Users User:Bob989898 and User:ansh666 have violated community sanctions on Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) by reverting more than once in 24 hours. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 19:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob keeps on replacing or substing the infobox, which was separated out for size and readability (editability?) reasons. It's the kind of revert with which no reasonable editor would disagree. ansh666 19:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, ansh666's reverts are commonsense fixes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I want to hear why Bob989898 is replacing the template transclusion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done by three ostensibly different editors: Bob, IbrahimWeed (talk · contribs), and Shadow4dark (talk · contribs). I won't revert again to maintain my sanity, since 4 of the last 9 edits on that article are me reverting things... ansh666 23:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that they're obviously edit warring in a way that makes no sense, I would be interested to know how an editor who's been here all of three weeks knows how templated infoboxes work, because I've definitely had to explain to editors who have been here for months how infoboxes themselves work. TimothyJosephWood 23:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Timothyjosephwood- I'm still waiting for you to talk me through it! ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting an uncontroversial maintenance edit without explanation falls far below the "expected standards of behaviour" mandated by community sanctions. I've put back the template as an admin action and pinged each of the three editors on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am bringing a mega thread of the same name at COIN here, as this needs community consideration. Thread at COIN is here. This is a bit long but attempts to summarize.

• Vipul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Riceissa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Note, Vipul has said that Riceissa has an organizing role, as well being paid by Vipul -- diff)

Note- all off-wiki links below are OK to use per statement by Vipul here.

• 1) Vipul works at an SEO and website optimization company in Silicon Valley funded by VC there. Very data and metrics driven. (company website, LiftIgniter)
• 2) Vipul describes here, a website linked from his userpage, the network of editors he personally pays or as he says "sponsors" to do work at Wikipedia and elsewhere; these editors in turn are encouraged to recruit other editors. Payment to any given editor is in part upfront, in part based on page views, and in part on a "royalty" -- a percentage of what recruited editors are paid (pyramid scheme). Everything he is doing is carefully documented, in almost bewildering very fine detail (down to a copy of his bank statement). All very data-oriented and data driven. That page notes: "Note that workers who have opted to be paid privately are not listed here."
• 3) This has been going on since January 2015, based on the payments recorded there. I can't work out exactly how much he spent on Wikipedia editing, but it appears to be between ~$50K and~$20K (the smaller number based on based on WP-related tasks listed here, but this has been contested at COIN). Vipul provides this list of all the tasks he has paid for, and I generated this spreadsheet based on his data and there are 276 rows - multiple articles have multiple editors so let's call it ~250 articles. Again this doesn't count people he didn't list.
• 4) At that page about this effort, Vipul has written that he has done this inspired by the ideals of effective altruism, and the effort has targeted areas relevant to that movement - a) technology (including technologies themselves, companies, people, and investors); b) philanthropies (tracking in detail how much they give, to whom like this); c) global health; d) governance issues like open borders and immigration, and taxation; e) animal welfare.
• 5) Many of the articles that have been created are in the format "Timeline of X", which range from Timeline of cholera (many of these by disease/condition) to Timeline of healthcare in Egypt (many of those by country) Timeline of Microsoft (many of these, by company). Many are extremely detailed. Around 100 of the ~250 articles are in the "Timeline of X" format.
• 6) There is no clear mission to all this.
  • Some of the articles, especially in the "technology" focus, look like typical paid editing gigs (promotional, only positive, not well sourced, etc), and concerns have been raised about SEO intentions, especially regarding many of the Timeline of X articles, which are full of poor sources. For articles that are look like typical paid editing gigs, see for example Zenefits, Parker Conrad, Data Collective, and Gusto (software) which are inter-related - Parker was the CEO of the company that created Gusto, which was funded by Data Collective. Another is Adora Cheung which is all positive and lauding, but one of the sources actually used is highly critical of the company that made her somewhat famous, and there is nothing of that in the article. (the ref)
  • Some of the topics seem advocacy-driven. In Vipul's invitation to edit for pay he explained why he wanted to recruit paid editors to work on certain topics, and wrote: Migration liberalization is a top interest for me personally. and wrote I believe that animal suffering, both that inflicted by humans and that inflicted by nature, is an important part of global suffering by sentient creatures.. Are we looking at using paid editors to force multiply WP:ADVOCACY? Hm. I brought this up to Vipul and he said they strive to be NPOV. But this is where the whole COI thing of his editors kicks in, right? And they are not putting articles and edits through peer review. Problematic.
• 7) There have been both behavior and content issues:
  • Behavior - WP:MEAT/WP:TEAM behavior. See for example history of Form 1040. In general the editors have been inconsistent in declaring per the TOU and have not been following the WP:CO guideline and have been editing and creating directly, and aggressively. And again per the note on his project page, there is an unknown number of editors who are apparently not disclosing that they have been paid by Vipul. That part is really troubling.
  • Additionally there appear to be some clear COI issues, and there are possibly SEO activities going on here, despite what Vipul has said about the altruistic motivations.
    • COI: One of Vipul's editors for example created an article about one of the VCs that funded Vipul's company. (see history and you can see that Vipul directly edited it - no COI declaration anywhere. The paid editor also included a wikilink to Vipul's company, diff. See also the inter-related articles mentioned above. Vipul also created the article on Shasta Ventures which also has a seat on the Data Collective (ref).
    • SEO: As mentioned a bunch of the "Timeline of X" articles are pretty badly sourced, and as mentioned Vipul works at an SEO firm. That raises eyebrows. Then there is this page where VIpul lists companies to create Timelines for ... and you find there companies that are not cutting edge tech (which I can kind of see Effective Altruists being excited about) but instead includes old school retail dinosaurs like Forever 21, Saks Fifth Avenue, 7-Eleven and Kmart. I cannot get my head around how this would fit in Vipul's philanthropic mission. It ~looks~ like setting up SEO linkspamming.
  • Content: Much of the content violates WP:NOTHOWTO or gives WP:UNDUE, and there is a great deal of WP:OR in the Timeline articles. And as mentioned there are PROMO issues with the technology-focus articles. As an example of UNDUE see Open_Philanthropy_Project#Grants_made, a very detailed table that Vipul pays editors to keep regularly updated. Vipul says at the bottom of this blog post that he uses this WP page to explain to people what the Open Philanthropy Project is. This is a bit of abusing WP as a webhost, which WP is NOT; the Open Philanthropy Project is an effective altruism project, and so this is kind of advocacy-driven as well.

So - what am I recommending? (Note, some of the following feels like looking a gift horse in the mouth; I am unaware of a paid-editing entity disclosing at anywhere near the level that Vipul has. These recommendations go to what would be ideal, to give the community comfort and to be truly transparent and ... well, clean)

• a) that Vipul put a moratorium on this operation.
• b) that Vipul formulate a clear mission for what he is doing and consider going through the GLAM on-boarding process before re-starting. I suggest that the "technology" focus be eliminated. I reckon the GLAM folks will think through other aspects of the mission with him. (I hope)
• c) that Vipul provide a single list of articles his team has worked on for him, and a list of all the editors he has paid. (we don't need to see how much he has paid them)
• d) That Vipul obligate his editors via the contracts he has with them, to follow the PAID policy and the COI guideline. Posting those contract templates would be great.
• e) That his team
  • 1) puts PAID disclosures on the Talk pages of articles they work on, and
  • 2) follows the COI guideline, putting content through peer review via AfC for new articles, and through Talk page postings for existing articles
• f) the community should agree to have zero tolerance for MEAT/TEAM editing by his team against other editors.

Some folks at COIN have called for more stringent measures like TBANs from technology or INDEFs but i am mostly concerned to prevent future problems. One of the concerns mentioned multiple times at COIN is that this operation will keep growing and growing as editors recruit other editors and so on. The quality of content and behavior is not well-managed by Vipul even at this stage of the project's development and the community has had no input on the effort per se, and there has been no systematic content review, since articles are being edited and created directly.

I am intrigued and troubled by this model of individuals paying editors to work in WP, as a form of philanthropy (to take what Vipul says at face value). This is one of those things where we do encourage people to be WP:BOLD but the community also expects large-scale projects to gain consensus before they are initiated. And if that is not done, well this is what happens.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC) (struck the single list of paid editors - that was already in existence Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)) (added example of too detailed content Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

For the sake of completion, see also the beginning of the saga on my talk page (Lengthy Q&A). El_C 03:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El C. I also want to note that Vipul made a statement at COIN, here, about what he is doing. in reaction to the COIN thread. I found it mostly defensive and unresponsive to the concerns of the community, but folks should have a look at it. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Jytdog's recommendations. As he mentions, he is mostly looking into the future (of course, to that end, a more forensic view of past operations of the Vipul Group is also warranted), to be able to set a correct precedence. I hope Vipul understands that this is done in good faith, not to be harsh, but to ensure there is a smooth interplay between volunteer and paid editng. A lot of us give money to the project, but almost all of us do it by donating it directly to the Foundation. As I said before, it is Vipul's money, after all, and he can spend it as he sees fit. But spending it on paid Wikipedia editors, does fall under the strict conditions outlined in the m:ToU. Conditions to be further expanded and refined upon here. Jytdog also mentions that some at COIN have called for more stringent measures—I am still unsure as to that, however. El_C 04:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acting on (a), I have suspended all the portion of contract work operations that involve Wikipedia editing. I have posted this update to my user page (see diff), updated contractwork.vipulnaik.com (see commits here and here). :I've also informed all people currently actively working for me about this. Any edits they make while the project is suspended will be in their personal capacity.

For (c), I've already included a list of all editors I have paid at User:Vipul#List_of_people_I've_paid (this includes the one anonymous editor). The full article list is currently available off-wiki along with a bunch of non-wiki tasks (you have permission to reference and use this list); I will prepare a Wikipedia-only version of this list and post it to my user page some time in the next week.

For (e1), I will add CoI disclosures to talk pages for all the articles in the list over the next two weeks.

If we resume this project, I will work on implementing some variant of (b), (d), and (e2).Vipul (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that. When I meant in c), is a single list of all the articles you have paid people to work on. (that is different from a list of the people you've paid) I didn't find that anywhere in your documentation; perhaps i missed it. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list is here. I've linked it above and multiple times in the past.Vipul (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly I find what Vipul's doing fascinating and kind of exciting. The idea of funding the improvement of articles comes up from time to time, and in an ideal scenario it seems like a great way to elevate quality -- especially in those areas for which we do not have many interested volunteers. I can imagine a philanthropic organization, for example, paying to improve articles that serve the public good. That said, obviously adding money to editing is fraught to say the least. After being burned so spectacularly so many times, parts of the community are understandably jumpy (case in point, some of the comments in the COIN thread). In general I think that Jytdog's proposal is measured and sensible. As I understand it, there are two primary problems here. One is easy to fix: none of the paid editors should overlap in their editing (i.e. don't edit the same articles). The other is not so easy: whether there's anything beyond Vipul's documentation of the operation that would render it problematic (intentions/mission, whether it's in any way tied to SEO/marketing, etc.). I think that the burden for the latter is, at this point, on those making the allegations rather than on Vipul to prove a negative (that there's not more than meets the eye). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand that the act of multiple paid people editing the same article has come for a lot of criticism, but I want to clarify that the intent here was not to deceive. It simply is often the case that the person who originally worked on the article no longer has the time or resources to expand it, and so the task is handed over to a different person -- or in some cases, I might give a task to one person and then notice some improvements I can make myself so I just go ahead and edit the article. This is, basically, the way collaborative editing generally works. I (and probably the others here) hadn't realized this could seem misleading. I continue to think that not allowing multiple paid people to edit the same page would significantly hamper the functioning of any paid editing project. If and when we resume the project, I'll include in the proposal ways to address the concerns here while still preserving the flexibility of allowing input and effort from multiple people to go into the same article.Vipul (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a deal-breaker for multiple people from the same paid editing enterprise to work on the same article as long as it's very carefully documented on the talk page, as long as they never operate as distinct voices in a dispute, and as long as they aren't operating concurrently (e.g. as you describe, a project handed from one person to another). In general, however, I think the logistics of this and the bigger conversation are better saved for subsequent threads. At this point people are trying to get a handle on your project in general and this is a relatively easy concern to assuage which you can always revisit with, say, an RfC later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable. I will not derail the current thread further with these details.Vipul (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is both interesting and scary. The setup instinctively rubs me the wrong way because of the use of pyramid scheme methods. After all, those were invented to capitalize on the kickback avarice of people at successively lower levels of an organization. There's something troubling about employing them in an idealist cause such as Wikipedia. For one thing, this scheme diverts each participant's focus from creating good articles, to recruiting more people; that can't be good for article quality. For another, the method is made to snowball, making control for quality and COI progressively more difficult. Allowing a financially-driven snowball mechanism into Wikipedia should be eyed with great suspicion.

On the other hand, maybe with proper controls this might work as a more ambitious update of the defunct "bounty" system, and merely provide an efficient way to make targeted donations towards WP development. I empathize with the gift horse comment; but plain assuming good faith seems a little more dangerous than usual in this case. Jytdog's recommendations seem like a reasonable way to put a few safety constraints on the idea if the community wanted to test the waters. In any case, I heartily agree with the suggestion about removal of subject areas that lend themselves to overt promotion (i.e., the technology and company profiles). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• People who haven't followed the other threads should understand several things that are not in dispute. 1) This editor is a passionate advocate for certain causes. He was recognized by a well-known national publication back in 2013 as "the face of <advocacy issue> on the Internet". 2) This editor has directed a large team of paid (employees? confederates?) to assist in promoting these same advocacy issues here. 3) At the same time he has directed the team, and personally contributed to, articles about his employer's investors and investments, and national employment policies that stand to benefit his pocketbook directly. For these reasons alone, not considering unexplored SEO issues, they should be indefinitely blocked and the entire enterprise barred from acting here. For people who think his team can create worthwhile content, why not let them do it in their own forum and license it appropriately to be incorporated at a later date?

Okay, what I wrote above is as dispassionate as I can manage. Now for a more personal opinion. This enterprise has damaged Wikipedia tremendously. Consider the impact to the goodwill of editors without the means to hire their own team of advocacy editors when they learn of this. Consider the impact on people who had thought they had narrowly carved out a WP:PAID policy that works for both parties. And now we have a team doing paid advocacy editing under cover of this very same program. The claim that stuff like "Timeline of 7-Eleven" has anything to do with anything altruistic is absurd. It is extremely disappointing, and sad for the PAID advocates as well, that this has become somewhat of a test case, about as far from an "ideal scenario" as you can get.

Bottom line, this editor hasn't got the requisite distance from any of this stuff to be writing about it himself, let alone paying other people to be doing so. Under the NPOV pillar, advocacy editing has always been impermissible and no amount of discussion here about motives, disclosure, bookkeeping, or any other details will change that. We're going to have to reboot a discussion about how a private individual can properly manage a compensated team, but this is not the right case around which to be parsing this out. - Bri (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for posting, Bri. That is a clearly laid out position with which I am sympathetic but don't hold myself and it needed to be said here. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What happens when the next enterprise like this is being funded by a US political action committee (though we are probably kidding ourselves if we think it isn't already going on)? Nfitz (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I initially wanted to support User:Jytdog's recommended actions but they are still not strong enough. There are some articles that are valuable to this project like the immigration topics for instance. Some are terrible and despite numerous attemtps by editors to collaborate with and try to improve them, "regular" editors have been reverted and undone by Vipul's project time and time again.

I'm STILL trying to wrap my head around HOW exactly are we supposed to tag these paid advocacy articles? Putting a COI on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation article or Talk page for instance doesn't quite seem right there if the subject of the article did not ask for Vipul's help. I think if we had a bulleted laundry-list of everything wrong with the way that this project has operated here so far, we would see how much damage has been done.

As far as content the Effective Altruism article for instance, needs to be deleted. Garbage and dis/misinformation on the timeline articles, I don't know what is worth keeping there or not. From what I have seen of the immigration topics, it would be destructive at this point to remove them, because from what I have seen there, they are excellent, and provide information in a clearly encyclopediac way.

I completely agree that Vipul should have worked with Wikipedia or even the WPF instead of going rogue and yes he does have interesting ideas. I want to be able to support the policies here that people have worked so hard to make. Vipul has trampled over about 18 of them, repeatedly and created policys for his project that are not what we have agreed to or work with here. Actually his project's policies oppose WP in many ways.The Doxxing and outing which Vipul invites is distubing. He never really answered the question about who was funding him that I could see. The astroturf is particularily sickening. TeeVeeed (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tagging is simple. Template:Connected contributor (paid) goes on the Talk page with a diff in "otherlinks" to the disclosure saying they were paid by Vipul. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bri that all members of the team should be indeffed, and I say their articles (as disclosed) be deleted without further discussion. Not only is this enterprise a fraud ('deceptive business practice') on the community and a breach of trust but it is continuing breach of FTC directives and similar (stronger) directives by other national regulators against astroturfing which mandate disclosures must be communicated effectively so that consumers are likely to notice and understand them. We have not yet considered the evidence on Vipul's financial statements disclosed off-wiki that he was receiving significant sums of money into his bank account from third persons and so cannot rule out the possibility that he was used as a cut-out to evade WMF's ToU terms. While the community can continue to discuss the theoretical considerations of future paid editing at leisure, the existing violations must be excised swiftly to safeguard the project from the negative publicity from cases like the Wifione matter and Orangemoody matter, and whereas those earlier cases involved anonymous people from coordinated groups creating promotional articles thus making prosecution of the perps by the victims rather difficult, over here Vipul and his team (some of whom are minors) have waived their privacy (or as somebody else expressed on COIN, Vipul coerced / duressed his workers to waive their privacy in exchange for rewards).Inlinetext (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The two big issues here for me are 1. advocacy and 2. editor behavior. Advocacy's been covered pretty well already above, but I think the pattern of behavioral issues merits more attention. Quite unsurprisingly, the editors with the most significant payment for their edits, specifically Riceissa ($8508 declared) and Wikisanchez ($5383 declared) are the editors with the most egregious behavioral issues. Even solo behavioral stuff can chill or chase away volunteer editors, to the extent that even without the advocacy issues I think this ring is a net negative to the project. Deletion and indeffs are blunt tools, but one way or another I can't see any justification for allowing this ring to continue. VQuakr (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have just nuked another bunch of WP:REFSPAM added by Vipul and his friends. I started out by suggesting a way forward that would be compliant with policy, but I have by now concluded that Vipul and any known associates should simply be shown the door. I can't find anything about their actions that is anything but antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose and values. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At my age, I am not going to spend any more time thinking about or researching this matter. It just didn't feel right to me as I started to read about it, so I feel very comfortable in adapting Guy's opinion as my own, based upon his thoughts and research. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking into this further and I am seeing a fair bit of reference spam :-( We generally block users who insert links for the purpose of SEO especially at this scale. Ref spamming is a common and lucrative effort.

Vipul works in the SEO business. I assume many of these links are to his clients. Which if that is the case would definately not make this altruism but simply business. In this edit they add a link to visapro.com. One of the people they pay also used the link[1]. We than have visprolaw.com, visapro.in, and visapro.com all owned by the same entity. The company visapro.in does SEO.

This is definitely not cool.[2]. One adds content than has people you pay try to edit war it into the article. In this edit history we have Vipul and Riceissa involved.

The more I look at this the greater concern I have that Wikipedia is being used and the altruism bit is not true. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vipul can you address these concerns. Why have you used Visapro so much as a ref? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't work for a SEO company or in SEO. None of the firms mentioned above are my company's clients and I don't have any relationship with them.Vipul (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links to user-friendly descriptions of various immigration policies to supplement official links on the USCIS website and other stuff, to demonstrate the importance of the underlying topics and the correctness of the interpretations in the article. The way I selected specific references was mainly through seeing what came up on top in a Google search; in some cases I went a little deeper in order to get appropriate references but Google search was mostly the starting point. Most of the added links were already on top in search results before I created the Wikipedia article.Vipul (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion of GiveWell. Hi, I haven't fully digested the above discussion yet, but I just wanted to ask the admin(?) who deleted the non-profit charity evaluator GiveWell if - on reflection - the entry could be restored. (I originally wanted to look something up about GiveWell and was instead reduced to using Google cache.) By all means nominate GiveWell in proposed "Articles for deletion" if it felt such a nomination is appropriate - or perhaps add suitable warning tags, or a Comments/Criticisms section (etc) if needed. I realise there are circumstances when an admin needs to act fast and urgently, but GiveWell is a fairly well-known (and IMO valuable) organisation. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) 14:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JzG deleted the article as a CSD "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW))". There are several enquiries about the deletion on his talk page at User talk:JzG I'll notify him of this discussion; it seems like a good candidate for WP:DRV — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 9 — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am grateful to Davidcpearce for piping up here. As was pointed out by User:Bri (Brianhe) in the mega-COIN thread here, we have had issues in the past with advocacy in WP by people in the Effective Altruism movement (which includes Davidcpearce). In the past they have coordinated offline to advocate for their issues here in WP.
  • User:David Gerard opened a thread about that here at COIN in October 2016.
  • There had been a prior thread at COIN here in April 2016 which was related to some dramafest AfDs that the EA online community rallied to try to save via various offwiki locations:
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abolitionism (bioethics) (result was delete)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild animal suffering (result was no consensus)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising for Effective Giving (oddly closed no consensus)
    • and an SPI case here that found two sets of socks.

Vipul's project adds paid editing to that history of coordinated advocacy in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess if asked, I'd say I aspired to be an effective altruist, but then probably so would Torquemada. It's not in itself a source of discreditable bias - although if an editor were involved with any particular organisation that used the label, it might be borne in mind. Here IMO it’s red herring. Also, whatever else I might be accused of, I've never used "sock puppets"; all my Wikipedia edits are under my own name. I was just asking the admin(s) to reconsider, that was all. --Davidcpearce (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep the SPI found that you were not socking, that is clear. The advocacy issue is also clear and is not a red herring but rather one of the central concerns about Vipul's enterprise. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As a regular at WP:COIN, this seems to be a subtle form of SEO-type activity. See timeline of colorectal cancer. There was a reference to "lifeextension.com", which sells nutritional supplements. (Removed that.[3]). Most links seem legitimate, but a few are promotional. So that's the way in which this abuses Wikipedia. I haven't looked at more of these articles yet, but they may be content created as coatracks upon which outbound links can be hung. In terms of article repair, the Vipul-related articles need to be identified and purged of references that are not WP:RS reliable sources. Does anyone have a full article list? That really should appear at the beginning of this AN/I discussion. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Nagle. See Point #3 in the OP, for the complete list. Thanks for commenting. I just reviewed that article too and removed entries based on a press release (diff), content not supported by a ref at all (diff), spammy ref to patienteducationcenter.com (diff) and silly content about a study being published (woo hoo) sourced to Focused Ultrasound Foundation diff). Two of those are very spammy; one is just incompetent, and the other is just badly sourced; several are OR (selecting an item as important in the history based on ... what?) I am pretty worried about these ~100 Timeline articles. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it's worse than I thought it was. There seems to be an approaching consensus that Vipul & Co. will be shut down, which is the main AN/I issue. After that comes cleanup. Which articles should be cleaned up, and which should be deleted? The "timeline" articles are for subjects that already have a main article, so they can be thought of as POV forks for COI/coatrack purposes. Put "proposed deletion" tags on the marginal articles, especially the "timeline" ones, and see if anybody wants to save them? If someone wants to save them, we'll need to do a merge. It's a low-effort way to clean this up. Would that be appropriate? John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When I entered the search term "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GiveWell&action=history" into Google to locate a cached version of the editors on the GiveWell article, the only result I got was to this link, where somebody who is apparently (and in all good faith I stress on 'apparently') indeffed user "User:Soham321" has linked to this paid editing of Vipul's team as far back as Feb 24 2017 and pointed to the link in question there on Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:03 am with an exceptionally detailed precis. A link to IssaRice's website there is particularly instructive on the deceptive tactics employed - Appearances matter a lot with Wikipedia editing, and publishing a page that, on first glance to a casual editor, looks like it is supported by a wide array of sources, is critical to increasing the odds of survival in the Wikipedia world. Of course, the page should also actually be backed by good evidence, but we want to avoid putting people on the path of suspicion. Inlinetext (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd read that as "don't use such a small number of references that other editors will immediately assume the article is under-referenced"; maybe a little awkwardly phrased, but not of deceptive intent per se. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That would not be the way an external agency (see para 27 therein) which doesn't automatically assume good faith would probably interpret it. FYI, EU, German, UK and Canadian jurisdictions are clearly also inherent by coordinated edits of 'Vipul' and 'Issarice' like these and many many more like this. Inlinetext (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This ANI does not fully reflect the COIN discussion. Any observer of the paid $55 editing at Against Malaria Foundation, Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, and GiveDirectly and seeing the unanswered article talk messages there and their off-site coordinations would seek clarity why Vipul, Riceissa, User:Rootdown1010 (no statement yet from Vipul if this user is paid by him or his IRL name) and Davidcpearce have not been yet been indeffed/banned under the anti-sockpuppet policies of this community discussed a few week back at ANI for WikiExperts ? The difference between undeclared meatpuppetry and declared meatpuppetry is not clear to me. Inlinetext (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rootdown1010 was never paid by me and I don't know who this user is in real life. The user actually removed a lot of content I had added to the GiveDirectly page (but also updated it in numerous other ways. I have not included this user in the list of people I've paid.Vipul (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong action is required to reject paid advocacy. Someone like Robert Mercer could pay a manager to control a team of advocates to push whatever line they wanted. An issue might be raised at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN concerning problem edits, only to have a dozen paid advocates overwhelm normal procedures. The only reason normal POV pushers can be handled is that they lack discipline and central control—their enthusiasm generally results in sanctionable behavior. For example, a controlled group, motivated by significant financial reward and shared political aims, could greatly influence the tone of articles related to the next cycle of US elections. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anything significant is to be achieved from this long, drawn-out saga it, indeed, should be changes to the policy which reflect this emerging consensus. Not just a resolution specific to the Vipul Group. El_C 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Novel idea Let's make more rules and drive paid editing underground because we cannot handle one of these situations without a massive clusterfuck of idealist morals facing reality.--v/r - TP 19:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:TParis I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter and my recommendations. thx Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to handle this is to apply our behavioral policies to the issue. You have a whole list of them to pick from. The colluding and meatpuppetry violates the canvassing policy. The aggressive behavior violates the TE policy. Any promotion edits, which I don't think you've mentioned any, could be handled by the NPOV policy. Focus your efforts there to avoid driving this underground where it cannot be managed. Despite all his other faults, User:Vipul has laid out the best framework to date to be in compliance with our TOU. It needs some refining, but it offers more transparency than we've ever seen before. We should at least acknowledge that an effort was made.--v/r - TP 23:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your more considered reply. We seem to be more or less on the same page and several folks commenting have praised the transparency. On promotional editing - as I noted and linked to in the OP I and others have found PROMO especially in the "technology" focus articles, and I and others have found poor quality (very spammy) refs in Timeline articles. More is being dug up. Hard to tell if this is the product of "average" editing {which means roughly half of it is bad  :) } or something else. But Vipul's QC of content and behavior of his editors is not at the same level as his transparency. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See for example this series of deletions of refspam by Guy that he mentioned above. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Vipul: Do you, at all, give any training, to those that you're 'employing' within your company / job industry / whatever? If not, would you consider at least pointing all your newly contracted (if the project resumes) to a few policies that will help them get it right? We, as a community, could perhaps decide which Policies the 'workers' must know of when they start, if it helped. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While I 100% agree that this should have been brought before the wider community at ANI (because this is for the most part the most-watched community board), eventually it is going to overwhelm a community noticeboard and need to be moved to its own (well-publicized) dedicated subpage. In fact the discussion is already overwhelming, or starting to overwhelm, this noticeboard. There are simply too many elements to discuss, too many problems and eventualities, and too many opinions on how to solve or handle these growing, ongoing, and potential future problems. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting User:Softlavender - I have been looking forward to your comments here! I don't agree that Vipul's enterprise is not addressable here. I have been thinking about whether this is close-able, and the discussion above is closeable, in my view. There are diffs that can be looked at, patterns that can be identified, and defineable remedies proposed and agreed upon. The discussion below is only close-able with something like "another general discussion of paid editing that reaches no consensus" - it is really not appropriate here but people will do what they will do. But Vipul's project is a concrete thing that is addressable. You haven't posted your thoughts on Vipul's project and what the community should say about it, and I would appreciate it if you would, for the closer. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I find the entire subject too overwhelmingly troubling and difficult to comprehensively deal with in merely a few days on ANI. It has been, and is being, discussed at major length on COIN, on El C's talkpage, offline, and here (and possibly also Jimbo's talkpage although I haven't checked), and frankly I have just been too burned out by all the current and potential problems of this subject, in addition to the current AE drama, to try wading through this. I also do not think that everyone who has something to say about it, or will have something to say about it, or should have something to say about it, has commented or had an opportunity to. I have not read this ANI thread, so if I say anything that is (by decree) putatively no longer the case, feel free to correct me. Here are some of my offhand concerns: (1) This is a pyramid scheme in which the product is clicks, and editors are paid by page-clicks, and also receive a percentage of their downline's (the people they recruit) clicks. (2) Vipul by his own declaration works in the field of page-clicks, making this an even more worrisome model. (3) He is hiring schoolchildren, which will create all kinds of behavioral and competency problems (we've already seen one of his editors, a college student, receive a final warning for an indef block for behavioral and competency issues). (4) His hiring, and the number of editors, can proliferate exponentially with the pyramid scheme. We could be overrun by meatpuppetry (already clearly present with his editors at AfD, article editing, noticeboards) and POV/COI -- there is absolutely no way to track or stop it if he has 20, 40, 60+ editors. (5) Whatever his intentions, Vipul has already been caught out making refutable statements -- if these have been deliberate misstatements (or even if not) there is nothing to prevent him from making future misstatements or non-disclosures. (5) Even if Vipul states the project is on hold, there's no way to determine that, or even determine what exactly he is doing or not doing, or what his editors are doing or not doing. Those are just a few of my concerns (I have more but I can't remember them). Whatever happens here at ANI or how ever this thread is closed, I think it's going to pop up again. Lastly, not only do paid articles need to be tagged on their talk pages, editors creating or adding to paid articles need to list and declare every single paid article prominently at the top of their userpage. Softlavender (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping in this Daily Dot article for context. Inlinetext (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Softlavender's analysis is instructive and this....paid editing....is a terminal cancer that has to be cut out with immediate radical surgery ASAP....and its not a question of should it be stopped, but how and how quickly it can be stopped. The status-quo is unacceptable. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need to have emerging consensus reflected in policy—that may be a novel idea, but it's worth pursuing. Basically, the principle of disclosure has to be taken up a notch: with every edit to an article by a paid editor tagged accordingly for reference. Paid editors also must be made aware that their COI makes them have less rights than volunteers (participation in AfDs, RfCs, etc.). It's troubling, indeed, because we can't expect paid users to employ their critical faculties onto articles they are paid to edit. As for pyramid schemes, if that's what's happening here with Vipul's Group—if the FTC dosen't act (which we don't expect it to), the Foundation should then drop the hammer. Does the Vipul Group truly do write favourable uncritical Timeline of corporations articles due to altruism? That's why I kept asking Vipul about contracts and that's why Inlinetext intimated pay-per-clicks. Because working for private wealth for free is a difficult notion to reconcile. It comes down to motivation—makes sense to be suspicious. El_C 23:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I opened this ANI I was concerned that people would keep venturing into the bigger picture issues. The community is very divided on paid editing and the more people talk about general issues the less likely it is that we will be able to resolve anything about Vipul's activities in particular. If you are unaware of how divided the community is and how unproductive community discussions about COI/paid editing are, please read the current RfC at WT:COI and please read the extremely long discussions over each of 5 simultaneous policy proposals on paid editing that the community held in late 2012 early 2013 after the Wiki-PR scandal - they are linked in the "historical" section of the "see also" section at WP:COI - Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing_policy_proposal was the most extensive one. Really - nothing will come of this if it gets bogged down in trying to rethink the framework of paid editing. This is not the place for that. We need to deal with what Vipul has done and is doing under the current framework if we hope to resolve anything. We can, if people focus. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General thoughts about ToU etc

I have broken this into a separate section. General discussions of the ToU and paid editing are way, way beyond the scope of this ANI thread and are not addressable at ANI. We have had something like seven RfCs or policy proposals about paid editing generally and there is no consensus beyond WP:PAID and WP:COI, and it is not going to be obtained here. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - think first. From even the quickest look it is obvious that the deficiencies in the Terms of Use policy, some of which I commented on when it was enacted, have come to light. Chief among these is that, if paid editing is allowed at all, every paid edit that is made should be tagged with a link by which the paid editor and his network can be uniquely traced, so that article editors have a better idea what was going on. The immense irony here is that Wikipedians are alarmed by the network of paid editors, yet we know about it only because Vipul went above and beyond the policy we have!

I don't immediately see evidence of wrongdoing - our key emphasis here should be on reevaluating our policy. However, Vipul is driving a truck through a loophole you can drive a truck through: you can create a "Timeline of..." practically any topic and not have the same level of resistance that any other kind of article split gets at AFD. We should think about this. I'm suspicious there is some commensalism going on here where the new articles have a lot of great references with a few chosen works he wants to SEO to the top of the list of search results, but cannot prove that!

I am also curious whether @Vipul: is paying himself to edit, and also have some idle curiosity whether Vipul can claim a tax deduction for donating to charity by paying himself to edit Wikipedia for charitable purposes. That's a trick a lot of editors could be interested in ... we might all become paid editors. ;) For example, I see $50 in payment listed for contributions for Form 1023 - was anyone other than Vipul himself editing that for pay?

I want us to hold off on any action against this paid team - they have done us an invaluable troubleshooting service, and it may make more sense to work with them to decide what we can put up with, or if we demand they stop entirely (and likely we should) then we can do that as a policy going forward, without rancor and blocked notices. I know that's not how laws are made in America - usually the prosecutors come down on some poor sap for doing something he thought was legal and then the legislators try to figure out a way to make it look like they ordered it - but Wikipedia isn't feeling very American nowadays. Wnt (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because American is kinda nutty lately! But I agree with you on the two (three) points: 1. "every paid edit that is made should be tagged with a link by which the paid editor and his network can be uniquely traced."; 2. There may not be "immediate ... evidence of wrongdoing" (underline is my emphasis); (3). Whether Vipul has seen any money (or any benefit whatsoever: contracts, etc.) from this, be it through astroturfing (hopefully not!), or through tax deductions, is also of great interest. El_C 14:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think this is the fairest criticism I've seen and a reasonable one from the outside view. Replying to two of the issues you raised.

We had no SEO goals. I don't even know how that would work, because external links from Wikipedia are nofollow, so even repeatedly linking specific websites wouldn't boost their SEO directly (Any effects would be indirect, e.g., if a lot of people discover the pages through Wikipedia, then they might link to them from their own sites, and boost the link juice; however, I expect this effect to be too weak). In my personal edits, I was obviously biased toward sources that I was more familiar with (though not with intent to boost their search engine rankings, because I don't even think that's possible). However, I didn't instruct paid editors to boost specific sources.

I don't get paid by third parties for any of this (as I've reiterated often) and I also don't get tax deductions. Form 1023 was created by Churrupy, whom I have listed as one of my payeees on my user page (and also externally). To be more concrete on my tax situation, I use the standard deduction in my US federal and state tax return so I don't itemize any payments for Wikipedia editing.Vipul (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to suggest that Vipul complied with or exceeded policy requirements - The immense irony here is that Wikipedians are alarmed by the network of paid editors, yet we know about it only because Vipul went above and beyond the policy we have!. Per contra, had all these 250+ articles been properly tagged with the FTC, or other applicable law as mentioned/incorporated at the outset of the ToU, mandated prominent and conspicuous disclosure notices, this mischief/wrongdoing could have been caught a long ago. I find a long trail or AFDs and COINs about this network (which overlaps with EA astroturfing) spanning at least 2 years but it was always somehow converted into 'content' and not really focussed on the abusive behavior / meatpuppetry which was systematically crafted to beat off concerned unpaid volunteer editors from the articles they created and controlled. Inlinetext (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inlinetext: I'd love for that to be a rule. But it isn't! The actual text from the Terms of Use (link at the bottom of this and every page) 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.

Unless you own a supercomputer and can keep the entire edit history of all the articles in your memory to search and write some custom software, you can't actually track the third way throughout Wikipedia. This or the talk page message could be anything - you'd need the much-hyped Watson to figure out all the ways an editor could say he's paid. Vipul actually picked the way easiest to track and made a good faith effort, as far as I've seen so far, to follow both the letter and the spirit of our policy. So it's the policy that should be in the dock here. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Precautionary clause 1(b) in ToU ... For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America., and thereafter - Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, violation of privacy, or any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation; With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate; ... (Paid contributions without disclosure) These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities ... Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. . The FTC requirements are hence squarely already covered in ToU as are also several other possible ToU infractions by Team-Vipul. Inlinetext (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that list to the +250 articles located at again? El_C 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here as created by Jytdog. Inlinetext (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inlinetext: You bolded up the first part without noticing it applies to "personally identifiable information", which this is clearly not. And as for the FTC... well, it's possible that Donald Trump is going to appoint a brand new U.S. attorney today who will try to prosecute internet entrepreneurs for making generally constructive encyclopedia edits within a site's terms of use without disclosing them a certain way. It's also possible I get hit by an asteroid before I hit the "Save" button. But I'd guess it's up to us to make new policy if we want to interfere with anything close to Vipul's pattern of activities. Wnt (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt: In context of "You" == "Vipul" etc. appropriate bolding (please correct me)

• you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America (qv. Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure - What is the "applicable law" for paid contributions on Wikipedia and its sister sites?)
• (Refraining from Certain Activities) Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, violation of privacy, or any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation. {qv. recruitment and soliciting personal details of his editors for payments for non-WMF sanctioned promo purpose) See this most blatant example of soliciting WP users .
• (Refraining from Certain Activities) With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate. {qv. Issarice's off-wiki deceptive advice to editors on how to deceive Wikipedian scrutiny).
• (Paid contributions without disclosure) Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. (qv. FTC, FTC/DOTCOM, WP:COI - no prominent on article disclosure done, no AFC, no via talk page insertions, to the extent that talk page protests of other editors were ignored while they just reverted and kept on editing). Inlinetext (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• TOU notwithstanding, we know how to deal with abuse of Wikipedia for SEO. That said, I support the idea that every single paid edit should be called out as such in the edit summary. At present we place undue burdens on the volunteers who check for subtle bias in paid edits. Paid editors can technically make one inconspicuous disclosure and then blast away, with RC and NP patrollers given no obvious clue that content is advertorial. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy, we could ask the developers to add a "this is a paid edit" option when we save an edit, just as we currently have a "this is a minor edit" option. It could produce a "p" instead of an "m" in the edit summary. Editors could be asked to check it for any edit for which they receive or expect to receive compensation, whether on articles or talk pages. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I like this idea provided that efforts are taking to counter anti-"p" edit biases like which is currently not being done with regards to IP addresses that edit. If a "p" edit is not an auto-revert on someone's radar, then this could be an easy way to disclose.--v/r - TP 17:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could. The downside is that this would give tacit approval to paid editing. There is no consensus that paid editing is forbidden, but equally there is no consensus that it is a good thing (if anything, rather the opposite). However, a generic "conflicted" flag and an encouragement to identify the conflict in the edit summary might be an idea. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy and TParis, it does risk giving tacit approval, but then so do the terms of use by requiring paid editors to disclose. Marking edit summaries with a "p" would make disclosure easy and obvious. If there's reasonable compliance, it would allow us to keep track of how much paid editing there is, including on talk pages. Other guidelines would still apply, e.g. WP:NOPAY. Doc James, what do you think about this: having the option to mark "this is a paid edit" with a "p" in edit summaries, just as we mark "this is a minor edit" with an "m"? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we could try it. In cases such as this it would be helpful. I am skeptical of its widespread use as most problem paid editors work hard to avoid detection as they are using multiple sock puppets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a requirement of the terms of use - within local policy. I've opposed most new policies but I think I could support requiring paid edits to use the "P" flag. Paid edits that didn't use the "P" flag would be considered subverting community policy and editors could get blocked. Discretion could be made on a case by case basis for ignorance of the policy.--v/r - TP 21:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TParis, what would we have to do to get that implemented? (a) RfC on the village pump, then (b) if we gain consensus, who would we ask, and how much work would it be to add it, from the developers' side? Is this a job for the WMF or could volunteer developers do it? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The work is trivial. A database entry and a few bits of HTML. A developer will need to install it, but anyone could write it as an extension for MediaWiki. So, I'd start with asking WMF 1) Will they develop it, and 2) Would they install it with community consensus. If the answer is no to 2, we're dead in the water. If the answer is no to 1 and yes to 2, then we'd need to find a developer to write it. If the answer is yes to both, then you can move straight to developing community consensus with the tentative approval of WMF. RFCs sometimes get derailed on "We don't even know if WMF will do this..." etc. Once consensus is achieved, WMF can move toward implementation. We should also ask that the data be made available to the API and jQuery objects so that scripts, bots, and tools can be written to leverage the 'P'.--v/r - TP 01:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support options for disclosure but make them general-purpose tools -- the "Usonian" ideal is at least as undesirable in software as it is in architecture. Instead of having a "p" checkmark box, editors should be able to add a "context tag" at the end of their edit summary. This tag, among other things, could uniquely identify a paid edit or non-uniquely identify any official WMF edit or identify a small group of editors associated with a particular GLAM participant. At the edit UI level only, the tag could be provided in a separate field. The field should be persistent between edits - i.e. if you put that you're editing for pay in the first time, it stays the default for every future edit until you clear it. To change the field without making an edit (like clocking off) you could make a null edit with a different value for the field. And the length of the field should be deducted from the max length of the main edit summary, plus an extra for a template. I say for a template because there should be a raw mode text for the edit summary like /* References */ I added sooo many good linkz Template:Ctxt, so that the edits are stored in the database without any differentiation from those that have been made the past ten years. However, they could also be used by some WMF tool that pulls out every edit by paid1234 and to give you a set of reports much like those Vipul provided. True, I guess this isn't a real template, so a simpler tag format might be used, as long as it doesn't retroactively impact more than a couple of edits in the database. But I use that to illustrate. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I support requiring paid edits to use some sort of local "Paid" flag or tag via a TOS/TOU (real law), as long as they are also still requried to follow normal editing guidelines. This allows the bounty boards to be reopened, I've still seen bounties here and there and centralization and logging would be helpful. I think "the war on paid edits"(meme) is not a thing we can currently win, just drive further underground. This modification allows for that market to be more monitored, transparent, and local. Considering that Jimbo has also weighed in on this issue elsewhere and that this is a policy issue it needs to be carried to a full separate discussion where specifics are hammered out however. Endercase (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a) that Vipul put a moratorium on this operation.
b) that Vipul formulate a clear mission for what he is doing and consider going through the  GLAM on-boarding process before re-starting. That the "technology" focus be eliminated. I reckon the GLAM folks will think through other aspects of the mission with him. (I hope)
c) that Vipul provide a single list of articles his team has worked on for him, and a list of all the editors he has paid. (we don't need to see how much he has paid them)
d) That Vipul obligate his editors via the contracts he has with them, to follow the PAID policy and the COI guideline. Posting those contract templates would be great.
e) That his team
  1) puts PAID disclosures on the Talk pages of articles they work on, and
  2) follows the COI guideline, putting content through peer review via AfC for new articles, and through Talk page postings for existing articles
f) the community should agree to have zero tolerance for MEAT/TEAM editing by his team against other editors.

• OBJECTION : @Jytdog:. Concerning your hat. IMHO you became an involved party when you opened off-wiki discussions with User:Vipul. It is incorrect to suggest that the 3 sections you hatted are (a) distractive , (b) involve larger issues or (c) were deliberately unsigned to make it unclear who wrote them. The first section was clearly titled as your proposals, the 2nd and 3rd sections were set-off and individually signed by me. All my proposals are founded in existing policy. Because this incident report emanates from repeated removal of COI notices from Parker Conrad which I placed and where the reverting editor refused to discuss or explain, henceforth I, as an average reader of Wikipedia, shall monitor the presence of prominent and conspicuous notice of COI editing on each and every surviving article of Vipul's team and, if required, forward my concerns directly to WMF under the ToU in the manner prescribed by them. I also remind this community that the 5 business days limit set by the 'applicable law' to resolve the complaints of unambiguously promo content coupled with lack of COI notices on Vipul's articles is overdue and affected persons like me (who have been repeatedly harassed, stalked and targeted for removing unambiguous promo content) cannot wait indefintely for a clear resolution by this community on the specific issue of prominent disclosure of paid editing placed so that article readers are likely to notice them. Thanks, I am not participating in this thread any more and may consider resuming my editing on this project in due course. Inlinetext (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do people stand on the specific allegations re Vipul network editors?

In general, I think Vipul's enterprise illustrates a need to change the policy on paid editors rather than evidence of misconduct. But in the back-and-forth above somewhere we lost track of @Jytdog:'s more specific original complaints. In particular:

• Were some paid editors improperly canvassed (WP:CANVASS) to become "meatpuppets" of the paid network, causing editing decisions to be made by a false consensus? (Form 1040 was the site of this allegation - we could definitely use more detail!)
• Did some paid editors put in so much unencyclopedic information (such as how-to guides or "undue" material) as to constitute problem editing that ANI should address?

Also:

• As mentioned by @Inlinetext:, did some paid editors engage in edit warring at Parker Conrad or otherwise violate policy by removing the notices?
• Are the "Timeline of..." articles appropriate, or are they going to end up being deleted or merged, and if they are, does that reach the level of an abuse?

Now what all these questions have in common is that they should be asked about specific editors, not "the Vipul group overall". AFAIK until proven otherwise under policy their association doesn't make them accountable for any of their co-workers' offenses. It's not my intent to name any at this time, even Vipul himself, since the statements I see above about it tend to be broad and require a lot of interpretation by the reader. I strongly encourage those who have complaints in mind to do so at this time. I think categorical logic didn't get where people wanted to go above, but it's possible that if you can show, one by one, that editors in the network should be sanctioned, you might reach the stage that by inductive logic you can say that it is not working out for us and editors need to be told to stop making paid edits by it, even without policy change. Though I still think the policy issues are most important, the specific conduct issues are what belong on ANI. Wnt (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason this has become meta on paid editing/paid advocacy is that it appears that there are differences in opinion about disclosure. Personally, I am of the opinion that each paid edit or article/Talk page edit should carry some notification, but if they operated within current rules, individually that doesn't matter i guess-maybe?. A problem is the tag-team editing where more than one have worked together against non-affiliated editors, without identifying the fact that they are working as an outside group which does not have the same goals as Wikipedia. And the astroturf issue where more than one of the group have edited the same article which implies a consensus of Wikipedia editors when really it is not. And the astroturf issue of WP:SPA (single-purpose editing) which can be applied in several different ways here. AND---just because this group has Doxxed themselves, (under duress because they were forced to in order to become paid)----That does not make what they did here right.

I think it makes them MORE WRONG, since it is just another example of off-site policies that diverge from what we do here.

I know how a lot of people feel about IPS, but why are we cutting way too much slack with this group here when if for instance an IP or annon. person punched me in the face and ran-away, and if Vipul or someone from Vipul's team punched me in the face and just stood there and said, "Hi-here's all of my info. I punched you in the face." the main question is what are we going to do about it? NOT applauding Vipul for being transparent or treating them any differently than we would for any other meat-drawer.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• About behavior -- the MEAT and edit warring on Form 1040 and Parker Conrad are obvious; there was similar activity at Laura and John Arnold Foundation which went from the article to its Talk page and continued at a strange conversation at Talk:List of most viewed YouTube videos in this thread. There is no question these were violations of behavioral policies. However that was in the past -- blocks aren't punitive; for the future, there is a rough consensus on the "zero tolerance" recommendation and Vipul has said that he will instruct people not to do that in the future.
• About content - in my view there is a great of bad content that was added to WP by this project; also some good content. What typically happens when a thread is raised at COIN is that we do what we can to stop the direct COI editing so bad content isn't continually added, and we go back and clean up after the conflicted editors. The cleanup of what has been done In this case is a massive task as they have directly created ~250 articles. Looking forward, if they will agree (or the community compels them) to follow the COI guideline and submit new edits to peer review (through AfC or on Talk pages) that will stop the new additions.
  • The key content problems have been bad sourcing, OR, UNDUE (exceeding detail on grant-giving), and advocacy (for effective altruism, with huge representation given to orgs like GIveWell. In my view their work has been shot through with these issues.
  • In my view the "Timeline of company" articles are promotional garbage. There is almost nothing negative in any of them and they are pretty much what you find on a company website. Look at Timeline of Amazon or Timeline of Microsoft for example. Nothing negative there - basically a series of product launch or acquisition announcements. This is part of why I recommended that "technology" be removed from what they do. All these articles should perhaps be nuked by community consensus. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) I gotta ask --- why aren't these at AFD presently? I mean, not long after Trump fired the US attorneys I followed a link from Google's main news search page and found 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy listed at AFD, no matter how obvious it is that will be GNG-worthy. But these articles seem like unnecessarily split content, people are scrutinizing them over the paid editing/SEO issues ... yet after all this debate there's still no AFD tag at the top of either page. Proposing AFDs isn't something I really do, but the lack of AFD discussions here is holding up the ANI process, because you can't really say which editor(s) are at fault for a pattern of inappropriately submitting promotional articles when you haven't even shown which if any of the articles were obviously inappropriate to create, let alone so many as to demand some kind of administrative fix. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add Timeline of nonprofit evaluation to timelines that need to go? I tried to speedy it, actually tried to read it first, lost my mind, and the denial of a speedy with instructions to AFD it, WHICH I don't ever do here so it would be a mess probably. Reasons for anyone who doesn't see it, title and article mismatch. "Timeline" is mainly a list of internet-age charity evaluators which leads to the nice neat conclusion that the "cutting edge"/current state of affairs in evaluating charity is you guessed it EA. Can't we put ALL of the TL articles in a mass AFD?TeeVeeed (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORTblind mass nuking of all tl articles from this groupTeeVeeed (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nuke all the TLs. zzz (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Deletion of timeline articles without debate. The information contained in these articles is exactly what most readers would want to know about the topics (for example Microsoft and Amazon). Deleting without debate is certainly not serving the interests of readers of Wikipedia. Jrheller1 (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Microsoft and Amazon be deleted or that the main articles are either inadequate or too bloated to inform our readers ? Inlinetext (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORT mass nuking of all 'Timelines' including the medical and EA advocacy related ones. Indefs on Vipul, Simfish, Riceissa, Ethanbas and Wikisanchez for long term coordinated meat-puppetry and abusive editing. Inlinetext (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gah, i should have written more cautiously. But let's see where this goes. Jytdog (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When have you EVER written anything cautiously? 38.88.149.138 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT There's a lot of enthusiasm here, and yet there is still no AFD notice on Timeline of Amazon or Timeline of Microsoft. Voting to delete or not delete on ANI is out of order because this isn't the place to decide on deleting articles. Normally the big trick on Wikipedia is not getting an AFD tag on your article. Would folks like @TeeVeeed, Signedzzz, and Inlinetext: please consider putting an AFD on one of these articles? Once something is on the docket at AFD, you'll probably find some regulars who are more than happy to set up additional deletions for the group and to make the arguments about it. But we actually have to do this step! Because if we don't follow our policies, why do we think anyone else will? Wnt (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Because observing the 'defeatist' attitude here against paid editing, I see this is as primarily a ToU / FTC enforcement matter and not a community enforcement one. However, if admins have the inherent powers (as they claim) to sort out what 'Softlavender' has eloquently summarised above, then let them either do so or else forever admit their helplessness. Inlinetext (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want Terms of Use enforcement, you're on the wrong site - that's up to the WMF itself - and if you want FTC enforcement, you're asking the wrong organization; Wikipedia isn't the U.S. government. On Wikipedia it's a matter of policy, and if we want policy to ban paid editing because of stuff like this, we need to make that policy first. What we have doesn't cut it. What you can do is try to document that some number of the articles should never have been made, which can only be done by taking them to AFD and getting a strong consensus against them, if indeed one is merited. Then you can use that as evidence that permitting this much paid editing was a mistake that Wikipedia should fix. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seen me running to any community Notice Board to report any of the harassment, sockpuppetry and hostility I have faced ? Because, this community is so riddled with COI admins / sock-puppets / undeclared paid editors etc. that it is beyond recovery and incapable of healing itself, no sensible person would play the Wikipedia game when there are far better games to play when such an opportunity fortuitously presents itself. Inlinetext (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:2405:204:C005:B703:9DC2:251F:B6FE:2648 / User:2405:204:C280:3B2A:F92D:DBDC:356F:9734 / User:2405:204:C601:2A58:D0AD:97BC:F13D:B2EF has been adding and subtracting spaces. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] It is annoying seeing these show up on my watchlist, plus I suspect that he is doing the same thing using other IP addresses. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Office of the President-Elect has a long list of 2405:204:c000::/36 IP addresses that have been disrupting it, including blanking and adding/removing whitespace. Scanning through the range contribs, it seems this has been going on for a while. However, a /36 range block would be huge. Also, I keep getting HTTP timeout errors while trying to access Wikipedia, making this rather difficult to research right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After spending some time going through the range contribs, I'm becoming very pessimistic about the quality of edits coming from the /36. I've reverted a few edits to obscure Indian topics, but it's tough for me to determine which edits are vandalism. I'm also pretty sure that the political edits are made by the same person now, especially the obsessive tweaking of articles having to do with political presidents, such as Presidential system, United States presidential transition, and Office of the President-Elect. I'm tempted to briefly semi-protect all the affected articles, as they seem subject to random blanking and poorly-written changes. What do other people think? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More, this time from 2405:204:C28A:339D:54A0:96E:37C5:86D8. There is always the chance that a very short softblock of the range will work. Sometimes a disruptive editor gives up the first time he finds that he is blocked, not realizing that the block is only temporary. Worth a try? Or maybe if someone can catch him in the middle of an editing run using one IP, just blockingh that IP for a few day might have the discouraging effect I am hoping for. Worth a try? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP addresses aren't assigned for very long. I guess I could try a range block if nobody objects. The range isn't all that active, and, like I said, many of the edits coming from it are disruptive. I don't think too many legit editors would be inconvenienced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should try it. If I am right, a week will do the job. Does anyone object? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the latest account (2405:204:C280:5D0E:A0DB:C185:C3F4:A22A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) while he/she was still editing and pointed the IP editor toward this thread as an explanation. Hopefully, this will serve as a wake-up call. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't help. Four more showed up: 2405:204:C28F:AF1C:1455:51A7:5717:EE1B (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2405:204:C08F:CD13:2040:E833:9CCE:E27D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2405:204:C086:8BD3:E08B:F805:30F8:DFB7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 2405:204:C085:B6CA:941F:FAB:59:C511 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since most of the edits coming from this range are from the same user (and this user is engaging in block evasion), I'll do a 72 hour range block. If it continues, we can work our way up to longer durations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the effort you are putting in to this. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deciduous Maple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• White supremacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ChiveFungi mentioned on Deciduous Maple's (DM) user talk page a /pol/ thread where it appears DM is recruiting users to change the lead on white supremacy. DM confirmed the post was made by them, as well as one on 8ch ([20]).

DM had been engaging in an edit war on that page regarding the use of "racist ideology" in the lead. The issue has been discussed ad nauseum on the articles talk page, most recently at Talk:White_supremacy#.22Racist_Ideology.22_in_lede. DM indicated intent to continue edit warring/editing against consensus in this most recent edit here.

This user edited similarly back in 2014-2015, but they went silent for ~1.5 years (including involvement from 8ch discussed here) before recently reactivating in February 2017. Reviewing the user's edit history and proclaiming on their user page, their sole purpose on Wikipedia is to tendentiously edit around the language used on race-related pages.

I'm requesting admin review of the situation. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gave Deciduous_Maple a few options. [21] Gave ChiveFungi a pointer to WP:OUTING. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:NeilN's warning to Deciduous Maple. If he reverts the article again before getting consensus he should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How rude of you to assume my gender! Deciduous Maple (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be rude ~ no reason to imagine that he wasn't using a generic pronoun: Much better to assume good faith and imagine that's what he was doing; if you are offended by that, consider assigning your account a reference gender, which i believe is done in your preferences. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Digitallymade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone uninvolved, with a soft voice and a large stick, please take a look at this before it gets out of hand. Digitallymade (talk · contribs) is a newish editor (2k edits, 4 active months) who is "failing to get it" in some important ways. Nearly every edit seems to be a variation of edit-warring, followed by user talk comments of the form, "you are a fool, your edits are so wrong they are vandalism, I know this".

• User talk:Francis Flinch#You have seriously screwed up 5.56x45mm Nato
• talk:Winged Brick#You have made a mistake, twice.
• User talk:Felsic2#Pump Action Shotguns
• User talk:Thomas.W#Why did you remove the history section on 6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser

Their view on WP:V / WP:RS is also a little unusual, User talk:Digitallymade#Sources, "I have examined many "sources" and have found many of them to be inaccurate. I've been working at this for about 30 yeas now. I typically use sources ONLY because I cannot state that I know something to be true as that's not considered authoritative. So I use sources that I judge to be accurate enough to support certain points. Unfortunately, a HUGE amount of published material is in error. I know enough to be able to tell the difference in the areas that I have studied for the last 6 decades."

Yet this is from an editor who can't even spell the name of their own new articles IMR Lendary Powders, opposed the deletion of the mis-spelled version after it was renamed, then PRODs the original article before their WP:CFORK: Talk:Improved Military Rifle. As to their "merge all firearm articles to one" suggestion [22], that was fortunately rebuffed early and without too much waste of time.

Even without going into the technical aspects and underlying facts, this is very far from good, or even acceptable editing practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my aggressive attitude, I am very sorry. I'll endeavor to do better in this regard. I am frustrated because I find changes I make being reverted while I am editing. It takes a few hours to thoroughly update and correct many of these geriatric pages and at some point I get tired and stop. I do make typos, an your mention of that is as improper as my aggressive behavior. When I make suggestions is talk, and then changes based on those suggestions the next day I get my change reverted. How much time has to pass before I can correct some of the inaccurate statements on pages. I added a history section to one page which was removed almost as soon as it was entered. I make extensive changes that take HOURS to research and someone reverts every change because they a problem with one small part of it. Some individuals are constantly interfering with corrections and amplifications as if there is vested interest in maintaining incorrect, incomplete, and outsourced articles. I promise I will be less aggressive, but I also see a need for fair treatment. Why are some of my edits being interfered with while I am making them? Why, for example, is ever change I make on gas operated removed immediately (except for last photos I just added)? I hope you understand that I don't talk to people because things are running smoothly. I talk to them because my work has been altered, because what I do primarily is intended to improve the subject (especially when it's a completely new page) and my goal is to create logical, readable, truthful, and useful content. If this is wrong let me know. I am completely willing to withdraw entirely, as I have before for the same reasons. Digitallymade (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make some suggestions based on observing and interacting with you:

• Please read, and reread until you understand them, the basic rules of Wikipedia. Start with WP:Five pillars. Read the three core content policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR and a core behaviour policy: WP:NPA.
• Slow down. Major rewrites of mature articles should not be undertaken lightly.
• Listen to what other editors say. If they undo your edits or object then start discussions.
• If an edit might be controversial consider discussing it before investing a lot of time.
• Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you approach editing with the view that everyone here is wrong or stupid (even if they are!) then you'll get frustrated.

Wikipedia is an very unusual project. Not everyone can work in this environment. But if you take your time and learn the culture then you should be able to contribute more successfully. Felsic2 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The editing style, aggressiveness towards other editors, believing they always know best, not listening to others, and now adding a "disputed" tag to an article just because of there being a link to an article they want to move but can't since the move is opposed, reminds me very much of indefinitely blocked user TeeTylerToe... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Over the course of 3 years Activist has repeatedly made allegations, across several articles, that I am editing on behalf of the GEO Group. He has been told numerous times that I am not and warned that allegations like this are a form of personal attack. He has tried to play the semantics game, using things like "If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us?" in an attempt to claim he didn't actually make the allegation or tries to link me to edits made by the company 4 years ago. As the ARBCOM noted, WP:ASPERSIONS are a form of personal attack: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes." Tracking down all the examples would be time-consuming, but a few of them are:

• "...you operating in the interest of those executives, officials or stockholders who deserve no confidence or respect."[23]
• "...essentially and exclusively mounting a corporate reputation defense, whether or not you have a COI." and "If you have some alternate explanation, why it is that rather than contributing useful information, you consistently and exclusively delete massive quantities of data that may in any way be construed to reflect poorly, particularly on GEO, but also upon those others whom you've chosen to champion."[24]
• "You've presented yourself as a neutral editor, in the spirit of Wikipedia, but in fact you seem to be adamantly opposed to balanced presentations of this corporation, and you minimize the corporate whitewashing engaged in by others for GEO"[25]
• "I note, Niteshift36 that you've made 38 of the last 107 or so edits to the GEO page, since Cohen was outed. If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us?"[26]
• "I further note that you've made 32 edits to the GEO Group main article, with the last signed edit by Abraham Cohen being made February 20th, 2013, though the GEO IPN was used to make subsequent sock puppet edits not long after but before you started your signed edits." (note: I've always signed my edits and never edited as a IP)[27]
• "I should have noted that since you began editing the GEO Group article, almost four years ago, after GEO employees using their own names or making IPN edits were outed, you've made about 80 edits to the article."[28]
• "You're desperately trying to whitewash and obscure the corporation's sordid history and to lead people away from any solid understanding of GEO's business mode" [29]

Some examples of a clear denial of COI editing:

• "I do not work for GEO or any of their subsidiaries, never have and have NEVER made an edit on behalf of ANY company." [30]
• "I am stating, very clearly, that I have never worked for GEO in any way shape or form."[31]

Aside from denials, warnings and invitations to go to ANI if he had evidence of the allegation, Activist was warned [32] on his talk page. Yet this continues. I hope that Activist doesn't turn this into a wall of text complaining about content issues and actually sticks to the issue: Can an editor repeatedly make an allegation, either directly or by aspersion, over a long period of time and get away with it?Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified of ANI here [33]. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI your link in the title and in the body to Messrs Activist instead redirect to the letter U. The ping template is {{u|username}} . L3X1 (distant write) 18:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually pinged him on purpose. He has a wrong-headed belief that it is necessary to ping someone every time there's a response and that not pinging them is somehow a form of incivility or trying to "hide" something...and then I screwed up the template. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What we have here is clash between two editors with very clearly defined interests/POVs - here is Niteshift's "edit count" and here are Activist's. These two have been tangling for a while per the interaction analyzer.

Both have written nasty personalized things about the other's intentions. Niteshift document's Activist's above but see this (Stop thinking like an activist with an agenda and start thinking like an encyclopedia editor. and this (whole thing). And see this COIN thread from 2013 about actual (disclosed) COI editing by GEO Group, in which Niteshift wrote this and this about their perception of Activist's advocacy.

Niteshift has odd ideas about NPOV per this where they seem to state that WP should be "fair and balanced" and give the company's response to a report about a nightmare prison they ran. That's odd. And this edit they made, related to that comment, was reverted here with an edit note by User:C.J. Griffin with an edit note "removing POV pushing by right-wing editor)".

In any case this topic arguably falls within the American politics DS since Obama ceased use of private prisons and Trump has said he is reinstating their use. Niteshift was notified of the DS in June 2016 here. Activist was given notice of them here at about the same time.

For now I would propose that both of them be warned to not comment at all about the other and limit their comments strictly to content, not contributor at article talk pages and in edit notes. If either breaches that, this should be brought to AE under the DS a TBAN or IBAN should be applied as seems appropriate. Activist should also be warned to stop repeating accusations of COI in various venues and to face an indefinite block per WP:HARASS if they do it again; bringing a single case at COIN after a single inquiry is the route to pursue. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute I've been less than civil from time to time. This is not about neutrality or content. It's about the same, repeated allegation, being made. This does not fall under the American politics DS just because a politician did something involving it, so trying to apply that to either of us is off-base. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Activist, but, FWIW, I've repeatedly had to ask Niteshift36 to stop making personal comments and, ironically, casting aspersions.[34][35][36] Felsic2 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then if you're not familiar with the topic under discussion, why are you discussing it? Or was this just an opportunity to express your dislike of me? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift, DS are in place to deal with topics where we get advocates on both sides of some issue behaving disruptively; it is obvious that the politics each of you have are what is causing this long-term dispute between the two of you and is currently disrupting articles related to GEO. I am very confident that if I brought this to AE the case would be accepted there. I have proposed something to address your concern about Activist that I think is reasonable; your own behavior is of course examined when you post at ANI. We'll see what others think about the recommendation I made. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't think that the DS applies. You recommendation isn't a bad one. I know my conduct hasn't been perfect. I won't pretend that I've been all sweetness and light. Yes, there are days where I say something uncivil or use a "damn" or something like that. And that's why I don't run to ANI every time someone is a little uncivil. This, however, was a bit different. It has been a systematic, long term allegation and that's the main reason I brought it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Niteshift36 has written that I have accused him or her of being in the employ of the GEO Group corporation. I've never done that. So his or her response is that I've thought that, or something, and should be held accountable for what he or she's read in my mind. (Just like her or she has determined my gender.) In fact I don't think that he or she has been. I ran across another editor, CFredkin, whose history and behavior convinced me that he or she did exactly that, complained about it for years to administrators on line and at a Wikimedia conference, and no one seemed to be vaguely interested. I'm virtually certain he or she was previously banned for COI edits, then came back without taking a day off, to do exactly the same thing, with that USER name. He or she worked 9-5, M-F, and if I had spent an hour analyzing his or her edits, I could have told you when and how many weeks of annual vacation he or she took, before CF's most recent banishment for massive sockpuppetry. (And, I presume, the adoption of a new USER identity as the rent still would need to be paid and food put on the table.) Niteshift36's behavior isn't remotely like that in many aspects. However, his or her edits to the GEO Group article, and to the articles about prisons they've operated, and about their one-time parent company G4S, back in about '03-'04, have been precisely the same. So my observation is that his and their interests, removing edits documenting troublesome and persistent corporate behavior, to the articles, in undeniably coincident. I'd never seen before the wonderful tool posted by one of those editors or administrators weighing in here above on this situation but it is illuminating. It documents exactly what I gathered was N's behavior and what I had stated. Rather than improving the article via additional contributions, N's done essentially nothing but massively delete. These are N's edits to the GEO article in the past four years: User:Niteshift36 (ec) 80 Number of edits:80 Added:+96 Deleted: -65,989

−

• • Now I think it might be helpful to look at an example of his or her stated reasoning for making deletions:

−

• • Congressman Ted Deutch, whose field office is in Boca Raton, where GEO's corporate offices are located, was seriously disturbed by consistent reports regard the maltreatment of non-criminal detainees at GEO's Broward Transitional Center. He wrote a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), requesting an inquiry into those conditions of confinement. Dozens of his colleagues signed on to it, and to a follow up, after the ICE director ignored his request for three months, and perhaps 60 signed on to it four months after that. Here's how N characterized his or her reason for repeatedly deleting references to that letter, that had been posted by a number of other editors, about which deletions I'd commented one time:

−

From the AIJ report: "Nonetheless, 26 U.S. House members signed a letter to ICE Director Morton in September 2012 complaining of lengthy detention periods and medical mistreatment at BTC. Organized by Rep. Ted Deutch, whose district encompasses BTC, the letter urged a 'thorough case-by-case review' of each BTC detainee. Three months later, the Congressman followed with another letter noting the 'excessive delay' in responding and hoping that the reviews had been 'completed or nearly completed.' Finally, on Jan. 9, 2013, Rep. Deutch received a response that he believed to be inadequate. To our knowledge, case reviews have yet to be undertaken by ICE." Activist (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

−

• • Now this situation was repeatedly commented upon by a host of reliable sources, such as the Palm Beach Post, the Miami Herald, the Sun Sentinel, etc., which editors included. N responded:

−

In July, 0.5% of the congress (24 of 435) signed a letter "expressing concern" about the facility. They didn't do anything else, just write (sic) a letter. In November, an advocacy group claimed "hundreds" of people went on a hunger strike. ICE said it was actually 30 people. So that's 0.15%. And then it was short-lived, less than 2 weeks. Yes, there are reliable sources, but WP:NOTNEWS reminds us that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". So we have something that only .5% of congress cared enough about to sign a letter (but do nothing else) and a short-lived event that involved 0.15% of illegal immigrants at a facility. For those reasons, I see no reason to include it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

−

• • This is characteristic of N's typical fallacious or purported reasoning for deletions of unwelcome pertinent information in articles. If one congressional representative wrote or signed on to a letter, it would be news. But when dozens do, N minimizes it, and claims that "0.5%" of the Congress signed, when it actually was 5.51%, an order of magnitude larger than N contended. My spouse and I have both been ill, we've had visitors making deliveries, and I have to drive to town, so I'll have to end this here for the moment. But I do want to make one last brief comment. N when he or she finds another editor refuses to capitulate to demands, has often launched into a stream of vulgarity. It's not remotely "damn," and stops just shy of the ten-letter C-word that got Lenny Bruce arrested. I can provide many examples if anyone cares. I have pleaded for a very long time that N contain those instincts, in the interests of civility and comity, with no positive response. Activist (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The above post tells us a lot. As you can see, Activist essentially repeats the COI allegation, spending time outlining the issue with the person who actually did work with GEO, then trying to link me to it. Forcing us to wade through the content dispute that I predicted Activist would try to start, he (I'm not going to play the he/she game. If you're not a he, just say so and I'll correct it) manages to pretty much support my original point. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's probably worth noting that I'm not the only one who feels like the allegation has been repeated: "You repeat the allegations of COI even as you deny you have been doing that" [37]Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation from uninvolved editor From my quick reading of this Activist has not accused you of paid COI editing but rather unpaid political advocacy editing which would not seem to be an entirely unwarranted allegation. For example, you say that Activist has accused you of "desperately trying to whitewash and obscure the corporation's sordid history" - where in that allegation is an allegation of paid COI editing? It is clear to me that is a disruptive ideological dispute. Your userpage is filled with political userboxes such as demonstrating support for concealed carry of firearms, opposition to "political correctness" and claims to be a "demonised conservative". It is unsurprising an ideological dispute has become heated but I can't see any evidence to support your claim that Activist accused you of undisclosed paid editing. It is also clear you have tried to remove cited material from articles relating to the company under dubious pretences. AusLondonder (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, for some of those observations to be accurate, you really would need to get into it deeper. Merely being cited properly doesn't mean things get included. Other "disputes" are over the length of items that Activists insists on re-telling at length in multiple locations. In cases like that, information isn't being "hidden" or "whitewashed", just not repeated at length. As for my userboxes...if you're going to cite them as a reason for an opinion, please at least be accurate. For example, I don't claim to be a "demonised conservative", I stated I am a conservative and don't understand why some have demonised that word. You may not think that's important, but I do think the difference is relevant. I'm also a Star Wars and South Park fan....If you can't see the WP:ASPERSION issue with "similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes", then I guess you don't see it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that not all sourced material is automatically suitable for inclusion. I cited your userboxes purely to show that from what I can see this is some kind of ideological dispute between two editors. As shown above you have questioned the motives of Activist yourself. In another diff provided you also sought to suggest particular citations regarding alleged misconduct by the company were discredited because the authors were allegedly associated with George Soros, a perennial and cartoonishly over-used hate figure for some American conservatives. Regarding WP:ASPERSION you specifically accused Activist of accusing you of "editing on behalf of the GEO Group" but now seem to be changing that to just casting aspersions and you have made aspersions against Activist yourself as shown in the diffs provided above. AusLondonder (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have questioned his neutrality. The language he uses in discussions strongly indicates a passionate position about the topic and a flair for hyperbole. I challenged a specific source that was more of an opinion piece than actual journalism and tied it to the authors being linked to Soros. The question makes sense since much of the prison housed drug offenders and Soros advocates for drug legalization. I think you have ASPERSIONS a little backwards. Saying that I feel your not being neutral isn't contrary to ASPERSIONS, if I tried to link you to editing on behalf of someone else, that would be contrary to it. So yes, I do believe Activist has an agenda, but I believe the agenda is his own. We can argue neutrality all day. We even have a noticeboard for that. But I have invited Activist a number of times to take his allegations and insinuations to ANI or COIN. He has not. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just woken up, the fever I had yesterday has broken, and the advice left here by other editors and read yesterday has percolated overnight. I'm very new to the ANI process but think I have a much better understanding of it now. I don't think I've ever been knowingly involved as a disputant in the process, before (I may have overlooked the "may have" warning or warnings as actually involving me, without having gone to the page and answering). I'll be back shortly to present my position in a more acceptable and understanding fashion. Thanks to everyone for their advice, patience and counsel. Activist (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, you can't remove the post. Per WP:REDACT, once the post was responded to, you can't just remove it. You may strike through it, but since subsequent responses by others refer to what you said, removal changes their responses. Your removal was reverted by another editor [38]. That editor came to your talk page and told you that he reverted it and why [39]. After a discussion, you came back and removed it again [40] with an edit summary that wasn't exactly accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user says "you'll end paying" which IMO appears to be a threat. Much of what they write is difficult to understand though. They also appear to be refusing to use references. Not sure they have the temperament nor ability to continue to edit Wikipedia. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more offended by "see you later, crocodile". It's "see you later, alligator" and "after while, crocodile"! --Darth Mike^(talk) 20:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's "in a while, crocodile!" Jeesh. EEng 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd. I think the implication is "if someone uses Wikipedia for medical advice, and gets screwed over because of an edit you made, you'll be sued". That sounds less like an actual threat than a general statement of "gee we should fix this", but as mentioned it's almost unintelligible anyway. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hm, they did that in the context of edit warring to keep unsourced content in Obsessive–compulsive disorder diff and also after having left this weird note at Doc James' talk page: diff. They also left this weird post at the Talk page of the article about Doc James, James Heilman after Doc James reverted this unsourced edit at Panic attack. Not sure what is going to take for Caula to understand how WP works. They seem very committed to their version of reality. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, the issue in 'see you later crocodile', a change, yes, from a very well know sentence, known from a rock song, but existing before, just a joke, is that we will continue talking, no evidence could be provided that this is a threat, and please explain me how can anyone 'threat' somebody who apparently is not in the same continent, I continue thinking the deletions were too strict, of the insert of definitions of: 'social phobia' and: 'anticipatory anxiety' in the panic attacks article, as well as the reference to a text by Sigmund Freud, and a note in an Spanish anatomy textbook, it were pertinent, well referenced in the Myelination case, and no need at all to reference in the literature what: 'social phobia', and: 'anticipatory anxiety' are.

If these definitions are pertinent to the panic attacks article is doc xxx's opinion or mine, I have no evidence that his medical credentials are better than mine, he has the mouse and the keyboard from Wikipedia, but this doesn't exclude the possibility of making a mistake.

If somebody made a mistake, wrongdoing is not same as evildoing, it's an act of friendship remarking the mistake, this is not an insult, as long as you don't want to give an image of being immutable and out of error as the Almighty, if editions to mechanical engineering are admitted without a reference, a box appears many times next to it: 'reference/ citation needed', don't know why the same couldn't be applied to medical articles, the comments about patients and readers being deprived of an useful information should be considered in the realm of 'support propaganda' to the edit, in the benefit of readers, and an indication to editors of being cautious, if something is not harmful, it's probably good, and as no direct patient contact was involved, no chances of a 'malpractice suit'. The interpretation of the Isaiah text the one who deleted it made is out of my knowledge of English language, I passed an US English as Foreign Language test long ago, even if my wording are far from being Shakespeare's, or Mark Twain's, changing wordings in articles is an activity open to everybody in Wikipedia, I have an understanding of it enough for my needs, and in the Isaiah text, I was not the one who was wrong. Have a good season, regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago I participated in a RfC [41] along with two other editors, FkpCascais and 23 editor. RfC's topic was whether Djokovic parents' ethnicity should be included in the article. The mentioned two editors voted against inclusion with the following reasons.

FkpCascais agreed with another editor whose reasoning was: "right now it says nothing about the nationality of either parent because it's not notable enough to do so. That's how it should stay. It doesn't really matter if Djokovic's parents are Serbian, Croatian, Russian or Mexican since this article is about Novak, not his parents or grandparents. They are named and that is plenty. And if it's even remotely controversial then it's even more reason to keep it out."

23 editor stated his reasoning: "his parents are both Serbian (one born in N. Kosovo and the other in Belgrade). The genealogical lineage is completely irrelevant." (he didn't provide any sources for his claim which went against presented sourced in the RfC )

They had quite a strong stand that parents' ethnicity should not be included in the article. I put a link to the RfC.

What is troublesome is what I found recently. They both went against their previous stand and introduce parents' ethnicity to [42] article. One IP objected and did some reverts. I noticed and I reverted them also and opened a discussion.

Then Vanjagenije came, blocked IPs from editing. FkpCascais of course put back their edit. Since then, they both refuse to discuss. I want to confront them about their previous completely opposite stand. I have prepared sources to confront their sources. All that is impossible since there's no point to discuss. They pushed their edit, Vanjagenije aided them deliberately or not, I as an Ip can't edit.

Is this a way to edit Wikipedia? Vote in one RfC no when the edit doesn't go along your view. Then do the same thing you voted against previously on another article. Refuse to discuss, refuse to explain a 180 turn from previous stand. Refuse to discuss at all.

This is not those 2 editors are behaving in such way the first time. I don't want to write a wall of text explaining their history. This example by itself show their lack of consistency and their manipulative way of editing by presenting the same thing in 2 different ways depending on their own view. If someone wants some history, I'm prepared to explain, but you should also be prepared for walls of text. Literally, since only Serbs of Croatia RfC (infamous among other editors as well) lasted for months due to FkpCascais disruptive behavior.

PS. Be prepared to a lot of personal attacks. For one eason or another FkpCascais and 23 editor think that all who oppose their way of editing wikipedia is a sock, as seen from the initial edit that had me involved (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Branimir_%C5%A0tuli%C4%87&diff=766344487&oldid=744590746).

Also, Vanjagenije was of no help either [43]. He knew all about what those 2 editors did on Novak Djokovic's page (he even deleted some of their personal attacks to other editors), yet he didn't see anything wrong with their POV pushing on Branimir Stulic article.

I don't know, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia and Vanjagenije is an admin. Maybe this is a perfectly normal way of editing Wikipedia.

I didn't notify them on their talk page about this discussion on purpose, since they have ignored my plea to join the discussion and reach a consensus. I'm completely disappointed with them ignoring the discussion and even more with the fact that an admin condoles such behavior. 89.164.223.43 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you must notify any potentially involved editors about any discussion here. It's not an optional step. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the big red text at the top of this page or the big orange box that appears at the top of the edit window did you not get? Blackmane (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors notified. Blackmane (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've put a source to the talk page to contest their sources.They are still ignoring the discussion and the new source. 141.136.192.216 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please take a look at this and this on Talk:Alternative for Germany. I'm perceiving pretty strong WP:I didn't hear that and WP:I don't like it behavior, but maybe I'm wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though I said on the article talk page that I was taking this to AN/I, I've notified the editor in question on their talk page anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was about to refer this. I'm confident that whoever looks into this will understand my position. Please also check the talk pages of myself, and the other two involved, and also [44].

I have noticed multiple behavioural problems, including failure to assume good faith, refusal to respond to reasonable questions, and generally uncivil and unpleasant behaviour. In particular, there was some fairly blatant wikilawyering concerning accusations of canvassing, and in one instance an insistence that I could not remove redundant references without a consensus, followed by a refusal to explain why the references were necessary. I am confident that you will find that the conduct of User:Beyond My Ken and User:Jytdog, which has included explicitly aggressive language and gratuitous swearing, has been generally quite poor. I invited both to adjust their tone on their talk pages, but both continued to be needlessly adversarial. Hayek79 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That's pretty much all I have to say - just read the talk page, all will (I think) be clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an article that seen a lot of alt-right trolling as one can see it in the history, which leaves patience thin for those who watch it.

Hayek showed up at the article two days ago, in that short space already has 44 talk page comments, 4th highest of anybody (edit stats). WP:BLUDGEON. Hayek is a relatively inexperienced editor (edit count) with unfortunately strong views, pushed WP:TENDENTIOUSly.

With Hayek there are also WP:CIR issues, e.g after about their tenth repetition of a point I wrote: "We have had so many trolls coming by the article trying to whitewash it. I am not saying you are one (at all), but I do not give a flying fuck that you think the infobox is too detailed."

• • Hayek had a cow demanding I remove the "flying fuck" and even after I redacted it just to remove the distraction, they still demanded I remove it {diff) and when I pointed out to them (diff) that i had redacted, they wrote, "I had seen that, but I can still read it, and therefore as far as I am concerned it has not been removed." Ack.
  • They also misrepresented my comment above when they wrote here and above, claiming I said anything about their politics, when I specifically said " I am not saying you are one (at all)". Double ack.
  • In that same last diff, they also repeated their claim that "antifeminist" shouldn't be in the infobox because the topic wasn't discussed in the article, but I had added it to the body already, addressing the one valid point they had been making.
  • Neither BMK or I agree that the points they are making are sound in PAG and have said so, and our simply disagreeing with Hayek makes us "obstructive" etc.

They are not even paying attention to the article, but seem invested in the dramah. I don't know if they can contribute productively to this article, with all their passion and inexperience. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog attempts a conciliatory tone, even now one that is fairly unpleasant and patronising, after having been consistently rude and aggressive throughout the course of the exchange. I'll trust that whoever reads this will look at the entire exchange and determine which party was being the more fair. Concerning the use of profane language, it would have been advised not to have used that language in the first instance, and to then have removed it subsequently. I don't believe the guidelines prevent the removal of curse words. As for my "strong views", this entire mess developed from my request that we shorten the "ideology" list in the infobox, mostly for aesthetic and accessibility reasons, and my questioning whether the "anti-feminist" designation was accurate, and supported by the sources provided. Nothing I'm especially passionate about. I was however somewhat taken aback by the level of hostility with which this was received, and I'm certain that this was because the editors above imagined that I was sympathetic to the AfD, or something similar. Hayek79 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using a conciliatory tone here; I am writing just as I did at the article talk page. You have brought no diffs. Again I get it that you are passionate but you don't know what you are doing, and you should really go edit some non-contentious content until you learn how this place works. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me the courtesy of responding properly to my suggestions, regardless of my edit count. Hayek79 (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both BMK and I did, more than once. You have BLUDGEONed the talk page so much it is a pain in the butt to provide diffs, but here we go:

• you first complaint was that the list was too long diff. I asked you the basis in PAG for that. To which you replied here about infoboxes not being "exhaustive" and asking me to be "resonable" which I didn't bother replying to, as these are not PAG-based objections, but just a restatement of your original point. You repeated it again here.
• you complained about the sources here and here (which you edited over a few times). BMK replied to you on that here. In this diff you acknowledged that you were not even looking at the sources provided. That about it killed it for me.
• your one valid objection here was that the content was not discussed in the body of the article. As noted above, I added it to the body.
• here you said it wasn't "accurate" which nobody replied to as it is bizarre.

You are just digging your hole deeper by repeating that we didn't respond to you. Oh, and as for the canvassing, diff of the worse one is here. I don't think that has been cited yet.

Your complaint seems to be that we didn't agree with you. Which is nothing to complain about. This thread is your bludgeoning the talk page and wasting everyone's time with dramah. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time you have actually attempted to respond systematically to my comments - even if your rendering of my argument is quite unfair. Thank you for doing this,

i. You did indeed ask for the guidelines, and I referred you to this Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as you can see from the link you have just provided. I'm fairly certain I posted this link on more than one occasion. It also happens to be true that the purpose of the infobox is not to list, exhaustively, every ideological commitment of every faction within the party. "Anti-feminism" is not a leading feature of the AfD agenda, and if you believe it is, you haven't provided enough support for that claim.

ii. On your second point, neither of you responded to my reservations about the other three sources.

I believe you are confused about the following comment: "I can't be invited to cite a study disproving the thesis that AfD is an anti-feminist party, that's for you to prove." This does not imply, as you said, that I was "not even looking at the sources provided". The other editor had offered a study which discussed attitudes towards gender issues in the party, and I was merely making the point that I couldn't be asked to provide a study which proved the opposite. I recall that someone had asked me for sources, but I may have been mistaken.

iii. I have no objections to the Facebook campaign being mentioned in the article. The article still does not discuss AfD's purported anti-feminism, unless you think that the party can be designated anti-feminist on this basis alone.

iv. This is an instance where it might have helped if you had been a little more patient, and asked for clarification. My argument throughout has been that the two articles on the Facebook campaign, one of which was a very short opinion piece, and an article about an AfD representative from the Baden-Württemberg state parliament, is not enough to support the claim that anti-feminism is a significant feature of the AfD platform. Therefore, designating the party "anti-feminist" on the basis of those sources would be inaccurate. Since the infobox is supposed to provide a brief overview of the main ideological commitments of the party, and given that there is no support for the claim that the AfD promotes an explicitly anti-feminist agenda, this is something, I argue, that can be cut from the infobox.

"Your complaint seems to be that we didn't agree with you" - this is obviously not a fair summary of my argument. Hayek79 (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to argue content. This is about your behavior. I won't respond further as this is getting cluttered. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We were both discussing content, but I have copied this onto the talk page so that, now certain things have been clarified, we can hopefully have a more fruitful discussion there. Hayek79 (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't allowed to transfer this discussion of content onto the talk page, despite it being useful in clarifying our disagreement. User:Jytdog has now suggested that I am "repeating myself". As it stands, no effort has been made to address these points. Concerning his response to point iv, it would seem that one of three things can be true:

i. There was an honest misunderstanding, but that Jytdog has refused to concede this by insisting I am "repeating myself"

ii. If I am "repeating myself", Jytdog cannot have been confused about my point concerning the accuracy of the designation, and therefore his comment about it being "bizarre" was deliberate misrepresentation.

iii. Jytdog didn't read my comments. Hayek79 (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What are you talking about? You copied your comment from this thread to the article talk page with this edit, and it has not been removed, it remains there, so your statement that "I wasn't allowed to transfer this discussion of content onto the talk page" is inaccurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMK they originally copied a chunk of this, including my comments, to the article talk page here, which i reverted as my comments were about their behavior - their claim that we have not responded -- not content. They then copied just their comments from here, in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the correction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked. Yes, I believe WP:BLUDGEON applies, and WP:REHASH. For instance, Hayek insists on a lot of mistaken arguing when they're very reasonably warned about their bad habit of pinging particular users on the talkpage and "inviting" them to comment (obviously in the hope of support). Being confrontational about good advice is a real waste of other people's time. And then it turned out that one of the people they "invited" was someone they knew in real life! (User:Acather96, an admin, who responded very properly). Of course that's horrendously inappropriate, and raises doubts about competence. And what's this nonsense? I'll quote it in full, because there are so many things wrong with it in small compass: "I think we'll assume that User:Beyond My Ken has no intention of responding. I've checked their talk page history and they appear to have a long history of unconstructive editing and edit-warring, so I think we should try to get a consensus without them, and deal with them later if they become a problem. Mélencron You seem reasonable, what are your thoughts?" First Hayek concludes, from a user's talkpage history, that that user "has a long history of unconstructive editing and edit-warring". That's both offensive and illogical; people who deal with a lot of POV-pushers, such as Jytdog, Sitush, or indeed Beyond My Ken, will naturally have a lot of complaints, including fake warnings, on their talkpages. Talkpage history is just a ridiculous basis for concluding anything about the constructiveness of a user's editing. Then Hayek concludes that a user who they have themselves worn out with insistence and nagging "has no intention of responding", simply because the response isn't immediate. And then Hayek pings a user who "seems reasonable" (= who agrees with Hayek). Competence problems + aggression = talkpage disruption. I've blocked for 60 hours. Bishonen | talk 17:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Could you guys stop referring to Alternative für Deutschland as "AfD". It leads to vexatious puzzlement. EEng 12:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase (talk · contribs)

This user is apparently WP:NOTHERE, and I don't frankly know what to do.

The account is old, but they made a tiny number of edits back before 2013, and came back about two months ago. It seems pretty likely that they were upset that a Twitter account got stealth-banned and came to Wikipedia to write up on the subject based on what was on Breitbart.com. They have spent basically all their time in the last few weeks fighting over whether Breitbart.com and other rightist fake news sites should be allowed as the sole source for factual claims and forum-shopping the same dispute to RSN, NPOVN and Jimbo's talk page (see [45]; also pinging User:JzG and User:Only in death). When said forum-shopping doesn't work out they post disruptive non-comments in multiple unrelated threads on the same noticeboards (no need for diffs; Ctrl+F their username on either of those noticeboards and it's pretty obvious; or just Ctrl+F "bold" on the currently live version of RSN).

When others disagree with them, they start posting these weird, sarcastic-looking attacks on them. (I've seen it myself[46][47] and also noted it happening to User:MjolnirPants.[48])

I'm thinking at least a TBAN from "RSN" or perhaps "right-wing news media" is in order, but at this point the user is practically begging to be blocked.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We can now add canvassing to the list of disruptive things Endercase has got up to.[49][50][51][52] I literally wrote my entire response to DT below before it occurred to me that it was really weird for a random editor to have seen this thread and responded in good faith the way he did. I check his talk page and find that Endercase canvassed him, apparently because he's one of the very few people (the only person?) to say "I agree" and "I don't want you banned" to them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this hidden comment with edit note "Clarifying why I pinged who I did, since I can totally see someong accusing me of assuming bad faith and hypocritical canvassing.".

If Endercase is canvassing, he sure is doing a bad job, since most of the editors didn't come here to defend him/her. It looks like a cry for help from a new user who doesn't know the rules and why he is in so much trouble. For a new user, it sure seems honest. When I asked him about mentoring, he said, "I agree I need a mentor". [53]. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: When someone adds an invisible clarification of a certain point so as to be left in the public record but not to clog up the thread, it kinda defeats the purpose when someone else comes along and adds a response to it that's longer than it, and quotes its edit summary in its entirety. I am only counting one canvassed editor who hasn't shown up yet -- do you mean that it was not votestacking since he canvassed one user who disagreed with him along with you and Nocturnalnow? That seems more like a deliberate attempt to seem like one is not votestacking, while disproportionately contacting editors on one side. Also, as I said when you quoted it below, the quote you provide was immediately followed by a clear statement of BATTLEGROUND mentality in which the users who oppose him were called a "Cabal": if you intend on mentoring Endercase, you need to stop downplaying/ignoring/denying the disruptive behaviour that needs improvement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I see in the diffs/link you provided is that a page-ban from RSN would be in order. He seems to be monopolizing things there and is not being very helpful (more to the contrary). Unless you provide specific diffs I don't yet see anything else actionable presented. If he is edit-warring on an article (e.g., Stealth banning), then report to WP:ANEW. Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Given that a significant part of the problem is forum-shopping, I don't see how a narrow page ban would solve the problem. I said TBAN because, if he posts something on NPOVN or Jimbo's talk page that clearly belongs on RSN, then he could still be blocked if he were subject to a TBAN but ... well, actually if he were subject to PBAN then we could say he was wikilawyering his way around it and come right back here, but it still seems unnecessary. He also really doesn't appear to be HERE -- again, essentially all he's done since coming back is fight over Breitbart.com. (Even on Talk:Stealth banning, all his posts are essentially just him arguing for inserting material he read on Breitbart and InfoWars, or complaining about how he is not allowed directly cite them -- this (the bottom part) is a particular egregious example.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, did you look at this diff? Or this one? These kind of remarks are not appropriate, and they are hardly atypical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the three diffs and the two links you provided. The comments seem pretty standard stuff -- except for on the RSN (excess posting, excess repetition, and idiosyncratic interpretations). You haven't provided any evidence of anything else. To make a case on ANI, you need to provide probative diffs. Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think there is enough yet. But I also think its just a matter of time. Generally their noticeboard (and I am including Jimbo's talkpage here as well) posts quickly devolve into soapboxing when people disagree. What really needs to happen is that an uninvolved editor needs to close their threads sooner rather than later when they go off target. RSN/NPOV boards are for asking specific questions about specific issues with articles, not trying to convince people of an idiosyncratic interpretation of policy. If they want to soapbox on Jimbo's page, well thats different. They can join all the others there. Or an admin can take 5 minutes to explain to them that if they want to discuss the policy, do it at the policy talkpage instead of noticeboards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TBAN seems appropriate given the WP:NOTTHEM, WP:IDHT and everything else. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Endercase will read carefully what everybody says and will adjust their participation in order to get along and contribute better. I'm sure they want to contribute and just need a little more time and experience. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnalnow was also canvassed. I don't have the time or energy to figure out why right now; unlike with DT, it didn't apparently come right below the words "I don't want you banned". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endercase is accomplishing nothing but the waste of time and energy by defending indefensible sources of lies and deception. When people point this out, they wiki-lawyer and whinge. That does seem to smell of NOTHERE. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike was also canvassed, but clearly it didn't go as planned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No Action Endercase is a very new user, and the bigger problem is that the accuser (Hijiri88) has failed to assume good faith with unfair accusations such as WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, and suggestion the new editor is "editing Wikipedia because you are upset that your Twitter account got stealth-banned". Hijiri88 interrogates him/her about whether s/he is using multiple accounts [54][55]. (See entire discussion.). Hijiri88 also accuses the new editor of "a fallacious attempt to get users to say indirectly that Breitbart is reliable in certain circumstances". [56]. If anything the problem is the accuser. Perhaps an iBan from Hiriji88 -> Endercase is in order.

I have recently encountered Endercase at WP:RS/N here. It was obvious to me the editor is new and does not understand many of the rules we live by here, citing things like ignore the rules, like there are "no rules". Admittedly, s/he got a little defensive but cooled down when I treated him/her with respect, unlike others who were not so friendly. There is no reason to WP:BITE new users like this.

I have written about this problem at WikiProject Editor Retention here.. In fact, this particular case was on my mind as I wrote it.

Endercase did reach out to me on my talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim was canvassed. Endercase chose to message him about this discussion for some reason, likely that he had written "I don't want you banned" several days earlier. David Tornheim is one of the only users to agree with Endercase in one of their content disputes, and to have partly benefitted from Endercase's disruptive "non-comments" I mentioned above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^This is worth a read, because it seems to reinforce what I said. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since I wrote the above "No Action", I suggested to Endercase that s/he seek a mentor. His/her response was "I agree I need a mentor." [59]. I would be okay with closing this with the recommendation Endercase get a mentor and Hijiri88 (and all of us experienced editors) be gentle and less accusatory to new users. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Your reading of that long comment is somewhat optimistic: the portion you quote was immediately followed by I appear to have upset a very active Cabal of users. Anyway, how would you feel about a set-term (three months? six months? one year?) TBAN on right-wing news media and/or RSN combined with mentoring for the same period of time, subject to review on completion of said set term? If, as you say, this is not a NOTHERE case, that kind of solution being effective would be a pretty surefire way to prove your case. Conversely, anyone who is HERE and recognizes that their activities have caused disruption would have no reason not to accept such a narrow restriction with a definite end date to look forward to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I spent some time on a reply on your proposed remedy (and am a bit warn out on this whole discussion). I do not think he has been disruptive, so he should not be punished with a tban. I think he is new and *confused* about what is and is not okay, and believes he is right and argues his case.

He--like probably a large portion of Trump supporters here in the U.S.--probably does not understand why editors on Wikipedia don't consider Breitbart or InfoWars to be good WP:RS. It's our job to make it clear to him that there is some consensus that establishes that. When another editor said Breitbart was no good, they provided no evidence for it, so Endercase went to RS/N to ask whether we really do ban specific sources (especially sources he thinks are good). His reaction makes perfect sense to me--exactly what a new user would do, one who doesn't understand how things work here. Obviously he didn't know about the banning of Daily Mail. I believe this problem is going to keep coming up, so we need an RfC or something like that to point to that says Breitbart (and InfoWars) are generally not good WP:RS. I would vote in favor of it, if such an RfC is held. Maybe I'll make one myself.

I have seen similar behavior over sourcing, e.g. Talk:Breitbart_News#Fake_News_being_passed_off_as_sources.

As for a remedy: Mentoring is fine, and perhaps a warning about not advancing specific sources as good WP:RS. If he stops advancing Breitbart and Infowars, I believe your main issue goes away. I think he might begrudgingly comply. We could ask him if he will do it voluntarily. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think he has been disruptive Only because you are choosing to ignore all the disruption he's been causing. I think he is new and *confused* about what is and is not okay, and believes he is right and argues his case But how do you propose we deal with that? Are you offering to mentor him? If so: you say you don't think he has already been disruptive, so how would your mentoring prevent further disruption? so we need an RfC or something Maybe. But won't Endercase keep complaining with each new "formal ban" that it should be listed somewhere? If he stops advancing Breitbart and Infowars, I believe your main issue goes away. Actually, my main issue is the incivility (as I said in the commented off section above explaining why I pinged MP). I think editors who get their information about the world from Breitbart but know better than to directly cite it on Wikipedia are just as dangerous to the integrity of the project as less tactful users like Endercase, but they are obviously very difficult to root out. Actually it doesn't matter where they got their opinions: any editor who adds their opinions to articles and look for sources retroactively, rather than read sources and write what they see in the sources is a problem (ask Nishidani or Curly Turkey for the worst example in my memory of that -- I don't wanna go into detail). Endercase has actually been showing signs that even if you or some other mentor could get him to understand that citing Breitbart is out of the question, he'll just become one of those editors. And since I'm somewhat pessimistic about the Encyclopedia, I think that's the best we can hope for in a lot of cases. Content-wise. But he would still need to drop the sarcasm, ABF, canvassing... and anyone who doesn't recognize that he has been doing these things is not the right one to teach them not to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice: I refer to this AN/I at the talk page of WikiProject Editor Retention here.--David Tornheim (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I don't actually believe that Endercase is a new or inexperienced user, nor that we should treat them as such. New and inexperienced users do not hang out at RSN proffering advice, nor do they quote Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages [60]. I don't know what is the appropriate action here, since Hijiri has failed to make a case by failing to provide diffs substantiating the claims in his OP (not the first time this has happened, which makes for a lot of wasted community time). I do think Endercase should at the very least be kept on a very short leash, and be banned from RSN and probably from reliable-source discussions in general. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: A user with 328 edits is not a new user??? [76]. When I was a new user, if someone told me, "You can't use this source anywhere"--especially if I believed it was a good source, I would have looked for a general place to air a grievance about such a banning of a particular source, or banning of any source. (for the record, I don't think Breitbart is a reliable source, but I know there are people out there that think infowars and Breitbart are the only sources that have "real" news ). The way he aired it and then posted on WP:NPOV shows he didn't know that it was inappropriate to post at that notice board. He obviously didn't know about the banning of Daily Mail either or he wouldn't have asked the question. We are supposed to assume good faith, so these claims he is not a new user (or has multiple accounts) need some evidence. I provided evidence he is a new user. Is it guilty until proven innocent? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New and inexperienced users do not hang out at RSN proffering advice, nor do they quote Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages [77]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New and inexperienced users do not hang out at RSN proffering advice. Sure they do. I did the exact same thing when I had fewer than 1,000 edits under my belt, offering opinions at six different RS/N sections in a 24-hour period two years ago, until a couple of admins basically told me to butt out. I was a bit shocked, believing that Wikipedia was completely egalitarian and everyone could comment anywhere, regardless of experience, especially when I saw certain editors making so many comments in so many places.

It is a rookie mistake to be citing things like WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE the way he did--not disruptive but naive.

As for Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages, who knows how he learned of it--possibly he just did a search because he didn't understand why some of us were talking about deleting an inconsequential article (WER_v_REW)) that had inadequate WP:RS. Incidentally that article has nothing to do with Breitbart, Infowars or alt right ideology. He is obviously defending an inclusionist approach. I saw no evidence of disruption. He did argue with others, when experienced editors like myself argued with him. Nothing strange about that either: New editors who think they are right will argue, just like experienced editors do. I did the same thing when I started. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whether he is new or not (and I don't believe he is), he is borderline trolling in my opinion, does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, and needs to be reined in. I think a topic ban on reliable source discussions, broadly construed, would at least be a good start. That would give him a chance to cut out the game-playing and demonstrate he can edit constructively. Otherwise, I'm not sure anyone wants to babysit him and if he fails to act maturely he probably is heading away from Wikipedia, so to speak. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did the exact same thing when I had fewer than 1,000 edits under my belt That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that you had made over 400 edits, over several years, before your first edit to the Wikipedia namespace. Again, though, it doesn't matter to my argument whether Endercase is actually a new editor. BITE is an essay, and is subordinate to various policies (such as AGF). Once a newbie has rejected friendly and politely-offered advice from multiple parties and kept doubling down, apparently because of a firm belief that Breitbart and InfoWars are not unreliable sources, they should no longer be treated with kid gloves: editors who refuse to abide by consensus, either by deliberate or accidental failure to recognize the consensus, should either be given a limited sanction to allow them to demonstrate that they are at least capable of contributing constructively, or in extreme cases with a block. Incidentally that article has nothing to do with Breitbart, Infowars or alt right ideology. In other words, it represents only a tiny (even negligible) portion of his contributions so far. More than half of his mainspace and talk edits are related to the two articles he is insisting on citing Breitbart/InfoWars on. In second place is the two Arianism articles he briefly edited immediately after returning. I have not looked at the content of those edits, but one would need to be pretty ignorant of right wing ideology to think that they have nothing to do with it. (I never said "alt right"; my first interaction with Endercase was the FRC thread, about a Christian fundamentalist, anti-LGBT hate group.) Nothing else even comes close to these three. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Arianism is nothing to do with Aryanism --79.71.0.201 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@79.71.0.201: I know that. Read my comment again. I specifically said that I wasn't talking about "alt right" or "Nazism". Arianism is associated with right wing politics because conservative Christians (Christian right) frequently associate various groups with whom they disagree with "Arianism", and lump secular scholarship of early Christianity in with that Da Vinci Code-based misconceptions, most of which center around the Arian controversy and the Council of Nicaea. It's super-off-topic and would potentially violate BLP if I posted it in detail, but there's one particular conservative scholar I'm thinking of; but it's definitely not limited to him. The topics of "Arianism" and "Gnosticism" can very easily be tied to the Christian right. As I said, I haven't looked at the content of Endercase's specific edits to the topic, so I am not judging the edits specifically: merely pointing out that the fact that he edited those pages is not evidence that he has been contributing positively to topics that aren't pet topics for the American right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hijiri88 needs a long topic ban from American Politics for comments like "Breitbart.com and other rightist fake news sites" and "the FRC thread, about a Christian fundamentalist, anti-LGBT hate group" which suggest that Hijiri88 is incapable of cooperating with editors with different points of view. Breitbart is a real news source that meets WP:RS. A distaste for its political stances (WP:IDLI) is not grounds for disallowing it or comparing it to Infowars. Anyone who tries to enforce partisan purity on Wikipedia should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. Seriously? Why would I be TBANned from a topic I have barely edited, not once disruptively. Also, who on earth are you? Have you and I interacted before? Your IP range is unfamiliar... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

71.198.247.231, if you wish to troll ANI and ask for bans for users in good standing, kindly log in to your account to do it. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Give them a stern warning and let David mentor them. If they show up here again, slap a TBAN (or possibly an indef block) on them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: I would be inclined to agree that mentoring could solve this problem, but I have my doubts as to David's ability or willingness to address the problem. I have serious doubts about mentoring by David under these circumstances: if disruption continues as before, will David just ignore it as he has been? The "mistakes" could be forgiven as a thing of the past, and even the fact that many of them clearly weren't mistakes overlooked, if there were any evidence that it wouldn't continue. If an editor who had disagreed with Endercase, or had at least acknowledged the problem, were offering to do the mentoring it would be one thing, since (if the IDHT behaviour continued, even toward the mentor) they would likely get frustrated and report back that mentoring wasn't working. David, though, looks set to just ignore all further disruption and only offer Endercase advice on how to successfully get away with his disruptive behaviour. If someone who recognized the problem were offering to fix it ... wait, a funny thought just occurred to me ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88:I understand your concerns, however I'm not too worried about the disruption it could cause. A failure to get the point while under mentorship would result in a fairly quick block or TBAN. Look at it in terms of a risk-reward balance: There's a substantial chance that it would result in a small amount of disruption, and a substantial chance that it would solve the problem while adding another useful editor to the project. Even if the balance is in favor of the risk, the equation points to taking the chance as the best option. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong warning and short leash is sufficient here. I wasn't canvassed, and am commenting because of a not very positive interaction I had with this editor at WP:RS. If Endercase is sincerely wanting to contribute, then he'll learn and change his behaviors. If not, then leash should be short. First Light (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Mentorship

As suggested above, I also think the mentor idea is a good one. Although in most ways I am not the most qualified, I would be willing to act as User:Endercase's mentor, as long as he doesn't expect me to be available or on Wikipedia for over an hour a day. Although it is counterintuitive for me to be his mentor, I think I can guide him into compliance and non time wasting way to edit and contribute overall without pissing people off. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnalnow, respectfully, I do not think you are appropriate or qualified to be the mentor here. I say that glancing at your contribs and your edits on, say Marie Le Pen, and elsewhere via your former account. And also because Endercase canvassed you into this conversation. The mentor needs to be a longterm Wikipedia editor in good standing with very clear NPOV. I think a TBan from RS discussions and from mentions of Breitbart and InfoWars would be better than mentoring, but if mentoring is chosen, I personally do not think it should be you. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, Softlavender, thank you for your respectful wording. I accept your observation in this regard and withdraw my offer of mentoring. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• support mentoring. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from someone not opposed to mentoring, in theory I still think mentoring from someone who thinks there has been no disruption -- indeed is still officially trying to shift the blame onto those disputing with Endercase, as David's first comment still has not been stricken -- is not going to help the situation at all. If David was willing to admit that there is a problem, or if someone else who was willing to admit there is a problem offered to do the mentoring, it would be another matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm still waiting on a response to my [Y]ou say you don't think he has already been disruptive, so how would your mentoring prevent further disruption? above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his behavior was 'disruptive'. But I also think he made a number of errors, because he is new and does not understand the rules fully, which he freely admits below. Rather than be defiant and admit no wrongdoing here, he admits he needs help and has made mistakes. That's what I would like to see personally. He wants to learn and follow the rules. I have already spent quite a lot of time on both my talk page and his giving him advice. He asks good questions. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Sarcastic, uncivil comments and laughing at other editors in edit summaries are not "errors". If mentoring does not prevent further disruption of this sort, then mentoring alone will not solve the problem. The "mistakes" you say he has admitted to are mistakes others attempted to correct both before and since you, and he has refused to listen. He is only now admitting that he made "mistakes" because he is facing sanctions, and there's no reason to believe that if those sanctions don't pass he will not go back to not listening. You are the only one who thinks his behaviour wasn't disruptive, and it's increasingly obvious that this is because you are the only one to agree with him on the substance of one of his posts (apparently the only one you read). If you don't recognize what is wrong with his behaviour up to this point, then how can mentoring by you correct it going forward? If any other editor were offering to mentor him, or if you were willing to admit that his behaviour was disruptive, I would assume that mentoring would be a good first step, since if the behaviour continued the mentor would be the first to notice and get worn out by it, but you don't seem to even understand what he has been doing wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Topic ban

I propose a topic ban from RS discussions, broadly construed, and from mentions or references to Breitbart and InfoWars. Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as proposer. This solution is much easier and more doable than mentorship (which is time-consuming, unpredictable, and unwieldy, and rarely works with disruptive editors who already know an enormous amount about Wikipedia). It will allow Endercase to contribute productively to Wikipedia however he likes, and demonstrate that he is here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Regardless of whether mentoring happens, it's clear that nothing will be gained from the editor continuing to discuss those two sources and continuing to post on RSN. In a few months' time, once the mentor (David, if he ever gets around to explaining what he meant above) determines that the time has come, the ban can be appealed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the above, especially in light of my own offer below to mentor Endercase. I think a break from RS discussions, and generally staying the hell away from citations of Breitbart and InfoWars, would do Endercase good, and would advise him thus if he accepts my offer of mentorship. Once I think (or perhaps David and I agree) that the time has come for him to contribute constructively to RS discussions, then I would support lifting the ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the reasons I mentioned in the discussions above. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed The mentoring with David Tornheim is the perfect solution, imo. Endercase has not been such a problem that they deserve being banned or censored in any way, imo. They just need a first chance.Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nocturnalnow: Again with this "censorship"? I stand by my offer to mentor Endercase (or at least help/supplement David's mentoring), but continuing to claim that something is being "censored" is not going to help. Claims that can be sourced only to Breitbart and InfoWars are already, effectively, barred from inclusion in Wikipedia because they are almost certainly false, so any specific sanction on use of particular sources by Endercase would not censor any content he might want to add. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait ... or did you mean to write "censured"? If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I still disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion on whether he should be censured by the community. You're not entitled to accuse others of trying to "censor" him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident he meant censured. Thanks for the kind words Nocturnalnow. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry..censured is what I meant. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It seems that Endercase is listening to some good advice now. If they could stay away from WP:RS and stop bringing up those same issues voluntarily, that would be better. If this becomes a problem again, then a ban could be revisited, though I'm hopeful that won't needed. First Light (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per above. DarkKnight2149 20:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (meta)

• Comment from Endercase I'm definitely open to mentorship, or to any actions deemed appropriate by consensus. I have currently engaged in mentorship with David Tornheim on our respective talk pages. Their input has been very respectful, helpful and enlightening thus far, though I would not deny the assistance of any users (particularly one/s "assigned" to me) in helping me have a better understanding of the workings of Wikipedia or of life if they would like. Despite having read all policies that have been referred to me I feel as if I do not currently have a clear understanding of Wikipedia's working definition of "disruption". All of my actions have been based on my understanding of policy at the time of my interaction. I would have definitely done things differently had I had the understanding that I currently have of policy, yet I still feel like I have a lot to learn. I'd would like to thank all of you for using your time to determine what is appropriate action to take in my case. Endercase (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: Mentors are not "assigned". It's voluntary, so if no one is willing to mentor you then you don't get a mentor. I appear to be in the minority in thinking that mentoring by the one person who has thusfar offered to do it is not going to work. If the community decides that mentoring by David is the solution, then I will accept that, but ... well, what would you say to me being your mentor? I'm willing to forgive and forget any past negative interactions you and I have had, and if you are really willing to work to get better at editing, then I am willing to assist in any way I can. How about it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: David Tornheim has been extremely helpful thus far and I would not like to lose their interaction and input. However, your input would also be extremely valuable. Considering that you and David Tornheim have not gotten along even in this discussion it may be difficult for the two of you to work together. If you can work with them in mentoring me I think this would represent a major development between two very different editing styles. This would be a very growing experience for all of us and I suspect this would lead to a few growing pains. However, I feel like we would all learn quite a bit from the experience and become better editors. If you would like to mentor me the main thing I think I need at this moment is your clear definition of disruptive behavior. You have mentioned: excessive posting, sarcasm, and repeating the same arguments under a singular heading, canvassing, and having non-descriptive edit summaries, and a few other things. I have also been reading other AN/I posts to generate a better understanding. I would love to have a better understanding of your perspective and would like David Tornheim's input on this idea. Endercase (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[me] and David Tornheim hav[ing] not gotten along even in this discussion is not really an issue, since we have never interacted before, and in this discussion we have a disagreement as to whether your behaviour has been "disruptive" or merely "mistaken". This actually isn't even that much of a disagreement, since we appear to be working on different definitions of "disruption": the way I use it, it says nothing about intent or lack thereof, and so is not mutually exclusive with "mistaken" behaviour; under my definition, it's a truism that disruption has taken place, regardless of whether or not you meant to be disruptive. Everyone, including me, is in agreement that mentoring would be a good idea: I am just concerned that David seems to have been ignoring the concerns the rest of us have had expressed about your behaviour, and so might continue to do so even if he is officially acting as your mentor.

If you are willing to accept me as your mentor, I will offer you the advice not to cite Breitbart or InfoWars at all -- they only occasionally get things right, and then only when they are in agreement with more reliable sources, and their editorial slant is so much at variance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy that using them would involve enough care and diligence that it would be impractical even for experienced editors. Better just avoid them.

As for RSN, I would strongly advise you not to contribute there in the manner you have been. That noticeboard is most often meant to determine whether this or that source is appropriate for some particular purpose on Wikipedia, and so telling other users to be "bold" and add whatever material they are talking about is not helpful. Neither is saying that a discussion of whether the FRC is a reliable source for the teen pregnancy article should take place on the talk page rather than RSN. Most regular contributors there are highly experienced in writing articles, and you are not going to be able to contribute as well as they can without gaining more experience actually writing articles and citing sources yourself. This is based on the assumption that you are not a university professor who should already know that Breitbart and InfoWars are unreliable; I'm not (I have a bachelor degree and I read a lot). I can't unilaterally ban you from RSN, but I really think it would be a good idea for you to stay away from it for a while, until you've contributed a bit more content and demonstrated to me (and whoever else) that you understand or content policies and guidelines, particularly WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. (You may also have a problem with WP:NPOV, but I haven't seen enough article content to tell.)

I would be happy to continue offering you advice like this for the foreseeable future, but you would need to listen to it. I tried to offer you essentially this same advice on your talk page before coming here, but you ignored it. That is something you will not be able to do if you are granted the "mentoring" option in place of what some other editors have argued for in this thread. There may be limited support for Softlavender's TBAN proposal relative to the general concept of "mentoring", but there's more support for a "strong warning" and "short leash" than for any other option, so you must understand that if you don't listen the advice that is offered you from now on, you will likely be blocked from editing. Please do not take this as a "threat". I no more wish to see potentially good contributors blocked than does David, nor do I have the power to unilaterally block you even if I wanted to. It is simply a statement of fact.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR: You shouldn't cite those sources, and you should write more articles before attempting to offer advice on RSN. These are terms you really should adhere to, whether or not the above TBAN proposal garners enough support to pass. If this thread is closed as "Mentor", you need to listen to your mentor's (or mentors') advice. If not, your mentor will likely get tired of trying to make you listen, and we will be right back here without the "don't block; mentoring is better" option on the table. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (addressed mostly to Endercase). I have no objection to Hijiri88 giving advice to Endercase in addition to myself. In fact, I would prefer it, as my time is limited. I agree with Hijiri88 that we would not likely be at cross-purposes, any more than the case when I first met you at WP:RS/N and experienced users were giving you advice.

I agree with Hijiri88 that the main disagreement between us is whether your behavior so far needs punishment on the level of a tban or censure: I don't think it does. I see this as a beginner who did not understand the rules, thought WP:IGNORE meant we have no rules, and now you know that, yes, we do have rules and there are consequences to not following them.

I agree with nearly all of Hijiri88's advice:

1. use of Breitbart and InfoWars as WP:RS should be avoided
2. encouraging editors be WP:BOLD is a bad idea, especially as you did at WP:RS/N
3. listen more to advice from experienced users (you can look at their user page to get a sense of who is experienced), and refrain from long arguments. If you really think the other person is wrong, you can ask us.
4. stay clear of giving advice at WP:RS/N, again avoid saying "be WP:BOLD". Learn the rules of WP:RS first, and that means more than just reading the rules. It takes experience.

It should be okay to ask a question at WP:RS/N about whether a particular source can be used to support a particular statement. But do it to gain input and consensus, rather than argue if you don't like the answer.

The only thing I disagree with Hijiri88 is any requirement that you create your own articles. There is plenty of work to be done adding to existing articles with top quality RS; and especially adding good RS to statements that are have poor RS or none at all and correcting errors in the text when the sentence does not match what is in the RS. Fixing typos is always welcome, as is reverting clear cases of vandalism. And as I mentioned before, work to be done at WP:Backlog (<I'm not sure if you need more experience to work on that stuff or not. There is probably work to be done that a new user would find comfortable.)

FYI, in the past mentors were assigned. I don't know what is happening with that now. The page Wikipedia:Co-op says that it is no longer active. I will ask. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Concern - Based solely on my past experiences with this user, I don't think that Hijiri88 is the right choice to be the mentor. But in terms of what he's saying here, I agree with much of it. DarkKnight2149 20:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the history of User talk:Huji, find the two edits I just undid, and rev-del their content (which contains curse words in Persian). huji—TALK 04:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huji: Probably not gonna happen unless you provide some more details. Curse words aren't generally enough for rev-del. Outing attempts, threats, and copyvios can usually be rev-delled, and it's understandable if you don't want to elaborate on exactly what was in that comment that you want removed from the public record, but the problem is that very few admins speak Farsi, and since the text in question is in the roman alphabet, machine translation software won't recognize it as the language that you say it is or as any other language. Your best bet would be either to be more specific as to why you want a rev-del, or find a Persian-speaking admin who can see what the vast majority of ANI watchers (myself included) can't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed recently that Google Translate (if you open the full website) now will first give you the option with Persian to convert the Roman alphabet to the Persian script. And then it can do a translation - which is a rather non-sensical "Arab Korea shark Nnt you son of a bitch mother Jundi", but probably gives us an idea of where it's going. Nfitz (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Thanks Nfitz. Revdelled as "purely disruptive material". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is in the news regarding a reported signing. Information regarding the signing may be based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement, but editors continue to disregard this and edit the subject's team details anyway. I requested page semi-protection, but that has only partially quelled the problem. I and User:CityOfSilver continue to revert edits. I'm applying WP:3RR exemption seven regarding BLP articles, but erring on the safe side and reporting to ANI. I will stop reverting if asked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDragonFire (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IT looks like it has already been protected, so there is really nothing else for an admin to do. --Jayron32 15:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamjamesfox, Jetrex3, Jimmygrove, and CavsRule123: Please STOP adding unsourced information to the article. TheDragonFire (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheDragonFire, while reverting edits without sources is fine, I personally think the reversions you made to some edits that cited a source were inappropriate (i.e., Jetrex3 citing CBS Boston). Once a major news outlet states that he has signed with another team, I think it is fine to mention that in the article. The template at the top warning that the information in the article might be inaccurate is sufficient to note the signing isn't fully confirmed by the teams themselves. I don't think that template should be used as a justification to remove information that is cited to a reliable source. Calathan (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calathan: Jetrex3's reference (diff) failed validation when I visited the URL, which brought up something unrelated not from CBS Boston. Now that ValarianB has provided a suitable source, I think we're all good here. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the template from the top, since the signing is confirmed. DennisPietras (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it looks like he must have linked the wrong link. Sorry about that, though I'm pretty certain the story was actually on the site, just mislinked (and I had also seen it on ESPN). Calathan (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, pretty strange. I was pretty sure my citation included an accurate source for URL. The website that I went to was pretty accurate but the link wasn't. My bad. Jetrex3 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:86.141.246.169 has repeatedly removed a shared IP notice for no reason I can discern. User:K6ka restricted this user from doing this and just now, the person hopped to User talk:86.142.69.194 to keep up the nonsense. Is 86.141.x.x too big a range of IPs to block? If so, can both these IPs get the boot with both talk pages semiprotected for a bit? (I know where WP:AIV and WP:RFPP are; problem is, requests for extensions on ongoing blocks and page protections seem to get wiped by bots and I don't know what sort of Wikipedia-fu I'd have to use to prevent that. When I crabbed about this to K6ka, they recommended I come here.) CityOfSilver 16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two IPs you mention are in different ranges.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the 86.141.246.169 talk page for one month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: This is true. Dopey little mistakes like this drive me nuts but if I mellow out and accept that I'll probably keep making them, will I ever figure out how to stop? CityOfSilver 17:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:Iniced who always does this to addresses they've used. Some things are really not worth fighting for. Fighting to retain a notice saying it's a BT address, when there are several links at the bottom of the page which say it's a BT address - waste of time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I don't see the point in tagging IP addresses belonging to big providers - the BT pool has millions of addresses available. When the IP belongs to a particular small pool that might be regularly used for vandalism (i.e. schools, libraries) then fine, but otherwise it's not particularly worth wasting time on. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reggiewray01 (talk · contribs) has been warned repeatedly to stop making controversial page moves but has continued to do so. In this most recent cluster of moves, they moved the Talk:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling talk page to Impact Wrestling LLC but left the main article at the old name. They then moved several sister articles to different names despite a recent RM (closed by Andrewa) deciding against this.LM2000 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: Do you need an admin to fix the undiscussed moves? If so, can you please list the pages and the title of where they should be? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that everything can be set back to where it needs to be without admin help but I'm concerned that Reggiewray01 will move the articles once they get back where they need to be. This is the third time they have moved Impact Wrestling this month.LM2000 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to his talk page strongly encouraging him to participate in this thread. Any more undiscussed moves on his part will result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand blocked three days to prevent further disruptive editing. [78] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Envale is a prolific creator of really poor biographies. The talkpage is full of advice, none of which has been acknowledged, and none of which has been heeded. I moved the latest 2 to draft for improvement but a quick glance at the contributions shows many, many more that need attention. The WP:CIR issues aren't being addressed through talking, a block seems required to get some response. Cabayi (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would also probably be wise to require Envale to go through AfC until they have proven they have acknowledged the advice given to them through improved content. Perhaps move their articles into draftspace as well since notability seems to also be a major concern.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them- the various historians at least- are probably notable; unfortunately the editor seems to have a penchant for choosing the worst available sources. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor refuses to take any advice - they are still using the {{official website}} inappropriately having had this pointed out to them several times (see Elizabeth Hampsten for an example); they still cite their references as bare URLs (poor but tolerable) placed in square brackets so that they aren't visible in the reference list (really bad style, pointed out several times) (see same article, early version before another editor came to the rescue of the references); they still list authors' books with no date, publisher, ISBN (same article). All 3 problems still present in Draft:Edward DeLos Myers which they created today. Getting things wrong once or twice is learning. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is WP:IDHT or something, and this editor is not at present an asset to the encyclopedia, creating such poor articles that they require a lot of time from other editors to become anything like encyclopedia-worthy. A bar on creating new articles would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. PamD 19:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought our advice was beginning to be heard when this article appeared today with dates for the books (no publishers or ISBNs, but that's a start) ... but then found the later Edward Parmelee Morris and Arthur Richard Shilleto where s/he's back to bare lists of book titles. PamD 14:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• support TBAN from directly creating new articles; they can appeal in 6 months showing successful creations through AfC. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• support TBAN + 72 hour block - there's been no response to this ANI thread nor any improvement in the creations since it started. A short block to get Envale's attention seems necessary. If the tools keep working, Envale will keep going without any regard to TBANs, ANIs or anything else. Cabayi (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if they are still creating articles-? Then, immediate (short) block, as it is bloody well rude to carry on, in the face of a community discussion, without a by-your-leave, sir. Their attention needs to be caught- by the short and curlies. TBan for further discussion. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven poor articles created today! One has caught my eye - I'll do a bit of work on Erika Pohl-Ströher, though I see that another editor has already fixed the references. PamD 15:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier for admins to take quicker action if the editor has been notified of discretionary sanctions. I've done so and added a warning which in effect says they'll be blocked if they continue to edit in the same way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 72 hours to slow down the user's creation of poor biographies, and because they have failed to acknowledge or heed any of the concerns on their talkpage. They can be unblocked if they respond constructively to my block template. Groan, NeilN... I'm sorry, I didn't see your warning — I was fiddling with my note for the block log for several minutes, and Twinkle obviously didn't care that I was edit conflicting you. That's unfortunate. Note, though, that they have never edited their talkpage. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• @Bishonen: No problem. The DS note will quickly allow us to enact longer restrictions if the block expires and they fail to respond appropriately. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• NeilN, I wanted a permanent link to this discussion for the block log first, and for some reason, nowadays, ANI sits chewing the cud for almost five minutes before producing one of those. Extremely frustrating — I always feel another admin is probably forestalling me while I sit waiting for that link, and this time it happened. Anyway, the discretionary sanctions alert was a good idea. Bishonen | talk 16:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@NeilN: ... Though only a certain proportion of their creations are BLP and therefore involved in DS - most are long-dead. It's difficult to find a suitable set of warning templates for "generally rubbish editing", though I used the "UW-MOS" templates to give first and second warnings about abusing the "Official website" template, and might have got up to level 4 by now if they weren't already at ANI!. PamD 16:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Bhimaraju is an AfD that is subject to WP:BLP. An IP made these edits: [79], [80], [81], and [82]. The comments are on the borderline between AfD discussion and BLP violation, and some editors are objecting. In my opinion, the 4th edit (the one with "yuck" as the edit summary) should probably be rev-deled. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ive removed the revisions but left the vote. Their entitled to vote but they aren't entitled to make claims that fall foul of BLP without evidence. Amortias (T)(C) 23:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're deep in the middle of college basketball conference tournament season, which means there's a lot of editing of various pages dedicated to the tournaments as the games are being played. Per consensus within WP:Collegehoops, as tournament brackets are filled out, a logical flow from one round to the next is maintained as the team routing into the next game from the "top" of the bracket flow is placed in the top of the next matchup, while the team coming from the "bottom" is placed at the bottom. I found one brief discussion in WikiProject College Basketball talk archives, and the behavior of nearly every other editor indicates that this is indeed the consensus.

What appears to be a single editor disagrees, however, and has been repeatedly changing the brackets in cases where there has been an upset, "flipping" the pairing so that the higher seeded "home" team is always listed on top. This defeats the diagrammatic purpose of the brackets, breaking the logical flow of following how a team has progressed from one round to the next. The editor has even going back to pages from conference tournaments in previous years and making these changes.

This apparently single user has been using several IP addresses and at least one registered account, and based on the condescending edit descriptions and talk page messages the user has left, they apparently have no interest in following consensus or engaging in constructive discussion.

Some of their behavior likely falls under 3RR, but because the edits span several dozen pages, there is a larger issue here that makes it difficult to centralize discussion.

Summary of problematic accounts I've seen in recent days:

• 72.23.91.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff. I reverted that change, and the editor reverted my revert with an edit note of "that this kid keeps messing up." The issue was raised three times on the user's talk page, once by another editor earlier this week and twice by me, and it was not until this third notice that there was any sort of response from the editor. That response appeared on my talk page and was automatically signed as from a registered user:

• BHenne59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user's response on my talk page earlier today of "not gonna happen" showed no willingness to discuss the issue. Later in the day, it appears the user began using another IP to continue with the behavior:

• 12.168.218.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff. User Tewapack was also attempting to clean up from this user's edits, and the user continued to revert to his or her preferred style, referring to Tewapack as "that idiot" in an edit note on this diff.

I made one more attempt to engage with the user, posting a message on BHenne59's talk page again pointing out the consensus and the multiple other editors having to clean up his or her edits. The user responded to me with "you aint gonna win brother," again signaling no interest in abiding by consensus or discussing the issue.

I apologize for the amount of information here, but it's a bit of a messy situation given the multiple accounts/IPs being used. Any guidance on the best way to handle this would be appreciated, as it is a tremendous amount of work to continually clean up these issues on so many pages with a user this stubbornly refusing to adhere to consensus, and even with multiple editors trying to do it I'm approaching 3RR territory myself. Thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be sanctionable, I think you need a clearer consensus than a brief archived discussion between two editors and your subjective analysis of "the behavior of nearly every other editor". If it isn't sanctionable, it isn't an issue for this page. I'd suggest forming that clear consensus as a first step. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll try to garner a fresh round of feedback from the WikiProject members to help establish consensus. WildCowboy (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These IP/Single use account edits defy logic - a reader expects to see sport tournament brackets flow from left to right so that winners visibly advance. Please use common sense, it's doubtful anyone thought this situation needed a specific consensus discussion, but if it's needed we certainly can. The user (and I'm sure it is the same person) is essentially just trying to create havoc. Rikster2 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith @Peteinterpol: intervened, 11:37, 12 March 2017‎ Peteinterpol (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,942 bytes) (+607)‎ . . (Undid revision 769774537 by ClemRutter (talk)Restored reliably-sourced content that meets Wikipedia Notability guideliness.) I have reverted this as I see this as 'gossip' which cannot be verified- citing WP:BLP etc. Could an experienced admin, glance at this and make a judgement. And refer to user/oversight if it needs be this. I will take no further part.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think BLPCRIME may be invoked here, seeing as the teacher wasn't actually convicted (or even charged or indicted) of a crime. Not to mention issues of verifiability. El_C 10:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this AfD, User:Bus stop refuses to stop badgering all who comment. This is despite at least two (one (mine) and two (another IP user)) pleading requests to let the proces play out. He or she has a long block history, and I would suggest that another short one is warranted here, as they have pretty much ruined the AfD.198.58.158.1 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is a passionate editor making a point to save an article. He has not said anything rude and has made some productive responses, even if it doesn't go his way. This did not need to be brought here; if you do not like his ideas, simply stop responding to them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that while their actions may be categorized as disruptive (they were asked to stop), they also made some productive responses (if prolific). I can also see that banning does not work on this user. I agree with the verdict and the punishment of the silent treatment. Endercase (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An important point is that art galleries get deleted in some instances when notability is adequate. This occurs because sources focus less on the gallery and more on the exhibitions, the artists, the art critics. Bus stop (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that Bus Stop has only replied to people continually because they were willing to keep up the argument. If you don't like what he says, don't reply to it. Simples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For nearly three years now, a group of IP's have been disruptively editing The Simpsons-related articles, by adding fake episodes, disruptively switching around information such as writers, production codes, and suppressing info by using nonsensical excuses such as "This site knows too much" displaying WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior, including deleting source information claiming it is "too soon" to list the info or that "they're not ready" for the info to be available yet, despite that the information is sourced. After several years of reverting this user who uses a variety of different IP ranges, the most common ones being 2602:306:37eb:47e0.* (which was rangeblocked by KrakatoaKatie back in January for vandalism, including one other time in August 2015 for "tv-related, ip-hopping disruptive editing and vandalism") and 205.213.104.*, I looked into the vandalism in the page history, and found over 160 examples of this user (using different IPs) vandalizing Simpsons-related pages (the diffs can be found on this page). Despite the many different IPs, the user often uses very similar phrases throughout IPs and displays similar behavior. Adding fake titles, particularly "Maggie Goes to Nursery" 1, 2, 3, sneaky director switching 4, 5 and claiming The Futon Critic, a very reliable press release site that gets all their information directly from the television network, is somehow "ahead of its time" and should not be used 6, 7.

Going through this information, I found one editor, Davejohnsan reverted this editor quite often and seemed to be aware of the person's editing patterns, so I sought him out on his talk page earlier today asking if he would be interested in giving input when I made this report on ANI. Though Dave did not get a chance to respond yet, the IP hopper commented on my message to Davejohnsan diff here pleading with me not to report him and told me "I'll stop for real this time!" along with an "explanation" for why these edits were made. This gave me pause for several reasons, 1) despite his "begging" for another chance, the editor has been blocked several different times on different ranges, so they clearly knew what they were doing was wrong. 2) His explanation clearly displays WP:NOTHERE behavior as he is essentially editing according to his personal whims, and neglects to realize his removal and vandalizing of content affects all of Wikipedia. 3) Finally, in my message, I never once mentioned in my message what this "Disruptive IP range" was, so if the editor was truly "innocent" how would they know I was referring to them? Not to mention the fact that he "conveniently" happened to see my message Davejohnsan's talk page only hours after I posted it, meaning he was likely stalking my contributions as well. At the very least, this editor is WP:NOTHERE and their disruptive behavior cannot continue.

Admittedly, I don't have much experience dealing with this, but I would recommend at least the season 28 and List of The Simpsons episodes articles being semi-protected for now, however, I think a much more long-term solution is necessary as this has been going on for three years now, and cannot continue. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 02:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For anyone who decides to take a look at this, Katniss appears to have been kinda keeping up with the edits. Such a list may help with any further blocks put in place. 'Fraid I've not exactly got anything to add to this yet, other than pointing out what I just did. Off to bed for moi! MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 02:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple socks and IP editors keep creating versions of Rajkumar Mishra(Film Actor) and vandalizing India film pages by replacing famous actor's names with "Rajkumar Mishra."

• Special:Contributions/RAJKUMAR_MISHRA_FILM_ACTOR
• Special:Contributions/47.31.1.214
• Special:Contributions/2405:204:3008:1F76:0:0:1B41:88A4
• Special:Contributions/37.127.136.241

Closed sockpuppet investigation here shows prior socks:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RAJ_KUMAR_MISHRA

Blocking and salting page creation for this latest article would be a good thing. First Light (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And they continue:

• dif
• dif

First Light (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And more:

• dif]

First Light (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Though I fail to see 37.127.136.241's connection to Rajkumar Mishra(Film Actor). El_C 10:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes, that was mistake to add that particular IP, who actually was reverting the vandalism. Thanks for noticing! First Light (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our sock is not done, it seems:

• Rajkumar_Mishra(Tv_actor)
• Rajkumar Mishra(TV actor)
• latest sockpuppet: User:Rajkumar Mishra (Tv actor)

First Light (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has been taken care of, now we have this user adding the name to List of Indian television actors: Block for IP, please,[83] and that article could be put under protection since it's a favorite target. First Light (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Another IP spamming this supposed actor's name:

2405:204:300A:DB87:0:0:24B9:38B0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) First Light (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any famous person with this name, or any reason this couldn't be set up as a filter to stop it being added to random articles? From the profile it looks like a game of whack-a-mole and this mole seems to have a lot of time on their hands, so perhaps a new approach is needed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

haha, I was just looking at the edit filter request page to ask for this. No, there is no famous person like that. No articles or authors, etc., as far as I know. Can you request an edit filter for this, or I can do it? First Light (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And now this: Rajkumar Mishra(Actors) First Light (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus the new sock: User:Rajkumar Mishra (Actors) First Light (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that as you have more experience with this individual you'd probably be better off making the request. Edit filters are expensive in processing terms and tricky to set up, and they'll have to be run in test mode for awhile to make sure it doesn't return any false positives before being put in "disallow" mode. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do - thanks, First Light (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arianewiki1 apparently has nothing better to do than follow me around Wikipedia to harass me and make flagrant breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS. This mess started when I created a requested move on this nebula article. The RM was a proposal to rename the article from the long catalog name to the more used common name. After one editor supported the proposal Arianewiki1 jumps in, guns blazing, with a large obnoxious screed about how they hate "people who name nebulae". In it they declare with no evidence that I have a COI over naming astronomy articles and say that I am "grooming" editors. They are told by an uninvolved editor (User:Elphion) to "dial it back" [84], to which they respond with another large screed and say I am ignorant and one of the "blind following the blind". Attempting to bait me, they tell me to "assume good faith" and call me "sunshine". They then post on my talk page, with the header "Poor Behaviour"; stating that I need to stop with my "fanatic" editing. The diff they give is me adding a source to an astronomy website!

By this point I decided that I had enough and should just back off. I removed the articles from my watchlist and their very uncivil rant from my talk page. Around this point I get a message that an article I nommed for GA is being reviewed. Happily I look at the review page, and what I see is a capital bolded "OPPOSE" from the usual suspect and another lengthy screed that I can't be bothered to read. Arianewiki1 states that the review should be immediately thrown out and once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI. [85] The article in question is Bic Cristal, about a ballpoint pen. Arianewiki1 says they are "seriously concerned" that I edited the article before nominating it (WTF?!) and states the article should be merged into ballpoint pen (akin to saying that iPhone should be merged into Phone). After I responded here telling them to stop calling me a COI editor or I will take them to AN/I they accuse me of personal attacks, call me a "bully" (after stalking me to a random article) and ask "How does such indignation feel?". They post another message to my talk page (despite my telling them not to) stating they have renamed and rewritten an entire article which I moved to its common name according to their POV; saying "Look, I'm not trying to start a fight" – as if I'm stalking them. I wonder if they are trying to turn over a new leaf with this but immediately after they revert my removal of their rant from my talk page (against WP:OWNTALK) with the edit summary: "Any contrition yet or is the ego just too bruised?". [86] This user has been blocked before and they were warned just a few days ago by administrator Lankiveil about personal attacks in an RfC, where they called the starting editor a "groomer" again and referred to them as a "stinking filthy lawyer"! [87] Please look into this. Thanks, Laurdecl ^talk 09:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what Arianewiki1 has to say about this (briefly), but that is, indeed, disconcerting. Perhaps an interaction ban or block is in order. Anyway, I'll drop them a note. El_C 10:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've not had time to look in detail at the issues raised by User:Laurdecl, but I did have a run-in with this editor a couple of weeks ago. I asked them to exercise a little more care after a comment that they made at AWNB, and got a couple of messages on my talk page threatening to take me here to ANI. I notice they mentioned me at the GA talk page and for some reason the ping did not come through, but I stand by my view that use of the term "grooming" is completely inappropriate and I'm disappointed that they saw fit to repeat it shortly after being asked by an admin (me) to be careful about using that particular term. I note that User:El_C has independently come to the same conclusion that I did about the use of that particular word.

I'd really rather not see this editor blocked; they are committed to rooting out pop science junk on astronomy articles while keeping them accessible to the average reader, something that is sorely needed and something that they do well. I've had a quick look at their contribs and they seem to work okay with others when there isn't a disagreement over an article involved. But at the same time this sort of reaction can't continue. I'm really stumped as to what the best path forward is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, we can set up an interaction ban, but then again they edit the same type of articles (astronomy), so someone would invariably would have to be excluded from these. That said, we do have a lot of astronomy articles, enough for both of them. But, unless I missed something, I don't see Laurdecl having done anything wrong so as to be excluded from any article. First, we'll have to see if Arianewiki1 is genuine about changing their behaviour. El_C 11:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious as to how this user found their way to a GA nomination Bic Cristal, not an article in their usual topic of interest, and one nominated by someone they'd recently been in a dispute with. On the face of it, it could be a case of WP:HOUNDING, but hopefully there's a more innocent explanation. Lets wait until Arianewiki1 can respond to this before seriously considering anything as dramatic as interaction bans. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes I followed the link from the document WP:GA nomination[88] to Bic Cristal, and found a series of edits by Laurdecl. My comments were mostly objective; I.e. Point 1b written by David Eppstein says what I said. It is quite unclear where the actual objections are. I.e. The now collapsed initial text of mine or in what comes after it? Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point about Bic Cristal, I overlooked that part. El_C 11:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just hatted the entire conversation in that GA review, though I'm pleased to see that David Eppstein seemed to have been unperturbed by that rather tasteless screed, where I lay the responsibility for it at Arianewiki's feet. I do not understand their animosity in that RM discussion, nor do I understand at all the tone of this comment on the Aussie noticeboard, nor why it is so poorly written. I do not see any interaction as the problem--the problem is rather one of personality. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dremies Please explain what you actually mean by "tasteless screed" and where exactly please. Regardless of your opinions, saying "I lay the responsibility for it at Arianewiki's feet" is about what exactly. (If you required for me to present any defense, it is would be better if you were precise with links to the page difference if possible.)

If there is no issue with the initial text (excluding the COI mistake by me, that I properly apologied and retracted), then the responsibility for the "tasteless screed" must be Laurdecl and not me, because he made the WP:PA claims that:

1) Here I been threatened : "If you ever follow me to random articles again to harass me and make baseless claims about myself having a COI we can talk about it on AN/I."

2) Personal Attack : "Not only have other editors told you to "dial it down" [6] but an administrator warned you here to stop with your personal attacks, calling the editor who stated the RfC a "groomer"! "

3) Personal Attack : "As I can see from your talk page you are no stranger to making baseless COI claims closed by admins. Apparently you haven't learnt from past blocks."

Perhaps you can condone me for responding. I admit I was particularly cross at the time. I admit I was careless with Point 1, but Point 2 & 3 is calling things out on me that weren't even true.

I cannot recall any issues with me having a COI and none have been "closed by Admins." (Most are 3RR) If I was blocked in the past, I also though Users were not supposed to single people out. Accusing me of WP:PA when I'm defending myself cannot be just my "tasteless screed" nor can it be totally to "lay the responsibility for it at Arianewiki's feet." Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response 1

Sorry for the length here, but I want try to properly explain and reply to some of these serious by wrong accusations. If I an going to be threatened with a sanction like a block or ban, then facts become important. (I've just spent many hours trying improving / creating two very complicated edits on Sh2-297 and Sh2-279 and I need to recharge the batteries.)

Comments on Grooming

1) Firstly let's get this very unfair accusation of inferring that using the word 'grooming' means 'child grooming' in the context it was used. It is very unfair. I actually only said "As for Witty please stop with the unhelpful commentary and grooming as it can be construed as deliberate bias." How can this be misinterpreted? I felt Witty's replies to those agreeing to the proposition in the Section on Copyright Laws were trying to unfairly gain support for the proposition. (In Australia their is strong debate and opinions on Copyright laws, where foreign agreements in some free trade agreement wanted to watered-down or diminished such rights. My point was the "filthy stinking lawyers" were deciding our destinies. Notably too, the comment wasn't directed to any Wikipedian. Is Witty a lawyer? I see no evidence nor how I could even know that.)

The actual edits in question is here [89] As I said: "The word 'grooming' clearly means "prepare or train someone for a particular purpose", and my comment was specifically to the Wittylama's unnecessary replies asking opinion - influencing others to a particular point of view." Mitch Ames pointed out saying "you linked to Child grooming, effectively implying that Arianewiki1 was making a quite serious allegation. However Arianewiki1's post had no such link, and could quite likely have referred to "coaching" or "mentoring" (eg as used in Mentorship)."

Any implication of child grooming is totally horrifying to me as any normal person. (I said as much.) What rational reason could I have to accuse someone I never interacted with before of preforming such a unspeakable act? It is beyond nonsensical.

Regardless, the link to child grooming was removed and the accusation withdrawn. As far as I'm concerned, the matter was settled. I will be careful next time, sure, but 'grooming' is a legitimate and common word. (The silly suggestion here not to use the word at all is basically politically driven censorship. Do you want to ban all these subjects now?[90])

But what has this to do with Laurdecl at all?

He said "... but an administrator warned you here to stop with your personal attacks, calling the editor who stated the RfC a "groomer"! "[91]

This didn't happen that way at all, and it was clearly written just to embarrass me. (From the expectant reactions here, clearly it worked. I.e. I must be 'bad'.)

Yet again the same accusation appear above, when Laurdecl says "This user has been blocked before and they were warned just a few days ago by administrator Lankiveil about personal attacks in an RfC, where they called the starting editor a "groomer" again and referred to them as a "stinking filthy lawyer"! [92]

Clearly I've said no such things. (Also where did I "called the starting editor a "groomer" again"? What does that mean?)

2) Another misnomer is: "As for "Arianewiki1 states that the review should be immediately thrown out and once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI. [93]"

Yet here, I admit my own mistake [94], where the edit title say "I have removed the wrongful implication of Laurdecl was WP:COI. I mean the article that was already WP:COI. My sincere apologies for unintended wording.)" I also said in the formal response to Laurdecl; " My immediate apologies any inference of WP:COI, which was an unintended mistake by me. I meant, as the way the whole article reads, as shown since the first edits in 2006 till now. I have now struck out the wrongful implication. My sincere apologies for unintended wording, which I do mean."

I also struck the offending words out.

These particular comments here and show these statements by Laurdecl are simply not factual, and the allegations are unproven. I've shown proper contrition and make apologies when warranted. What else can I do?

3) As for saying "Happily I look at the review page, and what I see is a capital bolded "OPPOSE" from the usual suspect and another lengthy screed that I can't be bothered to read. Arianewiki1 states that the review should be immediately thrown out and once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI."

This is completely emotive and deliberately deceptive.

• If you can't be bother to read it, how did you know about the COI? Complaining
• "I see is a capital bolded "OPPOSE", don't all comments seeking consensus respond SUPPORT of OPPOSE. (Even Laurdecl did so here.[95] !)
• "usual suspect." Oh I've done this before are you implying? My user name is Arianewiki1 actually.
• "once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI." Where? I never said anywhere "YOU have COI" 'implication' does not equal 'assert', and worst didn't I retract this as stated above?

I must be bad, obviously. Is that the intent here?

The article in question has real problems with objectivity and looks like promotion, and the reviewer independently agreed. You did the edit and the claims were uncited too. (Must be my fault.)

Now, I'll reply to these other accusations in due course, but there seems a lot of similar accusations here without much evidence.

5) As for El_C saying: "First, we'll have to see if Arianewiki1 is genuine about changing their behaviour." OK. But how do I show this in this instance?

Secondly, there is some pretty poor behaviour coming my way too. Everything I write too Laurdecl comes back just nit-picking every little fault or inference they can find. Best example is the talk page on Sh-155[96]

Example: I say; "Sorry, none of these primary references. Just the blind mindlessly following the blind."

Yet Laurdecl says: "Firstly, I have 20/20 vision, so your claim of me being blind is utterly false nonsense (one might even call it the highest folly)"

I say; "What? Saying "I have 20/20 vision, so your claim of me being blind is utterly false nonsense (one might even call it the highest folly)." No you've misread. The comment has nothing to do with your eyesight."

The reply becomes: ""Th [sic] comment has nothing to do with your eyesight" – REALLY?? "The true evil I'm against" – Please stop, you're cracking me up."

I say "Trying reading WP:GF, sunshine, because this response here is just insulting."

The final reply is "Sorry, I don't know what "trying reading" [sic] means, buttercup."

Yet in the given complaint above, says "....to which they respond with another large screed and say I am ignorant and one of the "blind following the blind". Attempting to bait me, they tell me to "assume good faith" and call me "sunshine""

How could this be possibly interpreted this way? 'ignorant' does appear on that page at all, I never called them blind at all, I used the word sunshine clearly meaning brighten up, but fail to mention their reply "buttercup", urban meaning 'stinky fart.'

Sure it is moronic behaviour, but all this is is cherry-picking to paint me in a really bad light.

Funny too, if you do read it, there are certainly robust and strong opinions, but in the end, the result was obtained to everyone's agreement. Even Laurdecl says "I am also happy with this name, and I mentioned it as an alternative at the start. This RM is to move the article away from the incorrect name" - changing his opinions. Now (above) there is above a complaint about it!

5) IMO Laurdecl has one serious issue here to address.

a) What do you want me to say and want to happen?

b) What is my motive here?

Really. Editing is difficult enough, and the problem is we all make mistakes. My personality might be a bit aggressive at times, but I'm at least willing to encourage others, sort out the problems, and will withdraw without reservation (as clearly shown above.). Even before I knew of this AN/I, I informed Laurdecl about the changes in my edits (I didn't have too) here.[97] in respect to their earlier contributions.

So far all Laurdecl has done nothing towards both of us being able collaborating on anything, nor has shown any contrition or present an olive branch. All I see is someone who wouldn't even take one little step back for the sake of rationality, and another being treated both harshly and with giving any quarter or any compromise. (WP:GF is supposed to be a two-way street.) I do feel, frankly, you just want me out-of-the-way.

Truly, Laurdecl is clearly a good editor, and his physics background is especially useful for the science subjects, which is much needed in so many articles. (There are so few competent science editors here.) They are also creating articles, like NGC 1741, and I am very impressed by their grasp of the subject and competence.

In the end Laurdecl, all this AN/I does is damage both of us.

(Sorry, I really need some rest.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting trouble with the page Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). User:Winstonview has used this page to advertise his legal firm of ambulance chasers with a link to his firm's website. His user page makes this connection obvious. The page he is linking to is designed to appear as an official CICA website: it is not.

On each of the four occasion that he has added his commercial link to CICA it has been reverted with a comment to the effect that links to commercial sites are not to be used in this way, but he continues to add it back in. This has happened as follows:

1 2 3 4

He had edited only two pages, his user page (itself practically an advert for his firm) and CICA, but following my second revert he has taken to going to pages in which I have had some involvement and deleting material with the comments "Removed commercial external link" (White Waltham Airfield), "Removed commercial link to a hotel" (Edward Hain) and "Removed link to commercial photographer site" (Popham Airfield). Emeraude (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the link is problematic and should not occur again. The removal of the other links were good edits on their own but the wikihounding aspect needs to be addressed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note aforementioned user just attempted to remove this very listing (without an edit summary marked as minor edit, no less), which I have cautioned them against. El_C 13:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not quite a legal threat, but somebody ought to remind him of that policy, for the future. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Kleuske (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Kleuske, I came here to thank you. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WP:AIV where countless other reports have been handled since the report, but noone seems to want to touch this:

• 91.148.77.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters (diff):. Repeated POV removal of sourced content on multiple articles (articles subject to AE/Balkans) after getting a final warning for it (they swiftly remove all warnings they get, but the final warning, and the ones before that, can be found in their talk page history). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that I stated reasons for removal of "sourced" content in edit summary. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons that are POV and not valid. As you have been told you need to discuss it on the talk page and get support for it there, before removing it. On at least one article you are also repeatedly falsifying content, by changing text to say things that the source does not say (see comment on IP's talk page), which is as POV as it can be. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can say the same thing about you - reverting back to suspicious and POV content, without bothering to understand the issue. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP (who, based on edits, page history of involved articles and general behaviour, including checking if they're being reported at WP:AIV and then immediately posting claims about POV/bias there, to make it seem like a content dispute, is identical to Special:Contributions/212.178.255.63, who was blocked twice in February, see block log, for the same and similar edits, and most probabaly also other IPs further back in time) has over the past few days repeatedly removed properly sourced material from and/or changed text on multiple articles relating to Kosovo and the 1990s Balkan War (articles edited sofar are Battle of Tripolje, Destroyed Serbian heritage in Kosovo, NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters, Battle of Lođa, Attacks on Likošane and Ćirez and Kragujevac massacre, all of them subject to AE/Balkans), with claims about the articles being biased/POV, edits that also include repeatedly toning the text down and making the articles no longer say what the source says. The edits have been reverted by multiple other editors, and the IP has been told to discuss the changes on the talk page of the articles, and get support for them there, but the edits continue.

All warnings they get are swiftly removed, BTW, so you will have to check the page history, which also shows they've been around for a while, so if someone knows who the real master behind it is please say so here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I edit, I'm a vandal, when I state in edit summary the reason for removal of the content I get reverted and accused of vandalism. I may have made some mistakes, but I am no vandal. And when I go to a talk page nothing gets done. Too bad Thomas.W cherry picked through my edits, avoiding articles where I contributed. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You personally feeling that something is wrong or biased isn't a valid reason for removing properly sourced content, or rewriting sourced text in a way that doesn't properly reflect what the sources say, and especially not a valid reason for doing it over and over again, after being reverted by several different editors. As you have done, using more than one IP for doing it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you ignored what I said. As for your claim of "personal feeling" I can say the same about you. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One good edit doesn't excuse 99 POV-pushing edits. And I don't have any personal feelings when it comes to the Balkans since I'm not from there and have never been there, I just try to uphold the rules here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Balkan-related articles is that often both sides have sources to back-up their POV, so one has to apply WP:UNDUE in order to archive balance. It is quite common to see editors cherry-picking sources that are convenient to their side and remove sourced content and sources from the other side. That makes a situation where it is not enough for some content to be sourced to become undisputable but rather one should gather and see what reliable sources say about the subject from 3 sides: one side, the other, plus neutral ones. FkpCascais (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]