Back in 2013, I was involved with an unfortunately necessary effort to get Starship9000 blocked across Wikimedia properties. Recently, several IP addresses that appear related to each other have made vandalizing edits to both Starship9000's talk page and my own. I suspect the perpetrator may be Starship9000 himself. In any case, I'd like an extra set of eyes on this. Here are the involved IPs, some of whom have been recently blocked:

• 166.172.56.183
• 166.172.59.33
• 166.137.97.113
• 166.137.97.98
• 166.137.97.237
• 166.172.58.4

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewman327 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 November 2015‎

Yeah, I've been seeing this stuff. Can we protect the page, at least? GAB^Hello! 21:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I just filed an RPP with a link back to this thread. Andrew³²⁷ 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page semi-protected indefinitely. The IPs are too scattered for a rangeblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, I have blocked the individual IP addresses. Of course, the vandal may well just come up with a new IP address, but a study of the editing history of the IP ranges used suggests that individual users may have access only to a few IP addresses in the range, in which case blocking each one as it is used may at least significantly slow down the rate of vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. It's not a big deal now, but the original Starship9000 saga slowly escalated over time, so I wanted it on people's radar in case that happens again. Andrew³²⁷ 12:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewman327 I am deciding to abandon the Starship9000 account. I don't want to go back to the times where you made a request for it to be locked globally, myself being blocked for 1 year, blew my adaption exams, I mean youyou name it. I want to abandon that account. Go Pack Go --166.173.248.231 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I missing something here? Can someone bring me up to date? I blocked Starship in 2013 for 1 year. That block has expired. Is there some new block that is not in the logs? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, if the IPs are Starship's then a reblock should be considered for disruptive editing. Either way, I semi-protected their page to stop the disruption. It can be unprotected if Starship returns to productively edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So if he is not currently blocked, does anyone know why he is editing as 166.173.248.231 ? Is it because he intends to abandon the Starship account? In which case he should consider a Wikipedia:Clean start but only after reading what it entails very carefully. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how do you even know? I want to abandon it because I don't wanna go fucking back to the times where you like blocked me for 1 year, me being locked globally, me violating my unblock conditions, tagging articles, I mean you name it. I dot want to be blocked anymore and if I edit I don't know when. Please reply Kudpung. Ps: Fuck the Minnesota Vikings hope they lose to my (Starship9000) Packers. I don't care if packers are underdogs. --166.172.57.27 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have just gotten another sock post on this very page. GAB^Hello! 20:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, par for the course. In addition to a one-year ban on the English Wikipedia, Starship9000 engaged in vandalism on other projects, earning a global account lockout. See here for details. He appealed his lock here and was rejected. Check out my talk page history if you want to see reasons he should not be allowed back. I'm not sure how locks and blocks work together, but I believe he is currently unable to edit Wikipedia. Correct me if I'm wrong. Andrew³²⁷ 22:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curiouser and curiouser: On the global block requests page it is shown as done, but no indication if it is for three years or indef. The global block was enacted by Vituzzu who I have pinged to chime in here with an update on the status of the global block. In the meantime I suggest that due to the lack of maturity expressed in the above comment by 166.172.57.27 and its possible use as a sock or block evasion, it should be blocked. For the same reasons I suggest, pending a response from Vituzzu on the staus of the block(s), that the community consider blocking Starship and all his IP socks indefinitely, raising an an SPI and asking for a CU to look for sleepers, particularly in that IP range. Note: WP:BASC has now been disbanded, leaving WP:UTRS as the main venue for local unblock requests. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung he is locked indefinitely.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that Berean. It seems that the global blocking system is still under develpment. These needs to be a way of displaying such locks in the user's local block log. So based on this, I am blocking 166.172.57.27 for block evasion witrh the recommendation here that any further disruption or evasion should be met with a range block and a CU request for sleepers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lock prevents locked accounts from login and it has no automatic expiration to be set. So any lock as an indefinite length. If in the future you'll find any sufficient background for unblock don't hesitate to poke me, currently I don't see any. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, an easy way to check is to hover over his wiki-linked username, User:Starship9000 and if you have navigation popups enabled in your gadgets panel then you can see that he is locked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: a site ban for Joinopenaccess (talk · contribs) and any other editor representing OMICS Publishing Group -- mainly on grounds of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive, which shows long-term and on-going attempts to use sockpuppets for promotional purposes and to remove well-sourced negative content. In addition, implied legal threats e.g. here (with emphasis on alleged "defamatory" editing by other editors). This disruption has been going on for many years now -- see this section of the OMICS talk page, giving other sockpuppet cases, as well as the archive indicating the nature of the "participation" from representatives of the company. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nomoskedasticity is making a fair request. A sympathetic perspective of the other side is that seemingly, a series of staff have been hired by this company to promote it. The company seems to be in India. Perhaps they employ 1000 people - they say this. I expect that they are hiring educated academics. At the level of the individual, I have sympathy for the scholars who work for this academic publisher with good intentions. At the level of the company, OMICS actions seem to have little regard for Wikipedia volunteer time, and seems to not support the paid contributors who are being directed to make heartfelt pleas to Wikipedia.

Companies can change over time, but OMICS does not seem like they are here to make an encyclopedia. I have not seen evidence that staff of this organization wish to learn or consider Wikipedia community guidelines. They have an agenda. I cannot summarize all conversation because there are years of exchanges, but in brief - OMICS has not ever offered to give what Wikipedia requires in Wikipedia:Competence is required. I wish that OMICS could repeat back what has been told to them to demonstrate that they care about what they are being told. Maybe they have had 10+ staff engage Wikipedia - who knows. It is rough for volunteers to give this organization the time it requests, and they request a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (to be clear I did suggest this in the first place). They've been given many opportunities to contribute constructively but have repeatedly tried to deceptively manipulate the article and we have to draw a line somewhere and ban them from contributing here any further. Most recently, several editors have been arguing that they are listed in pubmed when as User:Randykitty has pointed out, only very few of their papers are included there due to the work being published by NIH funded authors rather than the whole journal being indexed. User:Goattender started advocating changes, but as I explained here and here it became obvious that they were also being paid to represent OMICS, despite not being related to the Scholarscentral group of socks (not that they edited again after I confronted them). It's gotten to the point where they cannot be trusted to even suggest changes and a ban would stop us wasting even more time. (Just in case anyone is wondering this source is the most recent RS, published in August, and confirms that the current article is still accurate). SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an unsavory company publishing very-low-quality academic journals and organizing equally low-quality conferences. Given the sources, our article is treating them lightly... The OMICS editors keep insisting that we include information about handwritten notes, make claims (like their journals being included in PubMed) that are demonstrably incorrect, etc. Just as in real life they don't seem to be interested in delivering quality products, they don't seem to be here to produce a good encyclopedia either. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, after having seen the sockpuppet investigation of Scholarscentral, the continuous unjustified de-defamatory edit( request)s on OMICS Publishing Group, and a quick verification in the NLM catalogue. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as there is only so much good faith you can give before you've run out of patience. Seeing the sockpuppet case, this is a no-brainier at this point. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support re assume good faith. If this is areputable company acting in good faith then they are incompetent. If they are not then we don't want them any way. Op47 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If the behaviour of Joinopenaccess is indicative of the behaviour of representatives of OMIC group, then a site ban is definitely due. Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The master account User:Scholarscentral is already de facto banned with a long history of spamming/whitewashing OMICS articles, sockpuppetry and copyright violations, but a ban on any editing on behalf of this company is needed to prevent proxying as was threatened here by a recent sock. January (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is an unacceptable move, i never edited the main article OMICS Publishing Group, I Only kept comments and asking permission to do editing at talk page. My question is why few editors are interested in this article from last three years. Any way I respect the decision of editors and administrators. Joinopenaccess (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: After looking at some the relevant talk discussions and that massive sequences of SPIs, I have nothing but sympathy for the editors who have had to wrestle with this company over the years. That being said, I have serious misgivings about the solution being suggested here and question whether a handful of editors on ANI are empowered to employ a sanction of this scope against an ambiguously-defined and potential large class of contributors. It's possible I am unaware of a relevant instance, but to the best of my knowledge, a siteban has never been instituted against all editors, present or future, associated with a given organization. That's a huge leap from the normal processes accepted under community consensus and any such move would require extensive and broad discussion in the community at large, especially when there are other more conventional oversight/administrative procedures which have not even been discussed as yet; for example, why was this exceptional action been deemed the best approach before the notion of taking the matter to ArbCom, which is ideally situated to deal with this manner of issue?

As a matter of longstanding and overwhelming consensus, editors are generally treated as individuals and their actions accordingly judged on an independent basis rather than by the company they keep or the associations they have, on or off the project. What would happen if, for example, the company hired a non-SPA, experienced editor to try to rehabilitate their image here within the framework of policy? This sanction would have such a user mechanistically site-banned, regardless of whether they knew about this ruling going in. For that matter, its not outside the realm of possibility that the company might send some of its employees here as SPAs and that one or more of them might make an honest study of WP's protocols and work within them. Regardless of whether or not that is likely, this proposed ban would judge and ban those individuals before their first contribution to the project, an action that is manifestly against some of Wikipedia's most deeply-held and critical open-collaboration principles. For the present time, paid editing is not cause for censure. Nor is the conduct of editors judged solely on the basis of the the span of topics they edit upon or their reasons for choosing them, even be they closely related to said topics. I understand the frustration of the above editors and others who have had to reign in what seems unquestionably to be a dodgy company here to manipulate process to its own ends--believe me, I've been there with regard to such editors. But I just don't see how a solution such as that proposed above is within the purview of a handful of editors on a noticeboard to institute, in seeming defiance of some of this community's most extensive and important consensus, especially prior to pursuing all available conventional administrative channels. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. English3023523 appears to be another OMICS spa. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The post from Snow-Rise is unfortunate. No one is proposing to be unreasonable here. If someone from OMICS decides to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly, then we can discuss rescinding the ban. To object to a ban because such a thing is possible is entirely beside the point -- because years of experience have shown that this is not what we should expect. The behaviour we have seen is the behaviour we should expect. It's thoroughly disruptive, and we should use the tools we have to deal with it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound contrarian here, but I think it's indicative of a profound confusion about how consensus building proceeds on this project that you would describe another editor raising their concerns as "unfortunate", especially when we are talking about the possibility of making a huge departure from pre-exisiting policy and process regarding community sanctions. Either those concerns are superfluous, in which case they can be easily addressed or else they are well-founded in policy and community consensus, in which case it is manifestly a good thing that I have raised them. But it is in no event "unfortunate" that an editor chooses to provide their perspective, except for those instances in which comments are made with intention of offense or otherwise in bad faith.

So let's review those concerns, none of which you substanaitvely responded to, and consider your own assertions, and see which is consistent with our community standards and practically beneficial in this context. You say that "we should use the tools we have to deal with [the disruption]". But if you review my comments, you'll see that one of my principal points is that we (meaning the handful of editors who happen to be engaged on this one thread on ANI) do not "have" such "tools", in that this would be an entirely novel sanction, without precedent and extending well beyond existing community consensus on the scope of sanctions and the conditions under which they are to be applied. And all of this before actual existing tools and processes have been substantially explored, not the least of which is ArbCom; and frankly I can't remember the last time I saw a case that was better suited for ArbCom, which is the one collection of users who actually are empowered by the community to extend sanctions in the manner being proposed. Implementing such a decision independent of existing conflict resolution guidelines would require much broader community discussion if we ever expected the administrative corps to enforce it. Frankly, I think it's highly unlikely that any experienced admin would effect the action being proposed here, no matter the proportion of "support" votes, exactly because of how obvious it is that this "solution" would only complicate matters further. But let's presume for a moment that one would; I can almost guarantee that the first time a user is blocked for suspected association with OMICS, even though they have not violated an existing policy, there will be at least one admin (indeed, almost assuredly a great many) who will unblock them on the basis that they actually haven't done anything wrong under existing policy and community consensus. So if you were to prevail here, all you would accomplish is to drag more admins and more users into the contention surrounding this topic, amping up the disruption to the n-th degree.

But let's even put all of that aside for a moment. Let's consider if this solution you are proposing is even in any sense workable in practice, because I can't see how it could be. For our actual and existing policies on community sanctions we have methods for establishing when a user has engaged in disruptive behaviour. If a user has violated one of our behavioural or content policies, we provide diffs to show where this misconduct took place. If a user is suspected of socking, we have checkuser and other technical tools to investigate the matter. And note that the standard for evidence in imposing sanctions in these cases is, by design fairly high. If the "misconduct" you suspect is that a given editor is associated with OMICS, how are you going to prove that? Will you just move to have every relatively new user who edits the article to reflect a positive view of the topic banned as a presumed agent of the company? You don't see it as problematic to have "the suspicion of involved editors" be the standard of proof for this new class of misconduct you would have us create here, on an ad-hoc basis applicable only this namespace? And again, you expect this to decrease disruption on the target page, even though it would certainly lead to a constant block/unblock cycle with accompanying AN/ANI discussions and who knows what other kind of voluminous community discussion on the appropriateness of these actions within the framework of our existing policies? And if this company is really determined on side-stepping policy, making a statement by banning their overt involvement isn't going to stop them; it's just going to stop them from ever having their employees reveal their association with the company when operating here, making it more difficult to track their efforts with regard to the article and leading to yet more argument on trying to determine whose actions constitute evidence for a block. How is that an improvement on the current situation? I just don't think you've thought this approach through.

And all of the above can be weighed without considering the broader questions of whether the proposed action is consistent with our principles of open collaboration and never judging them on the basis of who they are but rather solely on the nature of their contributions to the project. Those issues are of massive importance, and entire discussion and of themselves. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A ban should make it easier to avoid the need to repeat obvious stuff on the talk page, and easier to block editors who mention words like "defamatory". According to the article, OMICS are seeking $1 billion in damages from a critic, so it is unlikely they will ever understand Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I find a lot of troubling editing and troubling content on OMICS Publishing Group. However, some of it has been done by the proposer of this site ban, Nomoskedasticity. The wording in the lede that he has been supporting has discarded all semblance of reasonableness and the type of content that a lede would normally contain. A lede should summarise the article's content. "The United States government have questioned the validity..." we are told boldly in the lede. Yet nothing in the content backs up such a claim. What we actually have is a trademark violation complaint by the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of the National Institutes of Health [1]. That is not the "United States government"! Yet not only is Nomoskedasticity insisting this wording is correct, he is claiming here that an objection to this obviously faulty wording amounts to an "implied legal threat". A lede would normally state what the article is about, then some undisputed facts, then what the subject of the article says it is about, and then third party opinions about that subject. But the current lede mixes everything up, mixing facts with opinions. The article is full of vague "it has been suggested" and "some observers" wording, and appears to be solely intent on piling up as much criticism of OMICS as it can find, regardless of the quality of that criticism. Any site ban for representatives of OMICS should be accompanied by an article ban for Nomoskedasticity. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are suggesting misbehaviour on my part, I think you'll need to provide diffs for the assertions you make about the editing of the article itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here [[2]] is a revert that restored the "United States government" wording, and that went back to a version created by you. The edit [3] which was cited by you at the start to be an "implied legal threat" specifically complains about that wording. Here you inserted an opinion into the lede, and presented it as if it were a fact: [[4]]. You have done this many times - here is an identical revert done some months earlier [5]. You did not originate that content, but by reverting you are taking ownership of the content you restore. This was the edit that did originate it [6]. Despite this content being added by an anonymous editor, and its content going completely against Wikipedia norms, multiple editors allowed that unsatisfactory wording to remain for almost a year and some repeatedly restored it when it was removed (including Randykitty [7], [8] and Joel B. Lewis [9]). This, to me, raises questions regarding their ability to edit this article impartially. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly content to have others assess whether that edit constitutes misconduct on my part. Thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then extend the same courtesy to others. You are wanting editors site blocked for misconduct they have not done but MIGHT do. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And who is to decide who is "representing OMICS Publishing Group", and how are they to decide it? What does "representing" mean? Why propose something that is impossible to enforce correctly? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is impossible to enforce such a blanket ban since it is impossible to know who is "representing OMICS Publishing Group" other than by using evidence from an editor's actual edits. If such edits are at fault, there are already plenty of Wikipedia procedures in existence to deal with such problems. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would some of the supporters of this proposal answer my points made above. How exactly do they envisage this site ban being enforced? Can they cite any past examples of such a ban proposal being accepted as an appropriate solution? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: By their very nature bans are to some extent unenforcebale because a banned user can create a new account. It's a matter of whether the community is happy to continue the cycle of socks and paid editors complaining about the article or draw a line in the sand and say that we've had enough. There have been at least 3 unrelated groups representing OMICS in the last few months. It's not exactly the same, but there is a precedent in the banning of scientology back in 2009. As with that case the decision to block would be reliant on behaviour - it's not hard to spot them. SmartSE (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the point though--if someone is socking, then they can (and should) be blocked for that. It's an action which the community broadly recognizes as inherently disruptive and, in contrast to most other kinds of disruptive behaviour, we generally don't even give warnings before banning in cases of socks. However, paid editing is not a blockable offense; this is a clear and unambiguous matter of consensus arrived at after considerable debate amongst the community and the WMF. So users cannot just be automatically banned for their association with a company. They can face sanctions, as individuals, if they operate in a disruptive fashion because of the fact that they are paid to contribute here, but that cannot be blocked for that reason alone.

Notice that this distinction is completely consistent with the ArbCom scientology case you referenced; the Arbs in that case blocked specific accounts for specific disruptive activities. They did not suggest that all people associated with the church of scientology had become persona non grata on Wikipedia and would be blocked upon discovery, which is what is being considered here, so that case clearly does not present precedent in the sense of validating the overreaching solution that some editors have asked for here. There is the possibility of range-blocking the offices of OMICS as was done in the scientology case. Perhaps that's an intermediate solution that those who are most vexed with OMICS would consider beneficial. However, that action is in itself extraordinary and would need to be validated by ArbCom rather than us, the random collection of editors who happen to be presently contributing thoughts to an ANI thread. Still, it's a notion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Related note: an AfD has been created about the OMICS Publishing Group, apparently in response to an OTRS by the subject. LjL (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above-mentioned user criticized my conflict on Irvington, New York, and then began hounding me on issues of my conflicts of interest (see his talk and COIN). His recent tricks include editing Wikipedia's policies, directly, with very little discussion, and then telling me I'm not following those policies he just created. He's also making up his own interpretation of the Terms of Use to mean that every single edit I make to any talk page, main page, or sandbox should include that I'm an editor with a COI and that I should link my disclosure. That's ridiculous, something no COI editor has ever done or should ever have to do. They should only need to disclose it on their userpage, once on the COI article's talk page and whenever editing the COI article directly (discouraged). He's also been changing the rules to ban putting your disclosure on a subpage of your userspace, something I saw no problem with, as long as it's well linked. Please help me out here. Please address his hounding as well, I feel he should be penalized for that as the policy suggests, his harassment of me over all my work is overbearing and simply awful. Thank you.

My work isn't perfect, if you want to bring that up here, go ahead. It's impossible to cross every 't' and thus Widefox has pointed out a few places where I could do better in being a COI editor. Please note that I'm still very new to this, as bound to make mistakes as a first-year prep cook. However note that I've been involved on Wikipedia for a relatively long time. I've gotten to know most rules, except maybe not as many as others of similar age; I try to stick with content creation. I like writing Good Articles, and I'm honestly very proud to have written two FAs. That's where my enjoyment in Wikipedia stems from, not these tendentious discussions or editing under conflicts of interest. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved in any article or dispute, and initially just warned both edit warring parties.

The accusation of hounding was made here User_talk:Widefox#Your recent edits and was challenged to provide evidence three times, even pointing out that it can't be hounding per my "concerns over your editing" in WP:DWH. Just now another editor said to remove that warning from Ɱ as unfounded [14].

Ɱ should be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG of paid editing disclosure. Summary at WP:COIN#Ɱ - it would be much simpler if User:Ɱ just disclosed per the WP:TOU, as laid out in the best practice WP:PAID#How to disclose (and links).

Latest summary is [15] at WP:COIN#Ɱ (where yes I even state that as I've emergency edited the policy to make it comply with the ToU, I'm quoting other editors about Ɱ's compliance level, not mine - which is characterised by other editors - as outrageous to hide it.)

Background is the with need to disclose "all contributions" (we are only talking about paid editing) "any paid contributions" per ToU Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:COI declaration (Ɱ's misguided use of this outdated essay is helping us prevent others be misguided by it - by deleting it), Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Disclosure contradiction, WP:COI#Paid editors (history of WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY, specifically [16]), Template_talk:Connected_contributor_(paid)#Drafts etc,.

There's agreement from others (will ping them only if needed) to ensure WP:PAID complies with ToU with no dissent, and scrutiny of several creators/admins/other editors (see those talk pages).

In summary, yes the policy is more explicit, but [17] summarises what others say about Ɱ's old (and current) collapsed (hidden) disclosure. Widefox; talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a more cohesive answer; it's very hard for me to follow. The evidence that you are hounding me is simple. Look at the edit history for my talk page. Look through all of it; I removed most due to your illegal harassment over my work. You first criticized my handling of the Irvington issues, and then went on to criticize my handling of my COI articles. That is hounding. Read the definition, especially at the bottom where it says it could lead to blocks. The editor who called it 'unfounded' had no involvement in any of these issues, was not directed to where the discussions were taking place, and simply was stating my warning to not include details backing it up. Also don't tell me to follow rules you and one or two other editors decided and published yesterday or the day before. It's not right. There are dozens if not hundreds of COI editors. Hound them for not following your new PAID rules too. Yet I object; edits to policies should only be made after a sincere and concise proposal is made, discussed, and voted on with a strong turnout of editors. Even if all of that doesn't happen, at least some of that should in order for a fair and agreeable consensus to be met. Yet none of that has happened here. I am disgusted by your wording "emergency edited the policy". That should be ban-able behavior. The policy WP:POLICY backs me up on all of this, especially WP:PGLIFE. Cease and desist.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It would be appreciated if there was a bit more clarity about the problem. The COI issue was raised at WP:COIN with regard to edits by User:Ɱ to Interactive Brokers, an article which read too much like a brochure. I removed some promotional material (a list of features) from that article, added some material about some litigation, and considered the problem solved.[18] That was four days ago, no one has objected to those edits, and that does not seem to be the issue. Over at Irvington, New York, there's been some edit warring there over bold text vs. headings between Ɱ and Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs).[19] Widefox has only one recent edit to that article, and it's trivial.[20]. Ɱ is drafting a paid article about some musician in a sandbox, but that only becomes a COI problem if they try to publish it. There's lots of argument on various talk and noticeboard pages, but few diffs. I've been reading notice boards and talk page histories for ten minutes and still can't figure out the underlying issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagle: I can clarify. The original list of features was in the article long before I started editing the draft. I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable. You're incorrect, I had objected to those edits similar to how I am now. I'd like to reiterate that the Irvington conflict was not 'edit warring'; I explained this in great depth to Widefox on my talk page. Widefox was involved in the Irvington issue on the Irvington page, as well as on Beyond My Ken's talk and my talk. He was pretty thorough in scolding how I handled the conflict, and went on to criticize my COI work, also in great depth. I honestly won't be surprised if he starts to criticize some of my volunteer article writing here too. I haven't been providing diffs because most of this is talk page discussion, most of which is still live on the talk pages; therefore it should all be follow-able. Also most discussion has involved several edits making up one reply, so it's much easier to direct you to the relevant pages (here, COIN, my talk, Widefox's talk, and WP:PAID (Widefox, am I missing some?)). ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 07:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of my comment got lost here; I'm going to restore the comments on my talk page for everyone's ease of access for assessment. I removed them (within user rights) previously due to harassment; they consisted of Widefox's repeated criticism of several different works of mine. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 07:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ɱ, I repeat John Nagle's comment - what's the actual hounding. Do you have any evidence at all - diffs? I've asked that 3 or 4 times on my talk and I'm still waiting an answer, days went past and another editor said to remove your unfounded hounding accusation. Ɱ, further you still haven't answered that as this is just my "concerns over your editing" per WP:DWH, so it is not hounding. (John Nagle - just to inform you, the ToU state that "all paid contributions" must be disclosed, not just articles.)

Nobody has edited the ToU, hardly "tricks". But, a paid editing disclosure that isn't visible (hidden in a collapsed at User:Ɱ) is exactly that - WP:LAWYERING. Other editors agree that disclosure is unacceptable. So far, I've resisted a call to take Ɱ to ANI over this [21].

"illegal harassment" really should not be used above [22] per WP:LEGAL. I'm increasingly concerned that User:Ɱ has attempted to contact me offwiki - I've asked what for and don't have an answer. What for Ɱ? Now there's legal accusations. I'm just a volunteer, and Ɱ should not hide their paid editing disclosure on their user page. It's that simple. My concern over Ɱ's editing is not a LEGAL issue per WP:LEGAL#Conflict_of_interest. Attempts to get me "banned" are just that - all heat and no light.

Do I have to put up with this [23] ? That is specifically WP:LEGAL combined with unspecified offwiki communication [24]. Please can this be addressed as it now sits uncomfortably with me. Widefox; talk 08:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "contact me offwiki"? Is there a specific comment that makes you believe Ɱ attempted something offwiki? If so, please link to the section and quote some text to allow it to be found. Re Ɱ's "illegal harassment" remark above: that is probably just clumsy English. The claim appears to be that Widefox harassed Ɱ, and harassment is not permitted = against the rules = illegal (incorrect terminology). I don't see any evidence to support the claim of harassment other than the sweeping claim that inspecting the history of User talk:Ɱ will reveal all. That history shows Widefox posted 15 times on the page in just under 24 hours, starting on 6 November 2015, and with no other edits in the last year. It is hard to see how that isolated burst of activity could be regarded as harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Johnuniq Ɱ did attempt offwiki communication - email. I don't know what for - I asked "You tried to contact me offwiki - why?" [25], Ɱ refers to the offwiki attempt here "how is 'attempted off-wiki communication' not allowed?..." [26]. Widefox; talk 09:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again I repeat: "Widefox was involved in the Irvington issue on the Irvington page, as well as on Beyond My Ken's talk and my talk. He was pretty thorough in scolding how I handled the conflict, and went on to criticize my COI work, also in great depth." These aren't normal concerns over my editing. Right after getting into a confrontation with me, you specifically looked through my work, found I was a COI editor, and proceeded to attempt to have me conform to your wishes, with you going so far as to write policies to accuse me of not following. "Illegal" is a word that means "not legal" or "not following legislation"; "not following the rules". Therefore harassment is illegal here on Wikipedia. I did give you an answer about trying to contact you off-wiki. I'd like to sort things out, and better methods of communication usually help. There is nothing against me doing that, so stop pretending there is. You've made an issue of that as if I'm breaking some terrible law a few times now. As for "hiding my paid editing disclosure"; for so long, any user could so easily find it on my talk page, so prominently linked. Nobody's ever had a problem with that. Now I've got it on my signature and main userpage. When is enough enough? Would you like me to bold, italicize, and highlight it in red in font size 80 at the very top of my userpage? Johnuniq - as I said, read my (now restored) talk page. After he criticized me for Irvington, he's now WP:HOUNDING me over the COI pages and my disclosure. I feel harrassed. There's no written textual or other evidence to that, unless you'd like to read my thoughts of "I really want to quit this whole project, I try really hard to do good solid work and this user keeps 'assaulting' me with different policies, guidelines, essays, and even the ToU that I'm apparently breaking. I'm sick of this". Please read the details of hounding. Such pursual of criticizing me and my work is a bannable offense. It's written right there, why can't anybody follow Wikipedia's rules and at least look into Widefox's widespread accusations? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 09:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias (talk · contribs) stated "As you have accepted, you [Widefox] have been instrumental in recent changes at WP:PAID, to tighten the guideline, and Ɱ does appear to fall short of the current text. However, as that has only been in place for a day or two, and by your own admission (here), "we've got limited consensus here", I think it is over the top to expect Ɱ to have been adhering to those guidelines, particularly as you are referring to events that occured before you even changed them." "until your edits to it on 6 November, after the start of this discussion, it was not explicit that it [the COI disclosure] must be visible". Please read through these statements. Don't tell me to follow rules you and one or two other editors decided and published yesterday or the day before. It's not right. There are dozens if not hundreds of COI editors. Hound them for not following your new PAID rules too. Yet I object; edits to policies should only be made after a sincere and concise proposal is made, discussed, and voted on with a strong turnout of editors. Even if all of that doesn't happen, at least some of that should in order for a fair and agreeable consensus to be met. Yet none of that has happened here. I am disgusted by your wording "emergency edited the policy". That should be ban-able behavior. The policy WP:POLICY backs me up on all of this, especially WP:PGLIFE. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 09:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I am very busy right now in real life. I'll have limited replies here over the next day or two.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 09:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has edited the ToU. Why all this heat, when you can just fix your hidden disclosure on your userpage? I'm waiting for an answer from Harrias (talk · contribs) "it was not explicit that it must be visible" - factually correct yes, do you really believe an invisible disclosure is OK? Want to get another opinion on that LAWYERING?! [27] . As you bring it up here, that's waiting for a reply from Harrias. Widefox; talk 10:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) What's waiting for a reply. Never stated you edited it. Don't want to, and I should have the right not to. And yes, having a drop-down (in your words, "invisible" (huh?)) should be just fine! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We go by consensus here - what have other editors said about your hidden disclosure? This is WP:BOOMERANG as nobody agrees with you that this is harassment, and everyone who's commented agrees your hidden disclosure is not acceptable and should be fixed. You were unwise to bring here, rather than the slower pace of COIN. Widefox; talk 10:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I count zero uninvolved editors here who are telling me to remove the drop-down. I count zero uninvolved editors who have even looked into this hounding issue in depth, as you keep steering away from it. What all of this shows me is this conversation still needs an abundance of third parties before we go around declaring who should change what. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point, this is an administrator's noticeboard and yet not one administrator has commented yet. Hold your horses.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Indignant walls of text are very hard to follow. To show harassment, just post a couple of diffs. I don't know where the comment by Harrias occurred so I can't see the context, but taking a wild guess, the comment appears to miss the fact that the Terms of Use are not something written on a page at enwiki, and certainly were not written by Widefox, nor were they written a day or two ago. As a rule of thumb, someone with a COI who has complied with the letter and spirit of the ToU would post a very short note saying the information is clearly on their user page, so there is no problem. Did that occur? Was there any (claimed) harassment after that? Or, is the situation that compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step, where each step required significant comment by others? Please stop talking about "illegal"—one of the very few places that term arises in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is at WP:NLT which says that editors who hint they may pursue legal action against another editor are indefinitely blocked (people take legal action because they believe something "illegal" has happened).

Re the comment by Widefox at 09:50, 12 November 2015 above: Ɱ is obviously correct that the "email this user" function may be used (if each party has enabled email); if "contact me offwiki" means you received an email sent by that function, I fail to see the problem because responding to it is entirely voluntary. Please don't use code words suggesting some nefarious activity if what you are talking about is "email this user". Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the terms of use actually say is:

"You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."

I have statements on the talk pages accompanying. That appeases (for lack of a better word this late) the Terms of Use. So my user page statement (and signature link) is a bonus, a goodwill effort on my part to tell users of my affiliations. I could blank all of my userspace right now and still be okay under the Terms of Use. I don't think Widefox or Johnuniq got this earlier, so I hope this explanation helps. Wikipedia's policies should not have been adjusted any stricter than the above statement. Widefox is out of line.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 10:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second what Johnuniq said. Please provide diffs that show Widefox has committed "illegal harassment." —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Diff 1 (of Widefox warning me for "edit warring"). Diff 2 (him starting a discussion on my "edit warring"). Diff 3 (me informing him I wasn't edit warring). Diff 4 (him further reprimanding my "wrongdoing"). Diff 5 (him completely changing topics, after seeing my COI disclosure wasn't on my main userpage). Diff 6 (me telling him this unprovoked and unrelated criticism is unnacceptable per WP:HOUNDING). Then the conversations went on, on that talk page. And spread to the above-mentioned pages, to here.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 11:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he added tags to these three pages that I believe constitutes hounding. It's also a completely inappropriate use of the tag, as he put them all on the articles immediately as a notice that I'm involved (even though I already 'tagged' the article talk pages) and never even critiqued their content once. He was simply putting a marker on the articles I contributed to, which reminds me of the barbaric historical marking to indicate a lesser entity, as was done to several groups in the 1930s and 40s.--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 11:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq yes technically, but just because I had left my email on accidentally (to get library permissions) doesn't mean I'm inviting COIs to email me. I choose not to interact offwiki - e.g. would you want this COI [28] in your email? I'm still waiting for Ɱ to say what they wanted to say offwiki. And yes, it is "compliance with the ToU was completed only small step by small step" - moving the disclosure to the userpage - but it was still collapsed (I see only after ANI it had been unhidden), initially stating drafts weren't covered and then in protest disclosing them on the draft talk (while still stating it wasn't needed). ToU is clear "all paid contributions". I double checked with others and they agreed it covers drafts. Ɱ has consistently tried to close down discussion of their disclosure. Part of that is reasonable, certainly the timeframe is, and our wording was a mess which needed emergency repair as it was weaker than the ToU (which we are not allowed to do). I fixed that in passing. Ɱ was following an outdated essay. I MfDd that. At all places I've pinged the authors etc. This can all be handled at COIN, rather than here. I've consistently said I consider Ɱ good faith. In fact, I felt for Ɱ in the initial edit warring, but treated both parties equally. I welcome scrutiny as I am proud of fixing these things, but have only done them in passing as they fell short of the ToU. The ToU is clear. Is an hidden (collapsed) disclosure allowed by the ToU? There's agreement that it must be visible, and that should be explicit in our guidance. Ɱ brought this here, before doing that, and didn't reply to my request to provide harassment evidence until ANI.

Note that Ɱ's disclosure can't be seen in the history of User:Ɱ as the disclosure is still not on the user page, it is in User:Ɱ/u (and conditionally displayed at the user page depending on date or something from looking at the code). I hadn't even realised this until now - technically it isn't "a statement on your user page," more like "a statement that may (or may not) be displayed on the user page Ɱ". (or ‎Widefox; talk 12:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with Widefox leaving you the edit warring warning, and then trying to explain it to you. Reverting someone twice indicates you are in an edit war. Some people do not know of the 3RR rule and a template warning is perfectly appropriate. I fail to see any hounding or harassment. Often if you see suspected problematic behavior from an editor, further problematic behavior is discovered when you take a look at the account. If Widefox looked at your account and saw something he felt violated guidelines, that does not qualify as wikihounding. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and I used the correct edit war template rather than 3RR template (and explain that difference Diff 4 adding "the incivility on the other edit war party is unacceptable but that's not for your page"). Checking a COI while seeing problematic editing is due diligence in my book. Ɱ - did you even read how none of this is harassment per WP:DWH "civil and appropriate" like I've told you several times? Widefox; talk 13:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The COI tags on 3 articles are easily explained - I was concerned about them, but the amount of volunteer time it's taken to get Ɱ disclose meant that I didn't get back to those articles! The COI tags were removed within minutes [29] and I wasn't going to edit war over them...the next edit User:Nagle [30] added advert tag, so hardly controvercial. Scrutiny was good. COI editing here was promotional, and I'm finding reaction to that normal message agressive. Fix the issues, not complain about the messenger! COIs are allowed to remove the tag, but they really should refrain from directly editing articles when uninvolved editors object. Nagle's cleanup was objected to, so this borders WP:OWN. Widefox; talk 15:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Respectfully, I'll wait for an administrator to tell me you were within rights at such investigation and inquisition. It's too unreasonable; I still haven't even fully resolved the Irvington issue, nonetheless all of this! Widefox, if you're still waiting for me to tell you what I wanted to say off-wiki, then it's pretty clear you're ignoring my comments. I stated it twice already, I'm sick of explaining myself over and over. The Terms of Use describing contributions only pertains to the mainspace, the live area that readers will see. Anything else would be ridiculous and unnecessary. However you disagree and already enacted on that, but seriously, a formal discussion and vote must be made. You cannot serve as sole arbitrator here. Stop calling my work promotional, I didn't even add the products section. I hardly touched it. Some neutral editor probably thought it was a good idea and I'm not a deletionist, I'll respect that editor's decision. Look at the article's history, it's existed in some form since 2006, long before I even started editing. People were okay with it for almost 10 years. Also, the idea of my COI disclosure not being on my userpage is garbage, sorry. I use a mirror so vandals don't edit my userpage. Common practice. The text always is the same, "a mirror never lies". The content may not be in the edit window, but it's on the userpage for all to see. I'm so sick of you trying all these loopholes and workarounds on me. Though your language is civil enough that everyone else has overlooked it, your bugging me over every issue, your twisting of policies and manipulation of a few select editors to seeing your vantage point; it's all far too overbearing. Even if an administrator thinks it wasn't hounding before, they really should know it is now. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the edit warring at Irvington, New York is over a formatting issue of bolding vs. a subhead.[31]. This is petty. Please drop the stick. Someone else will clean it up if necessary. As for Interactive Brokers, Ɱ writes above "I'm talking with a friend at IB who may be able to better explain why the products are important to note, and why the litigation is minor and unnotable". So after the admitted paid editor consults with the people who pay him, he can put an edit request on the talk page. Is there anything else? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes John, I'd like to see this action:

1. consensus (and wording) is ToU covers "all paid contributions". Ɱ's claim above "only pertains to the mainspace" is against consensus. This issue will not go away as it is a legal requirement to edit on WP. (excuse bold, but this is bold if ever there is a use of bold!) Ɱ's statement above attempts to diminish the scope of the ToU (which we are not legally allowed to do), and indicates that Ɱ doesn't feel bound by the ToU or consensus. As such a normal escalation process should start when going against consensus or refusing to abide by the ToU until agreeing to comply with both. (we are seeing this WP:IDHT with several paid editors, and warning templates are currently being written). Per WP:PAYTALK this is disruption, so:

1.1 suggest L3 or L4 warning to be given to Ɱ for disruption (not including wasting everyone's time here over a bogus ANI) and refusal to be bound by full terms of ToU. If not agreeing to fully comply with ToU within a reasonable time, suggest next stage would be 24 hr block etc. I do not rule out an initial 24 hr block due to simply stating they don't feel bound by the legal terms of ToU (which must at some point be enforced by volunteers, then WMF).

2. The userpage User:Ɱ does not have a disclosure on it. Fact. Userpage was last editing 8 March 2015. There is a disclosure on User:Ɱ/u which is sometimes (but not necessarily always) programmatically displayed when viewing that userpage (no popups, no history, no indexing, with the right browser, and other limitations and dependencies such as the right date/other files?!). Ɱ has no disclosure on their user page

2.1 The ToU states one on any of three places so as long as there's disclosure on "all paid contribution" talk pages, that isn't a problem per the ToU. However, best practice (policy/guideline) states to additionally put a disclosure "on" the "main user page". Suggest holding Ɱ to best practice, in a reasonable timeframe (not urgent).

3. Agree with John Nagle suggestion, Ɱ abides by COI best practice - does not directly edit articles with a COI, and uses (paid) COI edit requests. Widefox; talk 11:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these three (five) points requires administrator action. I think this can be closed at ANI now: Widefox is pursuing a COI issue, and there is a relevant thread at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Widefox's actions, while dedicated, don't cross the line. Ɱ has made clear efforts to adhere to COI requirements, though there are some areas in which things have not been as clear as they should, but I don't believe a block is warranted. Harrias ^talk 11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, WP:PAYTALK does require admin action IMHO. This is a hundreds of lines of PAYTALK (multiple venues), and we are specifically not meant to do this, and I'd like to see a warning for disruption be given before thread is closed, else due to the legal implications above, I will feel obliged to start a new ANI thread, and I'd really like to get off ANI. Widefox; talk 11:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings do not have to be given by administrators. Nevertheless, can you provide diffs for the PAYTALK issues; I would suggest doing so under a subheading of this thread for clarity, and ease of reading! Harrias ^talk 11:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will do. (Also, the ToU enforcement, unless I'm mistaken is a new responsibility for volunteers (admins, non-admins). WMF is not policing unless escalated to. My logic is - if someone is explicitly stating at ANI that they are not bound by the letter and spirit of the ToU despite consensus at multiple locations, then what is the suggested escalation path? A procedural issue due to it already being here at ANI (rather than being at the right place of COIN) Widefox; talk 12:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I could argue so many points here. Harrias and Widefox are wrong in so many ways. I'm tired of addressing them. If another editor or administrator wants to address faults in the above statements, feel free. Apparently I'm not violating any guidelines or policies, so I'd like Widefox and Harrias to stop any accusations. I would like an administrator to step in. Regardless of the wording at WP:HOUNDING that editors like Widefox can always weasel their way around, as Louis CK was known to say: "When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't." I would also like recent edits to WP:PAID reverted as they lack widespread consensus, which is essential. See WP:PGBOLD. Not a single COI editor was involved in these decisions, making the discussion rather one-sided (not consensus). ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 08:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:IDHT / WP:PAYTALK with the ToU scope, and not having any disclosure on your userpage (it is on a subpage) is not best practice. Consensus about this was over a week ago. When requesting changes to WP:PAID be aware that per WP:COI (and now WP:PAID) you should disclose your COI / paid COI respectively. This WP:PAYTALK just goes on. As for providing diffs, the discussions are linked above and at COIN. I will post the many diffs... Widefox; talk 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your insertion of links everywhere in the above message is muddling your meaning. Regardless "best practice" sounds like an opinion-based statement. I will follow policies and guidelines, I will not follow what a random collective of editors wants to impose upon me without clear consensus and without establishing a formal, written rule. Written rules were historically established so people would be able to know when they are and are not following them, and what the punishment is for not following them. An unwritten rule like a "best practice" does not have that given. Thus, if you want to change things, request edits to policies and guidelines through the proper channels. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disruptive editing: WP:PAYTALK.
• WP:PAID has been editted by the paid COI editor User:Ɱ without disclosure in the edit or talk [32]. It was undone by another editor. This is against WP:COI and WP:PAID (and possibly WP:TOU). Widefox; talk 13:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. As I disclose in my disclosure I am only paid to write the article on Shiner and improve the IB articles and Thomas Peterffy's. My edits anywhere else are as a volunteer, and thus have absolutely no relevance to WP:COI or WP:PAID, and do not need a COI disclosure!--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People who have a financial interest in a policy or guideline should not be editing that guideline ever. To do so without noting they have a financial interest is inexcusable. In this case the edit was to make a change in the disclosure requirements for discussing changes in that very policy. Based on what I read about Ɱ's issues with disclosure at WP:COIN I can not AGF here and presume they are here to advance their own and/or others' financial interests. Jbh^Talk 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion that may be valid and agreeable, however it is an opinion. Please cite a policy. It highly disturbs me that you "presume [I] am here to advance [my] own and other's interests". I have been editing as a volunteer longer than you. I have created Good Articles, Featured Articles, and Featured Lists. I have a TFA. I have many DYKs. I have researched endlessly about topics I've later created articles on. I've written templates. I've removed so many cases of vandalism. I've taken hundreds of photos and uploaded them to Commons. I've scanned archives into Commons. I've served as an active Wikipedian in Residence. I've been to and even organized and hosted Wikipedia events. Most of that information should be evident if you do enough digging. So for you to plainly state I'm here to support some company I worked for two summers ago or one artist I wrote a page about, both of whom paid me, is pure ignorance. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is all quite wonderful, you should fully understand why volunteers want to know if someone has a financial interest in policy discussions or in edits being made to either articles or contributions to discussions. Even if all of your edits are perfect in all ways we are writing policy and enforcing guidelines for those who are not all sweetness and light. From the behavior I have seen from you here I do not see a Wikipedian who has spent years building the project I see one which is trying to do the absolute minimum to comply with the disclosure requirements when we are just getting a handle on how to keep people from exploiting this project for financial gain. That behavior from any editor is something I will condemn. Jbh^Talk 01:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ɱ Removed their paid editing disclosure completly from being visible on User:Ɱ (by removing it in User:Ɱ/u [33]), then an hour later
2. Ɱ Edited WP:PAID without disclosing they are (or have been) a paid editor [34], undone [35] per WP:COI / WP:PAID. This is highly improper that a paid editor 1. edits the paid editing policy, 2. doesn't disclose a COI, and 3. worse of all made an edit to reduce the disclosure when editing the policy itself - the exact thing they are doing! This is a COI editor reducing the need to disclose a COI on a COI policy. It's past bold and reckless, past AGF, it is subverting policy. Widefox; talk 22:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ɱ has removed all paid editing disclosures from their user page User:Ɱ with this edit [36] (the one that was actually never put on their user page but on a subpage User:Ɱ/u, but was sometimes visible from the user page). This is against best practice per WP:PAID WP:COI and (although if technically meeting ToU) is WP:POINT disruption.
  • Hundreds of lines of ANI, COIN, PAID talk pages this is not best practice<-->outrageous = consensus. Per WP:PAYTALK."Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. ..."
    • "...WP:Tendentious editing...": Yes editing WP:PAID
    • "...WP:Disruptive editing...": Yes editing WP:PAID, attempt at minimising review of drafts [37], ad nauseam claiming ToU doesn't apply to XYZ, COI doesn't apply to XYZ, not abiding by best practice and consensus about disclosure at PAID, COI x2
    • "...WP:WikiBullying...": Unsubstantiated hounding claim i.e. this ANI, attempt at offwiki communication (my email now off)
    • "...WP:OWN...": Weak (per above / COIN)
    • "...WP:Civility...": no

Editor has disclosed they are still in contact with the subject of paid editing articles to justify content that was deemed promo (per above). Widefox; talk 00:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox, you are way out of line.

• Bullet point one: PAYTALK is not relevant. I have not been paid to argue with anyone. As my disclosure clearly states, I'm only paid to edit four mainspace articles. I can provide evidence from Shiner that he's paying me for the article, and evidence from IB that I was only paid the summer before last, long before any of these "arguments". Ergo, PAYTALK has no relevance here. This point is moot.

1. I am allowed to remove my disclosure from my userpage. That's completely within my rights. This point is moot.
2. You cannot accuse me of not following a policy you instituted, without consensus, yesterday. This point is moot.
3. (the double bullet points) Again, I am allowed to remove COI disclosures. Policies only require COI disclosure on the article talk pages, which I have. This point is moot. The WP:POINT argument is also moot, my edits are WP:NOTPOINTy as they are not disrupting Wikipedia.
4. You need to make a more clear and concise argument for your last bullet point with the five sub-bullets.

• As for your last point, I see no reason why you brought it up again. That's not against the rules...

Can we please wait for administrators to sort out this mess? I'm tired of all of these accusations getting thrown back and forth. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What remedy should be applied? It is outrageous that Ɱ can wikilawyer (18:47, 15 November 2015 above) that they are only paid to write certain articles so it is fine if they edit WP:PAID. They could make a case for their edit on its talk, but aggressively forcing their "rights" on volunteers needs to be stopped. Volunteers are motivated to defend the encyclopedia and it is important that the community prevent such volunteers from being overwhelmed with nonsense from paid advocates. A suitable remedy might start with an indefinite block for Ɱ until they agree to restore a plain disclosure on User:Ɱ (not a subpage) with no obfuscations. We're talking about ToU violations and disruption, not violation of a policy Widefox may have edited. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is so out of line! They make written rules so people can know what to do and what not to do! I have been following all rules, before Widefox began changing the rules! You cannot block or ban me for me trying to argue my own case! And you can't block or ban me for not putting a COI disclosure on my userpage! Nowhere, at all, in any policy or guideline must a user place a COI disclosure on their userpage! (So long as they have it on the article talk pages, which I do)! This is simply outrageous! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support that. I have no tolerance for paid editors trying to do the minimum. If they are not disclosing in all places they are not being up front. The user page is needed so when people see suspicions edits they can quickly see if the editor has been paid. The article talk page disclosures are necessary to know who has a paid COI, if fact all COI editors must disclose on the talk page not their user page so paid editors do not get a pass there. Disclosure of paid edits are needed if they are not made on the article because others should not have to go searching beyond the discussion at hand to see if an editor has a paid-COI.

  The purpose of disclosing paid-COI is so other editors know there is a COI so they can take it into account. Anything that makes it harder to do so is fundamentally deceptive and after paid editor has been told this it is willful deception and we just can not have that here. Jbh^Talk 01:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PER the ToU and WP:PAID, I am not required to put a COI disclosure on my userpage. No policy requires it. Therefore I can choose not to, and I do. If you want me to, there will be no convincing unless you change WP:PAID. Keep in mind that per the ToU that requires approved by the [English Wikipedia] community and [listing] in the alternative disclosure policy page. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question here at ANI, is when and at what point is an admin going to step in and stop this disruption. Ɱ's edit of PAID is a bright-line for me. I have no faith in Ɱ now, and per Johnuniq second third an indef block, topic ban on COI / PAID. I'm sure there's an essay, the fallacy that Ɱ seems to now be holding on to is a right to edit here while WIKILAWYERing, disrupting, following just the letter of the ToU, ignoring consensus and other policies/guidelines such as COI, and subverting policy. This fallacy can be quickly demonstrated as incorrect. Widefox; talk 02:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Per WP:PAID which is a English Wikipedia's policy implementing the ToU. "Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (articles, drafts etc), or, if the talk page can not be used, in edit summaries."}}(emp mine) Seems pretty clear to me. Jbh^Talk 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've had to be explicit with that wording due to this WIKILAWYERing example, but in fairness to Ɱ, because of that fact we can't really hold Ɱ to those words. We can hold Ɱ to ToU, COI, consensus, (plus that new wording once assessed/bedded down), PAYTALK etc. Just to be clear - that's about the only thing I agree with them on. Widefox; talk 02:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: user page has finally been edited, but still no disclosure [38]. Widefox; talk 11:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No user should ever edit a policy or guideline particularly where they would benefit from such a change. It's akin to changing legislation to make legal what was previously illegal. Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "particularly"? Surely, it must be possible to edit them in other cases when you do not benefit: it's a wiki, although of course (and as the hatnotes say), policy and guideline pages are subject to a higher level of scrutiny and consensus standards than other pages. LjL (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the text was changed from "shall" to "should" which backs up Ɱ's stance. This is highly inappropriate. Personally, I feel that no policy or guideline is to be edited without substantial discussion and consensus on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the arguments made by Widefox, JBH and Blackmane. removing COI notice from Ɱ 's main page does not help transparency and looks deceptive, editing a policy whose change would benefit them from such a change is COI par excellence.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, Ɱ's user page now says "This user is taking a long, probably indefinite, wikibreak." I suggest closing out this issue for now. If Ɱ comes back and does something annoying, there will be little argument about what to do. WP:DENY and WP:ROPE apply here. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that by the editor taking a break they would normally weasel out of avoid sanctions for PAYTALK disruption (per preventative not punitive). However, they have not taken a break [39] User:Ɱ care to explain? And, even if while away we are still missing the disclosure per policy/guideline (and spirit of ToU). We also know they are paid to edit what's currently a draft, so they will be back as soon as the coast is clear due to profit motive. In the unlikely event they aren't coming back (just seen they're back), when/who's going to add the disclosures to their page and delete the drafts? (6 months for the latter.) I understand admins being reluctant to sanction for disruption, but if we allow paid editors to violate WP:PAYTALK to the extent of subverting paid editor policy then we may as well remove as toothless. Patience has run out for this hounding drain on volunteer time (a plug for my thoughts on where this is going is WP:BOGOF), and we have the bigger picture of legal disclosure where things will only firm up. I, for instance will not put up with this level of abuse and gaming as a volunteer, and suggest either admins take over paid COI (and then they are better covered by WP:INVOLVED) or enforce policy preventing gaming abuse of their fellow volunteers. Widefox; talk 11:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A user by the name of M.starnberg has been making numerous useless edits to a large number of pages, such as Winston Churchill, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk and many more. Although other users have pointed out to him that he is edit warring (see his talk page; at least five or six different users have posted messages), he has not stopped and continues to make edits that serve no apparent point (continously downscaling postnominals in infoboxes, changing Peers' infoboxes to Officeholder version while those peers have never held any interesting offices, etc.). I have briefly discussed this with Miesianiacal and I was advised to bring the issue up here; I've placed a message on M.starnberg's talk page as well to notify him of this. JorisEnter (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching this editor 2..who is edit warning and having problem engaging people. M.starnberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Positive contributions or not if they are unwilling to follow our basic behavioural exceptions we have a problem. Hes/She has posted to a few peoples talk page but not all seem willing to talk at this point. Can we get someone who has experience with newbies (admin or not) to have a look and say a few words. The editor is edit warring with what I believe is good faith edits....but has not received the warmest welcome either so...?? -- Moxy (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only response M.starnberg has given so far is "I was not being disruptive" or something along those lines, so I suppose they are unwilling to give any proper response. Most newbies would freak out if they saw such an amount of edit warring notices on their talk page, and M.starnberg hasn't exactly stopped making disruptive edits, so... JorisEnter (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment and a warning on their talk page. Hopefully they'll take note and start discussing rather than reverting. Blackmane (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this editor has been listening, in a way: for example, s/he has started piping links to royal houses in infoboxes after being blocked from repeatedly doing the opposite at Elizabeth II. S/he simply doesn't communicate. So, it seems the main problem here is one of collegiality. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add that the user not only continues to edit war, but the edits are so inconsistent. At one point s/he adds post-nominal templates, and then, at another, removes them. On still other occasions, he changes the correct post-nom template to an older, inferior version. And, of course, continues to very rarely respond to any remark or inverse action; the only recent noise out of him her being a justification of a revert because s/he knows better. 48 hours off seems sufficient to me, for a start. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I join the discussion to say that this editor changed the collage on the Rome (and, I am seeing now, also of Milan) article without seeking consensus, ignoring my advice to open a thread on the discussion page and discussing his change, and keeping reverting without answering. Moreover, she/he deleted his/her whole talk page, with my message and the other warnings, without responding to anyone. Anyway, it is not true, as @Miesianiacal: writes, that he is not communicating with other users, as it is apparent from his/her numerous (mostly aggressive) edit summaries and from this edit. As a whole, I think that his/her behavior is totally unacceptable and, as written above by @JorisEnter:, I am also suspecting that he/she is not exactly a newbie. Some kind of action should then be taken, in order to stop him/her. Alex2006 (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tendency towards edit spats & refusal to communicate, is quite apparent. Recommend a 1-week block, if anything to get editor's attention. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, maybe so he will finally learn about the existence of talk pages... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M.starnberg has blanked their page for a second time, but appears to have discovered that postnominals in infoboxes should be 100%. Has been reverting many of their own edits to pages such as Arthur Balfour and Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. JorisEnter (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In somewhat defence of M.starnberg, concerning how to show 'royal houses' in bios. There's been some inconsistencies - see British & Italian monarchs bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very curious about Alistain Wettin, at the moment. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly is suspicious. M. Starnberg's last edit was 14/11/15 and Alistair Wettin appears on the same day. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• AGF or not, I think its perfectly fair to assume that preemting a looming indef block, Starnberg has created Wettin. There's probably going to be no solution other than blocking them both. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Stargrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for simplicity purposes, I’ll assume by the username that the editor is female): not vandalism in the strictest sense, but a continuing history of damaging edits that require repair by others. Nearly all of her edits of 12–13 November violate RS and/or NPOV (Paige Larson: 1 2 3; Theresa Donovan: 1; Hailee Steinfeld: 1 [strike edit: I've re-read the appropriate guidelines re fictional characters and plots; RS doesn't apply except where contentious]). Even her sourced edits have skewed toward celebrities’ personal relationships with a reliance on the tabloid (Billy Flynn (actor): 1; Gigi Hadid: 1; Emma Watson: 1; literally dozens more), and show no willingness to learn how to format citations. She has been advised, cajoled and warned repeatedly for these behaviors, and was blocked once; there is no indication she has ever read her talk page or, at least, that she intends to learn therefrom. The problem with a short block: she may make handfuls of edits, then disappear for weeks or even months at a time. I’m requesting an indefinite block (including account creation) to force her to address her problem editing, engage with other editors, and treat the encyclopedia for what it is. (Moved from AIV.) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• *tap*tap* is this thing on? 😜 —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 03:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a topic ban from BLPs; I'm on the fence about an indef. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Indef" meaning indeterminate—as in, lifted once she decides to engage. If determinate, given her otherwise NOTHERE, maybe three months or, again, until she so decides. Same effect—assuming she doesn't simply return to current behaviors after three months ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef means "indefinitely"; it does not mean "indeterminate". It would not "force her to engage", it would block her from editing. She's only had one other block, and that was only for 24 hours. There's no way anyone would jump from that to an WP:INDEF without demonstrable evidence in the form of lots and lots of incredibly disruptive WP:DIFFS. I don't see a single problem in any of the diffs provided here, except possibly one edit which added Twitter and Instagram citations. I don't even see any cause for any sort of topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm splitting hairs, Softlavender, but "indefinite" means not definite—it's why there's a difference between INDEF and PERMABAN. Meantime, if you can't see that virtually every edit she makes requires repair if not reversion—hence, disruptive—I don't know what else to add ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INDEF. The burden is on you to provide evidence (diffs) of disruptive editing, and so far you've done nothing of the sort. Softlavender (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read INDEF, and the entire first paragraph supports my request. Following her block on 2 July:

• NPOV violations: 1 2 3
• BLP violations (sourcing and/or tabloid): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
• Formatting and/or copyright issues: 1 2 3

Her refusal to learn {{cite [whatever]}} is admittedly little more than an irritant; apps like reFill do not always work, making for tedious, repetitious cleanup. It’s the “tedious, repetitious” part that’s particularly problematic; she either doesn’t know how to read the concerns left on her talk page (by more than a half-dozen different editors) or she doesn’t care; conversely, virtually every edit she makes requires significant repair. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any NPOV vios or any critical BLP vios. The only problem I see is using Instagram as a source. Just tell her not to use Instagram as a source. Have an admin here post a notice on her Talk page warning/telling/explaining to her that she can't use Instagram as a source, and she can't post anything uncited. These two edits she made were actually corrections to errors in those articles: [40], [41]; I don't know why you posted them above or why you reverted the latter one. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specific to your examples: 1) no RS (edit: my bad—apparently I saw the reverse of what she actually did); 2a) no RS, 2b) CRYSTAL.

Specific to NPOV: 1) "best known for [anything]" is almost always a vio, usually the opinion of any journalist/blogger/etc. who doesn't cite it; 2) to assume from the source that Kardashian ended her relationship with Harden violates both NPOV and SYNTH, and turned out to be completely false; 3) "most popular friendship", also NPOV and SYNTH vios.

"Just tell her [anything]" is impossible if she ignores it. "Have an admin post [anything]" is irrelevant for the same reason. This is not a whim; if I wasn't utterly convinced that there is no other course of action, I would not be making this request. If you have an alternative that would actually work, please share it. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 03:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, Hailee Steinfeld is best known for starring in her Oscar-nominated role as Mattie Ross in True Grit. If you refute that, put a disputed tag and discuss on Talk. On this one [42], the source (which was already in the wiki article) specifically states that the Harden relationship ended the previous Tuesday when the divorce was cancelled, and again, Stargrl corrected the wiki article per the already-existing source. In terms of this [43], again, Stargrl didn't add the Pitch Perfect 3 information, she corrected it; and in terms of the already-filming Besties, that doesn't need a citation any more than any of the other entries in the chart -- it's in her IMDB filmography. All of these edits were improvements to these articles. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* no, sorry. None of the above. "Best known for [anything]" is POV (fans of Asa Butterfield or Orson Scott Card may know her "best" from Ender's Game; young teens may know her best from "Love Myself"; Wikivoice cannot choose). The tabloid cited for Kardashian/Harden specifically says "slowed down", not "ended", hence SYNTH. When adding Besties, the commenting out of the not-yet-in-production Pitch Perfect 3 was removed in favor of adding "Pre-production", hence CRYSTAL (or, more directly, NFF). And ... IMDb? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 09:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best known for is not POV if it is a fact; please cite a specific policy that specifically says so if you think it is. In the Kardashian article [44], I misspoke slightly; Stargrl added the correct and current citation up higher, which states that "On Tuesday it was reported that Khloe had split from her boyfriend, basketball player James Harden" and "The news of the couple getting back together comes just one day after it was reported that Khloe and her boyfriend James Harden, 26, had decided to split after a few months of dating" and "Khloe began to realize she still had feelings for Odom when she rushed to see him in the hospital and just days later called it quits with Harden, who is also a basketball player." [45]. Stagrl simply neglected to add that citation at the bottom as well. I didn't realize that Stargrl removed commented out coding, but she corrected the Pitch Perfect 3 entry from "Filming" to "Pre-production" (which it turns out is still not quite accurate because the film at this point is only announced); what she did was an effort at correction and a rookie move rather than disruptive editing. And again, since it is already filming and Hailee Steinfeld is a well-known Oscar-nominated actor, Besties does not need a citation any more than any of the other entries in the chart. If that one does, all of the others in all of the charts in the article do too. And yes, IMDB is a RS for filmographies, or else we would not allow it as an EL. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your words, "if it is a fact"—unless absolutely unimpeachable, it is an opinion (and led, among others, to a sizeable argument here). The Daily Mail is widely derided as a WP:RS, per its many appearances on the noticeboard. Making an invisible entry visible for the sole purpose of adding "Pre-production" against NFF is not a correction. Per its lack of editorial oversight, I still have problems with IMBd, even for filmographies. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered why I don't trust IMDb. To be fair, it has since been corrected. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stargrl is hereby formally banned from using Instagram as a source, and banned from posting uncited information. Any violation of these restrictions will result in blocks of increasing duration. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though we disagree on what we see—and what we don't. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, myself and another user, Pincrete (talk · contribs), have been engaged in a protracted content dispute with Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk · contribs) on Political correctness. The dispute itself is actually mostly fairly minor (many aspects are just one-word differences or disagreements over emphasizing this figure vs. that figure); it's lead to revert-wars and has gotten him blocked for a WP:3RR violation once before, but on the whole I don't think that the content dispute is the core issue. The problem is that Mr. Magoo has, throughout, refused to WP:AGF or to interact with us in a WP:CIVIL manner. Today, he has begun WP:HOUNDing me, going over all my edits across multiple articles and reverting any that fall into the general views of me he expressed in the conflict.

He refuses to WP:AGF explicitly here here and here; his comments on the talk page have frequently made it clear that he sees the conflict as a WP:BATTLEGROUND confrontation against 'bullies' and 'leftists' who he believes attacking the article (and who he must therefore confront and stop.) See eg. here, his edit summary here, his accusitions of an agenda here and here, and so on. Early on in the dispute, he said this; while he later reverted it, I feel that it still accurately summarized his views.

He has also repeatedly implied some sort of link between me and Pincrete, either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry; see eg [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. He's been asked by multiple people to stop and to WP:AGF several times, or to take it to WP:SPI (or to the appropriate venue if he alleges some other sort of user misconduct); he's refused to do either, claiming that we must be using a VPN and therefore a SPI would be useless. Throughout this, he's asked me if I'm utterly biased and corrupt, leaped to accusing me of lying repeatedly whenever there's a disagreement about the sources, repeatedly accused me of bias in a hostile tone, and so on.

I could deal with these WP:TONE issues and his WP:BATTLEGROUND stance towards me when it was confined to one article, but today he seems to have gone down my history looking for edits he could revert, reverting often fairly old edits by me here, here, here, here, here, and here in rapid succession with no discussion on talk (and in some cases, these were things that had been extensively discussed on talk at the time); his primary reason for these reverts, in all cases, seems to have been that they were edits made by me and therefore ones he viewed as suspect. While I've been in a dispute with him for a while (and he's taken issue with some of my comments), I believe that I've generally been comparatively polite, neutral, and reasonable when articulating my position; I don't feel I should have to face this sort of sweeping, constant assumption of bad faith from him across multiple articles. Therefore, I'd like to ask an administrator to step in and make him stop.

(Aside note: I'm unsure if these articles fall under the discretionary sanctions for American politics. I tend to feel they do, since most of the most prominent history and discussion focusing on America, so I notified Mr. Magoo about those sanctions early on; but they cross international boundaries to an extent.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at these edits by him and judge whether it's "hounding" to revert them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675374256&oldid=675373291

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675820694&oldid=675820293

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675825446&oldid=675825192

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675820293&oldid=675653614

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675821025&oldid=675820694

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675822036&oldid=675821325

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675372296&oldid=674968433

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675373155&oldid=675372296

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=675822036&oldid=675821325

Note the close-by dates. I only came to edit the article a little over a month later so I never got to see these edits before now. He removes well-sourced bits that shine bad light on some liberal issue, nearly always stating the reason to be WP:UNDUE. He truly has an easily provable political agenda.

Also note that Aquillion has himself (who else would I war with but him) warred with me and been warned by an admin for it. He neatly leaves that out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAquillion&type=revision&diff=688347435&oldid=687968961

The 24-hour block I received was after I reverted his two reverts. He was just as guilty as me but only I were blocked.

Also note that I once took the matter exactly here before about his behavior unlike what he claims and nothing was done. Note that I have never accused anyone of being "leftist." He made that up.

Also note that he has truly lied about my actions and it's easily provable, like I wrote about his massive section concentrating on me on the talk page:

He does it more covertly than I did but nevertheless the section focuses on me and he states things I never did, which is clearly affront. He declares I inserted a paragraph which was a duplicate of the 1980s: untrue for it was added before 1980s existed. He declares that I sparked the edit war even though it was his non-stable changing of the timeline to non-chronological that did. He accuses of "blanket reverting" when he pretty much "blanket edits" the entire article. I mean he removed two sections from the history. He himself truly offers no explanation for why the history section needs to be changed to be like that. He constantly repeats that I offer no explanations but I have repeatedly again and again and again explained why Kimball can't be misquoted when the person whose view he specifically endorses is Frederick Crews. And good faith needs to happen on both sides.

Here's an example of his edit wars — this time with another person — which usually end with him at 2 reverts per 24 hours, purposely avoiding 3RR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_justice&diff=682347428&oldid=682213827

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_justice&diff=682423153&oldid=682355177

Here is the war I was blocked for but he wasn't, these are all 2000 character reverts of his:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=684390425&oldid=684268104

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=684393568&oldid=684393276

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=684614287&oldid=684558287

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=684879822&oldid=684851688

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=685330688&oldid=685329468

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=685354045&oldid=685348969

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=685744764&oldid=685741754

Here he removes 8 of my sources, keeping all of his:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&type=revision&diff=688064562&oldid=688035284

A minute later he posts this — pretty much just a snipe — on talk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_correctness&diff=688064659&oldid=688064521

You can't assume good faith from someone who behaves like that. He had notified in no way. Long pause from editing.

Fyddlestix wasn't mentioned here before now and he's rarely if ever mentioned, but Aquillion went to notify him of this ANI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFyddlestix&type=revision&diff=690577317&oldid=690479610

Plainly Aquillion's motive isn't to "shine light" on anything but to get me blocked from editing political correctness. This is why he's gathering troops. If he gets his wish through you can be sure he'll start removing 5000+ characters of worth because there will be no one left to oppose him. There have been over ten who have disagreed with him but they give up quickly after a barrage of WP points.

I'll add more of his accusations and bad behavior here. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications: That reply was to Pincrete's post at the top of the section, not to you, since I was discussing his proposed edit (which you'd placed in the article prematurely, before there was any real discussion on it) and wanted to make sure my more limited changes at least addressed his concerns. I broadly stand by my other edits, though I'm sure there are details that could be worded better or aspects where I could have been more careful in terms of communication. The WP:HOUNDing issue, though, refers to the way, earlier today, you suddenly went across multiple articles you'd never visited before and reverted me with no discussion, all at once and within a few minutes of each other; my understanding is that you went over my history looking for things to revert based on your personal view that I'm editing in bad faith and need to be stopped. You are correct that you said that I had a 'left-wing agenda' here rather than literally saying that I am a 'leftist', but the end result is the same; based on those comments, I believe you're interpreting that page in particular and (now that you've started following my edit history) Wikipedia as a whole as WP:BATTLEGROUND in which to confront me. Do you deny this? --Aquillion (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You later added to that message that there are no sources of non-pejorative usage. Obviously because you just removed 8 of them. You couldn't have accidentally, without noticing, removed 8 sources of non-pejorative and then obliviously written that there are no non-pejorative sources. You very much snipe covertly on purpose. And I went across a couple almost identical articles to political correctness you had removed sourced bits from. Then you came to revert back. I now went to look at your history and you have edited many more articles in a similar fashion. If you claim I did this to hit back, why didn't I edit those then? Maybe because I edit articles similar to political correctness? And yes, that left-wing agenda came up just hours ago as I witnessed your obviously biased editing history. It's now undeniable that you misedit and remove valid points based on your political view only. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't discuss content disputes except to say that, as you know, I disagree with your reading of the sources, including the ones that you feel support your position; and that I was reverting the lead to a more mild compromise from the last stable version before you WP:BOLDly replaced it. Regarding the WP:HOUNDing issue, though, you had never edited any of those articles before; your only edit on any of them was to revert often fairly old edits by me, which you did immediately after declaring on the talk page for political correctness that you were going over my edit history. I feel that all of my edits have been neutral, reasonable, supported by the preponderance of reliable sources, and backed by the appropriate principle of WP:DUE weight; and, in general, when these edits have been discussed, there has been no support for your contention that my edits are so obviously biased that they support your blanket accusations of bad faith against me. Again, WP:AGF is policy! Yes, we have to be careful about our biases; everyone has their own perspectives which affect how they read and interpret sources. But we have to be willing to assume that people whose opinions differ from ours (even strongly so) are editing based on their good-faith understanding of the subject, the sources, and the policies governing how we interact with them, or it's impossible for us to edit constructively. --Aquillion (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was Pincrete's suggestion. I apologize for mentioning it again, but at the time I thought we could agree and jumped at the opportunity. You also boldly removed the 8 sources while you were at that bold revert. And of the "hounding," I came upon Social Justice and saw that you were going through all similar articles. I did look at what similar articles you had edited. This isn't reverting your history, this is fighting over the same matter on different but similar articles. And again, good faith goes both ways. From the start you've shown bad faith, though I admit so have I. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• With just a quick review it is really hard to understand who is right on the content issue. Fortunately, that's not my job here. @Mr. Magoo and McBarker:, you cannot follow this editor around Wikipedia reverting all that they do. It is a form of harassment and can lead to blocks. Do you agree, or do we need to discuss this further? If you have content disagreements here are two strategies that will help: (1) eventualism, let them get their way and eventually some other editor(s) will notice and fix any problems, (2) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Do we see eye to eye? Jehochman ^Talk 10:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following him. The articles are related to political correctness, which is what we're fighting over. None were unrelated to political correctness. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the diffs where you have edited the articles previously, before reverting Aquillion. If you've never edited those articles before and you are just going down Aquillion's contribution history and reverting anything you don't like related to political correctness, that is a violation of WP:HOUND. Aquillion is not a vandal. There has been no finding that Aquillion's editing has been inappropriate and needs to be cleaned up. If you feel that is the case, use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to generate a finding, and then you will have more leeway to do cleanup in that manner. Otherwise and until then, you need to Assume Good Faith, that Aquillion's edits are constructive and should not be reverted en mass. Do you agree, or do you want to do this the hard way? Jehochman ^Talk 10:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not for fighting, as you just admitted that you were fighting. If you get into a protracted disagreement with another editor you can either go some place else in Wikipedia and avoid them, or use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Don't continue to fight. That's also good grounds for a block. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native English speaker so I don't know all of the terminologies related to Political Correctness. I had not edited the articles before because I only discovered them now, through mostly Social Justice — the other very similar article. I will continue editing them from now on, which isn't hounding but again disagreeing over the same matter over similar articles. I have not touched any his edited articles unrelated to political correctness. I have shown good faith to other editors of political correctness who have disagreed with me. I had falsely accused Pincrete of behaving like Aquillion, but I seriously apologized after I noticed that even though he had done 65 edits and was generally against me and with Aquillion, his edits were mostly small and CE. And yes, we both edit warred and got warned for it (and blocked). We stopped. Also notice I have started two RfCs on the talk page. The other was restarted once but was closed again after sort of concensus was found. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just like in the ANI before, I feel like we're wasting time here. We have heatedly argued over the article but as of late it's been quiet. I didn't have any reason to "hit back." The fresh arguments in the RFC are going my way, suggesting a change to often from primarily. It used to be ordinarily. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just noting two things. First, the WP:HOUND diffs Aquillon linked to at the top of this section are not only to articles Mr. Magoo and McBarker does not typically edit, but they were also performed in immediate succession. I.e. Magoo was looking for Aquillon contribs to revert. Second, it's striking that Magoo's first edit to Talk:Political correctness was on 1 October 2015 and since that point he has completely and utterly dominated the page, making almost a THOUSAND edits in a month and a half. Such intensity, with the evidence of POV-pushing and battleground behavior Aquillon points to above, and now obvious hounding, is seriously troubling for what is effectively a WP:SPA.

Seriously straining to assume good faith, but since he is new and does not look to have been warned about some of the policies he's been brought to ANI for (despite them being those which should be pretty obviously counter to the spirit of the project), it may be appropriate for this thread to be closed with a warning if Magoo acknowledges problematic behavior (without pointing back at Aquillon). Regardless, I'd strongly urge you, Magoo, to take a break from the political correctness article for a while. I see a lot of people come to Wikipedia passionate about a subject who become so invested that they inevitably burn out, frustrated (if their intensity doesn't get them blocked first). Sometimes you just need to step away for a while. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were mostly tiny edits where I fixed a typo or added missing verbs. How is succession proof of anything? It's evident from the talk page I click submit fast and they were simple undos. I did go through the pages quickly, in an angered state at witnessing the removals. To me they looked to be plain vandalism, removing cited bits. Maybe I should have brought them up here instead. And evidently it's not allowed to disagree with an editor on multiple articles. The bad faith is bad behavior, yes, but the warring has stopped long since like I mentioned. I only found out these edits today. But I apologize for my bad faith, I'll try be more friendly in the future and accuse less. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's a legit (and pretty pedestrian) conduct dispute going on at Political Correctness, but that's not the issue here; Mr. Magoo and McBarker is editing disruptively. He started posted to that article's talk page on September 30th, and has made 981 edits to the talk page in that time. This is excessive by almost any standard, and a quick perusal of the talk page itself should make it abundantly clear that Magoo has been rather badly bludgeoning the discussion. He has completely exhausted the patience of pretty much everyone who edits/watches the page. He has edit warred, repeatedly refused to assume good faith, and refused to listen - and his conduct in this dispute has made the article measurably worse - the article lede, for example, is a mess of WP:OVERCITE now, because Magoo has taken an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to sourcing his arguments, while writing off high-quality sources that don't support his view (often simply because the author happens to be a liberal or "left-wing" in Msgoo's opinion). I'm involved, but in my opinion either a topic ban or a block for Magoo is needed here. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those were mostly minor few letters copy-edits. Secondly, I have only edit warred in the past with Aquillion. Thirdly, I don't now assume bad faith from others since like I pointed out the other edits were mostly copy-editing. Fourthly, most of the citations pointed out with the overcitation tag aren't mine. Fifthly, that political bias pointing was a tiny portion of the argument I had against the source. More notable was that the primary source is cited by 3 people and was published in a journal about poetry for children, and my source cited by 504 academics and the other cited by 93 are ignored. Of the talking I'd like to add: I have not edited the actual page much. Is it a crime to talk too much? Is this a new policy? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'I have only edit warred in the past with Aquillion' is simply untrue, you have repeatedly re-inserted material when you knew that I, or Fyddlestix objected to it strongly, for clearly stated policy reasons. This is not the place to argue content matters, nor whose sources are better. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I've reverted you twice was yesterday when you kept removing a midpart of a sentence, leaving it broken and unreadable: "Critics, including Camille Paglia and James Atlas, as the likely beginning..." That was really bizarre and I don't think anyone would blame me for reverting it twice. The edit's apparent goal was for some reason to remove two sources, leaving the text but sourceless. I added a clarification to appease you in the second time. And I don't think I've had any issues with Fyddle on this article? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I endorse everything said by Aquillion and Fyddlestix, Mr. Magoo and McBarker has had innumerable requests/warnings about AGF, edit warring and his continuous bludgeoning, changing the subject mid-sentence and misrepresentation/cherry-picking of sources and the text of other editors. One recent AGF request is here, his reply here, my reply, his reply. The subject of this exchange is one of several sections created by Mr Magoo, with no other purpose than to make accusations against myself and Aquillion, which he also 'wallpapers frequently. Contrary to his claim above to have apologised to me, I am not aware of Mr Magoo having apologised to anyone, nor, more importantly, to modify his behaviour. I have never encountered a more capriciously tendentious editor. Even at this ANI, he muddies the water with content issues (which as Fyddlestix says are trivial and solvable), he misrepresents his edit-warring (knowingly, repeatedly, re-inserting text against concensus). While claiming here - for the first time - that he is not a native speaker, he reverts back in, atrociously muddled and blatantly PoV phrasing, argues pedantically about spurious points of semantics and frankly trolls at every opportunity.

The examples which Aquillion gives of 'hounding', are also typical of Mr Magoo's battleground and WP:POINTY editing, in his 'edit reasons' he names Aquillion and myself, rather than informing anyone why the material should be re-inserted (the fact that we months ago removed the material is sufficient reason for re-insertion?). The notion that although a source is a necessary, it is not a sufficient reason for inclusion is lost on him. Explanations about OR, Synth and RS, equally go in one ear and out the other. Sorry, but if Mr Magoo lacks the command of English (for example to know - or care - about the difference between 'liberal' and 'far-left' as political labels), if he lacks the ability to AGF and the patience to work toward agreement, then he is a huge time-soak on a linguistically and politically sensitive subject and a topic ban or a block for Magoo is the only answer. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC) UpdateThe miniscule apology here to me is negated by justifying 'hounding' Aquillion for his supposed 'left-wing agenda'. Pincrete (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went and checked and the first time you mention the word bludgeon was 6 days ago. 3 in total. So, no, not innumerable warnings but a few just recently. And I didn't post much at all to the talk page after that. You're just distorting the events. Similarly, there hasn't been an edit war for a long time now. The changing of subject mid-sentence I don't get. Could you point even a single case of this? Also, of the misrepresentation of sources: The primary source I criticize was published in a journal about poetry for children and is cited by 3 times. I have only repeatedly stated the facts. I have pushed my own 504 times and 93 times cited sources. They are promptly ignored. The section you point was made in response to the plain lies made in the section before, which focused plainly on me. I have pointed out earlier here the easily proven lies. And I have apologized, and I'm not muddling the water but proving my case. This is your removal I reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=676979874&oldid=676979233

where you remove a bit of the quote for absolutely no reason? This was plainly removed to make it more of a scare quote than a reasonable statement. I also now notice that you went and removed two sources from the article. You do not properly explain removals such as this. Aquillion sometimes throws out his classic WP:UNDUE. A WP point is not an explanation, especially when it seemingly doesn't apply and the edit is very WP:BOLD. In fact if someone has been bludgeoning the talk page it has been the editors bludgeoning everyone with their constant barrage of WP points. I am not the first one you have fought with. I'm one of ten: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. They all give up because arguing with you is extremely difficult. For example, you accept pretty much no sources except academic. Then someone flips it around and says the Baa Baa sheep bit is WP:UNDUE and vaguely sourced: 675460700. Obviously he is promptly ignored for 2 months until you finally bother retorting: 684276315. The message doesn't even seem to replying to him. It asks him to complete tasks which are completely unnecessary when it comes to his arguments. This is bludgeoning. And about your update: I'm not hounding and how was me mentioning Aquillion's bad deeds to you an offence to you? You had accused ME of agenda just before this reply. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now Pincrete is edit warring at the article: 690578000 and 690680409. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is of course no stranger to edit warring: a case from last December. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re my 'edit warring' today, if my edit reason is not self explanatory, a full account of why unnecessary refs were removed is here. The unnecessary nature of the refs was pointed out several weeks ago, text was left intact though that seems questionable.

There have been many requests + warnings to Mr Magoo about AGF, NPA and 'battleground', by me and others, I will assemble them if wished. Nobody has a right to a reply from me on talk, I have other things to do, I didn't notice BaaBaa at the time.

Regarding other matters, I will not reply beyond saying that the matter was amicably settled last December, look further back and you will find one other instance of me being warned for warring during the last 3+ years, that will save you dredging through my entire edit history in the hope of finding mud to sling. Pincrete (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote, at the time I were left waiting for you to actually open the links. They had plain hyperlinks and you were saying you can't access them. And I looked at battleground warnings and even those amount to only three and the first from the beginning of the month. I can also point you the times I've warned you about AGF. And this section really does seem to be pointless mud-slinging from all sides. Do you not agree that you don't really have an interest at teaching me anything but simply getting me removed from editing the article? Why do you keep suggesting a topic ban of all the things? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More edit warring once again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_correctness&diff=690760560&oldid=690751090 --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 'Why do you keep suggesting a topic ban of all the things?' . Simple answer to a simple question is because you show no interest whatsoever in listening/learning what is/is not OR, what is/is not synth, what are/are not RS nor what AGF actually means. It has become a full-time job for me walking behind you clearing up your mess, explaining basic policies for the Nth time, when you show no capacity to understand them nor inclination to work within them. The combination of 100s of edits per week with WP:IDHT, (or at least I am determined to interpret it in my own way), is a gigantic waste of everybody's time. I happen to be sympathetic to the idea that a neutral account of what critics were accusing PC-ers of would improve the article, that is not what you are doing. What you are doing is turning the article into Mr Magoo's private (and fairly inconsistent), muddled re-writing of history. WP:CIR applies, and you show no signs of having, or acquiring the competence or neutrality to edit a sensitive subject. You are wasting everyone's time, including your own, by seeing everything as a battleground. Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: More edit warring once again. How can it be edit warring to remove recently inserted material, which there is clear opposition to on talk? (Civitas) I don't believe I have ever knowingly edited against concensus on this article, though with dozens of daily edits, it's somtimes been impossible to keep track of what is in/out, what is sourced properly and generally what is going on. Regarding 'Dawkins', nobody has as yet expressed an opinion on talk, but there is long-term concensus that we do not quote examples of people USING the term - for fairly obvious reasons - the thousands of times that actions have been characterised as PC would bloat the article intolerably. The article is about the term, not the phenomenon. Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opposition is you. I cleaned it up as requested but you still had issues with it for some reason. You requested that we not quote the person for some reason. I then asked you provide some sort of a paraphrasal. Shortly after you removed it entirely, blatantly against any sort of civil behavior. And he's not just "quoted", he's commenting on the protection issue. And the article is about the term indeed and the term describes the phenomenon. In this case the term is being used, to describe the phenomenon. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lie once again. Provide one case of OR. Provide one case of synth. Provide one case of unreliable source. You on other hand are constantly edit warring and removing very sourced additions and sources themselves. You have no interest in concensus. You wrote that his view needs to be paraphrased. I asked for your paraphrasal. Instead you simply removed 3000 characters worth of a section with 7 sources. Earlier you made a rash edit which broke a sentence entirely into an uncomprehensible mess and when I reverted you reverted back. The sources you trumpet are incredibly unreliable. Again, published in a journal about poetry for children and cited by 3 is your primary source. I try to offer two cited by 504 and 93, but you claim they are unreliable. And again, the number of edits I make are tiny typo corrections on the talk page. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. I came here from a POV push on Moral panic after remembering this thread. (I haven't looked at other edits to articles, but imagine a pattern here.) You need to understand that your POV won't "win". That's not what this project is for. Just calm down, stop accusing others of faults, and go to the talk page and get consensus first. DreamGuy (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed this can't be used as a source that there is moral panic: PDF. You also said it was pointy to offer this as a source. And it seems like you came to hound me here. How again am I pushing a POV by providing that source? It seems like you're winning by removing sources you don't agree with. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. This isn't the place to get into more battles. I agreed the source proved that opinion (and that there are others), but not it's notability to the article. You seriously want to turn this into your POV? DreamGuy (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC) What if I have many like that? And what is POV about video game violence being moral panic? I thought it's one of the most common. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nb sub-section heading created retrospectively by Pincrete.Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

example of what appears to be unmistakable synth TODAY. What is most worrying is that Mr. Magoo doesn't seem to understand, or care about this, but just pushes on regardless

You're trying to remove two sources because the other one states in 1988 before the term was in use that Bloom began the debate. I fixed it by adding the clarification, but you're still not satisfied. How is it synth after the clarification? No matter what you're not satisfied. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Magoo, you cannot claim that someone said something, which they patently did not say, simply because you conjecture that they would have said it, if they had known the term. What is absurd about this is the sources you want to use DO say some usable things, simply not what Mr Magoo thinks they would have said - if they had known the term, though in Paglia's case she obviously did know it in 1997. WP is not a private essay site. The changes make the matter worse, not better. Let's logically deduce that Shakespeare would have written 'Home Alone', if film had been around, if, if, if, and then go to the 'Home Alone' page and say he DID write it. What you are doing is almost as absurd as that, it's called WP:SYNTH and your inability, or unwillingness to understand that, combined with the number of edits you are making is making you a huge liability on a sensitive topic area. Pincrete (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not doing any of that? I'm not conjecturing anything, Atlas states he began the debate about liberalism in higher education and Paglia states he began the culture wars in which PC theorists were hurt. I describe them describing Bloom having begun the debate, which was soon named political correctness. And I don't state "if they had known the term" because Paglia did and she uses it. Do you want separate sentences or something? It's hard to understand. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I separated the political correctness mention from the rest of the sentence with em dashes, signifying a parenthetical statement. Are you happy now? Mind you the rest of the sources used the term and I'm only doing this because Atlas didn't. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Magoo, Not only do you INSIST on your synth, you blatantly misrepresent what I am asking for here, and on talk. Neither Paglia nor Atlas said what you claim they said, it is pure invention on your part. 'Culture war', 'higher education debate', and use of the term 'PC', are closely related, but they are not synonyms, especially in an article about the use of a term. Wall St crash, Great depression, Roosevelt presidency and New Deal are closely related, they are not synonyms. If someone says something about the crash, you cannot claim they were saying it about the new deal! What is difficult to understand about 'they did not say this' ? Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that edit was because Aquillion turned actual quotes into distorted paraphrasals? I didn't revert him completely but I turned them a bit back to resemble the original quotations. In what world is that synth if you make them more like the original quotations? And what you asked for was that I don't misquote Atlas. Paglia you go on about for some reason even though there's no possibility of misquotation here. She says Bloom began culture wars, educational reforms and PC forces lost their prestige. What I added for Atlas were the em dashes to implicate a parenthetical statement. I originally had commas but since you still weren't happy I added the em dashes. They signify it is a parenthesis. Are you honestly only happy with actual direct quotations? I mean the forementioned edit by Aquillion gave as reason that we can't have direct quotations because it's unencyclopedic. When I add quotes you're unhappy and when I don't you're unhappy, even though I absolutely try my best to make the non-quote as quote-like as possible. How in the seven worlds can I ever satisfy you? This just seems like a witchhunt. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nb the section in which Mr. Magoo above claims Aquillion 'turned actual quotes into distorted paraphrasals', is unconnected to the subject of this synth discussion, Mr. Magoo either is making so many edits he no longer knows what the subject is, or he is intentionally 'muddying the waters'. Pincrete (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of extremely badly faithed and of bad behavior hidden little notes badmouthing me are you trying to hide here? You provided my un-synthesization of his synth as evidence of synth. Aquillion's edit has obviously everything to do with that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Magoo, Paglia says 'Bloom began the culture war' she may say that educational reforms and PC forces lost their prestige, however she does not link this either explicitly or implicitly to Bloom (mainly to Clinton). SHE DOES NOT SAY what you claim, either here or in the article, NEITHER DOES ATLAS, you admit that on talk, yet you edit war your favourite phrasing back in. What is difficult for you to understand about 'THEY DO NOT SAY THIS', only Mr Magoo does, for reasons best known to himself, since there are perfectly usable things that Atlas (at least) does say. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But those follow right after. I mean:

I would like to thank you and all the other, superbly well-informed Salon readers for your very interesting questions, most of which I have not had time or space to answer. An ad hoc policy of quick replies may be in order.

Future historians will certainly consider Allan Bloom's surprise mega-bestseller as the first shot in the culture wars that still rage, with oscillating intensity and visibility. Thanks partly to President Clinton's initiatives, educational reform has moved to center stage in the United States. After the long, slow decline of public schools, there are new calls for "standards" and an impatience with the touchy-feely liberal formulas that have left so many underprivileged students behind. On university campuses, the arrogant, mundane, anti-art, PC forces of French theorists and hard-line feminists have finally lost their prestige, even if they still hold lavishly compensated, tenured positions. (For more on this, see my article on gender studies in the July 25 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education.)

When my first book, "Sexual Personae," was released and reviewed in Europe and Britain, my dissertation advisor and mentor, Harold Bloom, was frequently confused with Allan Bloom, and I must admit I was aggravated to be falsely called a disciple of the latter. Nevertheless, I respect Allan Bloom for taking a courageous stand against the entrenched forces of his day, and I am confident that in the long run he will be vindicated and his critics swallowed in obscurity. I agree with both Blooms about the need to defend the canon of great artists and writers, but I differ with them most profoundly on the issue of popular culture, which as a child of television and rock music, I immediately embraced and continue to glorify. Pop is my pagan religion, and I do not agree that it destroys cultivated response to high art.

This is used as one of what ten sources (most of them not even noted at this section because I haven't cared to do that yet) for the statement that "Bloom likely began the debate about higher education" — a statement you agree with, and all our sources likewise name him firstmost and so do Kimball and Din. That's it. That statement is according to you not what the above states. I don't even know how to better point it out than by simply showing the text. And Atlas does state Bloom began the debate about liberalism in education which still rages 10 months on; and then which Bernstein will only days or months apart call the debate about Political Correctness.

And in your rush to edit the media bit from above you make simple mistakes: 690929974. In addition, you seemed to agree with my edits now since you only edited odd bits like from " and " to ".He "? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) you shouldn't post long quotes (like the Paglia above), even on noticeboards, it's copyvio and unnec. … … 2) my reply on content matters is here … … 3) are liberalism and PC-ness synonyms? … … 4) copy-editing just means I saw a clearer or less colloquial phrasing, I agree with about one edit in 10 of yours, the other nine are a mess. Pincrete (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to respond in that fashion then you shouldn't leave these arguments here but simply the link to the continuation. I'll reply in a longer fashion there, but: the quote is short enough for anyone to read through in an instant; and I didn't claim they were, the parenthesis political correctness isn't said by Atlas. And lastly I found a book by Atlas where he describes more clearly that it was Bloom who began it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These ARE long quotes in WP terms, I don't make the copyvio rules, I was just informing you. IF the 'new Atlas source' clearly endorses the claim, obviously the claim can stay. That doesn't alter the fact that you have been fighting tenaciously to retain total OR and Synth and wasting everyone's time persuading yourself it isn't, when a perfectly workable compromise was reachable based on what your sources DO say. Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no set limit and the particular text isn't copyrighted (also fair use). And again, provide even one example of OR or Synth from me. You're falsely accusing me and I have proved so. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text from LA Times, which Mr. Magoo now insists, justifies this text 'Critics, including Camille Paglia and James Atlas, have pointed to Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind as the likely beginning of the modern debate — about what was soon named "political correctness" — in higher education.' I defy anyone to find any mention of Atlas claiming that Bloom started ANYTHING in that text. The Paglia is dealt with previously. I will not post any further 'content matters' here. Mr Magoo does not understand what synth or OR is, is unwilling to learn, and that combined with his insistence on making dozen's of edits per day, tenaciously insisting on his own utter rightness makes him an unacceptable burden on other editors. Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only it says he began the book wars and assault on whom by the way? Yes, Paglia was shown to say Bloom began the culture wars which changed education and lead to PC forces losing their prestige — utterly proving the statement. And again the dozens of edits I make are to the talk page and are of few letters edits. Only recently I made a bunch of tiny edits to the 1980s section to format the Bernstein bit which I then decided to remove (it was my own addition so it doesn't matter), resulting in those edits changing nothing. Both of the critics state Bloom began the wars. Would you mind stating which wars the two are talking about? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is on the article talk page. Pincrete (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since unrelated editors have complained about unrelated articles and no changes have been made, maybe we have to go through the whole dispute resolution process. If a RFC is created, ping me. DreamGuy (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out there has been no ill will between me and Aquillion during this time. I've argued with another user on the talk page and above about an unrelated matter, but that's it. I've learned my lessons about wild accusations: in the future I will refrain from accusations and at worst only accuse of bad behavior when it's overt and not covert. I'd like to apologize to Aquillion for accusing his removals as vandalism. I hope we can continue working together harmoniously from here on. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Banned user Vote (X) for Change has continuously disrupted the boards with their trolling and harassment of many editors here for quite some time now. Not just the boards but the Reference desks as well. All the protections made on ANI, AN, and the Reference desks have been limited in duration since quite a bit of anon traffic does edit these areas. A suggestion has been made to me that the duration of the protection should be one month. I understand that this will have significant impact so before trying anything drastic, I'd like to hear some input on what you guys would like. Longer or shorter protection, or no protection?

I'd like to note that an edit filter will likely not be effective here and would have to be continuously modified to be moderately effective. Rangeblocking is not an option. Elockid ^{Message me} 02:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to suggest 2 weeks rather than 4, at this point. Impose 2-week protection on all of them, and once it expires, the moment that troll rears its ugly head, slap another 2 weeks on all of them. If 2 weeks proves insufficient after a few tries, up it to 3 for a while, then 4 for a while, and so on. If he has to wait several weeks every time, he might get tired of the routine and find something better to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Doing it in steps merely trains them to return. The value of starting with a month is the possibility the user might find something else to do. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All well and good, except that it punishes legitimate IP editors also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the disruption? They posts, someone reverts, life goes on. Respecting the editors who choose to edit without an account is more important than worrying about someone no one is really paying attention to, anyway. NE Ent 04:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good in theory, but it's an IP-hopper who won't stop posting his junk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment describes the situation. Not so much on ANI/AN since these pages have a high a number of watchers. Though on occasion, there doesn't appear to be any admins present for a short time and this troll engages in edit warring with non-admins. For example on November 9, 94.192.27.218 (talk · contribs) and 86.146.168.130 (talk · contribs) were used to edit war. Elockid ^{Message me} 04:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the troll-in-question, is causing ANI & AN (for examples) to be habitually semi-protected, due to its persistance. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it would easier to simply ignore their comments instead of immediately removing them. Their reports are generally nonsense anyways. I think they thrive off of the perceived injustice of not being able to say their piece, whatever it is. clpo13_(talk) 04:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general consensus is that trolling which is rife with personal attacks should not be allowed to stand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Bugs. Personal attacks against our editors need to be prevented, not ignored. HighInBC 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just RBI unless there's an unusually energetic burst of trolling. Keep protections short when possible. RD regulars should know about DNFTT and practice it. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangential note: Why isn't User:Vote (X) for Change included over at WP:LTA? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a rough draft at User:Elockid/Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Elockid ^{Message me} 23:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LTA is a difficult area. My guess is that making a page (even a draft) for this editor would be unhelpful because they seem to thrive on attention. I think everyone should stop linking or mentioning their name. Edit summaries should be "[[WP:DENY]]" only. LTA is only useful to provide long-term memory for dealing with the problem, but there are pleny of people who know what to do. Unfortunately there are a couple of editors at the reference desks who love talking and liberty, and they inflame the situation by reverting the removal of messages. Next time that happens I think the editors concerned should be given a final warning or preferably topic banned. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their trolling, not identifying who they are will only lead to more fuel that they have been unbanned or they're not really socking. Labeling the reverts as WP:DENY, banned user, socking, etc. has the same exact effect. They come back and you'll have a bogus report about how inappropriate your edit was. Elockid ^{Message me} 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like not to see the reference desks protected for long periods. They must be kept relatively open, for anonymous editors. If the rest of us have to do a little more work cleaning up after vandals, that's fine. If we're at the point that we're considering monthslong protection as our only option, my opinion is that we should declare that the trolls have won, shut down the reference desks, and move on. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I appreciate the hard work of the Reference Desk editors, but it may be time to discuss whether keeping them around is worth the trouble if we're having to protect the pages from the very editors we're trying to help. Katie^talk 05:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into an edit warring IP, 107.10.236.42 (talk · contribs), at Rabbi, and then I saw on my talkpage that When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk · contribs) claims this IP has a named account on Wikipedia he doesn't log in to , for some reason. On User_talk:When_Other_Legends_Are_Forgotten#Stop_Wikihounding_me the IP claims he is being hounded by When Other Legends Are Forgotten, while When Other Legends Are Forgotten claims he must use his named account.

I think that When Other Legends Are Forgotten is correct, that the IP must log in to his account, to make sure he doesn't avoid sanctions. I even think that in such a case it should be allowed to stalk the IP, to make sure he doesn't avoid any sanctions.

Can some admin please look into the matter, and take the necessary measures? I have posted a notification on both talkpages. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that I had an account, "there is no policy against editing while logged out."

On the other hand, @Debresser:, edit warring like you did at Rabbi is against policy. I'm glad you finally found your way to Talk:Rabbi; now maybe you can explain why you want to change language that's been in the article for years -- as I've repeatedly asked you to do. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same policy page you quote also says "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account" - so let me be direct : Do you have an account? yes or no? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, 107.10.236.42. Don't forget it takes 2 to edit war. In addition, as far as I am concerned, you are one of the many pushy IPs with POV contributions, and I am doing this project a favor by stopping you from pushing your POV. And I happen to be very sincere in that conviction of mine in your case, because it is obvious to me you came here with an agenda. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am joining my colleagues in expressing significant concerns about user 107.10.236.42 (talk · contribs). S/he indeed is quite pushy with POV as demonstrated on countless of occasions, along with suspicious IPs tagging along him/her. WP:SOCK? But what concerns me the most, is that s/he quickly deletes notices and warnings from talk page, including this notice to Administrators' noticeboard [53], and does this frequently with disparaging remarks as in here: "Taking out the trash" [54]. MarkYabloko 07:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What concerns me the most is that you still haven't read the talk page guidelines. And yet you deleted my messages from your talk page without comment. So perhaps you figured out that deleting talk page messages is not vandalism. I'm sorry it took a little trip to WP:AIV for you to learn that lesson. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a registered account, yes or no? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to open an SPI on Debresser and When Other Legends Are Forgotten. It smells like a duck pond here. Jabberwock2112 (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a sock investigation into an 8-year editor with 84,846 edits and several edit privileges is not nice. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that Jabberwock2112 (talk), who is blocked now, joined wikipedia just today, and his/ her ONLY contribution was to give Debresser (talk) hard time and divert attention from the original complaint.

Can our dear administrators investigate the origin of these, supposedly, random acts, yet familiar insults? MarkYabloko 19:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question was an obvious sock, and is now indef blocked. BMK (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So? Who is 107.10.236.42, and why is he editing not from his regular account. Can anybody anwser that question? Debresser (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For quite some time already, an IP hopper in the United Arab Emirates is disrupting WP and going after several users, using very obscene language [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. Both I and some other have protected user pages and talk pages as a consequence, and the user has also taken to ANI [64],

In addition to this personal attacks, the user is pushing an anti-Christian and pro-Muslim POV on several articles, [65], [66], [67], [68], [69].

Some of the IPs are blocked (at least ten, I believe) while others (such as 176.204.58.178, 173.35.129.54, 2.48.70.55 and 31.219.96.85) remain active. It's obvious that this exceptionally aggressive vandal is an established user as they know WP and WP terminology well. I think an IP range block would be called for, given the extensive disruption. Jeppiz (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been attacked by the same person in the same way (e.g. [70]) sometimes dozens of times in a day on several of my user pages including, distinctively, archives. It started in May. Until about a couple of weeks ago, they were routing their IP around random global locations eg [71] and [72]. So, I'm not sure a range block would work. I don't know what the technical options are. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been targeted by the same person; Jeppiz gives some of the diffs above. The IP-hopper repeatedly calls me a "son of a whore" or accuses me of molesting my mother. The edits have been on my user page, my user talk page and my user talk archives. The IP-hopper seems to be well-acquainted with Wikipedia terminology as he told me to read WP:NOTTHEM when I first posted at ANI about him. The person seems to be targeting me and Jeppiz because we reverted him when he repeatedly posted at Talk:Jesus that Jesus was the "bastard son of a whore" (or something along those lines). I took the liberty of running about half a dozen of the IPs through an IP tracker and all of them came up as in the United Arab Emirates. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In true troll fashion, the user even alerts DeCausa and me to articles we (or at least I) have never edited, so it's obvious it's only done to disrupt. [73], [74] Jeppiz (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latest is creating accounts just to host the attacks: User talk:Decausa (i.e. lower case 'c' is a new/separate account to mine. Btw, I don't think there's an actual "Muslim POV" going on here - per Mary in Islam no real Muslim would ever say this. Looks like just a disturbed teenager trying to think of something to say he thinks will shock. DeCausa (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I thought when he kept on targeting the article about Jesus, who Islam reveres as second only to Muhammad. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both users above, I meant to say that he (trolls are seldom female) tries to pass it off that way. It's a troll, pure and simple, pretending to be a Muslim. Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for that long WP:AGF and WP:NPA violation. Everyone can check my edits and see that i am not pushing an anti-christian or a pro-Muslim POV. In fact, I am only pushing WP:NPOV, while this cabal of pro-christianity bigots are pushing anti-Muslim pro-christian POV. All my edits are focused only on removing honorific titles from the articles of christian figures per WP:NPOV. These christian bigots keep removing honorifics titles from articles of Muslim figures under the claim that they violate neutrality, but when someone like me removing these honorifics from articles of christian figures they fell offended. That is the point.. Same: these christian bigots pretend that wikipedia is secular while editing muslim related articles but they turn into claiming that wikipedia is for christians while editing christian related figures.--189.196.129.102 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the IP (who has already been blocked around 20 times in the last 24 hours) claim to "only push WP:NPOV", I'd like to point out (lest anyone believes it) that the IPs edits include vandalism like changing the lead in the the good article Constantine the Great from saying Constantine the Great to "Constantine son of the whore" [75], or by changing the caption of the picture to say "The Dickhead Constantine" [76]. So much for the claiomed WP:NPOV. The user has caused 20 IPs to be blocked and dozens of articles to be protected, and is no doubt proud of that. Given the large disruption caused, I hope a throrough check-user could be performed to permanently ban the sock-master and to impose an IP-range block. Jeppiz (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of the expanding number of articles the IP hopper targets. Saint Peter
Hulagu Khan
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
Battle of Siffin
Umar
Constantine the Great
Mark the Evangelist
Helena (empress)
User:DeCausa
User:Cliftonian
User:Jeppiz
User:Alessandro57
Talk:Jesus
Talk:Jesus/FAQ
Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus)
WP:ANI
WP:RfPP
As it's neither just one article nor just one user, I think an range block is the only reasonable option, especially as the user actively seeks out new articles when the targeted ones are protected. The only goal is trolling what the user sees as "Christians" (in fact anything related to Western culture), meaning there are hundreds of possible targets. Blocking IPs from the UAE seems like a lesser disruption than protecting hundreds of articles. Jeppiz (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the collateral damage in effectively blocking the entire UAE? Blackmane (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the question I also pondered, though probably less than either protecting hundreds of pages or having WP:GA articles repeatedly vandalized. as in [77]. Out of several bad options, it's probably the one with the least collateral damage. Jeppiz (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's now at 176.204.38.78, it seems. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now 103.10.199.149—which seems to be a Hong Kong IP address. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DeCausa: & All: As far as technical options, a targeted blocking tool for IP-hopping trolls based on edit patterns should be feasible using Machine learning, but I don't know if the Wikimedia Foundation has this capability at the moment (I believe they have something similar for vandalism detection). It sounds like a fundamental problem, so it should. Do admins have ability to put in requests to the engineering department? If not, I can reach out to a former colleague there who specializes in this area. Msubotin (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Msubotin there is a proposal to modify blocking tools which looks like it is going to pass over at meta. There are still four more days for proposals if anyone has something on their tech wishlist that they want to see happen concerning all of the wikis. There are already many good ideas on that page for improvements, repairs, changes in functionality, etc. I see beneath the proposal that I linked to that there is a proposal for a machine learning abuse filter. I suggest that you and anyone else with good ideas head over to the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey to take part and offer their input. Now is your chance.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: Both of these ideas will clear the first stage of the survey but probably won't make it into the top 10. I've also added machine learning to identify sockpuppets. The WMF is also running a harassment consultation where I've raised the three blocking proposals on the wishlist survey as technical measures that may help reduce harassment, drama and toxicity. MER-C 22:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: would you be able to provide some insight as to how severe the collateral damage would be? Blackmane (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 176.204.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses): essentially nobody else has used this range since the start of November. (Only a couple of edits on the 8th).
• 2.48.0.0/17 (covers 32768 IP addresses): essentially nobody else has used this range since the start of November (other than a couple PowerPuff Girls edits earlier today). This range has also been hitting Bishonen's pages.
• 94.58.137.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (already blocked), 173.35.129.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 31.219.96.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 69.65.15.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 85.9.20.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (already blocked), and the one from Hong Kong are unrelated to these two ranges.

I am going to go ahead and block the two ranges for two weeks to start. Please make a note of the ranges for future reference. FYI I did not get the ping, and only discovered the thread whilst skimming the page. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa side note. not sure why the ping didn't work. Blackmane (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackmane: You went back and corrected the spelling of my username; everything has to be perfect first try for the ping to work, i.e. the ping and the signature have to occur together in the same diff for the ping to work. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that explains that, thanks. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that this friendly person has reappeared (and been blocked) as 200.122.128.152. Harrias ^talk 11:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again, as 185.65.206.157. Harrias ^talk 12:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again 103.9.77.106 and again 77.247.180.147. @Diannaa:, can something be done or should we just accept that this user will continue to harass a lot of users until they get tired of it? Jeppiz (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These two IPs are not in the same range as the others, they are not even in the same country, so range block is out of the question. Another admin has added page protection to Mary in Islam. A combination of rangeblocks and page protections often works. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No diffs to show as the pages have all been removed, but as seen on this user's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Navyavenulal s/he is repeatedly recreating the same few pages using copyrighted material (generally large copypastas from the subject pages) to create promotional pages for obscure subjects/events, also violating WP:BLP rules in the process. Editor has received multiple warnings.JamesG5 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information about copyright written for new editors on their talk page. Draft:Pratibha prahlad is heavily promotional but the subject looks notable. Perhaps post to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and see if a collaborator can be found? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a copyvio, I'm trying to figure out from where. The subject is notable though, passing both GNG and ANYBIO. —SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability comment was referencing another page (Alisha Anand) that the same user has created twice that was deleted on lack of notability, not about the repeatedly recreated Pratibha prahlad page. JamesG5 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: I found a couple sentences that could be reworded to avoid semi-close paraphrasing of one of the sources but no outright copyright violations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning with this edit on 04:06, 15 November 2015, User:Kalman613 has repeatedly[79][80][81][82][83] inserted POV and LIBEL into the article on Yeshiva Toras Moshe over my reverts[84][85][86][87]. After my first revert, I engaged him in conversation on the talk page[88] and he agreed to adhere to neutrality[89], but he has continued to insert non-neutral and libelous content from the blog of one of the faculty members who is "dedicated to arguing with Modern Orthodox positions" (Yeshiva University is a Modern Orthodox institution). I believe there is no place for this attack on Yeshiva University in an article about a different yeshiva, and I also question the inclusion of the blog as a reliable source. At this point, we have reached 3RR. I am not reverting his changes, but am asking for a block of the user so the page can be salvaged and the POV and LIBEL removed. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not seeing how this is non-neutral or libelous. It appears to be a dispute over the inclusion of some information. The user claims to be presenting information that is integral to the subject matter and at face value that does not appear to be unreasonable. They seem to be attempting to present the wording neutrally and they are correct in stating that a blog can be a reliable source for referencing the viewpoints or statements of the blog's owner. Reliability of sources and due weight of information can be discussed, but the user appears to be willing to communicate reasonably and compromise, and I don't think it's reasonable to come here asking for a block. "Libel" implies that you are reverting BLP violations and are thus exempt from 3RR yourself, but it doesn't look like you're actually removing libel. I'll protect the page so you two can focus on discussion and seek dispute resolution if necessary and resolve this through consensus but I don't think there's a justification for a block. Swarm ♠ 22:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the explanation. I would just like to make it clear that the material being added is an attack on Yeshiva University by a faculty member of Yeshiva Toras Moshe. To my understanding, this opposition belongs on the Yeshiva University page or the faculty member's page, not on this page. Isn't that right? Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Y'all should be able to come to a consensus one way or another for this thru some form of dispute resolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like what you really want to do is start a RFC on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Remini was vandalized by Scientology on 7 November 2015[90] and nobody noticed for nearly two days.[91] This is just one incident, but this is a BLP and we know that this page will be the target of repeated vandalism and POV pushing by Scientology for at least the next few years, so can we please put it under pending changes PC1 protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think people with some familiarity of Scientology conflicts should just watchlist the article and deal with such edits. PC seems like overkill at the moment and we shouldn't do stuff like that preemptively. It's a high profile article so it shouldn't be difficult to keep enough eyes on it. I'm surprised that one slipped through for 2 days. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be a bad call to take action before there's really been any issue.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The user Davin1134 may need their user talk page access removed; they are already indef blocked but are editing their user talk page to call admin "dumb" and "morons". 331dot (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a broad-based comment such as that is justification for removing talk page access. I hope there's more to it than simply the last couple comments I saw.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an indef blocked user should be using their talk page to insult anyone, generally or broadly. If that's all they are going to do (since they are blocked) without a block appeal on their page, then they don't need access to it. Just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user has made a number of disruptive page moves and move proposals today. In the related discussions it is personally abusing other editors. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but I am not going to raise to your bait ... you have been more or less pointlessly hectoring or reverting my edits all day, today! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the reverts do you think was "pointless"? Was it the one where you deleted a whole article without any discussion whatsoever? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So?! Where are the citations for the article?! "Original research" is also alright, is it?! Anyway, I was just about to go into nominating the page for dismembering, or, merging, with different articles, when all this kicked off! Anyway, I am a Yorkshireman (and I am also disabled), and I bloody tell it like it is! What do you take me for, a Scottish Calvinist minister?! Phew! Anyway, ta-ra! Still not raising to it! I am sure you are just trying to flirt with me, somehow! Bring out the mistletoes then, I say! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While a bold redirect is not necessarily a mistake in every case, there were 9 citations given in the article text that you deleted. More citations would be a good thing, but it would seem odd to describe a whole article as original research when it has 9 perfectly good citations. You might want to consider discussing big changes to articles on their Talk pages beforehand. You might also want to consider that if you make big edits, then there is a high chance you will be reverted. This does not constitute "hectoring" by others. Bondegezou (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about assuming good faith, my only encounter with Urquhartnite (as far as I remember) has been in this discussion regarding Kids_Company. Perhaps he and JRPG have a history of disagreement, but this seemed rather unnecessary to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a surreal encounter with Urquhartnite at Talk:Camila Batmanghelidjh#Merger proposal (Fereydoon Batmanghelidj) where they seemed to be trying to make a weird kind of personal attack - note the reference to painkillers. They did something similar(?) to another user in the following thread Talk:Camila Batmanghelidjh#CBE forfeiture. I think some sort of health issue may be resulting in eratic behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A similar lack of AGF appeared recently when Urquhartnite raised an RFC decrying an article as "Possible hoax or hoaxes", arguing from such original research of their own as 2. As long as the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is and remains married to [HM] Queen Elizabeth II, there is and can be of course NO separate "Household of [The] Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", so-called, as such, I don't think! I don't think that, that it is actually possible to have two separate households for man and wife married to each other, do you, User:Miesianiacal, do you think?! [93] NebY (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Surreal" is a good way to describe an interaction with this editor. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess all I can offer here is my own experience with this editor: A few days ago, Urquhartnite did not take kindly to my revert of his/her move of List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh to List of titles and honours of the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. First was a somewhat normal remark on my talk page, though it asked me to supply British sources only, no Canadian. But, then came a rambling message full of ad hominems directed at me, and then another. Then a sarcastic barnstar, plus two "thanks" for my removal of his/her diatribes. I asked for this individual to stop, but they posted at my talk again and again (another incoherent block of text). My second request for him/her to cease posting at my talk seemed to get the message through. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case of "Don't edit while under the influence of drugs, prescribed or otherwise." Some of those talk page posts are nonsensical. Blackmane (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished reading Urquhartnite's posts at the Royal Households of the United Kingdom's Rfc & at Miesianiacal's talkpage. This seems to be a case of WP:COMPETENCE, per Blackmane's concerns of possible drug usage. I found Urquhartnite's posts rather difficult to understand. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the closing lengthy attack on another editor's integrity[94], based on Google searches for that editor's activities outside Wikipedia, was clear enough and unacceptable, even when padded with specious disclaimers.[95] NebY (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point #11 was later removed by Urquartnite after another editor pointed out that it was an attack or at the least was casting aspersions against another editor. Blackmane (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urqartnite didn't remove their attack - it was another editor that commented it out.[96] NebY (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've indefinitely blocked this editor after identifying suggestive and sexist posts to the talk pages of two women editors with whom he has had no prior interaction whatsoever. Those edits, in addition to the problematic interations above, strongly suggest an editor who is unable to interact appropriately with other users. Risker (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent subject of Koko Jones is asking for the article to be deleted. As it stands it is very poorly sourced and probably would go if PROD ed of it went to AfD. A speedy delete is unlikely to succeed as there is some grounds for assuming notability. However, I can empathise with the concerns that he/she expresses here and wondered , given the lack of notability whether an admin could not consider a more direct route to oblivion. The content of the article clearly indicates the reason for concern and, although such personal material may be in the public domain, its inclusion here might be considered harassment particularly in as it relates to gender issues. I think the veiled legal threat in the edit summary may safely be ignored. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per this diff,[97] it's not a veiled threat at all. They should be blocked until it is redacted, and it should be PRODed if you think it will work. After that, AfD if that fails. Impersonators come and go all the time. Scr★pIron^IV 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have prodded it as a BLP and we'll see what happens. I am not certain that "I'll find a lwayer" is strictly a legal threat, it could after all be an indication that he/she wishes to take legal advice and not action but I'll leave that distinction to wiser heads. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not eligible for WP:PROD BLP because there are sources in the article. It is eligible for the similarly-named but separate WP:PROD process. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said, this article is a minefield because of the (alleged) gender-related issue. On the surface, I'd say the article needs renamed and recast, but I'd want a more exhaustive search of sources before I did that. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are better sources available than those used in the article, e.g. [98][99], and the contested content seems mostly to be available on the subject's own website, but as this is a request for deletion by a marginally notable individual leaving the prod to expire seems best per the advice at WP:BLPDEL. Fences&Windows 21:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address what was unsourced solely based on that; further investigation revealed more information. As I posted on User talk:Velella:

This Huffington post article ^[1] makes it harder; looking at that source, the subject has voluntarily disclosed, and also asserts some notability. Her official website^[2] is also open about it, as is this interview.^[3] There are additional sources in a short google search that lend to her notability. World Music Report^[4] is one, and asserts her openness on the issue as well as add to notability. I am not certain we are doing the right thing here, acting on the word of an an editor claiming to be the subject.

I am not an expert in these matters, and believe it would be best left in the hands of those who specialize in these matters.

Please note that I am not making any personal statement or taking any stand here; I want to do right by the subject of the article, and in accordance with the rules. If I have made any error, it is only from a lack of experience in the topic. Scr★pIron^IV 22:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have declined the PROD after adding several citations to sources, and there are more out there. It may be that the subject wants to keep mention of being Trans or her former name (under which she initially gained fame) out of the article. But she has discussed both in several published interviews, and can't have things both ways. Still I have emphasized her music and its reception, not her trans status, in the edits I have made, as that is what she is primarily notable for, IMO. DES ^(talk) 00:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Vin09#Regarding_conflicts_with_page_Chandrala gives more info where the other user moved pages and made a mess. Chandrala, Mylavaram mandal and Chandrala, Gudlavalleru mandal‎ were the original pages, the user moved and pasted on one page where the talk page contents were not moved like here. Please check the article talk pages as well where I placed a requested move. FYI, Chandrala,_Mylavaram_mandal is located near Gudivada and the other near Vijayawada. He created two more pages Chandrala, Near Gudivada and Chandrala (Vijayawada). I request you to move Chandrala, Near Gudivada -> Chandrala, Gudlavalleru mandal‎ and Chandrala (Vijayawada) -> Chandrala, Mylavaram mandal. Please notice Chandrala, Mylavaram mandal talk page says Talk:Chandrala, Near Gudivada. So, please go thourgh talk pages as well.--Vin09 (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgebattle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is anine-day-old account that has been editing disruptively with a strong political POV. The account has received a notice of discretionary sanctions relating to American politics[101] and on 19 October was blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Recently the account created Carsonism and then blanked an AFD for it[102]. (I have re-created the AFD.) I will notify the editor of this ANI report. Looie496 (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The account's editing history goes back to September 2014. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Account created 10 September 2014 samtar ^{t} 14:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I somehow misread the contribs -- I fixed the statement, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Strong political POV"? Well, don't most people have that? However, if something seems to be POV'd, then someone can just fix it. That's no reason to block someone. :-\ That's why, after all, Wikipedia is open and free, yea? If something is true, then it's true. If you feel that a certain inconvenient truth has a certain political bias, just remember Stephen Colbert's words: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ;-) Just fix whatever article you think needs fixed. Problem solved. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 15:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgebattle, it was incorrect for you to blank an AfD and an unwise idea to blank any page unless it contains copyright violating content, personal attacks or vandalism. Please do not do this in the future or you can be blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address is constantly inserting fringe content into the article about Antoni Macierewicz. It is also improperly using templates and is posting personal attacks directed at me. ReliableBen (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReliableBen deletes properly sourced material about Antoni Macierewicz, replaces a section about "Controversies" with a section labeled as "False claims". Any criticism seems to be a "conspiracy" (which is pretty much the conception of Mr. Macierewicz himself). Properly sourced criticism needs to be mentioned, and my additions are based on highly reliable sources. It's rather a matter of WP:POV and WP:3RR on ReliableBen's side. 80.136.67.21 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full-protected for 24 hours. Go to Talk:Antoni Macierewicz and resolve your differences, or to dispute resolution if you can't. And I don't see any edit that looks like vandalism, so don't accuse each other of that, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, looks like User:ReliableBen has decided the matter for himself. It's a false claim to him, therefore, it's a false claim. Lol. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 19:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that this man, Antoni, is a Christian Nationalist, which is well-known for it's anti-Semitism, after the views of Martin Luther. Many modern KKK are Christian Nationalists, and are denounced as not being "true Christians" by most Christians, for their hatred. The Christian National Union that he adheres to is a part of the Christian right and social conservatives – making it more likely that they really are anti-Semetic. Plus, the label "nationalism" often comes with the disdain for "others". And, one of the sources is the Jerusalem Post – a very reliable source. Sounds like Reliable Ben is unreliable. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 19:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this unreferenced sentence in Antoni Macierewicz BLP: The committee has continued to publish reports proving Russian responsibility for the crash.. I think this is in sore need of editing towards neutrality and WP:COMMON, as no Russian responsibility has ever been proven, and frankly, Macierewicz's commission has been relegated by wide array of opinion to conspiracy theory trafficking. --Mareklug ^talk 20:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Indian films he made 17 consecutive edits and removed references from International Business Times, Koimoi, India Today, Daily News and Analysis and added only Box Office India.

In 3 Idiots, he mentioned Do not change. Community is BOI-fying the whole Bollywood Box-office. Now only one universal source will follow. No koi moi no toi for indian bo. replacing The Economic Times.

Prem Ratan Dhan Payo his edit was Do NOT ENTER THE GROSS WORLDWIDE UNTIL THE COMPLETE RUN. WHOLE WIKI COMMUNITY ONLY ACCEPTS BOX OFFICE INDIA NOW. NOT FRAUD SITES LIKE KOIMOI BLAH BLAH. SO ONCE THE RUN IS OVER YOU CAN FILL THE BOI FIGURE. CHECK HAPPY NEW YEAR OR KICK OR PK PAGES

Check all the edit summary in 1, 2 and 3.

PK (film) the edit summary is BOI-fied . Now why does he wants everything to be BOI-fied while removing other reliable sources? He is simply edit-warring and abusing editors.

same old story, same old . Galaxy Kid (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by [103] this is not any sort of decided consensus on the issue. I believe it would be wise for WikiBriefed to stop removing reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to ask admins to take a look at this user as well, because I think I might be marginally involved. The user is demonstrating some inappropriate behaviors including personal attacks like: HOW STUPID ARE YOU? MANEESH SHARMA THE DIRECTOR SAID ITS A THRILLER. YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED. IDIOT! although so far there has only been one instance of that. The unilateral decision that only BOI can be used as a reference is clearly disruptive. I will also note that the editor is misusing the minor changes box. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is BOI a reliable source at all? Certainly not at the expense of other, more established RS, but do links to that site have any value? If the answer is no, then is the blacklist an option? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraexactzz It's a grander question that you are asking, and one that I'm attempting to answer at User:Cyphoidbomb/ICTF FAQ, although with not much help from the community. So far the community seems okay with BoxOfficeIndia.com (there is a BoxOfficeIndia.co.in that should not be confused for this other BOI) but that doesn't make it the definitive resource. Frankly, there are major problems with Indian box office data. There's no absolutely reliable source like BoxOfficeMojo.com is considered for western films. Producers lie about box data to lure more people to view the film, or wrangle some resources into reporting low numbers to hurt their competition. Times of India briefly discontinued their box office feature because they were sick of corruption. And, to top it all off, we have paid editors, sockpuppets, etc. who don't care that the box office numbers are all estimates, they still come back daily, sometimes hourly, to report the newest number even though they're still just estimates. What makes BOI's estimate any more reliable than Times of India's estimate? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The community will decide if boxofficeindia is a reliable source. Meanwhile, a swift block will prevent further disruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.88.180.151 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this blurb is in the disclaimer

I wouldn't be inclined towards accepting it as a reliable source. Blackmane (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BoxofficeIndia has been a pet peeve of mine for a while. It was discussed in 2008 at RSN here and again here in July. We still have zero information on who is behind the website and the .co.in is a legitimate trade publication whereas the .com is not. I also argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Office India (2nd nomination) to give rid of the page since we have no idea about it. I've already changed the guidelines at the Indian cinema task force Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines on sources to reflect this. I think it's clear that it's not a reliable source but if not, we can go for another round at RSN again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that we're back to the same concerns we had in 2008, namely that no one actually considers this a reliable source in line with our policy requirements but we acknowledge that some newspapers (which we presume are reliable sources) refer to it so it falls under WP:USEBYOTHERS so it's an issue about the fact that it's been used extensively even if no one has any idea here who's behind it: do we need to have a separate analysis of its reliability or do we just defer to the actual sources. Now all the discussions acknowledged that there does exist actual reliable sources so on that basis WikiBriefed should be warned to knock it off immediately and blocked if the editing continues. Again, as I suspect with the .co.in versus .com confusion, I think we're being used for spam purposes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem with this website is that they simply delete the reference that users use from their website. There are dozens of Bollywood articles, where boxofficeindia links have become deadlink. Today i will use a boxofficeindia report for a movie as a reference. After two weeks that reference becomes dead link. The user considers Koimoi as bad. As if he has some personal grudge against the website. In other sources the link don't become dead link. Few months ago i used to read articles in boxofficeindia about highest grossing movies from 1940 to 2010. Now i don't see those individual pages from 1940 to 1970. Unless boxofficeindia sources don't create deadlinks, we shouldn't use it. Other websites change the URL, while BOI simply deletes the entire article. They revamp their website again and again. Galaxy Kid (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should try www.archive.org on those pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple new accounts have been using the reFill tool today to infiltrate spam links into unrelated articles. The initial perpetrator was IBNBIN who made changes to multiple articles, some of which appear innocuous; this was followed by numerous accounts which each made a single edit, e.g. [[104]], [[105]], [[106]], [[107]], [[108]], [[109]], [[110]], [[111]], [[112]], [[113]], . . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've been tracking and blacklisting these at WT:WPSPAM for a couple of weeks.

• blackfridaymattress.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• whatsuppworkout.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• thunderingsound.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• rhinoplastysurgeonsinuk.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• ardenheritage.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• newyork-locksmith.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• freelancevideocollective.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• thelittlewoodentoyshop.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• trueblueloans.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Domains blacklisted and SPI filed. MER-C 21:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hmm. I haven't seen the use of reFill for spam purposes. Good catch. It looks like IBNBIN is mixing legitimate reFill edits with a few that also include the addition of a spam link. Legitimate: [114] [115] [116] [117]. Spam: here ("freelancevideocollective"), here ("trueblueloans"), here ("littlewoodentoyshop"), etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Grez-Cañete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I don't know how it is possible that this user is still allowed to edit (and disrupt) Wikipedia after several incidents (see: [118]-[119]-[120]-[121], and many more if you search). Last incidents? First, he retired from Wikipedia saying that time was "definitive" because "This is full of shit and it's disturbing to know unimportant strangers harass people everyday on this fading website" [122]. But no, he wasn't retiring, because only 12 days later he returned to revert editions in Pichilemu-related articles and, of course, to insult some users (I don't want to reproduce all here, you can see it by yourself [123]). And last, but no least, he also is starting to edit Pichilemu articles under IP, and now he is attacking me: "the Rancagua guy loves to lie" [124] and "so called laughable President of WM Chile" [125]. For all this reasons, I strongly believe that Diego grez account (and all his sockpupets) must be blocked. He is not contributing to Wikipedia, he is using it for his personal benefits, self promotion, and he is also acting in bad faith. --Warko ^talk 22:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ping @Vrac: and @Sietecolores:, other users also attacked by Grez. --Warko ^talk 22:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Check out the latest on COIN: [126]. Definitely time for an indef or a site ban. I Support and indef or a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I've blocked him for two weeks in the SPI case. If the community wants to discuss an indef or some form of ban then this is would be a reason to keep this thread open to make policy-based arguments with reasons to assist the closing admin (it won't be me).
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would recommend a more permanent solution, he will most likely return after 2 weeks. Diego Grez knows very well how to WP:GAME THE SYSTEM. Sietecolores (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose that Diego Grez-Cañete be indef blocked or site banned for longterm abuse including socking, gaming, massive COI, repeated personal attacks and wiki-stalking, and longterm disruption. Definitely not here to build an encyclopedia, and by far a net negative. Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either an indef block or a site ban, which to be determined by community consensus or closing admin (or ArbCom, if it comes to that, but I think it is clear-cut enough by now that it shouldn't need to). Softlavender (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Warko ^talk 13:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slawekb / User:Sławomir Biały keeps changing Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources without consensus.[131][132][133][134][135][136]

Warning: [137] (User talk:Slawekb is a redirect) Edit after warning: [138]

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, I replied to the message you left on my talk page. I'm rather confused why this is being escalated to ANI. Could you explain a little more clearly what's wrong with the edit? I've responded to your message in a little more detail on my user talk page. But, as far as I know, in this edit summary, you helpfully suggested that I should "check to see if MEDRS actually says that". So, I checked MEDRS, and replaced the offending passage with a direct quotation from that guideline. I would have thought that this satisfied your objection there. But your objection is unclear, since you haven't really explained yourself at all. Sławomir
Biały 02:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for your changes, as should be obvious to you by the many comments on the talk page disagreeing with you. On reflection, I should not have attempted to salvage the portion of your change that there seems to be a consensus for, nor should I have attempted to explain why I thought your edit was wrong in my edit summary. It doesn't matter whether I agree with your edits. You need to get consensus for them on the article talk page. Changing a major Wikipedia guideline is a big deal, and you need to go to the talk page, explain what you intend to do, and ask if anyone objects. Your insistence on editing the page without first seeking consensus for your changes is why you are at ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Editing a guideline without consensus is generally frowned upon, but...as far as I can see, Slawekb simply reworded the sentence in question without actually changing the meaning of it. While even that should be done with care, I really don't see him/her as having done anything wrong. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the talk page as well as the multiple editors who have reverted Slawekb all agree that the changes did indeed change the meaning. In particular, the changes[139] applied WP:MEDRS to "scientific matters" despite the clear consensus of the Wikipedia community that WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical matters and WP:SCIRS applies to scientific matters. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you actually raised the point "WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical matters and WP:SCIRS applies to scientific matters" after I made the edits that you're complaining about. Indeed, the diff you just linked to was two hours after I posted an explanation on the talk page, and there was no objection on the talk page prior to the edit. Furthermore, I hadn't even heard of WP:SCIRS, until you brought it up just now. At any time, you could have made this point on the discussion page. You could have raised this issue before I even edited the guideline! But instead, you opted to issue vague but threatening edit summaries, "warnings" on my user talk page, and now an apparently gratuitous ANI report. WP:AGF much?

"The consensus on the talk page": where is this consensus you speak of? There is a discussion on the talk page, but not until recently is there a discussion of MEDRS versus SCIRS, which is now (apparently) the subject of your complaint. I find it hard to imagine that it is in any way reasonable to ask for administrative sanctions against someone that was unaware of comments made after the fact.

"Your insistence on editing the page without first seeking consensus for your changes is why you are at ANI" As far as I can tell, I'm at ANI because you started an ANI complaint rather than attempt to resolve things in a less confrontational way, through discussion on the talk page. Indeed, I had explained all of my edits on the talk page, while you apparently couldn't be bothered to clarify yours until after starting an ANI complaint. Since when is ANI the first stop for dispute resolution? You know better than that. But this edit certainly suggests that you have no interest in pursuing editing in a cooperative and constructive manner. I've no idea why you have made it your apparent mission to persecute me, but this just seems like mean-spirited bullying for its own sake. Sławomir
Biały 07:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to simply ignore this nonsense. You have better things to do. Don't feed the trolls. YohanN7 (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]