Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
JackTheVicar (talk | contribs)
5,206 edits
Line 1,190: Line 1,190:
::It wouldn't, that's only 253 IP addresses. [[User:Mesher23|Mesher23]] ([[User talk:Mesher23|talk]]) 22:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
::It wouldn't, that's only 253 IP addresses. [[User:Mesher23|Mesher23]] ([[User talk:Mesher23|talk]]) 22:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
* 65.49.14.0/24 is a proxy server, and I've blocked it, but there are another 127 /24s on that range; whether they're similar I don't know. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
* 65.49.14.0/24 is a proxy server, and I've blocked it, but there are another 127 /24s on that range; whether they're similar I don't know. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 23:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
::Won't help much, but I'm off for now. [[Special:Contributions/89.164.192.64|89.164.192.64]] ([[User talk:89.164.192.64|talk]]) 23:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
::Won't help much, but I'm off for now. Also [[User:Mesher23|Mesher23]] is my puppet account so maybe you can clean the mess I created. I'm sorry but I was only trying something out. [[Special:Contributions/89.164.192.64|89.164.192.64]] ([[User talk:89.164.192.64|talk]]) 23:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:29, 24 August 2015

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE I'd like a closure review on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births:

    1. Trying to sort it out with the closer, to no avail: User talk:MER-C#Problem with closure of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births
    2. Prior to that I had attempted to stop the bot implementing the closure, but the bot already had completed the task [1]

    Problem with the CfD as closed: overrides WP:COPDEF and WP:SEPARATE by adding categories like Category:15 BC to biographical articles. I'm OK with merging BC "birth by year" categories in BC "birth by decade" categories, and recategorizing the affected biographical articles along these lines, not with the "dual upmerge" of "birth by year" categories in biographical articles to both a "birth by decade" and a "by year" category (e.g. [2]) while this is undesirable overcategorization ("birth by date" categories are covered by WP:COPDEF, "by year" categories are not), and makes the BC by year categories mixed people/non-people categories (not allowed by WP:SEPARATE).

    I started removing "by year" categories (diff), which is uncontroversial per WP:COP, but there are too many and any cooperation of bot operators seems to be impossible as long as there's no apparent consensus this is indeed what should be done. Also Wikipedia:Bot policy#Categorization of people proved to be ineffective in this case (see Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#ArmbrustBot 4)

    @Marcocapelle: pinging initiator of the CfD to know their view whether they were aware about the COPDEF/SEPARATE issues when submitting the CfD, and if not, whether it would have made any difference when being aware? Same question to the others participating in the CfD: Peterkingiron, Vegaswikian and Ricky81682.

    Tx for considering this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agreed that "dual upmerge" of "birth by year" categories in biographical articles to both a "birth by decade" and a "by year" category, would be highly undesirable. The non-birth year categories would be flooded with birth trivia, when they're suppose to contain other events, and have the births in a subcat.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware of any issues, for what it's worth in this stage. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar

    The closure at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 30#1st to 6th century BC deaths has the same problem, I notified bot operator [3] and closing admin [4] of the topic being discussed here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Too late – contents already merged, see WP:CFDWM. At least we can hold off deletion of the old categories. – Fayenatic London 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Forward

    Are we in agreement about these points:

    1. The closures of MER-C on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births and of Fayenatic london on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 30#1st to 6th century BC deaths are undone, in view of the WP:COP incompatibility;
    2. The recategorizations and (partial) category deletions resulting from the now suspended closures are undone by bot
    3. Marcocapelle or whoever thinks this a good idea are of course at liberty to resubmit a similar CfD that keeps within the provisions of WP:COP.

    I'd agree with a simple removal of "year" categories on biographical articles by bot, but as this may lead to other issues, I think it best to fully retract our steps to the situation "ante", and take it from there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm going to say support MER-C's original close (as it was summing up the consensus). If another category needs deleting, this can be done separately (Personally, I say empty the "by decade" category, and change it to a parent cat of the "by year" ones, but that's just my 2 cents). This is probably dealt with best with a new CfD, not by overturning a perfectly valid close of a discussion from the views expressed. The close is valid with the arguments provided there. Mdann52 (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    False accusation and personal attack

    user:Toddy1, has a history of making false and baseless accusations against me. He claimed here [5] that I added the following, when it was there long before I started editing the article: "Under Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab it says "Salafists consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih". As we may see here [6], this statement has existed long before I started editing.

    Today he posted a menacing personal attack on my talk page, accusing me of being a user I have no connection with and do not know who he/she is. His message may be seen here [7]. This is clearly a violation of a variety of wikipedia policies pertaining to civility and personal attacks. I would recommend that disciplinary action be taken against him. Xtremedood (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I see a big BOOMERANG coming back at Xtremedood. The user hasn't even informed Toddy1 formally. Leaving a manual missive on Toddy1's talk page is bad form. Please put a lid on it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved editor who interacted with Toddy1 sometime ago I had a brief interaction with Toddy1 a while ago. At first I thought that he was quite obnoxious, overbearing and very rude. But when I went to his talk page I found out that he speaks English language as a second language and therefore they sometimes try to say one thing and it comes out as another. Perhaps you can be kind enough to give them some rope?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Iryna Harpy, I have informed Toddy1 here [8], however he deleted it.
    I have seen other users post more "informal" notices on pages and their complaint was not declared a boomerang, see here [9]. Is there a Wikipedia policy as to a specific format upon which a notice must be placed on a user's page? Xtremedood (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is no such required format - as the notice at the top of the page says (with my emphasis)
    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.
    The requirement is to notify, the option for using that template is "may" not "should" or "must" - Arjayay (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Arjayay, my comment on BOOMERANG was unrelated to the type of notification left for Toddy1. I was referring to Xtremedood's WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavioural pattern which I determined just in a cursory look at the user's editing history, and the fact that this ANI complaint is a tendentious waste of editor time and energy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Background. Xtremedood is involved in a content dispute concerning the article on the Salafi movement. He/she made changes on 24 July, 25 July, 8 August, and 10 August. I tried reverting on 24 July on the grounds that two citations that I checked did not support the text. He/she reverted back and started a talk page discussion at Talk:Salafi movement#Revert by Toddy1. In the talk page discussion @Brustopher: supported Xtremedood's changes, whilst @MezzoMezzo:, @DeCausa: and myself objected to them. Xtremedood's changes to the article were partially reverted by MezzoMezzo, and completely reverted by me on 11 August.
    Xtremedood's complaints about my conduct.
    1. I received a message posted by an IP threatening to report me to Interpol on my talk page on 13 August. It seemed obvious that this was from Xtremedood, so I responded by posting a message on User talk:Xtremedood politely asking him/her not to send me threatening messages.[10]
    2. Regarding Xtremedood's other complaint - during the discussion on the article talk page I mentioned two citations that I had checked and found not to support the text they were there for.[11] He/she is right that one of those citations was there before his edits. His/her edits of 8 August had moved the paragraph to a different part of the article, and I mistakenly thought that he/she had introduced that part.
    3. I do not understand why Xtremedood believes that I deleted his ANI notification from my talk page. It is still there.
    -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh. Relatively new editor Xtremedood is trying to POV push a fringe view into Salafi movement and finds established editors MezzoMezzo and Toddy1 resisting on the basis of policy. Xtremedood proceeds on the basis of WP:BATTLE and uses ANI report based on a trivial diff as a tactic to attack one of the editors they're in dispute with. Thread needs to be dismissed with an admin keeping an eye on the OP. That's the story here. DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As we can see above, user:Toddy1, once against falsely accuses me of leaving that message when I have no connection to that user and I do not know who that user is. Clearly this has to stop. Xtremedood (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DeCausa knocked it out of the water, though Iryna Harpy figured it out pretty fast as well. Xtremedood: give it a rest. I advised you more than once that your combative methods got you blocked for edit warring on other articles. You aren't going to get your way by attacking other editors all the time; stop seeing us as adversaries and start treating is as colleagues working together to improve articles, otherwise you're just going to be marginalized and your suggested edits will be rejected. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint is about a false accusation, stay on topic. There is no need to gang up on me if I disagree with your position or Toddy1's position. I did not send Toddy1 that message. Toddy1 should not be falsely accusing me. For the admins who may be confused about this, the dispute this user is mentioning refers to the article Salafi movement and the discussion between MezzoMezzo, Toddy1, DeCausa, and I may be viewed here: [12]. Xtremedood (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the fact is that you are being tendentious and nit-picking in order to get your way instead of listening to discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. You're now heading towards pushing the limits of 'they're ganging up on me'. Please pay attention and drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your accusation that I am being tendentious and nitpicking. My sources are clear and may be seen here [13] before you reverted them. However, this is not the place to discuss this. This is regarding an incident where I was falsely accused of something I did not do. This violates a multitude of wikipedia policies pertaining to civility and personal attacks. I have opened a dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard here [14] (feel free to state whatever you wish over there), however I now see that a decision should be made here before pursuing a case on the DRN. Regardless, stay on topic. Xtremedood (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is staying on what only you seem to think the topic is, Xtremedood, because your "topic" is a false premise. Nobody attacked you personally and nobody accused you of things falsely. Everybody here recognizes that and your attempt to forum shop won't help you.
    Know what will help you? Stop being combative and trying to use debate tactics, and start being cooperative and trying to work together with other editors as colleagues instead of enemies. You're wasting your time doing anything else. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Terms of Use

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

    I am concerned about this for four reasons:

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

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

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

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

    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. [15] " 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Questionable editing by CorporateM

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

    WRT canvassing

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    References

    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.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
    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.[18] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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.[19]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    WMF's position

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

    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)[reply]
    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." [20] Sarah (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I didn't say to ignore TOU (and clearly so), I said that increased socking is surely one of the outcomes, whether we like it or not, as it makes it more difficult to be a COI editor in a legitimate way. I'm no doctor, but I've gone 1500 SPI blocks behind me, including 300 in one case alone having to do with with paid editing. The reaction by those with power was enough to make me stop working the cases altogether. We can demand all we want, but it is foolish to pretend there is no negative consequences from the policy, just as it is foolish to think the Foundation really cares about COI socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'm not sure if there is a template of some kind that they can use, or would use, so to be honest, I don't think we know how many declared paid editors we have with any precision. The same with socks. I'm conservatively guessing 20k accounts created, but that is probably too low by a mile. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Proposed solution

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

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

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

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

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • "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)[reply]
    @ 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Closure

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

    • Proposed. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    CorporateM, can you comment here, please? Sarah (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Long-term abuse, personal attacks and racist comments by disruptive-only account

    Blocked, this edit and the last paragraph of this edit clearly show that the editor is WP:NOTHERE for building an encyclopaedia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I should add that if User:Iranmehr2015 and User:Nikmand are not the same person, they're doing an excellent job of giving the impression that they are. Both accounts have vehemently pushed the same POV on Talk:Persian people, and both have engaged in the same unusual practice of filling in their user pages with a single letter "a" (see here and here). I think it passes the WP:DUCK test, but I'm happy to let another unrelated admin review before taking any action. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm sure he's a WP:GHBH-type editor ("Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts). If it's possible to check his IP-range, I want admins find his alternative accounts or related accounts. Because I guess he uses those trollish and disruptive accounts to attack and POV-pushing, so blocking does not affect his "clean and good" account(s). It's possible he's related to some other editors who are involved in editing of Persian people. --Zyma (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm hesitant to offer the benefit of the doubt to accounts that have made comments like this individual has, there isn't any overlap between when the three accounts were used, so I'm not certain that there's an attempt to deceive. Someone not familiar with our practices might serially register accounts rather than recovering a lost password without realising that looks pretty suspicious to regulars here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Note that given the subsequent personal attacks and vandalism, I'm no longer willing to extend the benefit of the doubt as I did in the above comment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    It appears that there is a sock targeting the page right now. Cantoun1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Orduin Discuss 19:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Now checked my talk page and he returned with 2 new accounts. Please see my talk page, Persian people history and its talk page history. They troll those pages and my talk page. A serious action is necessary. IP-range block and please ban all of his active/stale/sleeper accounts. --Zyma (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note I have blocked Kamzad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring and outright vandalism as seen here. Not sure if the account is related or there's an SPI active, but it sure looks like quacking to me, so perhaps an indef as sock once more information is available would be appropriate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If these sleepers have been lying dormant for over three years, like User:Kamzad was, then a checkuser isn't going to be of much help in flushing out any other ones that might be lying about, unfortunately. I wonder whether lodging an SPI request just so that this is noted in the records might be a good idea though? Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    @Lankiveil: I don't submit another SPI. Because it's obvious they're same person or they work as a team. I think this report and his recent activities are good evidences to submit a new SPI report. Also, Why that Kamzad (talk · contribs) was just blocked for 1 week, when it's obvious he's just another alternative account (sock)? It's better admins watch targeted pages. Anyway, he will return very soon, then how should I deal with him? Just report to ANI board again? --Zyma (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also please consider this: After expiration of 48-hour protection [34], He started his vandalism again. This time, he added anti-ethnic and racist commentary to his edit summaries too [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Why we allow him to spread his hate agenda on that article (specially the talk page)? I don't know why some editors/admins restored his nationalistic and racist rants and reply to him. He ruined the talk page with his forum-like comments. Every time he returns, he copy-paste same stuff on talk page. Now, the talk page turned into his personal blog. --Zyma (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created a new sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iranmehr27. It seems obvious to me that the accounts are related but there may be other trolls to be flushed out from under their bridges, given that some of these accounts were pre-existing before showing up to cause trouble. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Bbundu

    Requesting a block for Bbundu for consistent disruptive editing to Summerslam (2015). He was warned repeatedly to stop, but he keeps on doing it. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Where are the diffs that show that he has "kept on doing it"? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have taken the liberty of letting Bbindu know that you have opened an ANI case against him (which it quite explicitly states you must do, in a big orange box at the top of the edit page). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: All due respect, but you sent the ANI to the wrong editor. I clearly sent one to Bbundu, who keeps making disruptive edits. You sent one to Bbindu. Similar name, but the wrong guy. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I followed the first link in the paragraph you typed, it might have been a typo on your part that sent me there. Regardless, any diffs to back up your claims would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: That was on me...I saw what I did - I hit i when I meant u. Easy to do since they're right next to each other on the keyboard. But Bbundu is the focus. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. So lets take a look at those diffs I asked for, shall we? :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible breach of 3RR by both User:Vjmlhds and User:Bbundu

    I have taken a quick look at the page history for Summerslam (2015) and I am more concerned with the amount of reverting and re-reverting done by these two (done within the 24 hour time period specified). None of the edits seem like vandalism (although I will continue to look into it), but it seems like both users are stuck in an edit war that could do with being stopped. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Uninvolved comment - I don't think this is an edit war per se, it looks to me like Vjmlhds is trying to enforce their preferred version using the revert button: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. That's six reverts today. None of the edits are vandalism, Vjmlhds just disagrees with them, but has made no effort at all to communicate with the new editor Bbundu other than condescending edit summaries and filling their talk page with warnings. Two notes: 1) Summerslam (2015) has recently come off full protection, and 2) Vjmlhds has just come off an indef for gross incivility. I think a WP:3RR block is well in order here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: I didn't realize it got that far. But if you look at it, it just seems as though Bbundu was going tit for tat just for the sake of going tit for tat. I was just trying to add some details to the article, and Bbundu just seemed as though he reverted for the sake of reverting (his way or the highway). Vjmlhds (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why I mentioned both of you in my missive. And I don't buy the whole "I didn't realise" thing. I am sure you are able to count up to three, and this went way beyond that. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: Sometimes you just get caught up in things and you lose track...happens all the time in real life, and it can certainly happen in Wikipedia. I'll refrain from editing the article as a show of good faith and a willingness to tamp things down, but as I said earlier, it was Bbundu who seemed to be hot on my heels ready to pounce after I made an edit. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vjmlhds: As I said, ignorance is no excuse, especially not from a user that has been around since 2008 and, whilst your offer to refrain from editing the article is appreciated, it still doesn't change the fact that both of you have breached WP:3RR. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: I'll make life easy on you...if you're willing to overlook this slip up, I'll impose my own embargo on the article until Monday. And if I go against my own word, feel free to drop whatever hammer on me you see fit. I slipped up and I'm willing to go on record as saying I'll self monitor (with oversight) so that it won't happen again...no need to make a drastic decision. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vjmlhds:As I am not an admin, I have no power to block you. All I did was look at the history page of an article, notice that you and another user had gone way beyond 3 reverts in 24 hours, and reported it here (because your actions are just as accountable as the user(s) you are complaining about. Whether the reviewing admin will listen to your plea or not will be down to that admin alone, although I have my doubts considering you have just been unblocked. We shall see. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Skamecrazy123: Wait..if you're not an admin, what are you doing replying to an ANI? Shouldn't that be the job of an admin? I figured you were an admin the way you responded...I kinda feel as though you duped me into thinking you were something you weren't. If you're not an admin, don't present yourself as one. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vjmlhds:First thing, scroll to the top of the page. In one of the blue boxes at the top, it states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.". Note, if you would, the experienced editor part and then feel free to strike through the drivel about me not commenting on ANI. Second, nowhere do I claim to be an admin (in fact, I have a user box on my page stating that I have no wish to be an admin), so feel free to strike through that drivel about me supposedly presenting myself as an admin. Third, I would be very careful about your above attitude given that you have not long been unblocked for incivility and some quite horrific personal attacks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawing ANI request...more trouble than what it's worth. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2015

    @Vjmlhds:Fair enough (although there is still the matter of you two breaching 3RR to deal with). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: I'm already on record as saying I've washed my hands of the article, and won't touch it anymore. I can't, won't ,and don't care to speculate what Bbundu will do. I can only tell you where I sit, and as far as that article is concerned, I'm done. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vjmlhds: That still doesn't absolve you of your transgression, although a reviewing admin may, or may not, take them into account when deciding what to do. We shall see. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that at this point both editors would best be let off with a stern warning. As the adage goes, blocking is preventative not punitive and issuing blocks now would definitely be punitive. Blackmane (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blackmane: Maybe for Bbundu, but given that majority of Vjmlhds previous blocks have been for edit warring, I really do think something stronger than a slap on the wrist is required, in my opinion. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps so, but unless they're continuing to edit war or cause general disruption, I highly doubt any admin will block now. Blackmane (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Blackmane: 4 blocks (for edit warring) before this incident and he is going to get off with a slap on the wrist (if that?). I'm not even disagreeing with the fact that an admin won't block now, but surely this requires more than a warning. Hell, I would support a 1RR/0RR for both users, but a warning is going to achieve less than a block would at this point. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Speaking as the target of the "gross incivility" and "horrific" personal attacks leveled by Vjmlhds, I can say that I never felt particularly threatened; that by no means makes his comments acceptable, but some perspective may be in order. He generally means well and does make positive contributions. From time to time he may need to be reminded to stop edit-warring, and he does occasionally display frustration (if not outright contempt) for the deliberative nature of this site's procedures. That said, I'm sure he's well aware of the situation in which he presently finds himself. Blocks are not punitive -- a serious warning may well suffice for now. Levdr1lp / talk 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to propose sanctions. I merely a gave a non admin opinion based on my view of the situation. Blackmane (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levdr1lostpassword: So, in your opinion, four blocks for edit warring aren't serious warning enough? Interesting... @Blackmane: I intend to. Typing: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skamecrazy123 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: Another warning may suffice. It may not. I will not stand in the way if you think something more is necessary. Levdr1lp / talk 23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed 0RR sanction for User:Vjmlhds

    I propose that User:Vjmlhds be put under a months 0RR editing sanction for repeated edit warring. I understand that some time has passed since the last edit war on the 19th August, but I brought it up on the 19th and nothing has been done about it. I understand that a block at this time would be punitive rather than preventative, but the fact remains that he is still edit warring, even after being blocked four times for it.

    Here are diffs for the most recent edit war:

    It takes a break from here, with several other editors editing, until:

    I would also be interested to hear what should be done about User:Bbundu. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Account Deactivation/Deletion

    How can I get my account deactivated/deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyllful Hinge (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't. The closest is requesting an account vanish, which is not guaranteed and pretty much only renames your account. If you don't care about your account name, you can just leave {{retired}} at the top of your user talk page, disable your email in your preferences, change your password to random gibberish, log out, and not log back in. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can probably get your user page (or pages) deleted by replacing it with {{G7}}, you can blank your talk page (if there are no warnings on it) and stop editing.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Ghumen1 copy-pasting articles

    User:Ghumen1, who appears to be a sockpuppet of Ghumen, is creating articles by copy-pasting material from other, related articles, with rather chaotic results. Compare Scandinavian migration to Britain and Scandinavian migration to France, for instance. I've requested a sockpuppet investigation, but what should I do about the articles? Can/should they be nominated for speedy deletion? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Belgians in France appears to have been created using text from the one source cited put through Google Translate. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    German migration to France is also a partial copy, of Germans in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just deleted that one, and Doug Weller the France one. Yes, you can tag them for CSD as copyvio ("internal" copyvio I suppose). I'd look into the other too but I gotta run. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't want to see "internal copyvio" speedies. After all attribution can be trivially added. Clearly there are content issues here that should be addressed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Provocation and character assassination by User:Eladynnus

    I will take my chances here. Would someone kindly warn Eladynnus (talk · contribs) for their systematic provocation, insults and character assassination stretching back 3 years? I first came across this editor 3 years ago on the Serer religion talk page] (and other Serer articles) where persistent insults, provocation and character assassinations by he and co. drove me out of the project. I will not waste your time or mine giving details about their historic behaviour all those years ago but if you want I will. The purpose of reporting this person is their recent attack on my talk page [47]. I gave them a warning on their talk page but they did not heed my warning and left another remark on my talk page.

    I have not edited Wikipedia for 3 years since I retired from this project thanks to the systematic provocation, character assassination and insults by this editor and co. Because I created a portal before, I was asked to help create other portals which I hesitantly agreed to because I did not want to go through what these people put me through 3 years ago. This editor has not been active on Wikipedia since May 16 2015 [48] (see Talk:Gamergate controversy). I find it ironic that this editor's return coincided with my return and their second edit was on my talk page [49]. Would someone kindly deal with this individual? I would like to add that there is more to this. Therefore, I would respectfully ask that only non-involved Administrators part take in this issue. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sure Tamsier does not consider me non-involved, but I'll speak my mind anyway. Eladynnus said, "Your aggressive behavior and ownership mentality made working with you an impossible task"--that's strong, but not much of a personal attack. "you have a history of telling mistruths - or have you forgotten the "Raampa" incident, or being admonished for deceptive edit summaries?" maybe comes closer, but it comes with evidence, or at least what the writer considers evidence. Whether Eladynnus was wise in leaving that comment on Tamsier's talk page is a different question, but that this, and their subsequent post on Tamsier's talk page, does not constitute an instance of "systematic provocation etc", that much is clear. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC
      • I'm very involved so won't take any Admin action. I certainly would welcome uninvolved Admins, reviewing the context to this. Tamsier's just come off a 3 day block for attacking me, attacks strewn over 4 article talk pages and RSN and continued on his talk page during the block, where he also attacked Drmies ]. Tamsier's had 7 blocks, 6 in a 14 month period between June 2011 and August 2012 after which he retired. These were for disruptive/pov editing, harassment and personal attacks and should be taken into account by any uninvolved Admins when examining what Tamsier has said. Doug Weller (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notice that I said "non-involved" and have not mentioned the names of the two editors above. My recent block was for posting my references and comments on the talk pages of the relevant articles which were the subject of discussion at RSN. As those articles were affected and were the subject of discussion, I believe it was proper to add my references and comments on their talk pages so that future editors can examine it for themselves and take the necessary action as they see fit. After posting my refs and comments, I noted I am done discussing this issue and was not involved in any sort of vandalism or revert war. As such, I though it was improper to block me for that because a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is to put your case and sources on the talk page. Since my comments and references at RSN were material to those articles, I thought it was proper to post them on the talk pages of those articles. If I wanted to open another ANI, I would have done it. This report is about the recent provocation of this editor (Eladynnus). Not only was his second contribution since his return posted on my talk page, but most importantly, he had no reason to post on my talk page and made their remarks under my block. I strongly feel that he wanted me to retaliate thereby allowing admins to give me an indefinite block. When I failed to retaliate and gave him a warning on his talk page, he increased the pressure by posting another remark on my talk page, hence why I filed this incident. I would respectfully urge uninvolved Administrators not to allow themselves to be sidetracked from the purpose of this report. This report is about the editor's recent edits. If I or another editor made such remarks or provocations, I or others would have been blocked and rightly so. As such, it is reasonable to assume the same rules/policy would be applied to each and every editor no matter who they are. I will now leave it to the better judgement of uninvolved Administrators. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tamsier blocked indefinitely. Disclosure: I have never had anything to do with Tamsier or Eladynnus or the articles in question. I took a look, and Tamsier, for a start, I'm not impressed by the way you run your talkpage. Anybody interested should read the history rather than merely the page. Tamsier has removed comments from Drmies and Eladynnus as "insults,"[50] and has removed Doug Weller's response to his comprehensive attack ("Ha ha ha! This doesn't look good for Doug Weller does it?" etc) as "irrelevant".[51] It's "permitted" to remove comments ad lib, but those removals are what I'd call uncollaborative, and downright misleading for readers who don't study the history, because, well, the comments really aren't irrelevant. That said, I'm inclined, on principle, to give blocked users a lot of leeway wrt venting during a block.

    However. Taking a look at your battleground editing of Talk:Serer history, Talk:Saloum, Talk:Serer people and Talk:Kingdom of Sine, I'm astonished that Drmies merely blocked you for 72 hours. You have inserted this egregious attack on Doug Weller, header and edit summary "User:Doug Weller and his POV pushing on Serer and African related article" on all four talkpages, all four screenfuls of it on my good big oldfashioned monitor — you're a fine one to talk about "character assassination". It is also notable that, although Tamsier took a 3-year break from wiki from August 2012 to August 2015, he left something of a trail of disruption behind in his 2011 — 2012 editing, with 6 blocks of increasing length in just over a year[52]. The last one was for three months, and after that he retired, for what he describes as being hounded off wiki. These blocks were for disruptive/pov editing, harassment, personal attacks and sockpuppetry (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamsier/Archive). Has he turned over a new leaf in 2015? No, it doesn't look like it. It's also worth noting the little handful of angry edits in 2013, showing that he was keeping his resentment agains Drmies and in particular Dougweller simmering, with accusations of racism etc etc: "You (Doug Weller) are the biggest POV editor I have ever seen on Wiki. Not only do you insert POV, but you are also a liar. … You use one source as scripture and plaster it all over Serer related articles. You take his writing as scripture just because he is a White American like yourself…You were more interested in peddling your POV and lying about me in talk pages…What a joke you are… However you were not interested in that, you were interested in your POV and vendetta. This appears to be a user with still, in August 2015, no interest in collaborative editing but only in changing Wikipedia to fit his beliefs, and thinking it can be done through series of intemperate attacks against the good faith and veracity of others. Now he has made the classic mistake of thinking an ANI review will only address his own complaint ("This report is about the recent provocation of this editor (Eladynnus)"), not his own conduct. No, typically, on all noticeboards, the reporters own actions will also be scrutinised. I have done so, and have blocked Tamsier indefinitely as not being here to create an encyclopedia. Considering the background I've outlined, I see no point in starting over with the piddling blocks as soon as this disruptive user returns from his self-imposed exile. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Drmies, with your 72 hours.) However, I believe Tamsier has knowledge and skills that could potentially help the encyclopedia; if he writes a reasonable unblock request, which shows some awareness of the problems with his own editing, it should certainly be entertained. As for Eladynnus, the way Tamsier has exploded because E posted on his page and retaliated with furious WARNINGs (original capitalisation) as well as this ANI report seems merely a characteristic overreaction. Bishonen | talk 08:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    He's accepted your decision and thanked you: "Thank you for your decision Bishonen. I reported an editor for systematic provocation, insults and character assassination to ANI and in your judgment you felt I deserved to be blocked. I would like to thank you for taking the time to examine the case as diligently as you have. And I fully accept your decision to block. " Doug Weller (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I stand behind my original statements. Although they in themselves were aggressive, I believe that anyone who reads the attacks strewn across the Serer talk pages (as well as on several pages that I created, such as on Talk:Frei_Caneca) will see exactly what I am talking about. Eladynnus (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounding by Hijiri 88

    Hi, I there I was unsure to yet again bring up the issue but recent events do not leave me with no any other choice – that’s if I still want to be able to edit Nichiren Buddhist related matters. Recently I filed a question at ANI if edits by Hijiri 88 on Kokuchūkai [53] might violate the current IBAN. In the course of events they were blocked form editing Wikipedia for 72h [54]. 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 [55] and [56]. Since Nichiren related matters are the most prominent on my watch list of about 200 articles these edits did not slip my attention: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @ 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Oversimplified like, say, slyly leaving out a huge chunk of timeline in order to imply that I was blocked for 72 hours for my edits to the Kokuchukai article, when in fact what happened was an extremely dubious string of events that saw an ANI proposal to dissolve the IBAN slipping onto a user talk page and me inadvertently typing the name "Catflap08" on said user talk page, when Catflap08 had previously gotten away with writing extensive criticism of me ("the other user") on his own talk page? Please could someone other than me and Wikimandia notice that Catflap08 has been lying through his teeth about the nature of this dispute for months on end, now, which is probably what led to the confusion that our "common ground" from which we should probably both, at this point, be TBANned is "Japanese culture"? This is getting utterly ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for admitting you have broken the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 06:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh is that what I did? AlbinoFerret, if that's what you genuinely think my above comment then you need to read WP:LAWYER and seriously consider your place in this community. My using Catflap08's name on a user talk page discussion of the IBAN was a dubious violation at worst because (a) Catflap08 had done the same thing previously, (b) where I said "Catflap08" in an otherwise reserved and inoffensive comments, Catflap's included extensive commentary on the literary tastes and religious affiliations of "the other user", and (c) the blocking admin later (after the block had expired) outright encouraged me to discuss the IBAN and Catflap's edits on my talkpage, assuring me that as long as I didn't use Catflap's name he wouldn't block me again.
    But all of this is irrelevant. Even if what I did was a violation, I have already done my time. What my above comment was trying to point out was that Catflap's above claim that I was blocked because my edits to the Kokuchukai article constituted an IBAN was a lie. I was blocked because I used Catflap's name on a talk page; Catflap's AN report on my Kokuchukai edits resulted not in me getting blocked but in several users calling for a boomerang against him.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Proposal

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

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

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

    • Please, could any closing admin note that BMK has been corrected on this point numerous times and has not amended his proposal: "their common ground" properly refers to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, an area that comprises probably 80% of Catflap08's edits and 5% of mine. "Japanese culture" is an area that comprises probably 80% of Catflap08's edits and probably 95% of mine. Japanese culture minus Nichiren Buddhist NRMs is an area that comprises 0% of Catflap08's edits, and 90% of mine. The unaccounted 20% of Catflap08's edits appear to mostly relate to German geography and religion in Germany; the unaccounted 5% of my edits are random articles I happen to be reading and decide to touch up a bit. Do the math and you'll see that the proposed topic-ban is both (a) ridiculously broad compared to the super-narrow "common ground" Catflap08 and I share, and (b) appears to have been chosen to disproportionately affect me, despite the unanimous agreement among impartial observers that there is plenty of blame to go around. I have no interest in limiting my Wikipedia activity to "random articles I happen to be reading and decide to touch up a bit", so the TBAN as proposed would amount to a de facto site-ban for me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    John Carter, if you mean what you earlier implied (that we should unblock Juzumaru, JoshuSasori and so on, and unban Tristan noir) you are clearly insane, and are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Please drop the stick and grow the hell up already. Stop following me, and stop trying to go back through the archives and bring back every user who has ever harassed me. You hounded me in this way from March to May, then disappeared for three months and then immediately come straight back after me -- what gives? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: Who's a relentless POV warrior? I think you would be hard-pressed to identify any kind of "POV" on my part in any aspect of my interactions with Catflap08 -- I am not a Soka Gakkai member (I don't even much like the group), nor a member of the Kokuchukai, and it wouldn't change my life even a bit if it turned out that Miyazawa Kenji was in fact a "nationalist". I just want Wikipedia to accurately reflect what the best scholarly sources say. The only relentless POV-pusher here is Catflap08, who has been spending years distorting sources and jumping through hoops to make Wikipedia say what he wants it to about various neo-Nichiren groups, both ones he likes (Nichiren-shoushuu) and doesn't (SG, etc.). If your argument is that we should both be TBANned because we are relentless POV warriors, I would ask for evidence of this. Additionally, which "topic" should we/just Catflap08/just me be banned from? "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad, as it bears no relation whatsoever to Catflap08's disputes with me -- "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism" would be a much better proposal, and if the TBAN were mutual I would actually support it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Please provide some evidence that I have gamed the IBAN? I reported Catflap08 for violating it. I only accepted the IBAN (as proposed initially by Catflap08) because I was under the impression that it meant no more interaction between us. I didn't know that it meant that he could revert my edits with impunity and then when I reported him on ANI I would be the one treated to repercussions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This thread is utter nonsense. I have been editing the area of Japanese Buddhism since before Catflap08 even registered an account, and have indisputably contributed more to the area in recent months than he has -- simply editing in the area is not an IBAN-violation, as was decided by AN-consensus when Catflap08 wasn't blocked for doing the same thing (as well as directly reverting my edits). BMK's assertion that our common ground is "Japanese culture" is equally ridiculous. I have only ever been interested in editing articles on "Japanese culture", and 99% of users who share this area with me would vehemently oppose the idea that I be TBANned from this area: just ask @Nishidani: @Shii: @Sturmgewehr88: ... (almost none of whom agree with me 100%, but all of whom legitimately understand this area as well as my contributions to it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @Albinoferret: Please explain how arbitrarily banning me from every article I have ever edited will help end disruption and improve the project? You are the one who needs to drop the stick in this situation, as you have had it in for me for months, every time this or another issue in which I have been involved comes up on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    So you are saying that you should be indefinitely banned from every article you show an interest in editing because you post on ANI regularly? Your argument makes no sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @Callmemirelal: Excuse me? You claim it's always me, but in reality all the times you are referring to it is me and Catflap08, and you above refer to me as the "file reporter" -- you very clearly have not read this thread very closely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Callmemirela: (sorry for the bad ping previously -- this whole thing has me super stressed out, as what is essentially being discussed here is a one-way de facto SBAN for me) If you do not think that I am always the one at fault, then why are you supporting a TBAN that is tailor-made to force me, not Catflap08, off Wikipedia? Catflap08's main area of interest (Soka Gakkai International) arguably does not fit into "Japanese culture", but is a part of this dispute; my main area of interest (classical Japanese poetry) most certainly fits into "Japanese culture" and has nothing whatsoever to do with this dispute. The proposed TBAN would block both Catflap08 and myself from every article I have ever shown any interest in editing, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my long-running dispute with Catflap08 regarding Nichiren Buddhist NRMs. If the TBAN for which you above expressed "Strong support" were to pass, I would be forced to retire from Wikipedia, since I would be TBANned from the only (very broad) topic area I am interested in. The TBAN would also negatively affect Catflap08, but so would a TBAN on Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, which is the area actually under dispute. If the TBAN was worded properly, it would effectively solve the dispute between me and Catflap08, and allow other users to eventually work out all the kinks in the very narrow group of articles in question; as worded now, it disproportionately affects me by randomly banning me from the thousands upon thousands of articles that are in my area of interest/expertise but have nothing whatsoever to do with my dispute with Catflap08. If you sincerely meant that you support "some kind of two-way topic-ban" for myself and Catflap08, then you and I are actually in agreement, but I would ask that you clarify this position in light of the actual (very narrow) area covered by this dispute (see full list of article Catflap08 and I have disputed on below). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    As a stray thought we could use an edit filter to enforce an IBAN, up to a point. I have created an example filter in 1 (logging only). It could be refined to ignore specific name-spaces, or noticeboards. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Catflap08 is being paranoid, and Drmies (despite my history with him) has not looked closely enough at my edit history. I am interested in Japanese religion, and probably know more about Japanese Buddhism than Catflap08 does; my very first edit to Wikipedia back in 2005 was about Shinto. In fact, I think if you went through all of Catflap08's edits and checked his sources, you would find that I have actually contributed more over the years to this particular topic area than he has. TBAN me from NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism except for the Kokuchukai and Miyazawa Kenji (which I would guess accounts for roughly 80% of Catflap08's edits but a relatively small proportion of mine; the two exceptions are to allow me to contrinue to work on two articles to which I am essentially the sole contributor) if need be. Catflap08 hardly ever edits articles related to Nichiren Buddhism before 1900, and almost never edits any articles related to Japanese Buddhism other than Nichiren Buddhism. The "disruption" between the two of us was exclusively in the area of "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism"; the TBAN proposal of "Japanese culture" seems to be a slight against me specifically, since TBANning both of us from "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism" would likely force Catflap08 off Wikipedia, but not me; "Japanese culture" seems to be specifically designed to spite/SBAN me, since the present "disruption" has hardly anything to with "Japanese culture". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @Only in death: Your comment clearly shows you haven't read the thread. Why did you misspell my user name? Why do you think Catflap08 and I need to learn to "work together"? We are already IBANned! What topic do you propose? "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad, and seems to be tailor-made to drive me off Wikipedia; the actual topic area under discussion is "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism". If you had actually been following this dispute long enough to be as frustrated with it as you claim to be, you would not be making these mistakes. Sorry to pick on you, but it's difficult to follow all of this. It seems that a whole bunch of people (friends of BMK?) are ust showing up to support a ridiculous proposal, when virtually everyone who actually understands the dispute in question oppose it. Please read through the past thread if you are taking the "this is incredibly draining on the community" argument to heart, and please consider what topic area you are talking about when you say "topic ban everyone". If it is mutual, I would actually support a topic ban on both of us from the area of "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism"; but the proposed "Japanese culture" has absolutely no logical basis, and no support whatsoever from the community of editors who actually contribute to the area of "Japanese culture". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Catflap08, you don't know a damned thing about Kenji Miyazawa; everyone who has ever contributed anything to the new and improved version of that article has agreed with this. Your edits were highly disruptive, and did not "highlight" anything other than your own hatred of any form of Nichiren Buddhism other than Nichiren-shoushuu. Please drop the damn stick -- it's been more than a frickin' year! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    @Drmies: Catflap08 and another user were in off-wiki communication about the edit in question. And I think consensus should be gathered on whether only myself or both of us should be TBANned from Catflap08's preferred area (NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism) -- I think the broad consensus from users involved in editing this area would be that Catflap08 has been highly disruptive over the years, while my relatively few edits have mostly been quite good. I would be happy to take a hit, though, if it meant less disruption to the project from Catflap08, who after years of lectures from me and others still doesn't know how to properly cite sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    AlbinoFerret
    19:56, 25 March 2015: John Carter makes his first ever edit remotely related to the poet/children's author Kenji Miyazawa, making a flawed analogy that show his ignorance of (lack of interest in?) the topic.
    03:50, 11 April 2015: I make an edit to an article on a German city I happen to be reading (it was over four months ago; I don't remember why).
    20:27, 15 April 2015: Catflap08 claims, on-wiki, for the first time ever, almost five days after my edit, that the city in question is where he "currently resides".
    21:25, 15 April 2015: John Carter refers to the city as Catflap08's "home town", despite Catflap08 never posting this information on-wiki. Note that during the intervening five days, I never touched the article, and Catflap08, John Carter and I were relatively active in editing, making 10, 217 and 33 edits respectively, and interacting with each other constantly. Catflap08's suddenly noticing my edit several days later and John Carter's immediately picking up on it (having also, apparently, failed to notice it for for five days), and the two of them making it their main talking point all of a sudden, is extremely suspicious. John Carter's knowing a piece of information about Catflap related to this dispute that Catflap never stated on-wiki means he heard it from him off-wiki. John Carter was at the time engaged in off-wiki contact about me with at least two users, and Catflap was engaged in off-wiki contact about me with at least one user, User:Sturmgewehr88, who graciously forwarded said contact to me.
    05:14, 17 April 2015: IBAN between Catflap08 and myself put in place.
    01:26, 19 April 2015 and 01:27, 19 April 2015: Drmies, at the request of John Carter (why does he care?), reminds both Catflap08 and myself that we are subject to an IBAN.
    14:23, 22 April 2015: I make a self-revert to the Kenji Miyazawa article in line with previously-established consensus (my earlier edit of 27-28 March 2015 had been a conditional concession to a vocal minority in an RFC -- who later violated said conditions -- but was never claimed as the "consensus" until 14:14, 15 April 2015, which claim was overruled within a few days). Two hours later, my edit is reverted by John Carter, who has never edited the article before.
    16:26, 22 April 2015 - 17:56, 1 May 2015: John Carter suddenly posts 52 times on the Kenji Miyazawa talk page, and reverts me five times in a 31-hour period. Why the sudden interest in Kenji Miyazawa? And why the curious knowledge of how the dispute had gone from June 2014 to March 2015 but with certain key features that didn't support Catflap08's story left out? Did he go through the talk page and read everything that had been posted previously? If so, why did he not know that a unanimous RFC had determined that Kenji should not be referred to as a "nationalist" without further evidence? Or did he receive a summary of the dispute from Catflap08 that left out those details? I of course don't have any conclusive evidence that John Carter definitely was acting as an IBAN-violation proxy for Catflap08, but his suddenly developing an enormous interest in this article that falls so far out of his normal editing area, immediately after the imposition of the IBAN, and his knowing obscure details about the dispute before he joined in but completely missing the massive, unanimous RFC seems highly suspicious, don't you agree?
    21:08, 28 April 2015: Catflap08 shows up suddenly on the talk page discussion between John Carter and myself (in what by Drmies' recently-stated definition almost certainly qualifies as a borderline IBAN-violation and "hounding" of me) indicating that he was aware of it (more aware than John Carter, in fact) and following it quite closely, which supports my belief that he had been in contact with John Carter about it prior to his showing up.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @AlbinoFerret: Surely you are not suggesting that requesting an IBAN with another user while at the same time making plans to immediately violate said IBAN via proxy is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Let alone that the specific edits Catflap08 apparently requested John Carter make in his stead were blatant NPOV and NOR violations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @Ahiroy: Who are you? You have never been involved in this dispute before, so I'm curious as to why you are using an arbitrary (and inaccurate) start-point for the dispute to justify your assertion that a two-way, super-broad topic ban is the way to solve it. So far, virtually everyone who has actually been involved in this dispute for at least several months believes (1) the proposed TBAN is far too broad (the topic-area under dispute is NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism, not "Japanese culture") and (2) the aggressor throughout 90% of the fourteen months this dispute has been running (throughout this time strictly confined to articles related to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs) has been Catflap08, and my "disruptive behavior" has been mostly reactionary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • "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)[reply]
    @BMK: "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad. The disruption in question has taken place exclusively on articles related to NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism. To extrapolate from this that a mutual TBAN from "Japanese culture" is warranted is equivalent to proposing a TBAN on "U.S. politics" for two users who have been fighting over articles related to Hillary Clinton. Or rather, it is equivalent to proposing such for two users who have been fighting over Hillary, when one of those users is an SPA whose every edit on Wikipedia has been to insert BLP violations against the woman, and the other user has been making a large number of constructive edits to the broad topic area of "U.S. politics" for years. Such a proposal would be an obvious attempt to needlessly spite the latter user. So far as I can see, Sturmgewehr88 is the only user to so far way in here with any interest in or knowledge of "Japanese culture", and he says the proposal is too broad: ask any other user in WikiProject Japan and they will say the same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: @AlbinoFerret: How was my pointer not neutral? How could it possibly violate WP:CANVAS? The only member of WikiProject Japan to express any opinion at all so far has been User:Sturmgewehr88, who thanked me. Was our mutual interaction ban not an absolute failure? And why do I not have a right to quit Wikipedia if I am indefinitely forced out of the only topic area in which I have any interest? It's not a "threat" -- it's an observation that I frankly have no interest in contributing to areas of this project that don't interest me and in which I have very little knowledge. I don't see why I should have to explain why I would want to leave the project if I was forced out of the project, when thus far BMK has made no effort whatsoever to explain his ridiculously-broad TBAN parameters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @Benlisquare: Please don't listen to him. The "quarrel in question" is simply the specific instance at this moment in time of a battle between the two editors that has been going on for over a year that has always been confined to a small group of articles related Nichiren Buddhist NRMs. User:Beyond My Ken and others supporting the proposal are simply showing their ignorance of "Japanese culture" (or perhaps their ignorance of my dispute with Catflap08 -- BMK has only been involved in two of the "dozen times" it has appeared on noticeboards, and most of the others even less so) by claiming otherwise. The full (not especially long considering the dispute has been going on for fourteen months) list of articles on which I have disputed with Catflap08 is as follows:
    1. Kenji Miyazawa (in a very narrow capacity concerning the subject's relationship with the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
    2. Kokuchūkai (a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
    3. Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō (I still don't know what Catflap's problems with my edits were, since all I did was RM the page per WP:COMMONNAME and cut down several very long quotations that bore no relation to the article text, but Catflap apparently thought I was editing the article to be more amenable to the POV of Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; note that I was hiding from an off-wiki stalker at the time so my edits were made under the IP "126.0.96.220")
    4. Daisaku Ikeda (a figure notable as the leader of Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
    5. Nichiren Buddhism (in a talk page discussion of the Nichiren Buddhist NRM Soka Gakkai's status within Nichiren Buddhism)
    6. Karlsruhe (say what you want about me editing our article on a city that Catflap08 claimed was his current residence five days after my edit -- how on earth could I have known this when he never stated it on-wiki!? -- but it apparently is what Catflap08 and some others are discussing further up this thread as "evidence" that I was hounding him; additionally, the timeline of these events was highly suspicious and seems to prove pretty handilly that Catflap08 was engaged in off-wiki contact with another to violate our IBAN by proxy both before and immediately after it came into effect; given this information, I think most good-faith Wikipedians would conclude that Catflap08 was hounding me, not the other way round)
    7. Korean influence on Japanese culture (Catflap08 violated the IBAN by showing up suddenly in an ANI discussion and supporting a PAGEBAN for me -- not really relevant, though)
    8. Gyōson (as part of a massive drive by me to complete Wikipedia's coverage of the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu poets, I recently created an article on this prelate of Tendai Buddhism; in a manner of speaking, Tendai Buddhism looks kinda-sorta like Nichiren Buddhism, since they both revere the Lotus Sutra; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my creating an article on a monk with a super-vague relationship to a sect of Buddhism that arose centuries after his death, which centuries later still gave rise to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs like Soka Gakkai and Kokuchūkai, may have possibly contributed to Catflap08's, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    9. Nichiren Shōshū (recent edits by me related the group's relationship with Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM, apparently led Catflap08 to believe that I am "hounding" him, although we have not directly interacted on the page and to the best of my knowledge the text I edited was never edited by him)
    10. Nichiren Shū (I RMed the page recently in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME; three years ago Catflap08 was involved in a dispute with another editor on the page about the groups relationship with Soka Gakkai International, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    11. Soka Gakkai (a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
    12. Nichirenism (a religio-political philosophy espoused by followers of the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    13. Shakubuku (not exclusively about Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but the way Catflap wrote the article it certainly looked that way; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    14. Criticism of Buddhism (nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but also nothing to do with this dispute; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently part of what led Catflap08 to the, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    15. Nichiren (my recent edits here do not relate to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs specifically, and no rational observer can claim to see any problem with said edits in and of themselves -- I was just trying to reformat the references so the tag at the top of the page could be removed -- but Catflap08 apparently believes that I am "hounding" him because I have been interested in Nichiren Buddhism since 2007 and have recently started editing Wikipedia articles relating to it; if someone thinks my edits to this page have been "disruptive", then please PAGEBAN me from this specific article, and TBAN me from NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism)
    16. Muju County (nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but also nothing to do with this dispute; I inserted a disambig note linking to our article on Mujū, a Buddhist monk and contemporary/enemy of Nichiren; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page -- Catflap08 has never edited either page -- but my recent activity in an area even remotely related to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs is apparently part of what led Catflap08 to the, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Law of holes BMK (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken Are you insane? Why have you not fixed your TBAN proposal to accurately reflect the "common ground" between myself and Catflap08? Why do you insist on trying to get me indefinitely banned from the 90% of articles I regularly edit that have nothing whatsoever to do with Catflap08? Are you illiterate? Or am I missing some major area of this dispute that I have been involved in for over a year and you have only shown up recently to and pretended like you understand it better than I do? Or User:Sturmgewehr88? Or User:Wikimandia? Or User:Ubikwit? Or User:Nishidani? Or any of the other countless editors of Japan-related articles who have commented on this dispute and would be flabbergasted by your proposals? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Benlisquare: You are right, of course, and this is why I have already apologized for the epithet on my talk page. Several users, including Drmies and BMK himself just above hear, have told me (threatened me) that BMK's own ignorance of "Japanese culture" and his stubborn refusal to admit that he is wrong about the scope of this dispute despite everyone telling him so are now quite likely to result in me getting de facto banned from editing Wikipedia. Just because of a stupid misunderstanding on the part of one user with whom I have never disputed before. But questioning said user's sanity did go too far, and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    AlbinoFerret, BMK: Where is the evidence that the dispute will move onto a different area of "Japanese culture"? It started fourteen months ago with a Nichiren Buddhist NRM, it was about a Nichiren Buddhist NRM when the IBAN was put in place, and is about a Nichiren Buddhist NRM now. Additionally, could you please define "Japanese culture"? Would I be banned from writing articles on 12th-century waka poets? If so: why? Catflap08 has never edited in this area, and he and I have never disputed over it. If the claim is that if a mutual TBAN were placed on "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs" then Catflap08 would follow me to 12th-century waka poets: AGF obliges me to disagree, and even if such a thing happened it would be a clear IBAN violation and could be dealt with if and when it happens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @User:GoldenRing: Have you read the above discussion? There is near-unanimous support (including from both me and I think Catflap08) for a TBAN from our shared topic area, but there is disagreement over what topic area this is: Beyond My Ken and AlbinoFerret say it is "Japanese culture"; Catflap08, Drmies, Sturmgewehr88, Benlisquare and I say different (the others appear to agree with me that the area is "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs", but I don't want to put words in their mouths); everyone else has been ambiguous. Please bear in mind that not only have Catflap08 and I never interacted on "Japanese culture" articles not related to Nichiren NRMs -- Catflap08 has never gone near such articles. Furthermore, the quote you give appears to be your own interpretation of something Catflap08 or myself has said -- please refrain from citing your own interpretations as though they were direct quotes, especially when said interpretations are not necessarily backed up by anything the other users said. Neither of us have said that the problem is that it would affect our editing -- of course it would! The problem, as stated by both Catflap and myself, not to mention several other users, is that the TBAN (as proposed by BMKand AlbinoFerret) bears little-to-no relation to the actual dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Umm... you didn't answer my question. I asked if you had read the discussion because your post didn't make any sense -- which of the proposals do you "support"? Are your sarcastic comments about me meant to indicate that you want whatever will spite me the worst just because you don't like me? If so, may I ask why? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You are still insinuating that I have somehow causedx damage to the project even though no evidence has been presented of such and several users who have looked through my edits disagree. You say this damage needs to be limited by imposing the maximum possible sanction against me (a de facto site ban): why is a two-way topic ban from the topic area in question insufficient for this? You tell me to go and get along with other people and stop interfering with the community's deliberations -- you do realize that as long as this discussion is open I am unable to continue my normal Wikipedia activity since ALL of it involves "Japanese culture", don't you? You say you support BMK's proposal of a two-way TBAN from "our mutual editing area of Japanese culture" -- which is it, though? Our mutual editing area, or Japanese culture? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    What advice? Seriously, all you're doing is telling me my contributions are worthless and I'm no longer welcome on this website. I'd much rather listen to the advice of Drmies and Sturmgewehr88 and stay the fuck away from Catflap08 and the articles he edits -- why can't I just do that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You do understand that I've been trying to do one or the other of those for over a year now, right? Nichiren Buddhism falls into my normal field of editing anyway -- hence my editing those pages, and hence the majority of objective commenters agreeing that my editing those pages didn't qualify as hounding to begin with -- but I am willing to step away from those articles. There was the time I tried to initiate a talk page discussion on the Miyazawa Kenji article and Catflap08's immediate response was to complain about me on AN, or the time said AN thread was closed as abusive and instead of discussing with me he immediately opened an RFC, or the time the RFC turned against him and he violated it anyway, or the time I reverted his consensus violation and he opened another RFC rather than discussing with me on the talk page, or the time I posted a request on the Kokuchukai talk page to call it quits and work together and he spat in my face, or the time he requested an IBAN so I could not directly revert him, while at the same time striking a deal with another user to revert all my edits to the Miyazawa Kenji article once the IBAN was in place, or the time he himself reverted all my edits to the Kokuchukai article once the IBAN was in place ... When during this process have I been the one behaving in a belligerent manner? How can you justify the clearly-punitive-and-not-at-all-preventative nature of the proposed TBAN when the subject of the punitive measures is the one who throughout has been the one trying to make peace while being met with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Some clarification might be required. In the past four months TH1980 has logged in to Wikipedia intermittently to post ad hominem remarks about me on article talk pages. He has followed me to four articles, and two ANI threads, all the while insisting that I am following him. He insists that he is sick of my "hounding", but every time we have interacted it has been TH1980 who has initiated it. I keep telling him to move on with his life and forget about me, but somehow he just keeps coming back and just keeps insisting that I am following him. It was amusing at first, but I am frankly getting a little fed up with it, which is what prompted the boldface in the above diff. I'm going to request the nearest grown-up to come and take a look at this because I don't have the energy right now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, what exactly is so bad about my above summary of my (unrelated and entirely off-topic) dispute with TH1980 that it merits me being called an "asshole" and being told to "shut the fuck up"? I asked you "are you insane?" and was made to apologize, which I did multiple times, but your above epithets are by any measure worse.
    Furthermore, my comment wasn't even that bad: TH1980 has posted in multiple venues about me "following" him, and has asked me several times to "leave him alone", and each time I have responded by, as politely as I could under the circumstances, pointing out that he was the one who had followed me to said venue, and that if he wanted me to leave him alone the best way would be for him to leave me alone. I have now done the same thing here, which resulted in him adding the above off-topic commentary to this thread.
    As I am sure you can tell I'm quite exasperated with this at the moment, so I'll refrain from further comment until Nishidani or some other user with experience of TH1980's antics helps to deal with the matter.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    BMK, please don't refactor my posts. When I split my comment into several paragraphs, I prefer to place my sig directly below all of these paragraphs, not attach it to the final paragraph as though said had special significance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That's your prerogative. At this point I really only wanted you to comment on TH1980 issue, which you have done. Thank you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Counterproposal

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

    • 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)[reply]
    Furthermore, ArbCom won't raise a hand until ANI has been thoroughly tested and it's been repeatedly shown that community sanctions haven't worked. At this point, there is an existing iban and now a topic ban proposal. If the TBAN doesn't work either then by all means feel free to raise an request at ArbCom. 60.240.52.73 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to log in. Blackmane (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Why exactly should I have to prove I can edit constructively in areas I have no interest in and/or knowledge of? The proposed TBAN parameters were arbitrarily selected to ban me from editing every article in any topic area I am remotely interested in, rather than to prevent me from editing in the (much, much narrower) topic area where there has been disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Chris Janson again

    (crossposting from BLPN; the user in question has had an ANI thread recently so I didn't re-notify)

    Tonight, I received off-wiki threats of legal action on Facebook from a user claiming to represent Chris Janson, probably the same user who has been blanking content from their article. (see Thesongfan (talk · contribs)). The user threatened legal action and demanded that any edits be made through the Bobby Roberts agency, but backed down on the threat after I linked them to WP:OWN. The main concerns were that the article had the (backed by a secondary source) names of Chris's children, and mentioned two duets that he did early in his career (also verified by a reliable source). I explained that I could remove the names until I find a compromise, as I don't know the specifics on revealing the names of a famous person's underaged child, but when I asked why the duet information was controversial, they dodged the question and recommended that I talk to their agency or label. Per their request I have also shot an e-mail to the Bobby Roberts agency asking why the Holly Williams information has been deemed controversial. I would appreciate any further help in this matter. Thank you. I will include screen caps of the facebook conversation and e-mail if needed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    we remove names of underaged children on request even if they can be found in RSs; personally, I think we always should, whether or not the subject wants us, but that is not our current policy , at least not if the subject is famous. Parts of his earlier public career he may not want to emphasise is another matter. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: In that case, you might also want to take a look at Shane McAnally. Someone claiming to be a representative of him is scrubbing info on his debut album while also restructuring things in odd ways and claiming it's how Shane wants the article to look. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The actual editing would be better done by someone who knows the subject field--I was responding generally. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic editor

    User:Davefelmer has been reverting or arbitrarily deleting the list of honours of several football clubs, such as Peñarol here, Nacional, here, and Boca Juniors here. This user has also been involved in an edit warring on this page, and was warned on his talk page (see) but he persists.

    Simular edits were done by an anonymous user (himself?) on Nacional here and Peñarol articles here. He has arbitrarily removed sourced content instead of asking other editors or opening a thread on the respective talk pages. Fma12 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davefelmer is repeatedly breaching WP:CIVIL. e.g.1, e.g.2, e.g.3, e.g.4. All of its edits are of poor quality and are tendentious, treating wikipedia as some sort of battlefield to make Manchester United look better. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jmorrison230582, you neglected to notify Davefelmer of this discussion as required, but I took care of that. At any rate, Dave's entire talk page suggests some serious WP:IDHT. Block? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Davefelmer (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)I havent breached anything. I have sourced and explained my viewpoints on the Manchester-Liverpool rivalry debate. There is great irony in accusing me of bias as the "accepted edit" (by all of about 3 editors) is clearly heavily biased towards Liverpool. It is full of unfactual information, from claims supposedly made on the Man Utd website which simply dont exist to clear manipulation of word choice in order to spin the truth of another website's information, to the use of an unreliable site as it's main support for the argument and finally to the use of a "trophy count" not consistent with a single other page of this type in a clear attempt to favorite one club. I am simply standing up for the facts. As for my actions on a few Urugyuan team sites, I was simply led to believe that amateur trophies dont count as honours and hence removed them in the interest of doing the right thing so that people had the right data. I have since been proven wrong on that front and so have not edited any further. As for the two other user comments on my page, they were misunderstandings that were since cleared up. I always reference my information and explain my edits. You cannot highlight examples of my acting 'in poor conduct' when I have made totally fair changes and sourced them. I tried to come up with a balanced and equal view for the Liverpool-United article but it is clear some editors would rather persist with a heavily biased article.[reply]

    I suppose Liverpool fans have to cling to something now that they're no longer a force in English football. As for User:Davefelmer, I agree with his sentiments, but his actions are completely inappropriate. I know I can talk, but this is getting to be rather disruptive. Per WP:POINT, I'd agree a short block is in order. – PeeJay 09:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PeeJay2K3. Those comments are uncalled for and while you and Davefelmer may be Manchester United fans, you have to respect WP:NPOV and you are encouraging his disruptive behaviour. Usually you're an excellent editor but your comments here and on his talkpage suggest you are expressing fandom - please avoid WP:PROMOTION.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean, encouraging his disruptive behaviour? Did you not read the rest of my comment? Davefelmer has acted completely inappropriately the last few days, and I condemn his actions, but that doesn't mean I can't agree with him on a personal level. – PeeJay 19:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, just wanted to clear up that we should make it clear personal views should be completely separate from viewpoints when editing.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nyanchoka

    Hello. I would ask that any administrator do something regard User:Nyanchoka. This is something that already has me a bit upset. The user insists on generate wars of editions in various articles without reaching a consensus. Days ago denouncing the user by wars of editions in the article "Altair Jarabo", where he began to revert me without any explanation. Apparently the user stopped, and the user EdJohnston i leave a message here. Today started a dispute in the article "Flavio Medina", and in my editions summaries I told him to not explain him anything, since long ago I told him about this. And lately it just ignores messages that left him. Also did the same in "Wild at Heart (telenovela)", changing the name of the article to the name in Spanish. Up to where you have understood in this wikipedia titles can be used in English in Spanish-speaking programs. And in United Kingdom this telenovela was produced with voices in English. And if you don't believe me you can see a trailer here. I'm actually a little tired, this user creates dispute in several articles when disagrees on something. If leave you a message, he responds badly or sometimes or is understood what you mean.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is what I say, Nyanchoka make changes without asking or without reaching an agreement.I took three years editing this wikipedia. And now I see that the user has started with the article "The Color of Passion" and so will be several more items.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Fry, I suspect English isn't your first language, so I'm having a little trouble figuring out exactly what your complaint is. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I speak Spanish. And I think that the problem has been solved for now..--Philip J Fry • (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    71.167.102.150

    This IP keeps going nowhere. He keeps complaining people about adding sister stations that include overlapping stations. Well, WPVI and WABC should be listed as sister stations because NJ does not have an ABC station of its own, I also reorganized the sister stations box on many TV station articles that will be easier to read. TV on one row, Radio In another. This user keeps reverting my edits which were accurate! In addition, on WNYW-TV he reverted the call letter meaning which is What New Yorker's Watch which was a slogan back 15 years ago. To avoid an edit war, let's discuss it. I'm taking a break on editing materials on Wikipedia until this user calms down and relaxed. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Which article(s) are you referring to? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, it seems to me that WP:Dispute resolution is where you want to go, and this should maybe have been reported to WP:DRN instead of here. “Reporting” a user should almost never be the first response; rather, attempting to engage in genuine discussion (before taking it to admins) is almost always a better decision than accusing each other of vandalism as on WNYW. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue is Fox and ABC's stations in New York and Philadelphia being listed in each other's infoboxes. Frankly AWN, they shouldn't be listed in the infobox together; the existing mentions of their news-sharing agreements and common ownership in the article body is enough and fighting about infobox items is WP:LAMEesque. The WNYW meaning should remain solely 'disambig from former WNEW calls' as the station has never really confirmed the meaning and the only people who ever paid attention to that promo are obsessives. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:Lg16spears

    User:Lg16spears frequently references rumor sites on various pop culture articles, has been warned before many times, and it still continues. So much I can't even keep track, just noticed this passing by an article. Thechased (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I got it now! Lg16spears (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You got what? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User FkpCascais modifying and removing my comments.

    BOOMERANG
    OP blocked for five days by Bbb23; in addition, the other user in the dispute has apparently ceased his/her editing behavior. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, another user is removing my comments and accusing me of sock puppetry. I do not know what gives him the right to designate someone as a sock and remove his comments without a report. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the talk page: [62]

    Here are the edits: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]

    He continues to remove my edits even after I reported [69] and notified him:

    [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]


    89.164.239.139 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FkpCascais must be pretty clever because the above post confirms their diagnosis. Please just stick to the terms of whatever sanction was originally made, without wikilawyering about how we can't prove you aren't a sock. Johnuniq (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, FkpCascais seems to be violating both WP:AGF and WP:3RR. Unfortunately, 89.164.239.139 is also in for a WP:BOOMERANG as they are equally involved in the edit war. --Stabila711 (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I'm sorry. I did not know that 2RR is also applicable to talk pages. I haven't done a single edit to the article. I just participated the discussion in an effort to establish a consensus when this user started removing and modifying my comments. I reverted that but I did not know that I would be breaking 3RR by restoring my comments on the talk page that were modified and removed. I apologize, but then I do not know how to defend my comments from being deleted and modified if I'm not allowed to revert those edits. I made this report but he continued with removing my comments, so I followed his pace. I thought he is the more experienced user and if he thinks it's ok to repedetly delete my comments I'm certainly right to restore them, even if i make as much edits as he does, because I knew that editing other people's comments is frowned upon on Wikipedia. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The IP's first edit was today, yet they already seem to know a fair bit about wiki procedures. I quite understand why this account has been assumed to be a sock, even if it isn't. JZCL 12:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    But what gives him the right to single handedly conclude that and remove my edits? I'm somewhat familiar with the rules and I though a report should be done and that administrators are the only one who can remove someone's comments. I know that other people had strong objection when I modified their comments because of spelling mistakes. I thought that modifying someones comments is frowned upon on wikipedia even if done in good faith. Just read my 2 posts before he started to delete my comments. You say that because of my knowledge to make this report someone can assume I'm a sock, but he had assumed that even before this report. I just made 2(I think) posts and he already started to remove my edits. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't admitted anything. I don't understand what's so wrong with my initial posts that you started deleting them. I even pinged you so I could get more familiar with your opinion since we seem to disagree.89.164.239.139 (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed that FkpCascais said on the talk page that I'm a sock of Michael Cambridge and he says here that I'm a sock of Asdisis. Again I'm very confused by all this, why did you change this now? Why are you telling that I admitted being a sock? Where did I admit that? Why would any sock admit he is a sock? That's and immediate ban. You said on the talk page that I'm a sock of Michael Cambridge and that admitted that, and you say now I'm a sock of Asdisis and that admitted that. So did I make an admission 2 times? Why didn't you make a report instead of deleting my comments. If I admitted being a sock then a simple report would be sufficient. Why are you telling I admitted something without providing my edit? I'm very puzzled by all this. Could you explain a bit better this whole situation and why did you feel it is ok to delete my comments? What is so wrong with them? There are just 2-3 comments and I do not see anything wrong in them apart from me disagreeing with you. Well only initially, so I pinged you to get familiar with your stand. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We have had a set of IPs that are clearly the same person repeatedly pretending to be a new person freshly making the same arguments in an attempt to establish a "consensus" that is basically opposite to the consensus that actually exists. This IP always mentions how unfair Asdisis was treated, in fact the seem to know about Asdisis pretty much every time. While Michael Cambridge may be a different person who is also engaging in sock puppetry, it is very clear from timing and content that Michael Cambridge and Asdisis are at the very least in coordination if not the same person.
    There is no failure of AGF on the part of FkpCascais because WP:AGF does not require the assumption of good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. This is simply a case of sock puppetry and most likely block evasion. Chillum 16:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what is going on and nobody of you who seem to know a great deal about that had tried to explain. What is so similar between me and those persons, so my comments are to be deleted without any report? I was under impression that for someone to be designated as a sock, first a misconduct should be determined. That nobody can be a suspected puppet if he does not exhibit a misconduct. What is my misconduct. The only misconduct that I see is the case of FkpCascais deleting my comments without any reason to do so. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The basis of me calling you a sock puppet is Wikipedia:The duck test. It is obvious you are the same IP that has been showing up for weeks now pretending to be a new person. The fact that you often refer to Asdisis and how unfair he was treated makes it pretty obvious. Chillum 18:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Coincidentally 89.164.239.139 edits from the same city as Asdisis, has defended the edits of another IP from the same city, has jumped into the middle of a Serbian/Croatian dispute, and shows an uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia arcana like WP:PING and WP:ANI.  Looks like a duck to me. - MrX 18:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have to defend myself from this allegations. I have no idea who these people are and I don't care about your disputes with them. They are not participating in the discussion. This isn't a report against me and this is a report of FkpCascais who made a dozen edits where he changed and removed my comments. If he felt I was a sock he could have made a report. I told him that but he continued to delete my comments. I didn't know what to do so I made this report. He continued delete my comments even after I made this report. He only stopped when Stabila711 agreed that is a misconduct. Since that had stopped him I really have nothing to do in this report. I do not care whether he is sancioned. Bye. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Undiscussed contentious page move

    Please can someone move Amores Perros back to Amores perros. Film Fan has a habit of moving articles where there is a good chance of someone disagreeing with the page move without raising a discussion via WP:RM. Please can the status quo be restored until after a WP:RM has happened? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: According to WP:NCCAPS the capitalization of foreign films should be decided by the English-language reliable sources. After looking at the page and the references, they all use Perros not perros. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one other editor disagrees. As the article title has been stable for more than ten years, then WP:RM would be the way to go. It may be that WP:NCCAPS comes into play, along with WP:RS for the title. But there should be a discussion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not have a discussion now? Leave the article where it is for now. Open a request for move, and have the discussion on whether or not to move it back and see where that takes you. To move it back just to have a discussion is adding an unnecessary step to the process. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because that's what we do per WP:RM#CM. It's disruptive to move something that could be challenged, as per this instance. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved it back. Film Fan, please post a note on the talk page in the future and wait a few days before moving a page. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If I anticipate some resistance/controversy, then sure. I don't want to create unnecessary hassle for others. Film Fan 00:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not edit the redirect, like you did here, and also did at Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck. Now that creates unnecessary hassle, because the page can then only be moved back by an admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One issue not discussed here is why the move back could not have been moved. It appears that Film Fan deliberately edited the redirect to prevent their move being undone (the edit can be viewed by admins, and is only adding a return to it). This is effectively gaming the system, and I would strongly advise Film Fan not to repeat this behaviour. Number 57 19:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sportsmen/sportswomen dispute

    Hello, all. I'm in something of a dilemma, and wanted to ask for some opinions on what to do next here.

    Yesterday, while using AWB to add people to various "sportsmen/sportswomen by nationalities" categories, it was pointed out to me that my category sweep picked up some inappropriate entries which I inadvertently edited incorrectly. See this dif and this dif. I have apologized profusely and worked to correct the errors I made, and am avoiding going any further with the sports articles for now. However, a third editor, User:Akseli9, has also raised quite a few complaints, first at the Reference Desk and then on my talkpage. I have attempted to engage with the latter editor to find out which edits, specifically, he objects to, and he responds that he will not tell me and that I should undo all edits to the subject I have made. This I think is excessive - I know that many of the edits I made were indeed accurate. I checked them.

    If a specific article is pointed out to me, I will take a look and either a.) say why I felt the article belonged in the category, and/or b.) remove the category. But I cannot do so without specific evidence. I have asked for it repeatedly and not received it. Consequently, I'm at something of an impasse.

    I asked the other editor to bring any complaints he may have with my editing here to ANI, but he has not done so. As a result, I'm reporting myself and asking for some suggestions on where to go further. (Besides the self-imposed ban on editing sports biographies, which I will be implementing for a while, at least.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Are you sure it is not something wrong with AWB as some of the articles like Heather Watson are clearly not American sportswomen and most of the others are similar. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the problem is that you may be using the cat intersect or roll-up and therefore recategorizing Category:Sportspeople from Bradenton, Florida and the like into American sportswomen. The from and nationality should be separate I think. —SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's what it was. When I did sportsmen last night, I tried to exclude anyone who was listed as a "sportsman" of another nation. This seems, however, not to have excluded the NHL players for some reason... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well since editor Ser Amantio di Nicolao reported himself on this error I think he should be banned from wikipedia for life ;-) Seriously I'm the one who first noticed the problem with many many tennis players. It seems it was picking up anyone who, though clearly not American, had trained or lived in the USA at some point in their lives. Also, many former tennis players buy second homes in Florida (or Monaco) for tax purposes and that must have triggered somthing too. I had a dozen or so on my watchlist and I knew there were many others that got this category added. User SAdN promptly got back to me and said he'd fix the rest of the tennis players. I didn't really give it another thought till I saw this ANI today. I hope it's mostly solved. Good luck all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the talk we had on my talkpage. The problem is not fixed for mountaineers and people at large related to mountains, despite it was supposed to be fixed "in a couple of hours". My point is the problem is not specifically about American hockey players and specifically about American tenniswoman and specifically about American mountaineers. Choosing to address the problem this specific way, is a way to avoid (deny) the real problem, the real danger. The real problem here is to mass-edit articles without reading them, without knowing the subject, without even remembering which article you edit. The real problem is, here is a contributor who can produce mass-mistakes at an alarming rate, and then hopes someone will notice the mistakes on their watchlist, and waste a lot of time and energy in trying to fix hopefully all his mistakes, and having to discuss it on this very board and on talkpages, and having to work on it in order to be convincing, etc. Akseli9 (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of which is an unfair categorization of anything that I do. I am constantly aware that AWB runs the risk of making mass errors, and always strive to be careful when choosing articles to edit. I made more than my share in this run of edits. I have been trying to fix them, but I cannot do so unless I am told which articles are at fault and what the problem is perceived to be. I did not just set AWB to run over a bunch of articles I felt like. I chose them carefully, and there were reasons why; to suggest otherwise is unfair at best. If I am pointed to an article, I can explain that rationale. I am not going to undo every edit I made; many of them were legitimate and supportable. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the most recent 2000 contributions shows they occurred in the last 40 hours, and of the 2000, 1979 have "category" in the edit summary. Many articles on my watchlist receive category changes by the OP and I would happily support any procedure which stopped mass changing without prior clear consensus at a widely discussed RfC. At least link to a page showing why thousands of articles need to have their categories changed, in ten cases twice (example) or even three times. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll accept an RfC, if it's proposed. But I would note that for the most part I am adding categories that have existed for years without being filled - if they are not in use then they should be pruned. Besides which, using AWB for mass categorization is a longstanding practice, not only by me but by other editors. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought I would throw in my two cents here. I am less concerned about it happening, mistakes happen and it is not like you are trying to hide your mistake. We are all human even if we are using an automated machine. I am more concerned about it not happening again. If it happened once it is conceivable that it has a) happened before and b) will probably happen again. Perhaps the better course of action is to decide on how to make it so it can't happen again. Perhaps a tool built into the AWB that can perform an emergency undo of the actions performed during a session. Once the actions are undone, the AWB user can look at what happened and adjust their inputs so it doesn't happen again. I feel that categorization is important and I see the value of AWB in that it can quickly place articles in the categories that they should have been in all along. However, there should be a way to rollback a user's session on AWB without having to go through manually. That way if this does happen again, it can be easily, and quickly, undone. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hrm. Interesting proposal - hadn't considered something like that. What I usually do in a situation when I've missed a group of articles is simply to isolate that group using HotCat and run AWB again to remove the offending category. It's quick, it's dirty, but it gets the job done. I don't know the first thing about coding, so I wouldn't know where to start making suggestions - maybe I'll raise it at the AWB talkpages tomorrow and see if anyone has any ideas. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why so few participants in this discussion? Perhaps because the title is misleading readers that the dispute is about sportsmen and sportswomen, which it is not? What if the title was something like "problem with mass-editing causing mass-mistakes"? Akseli9 (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, what is the problem then? That mass mistakes were made is not in dispute. Ser Amantio himself has admitted that and has also been working to correct that (as my watchlist will attest). So I am left to ask, what is your problem? Do you have specific examples of errors not yet fixed that you are holding hostage in an attempt to force him to roll back everything? Or are you just assuming there are more incorrectly categorized articles and are demanding a blanket reversion? Resolute 14:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is the problem? The problem is mass-editing without reading articles, without knowing the subject, without even remembering which articles you edit. Addressing one's mistake is what we all are doing naturally, by reverting what we have on our watchlists, by inventing new codes as it was said above. But if we don't think about the cause of the problem, well the problem remains. We should be thinking further about what it is to contribute to Wikipedia, especially we should be repeating that Wikipedia is not only a hobby for a few mass-contributors/record-seekers, that Wikipedia articles should be meant to be written by people who care about the subject, in order to be reliable and to get a good reputation of reliability, we should also discuss about categories and the compulsory habits they tend to create, etc this kind of stuff we should be discussing, if only the title was not narrowing this essential/global problem into a question of sportsmen. About errors not yet fixed, yes there are still a couple or three on my watchlist that I will easily fix, there are also some that I already fixed and that prove the articles were not chosen carefully for new wrong catergorization, and about errors that nobody has noticed and that will remain, of course there is probably a lot of them, as Stabila711 already said above. Akseli9 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User claiming defamatory material about an heir ancestor on Wikipedia and Commons

    I have an unusual circumstance that I don't quite know how to deal with. User:Jagtig has left several notes on Wikipedia and on Commons claiming that he is the grandson of the Alfred de Grazia. He adamantly claims that an image of a man standing over a bunch of dead bodies in Dachau, which is used on the article, is not in fact his grandfather, and is thus defamatory (possibly violating WP:BDP).

    The image was originally uploaded by User:Aldegraz/User:Amideg. After Jagtig made the claim, another user, 108.24.111.82 came and claimed to be John Sebastian deGrazia, son of the subject of the image. (see also the IP's Commons contributions)

    I have absolutely no idea whatsoever how to handle this situation. Could someone(s) who (is|are) wiser than me please help? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the Internet, no one knows you're an heir. I think this should be dealt with by OTRS, since the claim of being the son or grandson is easily said, but should be proved. That being done, then the issue of the identity of the man in the photo might be easier to establish. BMK (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, I see no way in which the photo can be "defamatory". The claim is that it was taken after the liberation of the camp, so the soldier seen is an Allied soldier, and not in any way responsible for the death of the bodies shown. BMK (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an OTRS matter. The individuals claiming to be the son and grandson need to provide suitable identification and lineage and the photo info... To OTRS not on wiki. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The original upload claims that it was included in a self-published book by the subject of the photo, That book is for sale on Amazon, and its "look inside" feature shows the exact same image, with a caption giving the same identification. See here. DES (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC) (Apparently on page 481, at least just prior to page 482) DES (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A book self-published by the subject of the article includes the picture. It was uploaded by the subject and cleared by Commons OTRS. That seems pretty definitive, unless the author/subject was lying. BMK (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Or just wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps but I doubt that someone creating a self-published book would mistakenly place a photo of another person thinking it was them.--67.68.162.189 (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree. BMK (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse and Personal attack

    I reported Faizan and FreeatlastChitchat for possible meat puppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan and I think they didn't like it much. On Talk:Hafiz Muhammad Saeed they are doing personal attack which is hurtning, they should comment on content and not on contributor. Firstly I ignored this gross abuse by FreeatlastChitchat but now they are commenting on my comprehension of English language. In that sock puppet investigation I mentioned that "English is my 3rd language", now they got only that point to discuss. Firstly Faizan said me to read his comment again as he thought there are possibilities that I will not understand it, I still ignored it. But later I pinged FreeatlastChitchat [77] to resolve the dispute quickly, but instead of talking on content FreeatlastChitchat also commented on my English comprehension [78], he even adviced me to use google translator, he also claimed that he broke his 2 ribs of laughing. Also claimed that he will laugh whole day. In return Faizan sent beer to FreeatlastChitchat stating "I cracked a couple of ribs too. Cheers". All this was very harassing. Despite my appeals of talking on content they are just making fun of mine. --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Le defence

    Human has classic POV pushing, edit warring, TRUTH, STICK, IDLI issues. On top of that he has major competence issues and is a major timesink. And on top of those issues his understanding of what I, and others, try to tell him is appalling. And on top of this mountain of issues is the fact that according to his sense of logic anyone who lodges a report against another person at ANI will get his way. He has launched 3, yes that right folks, THREE, False reports against me within the past week. My only error is "not agreeing" with his POV content. This is just a little background to put things into perspective. Now onto the issue in question. We have been trying to talk some sense into him at the [Hafiz Saeed] Talkpage. The issue is that someone mentioned in an opinion piece a couple of years ago that police set up a check point near Hafiz Saeed's house. This is a pretty routine incident in Pakistan, happens every hour in big cities, no big deal. Human ,on the other hand, wants to put it in the article making it look as if some big fat posse was posted outside Hafiz Saeed's door, which of course is not the case. When it was pointed out that the opinion piece in question is almost two years old , therefore the word "recent" in the article cannot be taken literally, things took a turn for the hilarious, with Human asking if major events should be removed just because they are not recent. Seeing this hilarious misunderstanding, I advised him to use google translate and divulged the fact that I had laughed at his hilarious mix up. I'll let Faizan explain the rest. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Human's comment below, and would point out that FreeatlastChitchat's actions in cutting and pasting an admin's sig should be addressed. That was completely inappropriate. However, the rest of my comment stands. GregJackP Boomer! 05:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @GregJackP:. I assumed that there was no harm in copy pasting as the time stamp and the general wording of the comment was enough to show that swarm had replied elsewhere and I just copy pasted it. However, we all fail to see our own POV editing and this may be the case here. It appears all right to me but is inappropriate to everyone else. Therefore when Human pointed out the misunderstanding, I at once changed the wording even more and then left a message at Swarms TP requesting him to endorse his comment. I'm not sure what else I can do. If you require I can remove the comment but deleting it takes away the argument that human has been reprimanded by admins about his Frivolous reports. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FreeatlastChitchat, the problem is you used Swarm's exact signature including formatting codes and symbols. That gives the air of impersonation even if it was unintentional. Next time, instead of using the signature code you could say "Admin Swarm said on this date (include diff)..." You should never use the actual signature code of another user as that can be misconstrued as impersonation. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stabila711. I just linked it without formatting, I hope that solves this problem. Feel free to have a look and see if its all ok now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FreeatlastChitchat, better. Just be careful to not use the signature codes in the future. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm replying here as my comments are relevant to this part. The "bad" part of those three diffs shows that you are not listening to what others are saying. Each time, FreelastChichar and Faizan post a direct reply to your comment your replies give the impression that you are not responding to what they are saying, hence WP:IDHT. When an editor arrives to comment on content, do you not see how disrespectful and rude it is when you respond with "you don't have as much experience as the other guy". You are basically baiting FLCC. With regards to the Pakistani comment, you don't have a leg to stand on. Everything Faizan and FLCC had posted before that comment had been on the content. The only area of content with a similar level of discontent to India-Pakistan related articles are the Israel Palestine articles. The fact that you speak english as a 3rd language is commendable, however not being a native speaker lends one to be unfamiliar with nuances that native speakers use regularly. That's not to say I condone the level of anger and ridicule you received, but you should understand that the way you posted to FLCC and Faizan is in part the cause of it.
    • @GregJackP and Blackmane: In our one other discussion 10 days ago same FreelastChitchat said that "English is his 2nd language". read here. But I didn't even mentioned it anytime later, even when they were mocking me for English being my 3rd language even at that time I didn't said that "English is your 2nd language so I think you are not understanding my English comments". I don't make issue of these things. Moreover, his "Fu*k" comment is 4 days old, I didn't complained about it at that time, I just ignored it, using word "Fu*k" is may not be "gross abuse" for you but I don't use such words even in my real life or not even on social networking sites so it was "Gross" for me. But anyway I ignored it 4 days ago. I only came here after they mocked me for my "English". It gives sense of inferiority, using word "Fu*k" don't hurt us or don't make any impact but making feel us inferior and saying that "use google translator to understand our comments" do hurts and it is harrassment, moreover they are giving "beer" and writing that "me too broke my 2 ribs out of laughing", I even find it very cruel. They are behaving like they have complete dominance over few articles and no one will harm them, because I'm the only editor there and they are two. I think few articles do need admin's attention. --Human3015Send WikiLove  04:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a brief comment with regards to this above, but I'll expand somewhat. While different cultures use curse words differently, I do believe that if one editor asks that another editor to refrain from excessive cursing there should be some common courtesy such that this language be self moderated. I certainly agree that, while Human3015 should accept some responsibility, there should be no excuse for the belittling, humiliation or bullying of another editor because their command of English is not at the same level. Human3015's command of English as a 3rd language is strong, though lacking in understanding in some nuances. In that regard, I would suggest that FLCC be given a very strongly worded warning that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blackmane, not to be rude but how much baiting do you think should be 'allowed' before a user can respond. I know that some people give a lot of ROPE but you can yourself see that he reported me once out of bad faith, I didn't do anything, he reported me again, I said nothing, He opened up a bad faith SPI, I kept my cool. He then went to Pakistan article and just reverted me out of spite(yes I get to assume bad faith because he restored a version which was 'proven' to be vandalism), and in that revert he said that ahmadies are not muslims, again and again, he then went on the TP of that article and again went on to state that my religion was not part of Islam. I still kept my cool and guided him towards the relevant discussions and RFC's. Not a single harsh word will you find from me despite this hounding. He then started Ad Hom attacks on Hafiz Saeed TP and commented again and again and again on my "emotional state", my "nationality" and my "inexperience". I retaliated by telling him to stay the fuck away from discussing my personality, and I think I have every right in the world to tell a person to just stop hounding me, and I have all the right to use fuck. The only time I have commented on "the editor" instead of edits has been 'one single comment' where (AFTER wasting a long time trying to make him understand) I found the situation hilarious and baited him a little, and he comes here to whine about it?. So What I'd like to ask from you is, what is this strongly worded warning going to tell me to do? should I just let another person hound me again and again and again? I know internet etiquette is mighty different from our everyday lives but I'm 100% sure that even in real world if you start to comment on a person "emotional state" and his "nationality" during a debate, the reply will be a resounding "what the Hell". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @FreeatlastChitchat: Why don't you give "diffs" for your claims? When did I say that "your religion is not part of Islam" etc? How would I know your religion or sub-sect within religion? When did I again and again talked about your personality? And yes, you have all rights to say anything in democracy but sadly Wikipedia is not democracy. --Human3015Send WikiLove  07:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you provided "diffs". So according to this edit you are saying I said that you are not muslim. Ok. I never knew that you are Abdus Salam. Moreover, I already gave explanation about this and other related edits. --Human3015Send WikiLove  08:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring your sarcasm, this edit is sufficentevidence that you are using an article to push your religious pov. As FreeatlastChitchat said, we do not follow Pakistanis law. We don't decide who is really a Christian or a Muslim, etc. When Mormons say they are Christians we accept that even though there's a yawning gulf between their views and that of most of Christianity. I've seen this going on for so long I've become of the opinion that editors who try to use our articles to determine who is really what religion should be topic banned. Perhaps you need a topic ban from all articles relating to Islam. Doug Weller (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doug Weller: I particularly don't edit Islam related articles on Philosophical level. This can be great debate wether Ahmadiyya's are muslims or not. But I was really not knowing that editor in question is Ahmadiyya Muslim as he is claiming now. I have also given some expalnation regarding this on talk page of that article on Talk:Pakistan. Also given some sources. Ahmadiyya's don't believe that Prophet Mohammad is last prophet of Islam which is very basic thing of Islam. you can read this BBC article. Not only in Pakistan but in many nations Ahmadiyya's are not muslims read this. [79]. I just want to say that my revert was not blind revert or POV revert to topic ban me from Islam related articles, when FreeatlastChitchat said on Talk:Pakistan that there is discussion 4 year old in archive where some people accepted to write word "Muslim" for them then I searched in archive and found that 2-3 people in past were agreeing to use word Muslim for them. So I left that matter and stopped reverting or discussing that matter. --Human3015Send WikiLove  13:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no, this has nothing to do with another editor but your edit summary "(Reverted 1 edit by FreeatlastChitchat (talk): Unexplained revert. Ahmadis are not muslims according to Pakistani law". Doug Weller (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: I can't write much things in edit summary, I have later explained my point on talk page too. my next revert of same things reads as "they are not muslim according to Quaran too". Because it is basic principle of Islam that Prophet Mohamad is last Prophet and no divine person came after him. But Ahmadis do believe that there is divine person after Prophet Mohamad that too in 20th century. I have given sources that no muslim country considers them as "Muslim". But as I seen in archives that few people were agreeing to use term "Muslim" for them on the basis of "self-identification" so I left that matter. My point was, Abdus Salam got Nobel Prize, so he got Nobel Prize then some people will call him "pride of Muslims", "first Muslim to get Nobel Prize" etc. But when it comes to social ethics, democratic values then these Ahmadiya people are discriminated in every muslim country and there are numerous cases of violence against them. It means when any Ahmadiyya brings some glory then he is "Muslim" otherwise he is not Muslim. And I don't really have any POV regarding these issues. You can check my contribution. --Human3015Send WikiLove  14:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder here FreeatlastChitchat is again saying that "I have right to use word Fu*k" as if he has right to abuse anyone. And still no comments by Faizan, I think he don't want to highlight himself (or FreeatlastChitchat is defending here, no need for Faizan to come in scenario, because I consider both are "related" persons). At least I hope that in future these people will not abuse me. They are very aggressive. And I also appeal to admins to look for articles in which we are involved, because I can't go for DRN all the time for minor and obvious issues. DRN is time consuming process and should be used for only most controversial text. On various topics these people are saying "two editors are against you, so you can't add that text in article". "2 editors are against me"? What that means? They are not even giving any valid or acceptable reason for not adding any matter in article. "Just we both are against you so you can't add it". What is this? For example on 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes, they reverted my neutral edits. According to them we can't add "injuries" in ceasefire violations. I also discussed this on their Meat puppetry case. --Human3015Send WikiLove  15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dukisuzuki/Slavojm

    Slavojm blocked as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After an indefinite block by User:Georgewilliamherbert (see WP:AE#Dukisuzuki), Dukisuzuki (talk · contribs) continues ethnic-motivated edit warring as Slavojm (talk · contribs). I would kindly ask for a block, and maybe even an indefinite semiprotection of Meša Selimović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Death and the Dervish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – all we ever got from IPs there was The Truth about the writer's ethnicity (cf. Nikola Tesla). No such user (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, sorry for forum-shopping, I didn't notice that my "sockpuppet" Volunteer Marek opened a SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dukisuzuki). In any case, it's a WP:DUCK case so... No such user (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dukisuzuki#Comments_by_other_users

    "I searched for Mesa Selimovic a few times over the past couple of days for a project and noticed that each time his ethnicity was changed from Serb to Yugoslav and back again. I looked in the edit history tab and saw your and Dukisuzuki's conflict. Today I checked again and once again his ethnicity was changed. Then I looked at the edit history tab and noticed that Dukisuzuki was banned for insulting you. I thought that this was wrong to do, as he was correct, because Mesa Selimovic said "I am a Serb by ethnicity, I belong to Serbian literature" in his autobiography.

    This motivated me to create an account in order to ask you, VolunteerMarek, why are you trying to delete Selimovic's quote from the article? I won't insult anybody like Dukisuzuki did, and I don't support his insults, but his reasoning for the article itself was right. I intend to use this account to share my plentiful knowledge on Balkan subjects, but I must say, seeing edit reverts seemingly done for the sole purpose of obscuring facts and then accusations of "sockpuppeting" is very discouraging for somebody like myself who would like to become an active user of this website. Slavojm (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)"


    "Thank you very much for your message, I honestly appreciate it. Please take 10 seconds to read mine to understand my position. The "edit war" deals with an author's ethnicity. This author, Mehmed Selimovic, explicitly stated his ethnicity in his autobiography: "By ethnicity I am a Serb. I belong to Serbian literature." Volunteer Marek keeps deleting the citation to his autobiography that says this in order to obscure his ethnicity, calling him a "Yugoslav" instead, because his edits tend to follow an anti-Serb agenda. It should be noted that this author's works primarily deal with ethnic questions in the Balkans, and his ethnicity is hence a major factor when considering his work. Slavojm (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) I don't know enough about Balkan politics to comment specifically, but your edits suggest that although your account is new, you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, quite likely a reincarnation of a previously blocked editor. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC) You do not need to have any knowledge of balkan politics to understand my viewpoint. I feel as though this Volunteer Marek has plentiful connections with administrators on this site and uses these connections and his abundant knowledge relating to wikipedia rules to snuff out any contributions to the site that go against his agenda; because you left an edit war warning for me and not for him, and because you attacking me with his unfounded slander that I am a sockpuppet. Are you a part of a conspiracy that he controls? I already addressed his accusation here btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dukisuzuki#Comments_by_other_users Slavojm (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)"


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mean_as_custard#Re:_Edit_War


    The only WP:DUCK here is that Volunteer Marek rounds up his friends to conspire against editors who go against his agenda. Slavojm (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin) Why does this belong on ANI? If there's a duck, it belongs on SPI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, WP:SPI says that This page is for requesting that we investigate whether two or more Wikipedia accounts are being abusively operated by the same person. There's nothing to investigate, the matter is obvious. Besides, Marek and myself have been dealing with this persistent POV-pusher for a week now, with very little help from administrators, despite WP:ARBMAC and stuff. I'm looking for some admin expedience, we both have much better use for our time. No such user (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    LEOcoin

    Can an admin take a look at newly created LEOcoin and the deleted contributions of User:LEOcoin?

    The press appears to be full of discussion about LEOcoin [80] - almost all of it negative, warning of pyramid schemes and "pump and dump" plans. I found it extremely surprising that nothing about all this existed on Wikipedia already but all I could find other than the new page is that User LEOcoin was blocked for being a promotion account. None of their contributions survive so I don't know what they were.

    The author of the new article is User:Geoff round, the same name as LEOcoin's global marketing manager.

    Is there an explanation from the deleted contributions of User LEOcoin as to why there was nothing on Wikipedia about LEOcoin before? And do User LEOcoin's deleted contributions suggest that sockpuppetry is taking place now?

    Many thanks!

    RichardOSmith (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The two pages weren't identical but had quite a lot of phrases in common. Looking deeper led me to this LEOcoin brochure which also contained a lot of the same marketing buzzwords and word-for-word hype. As such I've deleted it as copyright infringement, although it probably also qualified as spam. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Many thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi this is Geoff Round. You have correctly identified me as part of LEOcoin and the publisher of the White Paper you refer to. I am not trying to use your site to market or sell. I see other digital currencies (like Etherium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum )with a page and would like LEOcoin to be equally accessible to any who search for factual information about its structure etc. I've tried to be factual and not use sales or marketing messages. Can you allow me a further chance to submit a fact only entry that complies with your rules? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoff round (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This article is mainly edited by a few editors who only edit this article and two related ones (Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos). Although I have tried to explain clearly what problems I see with the article as it currently stands, I continue to be accused of editing with a political bias by John sargis (as well as an IP editor, 165.120.27.172, but I assume that is the same person who forgot to log in). I consider this a personal attack and have notified the editor of this. This was again answered with a personal attack. The editor's user page and talk page show that this person has a history of such attacks. The editor also has a COI with this article, having published himself in this journal several times (e.g., [81] and [82]). 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Moving article title without discussion

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

    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)[reply]
    User blocked per WP:NLT. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

    This was just posted onto my talk page. Quoting from the account's edit: "The social media campaign that this has generated is now in the hands of the legal team - and this content (the content that I tried to delete) is incorrect and should be removed. Please provide me with this assurance or I will need to refer this to the legal teams also." - Reporting this here per the directions stated in no legal threats. WikiWipe has been notified of this discussion on his talk page. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 12:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Account has been blocked per NLT. Looks like this can be closed. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User was blocked by Lankiveil however I've re-blocked with an extended reason. While the legal threat was terms for the instant block, even if they retract it I would be hesitant to unblock due to their disruptive editing. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repetitive edits from IP

    IP user adds content related to news article on Wikipedia to talk page headers. DIF or here. Someone should check various repetitive edits. Clearly not just a wrong talk page edit. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify the user possibly acts in good faith but i don't just want to go there and revert. prokaryotes (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Should i go there and mass revert, the user doesn't seem to respond. Is it considered okay to revert such talk page entries? prokaryotes (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reflexed block review

    Since Calidum stated he would raise this to AN/I, I figured I might as well do so myself while I'll be around and able to further explain my rationale. All parties will be notified after this. I recently blocked @JackTheVicar: for uncivil/NPAish behavior, that might be better termed as wikihounding or just disruption, with his target being @Winkelvi:. I have previously blocked JtV for their interactions with WV, I have no other involvement with either party. My original block was brought to ANI and was upheld - I imagine partly because it came out that JtV had been doing some serious off-wiki admin shopping. JtV put himself under a unilateral iban - something that was done under a cloud, so in the same way that admin tools given up under a cloud cannot be given back without community consent, neither can an iban you place on yourself be spontaneously undone. Even in the recent past, JtV realized that he couldn't interact with WV. Yet for no apparent reason, yesterday JtV chose to make these [83] insulting and unsolicited comments to other people who were in unrelated disputes with WV.

    WV brought them to my attention, and I blocked JtV for two weeks for disruption/npa/etc, and for leaving questionable unsolicited comments about a user with whom he had pledged to follow an iban with. There's a cycle here that needs to be broken. JtV says something inappropriate about WV, then realizes he shouldn't be interacting with WV. Several weeks later, JtV forgets that he probably shouldn't be interacting with WV, and does it again - then shortly thereafter goes 'whoops.' The last time he interacted with WV was incidental enough that all I did was suggest he should try to avoid interacting with WV in the future, but his unsolicited comments here are pretty much flat out trolling. Unfortunately, the only way I see to break that cycle is with escalating blocks - I (and others) have tried to explain to JtV why his behavior is inappropriate both now in the past, and he has deflected blame consistently.

    I'm perfectly willing to reduce JtV's block period if he finally files an unblock request demonstrating he understands the issue and intends to actually avoid WV in the future. But for now since I'll be around for a while myself to explain my viewpoint myself, I'll put it to ANI - good block? bad block? Kevin Gorman (talk)

    • Endorse The block. While not filled with profanity, I think those commetns violate WP:NPA, and clearly violate the self-imposed iban. I agree with Kevin Gorman that under the circs although the iban was voluntarily accepted, it cannot be unilaterally removed or ignored, ans should be treated as if formally imposed by the community. DES (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block, the iBan offer was on the condition that he be unblocked, which he was not. If you don't follow through on both sides of a deal, you don't get to enforce the other sides offer. Plus, as Ritchie333 noted, KG appears to be WP:INVOLVED. Also, JtV is a content creator, we should be keeping the area clear so he can create content without being bothered by others. GregJackP Boomer! 16:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never interacted with either WV or JTV outside of these administrative kerfurfuffles. This statement doesn't look like an offer of an iban contingent on an unblock. It looks like him swearing he'll follow an iban regardless. Outside of that, you're still ignoring the NPA violation - and the fact that I'm not WP:INVOLVED Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block (non admin observation) In order for there to be an agreement, there has to be at least two people who agree. There was an offer to avoid, but that offer was not accepted. To hold someone to an offer, not an agreement, is wrong. AlbinoFerret 19:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "despite your prediction on the ANI discussion I have no intention of contacting or interacting ever going forward with Winkelvi or his close associates who have deemed fit to call for my head and posted on the initial ANI and this one. If he ever contacts me, I will contact an administrator. Your prediction makes an assumption without evidentiary basis. Further, I made a promise to Ritchie333, and I don't renege on promises" from JtV is not an offer, it's him putting himself under a unilateral iban under a shadow. Moreover, there's still the NPA and disruption parts, which are still perfectly blockable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    JackTheVicar's response

    I apologize this is a little long, but it all needs to be said. I am not going to get into a protracted argument with Kevin. I will answer any other administrator's questions if there are pertinent issues to be addressed.

    Kevin, based on my two unfortunately nasty episodes with you, you strike me as someone angry, embittered, and rather irritable. When I wrote in my block appeal that we had a contentious incident last time, one where I believed you acted nasty, and arrogant (I should have said imperious)—is my genuine, rightly-held opinion of you and your administrative conduct. Frankly put, I think you are a horrible administrator in that your actions are unduly harsh, rebarbative, and that dealing with you is a thoroughly unpleasant interpersonal experience. You consider that a personal attack, I consider that constructive criticism on which you should reflect. From other comments about your conduct as an admin elsewhere, I am not alone in my assessment.

    • You blocked me claiming I for incivility and personal attacks. That block was overturned—because we had an acrimonious interaction before, your actions I feel are violative of WP:INVOLVED and you would have been better served by passing it on to an administrator who was entirely uninvolved or raising it at WP:AN – something policy suggests.
    • Further, I think your block violates WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. There is no damage to the encyclopedia. You can not say that two innocuous talk pages messages—one to an admin, the other to advise an editor to pull back from an edit war, are disruptive in any way much less that they inherently disruptive. There was no continued issue of concern—two comments several hours before after which I went back to editing, improving aritcles. I guess hours later those comments continued to be disruptive? Were they disruptive as ongoing repeated incidents of edit-warring by other parties?
    • The only option left is that you purposefully and knowingly blocked me intending to punish me. That is detestible, and you have to answer for that per WP:ADMINACCT.
    • I prefer to avoid Winkelvi, yes. Only because he’s an unpleasant person and an unneeded headache. He has stalked discussions where I have commented (insiting on adding his two cents), and I have duly left. Why, because it’s better to avoid getting locked in a discussion with him. In any interaction with other users, he is equally unpleasant (as his repeated arguments at dramaboards indicates). There is no explicit iban in place, just a decided avoidance. There was an IBAN proposed that I would have agreed to CONTINGENT on my being unblocked last time. I was not unblocked early and therefore not bound to it anything I indicated I would agree to if circumstances resolved differently. The other end of the bargain—me being unblocked—did not happen, so why should I unilaterally be obligated to something. I consider the act of declining my appeal to nullify any of the negotiations or what the negotiations could have led to. Can’t bind someone to a contract if you don’t give anything in return and the contracted negotiations don’t bear the desired fruit. However, there is nothing that prevents me from contacting an admin about another user’s conduct or mentioning to someone locking horns with him to back off and saying why it is prudent to do so. If you want to propose an IBAN that doesn’t exist, then you’re exceeding your authority.
    • If he doesn’t want to be talked about, he shouldn’t have a dozen edit-wars a week. Sorry, but I couldn’t care less if he wants to whine that other people are talking about him. If he wants to cry about it to you, he’s just attempting to game the system.
    • Your definition of a personal attack is overly broad, as none of my statements (one notifying an admin of a user’s continued pattern of editwarring, another advising a fellow user to back off an edit war since it would do him no good), while unsolicited, do not rise to the level of a personal attack as enumerated WP:WIAPA. None of my comments were insulting or disparaging, simply pointing out that they are rather intractable in edit wars, their actions tend toward what is described in WP:OWN and WP:IDHT, and the best option is not to play with the editwarring editor.
    • Blocking policy does not require an admin to always contact the blocking editor when considering an unblock appeal. It states that ‘’is often asked’’, but not always. Ritchie333 is familiar with the historical context. He stated he believed your block was ‘’there was a clear mistake’’ and is not required to contact you if he believes your block was an unambiguous error. You were involved, and I would venture to say emotionally compromised by your ill-feelings toward me, therefore, you unambiguously should NOT have been involved in blocking and ought to have passed the buck to someone decidely and unambiguously NOT INVOLVED.
    • My sole interaction with Ritchie was when he declined my previous unblock request several weeks ago and when I notified him of Winkelvi’s continued bad acts. If Ritchie333 thought I violated policy, he would have been well within his right to act accordingly. He did not.
    • If you accuse him of favouring me for being a content contributor (which he doesn’t, we don’t interact for there to be any cultivation of favoritism) then you could equally be accused of playing favorites with Winkelvi whose actions, including repeated editwarring, repeated drama at WP:ANI and WP:AN3, you decidely OVERLOOK. I would call that an arbitrarily uneven administration of discipline. I indictated in my message to Ritchie333 that I would chuckle at Winkelvi’s continued antics while continuing to work on content—something I did immediately after. Ritchie’s response in the unblocking was encouragement to “get back to what is important”.
    • Quite frankly, Ritchie333 is a kinder administrator—he exercises good judgment and doesn’t overstep common decency and good sense. By comparison, you make no effort to resolve matters or to seek dispute resolution. You act, harshly and imperiously. I would venture to think you block that way in order to drive someone away rather than find a constructive solution to the underlying issues. And based on what I perceive as an angry and imperious choice of words, your choice to be decidedly harsh, I think you issue blocks out of emotiveness and irritability rather than good judgment.
    • Lastly, you notified other users of an ANI discussion, but not explicitly notifying me although I am mentioned. Your ping above did not create a notification but you didn’t add a template to my talk page like you did for others. You failed in one of the rules of ANI.
    • I think your conduct as an administrator is clear evidence of why some people distrust and actively dislike administrators on this site. You are exceptionally hostile in your duties. I can see how some users would be driven away by such nastiness. If I had a thinner skin, I’d have left specifically because of what I perceive as a nastiness and power-mad administrative actions.
    • I believe that you should be desysoped. I think you lack the civil temperament and good judgment to be a fair administrator. I am currently making enquiries regarding the dispute resolution process to pursue that. I think you, as an administrator, are not the kind of leader Wikipedia needs and your treatment of others is rather appalling—as other editors have described your blocks as unnecessary overkill and unacceptable. I know I'm not the easiest of persons to get along with, but the proof of the pudding is in the taste. I have disagreements with two users: You've blocked me twice based on the backfire of one edit war and blowup with someone who seems to get into a new edit-war debate every day. It was an uneven administration of justice. I have no other editwarring, no other disruption with any other users, and I generally stay away from contentious areas. Given that, even under the doctrine of contributory negligence, I am not the majority of the problem. JackTheVicar (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless someone creates a TLDR of this, no one is likely to read it. Moreover, it's kind of amazing that after breaking WP:NPA in your block appeal, you also did so in the first couple lines of this post. Learn to take responsibility for your own actions; you'll notice your last block was upheld at ANI, and that I almost universally either significantly reduce or remove entirely blocks when block appeals show that the blocked editor understands what the problem is. You didn't do so, so you served your last block out. If you had done so (and keep in mind listeners, his behavior involved canvassing a dozen admins offite) then you would not have served anything near a three week block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ritchie333's use of the admin tools

    I'm making this a separate section because, imo, use of admin tools in this fashion has the potential to be bigger an issue than the block review I originally posted. Ritchie333 accepted an unblock without consulting the original admin when:

    • The unblock appeal did not contain the required elements of an unblock appeal.
    • The unblock appeal contained an explicit violation of NPA - "Given the contentious and arrogantly nasty block Kevin executed against me last time, describe by another editor as "overkill" and his vindictive scorched earth campaign against my appeal (apparently I didn't grovel and apologise enough for his tastes), this ban appears to be violative of WP:INVOLVED as this is an undeniable conflict of interest if involvement is indeed construed broadly to include past incidents."
    • Ritchie333 both didn't consult the original admin, and was unfamiliar with the history of the case as outlined above - as demonstrated by the fact that he said he thought I was too WP:INVOLVED to block and his apparent lack of awareness of the situation outlined above

    To me, this looks like Ritchie333 unblocked JtV simply because he creates content, with no attention paid to the original block rationale, or to the explicit personal attack in the block appeal. I'm not going to spend the time to wikistalk enough to see if they have prior involvement, but this looks quite a bit like Ritchie333 unblocked JtV simply because he disagrees with any block of someone who is admittedly a productive content creator. When that's done without consulting the original admin, especially without knowledge of the background, and with a block appeal that would be rejected by anyone else, it looks to me like Ritchie non-trivially abused his admin tools

    So, Ritchie, per WP:ADMINACCT, please explain your actions. You accepted a block appeal that not only didn't fit the format of a block appeal, but that itself literally contained an NPA significant enough that it would be blockable by itself Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Obviously, Kevin is not unbiased - it was his block that was unilaterally overturned. But I don't know how an unblock that starts by citing "WP:TLDR" can be accepted at all. You essentially validate every spurious claim in the request, and you openly admit that you didn't even read it! What the hell, Ritchie? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • bad unblock Whether Kevin was involved or not, three was a violation of NPA that was not only not apologized for, but defended in the so-called appeal, and a further violation in the appeal itself. DES (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good unblock/terrible block. There was never an interaction ban imposed between JTV and WV. JTV had agreed to avoid the other user as a condition of unblock, which was unsuccessful in part because Kevin Gorman was adamantly opposed to his three-week block for a first-time offender being altered. (See archived discussion here). It's clear from Kevin's comments about JTV that he is biased against him. Why else would WV complain at his talk page instead of taking it to a community message board such as this? Because he had assurances Kevin would break a two-week wikibreak to issue a block [84]. Calidum 16:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC
    • Calidum, I've asked you this before but please stop misrepresenting my opinions. I was actively open to the original block being completely removed, all I required was for JTV to acknowledge the things that he did were wrong. He didn't. As for WV taking it to my page - it's pretty common for people to bring things directly to the original blocking admin instead of message boards since the original blocking admin will be more familiar with the situation. His original unblock was unsuccessful in large part because he canvassed a dozen admins offwiki. Also going to point out that you just endorsed an unblock that contained a blockable personal attack in the appeal itself, and the diff I linked at the start of this section surely didn't look like it was meant to be dependent on a successful unblock. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definetly a bad unblock Any other time I saw a screed like that on an unblock request, I would have seen the reviewing admin decline with something like WP:NOTTHEM or something indicating that they wouldn't consider it unless an understanding of the problem that got them blocked in the first place was expressed. None of that existed. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good unblock This was a poorly thought out block to begin with: protecting the encyclopedia from nothing in particular, on the basis of enforcing an interaction ban that doesn't exist, using a technique that doesn't work, at the personal request of the aggrieved party. As for the unblock request, it'd be one thing if it were a long screed full of personal attacks about someone else, but expressing displeasure with the admin who blocked you in the course of advocating for your own unblock is hardly exceptional. I don't believe I've interacted with either Jack or WV previously, but I did post some critical comments about Kevin in the run-up to the AE arbcom case; this looks rather like another part of the same pattern, of Kevin wanting to enforce what he thinks the rules should be. All of that being said, it would be smart for Jack to stop mentioning WV on other editors' talk pages; discovering that you've been griped about in the third person is kind of annoying. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "at the personal request of the aggrieved party". Absolutely untrue. This is what was said at Kevin Gorman's talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad block, acceptable unblock given circumstances - I agree with iridescent above, and this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've publicly questioned Kevin's competency for adminship. Ritchie saw all the original reasons for the block, he was capable of determining if an unblock was needed, no policy violations by Ritchie have been claimed, so this is all theatrics. While Ritchie's procedure isn't exactly textbook, it is within the broad allowances adminship gives us all. None of this drama builds an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't describe an admin accepting an unblock that was a screed that contained in itself what would normally be itself a blockable personal attack to unblock someone who had committed both a clear personal attack as well within the broad allowances adminship gives us all. You're welcome to question my competency as an admin, but in the meantime I'll continual blocking for disruptive editing and personal attacks where they occur. This is, btw, one of two blocks of mine that have ever been overturned - and was overturned in the most out of process fashion I've ever seen. I'd challenge you to find a single instance of an unblock that reads like JtV's screed being accepted. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a block is a bad block and is obviously so on it's face, the wording of the unblock request (which may contain venting) isn't the issue, the original block is. This those cases, the unblock might be seen as a reverting of the original block, not an unblock. Second, if you are getting multiple, unusual unblocks to your blocks, it is possible that the problem is you. If you aren't questioning your own actions, not even a little, then that might be the problem. Most admin have the good judgement to at least review their own actions with a smidgen of objectivity, to make sure they aren't the problem. Get outside opinions, like you are getting here, and hopefully, they listen to them. Your IQ is fine, but it is your inability to adapt and listen to your fellow editors that makes me question your competency. Arbcom is littered with the spent admin bits of those that couldn't listen and adapt. Go check the archives, you won't have to go back far. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis - you realize that this is exactly the second block I have had overturned in the time I've been an admin, right? I have something like a hundred blocks performed, and another 3 or 400 spoonfed to admins to block before I was an admin. Which makes for around a 2% error rate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had one reversed out of 1800 (and I went to their talk page and apologized in plain site), but that isn't how you calculate an error rate. A bad block that leads to a retirement but is never asked to be unblocked, is that an error? It wouldn't count as one using that method. The worse outcome to a block isn't having it reversed, it is losing a good editor. Overzealous blocking costs us more editors than occasional course language, for instance. Personally, I count success as talking an editor off the ledge of incivility so I don't HAVE to block him. Those don't show up in the logs, however. Counting how many (or few) blocks are unblocked is not a valid measure of success or even how "right" you are. It doesn't work that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're perfectly right that that's not a proper way to calculate an overall error rate, but your initial post suggested directly that I had multiple overturned previous blocks, which is incorrect. It's kind of amusing that I'm being treated as if I'm a particularly harsh blocker here when I've previously spent quite a while talking down and eventually unblocking, often under conditions, editors who were under long blocks who later turned out to be quite productive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Questionable block, unacceptable unblock - myself, I don't see the incivility and personal attacks in the diffs offered by Kevin which warrant a block, but I also don't see that the block was unambiguously wrong. Both the blocking policy and the administrators policy state that blocks(/admin actions) should not be overturned without consultation with the blocking administrator. BLOCK gives some latitude for clear errors and clear changes in circumstances, but neither occurred here. Simply disagreeing with a block rationale is absolutely not good enough reason for unilaterally overturning it. I disagree strongly that administrators are granted that sort of latitude; why is one admin given latitude and another not? Ritchie absolutely should have contacted Kevin (or BLOCK offers posting at ANI as an alternative) before considering the unblock request. However I think it's pretty clear that there isn't anything actionable happening here, the [un]block has been resolved, let's move on. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Respectfully, I don't see the blockable personal attack in the unblock request either. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivan - though I'm not sure I'd block for it, if it weren't a situation directly concerning me and I saw someone write "Given the contentious and arrogantly nasty block Kevin executed against me last time, describe by another editor as "overkill" and his vindictive scorched earth campaign against my appeal (apparently I didn't grovel and apologise enough for his tastes), this ban appears to be violative of WP:INVOLVED as this is an undeniable conflict of interest if involvement is indeed construed broadly to include past incidents," I'd certainly take a second look at it and at least warn the person (particularly when the block in question was upheld at ANI in part because it came out he had canvassed a dozen admins.) I sure as hell wouldn't grant the unblock request. I also wouldn't have blocked JtV if not for the background history outlined in the earlier ANI I linked and involving many other places - there's a cycle of him certainly being uncivil and arguably violating NPA against the same person who said "despite your prediction on the ANI discussion I have no intention of contacting or interacting ever going forward with Winkelvi or his close associates who have deemed fit to call for my head and posted on the initial ANI and this one. If he ever contacts me, I will contact an administrator. Your prediction makes an assumption without evidentiary basis. Further, I made a promise to Ritchie333, and I don't renege on promises," with no caveat about the his stateent being tied to an unblock. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I don't know the history and can only comment on what I see currently. JtV's conduct and language was certainly less than ideal, but I think stayed above "you are an idiot" in the hierarchy, which I think is a reasonable threshold for NPA blocks. Considering they had just been slapped with what they believed to be an unjustifiable block from an involved admin, some straying into the ad hominems is probably forgivable with a warning, and that probably would have avoided the current dramah. It's dangerous to say that WP:INVOLVED covers every interaction an administrator has ever had with a user, but you do seem to have history with this one, or at least they seem to strongly believe that you do. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend that you read some of the comments above, think about them, and perhaps apologize to the victim of a block that solves nothing and to the community whose time you take - again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've certainly read and taken in to account every comment made here, and also regret the rather ridiculous fact that what should've been an uncontroversial block has turned in to a giant ANI thread. Someone violated policy; I blocked them. As I told JtV during his original block (which was upheld here,) if he recognized the disruption he had caused (and in that case it included not only NPA and trolling as here, but canvassing a dozen admins offwiki) I would be glad to have either substantially shortened or removed his block. He chose to serve out his first block instead of acknowledging he had done anything wrong (and I have copies of emails of him canvassing, so that's not an unfounded claim.) In this case, Ritchie, for reasons that still need explanation, chose to unblock someone who had been blocked to minimize disruption for a period of time with the goal of eventually eliminating it, where their block appeal was... well.. I challenge anyone to find a single additional situation where such a block appeal had been accepted. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Kevin, I did apologize and acknowledge what I did wrong last time. You made it abundantly clear in a lot of adamant and vindictive language, that it wasn't "enough" for you. I didn't grovel and beg right. There was no damage then, not much of a disruption, just Winkelvi's hurt feelings. The accusation of "canvassing" was quite histrionically exaggerated. But then, no one—especially you—considers the hurt feelings of the two dozen editors who have had unrelated but similar issues with him in the last two months since you blocked me last. I assert I wasn't the greater problem then. I felt you were being vindictive then as I think you are being now. Editors described your block as "overkill"--and at ANI last time because it was a mixed bag of several "unblock" opinions versus several "keep blocked" opinions (some, I add, by Winkelvi's clique) Accordingly, there was no consensus either way for Ritchie333 (who stated that given certain circumstances he was somewhat inclined to reduce if not overturn my block) to determine whether it would be right to overturn the block then in light of the no consensus (it was not anywhere near "unanimous") and we ended up with the status quo. But your conduct was rash and too involved to be impartial, and that's why I'm going to be making an effort as soon as I learn the appropriate process to request your desysopping. You could just put yourself up for recall given that I am not alone in having doubts about your temperament as an admin, but given how you treated Eric, I doubt you're confident of how that kind of discussion will end up. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block everyone. That'll fix Wikipedia. Alakzi (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good unblock There was no iban to begin with and the comments weren't NPAs to begin with. The block exacerbated what would have been nothing into this dramafest. As for calling the unblock request a screed? I see a user outlining their rationale for why it was a bad block. Clearly others agree with that rationale. Saying it didn't meet the criteria outlined for an unblock request is basically saying the blocked user is always wrong and the blocking admin is always right so the blocked user needs to give a half-hearted "I understand what I did wrong and won't do it again" speech even when they don't believe they're wrong. Capeo (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikicohen, WikiShanwnio, and IP at Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo

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

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

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


    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)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE IP, blocked, but continues racist rant on own talkpage

    IP addresses blocked, offending posts revdelled. --Randykitty (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    137.147.7.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I posted this on WP:AIV but it was "helpfully" removed by the bot since the IP is already blocked. They are continuing their racist rants on their talkpage. Should be indeffed and/or talkpage access removed? Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In cases like this, the fastest way to get action is often to ping or email the blocking admin. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed their talk page access and extended the block to 1 week. --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randykitty: Another IP has begun making the same edits on the page again here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The second IP was already blocked but I've removed tpa from them as well. --NeilN talk to me 17:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Please first engage Macspaunday in a civil discussion before coming back here. The events reported here do not constitute vandalism but valid cleanup. --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page being reported for WP:Vandalism is Poetry in the early 20th century. This is to report 2 issues of link vandalism (listed under WP:VANDTYPES) and sneak vandalism WP:SNEAKY as documented under WP:Vandalism done by User:Macspaunday. (This is currently being listed by Wikipedia as WP:Vandalism and not under WP:EW or WP:3RR for those noticeboards).

    Over the summer, as I am only now discovering, another editor has apparently intentionally removed all links to an article I had written titled Poetry in the early 20th century by serially and surreptitiously removing all links to the article system-wide throughout Wikipedia and therefore leaving it as an Orphan article of almost no value to Wikipedia. By removing all links to the article from other articles there is no practical way to get to the new article which I wrote and its usefulness to Wikipedia has been crippled as a result by very low page count stats which have dropped to single digits on many days. The new article was reviewed as useful by both Wikiprojects and Wikipatrol.

    The intentional link vandalism by User:Macspaunday was apparently done as a type of "road rage" or "edit rage" in response to a single edit which I placed on one of the articles for one of the poets (W. H. Auden) I had mentioned in a poetry article which I wrote. I placed a single line redirect on the Auden page (as I had done on other related poet pages) allowing the article users to link to the poetry page I had written in case they were interested in the historical context in which Auden was writing his poems, as requested by another editor to do this consistent with recommendations made by Wikiprojects for other poetry articles. I placed the redirect link at the top of the Auden page, and occasionally some editors of other poet's pages have moved the link to the "See Also" section at the bottom of the poet's article pages. Either one of these options is fine with me and in the past I had not made any comments to other editors about whether the link appeared at the top of the page or at the bottom of the page.

    The response of User:Mac to my putting the link into the Auden article, however, was apparently an inner rage response which then led to him hunting out and removing all wiki links to the article I wrote in order to fully damage its usefulness for the Wikipedia community, and the deteriorating page count stats can be seen here: [85] and [86]. This is the list of serial edits through which User:Mac did this which I am hatting for space considerations:

    I. Sequence of serial deletions by User:Macs
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    02:58, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-13)‎ . . m William Carlos Williams ‎ (→‎top: Fixing typo) 02:56, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-13)‎ . . m A. E. Housman ‎ (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot) 02:56, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-17)‎ . . m Geoffrey Hill ‎ (→‎top: Fix hat note) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-128)‎ . . m Countee Cullen ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note) (current) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-126)‎ . . m Claude McKay ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hatnote.) 02:53, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-127)‎ . . m Robert Graves ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note) 02:52, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-125)‎ . . m Jean Toomer ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note) 02:52, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-127)‎ . . m E. E. Cummings ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note) 02:51, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-97)‎ . . m H.D. ‎ (→‎top: remove improper hat note) 02:50, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-124)‎ . . m William Carlos Williams ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note) 02:50, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-129)‎ . . m Wallace Stevens ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note.) 02:45, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-128)‎ . . m Edwin Arlington Robinson ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hatnote.) 02:45, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-122)‎ . . m A. E. Housman ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hatnote.) 02:44, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-124)‎ . . m Allen Tate ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note.) 02:44, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-124)‎ . . m Hart Crane ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hat note.)

    After doing it to one article I wrote, User:Macspaunday then decided to repeat the process again through his own approach to link vandalism of another article I wrote titled Poetry in the early 19th century making another orphan article on Wikipedia with no notification to anyone of any kind. The link vandalism was devastating in the harm caused to the use of the article in reducing the page count stats down to single digit counts on many days. This LINK vandalism was done surreptitiously by the User:Macspaunday who did not send any type of notification or warning to me of any kind or indicate any issue needing to be addressed.

    II. Second sequence of serial deletions by User:Macs
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    02:43, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-129)‎ . . m Arthur Rimbaud ‎ (→‎top: Remove improper hatnote.) 02:42, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-132)‎ . . m Christina Rossetti ‎ (Remove improper hatnote; see also Elizabeth Barrett Browning, etc. etc.) 02:38, 10 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-125)‎ . . m A. R. Ammons ‎ (Remove improper hatnote; see also Elizabeth Barrett Browning, etc. etc.) 12:43, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-132)‎ . . m Charles Baudelaire ‎ (Remove improper hatnote; see also Elizabeth Barrett Browning, etc. etc.) 12:42, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-126)‎ . . m Walt Whitman ‎ (Remove improper hatnote) (current) 12:42, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-161)‎ . . m Robert Browning ‎ (Remove improper hat note as in similar change by another editor at Elizabeth Barrett Browning) 12:40, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-94)‎ . . m Lord Byron ‎ (Move see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 12:36, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . m Samuel Taylor Coleridge ‎ (Move see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 12:35, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-101)‎ . . m William Wordsworth ‎ (Move see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 01:19, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-89)‎ . . m William Blake ‎ (Move see-also link from very top of page to more suitable location) 01:16, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-96)‎ . . m Percy Bysshe Shelley ‎ (Move see-also link from very top of page to more suitable location) 01:15, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-81)‎ . . m John Keats ‎ (Move see-also link to more suitable location (was at the very top of the page)) 01:13, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-92)‎ . . m Alexander Pushkin ‎ (Move see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 01:11, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-99)‎ . . m Matthew Arnold ‎ (Move see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 01:10, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-91)‎ . . Emily Dickinson ‎ (Move over-prominent see-also link from top of page to more suitable location) 01:07, 9 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-97)‎ . . Gerard Manley Hopkins ‎ (Move over-prominent link (added by the editor who wrote the linked-to page); moved to more appropriate place on page.) 12:49, 8 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-77)‎ . . W. B. Yeats ‎ (Move over-prominent link to summary page) 12:47, 8 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-83)‎ . . Elizabeth Bishop ‎ (Move over-prominent link to page with summary information) 18:16, 7 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-78)‎ . . W. H. Auden ‎ (Moving (away from top of page) over-prominent link to summary history page.)

    Further, User:Macspaunday apparently deliberately avoided using the "undo" tab to remove the link edits which I had placed (which would have been the easiest way to make removals) and which would have notified me automatically that the de-linking was serially and systematically taking place.

    Due to the sheer number of the edits made in this extended link vandalism done by User:Macspaunday, it does not appear that this could have been accidental or a mere oversight by that editor. Instead it looks to be the case that the link vandalism was intentional and done on the sly by being surreptitious (no notifications of any kind), also against WP:SNEAKY (sneak) vandalism policy under WP:Vandalism. The general policy of Wikipedia is for editors to collaborate with one another in order to help improve Wikipedia, rather than User:Macspauday approach of appointing himself as judge and jury, and then intentionally turning 2 articles into Orphan articles and hurting their usefulness and utility to Wikipedia over an extended period of time.

    I learned of this only by accident this last week-end when User:Macspaunday himself joined a GA review I had requested for the Auden page which had not been reviewed since 2009. In his trying to make an unrelated point, User:Macs inadvertently started to assert what looked like bragging rights about assigning himself as judge and jury over delinking any article which I wrote in order to satisfy his version of "road rage" or "edit rage", in effect seeming to state that he did the link vandalism and the WP:SNEAKY vandalism to intentionally turn my article into an Orphan article and compromise its use. I look forward to your comments and guidance. MusicAngels (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I had a look at the editing history of Macspaunday and as far as I can see, their edits were completely justified. They did not remove all links to the article that you wrote. You had improperly added hatnotes to a great many biographies of early 20th century poets. Macspaunday removed those and in several instances (perhaps even all, I did not check every single edit) moved the link to the appropriate section ("See also"). I also note that you apparently did not engage this editor on their talk page, whereas you improperly struck one of their comments at the GA review for the W.H. Auden article. I suggest that you read WP:BOOMERANG and try to engage Macspaunday in a constructive way before returning here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let the facts speak for themselves. I removed all the improper hat notes that I could find that linked to pages created by this editor; they had the effect of placing (on many long-established pages) a prominent link to pages of at least doubtful value. At least one such hat note had already been removed (I think on Elizabeth Barrett Browning) and I thought (and still think) it would be useful to Wikipedia to remove the others. There was certainly nothing secret about this, and at least one of the linked pages seems to be the subject of a separate dispute about its value to the project. I will be interested to learn if there was anything in my actions that was improper (as the removed hat notes certainly seem to have been improper). - Macspaunday (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:OmgWeegeetime

    OmgWeegeetime (talk · contribs) has certain strongly-held personal opinions concerning the legitimacy of the governments controlling the Korean peninsula, and has been systematically altering Korea-related articles in line with these opinions but against consensus. The alterations include:

    • changing references to "South Korea" to "Republic of Korea" (e.g., [87] [88] [89])
    • changing references to "DPRK" and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" to "North Korea" (e.g., [90] [91] [92])
    • renaming references to North Korean territories in line with the pre-1945 borders recognized only by the Republic of Korea (e.g., [93] [94] [95])

    He's continued this behaviour even after been warned five times by four different users ([96] [97] [98] [99] [100]). I suggest that the only thing likely to prevent further disruption is a block. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't be surprised if it's a sock of banned User:Badguyfallsinpoop or of previously blocked User:Mychicken4444. I suggest enjoining him from editing Korea-based articles, and blocking if he persists. This isn't the place for political activism. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks like User:OmgWeegeetime is a sockpuppet of User:Mychicken4444. Both users are obsessed with changing the country and political subdivision listed in the Panmunjom infobox, and both users have made identical edits to various articles: compare [101] and [102], for example. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As well as trying to blank this section, which I just reverted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's just blanked this section two more times, once replacing it with a personal attack. A swift block (and one for the sockmaster too) would be appreciated. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked OmgWeegeetime indef per WP:NOTHERE. Is there a SPI for the other editors? --NeilN talk to me 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No. I could create one if you'd like, but it would only repeat the evidence posted here. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Psychonaut, yes please. And ask for a checkuser to check for sleepers. --NeilN talk to me 18:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Psychonaut I messed up ping --NeilN talk to me 18:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant case of WP:OWN

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

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

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

    • I'm not an admin but I agree that is hardly civil and a totally inappropriate attitude. I'm looking over this user's other edits - this one is inappropriate as well, removing perfectly good sources and calling them "ridiculous." User appears to be an SPA who only edits WWII-related articles. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected for a week before somebody does something they regret (3RR). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @CambridgeBayWeather: Why would you page protect it so nobody can edit it ? The problem is one user's attitude and belittling of others. I at least left a notice reminding him to be civil. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While the edit summary on the first edit was inappropriate, WP:CITEVAR is relevant as there is no requirement to use citation templates in articles, and editors shouldn't edit war to introduce them.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because while nobody had got to 3RR it looked as if an edit war was breaking out. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @CambridgeBayWeather: That's not going to change anything as this is a WP:OWN situation. This editor has 200+ edits to this article and is not going to stop insisting on having the article be the way he wants it when the protection expires. It is not simply two editors having a disagreement, please look at this third editor discussing it here. This is problematic beyond this article. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If they start up reverting again after protection expires then it is easy enough to block them. However, blocking should notbe the first reaction and they should be given an opportunity to discuss. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dadisacoolman

    Blocked indef by NeilN. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dadisacoolman (talk · contribs) is a vandalism-only account. Blanking pages, creating hoax articles etc. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN talk to me 18:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion

    Can an uninvolved admin please block Special:Contributions/82.214.103.10 for block evasion. This is blocked user User:Asdisis as can be seen by this post: "Hello, this is Asdisis. I was blocked because I kept battling this user and his disruptive behavior".

    They picked up where they left off today: [103].

    I would normally do this myself but I am involved in a content dispute on the page. Chillum 18:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --NeilN talk to me 18:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. It seems there is another IP with the same writing style, in the same place, with the same point of view at Talk:Serbs of Croatia. They always show up one at a time right after the last one is blocked. I don't know if anyone feels like playing whack-a-mole today, it seems this person has more IPs than hobbies. This character showing up as different IPs pretending to be a new person making the same argument has been going on for months(since Asdisis got blocked), this talk page could use some loving attention from uninvolved admins. Chillum 19:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One more IP address: 65.49.14.165. FkpCascais (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You can add User:65.49.14.93 and User:65.49.14.164 as well. At this point the person is rapidly changing IPs and edit warring on the talk page. I think a semi-protection may be in order. Alternative suggestions are welcome. Chillum 21:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm pretty sure those IPs belong to a compromised proxy server (which is essentially an open proxy server). You may want to report it to WP:OP or someone can just range block 65.49.14.* and wait for the next proxy IP to appear. Sigh. - MrX 21:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Semied 1 week. --NeilN talk to me 22:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, if the range is not coming from an open proxy, I think there'd be too much collateral damage to block 65.49.14.0/24. --NeilN talk to me 22:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't, that's only 253 IP addresses. Mesher23 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't help much, but I'm off for now. Also Mesher23 is my puppet account so maybe you can clean the mess I created. I'm sorry but I was only trying something out. 89.164.192.64 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=677694979"