it is very, very hard to escape the impression that it was done to get a rise out of you, since I don't think Hijiri edits a lot of those articles. All the more reason for me to reiterate that a. both editors have something to contribute to Wikipedia and b. topic-banning Hijiri from some narrowly construed area, the area that Catflap is most active in (I understand it might not be easy to demarcate this, but we could try) keeps both editors on board. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: Catflap08 and another user were in off-wiki communication about the edit in question. And I think consensus should be gathered on whether only myself or both of us should be TBANned from Catflap08's preferred area (NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism) -- I think the broad consensus from users involved in editing this area would be that Catflap08 has been highly disruptive over the years, while my relatively few edits have mostly been quite good. I would be happy to take a hit, though, if it meant less disruption to the project from Catflap08, who after years of lectures from me and others still doesn't know how to properly cite sources. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
My dear Hijiri, if I'd had to sit through years of your lectures I'd be exasperated too. Now, it looks as if BMK's proposal, for a topic ban for the both of you, is gaining plenty of traction; if "take a hit" means you'll accept a limited topic ban, then you're probably making a wise choice. Now, Catflap wasn't in email communication about that edit with me but it didn't take me long to find it. It's a while ago, and it was made at a time that was stressful for the both of you, but it just signifies that...well, what editors here have been saying, editors who want the both of you gone. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri88 Do you have diffs that expressly prove that there was off wiki communication that goes against PAG? Also please tell us what PAG they violate. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
19:56, 25 March 2015: John Carter makes his first ever edit remotely related to the poet/children's author Kenji Miyazawa, making a flawed analogy that show his ignorance of (lack of interest in?) the topic.
03:50, 11 April 2015: I make an edit to an article on a German city I happen to be reading (it was over four months ago; I don't remember why).
20:27, 15 April 2015: Catflap08 claims, on-wiki, for the first time ever, almost five days after my edit, that the city in question is where he "currently resides".
21:25, 15 April 2015: John Carter refers to the city as Catflap08's "home town", despite Catflap08 never posting this information on-wiki. Note that during the intervening five days, I never touched the article, and Catflap08, John Carter and I were relatively active in editing, making 10, 217 and 33 edits respectively, and interacting with each other constantly. Catflap08's suddenly noticing my edit several days later and John Carter's immediately picking up on it (having also, apparently, failed to notice it for for five days), and the two of them making it their main talking point all of a sudden, is extremely suspicious. John Carter's knowing a piece of information about Catflap related to this dispute that Catflap never stated on-wiki means he heard it from him off-wiki. John Carter was at the time engaged in off-wiki contact about me with at least two users, and Catflap was engaged in off-wiki contact about me with at least one user, User:Sturmgewehr88, who graciously forwarded said contact to me.
05:14, 17 April 2015: IBAN between Catflap08 and myself put in place.
01:26, 19 April 2015 and 01:27, 19 April 2015: Drmies, at the request of John Carter (why does he care?), reminds both Catflap08 and myself that we are subject to an IBAN.
14:23, 22 April 2015: I make a self-revert to the Kenji Miyazawa article in line with previously-established consensus (my earlier edit of 27-28 March 2015 had been a conditional concession to a vocal minority in an RFC -- who later violated said conditions -- but was never claimed as the "consensus" until 14:14, 15 April 2015, which claim was overruled within a few days). Two hours later, my edit is reverted by John Carter, who has never edited the article before.
16:26, 22 April 2015 - 17:56, 1 May 2015: John Carter suddenly posts 52 times on the Kenji Miyazawa talk page, and reverts me five times in a 31-hour period. Why the sudden interest in Kenji Miyazawa? And why the curious knowledge of how the dispute had gone from June 2014 to March 2015 but with certain key features that didn't support Catflap08's story left out? Did he go through the talk page and read everything that had been posted previously? If so, why did he not know that a unanimous RFC had determined that Kenji should not be referred to as a "nationalist" without further evidence? Or did he receive a summary of the dispute from Catflap08 that left out those details? I of course don't have any conclusive evidence that John Carter definitely was acting as an IBAN-violation proxy for Catflap08, but his suddenly developing an enormous interest in this article that falls so far out of his normal editing area, immediately after the imposition of the IBAN, and his knowing obscure details about the dispute before he joined in but completely missing the massive, unanimous RFC seems highly suspicious, don't you agree?
21:08, 28 April 2015: Catflap08 shows up suddenly on the talk page discussion between John Carter and myself (in what by Drmies' recently-stated definition almost certainly qualifies as a borderline IBAN-violation and "hounding" of me) indicating that he was aware of it (more aware than John Carter, in fact) and following it quite closely, which supports my belief that he had been in contact with John Carter about it prior to his showing up.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You forgot the most important part, what PAG do they violate? Dont go into pages of dialogue, just present the PAG. Seconddly, all I see is circumstantial possibilities that you have jumped to ABF and are casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I want a diff where they admitted emailing each other in order to harass you, again without long explinations from you on how it couldnt be any other way. Present the evidence and let others draw the conclusions. AlbinoFerret 04:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: Surely you are not suggesting that requesting an IBAN with another user while at the same time making plans to immediately violate said IBAN via proxy is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Let alone that the specific edits Catflap08 apparently requested John Carter make in his stead were blatant NPOV and NOR violations. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @ Drmies As much as I welcome your support for finding a solution to all this I still believe that the willingness to come to an agreement has to be present on all sides. I once hoped that the IBAN would resolve matters as the issues I am dealing with are fairly limited. But there is no winning when dealing with an editor on a complete different agenda – an agenda I am unwilling to understand. Me retiring is the only way that the editor in question will be preoccupied with other topics – and conflicts, and in future other, hopefully unbiased, editors will tend to Nichiren Buddhist related matters. I do care about the subjects I edited on and welcome input as long as it is constructive. H88 has so many conflicts going on that I can only hope that articles on Nichiren Buddhsim will continue to grow and flourish without me being part of it. In the end the reader should be informed. I am sure that admins will be kept busy dealing with H88. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support WOW! This battle has been raging for over half a year. By this point in time, a far-reaching topic ban is probably the only reasonable solution, or else this will go on forever. I see disruptive behavior on both sides. Ahiroy (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ahiroy: Who are you? You have never been involved in this dispute before, so I'm curious as to why you are using an arbitrary (and inaccurate) start-point for the dispute to justify your assertion that a two-way, super-broad topic ban is the way to solve it. So far, virtually everyone who has actually been involved in this dispute for at least several months believes (1) the proposed TBAN is far too broad (the topic-area under dispute is NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism, not "Japanese culture") and (2) the aggressor throughout 90% of the fourteen months this dispute has been running (throughout this time strictly confined to articles related to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs) has been Catflap08, and my "disruptive behavior" has been mostly reactionary. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad. I would agree to a week-long block for both users, a TBAN from Nichiren Buddhism for Hijiri, and a page ban from any and all articles that Catflap has been disruptive on (Kenji Miyazawa is the only one I can think of off the top of my head) for Catflap. No more and no less is appropriate. And for those above users who !voted "support" because they got annoyed at seeing either of these editors names a few times here: go do something besides hanging out at ANI. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Japanese culture" (and I actually should have written "Japanese history and culture", but it's too late to go back now) is no broader than "U.S. Politics", which ArbCom used as a topic ban not too long ago. I don't think that anything will come of this unless the editors really start to feel that they're missing out on something they really want to be involved in, and that means that the topic ban needs to be substantial and the time period needs to be indef so they can't just wait it out and then return to the same behavior, as has happened before. If you read this thread, you'll see that some people think Catflap is at fault and some think that Hijiri is at fault -- and, of course, both of them think that the other is the bad guy. This circumstance is the very reason why it must be an equal sanction, with no determination of percentage of blame (pace Drmies). They're clearly both at fault, in one way or another, to one extent or another, and the ongoing tangoing has to stop. Blocks and IBans haven't worked, this is the next step. If this fails, it's either ArbCom or mutual indef blocks -- at some point the net value of the editor just drops below zero. We're not there yet, but that's the direction we're heading in. BMK (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@BMK: "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad. The disruption in question has taken place exclusively on articles related to NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism. To extrapolate from this that a mutual TBAN from "Japanese culture" is warranted is equivalent to proposing a TBAN on "U.S. politics" for two users who have been fighting over articles related to Hillary Clinton. Or rather, it is equivalent to proposing such for two users who have been fighting over Hillary, when one of those users is an SPA whose every edit on Wikipedia has been to insert BLP violations against the woman, and the other user has been making a large number of constructive edits to the broad topic area of "U.S. politics" for years. Such a proposal would be an obvious attempt to needlessly spite the latter user. So far as I can see, Sturmgewehr88 is the only user to so far way in here with any interest in or knowledge of "Japanese culture", and he says the proposal is too broad: ask any other user in WikiProject Japan and they will say the same. Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I hardly need to ask the editors of WikiProject Japan, since you have already WP:CANVASSed them with a non-neutral pointer to this discussion threatening to quit Wikipedia if the proposal goes through. BMK (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The part of that post , which is not neutral, But I find it interesting Hijiri 88 said Another user and I are up for a mutual topic ban from "Japanese culture" because our mutual interaction ban has been an absolute failure. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: @AlbinoFerret: How was my pointer not neutral? How could it possibly violate WP:CANVAS? The only member of WikiProject Japan to express any opinion at all so far has been User:Sturmgewehr88, who thanked me. Was our mutual interaction ban not an absolute failure? And why do I not have a right to quit Wikipedia if I am indefinitely forced out of the only topic area in which I have any interest? It's not a "threat" -- it's an observation that I frankly have no interest in contributing to areas of this project that don't interest me and in which I have very little knowledge. I don't see why I should have to explain why I would want to leave the project if I was forced out of the project, when thus far BMK has made no effort whatsoever to explain his ridiculously-broad TBAN parameters. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Its as far from neutral as can be with a threat to have to leave WP, what else do you expect people who agree with you to do other than come here and defend you? AlbinoFerret 04:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It isnt annoyance that they have shown up a few time, its more than a few. Its that their behaviour over the span of months is bad. Constant problems with one or the other and nothing is done and I think some editors think it will all go away if we just get past the most recent blow up. Well it hasnt, and I think that the problem is that nothing has happened to them other than an IBAN that they both game. I think when nothing happens it emboldens one or both making them believe that nothing will happen this time, they got away before, and the project suffers. As for telling editors to go someplace else, we all help the project in our own way. This board is open to all members of the community to post on. AlbinoFerret 15:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am myself still undecided that this is the best way to go. It is strictly a personal opinion, of course, but I think that maybe ArbCom might be a preferable alternative. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, are you going to take it to Arbcom? If not who is? If no one is willing to step forward, Arbcom isnt realistic. AlbinoFerret 16:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I remember Catflap already sought input from ArbCom once, prior to the i-ban. That being the case, I think that if this thread closes without a clear decision to do something here, he might do so again, or, failing that, I certainly would be willing to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Such a topic ban would be too broad, and the quarrel in question doesn't concern "Japanese history and culture", it concerns a much smaller subset. If the topic ban is re-scoped towards Nichiren Buddhist topics, I wouldn't find it as concerning, however there is a net loss of benefit from a topic ban for "Japanese history and culture" to the project, especially in regards to the improvements made to articles outside of the realms of this current dispute. Don't get me wrong: I can see the wrongdoings, I'm just looking at the long term effects, and weighing out the pros and cons of such a topic ban. There is definitely a better way to handle this. --benlisquareTCE 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The "quarrel in question" is simply the specific instance at this moment in time of a battle between the two editors that has been going on for over a year, and has wound up on the noticeboards at least a dozen times. Use the search box at the top of the page and put in each of their names (one at a time) and feast your eyes on the time and energy these two have sucked out of the community because they cannot get along. It is their mutual long-term behavior which sparks this proposal, not this relatively minor dispute. BMK (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Benlisquare: Please don't listen to him. The "quarrel in question" is simply the specific instance at this moment in time of a battle between the two editors that has been going on for over a year that has always been confined to a small group of articles related Nichiren Buddhist NRMs. User:Beyond My Ken and others supporting the proposal are simply showing their ignorance of "Japanese culture" (or perhaps their ignorance of my dispute with Catflap08 -- BMK has only been involved in two of the "dozen times" it has appeared on noticeboards, and most of the others even less so) by claiming otherwise. The full (not especially long considering the dispute has been going on for fourteen months) list of articles on which I have disputed with Catflap08 is as follows:
  1. Kenji Miyazawa (in a very narrow capacity concerning the subject's relationship with the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
  2. Kokuchūkai (a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
  3. Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō (I still don't know what Catflap's problems with my edits were, since all I did was RM the page per WP:COMMONNAME and cut down several very long quotations that bore no relation to the article text, but Catflap apparently thought I was editing the article to be more amenable to the POV of Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; note that I was hiding from an off-wiki stalker at the time so my edits were made under the IP "")
  4. Daisaku Ikeda (a figure notable as the leader of Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
  5. Nichiren Buddhism (in a talk page discussion of the Nichiren Buddhist NRM Soka Gakkai's status within Nichiren Buddhism)
  6. Karlsruhe (say what you want about me editing our article on a city that Catflap08 claimed was his current residence five days after my edit -- how on earth could I have known this when he never stated it on-wiki!? -- but it apparently is what Catflap08 and some others are discussing further up this thread as "evidence" that I was hounding him; additionally, the timeline of these events was highly suspicious and seems to prove pretty handilly that Catflap08 was engaged in off-wiki contact with another to violate our IBAN by proxy both before and immediately after it came into effect; given this information, I think most good-faith Wikipedians would conclude that Catflap08 was hounding me, not the other way round)
  7. Korean influence on Japanese culture (Catflap08 violated the IBAN by showing up suddenly in an ANI discussion and supporting a PAGEBAN for me -- not really relevant, though)
  8. Gyōson (as part of a massive drive by me to complete Wikipedia's coverage of the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu poets, I recently created an article on this prelate of Tendai Buddhism; in a manner of speaking, Tendai Buddhism looks kinda-sorta like Nichiren Buddhism, since they both revere the Lotus Sutra; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my creating an article on a monk with a super-vague relationship to a sect of Buddhism that arose centuries after his death, which centuries later still gave rise to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs like Soka Gakkai and Kokuchūkai, may have possibly contributed to Catflap08's, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
  9. Nichiren Shōshū (recent edits by me related the group's relationship with Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM, apparently led Catflap08 to believe that I am "hounding" him, although we have not directly interacted on the page and to the best of my knowledge the text I edited was never edited by him)
  10. Nichiren Shū (I RMed the page recently in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME; three years ago Catflap08 was involved in a dispute with another editor on the page about the groups relationship with Soka Gakkai International, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
  11. Soka Gakkai (a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
  12. Nichirenism (a religio-political philosophy espoused by followers of the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
  13. Shakubuku (not exclusively about Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but the way Catflap wrote the article it certainly looked that way; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
  14. Criticism of Buddhism (nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but also nothing to do with this dispute; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently part of what led Catflap08 to the, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
  15. Nichiren (my recent edits here do not relate to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs specifically, and no rational observer can claim to see any problem with said edits in and of themselves -- I was just trying to reformat the references so the tag at the top of the page could be removed -- but Catflap08 apparently believes that I am "hounding" him because I have been interested in Nichiren Buddhism since 2007 and have recently started editing Wikipedia articles relating to it; if someone thinks my edits to this page have been "disruptive", then please PAGEBAN me from this specific article, and TBAN me from NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism)
  16. Muju County (nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but also nothing to do with this dispute; I inserted a disambig note linking to our article on Mujū, a Buddhist monk and contemporary/enemy of Nichiren; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page -- Catflap08 has never edited either page -- but my recent activity in an area even remotely related to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs is apparently part of what led Catflap08 to the, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see Law of holes BMK (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken Are you insane? Why have you not fixed your TBAN proposal to accurately reflect the "common ground" between myself and Catflap08? Why do you insist on trying to get me indefinitely banned from the 90% of articles I regularly edit that have nothing whatsoever to do with Catflap08? Are you illiterate? Or am I missing some major area of this dispute that I have been involved in for over a year and you have only shown up recently to and pretended like you understand it better than I do? Or User:Sturmgewehr88? Or User:Wikimandia? Or User:Ubikwit? Or User:Nishidani? Or any of the other countless editors of Japan-related articles who have commented on this dispute and would be flabbergasted by your proposals? Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I don't think it's particularly helpful to you or to the civility of this discussion to call me (and another editor) "insane", or to ask if I'm "illiterate" (especially since I'm quite obviously not - all these letter going together into words that make coherent sentences is rather proof of that). Your characterization of my motivations and actions is similarly incorrect, as anyone who reads this thread can verify. It's not about your content work, it's about your behavior and your attitude which are clearly a significant part of the reason why you and Catflap cannot get along. That this suggested topic ban would take you away from a subject area you really want to edit is no one's fault but that of the two of you, who could not exist under the previous IBan. In fact, the topic ban is devised to make you want to return to editing the subject area so much that you're willing to behave better to do so. Both of you. BMK (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand BMK's reasoning for "Japanese culture" (although I see it like killing a fly with a cannon), but his comparison with a TBAN from "US politics" by ArbCom recently is a little flawed; were the circumstances around that TBAN at all similar? I'm just guessing but I'm assuming that that case was an editor who caused problems across a random swath of articles that could only be grouped by "US politics". In this case, where the problem occurs specifically within articles related to Nichiren Buddhism, such a broad TBAN is unnecessary and overkill. You said that their net value as editors hasn't dropped to zero yet, so why treat them that way? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri, you're kind of making it more difficult to argue for you here. I know you're feeling frustrated, but please try easing up on the attacks, they don't reflect well on you. --benlisquareTCE 04:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Benlisquare: You are right, of course, and this is why I have already apologized for the epithet on my talk page. Several users, including Drmies and BMK himself just above hear, have told me (threatened me) that BMK's own ignorance of "Japanese culture" and his stubborn refusal to admit that he is wrong about the scope of this dispute despite everyone telling him so are now quite likely to result in me getting de facto banned from editing Wikipedia. Just because of a stupid misunderstanding on the part of one user with whom I have never disputed before. But questioning said user's sanity did go too far, and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Having a quick look through each of the different article rating categories of WikiProject Japan, I'd estimate that a topic ban on Buddhist topics, even if enforced with a wide filter, would constitute 15-20% of all Japanese historical culture articles. That leaves around 80% of the remaining articles for Hijiri88 to continue working on, hopefully without any further violations of their interaction bans with other users. Hijiri88's ANI shenanigans don't appear to significantly fall outside of these realms, so it seems reasonable to provide a few inches of breathing space. You could even try working with a carrot-and-stick approach here; if, by any chance, the problem continues to worsen and their behaviour continues on articles outside of Buddhist topics, the response can be made more severe in reasonable and logical increments. If you allow them to dig deeper into their hole, you can justify further sanctions against them ("give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves"), and if they do end up having less conflict working outside of Nichiren Buddhist topics, then it's a victory for everyone, is it not?

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

The problem is, if the ban isnt wide, it just moves to a different set of articles in a different area Japanese culture. There needs to be a wide area, so that if one of them follows to an area outside of their normal area its easy to spot. Otherwise its an area they both want to edit in. AlbinoFerret 04:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no interest in narrowing the proposal myself, I'm satisfied that, if there is sufficient support for the proposal, the closing admin can evaluate the discussion and decide on that basis if the topic ban should be narrowed or expanded, or kept as originally set. BMK (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret, BMK: Where is the evidence that the dispute will move onto a different area of "Japanese culture"? It started fourteen months ago with a Nichiren Buddhist NRM, it was about a Nichiren Buddhist NRM when the IBAN was put in place, and is about a Nichiren Buddhist NRM now. Additionally, could you please define "Japanese culture"? Would I be banned from writing articles on 12th-century waka poets? If so: why? Catflap08 has never edited in this area, and he and I have never disputed over it. If the claim is that if a mutual TBAN were placed on "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs" then Catflap08 would follow me to 12th-century waka poets: AGF obliges me to disagree, and even if such a thing happened it would be a clear IBAN violation and could be dealt with if and when it happens. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It seems both editors have failed to get the message from the IBAN. The underlying problem is not that the sanctions aren't well framed; the underlying problem is that these two editors refuse to grow up and learn to edit constructively. Then crying, "But... but... a TBAN will hurt my editing!" is missing the point. The easy way to keep editing where you want to edit was to cut the crap out and get on with it. That point is past. GoldenRing (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:GoldenRing: Have you read the above discussion? There is near-unanimous support (including from both me and I think Catflap08) for a TBAN from our shared topic area, but there is disagreement over what topic area this is: Beyond My Ken and AlbinoFerret say it is "Japanese culture"; Catflap08, Drmies, Sturmgewehr88, Benlisquare and I say different (the others appear to agree with me that the area is "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs", but I don't want to put words in their mouths); everyone else has been ambiguous. Please bear in mind that not only have Catflap08 and I never interacted on "Japanese culture" articles not related to Nichiren NRMs -- Catflap08 has never gone near such articles. Furthermore, the quote you give appears to be your own interpretation of something Catflap08 or myself has said -- please refrain from citing your own interpretations as though they were direct quotes, especially when said interpretations are not necessarily backed up by anything the other users said. Neither of us have said that the problem is that it would affect our editing -- of course it would! The problem, as stated by both Catflap and myself, not to mention several other users, is that the TBAN (as proposed by BMKand AlbinoFerret) bears little-to-no relation to the actual dispute. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know, from the above discussion, that you find it hard to believe that anyone who disagrees with you could possibly have read the discussion. You're not exactly drowning us in contrition, are you? GoldenRing (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Its also possible, that having read most of the sections in the last month, that the surprise is because of the wall of text this has become, just like the others. AlbinoFerret 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Umm... you didn't answer my question. I asked if you had read the discussion because your post didn't make any sense -- which of the proposals do you "support"? Are your sarcastic comments about me meant to indicate that you want whatever will spite me the worst just because you don't like me? If so, may I ask why? Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to get a message through to you. Inelegantly and imperfectly, I'm sure, but a message nonetheless and a message for your good. My comments were not sarcastic: your standard response to anyone who disagrees is to question whether they have read the discussion. Perhaps it is time for you to question whether you have understood the situation instead. You don't seem to understand that you have caused a problem which the community now has to deal with. I don't think you should get to quibble over the scope of the workaround the community comes up with to deal with the fact you two can't get along. You don't seem to understand that any editing restriction put in place is not a solution to the problem, it is a workaround; the solution is for you to go and learn to work together with other people, both of you. Try going and doing that, instead of sticking your nose in to where the community is trying to find a way of limiting the damage you cause. If you don't, this is very likely to end up at arbcom and there, I suspect, a broad topic ban is less than you can expect. If that's where you want to go then ignore my advice, by all means. GoldenRing (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You are still insinuating that I have somehow causedx damage to the project even though no evidence has been presented of such and several users who have looked through my edits disagree. You say this damage needs to be limited by imposing the maximum possible sanction against me (a de facto site ban): why is a two-way topic ban from the topic area in question insufficient for this? You tell me to go and get along with other people and stop interfering with the community's deliberations -- you do realize that as long as this discussion is open I am unable to continue my normal Wikipedia activity since ALL of it involves "Japanese culture", don't you? You say you support BMK's proposal of a two-way TBAN from "our mutual editing area of Japanese culture" -- which is it, though? Our mutual editing area, or Japanese culture? Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Fine, ignore my advice. And the advice of BMK below, which amounts to the same thing. I wish you well of it, but I don't hold out much hope. GoldenRing (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
What advice? Seriously, all you're doing is telling me my contributions are worthless and I'm no longer welcome on this website. I'd much rather listen to the advice of Drmies and Sturmgewehr88 and stay the fuck away from Catflap08 and the articles he edits -- why can't I just do that? Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, there you take us into deep waters. Why indeed? If you both did that — or, even better, learned to just get along — we wouldn't be here, would we? If you can't see any advice in what BMK writes below, I suggest you read it again, carefully. GoldenRing (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You do understand that I've been trying to do one or the other of those for over a year now, right? Nichiren Buddhism falls into my normal field of editing anyway -- hence my editing those pages, and hence the majority of objective commenters agreeing that my editing those pages didn't qualify as hounding to begin with -- but I am willing to step away from those articles. There was the time I tried to initiate a talk page discussion on the Miyazawa Kenji article and Catflap08's immediate response was to complain about me on AN, or the time said AN thread was closed as abusive and instead of discussing with me he immediately opened an RFC, or the time the RFC turned against him and he violated it anyway, or the time I reverted his consensus violation and he opened another RFC rather than discussing with me on the talk page, or the time I posted a request on the Kokuchukai talk page to call it quits and work together and he spat in my face, or the time he requested an IBAN so I could not directly revert him, while at the same time striking a deal with another user to revert all my edits to the Miyazawa Kenji article once the IBAN was in place, or the time he himself reverted all my edits to the Kokuchukai article once the IBAN was in place ... When during this process have I been the one behaving in a belligerent manner? How can you justify the clearly-punitive-and-not-at-all-preventative nature of the proposed TBAN when the subject of the punitive measures is the one who throughout has been the one trying to make peace while being met with this? Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hijiri88 just left a harassing message on my talk page. It is more evidence that Hijiri88 will never stop making a nuisance of himself to other users editing in this field unless he is topic banned. When is enough enough with his disruptive behavior?TH1980 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Some clarification might be required. In the past four months TH1980 has logged in to Wikipedia intermittently to post ad hominem remarks about me on article talk pages. He has followed me to four articles, and two ANI threads, all the while insisting that I am following him. He insists that he is sick of my "hounding", but every time we have interacted it has been TH1980 who has initiated it. I keep telling him to move on with his life and forget about me, but somehow he just keeps coming back and just keeps insisting that I am following him. It was amusing at first, but I am frankly getting a little fed up with it, which is what prompted the boldface in the above diff. I'm going to request the nearest grown-up to come and take a look at this because I don't have the energy right now. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri88: I suggest you take a couple of deep breaths, and then re-read your most recent comments. You are coming off in this discussion as such a total and complete asshole that I am sorely tempted to withdraw my proposal for a mutual topic ban for both you and Catflap, and replacing it with a proposal for an indef ban for you alone. You, sir, are your own worst enemy, and the fact that you are totally unaware of that is a matter of concern. Now, if you would take my advice (which I am sure you will not), I would suggest that you shut the fuck up until this thread is closed, and you may have a chance of coming out of this with only a topic ban, and not being banned from Wikipedia entirely. BMK (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, I note from your talk page that you told another editor that you couldn't apologize to John Carter and myself for your insults to us, because both of us have asked you not to post to our talk pages, but there's nothing stopping you from apologizing to us here for the remarks that you made here (calling both of us "insane" and myself "illiterate"), is there?. BMK (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, what exactly is so bad about my above summary of my (unrelated and entirely off-topic) dispute with TH1980 that it merits me being called an "asshole" and being told to "shut the fuck up"? I asked you "are you insane?" and was made to apologize, which I did multiple times, but your above epithets are by any measure worse.
Furthermore, my comment wasn't even that bad: TH1980 has posted in multiple venues about me "following" him, and has asked me several times to "leave him alone", and each time I have responded by, as politely as I could under the circumstances, pointing out that he was the one who had followed me to said venue, and that if he wanted me to leave him alone the best way would be for him to leave me alone. I have now done the same thing here, which resulted in him adding the above off-topic commentary to this thread.
As I am sure you can tell I'm quite exasperated with this at the moment, so I'll refrain from further comment until Nishidani or some other user with experience of TH1980's antics helps to deal with the matter.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I really don't care two figs how "exsperated" you are, I -- and I suspect many other editors -- are totally exasperated with you and Catflap, who cannot coexist with each other, cannot conform to the IBan you both agreed to, and constantly bring your conflicts back to the noticeboards, over and over again. What this proposal says is ENOUGH. You two have exhausted the patience of the community, and you need to be stopped. BMK (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
BMK, please don't refactor my posts. When I split my comment into several paragraphs, I prefer to place my sig directly below all of these paragraphs, not attach it to the final paragraph as though said had special significance. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: from your tone in the above comments and the fact that you yourself made this proposal (which I already see resulting in nothing again), I would say this isn't about "the community" being fed up, but just you. If the community were truly fed up, this thread would've already ended with TBANs or blocks with near-total consensus, but that's not the case at all. So go ahead and change your proposal to a one-way site ban, you already know that's not going to fly. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri asked me on my page but I prefer not to meddle. All I would note is that anything TH1980 has stated here should be ignored. He is totally incompetent in the Japanese Korean area, as the talk page where I interacted with him will document. He has no idea of polioy.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
That's your prerogative. At this point I really only wanted you to comment on TH1980 issue, which you have done. Thank you. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Let the record show that Nishidani is an ally of Hijiri 88 who also harasses Wikipedia members. His "He has no idea of polioy [sic]" personal attack on me speaks volumes in this regard. Hijiri88 is also a hopeless liar about how I am the one harassing him, not vice versa--but that is no surprise, given how it is standard practice for bullies the world over.TH1980 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Stop pinging me. Also, Nishidani is only my "ally" in that we both understand and make it a habit to follow Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. I call him in to help me deal with issues on talk pages from time to time because (1) he's damned good at it, and (2) he and I hardly ever agree on anything other than the fact that you and that other guy are messing up the articles with your OR/CRUFT, so it cannot reasonably be called canvassing. (The same could be said, mind you, for my requesting WikiProject Japan to weigh in -- the majority of that project's members have a history of disagreement with me, and I'd say any given member probably agrees with my edits less than 40% of the time, but virtually all of them would be flabbergasted at the idea of me being TBANned from "Japanese culture" because of my recent edits to the Soka Gakkai and Kokuchukai articles.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't be silly. I've remonstrated with Hijiri often as any interaction talk page will show. On the other hand, I have had to revert you far more often, because of your incompetence in subjects like Japanese and Korean history.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I think you meant "BMK's proposal for a topic ban, don't you, CurtisNaito? ;) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I assume by "non-collaborative editing by Hijiri88 even well outside of his dispute with Catflap" what CurtisNaito actually means is "non-collaborative editing by me with Hijiri88 even well outside of Hijiri88's dispute with Catflap". Just look at the histories ofTalk:Emperor Jimmu, Talk:Soga–Mononobe conflict or Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture to see me working collaboratively with a large number of users (Nishidani, Sturmgewehr88, Curly Turkey, Ubikwit, Phoenix7777 ...) with whom I almost never agree (and had several disagreements with on those pages) but still working together to find solutions to the problems those articles faced, while CurtisNaito was complaining the whole time that we "weren't editing collaboratively" because we were excluding him from most of the deliberations. Ask anyone (Nishidani would be particularly good at answering, IMO) why CurtisNaito is generally not listened to on talk pages relating to Japanese history and culture, but the answer will always be the same. Additionally, CurtisNaito himself appears to have some ego problems -- he recently declared that my contributions to classical Japanese poetry articles were crap because I used so-called "tertiary" sources like Keene's The History of Japanese Literature and the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten, while proclaiming his articles on the Sino-Japanese War to be "Good Articles", even though they are mostly sourced to right-wing magazines, and only passed the "GA" review process because (by the reviewers' own admission) they do not speak Japanese and were unable to check the sources themselves.
If CurtisNaito is right, and BMK was in fact looking at my past disputes with CurtisNaito while forming the wording of his proposed TBAN on me and Catflap08, then I would kindly ask BMK to please be more open about his thought process, and maybe keep off-topic discussion to a minimum. Also, if the proposed TBAN is based on the history of CurtisNaito's disputes with me, Nishidani and Sturmgewehr88, may I ask why exactly CurtisNaito, Nishidani and Sturmgewehr88 are not also up for TBANs for these disputes? Why am I the only veteran of the Korean Influence and Emperor Jimmu disputes being discussed in this manner? Pretty much everyone who was involved in these disputes agreed that I was editing constructively and working hard to end disputes before they started, while CurtisNaito's own passive-aggressive, IDHT behaviour and constant reverting were not helpful and tended to drive other users to the point of using profanity.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as farcically overbroad. I'd support a very narrow mutual topic ban, restraining them both from new religious movement articles relating to Nichiren Buddhism. If that proves to not be quite wide enough, then widen it a little, in direct response to the problem as it surfaces. It is correct that the initial report of an IBAN violation is probably valid, as the edits by Hijiri88 do appear to target Catflap08, and H. did mention C. by name. H's counter-claim of an IBAN violation by C. is also valid; hiding continual discussion of H. by using the euphemism "the other editor", etc., doesn't magically evade the IBAN. It is not correct that raising an IBAN violation discussion is itself an IBAN violation, or people being hounded/harassed would never have any recourse even if their harasser were subject to an IBAN, since there would be no way to report the IBAN violation and continued harassment. Basic WP:COMMONSENSE. The observation by several (not just H.) that C. is acting in a WP:OWNish or WP:VESTED way toward some articles simply by having been at them first is also a valid concern. So is H.'s apparent editing at these articles in a way designed to irritated C., instead of to improve the article in any objectively identifiable way. All of this seems to be solved by getting both editors out of the same virtual room, without favoritism, and without hyperbolically overreactive "remedies" like trying to nuke either or both of them entirely out of their broadest-defined areas of interest. We're losing too many generally productive editors to go around decapitating them every time they get into a personality squabble.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per benlisquare-In my opinion, it seems he was cooperative in the talk page before edition. Then I don't see how he is hounding Catflap08. Even user Catflap08 oppose the ban for Hijiri 88.Miracle dream (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

insert point[edit]

  • Comment In my opinion Hijiri 88 is causing trouble in this discussion as a means of wearing people down to the point this latest proposed ban regarding him gets dropped. I do not think we should cave in here and let him have his way yet again.TH1980 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
TH1980, I have asked you before to stop pinging me. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There's also the fact that a sanction discussion which is elongated unnecessarily by Hiriji's wall-of-text comments is much easier for editors reading AN/I to skip over, thinking that the issues will probably be too complex to get involved. Ironically, the issue here is extremely simple, and has nothing to do with subject-matter competence, it's simply that two editors cannot get along and keep bringing their beefs against each other to the noticeboards. I rather doubt that Hiriji does either of these things (wearing down and stretching out) deliberately as a tactic, I think he's just built that way.
I'm going to try to keep away from this discussion for a while, until it's run long enough to request closure, but let me say this as a final point. Catflap may be the more disruptive editor, I don't know, some people clearly think so, but there's one thing you have to say for them: they know when to stop talking and stop digging, something that Hiriji simply cannot seem to understand. But in any case, my proposal doesn't work unless both are sanctioned equally, and, despite the hopeful remarks of a few partisans, it has indeed gained a fair amount of traction: ignoring the two subjects, I believe we're at 9 supports and 4 opposes, with some days left to run. BMK (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
At this point there has been (in fact, at the point I started posting my wall-of-text comments there already had been) more than enough participation both from involved users and outside parties to form a consensus on the proposed TBAN one way or the other. The TBAN is not supported by the community. A TBAN on the common editing area of me and Catflap08 has some support; a TBAN on Japanese culture has some support; there are some users who oppose any form of sanction against me until it can be proven that I violated the IBAN or engaged in disruptive behaviour of some sort. Clearly nothing will come of it and ... well, has anyone else actually noticed that Catflap08 announced both here and on his user page that he was retiring, and hasn't edited at all in days? Is any of this still even necessary? If anyone still thinks my edits in such-and-such area were disruptive a TBAN discussion can take place, but wouldn't it make more sense to do so without all the clutter of "this isn't about your edits -- it's about your inability to work together with another user who has already left the project"? Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the decision about whether the discussion has run long enough is not yours to make. The proposal has been open for only 4 days, which is less than the usual amount of time that sanction discussions are allowed to run, unless, of ocurse, they are runaways. Please stop trying to make this about me (another of your habits -- attempting deflection), it's clearly not about me, never was and never will be, it's about you and Catflap and your inability to get along without disruption to the community. BMK (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
BMK, did you even read my post before responding? I ask because your response appears to bear no relation whatsoever to my post.
I did not say the discussion had "run long" in a temporal sense: I said it was longer in terms of word count than probably any other ANI thread currently open, and had already seen more community participation than most such discussions, with no consensus in sight. You, AlbinoFerret and Ivanvector are in favour of a super-broad topic ban against me and the now-retired Catflap08; Drmies is in favour of a narrow topic ban against me but not the now-retired Catflap08; Sturmgewehr88 and Benlisquare are against a broad topic ban and appear to be ambivalent on a narrow topic ban for either me or the now-retired Catflap08; Wikimandia and a coupla others are against all sanctions proposed against me, with no explicit opinion on the now-retired Catflap08; several other users expressed support for some kind of topic ban, but given how your initial proposal was ambivalent on whether the topic ban should be on "our common editing area" or "Japanese culture", they can't reasonably be counted unless they explicitly state which of the proposed topic bans they support; John Carter, before Catflap08 retired, expressed neutrality on your proposal but favoured taking it to ArbCom, but it's really not clear how taking my dispute with the now-retired Catflap08 to ArbCom could be of any help when, as I hope I have now made clear to you, one of the two parties appears to have left the project.
When in my above comment was I "trying to make this about you"? You accuse me of making a habit of this, but as far as I can see this is in fact another instance of your habit of either failing to read other users' comments properly or deliberately ignoring the bits that don't support your argument. (Hence your complete failure to acknowledge my diligently listing every single article Catflap08 and I have disputed over or is even remotely related to the dispute -- if you actually read the list you would know how inappropriately broad your proposed topic ban is.)
You spend half of your response to me talking about how I am trying to make this about you when it is about me and Catflap08, but ... you ignored the half of my comment that was about Catflap08 having already retired. Could you please address what my comment actually said, rather than what you wish it said?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore: You earlier criticized me for "threatening" to retire from the project if your super-broad topic ban against me passed. But what about the other party, who actually did retire because of the mere suggestion that he be topic banned? (Let alone the distinct possibility that, like Catflap's earlier "retirements", it is just a stunt to gain sympathy.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Elongation, wearing down, deflection. BMK (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a question regarding whether Hijiri88 is even able to acknowledge that anything he does might ever be counted as really "wrong," at least in situations where he is actively being discussed, such as this one. And the preposterous attempt to impugn Catflap08 in the above just once again calls to attention Hijiri88's attempts to rush to judge the conduct of editors with whom he is in disagreement in such a way as to deflect attention from his own misconduct. Catflap08 has been questioning whether editing here is worth the aggravation he receives from editing here, most recently almost exclusively from Hijiri88 himself, for some time now. To assert, despite the I think rather obviously visible evidence, that it is a "stunt" seems to me to be, considering Hijiri88's own recent conduct regarding this discussion, a rather blatant violation of WP:KETTLE. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: When have I ever performed such a stunt in the past? We know Catflap08 did -- he pretended to retire in March, and the result was an overall increase in his editing output. And what you call a "stunt" on my part is me stating in a matter-of-fact way that the proposed super-broad TBAN is worded in such a manner as to drive me off Wikipedia. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the common editing ground of myself and Catflap08. No one has yet been able to locate a single edit by Catflap08 in the area of "Japanese culture, not Nichiren Buddhist NRMs". This is proof enough that BMK's assertion that in order to prevent further conflict between me and Catflap08 we need to both be banned from "Japanese culture" is overkill at best, and a deliberate attack on my editing without a hint of controversy in unrelated areas at worst.
Please, someone find one single edit by Catflap08 in the proposed TBAN area. ONE EDIT.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just been subjected to another harassing message from Hijiri88 at my talk page. He is now threatening to request that I be blocked if I make an edits on a page he has contributed edits to. I submit his latest personal attack on me as further proof of his disruptive behavior.TH1980 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If he is topic-banned, I think that there is perhaps a real chance that, if the article is within the scope of the topic ban, that any discussion to that effect might itself be a violation of that topic ban, and, on that basis, grounds for some sort of block or other sanction. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
TH1980, if you keep following me around like this you should be blocked per WP:HOUND. It is extremely frustrating and more than a little terrifying when you suddenly show up everywhere I do. Give it a break. Do something else. STOP FOLLOWING ME!
Also, if any topic ban is put in place, given John Carter's above threat, I would like it made clear whether other users are allowed unilaterally go around reverting my edits in such-and-such area.
But this is all beside the point -- "editing articles" I contribute to is not the real problem with TH1980's edits, and is not something I highlighted in the above diff. That's just more disruptive misrepresentation by TH1980. It's showing up any time I am involved in an ANI discussion and, without even reading the discussion, requesting that I be SITEBANned for unrelated past disputes with him.
23:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Its simply amazing. People show up and support site bans for you based on your behaviour. Then you blame it on them. I suggest you find a mirror next time you point a finger to find out who else is involved. AlbinoFerret 23:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret, how do you explain TH1980's article edits and talk page comments, then? If he were simply a good-faith user doing his duty by supporting "the community"'s efforts on ANI, then why was he already haranguing me on articles and their talk pages before this? Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone takes this sort of criticism well, and in fairness TH1980 does clearly have past issues with the editor, which smells like unclean hands to me. Let's focus on the actual dispute between Catflap08 and Hijiri88, rather than their tempers as fired up by this ANI dispute and those coming out of the woodwork to pile wood on the fire.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


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

  • It does not require community consensus to file a case request at ArbCom, but as long as this AN/I report is open, ArbCOm is unlikely to take the case. Their recent history has been to allow the community to handle the problem first. BMK (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, ArbCom won't raise a hand until ANI has been thoroughly tested and it's been repeatedly shown that community sanctions haven't worked. At this point, there is an existing iban and now a topic ban proposal. If the TBAN doesn't work either then by all means feel free to raise an request at ArbCom. (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to log in. Blackmane (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Some might be surprised if this fails, that an arbcom case is started, I wont be. The editors in question should not be hoping for arbcom, because imho its more likely to end in blocks rather than topic bans. Topic bans, even if they are indef can end if the editor goes elsewhere on WP and shows they can work well with others, blocks are much harder to remove. AlbinoFerret 15:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
As an individual, I think that there may well be unique circumstances in this particular situation which might best be handled in more formal arbitration. I hesitate to say what they may be, but I believe this may well be a rather unusual situation in at least some regards which might benefit from what might be a more thorough review than might necessarily be possible here. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything particularly unique in two editors being unable to get along, it happens all the time. Also, as AlbinoFerret points out, an ArbCom case for this is a crapshoot. In many situations it's fairly easy to foresee what the Committee is going to do, but in this one, I think it's just as likely that they'll deal out indef blocks for one or both as it is that topic bans will be the result. BMK (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything unique about this that ArbCom could speak to, or would be likely to act upon. It's two editors who don't like each other, who refuse to collaborate, and who are wasting far too much of the community's time with trying to police their ongoing conflict. Topic ban them both. Indefinitely. If they can show that they can edit constructively in other areas then they should have the opportunity to appeal in no less than a year. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Why exactly should I have to prove I can edit constructively in areas I have no interest in and/or knowledge of? The proposed TBAN parameters were arbitrarily selected to ban me from editing every article in any topic area I am remotely interested in, rather than to prevent me from editing in the (much, much narrower) topic area where there has been disruption. Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The topic area really doesn't matter, except to be selected to prevent ongoing disruption. You should have to prove you can edit constructively at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: if you don't think Hijiri can edit constructively "at all", then you've obviously never looked through his contributions. Here's] your proof of constructive editing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe what Ivanvector is referring to is the two editors' inability to edit without disruption. As I've said repeatedly, this is not about the ability to create content, it's about the behavior of Hijiri and Catflap. BMK (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Could Beyond My Ken, AlbinoFerret, and Ivanvector please stop and consider -- who is it that has been/still is causing disruption here?
Where is the evidence that disruption on my part led to an IBAN? The initial IBAN discussion saw two users (Catflap08 and John Carter) claiming I was abusive, two users (Sturmgewehr88 and myself) saying Catflap08 and John Carter were disruptive, and a whole bunch of other users saying "I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but the best solution here would probably be to separate them".
Where is the evidence that the recent disruption since the IBAN was mine? Virtually everyone except maybe Drmies (who gave Catflap08 a slap on the wrist for his violations but blocked me) has acknowledged that Catflap08 and not I had violated the IBAN numerous times.
Where is the evidence that any of the proposed solutions would solve whatever problems still exist? A mutual or one-way (for me) TBAN on "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs" is the most logical solution and appears to have the broadest support among the community -- even Drmies backs it, despite early comments by BMK and Ivanvector misrepresenting him as being on their side. But is even that necessary when Catflap08 has been "retired" for over half a week already? Is the insinuation here that I need to be restricted to prevent me from grave-dancing? Where is the evidence that I will do something like that? I haven't gone around systematically reverting all of the edits of any of these users -- when in the past have I ever either done or threatened to do such a thing?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I have thought about it again, you two still need a topic ban. Every post you make makes me (and probably anyone who reads them) believe you need a topic ban. You are digging a deeper hole. AlbinoFerret 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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

As I've said, you're free to file a case request at any time, but a number of editors have reported as to what the expected outcome of that would be at the moment. BMK (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I haven't misrepresented anyone. I referred to exactly two comments made by Drmies: one, the "the ongoing and ever-increasing exasperation of the rest of the editors", and two, "just f***ing zip it". I interpret one as an accurate observation that you are wearing the community's patience thin, and two as an expression of frustration that we keep having to hear about the two of you. Sturmgewehr88 is right, I have never looked through Hijiri's contributions. Editors who are constructive and collaborative contributors don't get blocked for crossing ibans because they don't have ibans in the first place, and don't have 18,000-word, 120,000-byte threads at ANI about their conduct after having been asked by an administrator in a previous ANI thread to shut up. I'll add a three from Drmies' previous close: "boy would I like to put a stop to this." Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Admins, are we closing this yet? Consider issuing a narrow topic ban as outlined above, the kind of topic ban which, if I read their comments correctly, even Hijiri agrees with. Someone cut this Gordian knot. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussion was opened on the 20th, before Catflap, apparently from what I have been able to determine, finally may have retired outright due to the misconduct of others involved in this thread, with much of that misconduct directly visible here. That being the case, I suppose it might make some sense to let the discussion wind down naturally, after the full seven days have elapsed. Somehow, I have a feeling at least one person here is perhaps going to continue to argue every point he can think of, be it rational or irrational, and on that basis I suppose it might make sense to give him as little reason to argue later as possible. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • We must keep in mind, though, that the very large majority of editors commenting on this case favor the broad topic ban proposed by BMK.TH1980 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's currently 10 in favor, 6 against, and 1 neutral, with some of the supporters prefering a narrow TBAN. Hardly a "very large" majority. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well... not really. It's true that both Catflap and Hijiri gave "oppose" !votes, but all that really means is that, if the mutual topic ban proposal is implemented, it's not being done voluntarily -- so those two opposes can be ignored. That means 10 supports and 4 against by your count. (Who is the neutral, BYW?) What's interesting is that virtually everybody in this discussion says that there is ongoing disruption, the difference is that the "supports" see a potential solution in the mutual topic bans, while most of the "opposes" point the finger of blame in various directions. It's virtually unanimous that there's disruption which needs to be dealt with, a fact which I hope the closer of this discussion will take into consideration. BMK (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, the fact that we just got another editor's opinion is an indication that this thread is not, at least, overripe for closure. I was thing of waiting for 7 days after the opening of the thread, presuming that there hadn't been any new !votes in the previous 24 hours, before asking for closure. BMK (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, thank you. BMK (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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

And I would like to note that the above comment is at best only at best partially supported by the facts, on this same page, What Nishidani said above, and I quote, is "All I would note is that anything TH1980 has stated here should be ignored," along with some other comments about that editor. At no point that I can see did he say anyone has "an established history of wiki-stalking" Hijiri88, as he attests above. The fact that Hijiri88 is once again engaging in transparently dishonest representations of the statements of others to support his own statements is I believe a serious enough problem as per WP:HONESTY to in and of itself raise questions.
Also, I think it worth noting that the reason I had stated earlier that I would not offer an "official" !vote was because that I was somewhat sympathetic to one of the parties involved, User:Catflap08, who has, so far as I can tell, finally done what he has been considering doing for some time and retiring from wikipedia. I hesitated to cast a !vote to limit him based on the conduct I had had with him earlier. I have never had any particular objection to sanctions against Hijiri88, however, and the conduct he has engaged in on this thread is to my eyes sufficient to believe that he should not be allowed to continue in like manner without facing the prospect of some sort of sanctions. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It does look like Catflap08 has retired. In that case I think this thread should be closed. I don't see much proof that H88 was really hounding in this complaint, so perhaps it's time to retire this thread as well. МандичкаYO 😜 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the retirement was in April. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

For once I agree with Hijiri88. Since we seem to lack the willingness to put a stop to clearly disruptive editors before they drive other productive contributors away from the project, we have allowed yet another clearly disruptive editor to drive another productive contributor away from the project. The damage is done, then; we can't do anything more here to prevent it. Any new blocks coming out of this are clearly punitive which is not allowed by policy. All we're doing here now is wikilawyering about whether or not different editors' comments are valid or not, and there's no point to it. I withdraw my support for any sanctions for Hijiri88. I'm sure I'll see you all again when Nichiren Buddhism becomes yet another general sanctions cesspool. Good work, team. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Its also common for users canvassed into the discussion to have less effect on the outcome. There are posts by Hijiri88 above that could be considered canvassing. 2 Where he pinged editors[17][18] and one that deals with a non neutral notification on a project page[19], and one a post to a user page of an editor who helps him with other users who he disagrees with [20]. If these factors are taken into account he has very little editors comments to support his desired outcome. AlbinoFerret 14:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Catflap will be back--"retired" here means "temporarily driven off", possibly in disgust. Hijiri88, for the life of me, I don't understand how you can go canvassing around for a thread like this--are you just trying to make yourself look bad? Don't answer that. Some admin might block you for it. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting closure[edit]

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

Yes, high time to close this. If it results in no sanctions, I'll be disappointed; the discussion above on its own highly merits them (and note that Hijiri is sticking his very sizeable oar into another discussion further down this page). GoldenRing (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I too will be disappointed if no sanctions are levied. We have a situation here that is clearly out of hand that warrants strict corrective measures.TH1980 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Hi admin--please consider looking for a consensus for the narrow topic ban proposed above for Hijiri. Topic banning both editors the same way is highly unfair to Catflap, who was not the bad guy here and who would suffer in a very different measure. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It is probably worth noting that Catflap will probably remain active in the WF entities in general, probably particularly the German wikipedia. But this is also a controversial content area here, particularly regarding Soka Gakkai and a few other related topics, and the more informed, competent, and effective editors we have available the better off we will be. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: "Catflap, who was not the bad guy here" are you kidding me? He constantly, although following the letter of the IBAN, showed total contempt for the spirit of the IBAN. I'm also convinced that he asked John Carter to proxy for him on the Kenji Miyazawa article via email (plus there was that "you editied my hometown" conspiracy). And now he is yet again pulling this retirement stunt. He deserves blocks or bans just as much or more than Hijiri. Both should be banned from Nichiren Buddhism articles. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not kidding you, and if I were you I would be very careful about making unfounded accusations about proxying. That is a pretty serious violation of AGF, and thus of NPA. I got more acronyms if you need them. As for the "hometown conspiracy"--there is no conspiracy, and Hijiri made that edit. As I said before, it was a while ago, so it's not that big of a deal, but it did happen. That you can't seem to find the evidence is your problem, not mine. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that I when I sought to send information to Hijiri that I recovered from various databanks, it had to be through Sturmgewehr. I have no reservations whatsoever actually about allowing access to my e-mail records to someone trustworthy. I wonder if Hijiri and Sturmgewehr can say the same thing. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Some points the closing admin may wish to consider:

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

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

How are indefinite topic bans from the subject area of "Japanese culture" "standard? Can you provide some precedent for that? A mutual TBAN in a broad area that covers all of one party's edits even though the other party only ever edits in a very small sub-section of said area, and thus 100% of the disruption has taken place in the small sub-section? I'm sure the closing admin would like to see some kind of evidence for this being in any way "standard"... Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The topic ban itself is a standard one, i.e. all the terms of a standard topic ban apply. The specifics in this case are the subject area, i.e. Japanese culture, and the time period, i.e. indefinite, (which of course does not mean "infinite"). Those are not standard, because they're different from topic ban to topic ban, but the terms of the ban itself are standard, and any admin looking to apply a block based on thse bans should be familiar with those terms, and doesn't have to look up specifics about the terms of these topic bans. I hope that's clear to you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "precedent" in regard to this -- this is not a court of law, and we are neither judges nor a jury. We are a community of editors, and the community can put into effect any kind of sanction it wishes to, if there is consensus to do so. In this case, the proposal called for 2 topic bans, one for each of you, and the closer is called upon to determine if there was a consensus in this discussion for that proposed sanction, or for some other sanction. There's nothing unusual in any of that, it's entirely within the purview of the community, and of the closing admin. BMK (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I have reversed the order of "indefinite" and "standard" to make my point clearer. BMK (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood me. My problem is not with the length, but the scope. If the point of a TBAN is (as you and others have said above) to allow me and Catflap08 to demonstrate that we can edit constructively in other areas, then why does it cover such a broad area as to force at least one of us off Wikipedia? I have never shown any interest in editing articles outside the "Japanese culture" area; this is because Wikipedia is voluntary, I edit because I enjoy it, and I don't enjoy writing about subjects (a) of which I have no specialist knowledge and (b) in which I have no interest. I can't edit constructively without causing disruption, if I can't edit period. On top of this, as demonstrated much further up the thread, all of the disruption has taken place within the area of Nichiren Buddhist new religious movements. No evidence has been presented of any disruption in any article on "Japanese culture" that was not centered around this narrow area; indeed, no evidence has been presented of Catflap08 ever having edited any article on "Japanese culture" that was not centered around this narrow area. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The scope of topic bans can be everything from extremely narrow to extremely broad. I have suggested what I thought was appropriate, and the editors who !voted "support" agreed. Other editors have disagreed -- fine, let's see what kind of consensus the closer finds, if any. BMK (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
There does seem to be consensus for some form of sanctions. If the closing admin finds that the consensus for sanctions is sufficient, but, perhaps, that no particular sanctions proposed have sufficient support, I think that there might be precedent, somewhere, to keep the thread open or reopen another one with a broader range of possible sanctions. God knows I don't wanna see this drag on any longer than it has to, but if the closing admin deems it reasonable, I guess we would have to live with it. John Carter (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I’d like to insert that it is not my intention to see Hijirii88 banned on Japanese Culture even though I find their edits in other areas quite disturbing (especially in lacking respect for other editors reading the notes accompanying edits) those areas are not my business though. At the very beginning of this thread I gave the reasons for why I think a TBAN on Hijirii88 regarding topics falling within the category of Nichiren Buddhsim would be beneficial. May I say that it was not me who was blocked for 72h and it was Hijirii88 who popped up on Nichiren related articles they never really showed up on before? The IBAN does not seem to work – and there do seem to be ways round it. The reason for me starting this ANI is simply that if Hijirii88 would have continued editing on Nichiren related matters (defined by a category) I would not have been able to further edit the only area I am basically active on - without violating the IBAN. May I also say that I usually work on Nichiren Buddhist matters only in general? Articles dealing with major historic figures and traditional schools within Nichiren Budhism are fairly “quiet” anyways – there just is no controversy as compared to those Nichiren groups being regarded as new religious movements. This is also the very reason I do not edit articles (except the talk page), such as Soka Gakkai, in major ways anymore. In the article on SGI there is so much POV that I could not care less anymore as the project does not seem to care either, so why bother? Since the outcome of this is still open I would like to thank those who joined adding information on Nichiren Buddhism in general – since I was once an adherent of one of those new religious movements based on Nichiren Buddhism (now not affiliated with any school or group) Wikipedia helped in replacing myths, lies and ignorance about Nichiren Buddhism in general with facts. This is what I came here for. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 has harassed CurtisNaito on a closed good article review (see here), and has been involved in further hounding on the Talk:History of Japan#Article should not be citing Jared Diamond talk page. I have warned Hijiri88 for vandalism on History of Japan (I believe he also crossed the 3RR), to which he simply removed my warning from his talk.  — Calvin999 16:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that some days after the request for closure on this ANI thread was placed, and all participants agreed to wait for the closure and accept whatever consensus statement is drawn by the closing admin, I got involved in a completely unrelated content dispute on the History of Japan article. There was no "vandalism", and whether "edit-warring" has taken place is up for grabs (if one side has two or more users and therefore doesn't technically violate 3RR, but also refuses to engage in talk page discussion, does it count as an edit war?). Calvin999 showed up out of nowhere and started making several gross personal attacks and threats against me, and apparently looked through my edit history to find out that there had recently been an ANI thread about me. Without checking what the current status of the thread, he posted the above off-topic rant about how I am "harassing" the other user in the dispute (whose own comment in this thread shows quite the opposite). I am trying to engage in civilized talk page discussion, but have received threats and personal attacks from one user, blank reverts without any attempt to use the talk page from another, and blank reverts with some talk-page-based off-topic avoidance of the issues from another. Full disclosure, I have emailed an administrator (Cuchullain -- I don't want to ping him for fear he'll comment here and exacerbate the problem) to look into the problem with Calvin999. The personal remarks are annoying, but it's the threats that I'm worried about. Please, no one else comment on this here. Just ignore it. If you want to weigh in on the content dispute, all input is still welcome. Hijiri 88 (やや) 17:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As has already been noted in this thread, Hijiri has a tendency to issue disturbing threats against other editors who criticize him. However, what's even more concerning is that he follows through with his threats by harassing these editors. Not long after I suggested that Hijiri be page banned he responded by posting negative messages on my good article review for Iwane Matsui. Hijiri had taken no interest in good article reviews before then, and the reviewer found his concerns to be without foundation. Now after I have posted a message about Hijiri in this thread, he responded by doing the same thing, posting negative messages on a recent good article review of mine, even though he had shown no interest in good article reviews before. The fact that his behavior constituted harassment and disruptive editing was clearly pointed out by the user Calvin999 on multiple occasions. Meanwhile Hijiri posted several harassing messages on my talk page. During a simultaneous dispute on the talk page at History of Japan he canvassed both Nishidani and Sturmgewehr88, the exact same users he was explicitly warned about canvassing in this very thread! All these policy violations would be enough to fill an entire thread, but since this thread is still open, I figured I would post it here.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the same sort of stalking and harassment I have experienced (including this recent harassing message Hijiri left on my talk page). This is the same sort of stalking and harassment that Catflap08 demonstrated at the start of the thread, and the same sort of stalking and harassment many other editors have experienced.TH1980 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
TH1980 has been engaged in a slow-motion hounding campaign of me over the past four months. I plan on doing something about this once the present Catflap08 mess has wound down -- I won't post all the evidence until then, but it's there, as you can see in his edit history. He recently showed up on the History of Japan article, having never edited it before or shown any interest in it, and reverted me. CurtisNaito and two of his cronies (TH1980 and Calvin999) have been edit-warring to preserve a controversial version of the article. Neither Calvin999 nor TH1980 have made any attempt whatsoever to use the talk page, and CurtisNaito has been all-but copy-pasting the same comment over and over again, not actually addressing other users' concerns. The edit war is over whether some controversial (unsourced, OR, misrepresentation of sources, sourced to an unreliable opinion piece) material should be tagged as such while discussion on the talk page takes place. Every outside editor who has weighed in has agreed with my POV on the content dispute, because I am right (as I have been in all of my past disputes with these editors -- they simple don't understand our content policies; see here). If I violated 3RR, I apologize. But I am not the one who has been "edit-warring", since I was until User:Sturmgewehr88 showed up the only one attempting to engage in discussion on the talk page -- the ones who don't use the talk page are the ones who were edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
For everyone's information, I have had an interest in Japanese history for some time. I was recently browsing the history of Japan article and its talk page when I noticed the recent dispute there. I am dismayed by Hijiri88's penchant for splitting hairs as to whether or not a source is reliable, especially when it is written by as noted a scholar as Jared Diamond.TH1980 (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of this already finished and waiting to be closed ANI discussion, I will not address all of CurtisNaito's above off-topic, content-dispute related comments. However, it needs to be pointed out that the reason I had not taken an interest in GA reviews until just before the Iwane Matsui affair was because I don't much care for petty medals. CurtisNaito, on the other hand asserted that I had contributed nothing of worth to Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese history because he had created more "GA" articles than I had. Both the "good article" in question had at review and still have now serious sourcing issues, and in the case of the Iwane Matsui article the reviewer admitted he was unable to read 95% of the article's sources. Now enough of this off-topic content discussion on ANI already! Let some admin close this thread however they see fit, and take the content dispute back to the talk page. Hijiri 88 (やや) 17:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I see why your in such a hurry to close. More is coming out about your behaviour. I hope the closer takes into account that you are now harassing those that oppose you. Perhaps a nice indef Block is needed. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
(e-c) Hijiri, your refusal to address concerns of others is noted, as is your discussion of off-topic, content-dispute related content and how it has no place here, which, in all honesty, is more than a little amusing considering how you had above said Catflap didn't know a damn thing about some content with which you had been in disagreement with him. This would seem to my eyes to be at least the second time WP:KETTLE could be reasonably invoked regarding your behavior here. If, and although I do not want to predict the outcome, I think there is a reasonable chance that it will end in at least some further sanctions against Hijiri, I hope he realizes, if that does come to pass, that, should he continue to engage in the problematic conduct which has been displayed not only in the links in previous discussions regarding him here, and, in fact, in his own conduct in this thread, there is a very real chance that the sanctions will be that much stronger, and, basically, there aren't that many possible sanctions stronger than a topic ban. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite. I have been trying to discuss on the article talk page. CurtisNaito and Calvin999 have been blankly reverting me, ignoring the concerns of me and other users on the talk page, and have now taken the content dispute to ANI rather than going through the normal dispute resolution process. I agree with the two of you -- I hope the closing admin does look at the History of Japan dispute and take it into account (something it's quite clear neither of you have done).
Closer: Please look at the History of Japan dispute and tell off either me, Sturmgewehr88, Phoenix7777 and Vivexdino, or CurtisNaito, Rjensen, TH1980 and Calvin999 as appropriate. I'm sure both AlbinoFerret and John Carter would be very interested in what you have to say. (Note that another admin has already been invited to look into the dispute, though.)
Hijiri 88 (やや) 18:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
And throughout all that time, you as an individual have shown by your behaviour, bluntly, the self-aggrandizement and paranoia which has been rather obvious in your conduct for some time. And nothing in the above comment, which us apparently supposed to be taken as an attempt to address the concerns of the previous comment I made, even remotely relates to it. I will try to say this in a way that even you might be forced to see it. You are responsible for your conduct. You have regularly engaged in gross insults, unfounded allegations, and other grossly obnoxious behaviour, in this thread and elsewhere, which can and I believe do raise in the minds of several whether you are even remotely competent to adhere to the behaviour guidelines we are all supposed to follow. Failure to address those concerns regarding your own conduct is, at best, not in your interests.
Should your conduct continue to regularly fail to meet even the most basic standards of reasonable conduct as per our conduct guidelines, which I strongly suggest you at some point maybe look over, the disruption caused by your obfuscations, attempts and misdirection, and other misconduct honestly leaves little if any option to others but some sort of external sanction. Considering you are already under low-level sanctions, that only leaves the higher-level sanctions as viable options. I believe more than one person, including BMK, has said your conduct in this thread is completely inappropriate. I very much doubt anyone other than perhaps you will see how your attempt to apparently continue to refuse to even consider dealing with the frankly, at times, repulsive conduct you so regularly have engaged in in multiple discussions, and which has been pointed in multiple discussions at ANI and elsewhere, and efforts at blaming the other guy for your own misconduct, will be at all sufficient grounds to not impose sanctions on you.John Carter (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Since I think we're just spinning our wheels at this point, I've posted a request for closure on AN, here. BMK (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, BMK. That is certainly the best way to deal with it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though I do find other editors coming forward indeed interesting - when it come s to general conduct, but must underline that this thread cannot be a hanger for their own quarrels with Hijirii88. All that I wanted to know is how and under what circumstances I can edit within the category I have gathered an expertise, without corrupting the current IBAN. I do not pride myself with being fairly neutral on Nichiren Buddhist related matters, but others have said so too that I am – even off Wikipedia. My prime objective focus is to keep articles based on Nichiren Buddhism being based on facts. Deleting references is just not on. One might question them but then there has to be hell of a Consensus not only by numbers but on content.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How ironic, you're using my argument against me? You're the one who is offended by my edits and you are the only one who is censoring information on wikipedia. You're the one who has been warned several times by multiple users for edit warring. The only time I've ever had a problem with editing in recent history is on the Israel page because I accidentally violated the 1 revert policy on Arab/Israeli articles. By the way Doug Weller, if you had even bothered to read what I had actually said you would have realised that I made a clear distinction between my POV which is indeed biased and my intention to have a template which is in line with WP:NPOV guidelines. I do personally believe that the tenets of Islam are violated by groups such as Ahmadiyyah and Mahdavia (as do the vast majority of Muslims) however all I wanted to do was make a clear distinction between mainstream Islam (which literally over 90% of the circa 1.5 billion Muslims follow) and fringe groups who are messianic in nature. How on earth is it POV to call ahmadiyyah messianic? Furthermore, their ideology is actually based on their conviction that Ghulam Mirza is the messiah. I believe that my edits are the most informative and true to the topic's nature whereas removal of this content is simply being politically correct and censoring wikipedia just to not offend Ahmadis. Freeatlastchitchat and Peaceworld are both ahmadis and strongly utilise all means to push their POV and censor wikipedia. You're just enabling them. I've made clear what my personal beliefs are on the matter and I made a clear distinction between my personal feelings on the matter and what I believe that wikipedia should say. Sakimonk talk 04:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hahahaha, I just have to point out the hilarity of FreeatlastChitchat 's opening statement. His edits are antithetical to every word he has said. It reminds me of the Hosni mubarak trial. Sakimonk talk 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Sakimonk/Archive 1 has multiple edit-war templated warnings, several other notices about various disruptive editing, and indications of multiple times being hauled to WP:AN*. His saying "You're the one who has been warned several times by multiple users for edit warring" about someone else might be true, but it doesn't lessen his apparent involvement and history of the same behaviors. Pot/kettle, etc. DMacks (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I see that User:Drmies has given a Sakimonk a final warning at Template talk:Islam regarding edit-warring on that template. Other admins have full-protected multiple other pages in which he was involved in edit-wars on Islam-related articles. The general theme is as others have noted: Sakimonk taking an editorial position on what is the "true" Islam based on majority/mainstream and various political/governmental pronouncements, rather than just what is majority/mainstream with more academic sources. That's a series of pretty bad patterns, which don't usually lead to the user's desired outcome. DMacks (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • DMacks, thanks for the ping. I was not aware of this thread, though after I warned the editor I saw that they were edit warring in a number of other articles. Had I seen this thread and dug deeper I might have blocked them on the spot. I don't have to take an opinion on the content of the edits; the edit warring and the budding consensus here about POV editing is probably enough for the next admin to make a swift decision if their editing behavior continues in this vein. But I'll leave that for someone else, perhaps you, DMacks, since I'm done for the day. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That is simply not true. I actually find it quite insulting that you insinuate that I am (sic) taking an editorial position on what is the "true" Islam based on majority/mainstream and various political/governmental pronouncements, rather than just what is majority/mainstream with more academic sources. Time and time again I've made it brutally clear what I believe is my personal POV on the talk pages but I've also made it clear that I don't edit with this POV, I always intend on simply providing an accurate and balanced edit in line with WP:NPOV guidelines. We all have our own biases, at least I am honest unlike other users who do the opposite - hide their agenda and wreck articles with the false pretext of asserting NPOV. Sakimonk talk 05:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Support based on comments of the editor here, which seem to equate the views of extant Muslims with what should be presented in wikipedia, as per his statement above about his intentions to "make a clear distinction between mainstream Islam (which literally over 90% of the circa 1.5 billion Muslims follow) and fringe groups who are messianic in nature". Unfortunately, such a view is pretty much completely antithetical to wikipedia policies and guidelines, in this case particularly WP:NPOV. The views of the majority of Muslims at this time are not that which we should base our content on, because religious doctrine in most religions is more or less constantly in flux to one degree or another, and majority groups can sometimes die out to be replaced by others. We are supposed to base our content on what the best peer reviewed sources say, and there are numerous such sources, including those of a broadly encyclopedic nature, which do not make the distinctions that Sakimonk seems to consider so vital. He seems incapable, at least at this time, of differentiating between current majority POV and academic POV. If and when he is able to effectively understand and recognize that distinction, it very much seems to me that he will be ultimately just continuing the current internal majority POV, not the more neutral academic one. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, John Carter why is it that the Christian template has Eastern Western and Nontrinitarian? The seal of prophpethood is a key theological aspect of Islam. A group which espouses that a new messiah or prophet has come is not what is (in the wider academic viewpoint) not a typical form of Islam. It is unfair on readers who are unfamiliar with the topic to be presented with a multitude of "versions" of Islam when they are more than likely to want to read about what is the more prominent, relevant and pertinent topic at hand (which innervates into all other areas of importance such as News, Theology, Socio-economic matters etc.) which is the dominant forms of Islam; Sunni and Shi'ite. You talk about "flux" and so on, in reality Islam has always had a majority sunni following for over 1400 years, this has never fluctuated. It's simply a ridiculous assertion that being "Poliically correct" and not making an objective differentiation between what is normative Islam to what is atypical is simply being truer to the content. Why is it that articles on sciences and philosophy will always point out key influential figures or main branches of philosophy etc. By your logic we might as well list Jim Jones' cult along with Roman Catholicism. Sakimonk talk 01:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Your comment above dare I say simply goes further to show how you are less than qualified to edit in the topic of Islam, or, for that matter, possibly at all in contentious topics. I had stated above that we are supposed to base our content on the best available sources, which are, in general, the most highly regarded academic ones. If you were to actually review the topic at all, again, from the most highly regarded academic ones, which in this case would include the Brill/Eerdmans' Encyclopedia of Christianity, you would, I think, find that much of our content is consistent with that. Also, honestly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is something most people already know around here, and making an entire point which is contrary to it is at best amusing. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment Sakimonk was previously involved in a dispute discussed here[21] surrounding his wish to have the derogatory term "Qadiani" described as the commonly used term for Ahmadi Muslims, among other things. Editors like these is what is turning Wikipedia's content about Islam into a useless, conflicted mess.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I still stand by that edit, there is no substantial proof that the word "qadiani" is derogatory, it is actually the term most widely known to people to describe followers of those of the ahmadi faith. The term is used as the ahmadi religion emerged in the town of Qadian. It's like calling someone from London a Londoner. This is surely a violation of WP:NPOV since the only POV shown is the Ahmadi one and not the objective POV. The source I cited was an official government document, and you claim I'm being disingenuous? Sakimonk talk 01:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
All your claims have already been addressed at Talk:Qadiani which is the page where it should be discussed. Human Rights Watch describe the term as derogatory.[22]--Anders Feder (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@DMacks and Drmies he has started disruptive editing once again inserting POV material into the Mujaddid article. TP consensus clearly shows that EVERYONE is against insertion of such POV. Can we at least give him a warning? Pretty frustrating to revert him every time and then try to explain things to him on the TP when he is not even going to listen. I have requested gold lock on the page for a couple of months so that this can be settled on TP but until then can anyone just warn User:Sakimonk. Regards A tiredFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't do much with the information here. Sakimonk's POV is not clear to me "by just clicking contributions". That POV needs to be much more clear to an outsider like me, and that their edits are disruptive, I can only establish if they go against, for instance, clear consensus on a talk page. That was clearly the case in the major/minor thing on Template:Islam, where they were edit warring, but they haven't done that since I warned them. Sakimonk's comments certainly seem a bit tendentious, but that's not much to go on, not for an administrator. I would need to hear more informed opinions by more editors. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My experience of dealing with Sakimonk has only been good; his/her edits have not been disruptive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This user pushes POV across a range of articles and some users are encouraging his behavior it seems. For example he labelled the Barelvi movement a sect because he doesnt believe that they are a valid sunni movement [23]. Another editor pointed out that the edit was not NPOV [24]. He regards Barelvis as uneducated and innovators (bidah) [25]. Its clear that his POV is not restricted to "just" tp as he claims. Misdemenor (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite appalled at your behaviour freeatlast, you've reverted three of my edits across the pages and you're quite clearly harassing me. My edit on Mujaddid which you've claimed I pushed POV is clear indisputable evidence against you. I welcome everyone to go and see exactly what my edit was - I did exactly as requested on the talk page by the administrator who was resolving the conflict. I listed every POV and created subheadings for each. You've also removed my edit on Bin baz because you have immense hatred for 'wahhabis' you don't like that I added sourced content explaining he's a Hanbali. You simply are a very disruptive angry editor pushing your POV and you've hurled all of these accusations to throw off attention to yourself. I've been editing Islam for 6 years on Wikipedia and I've never once had any accusations of pushing a POV which was taken seriously. Also Misdemenor, you've literally hurled extremely vulgar insults at me on several talk pages, if you want to go there you've got some nerve. Why is calling brevlis a sect insulting? Sakimonk talk 21:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
And the POV, hate speech insertions just continue from Sakimonk. In his latest edit on the Mujaddid article has has again added his own version of Islam which is classic IDLI , OWN and STICK. DeCausa then had to tell him that his edit was, once again, POV. Sakimonk has now started to feel like a time sink to be frank because he cannot even understand what the consensus is. This comment by DeCausa, regarding Sakimonks latest POV edit, is ample proof that Sakimonk has serious competence issues.
As for his Highly Rude language, here is one nugget from that gold mine. The two "mujaddids" of the fourteenth century are both extremist and heretical sectarianists who are rejected by the majority of sunni muslims. The rest of the actual mujaddids are all removed from the list because for some reason my edits are censored. Why is this? My version lists every single school of thought and is fully sourced and it is the most accurate. The current one is a POV car crash and embarrassing to even look at. Shame on you admin User:MelanieN for enabling such an abuse of the WP:BRD and violating WP:NPOV guidelines.
So any admin who goes against him be ready for backlash like this. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Your objection to Sakimonk is that he/she wrote a message on admin's talk page in the same style as the Dorothy Michaels character in the film Tootsie! That does not seem like reasonable grounds for a topic ban.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Toddy1 umm no, that is not the reason. Although the naevity shown in your comment is quite awesome. I want him t-banned due to him being a time sink who does not understand what consensus is and then multiple editors have to talk to him for immense amounts of time on Talk pages. I added his incivility and POV editing to show that on top of being a time sink he is a POV pushing uncivil editor. I hope I cleared that up for you now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The edits of both FreeatLastchitchat and Misdemeanor have been far, far more problematic than Sakimonk' in terms of open POV pushing and combative editing, and both have established histories of edit warring despite being relatively new editors. I'd reckon it would be more appropriate to throw this out and look at why exactly they both seem to have a problem with him, along with another suspicious but relatively new account that battled both Sakimonk and various other editors on similar topics recently. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving article title without discussion[edit]

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

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


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

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

Alarm bells?[edit]

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

  • In response to all of the above, it seems that the appropriate response is to reverse the undiscussed moves, and instruct the user to use WP:RM process.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikicohen, WikiShanwnio, and IP at Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunate combination in this article of blatant promotionalism and overstatement along with excessive detail of no encyclopedic interest on the one side, along with some relatively minor alleged criminal activity reported with similar over-detail on the other. I suggest AfD, or possibly G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DGG in that this article looks to have been created with a promotional or self-promotional point of view - either way, It isn't neutral. This article has been the subject of uncivil discussion between editors on it's talk page. I think it should also be known that, looking at the contributions of Wikicohen, WikiShawnio, and - the majority of of their edits have been to either the Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo article or its talk page. I highly recommend that these users step away for a bit, cool down, and let others help with the dispute. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
When I first looked at the article, I thought that Ms. Omololu-Olunloyo probably met the general notability guideline, but I'm less convinced now. When you check what's claimed by WikiCohen with the sources, much of it wasn't supported at all and sometimes even contradicted by the sources. AfD might be the best way to settle this. Sjö (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you on the point of self promotion, I am new to wikipedia and only doing what I have seen others do, I have tried to be as civil as possible, I agree this article is nothing more than a dramatized resume but at the same time I do believe that Olukemi has earned herself enough notoriety online this page might be what Wiki needs, it's hard for me to be unbiased when I am constantly being bumrushed by the subject matter editing and reverting edits, you can plainly see what is going on with this back and forth. WikiShawnio (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Both of these editors have continued their personal attacks on the talk page since this thread was started. Both of them are SPAs that aren't here to build an encyclopedia, in my opinion. ~ RobTalk 14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
COI editors or not, both of them have shown that they can't maintain a neutral point of view. Sjö (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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

the user wikicohen is now following me around and attempting to slander me with accusations I was arrested. I am requesting that it ceases immediately. she is also roping in another person not associated with wikipedia and I keep having to redact the names from the talk pages, wikicohen has even gone ahead and created me a user page without my permission> I don't know what the angle is here but it's hindering my use of the service here. [1] I don't want to be lumped into wikicohens behavior as I am legitimately trying to help this article here with sourced material. The user wikicohen appears to be deleting large chunks of well referenced material because it doesn't tell the story she wants to tell. can someone please look into this, thank you. WikiShawnio (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


Both users have now begun edit-warring and have violated WP:3RR. I've warned both. WikiShawnio appears to have backed off the personal attacks, which is appreciated. Wikicohen definitely has not, based on: [26] [27] [28] ~ RobTalk 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

More personal attacks from Wikicohen: [29]. ~ RobTalk 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI have only one account on Wikipedia and have no time for sockpuppeting. It may be of interest to see a comment left by someone on Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo's Gun violence blog which I read daily. You should be investigating her confirmed stalker Wikishawnio and this comment. It is highly disturbing what the anonymous writer wrote. Pls don't accuse me of false and unwarranted investigations. I appreciate it. I repeat, I do NOT have multiple accounts and have no time for that. The comment written is typical of comments written by Wikishawnio on Kemi's blogs using the accounts (The Public of Facebook on blogger) and Wikishawnio on Youtube. You can see how he defaces all her videos. The comment I luckily saw reads>> "Anonymous August 30, 2015 at 3:37 AM I am taking your wikipedia page away from you, thank you for falling for my ploy to out you as a sock puppet. now you can burn in hell bitch. have fun drinking shit water and being accused of being a witch"

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

Legal threats[edit]

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

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

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

Disruption at WOP AFDs[edit]

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

Neither is it appropriate to file an ANI report as a sock IP. CassiantoTalk 10:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What does that have to do with this case? It's a moot point since the AFD was closed but still it's not a nice way to AGF. (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The AfD should be reopened and the close undone. NAC closures are for non-contested cases and while we regularly allow experienced non-admins to NAC close such cases, it is completely inappropriate for an IP editor to close a contentious AfD marred by significant sockpuppetry and possible canvassing issues. --Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • AfD close undone. IP blocked (again - see below) for disruption. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Someone is going a bit overboard with the SPA tags in that AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
NPA means nothing (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for 166.x.x.x editor[edit]

166.x.x.x editor topic banned from WOP-related pages, broadly construed. --NeilN talk to me 14:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I really need to sleep but just wanting to chime in regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Longevity requesting the return of discretionary sanctions. The way the last ANI discussion went, we'll need it. - Ricky81682 (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While I do support it (as this is getting a little ridiculous), I wonder how enforceable it is without range blocking the whole thing. From what I understand about TBANs, they don't physically prevent the user from editing the page like blocks do. A clear disruptive user is just going to ignore the ban anyways and the admins will just have to continue to play whack-a-mole. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • With a TBAN we can simply revert and block on sight, though; and if necessary semi-protect articles. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah that makes sense. I didn't think of it like that. Thanks for the explanation Black Kite. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The above mentions of WOP are presumably a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People. Since some comments in the AfD imply that members of that project might not be neutral on this question, I recommend posting on that WikiProject's talk page to alert them of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but note that I strongly suspect the IP is simply trolling for whatever reason. It could be someone involved in this area who was previously banned or a troll using this dispute as a means to spread chaos. Regardless, a topic ban allowing their edits to be reverted on sight will be helpful. I believe a small range-block was put in place yesterday but this will be helpful for the future. Ravensfire (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Absolutely. BMK (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this editor has been disruptive at AfDs, WP:WOP project pages, and articles. Blocking hasn't helped so a tban is next. Full disclosure: I've been working in this same area lately. Ca2james (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose You'll likely hit a lot of innocent users. (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support...however, as Stabila711 hinted at, it would be pretty difficult to topic-ban these IPs without a full rangeblock. SN: I notice that the only "oppose" !vote is from another IP that just happens to be from the same range (btw, IP, comments like this aren't the wisest idea). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
attacking everyone who is q member of the WOp project isn't helpful. It's about working with people who are the experts not marginalizing them in favor of nonsense. (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry; we're attacking you? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per Ca2james. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not because I think it's a bad idea, but because it's not going to be a deterrent to a joe-jobbing troll, especially when a rangeblock hasn't been effective. Is the range of pages too wide to make semi-protection a problem? (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the stance is that a rangeblock hasn't been effective so much as that a rangeblock hasn't been attempted. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There was one attempted on - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#Rangeblocking the IPs mentioned just above. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While I have not been as active in the area as Ca2james or Ollie I can still see that the user has had a disruptive and noncontributive behaviour. 930310 (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This user is not contributing to the WOP project in a positive manner; on top of that, he has made up false death dates in the past. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think the discretionary sanctions currently being discussed by the arbitration committee are a positive step. Not sure how effective a topic ban would be here, though I'm obviously supporting one. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some long term semi-protection or pending changes on most of these longevity articles. The area is a disaster. AniMate 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I was going to oppose at first, since both IPs come back under a mobile provider (see here and here), but I agree that it is beneficial since it will allow reverting and blocking with less "red tape". I don't see many innocent people being caught in this net, and I feel that this is going to be a net positive. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This needs to be done, also, I suppose that it goes without saying that the range of the topic ban includes starting ANI threads about incidents relating to WOP and WOP related articles. Also, can this be closed now, as I believe there is more than enough support for a T-ban? -- Orduin Discuss 18:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban on anything related to WOP, broadly defined. This IP user has been blocked already and his proven disruptive. This topic ban provides an easier method to combat their disruption and inevitable socking. ~ RobTalk 02:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Telstra, Australia IP vandalism[edit]

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

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

Block the entire ISP. If they have a problem, it should remain their problem, not ours. Any decent editor can register an account. Likewise Vodafone DE. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Another death-threat against me here from the same; please rev-del and protect. Iow: please do full JarlaxleArtemis-routine when dealing with this guy, Huldra (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, you *really* have to refuse them the possibility to edit their own talk-page; to avoid death and rape-threaths, Huldra (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Gilliam, for that. (Perhaps rev-del the threats?) Also, the same IP was discussed here a couple of days ago: see here. --Huldra (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Revdelled. --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Looks like any rangeblock has a lot of collateral, apart from 2-5, which are caught by Page protection is the only real solution here from that point of view. Mdann52 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In a case like this that's too easy: we'd have to protect every page in the project where they might show up or where they might follow someone. I don't know what the limit is, what too much collateral damage is, but not rangeblocking also has a lot of collateral damage, and I prefer our own editors not fall in that category. Rangeblock away, I say. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Unless you would also advocate rangeblocking large sections of Comcast in the US or BT in the UK, this is a really stupid idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
We've had to do it before to stem death threats. Not to mention that this is pretty much the only way to slow him to any appreciable degree. Even then, his abuse of open proxies is quite legendary (which is why he's showing up on BT and Telstra). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There is an alternative. Contact Telstra abuse and tell them that we are considering a range block because of the actions of one Telstra user. They may very well block the user on their end to protect their other users from collateral damage if we do it on our end. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If it's an open proxy (and considering who we're discussing it almost certainly is), then it's not exactly on Telstra, but rather on who owns the TOR node/anonymising service/compromised server. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If it is my old friend, (who, for sure, knows how to make use of TOR), then why does he *only* appear on Telstra IPs? I´m making some enquiries (off-line), in the mean time, I´ll ask all admins to be very vigilant when it comes to Telstra IPs: remember to block their user-page access too. And could some admin please rev-del (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) death threats? Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Oddy enough I have done this before when I was a Sysadmin, unless Telstra's policies have changed they will file such a request in the nearest bin. It took a court order for me to get them to prevent one of their script-kiddie customers attempting to DDOS one of my domains. The main problem with rangeblocking large sections of Telstra however is that in many parts of Australia it really is the only provider. There is no alternative. Unlike the example above which affected Houston - a city with many other options. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
So logged in editors can still edit, and IP editors get a notice that they can either log in or complain to Telstra for allowing one of their users to abuse Wikipedia, forcing Wikipedia to block IP edits from Telstra. Not ideal, but not a disaster for the Australian users either. One could also contact a few news outlets in Australia and let them know what is happening. If they choose to run a story or two on this, Telstra is likely to become a lot more cooperative. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

All the above IPs with @@ at the end have rev-delled rape or death threats, mostly death threats. I have no idea as to how Australian police react to this (I am not in Australia), Huldra (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I note here that if Telstra is not one of the biggest ISPs in Australia, it would have to be up there. Rangeblocking the entire ISP will result in a whole load of collateral damage. A complaint should probably be made to Telstra first, although I'm not at all confident it'll be actioned. If it's not, perhaps a message in the rangeblock stating that Telstra failed to respond to death threats originating from their network? Nothing like a bit of media coverage to encourage an episode of corporate responsibility. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC).
Range blocking Telstra would definitely attract media coverage in Australia, and probably overseas given how large an ISP it is (it's by far the largest telecommunications company in Australia). Telstra has an online form to report abuse here, though it may not be applicable to this case. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
As these IPs are making threats of harm, the Wikimedia Foundation should also be informed, and will hopefully be able to help with a response - the procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
These IPs seem to be from Victoria, and one appears to be from the town of Warrugal. --AussieLegend () 10:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info. Also, I believe there is an Australian Wikimedia chapter? I would assume they were closer to dealing with Telstra than WMF? (Yeah, I know: this is a "hot potato", and everyone´s reaction is to pass it on the the next person. Sigh...) Huldra (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia Chapters don't handle issues like this (they're essentially clubs of like-minded people) - the WMF is a better point of contact, and seems to take issues like this seriously. I'd suggest that you contact them if you haven't already done so. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I contacted Philippe B, by email last week, as he had been dealing with "my old friend" earlier. However, that was obviously not good timing, so I forwarded it through the "standard channels" earlier today. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic Editor Two[edit]

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

I have notified the editor in question. GABHello! 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me, I will provide a full answer shortly. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I sure as hell can't wait for that. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's all remember to be civil in this discussion. That applies to everyone. - SantiLak (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Echoing what SantiLak said, I would suggest that everyone be patient. Reaganomics88, you are relatively new here. Be patient. Impatience or incivility could WP:BOOMERANG on you. GregJackP Boomer! 02:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I must say that I find Reaganomics88' behaviour very strange. At 12:24, August 24 he left a warning on my talk page reading "If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at , you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a place for activism or sardonic commentary." I had never before interacted with that editor and I was a bit puzzled. Looking at the article 'George W. Bush' that he had mentioned, I found out that the edit he incriminated was a typo which had since been corrected. I told him so and added that I found it negative, even aggressive, to search for old defective edits that had already been corrected and issue threats to their authors. He replied that he did not believe that my typo was a mistake and that I had to follow the basic rules of Wikipedia. He also complained that I had erased his warning. I told him (on his talk page) that I found his warning offensive for a first contact with another editor and that I could hardly believe he was a new user, as his talk page seemed to indicate. He finally told me that he had no time to argue with me and ended his last message with 'adieu'. I replied that I agreed with him on that point and ended with 'farewell'. I then proceeded to delete the section he had opened on my home page and thought that that was the end of it. Today I see that he has mentioned me on the administrator's noticeboard for "NPOV violations", "being combative" an "viewing any attempt to warn him as a personal attack". Frankly I can't believe this is a new user. It seems to me more likely that this is someone who has already interacted with me under another username and, for some reason, is bearing a grudge against me. I have strongly objected to the title "RT mouthpiece of the Kremlin" in the article 'RT' and that may have irritated some. Having chosen to edit on controversial issues I may have unknowingly elicited enmities. But, contrary to what my accuser says, though I defend strongly my opinions on what I think should be the standards of an encyclopedia, I have always been polite and ready to listen to others. If it turned out to be the case that someone is using a second account in order to tarnish my reputation while remaining in the dark I would find it unacceptable and, above all, very sad. I just read his message on the noticeboard and, alas, it confirms my worst fears. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've been following this situation for a while, but while I may not agree with ADI's and/or R88's points of view. I do not think any parties have violated Wikipedia policy and I do not believe that there is anything actionable here. I suggest all sides consider dispute resolution and would like to remind everyone that this topic area is under Eastern Europe DS. Additionally, ADI I would recommend reading WP:1AM as it gives good advice for editors in your situation. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  • He has suggested that I am only pretending to be a new editor and am someone who is "acting under a second username" and has "taken a grudge" against them.
  • He has suggested I am using a second account to "tarnish" his reputation "while remaining in the dark."
  • He has suggested that I am "acting on behalf of a group of people who prefer to stay in the backstage" and "very dishonest".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment (non admin observation) This has all the characteristics of a failure to drop the stick by Reaganomics88. First talk page, then the vandalism noticeboards, now here. All over quotation marks that were removed the same day in successive edits [31] that he was not involved in? This is very close to WP:OWN behaviour and its possible a flying piece of wood maybe nearby. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

That makes it even worse, not better. Who appointed you the investigator? AlbinoFerret 20:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I never intended to investigate anything I simply looked at the page's edit history. Besides I wasn't trying to punish ADI, only help him avoid being blocked again in the future. If you actually read what I have to say you will find that the edit itself is not the main issue. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
So a new editor wasnt trying to investigate on an article they have no interest in or has edited by going through someone elses edits, bringing it to the vandalism noticeboard, and then to AN/I? Have you ever heard of the Law of holes? AlbinoFerret 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, Law of Holes, what a lovely aphorism. I think you may be the one in the hole. For a start I did not go through anyone's edits, I went through the edit history of the page warned a user about NPOV who had not been warned. Besides what's wrong with taking action against disruptive editing?--Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
First off, you brought a editor to a noticeboard. Above I linked to WP:BOOMERANG, I suggest you read it. Me in a hole, no, I didnt open a section here, and I am uninvolved, you on the other hand should be on the lookout for flying objects. AlbinoFerret 20:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Not involved, really? You got involved the moment you started commenting, you simply latched on and hoped to engage in some merry Ochlocracy. If you understood the situation fully then you would realise that I never threw any 'boomerangs'. You a neither the judge, jury or the executioner, witch hunts, while exciting for the participators, are not fun for the victim. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Your WP:POINTy post and your aggressive nature are poking through. You are investigating another editor and failed to WP:AGF. When it is pointed out to you to WP:DROPTHESTICK and you are in a situation where you may have a WP:BOOMERANG tossed at you, you think its ok to attack the person telling you. You keep digging and have no idea that when you bring something here the community can and will point out the problems with what you are doing. But, you dont have to listen to me, go ahead grab a bigger shovel. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay so i'm going to ignore all of your "aggressive nature" and digging a hole jibes and cut to the chase. It is clear that there was no need to assume good faith because the edit in question was obvious vandalism, evidenced by what I have pointed out in the last addition to the discussion before your comment. This shows you do not understand the situation fully. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals quotation marks are not vandalism. This is at least the second editor you have done this to. There is another section below that involves you doing the same thing. AlbinoFerret 21:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Your welcome. Anyway I did not leave a warning on ADI's talk page about vandalism, I left one about NPOV violation. As for the other editor, have you actually read the conversation? I apologised for the additional warning and the editor admitted they were " incentivised to the addition of the epithet to the page by malice". I will reiterate, my main issue is with ADI's behaviour, not their original offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaganomics88 (talkcontribs) 21:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I was happy to ferret around at least one bit of interesting info. Reaganomics88 first edit was in February 2015, but didnt make the second until May [32]. So we have a editor with 4 months of experience doing investigations? Something is strange here. AlbinoFerret 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, having taken a cursory look at the activities, I'd agree that there is a sense of sleeper(?) about the account. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
So what's a sleeper? Reaganomics88 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
A WP:SLEEPER is an account that has been inactive for a long time. They often feature into sockpuppeting cases because they can be abused. GABHello! 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I would advise any administrator who wishes to review my case to take a look at Yulia Tymoshenko's article talk page. It gives a very good understanding of why I could attract such animosity. My sole purpose, which I am vain enough to deem useful, is to help rid Wikipedia of inaccuracies or, worse, disinformation. Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
As regards Reaganomics88, having had a thorough look through the user's contributions, I'd say that s/he has had little experience - as reflected in the few and sporadic contributions actually made - and doesn't even actually understand how to submit reports: see this recent submission to the AIV, including this and this. No templates are used despite instructions as to how to submit a report with diffs. The submission here was bungled with no diffs, plus without understanding that they need to inform the editor they've reported on this board (which was done on their behalf by GAB). In fact, the user seems to have a genuine concern for NPOV and what is DUE in most cases. My 'sleeper' account was premature and based on a cursory look. Unless anyone has suspicions that there's something not quite right about the account that can be substantiated, I'd still go with allowing both editors an opportunity to gain more experience and understanding of how Wikipedia works. If disruptive behaviour erupts again, it would become a case for the ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@Againstdisinformation: I have no idea why you've brought up the Yulia Tymoshenko article. Reaganomics88 hasn't been involved in that article... or are you implying that there's a cabal out to get you? No, in this case, there is no cabal. All I can see from your edits there is what has been reflected in your editing on other articles: that you haven't actually grasped the concept of WP:NPOV. We reflect what reliable sources have to say on matters. This does not mean toning down the language used where it has been reflected and reiterated in other RS. It means that, as editors, we keep our own voice out of the narrative and try to make informed decisions as to how to present the content. Wikipedia is not WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, this ANI is not about Reaganomics88, it's about me. I didn't as much as look up his editing history. The reason I brought up the Yulia Tymoshenko article is that it illustrates perfectly the reason I attract so much animosity. As I told another editor, I have set myself the Quixotic goal of trying to help rid Wikipedia of inaccuracies and disinformation, so that, naturally, I have started to watch articles on controversial issues. The Yulia Tymoshenko article stated that the European Court of Justice recognized that she had been tortured. This is false. So I corrected it and provided a link to the Judgment of the court and let the editor know the reasons on the article's talk page. He reverted me and added more links to other Newspapers. I told him that even 1000 links to newspapers are overridden by 1 link to the actual Judgment. I asked him to read it, and reverted him again. He reverted me a second time and I let the matter at that. Thanks God, an administrator noticed what had happened and saw that I was right. So, he reinstated the correct version and got reverted in his turn. He then referred the matter to the Arbitration committee. It seems to me that there is a similarity with the issue that has opposed us. I maintain that "invading Russian Armed Forces" needs a citation and you disagree, claiming that it has been established beyond doubt. It might be true that Tymoshenko was tortured, but this is immaterial. What I object to is Lidaz wrongly claiming that the ECHR recognized that fact. As concerns my disagreement with Santilak and you, again, it might be true that the "invading Russian Armed Forces" violated Ukraine's sovereignty, but sources are needed nonetheless. Having read all that (since he mentions my editing history) R88 decided that my typo could't be anything else but malice, never mind my protestations to the contrary. Unless I am blocked as a result of this ANI, I will continue to track inaccuracies wherever I find them. You may consider this as POV pushing, my feeling is that it helps raising the standards of Wikipedia. Since you are clearly WP:INVOLVED, I do not understand how you can say as you did on the ANI Reaganomics88 that you are "prepared to check into Reaganomics88's behaviour" on the condition that my "editing history and behavioural problems also be investigated". Don't you feel there is something like a conflict of interest here. I can tell you that in a court of Law this would be dismissed outright. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Sorry for this second post when the previous one was already too long. Please, don't attribute to me the claim that there is a cabal against me. Alas, it's a long time since I was a child. I just note that when you try to correct NPOV on sensitive issues, you invariably attract the animosity of people who want to push that point of view. For me, the barrage I encountered when I insisted that "invading Russian Armed Forces" was a statement that needed citation is an oustanding example of this. There is no need to invoke a cabal. Perhaps I am expecting too much from Wikipedia, but let me tell you that among people who have to write down international legal instruments, a 'milieu' I am familiar with, what I am saying would sound like a truism. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A) "I hope he is not acting on behalf of a group of people who prefer to stay in the backstage, that would be very dishonest. " Er yeah, I would attribute the claim that there is a cabal against you to you.

B) And you still haven't answered my question: if that edit really was a mistake why haven't you added quotation marks in the way that you supposedly intended to while editing it?

You should have added quotation marks so it resembles "provided critical information to preserve American lives." You haven't, suggesting that your edit wasn't a mistake.Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Reaganomics88:Look R88, I have nothing against you, you are the one who started all this. You left what I consider to be an aggressive warning: "stop adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles" and "Wikipedia is not a place for activism or sardonic commentary" and in short order you reported me as a vandal. All that for misplaced quotation marks which I did not even remember. Then you brought me here without even letting me know. So, when I noticed that you were a new user and that your main activity was to report other editors, I found that a bit strange. Then, on this very noticeboard, I read the suggestion "read WP:1AM as it gives good advice for editors in your situation" by Winner42 and, I confess, I started to believe you were a sock. Especially since I just had a series of heated discussions with other people. I never asserted as a fact that you were a sock, I just had doubts. As for your second question, the answer is very simple. After I miscorrected the article George W. Bush I never had so much as a look at it until your warning. After that, since it had previously been corrected by Santilak and you had reported me here, I didn't want to touch it again, lest I be accused of edit warring. You will pardon me for telling you that I don't understand your tenacious hostility. Why do you absolutely refuse to accept that all that might simply have been a misunderstanding? Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Offensive edit summaries[edit]

Closure requested, and consensus seems to be that no admin action is necessary. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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

WCM has used edit summaries that include the expression FFS [33] [34]. I find this in edit summaries to be unacceptable. A check of his last 500 edits reveals that I have been singled out for this abuse. I asked the editor to stop [35] but this provoked another outburst. [36]. Could an administrator look into this, please. Michael Glass (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In the future you must notify any user you wish to bring to ANI on their talk page. I have done this for you. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored and we do not punish editors for using the "F" word—and especially not when they don't even spell it out. Are the edits disruptive? If not, then ignore it and move on. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is this here? I don't see a personal attack. GregJackP Boomer! 07:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been known to use FFS in edit summaries when I'm grumpy (and will doubtless do so again in the future I'm afraid), but I do agree that it's not a good practice - it's obviously not civil. WCM, I'd suggest that you knock this off given that Michael has asked you to stop. Michael, if you're so offended by edit summaries like that that you think that an ANI report is warranted, I'd also suggest that you reconsider your occasional use of snarky summaries such as [37], [38] and [39] - they're also not terribly civil. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Think I'm being snarky? Try dealing with an editor who makes a habit of scrutinising your edits, reversing them and then stonewalling when he's outnumbered. I think you'd be snarky, too. Michael Glass (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
FFS is not really that offensive. It is not as though you were called a name, it is an expression of frustration. Chillum 13:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It's no more offensive than SNAFU or FUBAR. And it could stand for "For Freedom's Sake". That's why initials get used. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Bugs and Chillum. Also, even though the use of edit summaries for purposes other than the name indicates should not be encouraged, it has become something so common to Wikipedia that it isn't something that should always require administrative intervention (in other words, it requires good personal judgement). Optimally, both users should stop pushing emotional buttons that can lead to actionable behavior. Regardless, I do hope that this AN/I report's purpose isn't used to artificially inflate a case where none exists.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Agree with Chillum, it's just an expression of disappointment or annoyance. Discussion in WP sometimes heat up a little, but we cannot get an administrator involved for every editor who takes it personal.--Darius (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It also stands for "Fat Finger Syndrome", which describes my one handed typing. Point noted gentlemen.
However, as Nick notes above, Michael is fond of rather snarky comments himself and these do needlessly inflame discussions. I believe he should be reminded that is also unacceptable. WCMemail 12:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to offensive comments, compare this comment of mine where the person addressed finally backed down with this snarky comment from WCM. The editor who dished this out then has the effrontery to complain about my comment. His bully boy behaviour is followed up by this hypocritical justification of his own behaviour. WCM should remember that he was banned from Wikipedia for a time for his offensive hehaviour. He is in no position to set himself up to lecture others. Michael Glass (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
WCM has been blocked once for a 24 hour period eight years ago for edit warring, and never "banned from Wikipedia" [40]. He was topic banned from certain subjects for a longer period, but that's now been lifted. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This entire complaint appears to be somewhat of an overreaction, imo. WCM is a serious and expert editor, who works in a tough subject neighbourhood, and is a major plus to the project. I am obviously aware of the need for civility, but I am not seeing anything that particularly warrants a trip to the dramah board. FFS certainly does not warrant it. Irondome (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • People who see "FFS" and then want to cry "watch your language!" are unclear on the concept of watching one's language.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can this be closed? I can imagine an admin action being taken here. Chillum 20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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



This user adds warnings to users' talk pages when they have already been warned and usually ages after the incident in question. I don't know if anything can be done, as I'm not sure it's against the rules, but it is greatly irritating me and, judging by the great argument about it between the reported user and user:Againstdisinformation, it is causing the latter a great deal of upset.

If possible, could something be done to stop user:Reaganomics88, what they're doing is ridiculous and hurtful. The incidents are in the past and have been dealt with already, they need not be unnecessarily dredged up. Indeed, I find it vile and antagonistic to sift through past edits to find stagnating and hitherto forgotten misdeeds and then animadverting to their, already cautioned, authors.

I have attempted to resolve the matter with them on my talk page, on which they had written, but they show no signs of stopping their absurd crusade.

Gotha  Talk 11:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As for diffs 1 and 2, I apologise, I viewed and still view adding 'Tory Scum' as a name the Conservative Party is referred by constitutes as vandalism rather than POV related offence. However in hindsight maybe one kind of warning was enough.

As for diff 3, that's already being discussed.

As for diff 4, I'm disappointed that you included this because if you actually look at the situation you will see that Mateka9911 was a prolific vandal who (as admin TigerShark (talk) who blocked him after I reported him for vandalism) put it has "a long history of gaming the system by vandalising until you get a final warning and then stopping for a few days, before resuming." To say this is unfair when it is in fact as successful anti-vandal operation is misleading. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Reaganomics88:Thank you, very gracious of you and I am very grateful, perhaps I was quick to report you. I do understand your point and, while I maintain that it is a common name for them, I'll happily concede that I was incentivised to the addition of the epithet to the page by malice. However, I am not the first and I would appreciate it if you would apologise to the other users to whom you have given these supplementary warnings, such as user:Againstdisinformation, and cease giving them, as the offences occurred a great deal of time ago, had been dealt with prior to your intervention and you have caused a great deal of upset in your brash actions. Apologies for any offence, diff four was ill-researched. Thanks again,
Gotha  Talk 12:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
"Tory scum" is not a "common name", it is a nasty POV push against a political party. A warning for that is deserved. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 12:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Scourge of Trumpton: A warning may well have been deserved. But, the user in question gave me a second warning half a month after the offence and without my repeat offending, indeed I did not so much as restore the edit and I admitted above it was motivated by malice towards the Tories (whom, as you can probably tell, I loath unremittingly). Secondly, Mr(s) Trumpton, you seem to ignore the fact that I am not the only victim, in fact, had I been, I would not have reported the incident.
Gotha  Talk 12:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, this type of disturbing behavior seems to be on the increse on WP. I've run across several new registered accounts this month whose first or recent edits are to begin warning users, oftentimes incorrectly. These include User:Nrwairport. Whether these are sock- or meatpuppets of each other, or of other blocked users, or some new fad that new editors have picked up, I don't know. Gven the fact that, in this case,a newly registered user has immediately begun warning users upon creation of the account, and has done so distinctively, a check user may well be warranted. - BilCat (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh, would you please close this thread. There's already a section discussing user Reaganomics88 open above. This is an unnecessary double-up. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see why an ANI opened by one editor about a second one should be closed because this second editor has himself opened an ANI about a third editor. Why not the reverse then? Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It may be better to combine them as subsections of a larger one so that a fuller picture of the activities is presented. AlbinoFerret 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
An excellent suggestion, AlbinoFerret. This would provide an opportunity for both editor's activities to be scrutinised by sysops (and the community) as Againstdisinformation's contributions to a number of articles that fall under ARB sanctions have been extremely problematic. Under such circumstances, I'd be prepared to check into Reaganomics88's behaviour on the understanding that Againstdisinformation's editing history and behavioural problems also be investigated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, of course I have nothing against my activities being scrutinised. However, when speaking about my "extremely problematic actions" and my behavioural problem I wish you would be a little more specific. Your first interaction with me was what I felt was a frontal attack against me on user Santilak's talk page. I disagreed with his claim that the phrase "invading Russian Forces" (relating to the Donbass) needed no citation. A whole heated discussion ensued, which I proposed to end since it was clearly leading nowhere. You told me that it was not up to me to close a thread, which I never did. All this to say that you should perhaps refrain from intervening too much on this ANI since you are clearly WP:INVOLVED. I hope that, at any rate, you will agree that I have always been polite with you, even though I sometimes felt that you did not always respect WP:BITE in your dealings with a new user like me. I hope you won't mind my asking the series of discussions we had to be scrutinised too. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me add this too. I would hate to give the impression that I want to be pitied, but I have a very poor sight (an understatement) and I have to battle not to make typos, like the one Reaganomics blames me for. Perhaps this also makes me too sensitive to what I perceive as hostility. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh, you should remove the hammer and sickle from your signature. Wikipedia's user name policy prohibits names that are likely to offend other users, make harmonous editing impossible or reference controversies. The symbol is banned in several European countries because of the totalitarian legacy. Thank you. --Pudeo' 02:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No censorship, granting Pudeo's suggestion would make Wikipedia worse than the Soviet Union. Againstdisinformation (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The Hammer_and_sickle#Legal_status references the legal status. It's pretty clear why it would be offensive or controversial to many especially in Eastern Europe considering their history. Remember that the editing area is already considered contentious and is under WP:ARBEE sanctions. There is also an unicode character for a swastika which would be inappropriate despite that the swastika has had a long history of non-political use unlike the hammer and sickle. --Pudeo' 12:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Comparing the sickle and hammer with the swastika is inappropriate. Of course the swastika predates the Nazis and it would be pure ignorance and stupidity to try to erase it on Hindu temples. On the other hand, it has acquired a quite different meaning in Europe where it is associated with the worst atrocities ever witnessed by mankind. However, the sickle and hammer still represent a revolutionary symbol of liberation of the workers and peasants which has an appeal to some well-meaning persons. Even granted that communism under Stalin led to one of the worst forms of totalitarianism, it still cannot be compared with the Swastika. It would be an insult to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. As far as I am concerned, I am in favour of total freedom of expression. A principle that is not yet universally understood in Eastern Europe. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
We've now gone completely WP:OFFTOPIC for this section. Any WP:SIGPROB issues should be addressed separately. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:JordanGero editwarring to drastically change the wording of an ongoing RfC[edit]

Having been twice requested not to and informed of the talkpage guidelines, JordanGero (talk · contribs) is currently editwarring at Talk:European colonization of the Americas to change the wording of an ongoing rfc to what he considers the RfC should really be about. Admin and arbitrator Dougweller (talk · contribs) has already informed him that this is a bad idea, but he seems not to take the hint. Could someone with greater patience than myself teach this user how to deal properly with disagreements over wordings in an RfC?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

After two months of editing, JordanGero has certainly leapt in with both feet to controversial areas of Wikipedia with fully-blossomed knowledge of how things work, yet a decidedly disruptive bent. My Spidey-sense is tingling: is there any chance that Jordan has visited us before? Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The user ·maunus worded the Rfc inaccurately after having entered an ongoing conversation between myself and another editor about the issue. All but one of the responses to the Rfc came after my edit of it, and all but my own have sided with ·maunus. This is not necessarily evidence that my version was "better" or more neutral, but it does contradict ·maunus's contention that the Rfc was changed after most editors had already responded. JordanGero (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Elizium23, the condescension aside, I've never professed to have "fully-blossomed knowledge of how things work", though I have edited articles on Wikipedia in the past through IP accounts without registering a user name. And as far as the "decidedly disruptive bent", although I've never possessed or professed a desire, direct or otherwise, to disrupt, that is why the policies, guidelines, and processes exist on this site and others like it, precisely to deal with situations such as this one. I consider it one more brick on the road to attaining that "fully-blossomed knowledge" you mentioned. JordanGero (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
My RfC was not worded "inaccurately", it is simply about a different question than the specific one that worries you. Which is why it is totally impossible for you to rewrite the RfC to ask an entirely different question. It is only more problematic that you editwar to do it, violating both the talkpage guidelines AND the RfC guidelines in the process - after having been politely told that what you were doing is wrong. Your editing at this point is non-collaborative, disruptive and out of line with basic policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was worded "inaccurately", and it is incredibly disingenuous to purposefully word the Rfc to a question different than the one over which the contention is. That way, you are able to sidestep the actual contention by replacing it with a form that is more favorable to you, meaning that when the Rfc is resolved in your favor (since there is a higher chance for this given that you have inaccurately framed the contention leading to it), you are able to effect a change on the article that is not necessarily reflected by the survey of the Rfc- a very clever exercise, for which I salute you, though certainly not very "polite". The question, from the beginning, was whether the use of the word "seize" was appropriate in a specific sentence, not whether it is an appropriate descriptor for an abstract concept describing an abstract subject. This is what I meant about you "jumping in the middle" of a conversation between me and Rjensen. The edit of the word "seize" did not happen in some abstract realm; it happened in a specific sentence in a specific paragraph in a specific section of the article in question that followed directly from another specific sentence in that specific paragraph in that specific section of the article in question. Anyways, the issue is resolved. And regarding my editing being disruptive, non-collaborative, and contrary to established basic policies, I was unaware about the policy of editing the Rfc. Please excuse my natural reaction to change an inaccurate framing of the underlying contention. Edit: Or apparently the issue is not resolved, given that a suggestion has been made by User:KoshVorlon that the current Rfc, given the disagreement over its content, be closed and a new one be opened that better reflects the issue at hand.JordanGero (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually this isn't just about the RFC, this is a continuing argument that appears to have started at this discussion. You're each changing the RFC to support your view points. Why not close this RFC and re-open with both sets of wording as a choice, that would allow an RFC to be used to decide which one consensus favors.  ? KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
KoshVorlon, this is exactly what I was attempting to do from the start. I am agreeable to this option, but do not wish to take such action myself, given that I am still relatively new on the site, and do not wish to get into more hot water by modifying Maunus' Rfc.JordanGero (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just open a subthread of the RfC asking the related question you want to ask. This is standard operating procedure. Don't try to change the RfC in mid-stream, or you invalidate people's responses to the original question, obviously. So, yes, you'll be reverted on trying to change the question in any major way during an ongoing RfC. Even two months is probably enough time to figure that out.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting pages created by User:MusicAngels[edit]

(this has been copied from ANI's talk page) Bgwhite (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

About a month ago User:MusicAngels created long, complex poetry pages without any scholarly consensus and has in the past week or so, most likely as teachers are returning from vacation, individuals have begun chipping away at these pages. User:MusicAngels has refused to allow editing, has labeled all editing vandalism, and disallowed any conversation. Some of his/her pages have been tagged for deletion but they should all be investigated. (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The article you refer to was created and patroled about six months ago. You appear not to be reading the link provided for you at WP:BRD. You are not supposed to be editing on the article page until consensus is reached on the Talk page. Please stop misattributing dates of article creation to other editors at Wikipedia as you have been doing here. You should not be editing on the article page until you make consensus on the Talk page of the article. MusicAngels (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Something odd is going on.
  1. A copyright problem tag has been applied to the articles MusicAngels has created by MusikAnimal.
  2. MusicAngels asked for a GA review of W. H. Auden over a week ago. Review is here. It appears MusicAngels has copied someone else's critique of Auden, struck out another editor's comments they didn't like, left several upset message. In the meantime, MusicAngel is leaving messages on other edit's talk pages to visit the review. Macspaunday has been involved in this.
  3. MusicAngels is adding links to other poet's to articles they have created. The links have been reverted by multiple people, including IPs with claims of consensus being reached, but I see nothing on the talk pages about this, little alone consensus. An ANI discussion was started a couple days ago by MusicAngels on their links being removed by Macspaunday. They were told it was valid to remove the links, but MusicAngels has been adding them again.
Some investigating needs to happen to ascertain if copyright violations and POV pushing are happening. Bgwhite (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
There are no copyright violations of any kind in the article which fully attributes all of its many citations. The policy about valid forms of using old material in Wikipedia in new articles which have been reviewed and patrolled by WikiProjects and WikiPartrol are documented in WP:CWW (Copying within wikipedia) and in WP:Forking for Valid forms of use of old material within wikipedia. There is no copyright violation anywhere in the article of any kind and I have gone out of my way to bring the references up to date and ensuring that the links are working. Any flags for copyright violations should be removed since there is no copyright violation in the reviewed article. Item (3) above appears to refer to a "See also" section addition which I added to related articles which appears to be the form which in preferred. MusicAngels (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Attribution is absolutely required, end of discussion. I don't see that anywhere in the articles or page histories. From what I could tell there is a section on each poet, with content copied from that poet's article – so potentially a lot of work to fix the lack of attribution. To clarify, the issue is someone authored that content, which you copied and pasted, so now it looks like you authored it. I'm sure this wasn't intentional, and again it can be fixed.
I briefly looked over the hatnotes, and I agree there might be some misuse, particularly WP:RELATED. Also we should be using a template, and not bare bones formatting.
Finally, there might be some concern with ownership of articles. How I originally got involved was an AIV report about MusicAngels removing user's comments from the articles' talk page. You can observe this behaviour at here, where they are removing constructive comments from anonymous users, with rationale that they did not properly format their comment (e.g. was unsigned), among other nonsensical reasons. See User_talk:MusicAngels#IP_editor_identified_for_vandalism_by_three_separate_bots for more on that issue. MusikAnimal talk 15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Also why is this discussion here? We should probably move it to WP:AN/I? MusikAnimal talk 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
There are over 80 (eighty) citations in the bibliography which are fully documented and which I have gone out of my way to make sure they are up to date and functioning. The attribution is as full as it can be and there is no copyright violation in the article of any kind to my knowledge. If you have something unrelated to this is mind please indicate it, since I know that there are no copyright violation in the article of any kind and the banner notice should be removed. If you can provide any example of the type of attribution or notification which you want to see then point me to it and I will do my best to follow any well intended advice. The comments from the IP-user with dynamically changing IP addresses, to me, has looked more like graffiti to me rather than having content. I have maintained it on the Page at your request, and have tried to provide further links to help the IP-editor to try to communicate more effectively. There is no ownership of any article at Wikipedia, and I claim and assert no type of ownership of the article of any kind. The edits there yesterday by another editor adding various links to the article done by another editor looked perfectly reasonable and done fully responsibly. The eighty citations in the bibliography of the article have all been fully researched and fully attributed, there are no copyright violations to my knowledge of any kind in the article and any flags stating otherwise should be removed from the article. MusicAngels (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If you bother to actually read the above, you see the copyright infringement they are talking about. If you take prose from a website that uses CCBYSA but don't properly attribute the source, that is copyright infringement. Wikipedia is a website. That means if you borrow from an article here, you still have to give attribution, except that it is trivial to do. If you have been borrowing a lot from articles here, you may be forcing an audit of all your edits to that article, which is a major pain in the arse to do, because you infringed copyright. Do you not understand this? Editors at Wikipedia have the same rights to attribution you would give editors from other websites, you can't just lift their work and act like it is your own. Are they wrong, have you not been doing this? Since they saw no attribution, can you stand here and say you didn't take any content from other articles at Wikipedia and put it into this one? Dennis Brown - 17:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Proper attribution is always important. In the version of the article that is posted, I had made sure that the original articles were all linked (each and every one of them) in both the lead section and elsewhere using double-square brackets to link directly to the original pages. In fact one of my purposes in creating the article was to get more people to read the related full biographies of the leading poets mentioned. There are more ways to enhance the attribution of the related articles and biographies by using the "Further" template or the "Main" template in each one of the subsections of the article. I am fully supportive of this type of attribution and would like to add them into the article myself. MusicAngels (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
That is not attribution, that is simply page integration via links. We need it to say "text taken from this article at this time", etc, and when it entered your article. The problem is you took text from numerous pages and compiled them into one (times three to account for all of the concerned articles). That would have been easier if you had used edit summaries when you created the page. I'm sure you didn't intentionally introduce copyright infringement but we do need to fix this. I thought about posting at WP:CP but I'm not sure if that's the right venue given we know there's a problem, we just don't know the best way to fix it. To other observers, I've explained the full, safe way to do belated attribution at User_talk:MusicAngels#Copying_from_other_articles, but that route will surely take quite some time to implement. It's unclear to me if we could get away with dummy edits and informative edit summaries. Advice is needed MusikAnimal talk 19:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Dummy edits should be fine, imo, as long as we cover each article and carefully document each instance. The key is getting that info into individual edit summaries. Personally, I would compile a complete list first, and post that on the talk page, then work from that. That should clear up any confusion and provide a single record of all previous attribution as a bonus. It's also the best way to insure we get them all, and is simply the easiest and fastest way to get the job done in a case like this. Dennis Brown - 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Just saw in your link where you talk about using talk pages as well, so that sounds like I agree with you, MusikAnimal. Dennis Brown - 19:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see comments by me and another user at [41] both saying it would be easiest and best simply to delete MusicAngel's "Poetry in XYZ" pages and asking an admin to Speedy Delete them. Why do all that work fixing pages that shouldn't be there at all? (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • My concern is that, for example, Poetry in the early 21st century isn't actually about that subject. 90% of it is about influences on C21 poetry by earlier poets. Given that the whole thing's a copyvio anyway, wouldn't it be better to just delete it and start again? Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm coming around to that as well. The articles are essays on American, English, and a little French poetry--their lack of globality is quite striking, almost as striking as their sheer size. So content-wise there are plenty of problems already, and while it's a shame to delete something with such bibliographies, the combination of content problems, essay-style, and copyvio is insurmountable (I mean, simply documenting where the sentences came from is for Sisyphus, not for us). So yes, I favor deletion, as harsh as it may sound. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I thought that as well, but didn't like the idea of deleting so much material. I read some, wasn't particularly impressed with the tone and scope, but this is so far out of my normal areas, I didn't want to judge. That said, I wouldn't oppose deleting. I surely don't want to have to do the ground work for copyvio myself, to be honest. Dennis Brown - 02:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The whole point of permitting speedy deletion for copyright infringements is to save admins and other good-faith editors from having to do the ground work themselves. This is no different from any other copyright infringement: our license clearly states This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. As any other copyright infringement case that I've worked in, I've deleted the infringing pages and issued an only warning. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't normally delete in-house copyright infringement when we are able to simply correct the attribution, but here it seemed the pages were almost entirely borrowed content, and in large quantity. It's difficult to justify a standalone article when there is no substantial additional prose. Furthermore it was copied from so many articles, rendering it quite cumbersome to properly attribute to the original authors. A book may be the more appropriate way to compile such content MusikAnimal talk 04:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nyttend, I appreciate your comments here, which should also tell our readers that we don't do these things lightly. (As it happens I just deleted an article with a very similar background but nowhere near as good as the ones we were discussing here.) I am inclined to let things slide more easily with content copied internally, since that's often an easier fix, but even that would have been very difficult here. MusicAngels, please take these comments to heart, and take some comfort in the fact that it took six admins to make this decision. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And a lot of readers and editors will admire the way you reached this decision. This was obviously a difficult situation, and the admins did a perfect job of resolving it. Thank you. (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • MusicAngels seems to be deep in another edit war at Birdman_(film). Unfortunately, the editor who MusicAngels is mostly warring with seems to think the page belongs to him/her instead, so this may need some sorting out on both sides. But MusicAngels is back again doing what he/she was warned against in the talk pages attached to the poetry pages that are now deleted, that is, he/she is trying to block all edits by anyone else until "consensus" is reached on a talk page and is claiming that this is WP policy. MusicAngels seems to be unstoppable in these bad habits, even after many warnings from admins. (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the editor whom MusicAngels is warring with. I disagree with the statement that I seem to think the page belongs to me (indeed, while at one stage I got upset with someone editing a section to begin, after discussion I was very grateful for the edits!), though obviously everyone's entitled to their opinion. I'd like it if you read my summary over at the edit warring noticeboard though. I just care about additions to the article being good, and am not happy when people bully others into keeping poor additions. Neuroxic (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Y'all, it's worthwhile keeping an eye on the deluge of IP disruptors on Talk:Birdman (film), and now also on my talk page. I don't know if this IP is part of that assholery, but I ended up semi-protecting that talk page: comments made there were just personal attacks on MusicAngels and had nothing to do with the content of Birdman. They're on my talk page too, blathering a bunch about how they're academics but can't have accounts and I hate IP editors and blah blah blah.

    I don't know if any of you are smart enough to figure out what's going on. Maybe it's one person who knows how to hop IPs all over the place; maybe it's a bunch of meaty IPs. It's a minor irritation, and it's getting in the way of Neuroxic and MusicAngels reaching a solution on the article--but perhaps some of you content editors and GA-warriors can have a look as well. Note: I have no dog in this fight; I haven't seen the movie, read the article, or even glanced at the GA review or reassessment. I don't know Neuroxic or MusicAngels from Adam. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm the anonymous IP who wrote the paragraphs "A lot of readers" and "MusicAngels seems to be deep in..." I'm not part of any asshattery and I don't write personal attacks like the ones on the talk pages. I don't know how to hop IPs, but I visit from other people's computers, so my IP is probably different now from what it was before. I've been watching this story from a distance, and it's fascinating to see how some editors can disrupt Wikipedia and waste other people's time. (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Horse breeds of France#List of French horse breeds[edit]

(non-admin closure) Curb Chain indef blocked by Bishonen. BMK (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Montanabw has repeatedly removed my talk page discussionis repeatedly archiving a talk page discussion [42], [43], [44] due to the fact that "the issue was dismissed at TfD". That TfD s/he is refering to was closed by an involved user because of a previous offense I committed. In good faith, I took the patience to post on the talk page of my concerns but his/her actions are preventing any sort of discussion from taking place. I have no other choice but to file this incident here.Curb Chain (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You did have the choice. You could of resolved it with her away from ANI. Going to an editor's talk page making threats, is not the best way to discuss things. CassiantoTalk 23:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur with Cassianto. Why is this here, really? GregJackP Boomer! 05:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ideally, Montanabw would have let someone else archive it as she expressed strong opinions within the discussion, but it isn't that big of a deal in this type of discussion. It wasn't an RFC or polling type discussion, but more importantly, it looks pretty obvious that the consensus was universally against Curb Chain on that talk page, so sometimes bending the rules a bit and just closing a discussion makes sense and it prevents a discussion from being a drawn out drama-fest. See also: WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. As for removing a comment, she explained that on her talk page and Curb seemingly accepted the explanation, so I'm not sure why we are here. You could start an RfC on the matter, but I get the feeling that things wouldn't go your way, based on input on the page. You started a discussion, everyone disagreed with you, it went on for several threads, so I can't see how your ability to discuss was impaired here. While everyone has a right to discuss changing something (See WP:CCC), that doesn't guarantee you can force others to engage ad nauseum. I don't see anything here that merits any sanction against Montanabw. On the other hand, Curb's actions have been less than ideal, and in fact, mildly disruptive. Dennis Brown - 13:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just popping by to note that WP:BOOMERANG may be worth considering. @Dennis Brown:, you may not be aware that Curb Chain recently came off of a week-long block for socking, and the sockpuppet account was also used to go after this same template (along with several others). See User:Algircal: [45] who was originally thought to be a sock of a different user but CU linked to Curb Chain: See [46] and [47]. FWIW, Curb Chain has a very long history of disruptive behavior, frequently targeting me, and I am quite tired of the ongoing harassment. Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • That is compelling, I knew of the socking, but went back traced more activity. It seems they started this discussion just a day or two after getting unblocked for socking during a formal discussion of the same basic material. I'm not sure if a topic ban is coming soon or what, but this is unacceptable, and clearly a pattern of behavior. Dennis Brown - 18:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a case of targeting User:Montanabw. I don't remember when I've interacted with him or her. This is a long standing issue with horse articles where she engages in WP:WIKIBULLYING and WP:OWN ([48], [49], [50]). I only need to look up twothree sections (Template talk:Horse breeds of France#Discusison of red links and such) and see that there has been a issue of WP:IDHT. The issue here about the crosses in the template so what is the point of archiving a discussion about that?Curb Chain (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I see three people reverting you on Template:Horse breeds of France, not one. One of the instances of OWN you are claiming, I see her saying "Per BRD, let's revert and discuss. I made some changes to the original, but I think the template creator needs to weigh in here too." Which sounds like a call to discuss and invite the original creator. That is kind of far from WP:OWN. Right now, my concern is your behavior, which probably became problematic before you started socking, but since then has been confrontational. You've been here years, tons of edits, few problems until recently. Maybe you need to consider editing in areas other than equine templates, at least for a few months, as it seems to be bringing out the worse in you, including socking. I really don't want to go down the sanction road any further than you already have been, but if you keep it up, you will be forcing the hand of some admin. As for the actions of other editors, admin aren't blind, but the real problem before us is you Curb. This is why I'm asking you to just voluntarily disengage from the area, for your own sake. Dennis Brown - 18:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh nonsense that she doesn't remember interacting with me! We go way back. This user also previously edited as Una Smith (where she dragged me to ANI several times, also) and has other suspected sockpuppets. This is a classic case of an editor WP:NOTHERE. This is harassment, plain and simple. I probably shouldn't have even replied, as I guess it did just stir up the drama this user so dearly loves. So, can we close this now, or must we waste bandwidth for several more days? Montanabw(talk) 19:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Propose Boomerang[edit]

Propose that Curb Chain be topic banned from articles on horses, broadly construed, and is further prohibited from interacting with Montanabw. The issues identified above indicate that this is a long-term problem, involving socking, nothere, and harassment of a fine content creator. GregJackP Boomer! 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. GregJackP Boomer! 19:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support indef - Here's a clear case of WP:TEND. The statement that Curb doesn't recall interacting with Montanabw is in fact a lie. That alone proves bad faith. Just block and move on. Jusdafax 20:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per both GJP and Judasfax. BMK (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, ditto per both GJP and Judasfax. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban regarding horses and interaction ban with Montanabw. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic and interaction bans, for six months or so, as a preventative not punitive boomerang. It's clear that this is not only topically disruptive in an ongoing way but also involves vendetta-like behavior against a specific editor (one I've had my own disagreements with, so this is no "entourage" response on my part, and I even agree with Curb Chain on one point on that talk page, and also WP:Thanked the editor for something recently). Lying, hounding, and sockpuppetry, combined with a WP:IDHT tendentiousness in the face of talk page consensus against what Curb Chain has been proposing (the alleged redundancy of the nav template in question), then a vexatious and unclean-hands ANI filing, right on the heels of a related block, are really, really not the way to go about resolving any kind of issue here. The topic ban will not unduly affect Curb Chain's participation in Wikipedia, as the editor is rarely involved in anything relating to horses or animal breeds more generally. The interaction ban would also not appear to be an undue restriction, but short-circuit any further disruptive behavior toward Montanabw.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban regarding horses for a few months per comment by Dennis Brown above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, oppose a topic ban for horses. Horses aren't the problem here. This editor has a long history of disruptive behaviour and IDHT, and much of it appears to centre round lists - from which topic he/she was banned for six months in 2013 by Bishonen. Bishonen's comments on behaviour in her block proposal of 15 June 2013 read as completely up to date today – nothing has changed. Attempting to argue that a navbox is redundant to a list appears to be contentious editing relating to lists; the socking and edit-warring make it clear that this is not a collegial attempt to reach consensus to change NOTDUP. I propose as an alternative an extended topic-ban for categories, lists, and navigation templates, broadly construed, and a clear warning that further disruptive behaviour will lead to a block. Curb Chain clearly wants to improve the encyclopaedia, but really needs to find a different way of going about doing that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the ping and the link, Justlettersandnumbers. Yes, as I commented in 2013 before imposing a six-month topic ban for list-related pages, Curb Chain has demonstrated great stubbornness and IDHT behaviour for several years, ever since 2011, falling through the cracks again and again on ANI because people couldn't agree what sanction if any was appropriate. Links to these earlier ANIs can be found here. Whether or not the user is in good faith (I would say yes) and whether or not the problems are competence-related, there is a long-term pattern of wasting constructive editors' time and patience. These resources are too valuable to be frittered away in such a manner. I have blocked Curb Chain indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing. Bishonen | talk 10:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

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

Edit warring/harrasment/reference failure/vandalism[edit]

This IP has been edit warring on Aberdeen Airport, removing content that has a source provided, vandalism on the talk page, harrassing me about it as you can see on my talk page, he stated...

Look, whatever, you want to continue writing garbage? Go-ahead. Your "sources" are nothing of the sort. What you've done is removed stuff that has long been on the page and then demanded that I get a source. People like you are really bad for this site and as someone else noted above, you seem to want to prove your somehow right no matter what, even when your wrong. Fill your boots, moron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What I did was add information with a reference last month, the same IP kept reverting it and claiming that the information was 'false' even though it had a reference provided. Another user reverted it once but after that it has continued, until now. The IP claimed he was from Aberdeen and kept changing only the edits I made without references.

He claims that I always want to be right, don't know who the 'other user' is though. But I do like to be right, it's a good feeling and when I am quite sure that I am right but somone else claims I am not I always find sources for the claims I make, this IP did not. But it does not mean that I just want to be right, I just tend to keep trying until I convince someone that I am right.

I would like what can be done for this issue, thanks. RMS52 Talk to me 15:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • This is more of a content dispute than anything, which means it needs to be settled on the talk page of the article. As far as behavior, seems to be losing this battle, based on the style and types of edits that he is doing. I wouldn't call them vandalism, and in fact I imagine he is making them in good faith, but when two different people revert you, it is up to you to go to the talk page and hash it out, via WP:BRD. If you don't start using the talk page, you are asking to get blocked. Dennis Brown - 15:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I used his talk page and he used mine, tried to sort it out there but failed. Also, I wasn't saying all of his edits were vandalism, 1 was. RMS52 Talk to me 17:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


RefHistory (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account out to promote Philip Benedict. We had to go through a RfC to determine that it's inappropriate to add the books written by his students, with no sources other than those books. That doesn't stop RefHistory from re-adding the very same content over and over again: [51] That was after a rather unambiguous warning I left at their talk page. RefHistory obviously is unwilling to accept the community's consensus, and I tire of trying to educate him on what constitutes a third-party source. I propose they're not here to improve the encyclopedia and should be dealt with accordingly. Huon (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal (RefHistory)[edit]

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

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

  • Support per BH. If you aren't here to build an encyclopedia, you are getting in the way of those that are. Dennis Brown - 01:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Topic ban of indefinite length (until there is no need for the ban) widely construed on Phillip Benedict to be enforceable by blocks of escalating length (1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, indef). User has had more than enough opportunities to become educated with the rules of the road, but still feels the need to push their content without any new argument as to why declined content should be added. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see much of an effective difference between an indef-block and a topic ban in this case and would support either. I'm obviously involved in the article. Huon (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Based on Mr Susan Heronpiss's user page and a comment on my talk page, I suspect serial socking. The editor mentions an edit filter and having to up his game. I would have gone to WP:SPI, but I don't know who the master is. (I can file a SPI case if someone points out the master.) I advise that a CU check for sleepers. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

edit waring[edit]

This doesn't belong here. Anyone can take it to WP:AN3 if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I want to report and check if Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) is potentially guilty of vialoating the WP:3RR rule. He has reverted my edits on the article Panzer II three times, the first time, the second time and the third time. Technically, his first change may not fall under the WP:3RR rule. Thanks for looking into this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly relevant discussion here.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I want to point out that I introduced the {{tl:subject bar}} to introduce the relevant portals to the article, which were missing until my original addition. Since the subject bar aggregates both portal inclusion as well as reference to commons (among many other useful links), it is only natural to integrate into one common presentation paradigm. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Relevant discussions are here
WT:WikiProject Military_history#Replacement of established Commons links by obscure .7B.7BSubject bar.7D.7D template?
WT:Wikimedia Commons#Replacement of established Commons links by obscure .7B.7BSubject bar.7D.7D template?
Neither of these seem to be generating much interest in throwing away the recognised and valued Commons link box, in favour of making it subordinate to an unfamiliar portal link. I'd also question why MisterBee1966 thinks that ANI is now the first port of discussion in such an issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I made this topic formal for the following reason:
  1. You violated the WP:3RR rule, a sign and risk that you may consider the article WP:OWN
  2. Wording like “obscure" falls under WP:POV
This kind of behavior is best addressed more formally, cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You were BOTH edit warring, and per your edit summary here, you knew you were edit warring.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"Obscure" is an adjective. We use those in an encyclopedia. To quote the AfD nomination for this obscure template, "A mere 1,477 transclusions in 4.8 million articles, in over four years, show that this template has failed to gain traction with the community;". Use "mere" or "obscure", whichever you prefer, the point is that this template is uncommon in comparison to the well-established and familiar {{Commons category}}. Yet you have introduced it to the Panzer II article, and others, three times now, without discussion and against reversion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring[edit]

User:Garageland66 is edit warring on Communist Party of Britain. Repeated removal of far-left and "of Britain" in the party's name despite reliable sources supporting their presence.


Those are just examples. See here the user has been warned over page ownership, a warning which they dismissed.

I'm sorry unremittingly for my participation in the edit war.

Gotha  Talk 12:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Communist Party of Britain (or whatever it's called today). Both issues are discussed at some length. Garageland does not seem to consider that consensus amongst between others (no matter how weak) is something to consider. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
A purely preventative [sic] block has been issued on just one of the editors here, on the sole grounds that the other editor is "less familiar" with WP. So they have of course now continued their edit warring unopposed, as after all they now have clear admin approval that their version is "right". How does that one work? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa[edit]

Gob Lofa and myself were recently blocked for a 24 hours, with the blocking administrator Callanecc making the following statements at our talk pages [52] and [53], making it clear that they would be looking into a IBAN between us and a TBAN for either one or both of us. Nothing as of yet has come of this and I would like to request that action indeed be taken. I would ask Callanecc directly however I noticed on their talk page that they won't be as active as normal until 14 September, but I will notify them of this AN/I.

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

Callanecc makes it clear that such a decision will be based on mine and Gob Lofa's actions, for example about civility and usage of sources [54]. Callanecc also requested in his block notice to me (linked above) that I remain civil and leave Gob Lofa's talk page alone, and for my part I feel that I have done that except to place an AN/I notice on their page to notify them of this. Unfortunately Gob Lofa seems to have reverted back to the issues I had originally raised here before deciding to close it and go to ArbCom Enforcement instead, and seems to be intent on carrying on before as well as trying to provoke some form of response from me by revisiting previous debates/flashpoints, starting here (23rd August) and most recently today here (30th August) and here.

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

  • Despite previously being informed [55] of the problems with their attempt to add a "Terrorism" category to the article, they decided [56] to put it into the start of the second sentence of the lede in a clear violation of WP:UNDUE (talk page discussion makes it clear why). I reverted [57], asking Gob Lofa to go to talk about it, to which they did and this was the result. Note the incivility from Gob Lofa towards Snowded [58].
  • They are also still at the inaccurate edit summaries. Here they state "NPOV, link, reword etc", however what they actually did was reword a more NPOV sourced statement and changed the entire context of it and made it more POV. They also reworded another sourced statement (at the end of the edit) that was inaccurate as my reversion edit summary makes clear. They made the same edit and misleading summary at this article as well.
  • This is another contentious edit. The government was not involved in the violence, and it is highly contentious and inaccurate to state such.
  • This talk page however clearly reveals the real level of bias with their arguments for their edit, an argument that is clearly at odds with the facts, which I make clear with responses of block quotations from several verifiable and reliable sources by respected academics. Most notably Gob Lofa explicitly stated on 15th July: "the BA put it up to republicans first, starting with forcing through Orange marches with violence in March 1970" [59] however this direct quote from one of those sources I provided on 25th August [60] states "On Easter Tuesday, 31 March 1970, the Junior Orangemen had permission to march in Belfast. On their way out they marched along the Springfield Road without incident, but on their return that evening Catholic youths began to throw bottles at the bands and when about seventy soldiers of the Royal Scots Regiment arrived they were attacked with stones and petrol bombs.". There is some difference between Gob Lofa's version of events and what actually happened, and from an editor who frequently states that they are making things more NPOV.

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

  • [61]. An IP was trying to enforce a word change, and after a few reverts I had asked an admin to semi-protect the page, however a completely new IP appears to change it again. Upon reverting, Gob Lofa appears out of the blue, stating I "Take it to talk", even though there is no basis for such a statement or revert considering I was reverting an IPs edit to the stable version. This new IP and Gob Lofa also both edited this article on the 28th August leading me to wonder are they linked.
  • The following (ab)use [62] of their rollback privilege yesterday (not the first time) to make another inaccurate edit summary and what is clear incivility directed at me with "Undo convoluted POV replacement for Britain". That is in regards to me reverting an edit of theirs back on the 1st May [63]. How that edit summary was merited is beyond me.

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

Also in regards to the Dromore, County Down article, a clear attempt at provocation by highly dubious admonishment [64], though my response to it shows the holes in it. Mabuska (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations[edit]

Can someone else please have a word with Broadmoor about his or her persistent copyright violations (e.g., this material copied from here, this new article copied from here, this material copied from here, this material copied from here)? I've had run ins with this editor before so I don't think that he or she will respond well if I try to address this with him or her. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for reporting. I will add this user to my list of people to monitor. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeated Afd template removal[edit]

User:CHASE6784 has removed the AFD template from an article for a rapper client of his he created 45 tha FEVA five times in two days despite being warned several times on his talk page with templates, a personal note, and through edit summaries. Please see the evidence at page history here. Please see their talk here. Can an admin assist? AusLondonder (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Again AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems like they have several final warning about this. I would think a block duration of "08:00, 29 August 2015 + 7 days" would make sense(based on the duration of the AfD). An early unblock could be given if they agree to not continue. Chillum 18:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks like @Someguy1221: has already blocked this user. Chillum 22:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 Ikea murders[edit]

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

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

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

  • Frankly I am fed up with User:MSJapan's persistent WIKIHOUNDING. This editor has been WIKIHOUNDING me since I made a simple editing error the week before last, for which I swiftly apologized, and has repeatedly stated that s/he would be glad if I left Wikipedia. I believe that her/his goal is to chase me off Wikipedia. At first, I thought the WIKIHOUNDING was a mere overreaction and have refrained form bringing this to ANI. I hate the aggression on Wikipedia. Today the editor's language leads me to suspect a POV motive. Or, perhaps, a nervous breakdown. Whatever MSJapan's editor's motives, his/her behavior is an overreaction to any actual errors I have committed. Certainly, however, MSJapan's approach is an excellent way to convince rational people to avoid editing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Then stop editing contrary to policy. You keep adding sources to articles that do not support the statements you want to make. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research, and you don't understand that. Nobody should have go around cleaning up your messes because you didn't do youe due diligence. You don't start a bio article to do nothing but write about scandals, and you don't start an event article to talk about politics. You especially don't remove "verification failed" templates from sources. Respond to issues instead of making ad hominem attacks. Actually, when someone disputes your sources, you need to engage in discussion, not just revert "because it's sourced." Your problem is that you think your opinions trump policies and procedures, and they don't. In short, act like a good contributor, and perhaps people will treat you like one. Until that time, you need to deal with the consequences of your editing behavior. On another note to the admins, have I not provided enough diffs to show the pattern of behavior and lack of engagement to resolve the problem? MSJapan (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
If more diffs are needed, this was my removal for clear synth, the talk diff where I explained such, and a wholesale reversion of the edit, despite the talk thread being opened. That's the behavioral point - I made an edit in accordance with policy, explained why on talk in accordance with policy, and was reverted rather than engaged on talk. The substance of the edit is not at question here in this thread.
I'd also note that this AfD diff on an article EMG is a good indicator as well; the user thinks that writing a BLP focusing on a perpetrator is OK even when it is substantially about the event, and feels that following policies in such cases is "against consensus." The same went for the substantive version of Matthew C. Whitaker before any other editors got involved - a BLP with little to no BLP. There is a similar sourcing discussion on EMG's page here, and prod after prod after prod. EMG has refactored comments at least twice, and has a copyvio notice. I would note that a university bio was OK as a source for David_Mikics (who "automatically passed PROF" on that source), thought a "self-referenced description was OK" on Susya for an NGO, but a uni bio was "unsourced hagiography" on Matthew C. Whitaker. Again, this isn't content, it's editing conduct. When the source suits his purpose, it's OK, and when it doesn't, it isn't, no matter what.
Wikihounding seems to be a common fallback when someone disagrees with his editing and he can't get his way. He did that to Auslondoner after previously having falsely accused him of abusing SPEEDY and canvassing. He also goes after editors who tag his work as if they're in the wrong for tagging unsourced and single source articles. No one is responsible for the EMG's lack of competence other than him, and he's clearly not willing to accept that. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This series of edits by E.M.Gregory violates NPOV by exaggerating the connection between the IKEA murders and the rise of Sweden's anti-immigration politics. E.M.Gregory's sentence, "The attack is said to have contributed to producing a major uptick in support for the Sweden Democrats Party, which pledges to limit immigration," falsely portrays the two sources, both of which only mention the IKEA murders as a recent element rather than as a major influence. Challenged on this point, E.M.Gregory expanded the problem, adding a source written before the murders (!!) as well as an opinion piece from the UK which fails to describe the IKEA murders as having a major influence on the popularity of the Sweden Democrats Party. This looks like political advocacy to me, not encyclopedic writing. I'm seeing poor work by E.M.Gregory, not hounding by MSJapan. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Here's a statement directly from E.M.Gregory that shows exactly why there's an editing conduct issue: [65]. MSJapan (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • And apparently he's attacking other users as well, later apologies aside: [66] MSJapan (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Persistant unconstructive accusations[edit]

I hate to do this as I always try to assume good faith in every editors' contributions but there has been one editor that has consistently been unconstructive in his activity on the page of Paul Singer (businessman). Though me and User:SegataSanshiro1 have engaged in thorough discussion, he has made several false accusations about me on the grounds of WP:HARASSMENT and violated WP:BLP on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman) by giving his unwarranted opinion on the subject. Even after several attempts to remain civil by focusing on content rather than slamming the subject and accusing me of COI, he continues his hostile activity. I don't know if any sanctions are justified in this situation but I wanted to get a second opinion on how to handle this. Below is an incomplete list of some of SegataSanshiro's edits I have an issue with:

Thanks in advance for the help. Meatsgains (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed his/her recent accusation against you [73] on the Paul Singer talk page. I'm sorry you've been attacked in this way--I'm familiar with your editing history and it is clear to me you've edited in good faith and that you've attempted to apply Wikipedia policies fairly. It seems the editor has an axe to grind with Paul Singer and you've received the brunt of his/her wrath. I hope action is taken to protect you from further unsubstantiated attacks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that I asked many times politely to disclose any conflicts of interests and this was repeatedly ignored. I think given this editor's string of edits and extremely odd editing behaviour on the page in question, the accusation is hardly unfounded and doesn't constitute abuse. There have been many cases of paid editing surrounding the pages of businesses and wealthy businesspeople reported in the press and this user's edits fit that pattern of behaviour. Of course, he could also have a genuine and profound long-term interest in a 70 year old hedge fund manager, which is why I posed it as a question on numerous occasions. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I have denied your false accusations, not ignored them, multiple times [74] [75] and yet you continue your antics and attacks. My editing behavior has always been civil and of good faith. Meatsgains (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you asked many times for Meatsgains to disclose a COI. But Meatsgains didn't disclose a COI. There are two options: they don't have a COI, so they can't possibly disclose one, or they do have a COI, but they are lying about it. If you truly feel that Meatsgains has a COI, you need to bring that up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Repeatedly badgering another user about a suspected COI is not productive. If there's evidence of one, bring it up and let the investigation begin. Personally, I think the assertion that Meatsgains has a COI is dubious given the editor's long and varied edit history and lack of disciplinary action against him/her. But certainly repeatedly accusing someone of COI, having that person deny it, but then continuing to accuse them is only resulting in spinning your wheels. Either drop it, or move forward on the COI noticeboard. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Many years have passed....[edit]

Discretionary sanctions required[edit]

Sanctions in place, and OP topic banned from WOP areas. Nothing else really needs doing. (non-admin closure) -- Orduin Discuss 15:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

We need sanctions at Extreme longevity tracking AFD. Editors repeatedly attack everyone who supports the article by making ridiculous demands upon them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions have just been authorized by the Arbitration Comitee: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Amendment request: Longevity (August 2015).--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please sanctions though trying to destroy cited critical work. It's purely disruptive. (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is there any particular reason that "Topic ban for 166.x.x.x editor" above hasn't been closed and put into effect. It's surely a snow close. BMK (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Done --NeilN talk to me 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature[edit]

This article is mainly edited by a few editors who only edit this article and two related ones (Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos). Although I have tried to explain clearly what problems I see with the article as it currently stands, I continue to be accused of editing with a political bias by John sargis (as well as an IP editor,, but I assume that is the same person who forgot to log in). I consider this a personal attack and have notified the editor of this. This was again answered with a personal attack. The editor's user page and talk page show that this person has a history of such attacks. The editor also has a COI with this article, having published himself in this journal several times (e.g., [76] and [77]). In view of these repeated attacks and persistent failure to AGF, perhaps some editor here can have a look. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • You assume wrong what you think is my IP address. It is not me. You should be sure about your "facts" before making veiled presumptions against me. After I repeatedly showed you the irregularities about the way wiki rules are applied in terms of what you see as "problems" with the article, you blame me for attacking you. I am pointing out the foolish consistencies in the way the rules are applied in that there are many other articles that suffer from the same "rule", but it seems they only apply to D&N, even after it has been pointed out to you those other articles. If there are wiki rules that are “double standards” and an administrator enforces them, then logic dictates that the administrator is biased. This is not a personal attack. Furthermore, I do question your motives since if you think I did attack you personally, you threatened to take me to the WP:ANI board to get me banned. I question your motives, because before you post a grievance against a user with the board, you must FIRST try to resolve the issue on my talk page. Which you did not do. Thus you are harassing me. And I am asking now that an administrator can have a look for proof at my talk page. Thanks. John sargis (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue was discussed at Talk:Democracy & Nature, so there was no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page. And apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules... --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but again as I have repeated, I want the rules to be evenly applied, which you did not do. The rule says that you go to my talk page to iron out the personal issue(s) and not at the article page which is inappropriate. You bypassed and undercut the rule so that you could preemptively get me banned by going immediately to the administrators. This is harassment. So again a foolish consistency underscores how you use or not use wiki rules for your convenience. John sargis (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Your insinuation, Randykitty, is I am hypocritical when you say, “apparently there are situations where you do want those darned Wikipedia rules.” implying I am biased is a personal attack. I replied, above, I want the rules applied evenly, but yet you are insisting not to use them evenly as evidenced not only in your discussions here and especially at your post at 19:36 (UTC) above, but also at D&N page where last year you tried the same editorial tactics with no success of deletion—and now you are at it again. It is difficult for it not come to mind that you have a political bias, but I do not know. John sargis (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh man... Could somebody not involved please have a look at this? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And ongoing PA by another editor, Panlis, who exclusively edits topics related to the ones mentioned above. Given the vehemence and the accusations, I feel almost like I am dealing with a sect here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • User Randykitty, as demonstrated in Talk:Democracy & Nature, has consistently tried to impose his way of editing the article, by adding repeatedly tags and requests for citations, that were effectively shown to him that are at least irrelevant to the article and constituted the -to my mind as well- justifiable assumption that he indeed maintains a bias toward the entry. His recurrent editing "spree" has been accompanied by his unwillingness to answer to documented and logical questions brought to his attention in the Talk Page. So the assumption of his maintaining a bias towards the article does not constitute a Personal Attack, as so easily and conveniently Randykitty accuses me and other editors of, and this is because all criticizing was aimed at his activity in the entry, accompanied by documented and -to a decent degree- laborious argumentation on his recurrent and lately almost totally exorbitant actions showcased in the Talk Page. And this is particularly so, when in the meanwhile and while he accused the other editors, I tried to contribute to the article by particularly addressing his demands for citations, from the moment they seemed somehow sensible. At the same time, the only thing Randykitty did was mainly deleting, and adding tags!..
Then, Randykitty didn't take the time to activate the Dispute Resolution procedure, before bringing the matter to the Administrators' board. On the contrary he accuses the other editors involved in the discussion, with a striking nerve, of being a "sect"! But this is to say easily when an editor is short of answers to the points raised by me or anybody else who out of necessity does not spend his life in checking wiki entries and he resorts to the facile ‘accusation’ that "I exclusively edit topics related to the ones mentioned above”. But why specialist knowledge on a topic is something wrong when editing an article in an encyclopedia and in Wikipedia, when of course it's not a field for advocacy? Yes, I do have specialist knowledge on the topic and this is why I take party on discussions related to it rather than on brain cancer surgery. Unless of course, according to Wikipedia rules, people with no obvious knowledge on a topic or on the meaning or the function of a theoretical journal should have more say on any topic, as long as they have memorized some wiki rules. Of course rules are needed but the issue is how (as every rule) are interpreted. Panlis (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Randykitty increasingly acts in -to say the very least- bad faith and total unwillingness to follow any gradual protocol required by Wikipedia before dropping in the row and without any documented reply his "allegations" in this board. Now he demonstrates once again his blatant unwillingness to take part in the discussion in the Democracy & Nature Talk Page and to reply to the concrete arguments posed against his theses, when at the same time, he continues adding tags that have been demonstrated to him to be at best irrelevant and at worst, totally biased as [I (and other editors) have tried to prove here, without any at all, further participation to the dialogue by this obviously Disruptive Editor. It's also becoming now more than clear that the same user uses his "credentials" of thousands of edits in articles and of being an administrator, so as not only to impose his unacceptable editing methods to the D&N entry, despite my and other editors' best attempts to concretely and in detail show his inconsistency (and, ultimately), bias in this case, but to also throw mud against all other editors with whom he simply does not agree with: By putting at the venture labels on them of the sort of "WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA" etc..
And all this when
(a) positive response to some of his sensible demands was accurately applied to the entry,
(b) his blatant inconsistencies were meticulously shown with specific examples and passages in the Talk Page, without him caring to give any concrete reply to my and others' argumentation in the Talk Page,
(c) he jumped without any constraint to blame me and other editors of WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NPA etc., without any effort on his part to follow a normal procedure of the many available in WP:DR and elsewhere before resorting to these accusations and before bringing me and others to the WP:ANI, and finally,
(d) he continues even at this moment his disruptive editing and undocumented reverses without giving any explanation at all in the talk page for this, while at the same time he has the "nerve" of accusing me (with the non-argument) of "not addressing the underlying problems" (!), something that I tried to do in -I think- a decently laborious and well-documented attempt! Hence Randykitty's action that suits to his case could also be showcased vividly in the following clear passages from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

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

  1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." (...)
  2. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." (...)
Panlis (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This thread had been archived. I have restored it in hope of solliciting some input about this case of SPA editors owning some articles. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Having completely lost the argument, Randykitty now returns (as was fully expected of him!) with yet another wp rule: owning. However, once again, he simply distorts another wp rule. He has no evidence whatsoever to support his new allegation apart from the fact that the editors who tried to make sense of his multiple tagging (like John Sargis and Panlis) were involved before in exchanges related to D&N and related entries. However, the owning rule itself stresses that “It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert” and Panlis himself admitted his special knowledge on the topic. Randykitty has to show convincingly that “this watchfulness has become possessiveness” and he NEVER MANAGED TO DO SO, particularly as the editors involved (as well as myself) tried repeatedly to improve the entry following those of Randykitty’s suggestions which were specific enough and looked reasonable,e.g. providing the citations and the links to references he asked for. I also supposed that as long as he does not just put tags all around, without usually giving concrete advice on what has to be done, the editors already involved –and hopefully others as well—would continue helping to improve the entry. Unless of course his real aim is not to improve the entry but simply to have it deleted, after his failed attempt for deletion last year. (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks by User:Le petit fromage on their talk page during block[edit]

Talk page access revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Lpf was blocked for a week on 29 August for edit warring and personal attacks. They have continued with the attacks on their talk page while blocked (diff). Could an uninvolved admin deal with this please. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Removing WP:PROMOTION of[edit]

I came across this edit which was reverted by Jim1138 . Someone had COI with tellychakkar. I searched and found that it exists as reference in various Biographies of Indian TV actors.

I can remove it one by one, which will take lots of time. Administrators can remove the website links quickly. Tellychakkar is not a reliable source. A single editor or a group is spamming the links. --Aero Slicer 12:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Indiey8bb3bbu repeatedly removed CSD tag[edit]

Articles deleted and salted. Sock accounts blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi! Indiey8bb3bbu repeatedly removed CSD tag from Riyan Purewal, a page which himself created ([78]). also seems to be a duck ([79]). Final warning has already be given to the main account. Could an admin assist and block the editor for a period? — TaqPol talk contrib 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

New editor Hijn2020 and new IP recreating the page. Taking the matter to WP:SPI. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted and salted the article. Warnings not to use multiple accts have been given to User:Indiehado99, User: , User:Hjin2020, User:Indiey8bb3bbu, and User:Indie009. Indie009 appears to be the oldest acct, as they created the initial version of the article back on May 18. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This has all been brought to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indiey8bb3bbu (although, as Dianaa points out, Indie009 is likely the actual original sock master). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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


Skamecrazy123 (talk) reverted one of my edits on my own contribution to an ANI discussion that changed 'it' to 'you' so that it made more sense and called the edit vandalism: [80]. They also left me a message on my talk page: [81]. The edit and warning were reverted/removed by Atlan (talk): [82], [83]. The following exchange occurred on Skamecrazy123's talk page: [84], [85],[86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99] Reaganomics88 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please enclose your links in brackets. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Was easier to just do it myself. Dennis Brown - 14:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not worth starting an ANI thread over. The revert was inappropriate, and the highest level template warning was inappropriate. I explained this to Skamecrazy123 and that should be the end of it. Reaganomics asks me on my talk page what part of his edits I find problematic here on ANI. It's the heat-to-light ratio of your contributions here. This thread for example, is not at all necessary and can only serve to add fuel to the fire of this non-issue. Also, your "Haha" thread on Skamecrazy123's talk page is needlessly confrontational. But it most certainly is not vandalism.--Atlan (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Atlan: No need to worry about adding fuel to a fire that, as far as I'm concerned, hasn't even started. I read your explanation and I'm fine with the reasoning behind it. After that "Haha" thread though, I don't want Reaganomics on my talk page again. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: After your unprovoked and unjustified highest severity level vandalism warning I don't ever want you on my talk page again either.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Reaganomics88: Sounds good to me. I can get back to whatever I was doing, and you can get back to your other ANI... Closing time. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


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

I can see where you're coming from, but AN/I needs a little more substance than that. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, going through their edit history, here is some substance:
Of the user’s other edits, one adds a seemingly-unrelated reference, one is on an unrelated topic, a couple added copyvio images (which is how I got pulled into this), all others are minor.
User:Ohnoitsjamie warned them yesterday but this morning here we are again. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A new sock drawer opens[edit]

So far it contains:

I assume this is someone who has had a run-in with Bsadowskil. I'm off to bed; if others could keep an eye on things overnight I'd appreciate it. GoldenRing (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I see the third one has also been blocked now. Please keep an eye on the situation still. GoldenRing (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Judging from its "style", this is the life form that's been haunting Bongwarrior's user/talk pages for quite a while, and those of anyone who sees fit to interfere. WP:RBI. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


A story as old as time. On 19 September 2009 User:Hyrdlak (a single purpose account with 204 edits since: 2009-09-19) created an entry about himself called Tomasz Kamusella and by the next day increased its size to 18,780 bytes (most of it unreferenced), with a few quotes from (Server not found). By 8 July 2012 Hyrdlak increased the same bio to 26,744 bytes at which point it became glaringly obvious to me that Hyrdlak writes about himself. By 26 February 2014 Hyrdlak expanded the entry to 29,467 bytes with a bunch of junk from his own filing cabinet (no third party assessment).[122]

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

Relevant diffs
  • This could be exciting, but let's do small things first. a. Poeticbent, are you in fact Volunteer Marek, and are you also an Auburn fan? b. is that fringe dictionary notable by our standards? If not, put it up at AfD. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As for Tomasz_Kamusella, that does not look very notable. DGG, Randykitty, do you have an opinion? Drmies (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait a minute, Poeticbent et al. I was looking at this version of the biography, which is indeed too much like a resume. But the references in note 23 aren't in the current version of the article anymore, and that's unfortunate since those references could easily make the subject notable per WP:PROF--if legit, they would show that the book, The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe, had a significant influence. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
He's probably notable. 6 books by major English language publishers, include Palgrave Macmillan, an important publisher for this subject. I cannot see the article on the fringe dictionary, but I suspect that it may be a disagreement over the status of a particular dialect. I would redirect the article on it--I cannot imagine that would be sufficiently important by itself, unless it stirred up a very major controversy. (As a general rule, trying to write an article on an author & also one on a minor book does indicate a tendency to promotionalism (which is why we discourage autobiographies) , but the bio article in its present state seems acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Kamusella is probably notable. The glossary is not. DGG, you edited one of these articles at some point (I recall seeing your name in the page history), and put in a POV tag on one of them, which was then removed ... by Hyrdlak.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Found it: here and here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about Kamusella (maybe he is notable), but I'm also for deleting the article about the glossary. It's not even sourced now... Peter238 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether Kamusella is notable. Quite probably, given the books with major publishers as remarked upon by DGG, although the long post on the article's talk page about how Kamusella meets many of the criteria of WP:PROF mainly betrays inexperience with how this guideline usually is applied. I don't think the fellowship of the Royal Historical Society confers notability, given the large number of fellows listed on that organization's homepage. In this case, notability most probably will come from multiple book reviews of his books (positive or negative, that doesn't really matter). I don't think his citation record is strong enough to indicate a pass of PROF#1. Below mention is made about "crazies vs non-crazies", with Kamusella in the former category. However, given the readership at St. Andrews, apparently obtained after the controversy in Poland, I'd actually be surprised if he really were a fringe/crazy. The article needs a lot of work, though... --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is indeed some excitement to be had here. But strictly speaking it's a (regional) glossary not a dictionary. Anyway, the excitement... this is actually about a manufactured controversy which has been used as a way of self-promotion by one Tomasz Kamusella, which started off in the "real world" and then, thanks to the efforts of User:Hyrdlak made its way onto Wikipedia. Some serious BLP violations and slander of several individuals included along the way.
I started writing it up but then realized it'd end up being TL;DR. So here's the run down: Tomasz Kamusella = fringe "Silesian Nationalist" activist of borderline notability (this version). Publishes this glossary in 2004. The glossary has some wacky ideas in it (Opole's not really part of Poland, Polish-German border is illegal, eastern regions of Poland are really "Germany under temporary Polish occupation" etc). Kamusella in the glossary claims that it was published with backing and financial support from some local politicians and government institutions. When the book comes out these politicians freak out because they don't want to be associated with these loony ideas and apparently they neither gave money to Kamusella nor "supported" him in anyway. They want the passage which mentions them removed. Minor controversy of local regional significance ensues ... for like a week or so. Publisher also says "oh shit, I didn't realize the kind of crap that was in there". One of the said politicians makes an off-hand comment to the local town newspaper to the effect that he wouldn't mind seeing copies of the book burned. Publisher pulls the book, I'm guessing cuz they didn't want to get their ass sued.
Kamusella then runs around yelling about censorship, about how his book was burned and claims it was the "first book banned in post-Communist Poland". Which is all kinds of nonsense. He writes numerous letters to big name politicians who studiously ignore him. Kamusella publishes these letters himself on various websites and tries to make as much noise as possible. Like I said, a manufactured controversy designed to sell copies of the glossary and give him name recognition.
On Wikipedia User:Hyrdlak, who is a single purpose account dedicated to promoting Kamusella (see Poeticbent's links above - all articles created and edited by them promote Kamusella in some way or another), brings this whole sorry situation to Wikipedia. This version of the article basically gives you the flavor. There's a ton of misrepresentation of essentially the single source ([123]) on the topic in there and host of BLP violations. There's a bunch similar in related articles started/edited by Hyrdlak. To keep this at least a bit short I'll let you figure out what those are, but I'll be happy to elaborate upon request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
BTW, if someone gets the idea that this is some kind of Polish-vs-German thing, think again. One of the people being slandered in Hyrdlak's version of the article is Ryszard Galla, probably the most notable member of the German Minority Party in Poland. It's not Pole vs. German, it's rather crazy vs. non-crazy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Well said, Volunteer Marek. I was just wondering. Would it be possible that User:Hyrdlak created User:Franek K. on 2012-08-06 to beef up the ethno-nationalist fight for Silesia already known from the "glossary" article? Franek K. was featured on this AN/I page in October 2014. He said about himself: I live in Poland, I am a teacher at school (bingo!) and I know - most of informations by POlish authors about Silesians and Kashubians is propaganda. – On 22 October 2014 Sandstein blocked Franek K. with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) - with a rationale: (Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: Ethno-nationalist battleground editing, see (not an AE block)). -- Poeticbent talk 05:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is anybody aware of WP:OUTING?

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

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


Games-playing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello, I am reporting myself to ANI for this [124] [125] coercion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what you are reporting or what administrative action you are seeking. Chillum 21:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Please don't make people guess about what you're talking about. If you did something wrong, fix it. if you didn't, then don't waste people's time "self reporting" to make some kind of point. And if you don't know whether or not you did something wrong, certainly don't self report so cryptically that no one can easily provide an opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I felt instructed to report here. Your time is yours. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Follow a point. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Dolovis and page creation problems[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone give some background here? The block log only says that it was a block evasion block (which seems odd to create new accounts since they wouldn't inflate your edit count) since the 2012 block and thus the standard offer that was the main basis for the unblock was for sock evasion and this doesn't seem to be the problem here. Is there a discussion about a redirect or article-creation ban (I think there's at least one other user with an ARBCOM ban with that kind of wording)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
From the sockpuppet investigation, you can see that another account was being used to request deletion of articles created by Ravenswing and Djsasso, using the same rationale used in requests for deletion of articles created by Dolovis. isaacl (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so still nothing related to this specific problem (ignoring that the only response seemed to be "look at my edit count, I couldn't have done this"). Again, I'm not seeing a history of the new article abuse problem so examples of recent antics (there isn't a huge deleted edit history so there actually aren't a lot of editing articles that became deleted) would be helpful and then we're back to potential solutions: a proposal that Dolovis be banned from six months from creating a new article or redirect without the approval of an admin? (I'd suggest AFC but requiring admins would be a higher standard and one I've seen here before). Is so, suggest that and see if there's a consensus supporting that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:The Spartan 003... again.[edit]

After receiving a 24 hour ban a month ago for OR and altering sourced content, he's returned to doing the latter. Actually, he returned to doing that about two weeks ago (see [126]), and I warned him about that (see [127]).

Now, the following edits ([128], [129], [130]) are another instance of altering sourced content. Fortunately, I have that book, and I can confirm that what he added is not what the source says. Peter238 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is also this edit, where his edit summary clearly indicates OR. --JorisvS (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it's more of a ref falsification than OR. That vowel is quite noticeably fronted, at least according to the vowel chart in Jassem (2003). Peter238 (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, both then, basically. From the edit summary it sounds like the listened to the audio file and concluded that he didn't really hear it. Inappropriate anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


Gobugounder (talk · contribs) seems engage in non encyclopedic article creation even after speedy deletion (eg: Kongu Vettuvagounder) and tag article (eg: Dheeran Chinnamalai) for deletion without proper reason. I suspect he/she might use shock puppets (GOPINATH GOUNDER (talk · contribs), Goundermaganprem (talk · contribs)) --AntanO 04:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

When this sort of activity happens on caste articles, it's appropriate to issue a {{Uw-castewarning}} as these articles are subject to general sanctions. Also, you'd have to file an SPI to link the accounts for sockpuppetry. —SpacemanSpiff 06:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat at Grant Hodnett[edit]

No action needed. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi. Thought I should bring your attention to a legal threat posted on the article of professional cricketer Grant Hodnett which I just removed. It was added by an IP with this edit on 1 August. Jevansen (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks for the report, but since the edit was made a month ago and the IP is a dynamic one, it's probably not worth blocking at this point. I will however keep an eye on the article. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Viral marketing nonsense at Napkin[edit]

Can someone fix this nonsense at Napkin? There is an ongoing subtle viral marketing campaign by two Australian radio talkshow presenters, and reverting silly vandal edits over and over again is quite a bore. --benlisquareTCE 11:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)