Please can someone review the efforts of Chrishitch (talk · contribs), in particular at Talk:Bhumihar. While this is underpinned by a content dispute, the real problem seems to be one of competence and tendentiousness. They seem unable to comprehend what our article says regarding the various theories of origin for that caste. We're getting long screeds and after Bgwhite closed the first discussion, Chrishitch began all over again. They still do not understand what our article says and seem to think that the source is giving one theory when in fact it is examining several.

They've had an explanatory note from Bgwhite on their talk page and also formal notification of WP:GS/Caste. They're the latest in a long line of people who have tried to change this reliably sourced article, most apparently being members of the caste in question and several being socks.

We're well into WP:CIR territory and I'm likely to lose my temper sooner rather than later, having kept a lid on it thus far. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are certainly problems of competence, and at the same time some indications that they're not a new user. I've asked about those indications on their page. Just take it easy, please, Sitush. Sit on the lid. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, the indications were there from an early stage and I am gratified to see that someone else has spotted that they might exist. But even without those, this is something that probably should not have required me to raise the issue here. By my standards, which I realise some people think are not that high, I'm sitting remarkably firmly on the lid. It does look like I need yet another break, during which the rubbish will continue to flood umpteen caste-related articles and be accepted by experienced contributors who tinker round the edges with gnomish edits etc, making it harder to spot the real issues that underlie their well-intentioned efforts. They mean well but we really do need to clamp down in this area, especially regarding WP:V - if an addition is not reliably sourced then bin it.

We've lost several of the few admins who take an interest in that area and I'm afraid that it means WP:GS/Caste will lack the support that it should have, sans frequent referrals here. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be more specific than "please review his efforts." The talk page is over 100k, incomprehensible in many places and there's IP addresses, and numerous unsigned comments. Please do a little more than say "look at the talk page" and pointing to a discussion that was closed (without a single link in the discussion to the source in question) and reopened again. Did you ask User:Bgwhite (an administrator who seemed to have forgotten a signature to the close) about it? I still have no idea in all the edits all over the place what is the problematic article edit at issue here (if any). I have zero idea of its a legitimate issue with both sources or just nonsense all around or what. The editor's conduct at Patna seems fine so I don't know what's going on and what sort of ban or block or protection if any is appropriate. As someone who deals with plenty of this caste idiocy, other admins aren't going to jump in if you don't make the discussion easier enough to follow than "here's an editor editing an caste issue, please help." It may be obvious to you what are reliable sources and what are people spouting unsourced dogma about every caste being kings and whatever nonsense de jour but ANI is basically fly-by-screen admins requests. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that useless commentary, Ricky81682. You clearly cannot see the wood for the trees; for example, the incomprehensibility is a part of the CIR problem with their edits. Please don't bother responding to me in future. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick to your fellow contributors. Someone asked you for some helpful followup information and you told them to piss up a rope. How does that help resolve anything? Protonk (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That attitude is why reports like these goes straight into the archive without a comment and why admins don't care to get into the caste articles. The ones who do get attacked equally for asking for an explanation as much as they do from the trolls. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Think whatever you like. I'll always think better when it comes to caste stuff. If you cannot see the blindingly obvious then that is not my fault. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Think what better? Think that just naming people and saying "it's another caste issue" is going to get these things resolved? Were my questions so ridiculously out of place or offensive or something? I just asked if you spoke with the admin who closed the discussion and what is the actual source at issue (literally not one person once linked to it in the entire discussion section). I read the entire damn discussion, it was nutty as hell, but I don't know who Kumar is, I couldn't find the actual source everyone is arguing about (the entire argument is about a single word so it would be actually helpful to know what the hell everyone is complaining about). Another admin closed the discussion and didn't block Chrishitch which should mean something. You expect someone to just say "hey if Sitush says there's a caste article issue, well let me block him right now, there's no point in even seeing what the actual source anyone is talking about or asking what the admin who was involved there before did or didn't do or if anyone spoke to him, just go right in and be the bull in a china shop because no one should have to provide background information"? If those are the kinds of questions that require too much work to respond to, make you need to take a break from the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "I'm likely to lose my temper sooner rather than later, having kept a lid on it thus far." Sitush, how would we tell the difference and why should any of us give a rip if you do? Protonk (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682 asked if I'd comment as I was the one who closed the discussion. I don't think a block is warrantied, yet. Chrishitch does have competency issues. Currently, Chrishitch is correcting grammar on multiple pages and causing the same amount of problems as they are correcting. When I closed the discussion, on Sitush's talk page I left, "I've closed the discussion as it was going nowhere. I'd highly suggest not to respond to them anymore." There is obvious meatpuppet or sockpuppet issues on that page which is why I did page protection. When it comes to Bhumihar, I think the best option is continued page protection if problems resume when current PP is lifted. As for Chrishitch, will need to keep an eye on them. A block will probably warranted if they continue down their current path. Bgwhite (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to have arisen many issues with my conduct and competence viz

1. Tendentious editing
2. Sock issues
3. Content dispute
4. Insolence
5. Incompetence

I don't wish to contest any of the issues here , may be i cannot judge myself . However,plz bother to scrutinize the edits i have attempted to make. I may be an incompetent editor, but in my incompetent endeavour i have tried improving some wiki articles. These articles are in a very very bad shape. They are replete with unsourced , whimsical content. These articles are neither protected nor edited properly. May be they warrant more attention from competent people than my modest efforts at making them a tad better with my perceived incompetence. rahila 10:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

• The talk page is very mysterious. Clearly there is a lot of talking past one another going on. The situation is not helped by obscure wording in the sources. For example (a cite used in one version of the article)

"He consequently ascribed to them kshatriya status. Gait followed suit in his census report at the turn of the century, though he left the question of Bhumihar status officially unresolved..."

From this one protagonist uses "Gait followed suit in his census report at the turn of the century" to show that "Another census classified the Bhumihars as Kshatriyas.", but is reverted because of the second part (and following illustrative quote) "he left the question of Bhumihar status officially unresolved..." One cannot fault either party in this case. Without turning to the GOI census of India vol 6, part 1, page 379, one cannot gain clarity either, even that is not guaranteed to supply it.

Similarly "The Sabha concentrated almost entirely on asserting their claim as Bhumihars to Brahmin status by starting schools to teach Sanskrit and purge the community of Brahmin priests." As Sitush says it is not clear, without context, which community and which Brahmin priests. (It's not even clear if this is a direct quote from the source, or a statement relying on the source.)

Unless Chrishitch can respond to these types of question with pertinent answers (or even "I don't know.") it is hard for other editors to communicate with him.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar

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

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

Forward

Are we in agreement about these points:

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

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

• I would have no objection against removing them from "year" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus was a double upmerge. If the bios may not be categorised in the year categories, the other contributors may prefer to revert to the old births-by-year categories, rather than remove biographies from the year hierarchy altogether. Removing the bios from the year cats may make it harder to revert, as we would then not be able simply to reverse the contribs of Armbrustbot – which would be quite an arduous task on its own. – Fayenatic London 17:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we in agreement then to close this thread on the three points I outlined above? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose overturning CFD discussionions on this page. The correct venue is WP:DRV. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, WP:CfD does not stand for "Categories for deletion", it stands for "Categories for discussion", so, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE "Challenging other closures" applies for which this is the right venue. @Armbrust: please stop wikilawyering, the consensus is clear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't matter, whether the D stands for deletion or not. CFD is part of the deletion process, and is therefore reviewed at WP:DRV. Also please don't close this discussion in violation of WP:INVOLVED again. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which part of "please stop wikilawyering" was unclear? E.g., WP:INVOLVED is about admins, I'm not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Updated the closure, inviting a closer look from uninvolved users only. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • You keep to close this as an involved editor, and then say that "a closer look from uninvolved users only". That's boardering on hypocrisy. You can request uninvolved closure at WP:ANRFC. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again: which part of "please stop wikilawyering" was unclear? E.g., shouldn't be listed at WP:ANRFC, doesn't meet its criteria. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again: which part of "don't close this while being "involved" in the discussion was unclear." WP:ANRFC doesn't have any such criteria. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Subtropical-man be topic-banned from all matters concerning deletion of pages concerning pornography, including in particular the removal of PROD nominations.
Subtropical-man rather volubly disagrees with the revisions to WP:PORNBIO enacted early last year, despite their being supported by an "overwhelming consensus among experienced editors." He has, for more than a year, expressed his disagreement by objecting to virtually all proposed deletion nominations of porn performer articles, without regard to the merits of the nominations, with uncommunicative edit summaries. (Examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. A full listing would require significant work by an administrator, because most of the deprodded articles have gone to AFD and been deleted uncontroversially, removing the relevant edit history from public view.) This indiscriminate PROD removal has led to scores of unnecessary AFDs, leading to complaints about the volume. See comments on @Spartaz:'s talk page here [10]. Subtropical-man's behavior in the resulting and related AFDs has also been disruptive, in recent months including:

• False accusations of personal attacks for criticism of his arguments Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina Kraven
• Striking comments by other editors (in this case, @Tarc:) [11]
• Ridiculously tendentious arguments ("how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP?") [12]
• False (and rather obviously false) accusation of topic ban violations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Diesel (this AFD is messy, but see my comment here [13]
• Harassing an editor he disagreed with by refiling an SPI claim without providing any new evidence, after the initial claim was rejected "in the absence of actual evidence". [14] (original); [15] (refile)

The length and range of misbehaviour is striking, but the indiscriminate, WP:POINTY deprodding is itself enough to justify the topic ban. Subtropical-man has pretty clearly acknowledged that his PROD removals are not made in any good faith dispute over the subject's notability under the applicable guidelines, but to force interminable rearguments about the applicable SNG every time an effort is made to enforce it [16][17]. And "arguments" like "how do I know if current WP:PORNBIO is not prank by some IP?" would never be made by a reasonable, good faith user. Eighteen months of this has proved far too disruptive and wasted far too much of the community's time, and it's time for it to stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban Subtropical man !votes indiscriminately "keep" at all discussions without checking out, pondering and evaluating the actual merit of any particular subject, and thus doesn't add anything of value to the discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some misunderstanding: I don't support the topic ban because they vote "keep". The key word here is indiscriminately. They vote, if they vote at porn bios, always "keep" and state "passes PORNBIO", although, as a question of fact, and conceded by all other voters in the few AfDs with a "keep" result, the bio does not pass PORNBIO. The guideline was amended recently, and is very well defined. Obviously they even are on the winning side in a few cases, having voted "keep", but all other voters in these cases voted "keep" because the subject passes GNG, not PORNBIO. Thus, Subtropical man's votes are useless and disruptive, and being topic-banned from porn-related AfDs just lowers the amount of aspersions and unhelpful discussions, without any bad side effects. Kraxler (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Borderline WP:DE - editor should take this as a warning a think themselves lucky it's not going to harsher terms, such as a block. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, see links to AfD pages from 2014. I voted only in part, not in all AfD about pornography. In many Afd pages I don't vote, if the article was weak or person are not notable. If a person are notable, in my opinion, I voting for keep. Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) wrote: "This indiscriminate PROD removal has led to scores of unnecessary AFDs" - solution of problem: please stop try removed very many pornography articles. My WP:DEPRODs are problem? I did it only a dozen times. AfD is necessary for many articles, instead speedy delection (without discussion), for example: Dee (actress). Why deprod [18]? Please see article, this article is extensive, has a sources, image, 5x interwiki. And speedy delection? No, should be discussion. Please Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, almost always vote for delete the same users: The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Spartaz, Gene93k, Davey2010, Tarc; other users very rarely vote. Now they're trying do topic banned for opposition. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic ban - I'm not at all a fan of "Sub-tropicalman's" dePRODing of articles without improvement (I've tried to treat PRODs in the past like actual AfDs without needed the discussion), but the actual PROD guidelines technically allow for that kind of editing behavior: "Any editor may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag" and "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the 'proposed deletion/dated' tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to" (emphasis mine).

Not all of the above evidence actually shows disruptive behavior either IMO, since Jennifer Luv & Babysitters (film) both won some likely major awards, the Shane Diesel AfD (and resulting DRV) was a huge mess that was mostly caused by a voluminous sockpuppet ("Redban"), and those supposed "bogus" SPI reports yielded some actual, needed results on that front.

What's mostly, really going on here at this time is that some are trying to engage in some (rapid?) "trimming of the fat" from many of the pornography-related BLPs on Wikipedia, which pleases some & possibly upsets some others. In any event, it is what it is... Guy1890 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If I see one more thread here about conduct issues involving pornography, I will propose that pornography be placed under community general sanctions to get a few of the pro-porn and a few of the anti-porn editors topic-banned. For now, try being civil about pornography, even though some of you love it and some of you hate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban - The deprodding although annoying isn't really that bad, It's the !voting that I'm concerned with, Sub Man has a habit of simply putting "Notable" or "per above" [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] and or on occasions will Keep "per nominations"[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] (Despite being told nominations don't count inregards to PORNBIO), It's simply distruptive and despite being guided more than once he's simply ignored everyone and continued regardless so personally feel Topic banning is the right move here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: generally, opinion by opposition of Subtropical-man i.e: The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), Spartaz, Gene93k, Davey2010, Tarc (who always vote differently than Subtropical-man) is clear. The opposition is opposition. Welcome are the opinions of other users, neutral users. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since you are bringing me in, that "opposition" to your keep votes is the application of consensus guidelines that you reject wholesale and challenging of arguments not supported by facts. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban for The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) and Davey2010. I agree with opinion by user Robert McClenon (above), there are two sides in case: pro-porn and anti-porn editors, if topic-banned for pro-porn side, must to be also for anti-porn side. Anti-porn editors are responsible for remove hundreds of articles, they vote for the removal in all AfD pages about pornography in the last period. The length and range of misbehaviour is striking (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed) and their actions can be considered as destructive to Wikipedia. Previously, user Раціональне анархіст (Pax) and earlier user Redban who very many porn-articles marked to deletion got topic-ban (in AN/I). These users doing the same thing, so. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not seeing the type or depth of disruption that justifies community sanctions here. Without a whole lot more diffs on actionable misbehavior this does not seems like something that should be up for proposal. Proponents, please add more specific history about earlier issues, diffs, interventions, earlier admin actions, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There doesn't seem to be a great deal of disruptive behavior going on. Simply objecting to an AfD, even a poorly thought out objection, isn't worthy of a topic ban. Looking at his contribution log doesn't show any sort of edit warring or other. His English seems fairly broken so some of his replies come off strangely. I don't see anything on WP:DRN (which would seem a more appropriate venue for this) and no one has apparently tried talking to him (all I see on his talk page is a nomination for a userspace deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Subtropical-man/Catfight by the same person who brought this ANI). According to WP:DDE ANI is one of the last resorts, not the first.--Savonneux (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Although Subtropical-man's rationales for !keep in various porn-related articles don't always adhere to the current version of WP:PORNBIO (for example, nominations alone), I still think a topic ban is a little premature; in addition, as Guy1890 pointed out, deprodding an article without reason actually is allowed per WP:DEPROD. But to be honest, Robert McClenon's suggestion makes the most sense; and if it came to a topic ban at all with the current behavior that's going on on both sides of the pornography issue ("angry" arguments on the pro-porn side and the anti-porn side), sanctions should be given out to people on both sides of the issue, not just one side (whom those people should be, though, should be determined in their own respective threads, if necessary). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Although he only votes "delete" 4 or 5 percent of the time and "keep" 95% of the time, I find no reason to debar him from voicing his opinions in a civil manner at XfD discussions. Any more than I would debar those who vote to delete, say, 80% of the time. Wikipedia has enough people that we can afford some "inclusionists" and some "deletionists" to exist, I trust. That noted, I tend to prefer seeking some level of balance in my own positions, but grant forbearance to those who have different mileage. Collect (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. I have gone through subtropical-man's contributions, and they by and large seem responsible and competent. He also seems to be a natural counterbalance to the surprising amount of triggerhappy deletionists we have on english wiki. 89.243.10.130 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yes, putting Nelson Rockefeller's mother on a list of performers in "catfight" pornography is just the sort of responsible, competent editing that is expected of Wikipedia editors. Only a ftriggerhappy deletionist would think otherwise. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • bad redirecting, Abby Aldrich is porn actress but in the Wikipedia, Abby Aldrich is redirect to Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (Abigail Greene "Abby" Aldrich Rockefeller). This error is not in article, there is in the sandbox (user space for building and correction data before introduction to articles). Your argument is ridiculous. I suggest you to go on vacation, you've done three personal attacks against another user [38][39][40], and an half of hour before you made nonsensical post here. Subtropical-man talk
      (en-2) 14:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, we know. Wolfowitz bad. Wolfowitz is picking on an oh-so-valuable troll who gets his kicks by WP:BITING inexperienced editors. Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Sea 1618 for more details. And your vital contribution to this discussion by maligning my character in lieu of, say, correcting the BLP violations in your moribund sandbox draft is a clear demonstration of the value your contributions carry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a pretty gross mischaracterisation of exactly what happened there. --Savonneux (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savonneux (talk • contribs) 10:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm a physician with experience in biomedical ethics. I have added a part of a scientific paper of one of my colleagues which focused on the importance of including medical ethics in training programs to "Ethics" but Jytdog deleted that post without any explanation and finally mentioned conflicts of interest as the reason even when I suggested adding that part without any citation. I believe that it's really inappropriate that a non-expert user abuse his/her administrative ability to just based on a biased judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad1985k (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Note: When creating a thread about a user on ANI, you are supposed to leave a notice on their talk page, as it says at the top of the page. In this case, I have done so for you. However, please keep this in mind. Thank you. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see No original research and Citing sources, along with Conflict of interest. While I'm sure you are expert in biomedical ethics, you seem to have missed the fact that Wikipedia relies on cited, reliable, published sources to ensure that we don't offer an encyclopedia full of misinformation, conjecture and non-expert personal opinion. Your suggestion that the content be posted without any citation was correctly rejected as it does not solve the problem. General Ization ^Talk 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did you notify Jytdog that you were bringing your objection to his action here, as is required so he can present his side of the dispute? General Ization ^Talk 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attention is brought to this note to jytdog and this note on my talkpage left by M1985k. I think he needs to be brought up to speed on how we do things here. "Take a part in a scientific entry if only and only you know enough to talk about" ain't it. — Brianhe (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I invited him to the teahouse; hope that helps. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This user seems intent on ramming citations from a certain author into articles. There are communications issues, it seems plausible that English may not be his first language. People are trying to help him and there's nothing more to do in this thread, but.... how come he found his way to the drama board with his 11th edit? This smells of fish to me. Or rather, duck. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I didn't realize that the OP was the same user I invited to the teahouse. At any rate, I agree with all of Guy's points; and frankly, maybe the OP should consider other options. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not normally post an issue regarding article content here at ANI. But the current state of this article, a BLP, Bob Lazar, is so bizarre and so conspiratorial and so deranged that I believe that it requires immediate attention from an administrator. If I am wrong, let me know and I will pursue other options. Thank you for your consideration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An entertaining read, though not very encyclopedic. Chillum 05:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are not in the business of "entertaining reading" I do not think, Chillum, so I hope that either you, or another administrator, will revdel totally inappropriate BLP violating content, and warn the responsible editors. Please. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked through the sources? This guy has claimed much of the stuff being attributed to him. If you think there is a clear and urgent BLP violation then edit the article, if you really think something needs revdel'n then you will need to be more specific. Chillum 06:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did some housekeeping. Perhaps Chillum can take a look and see if there is improvement. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been around for about 10 years, and it started as what could be termed an attack page. Is this guy even notable by Wikipedia standards? Should the article be deleted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw him on unsolved mysteries when I was young, so I had heard of him before seeing the article. The guy does have some fame. Chillum 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lazar has been the focus of more than one TV show and surely lots of print. Unquestionably notable. He has some outrageous claims, some of which might be considered "out there", but notability isn't about how right a person is, just how notable he is. And I've seen a few shows focused on him, highly entertaining stuff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about Bob Lazar is that the craziest of claims about him turn out to be true. He might not be right about 115, but other sources (as we report) are right when they report what he has claimed. There's also a whole pile of "unusual" stuff (rocket Honda for one) that does pan out. It's like claiming that one of the leading lights of early JPL was a colleague of Aleister Crowley, but that's just Jack Parsons for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user:Toddy1, has a history of making false and baseless accusations against me. He claimed here [41] that I added the following, when it was there long before I started editing the article: "Under Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab it says "Salafists consider Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab as the first figure in the modern era to push for a return to the religious practices of the salaf as-salih". As we may see here [42], this statement has existed long before I started editing.

Today he posted a menacing personal attack on my talk page, accusing me of being a user I have no connection with and do not know who he/she is. His message may be seen here [43]. This is clearly a violation of a variety of wikipedia policies pertaining to civility and personal attacks. I would recommend that disciplinary action be taken against him. Xtremedood (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Iryna Harpy, I have informed Toddy1 here [44], however he deleted it.

I have seen other users post more "informal" notices on pages and their complaint was not declared a boomerang, see here [45]. Is there a Wikipedia policy as to a specific format upon which a notice must be placed on a user's page? Xtremedood (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no such required format - as the notice at the top of the page says (with my emphasis)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

The requirement is to notify, the option for using that template is "may" not "should" or "must" - Arjayay (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arjayay, my comment on BOOMERANG was unrelated to the type of notification left for Toddy1. I was referring to Xtremedood's WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavioural pattern which I determined just in a cursory look at the user's editing history, and the fact that this ANI complaint is a tendentious waste of editor time and energy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background. Xtremedood is involved in a content dispute concerning the article on the Salafi movement. He/she made changes on 24 July, 25 July, 8 August, and 10 August. I tried reverting on 24 July on the grounds that two citations that I checked did not support the text. He/she reverted back and started a talk page discussion at Talk:Salafi movement#Revert by Toddy1. In the talk page discussion @Brustopher: supported Xtremedood's changes, whilst @MezzoMezzo:, @DeCausa: and myself objected to them. Xtremedood's changes to the article were partially reverted by MezzoMezzo, and completely reverted by me on 11 August.

Xtremedood's complaints about my conduct.

1. I received a message posted by an IP threatening to report me to Interpol on my talk page on 13 August. It seemed obvious that this was from Xtremedood, so I responded by posting a message on User talk:Xtremedood politely asking him/her not to send me threatening messages.[46]
2. Regarding Xtremedood's other complaint - during the discussion on the article talk page I mentioned two citations that I had checked and found not to support the text they were there for.[47] He/she is right that one of those citations was there before his edits. His/her edits of 8 August had moved the paragraph to a different part of the article, and I mistakenly thought that he/she had introduced that part.
3. I do not understand why Xtremedood believes that I deleted his ANI notification from my talk page. It is still there.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh. Relatively new editor Xtremedood is trying to POV push a fringe view into Salafi movement and finds established editors MezzoMezzo and Toddy1 resisting on the basis of policy. Xtremedood proceeds on the basis of WP:BATTLE and uses ANI report based on a trivial diff as a tactic to attack one of the editors they're in dispute with. Thread needs to be dismissed with an admin keeping an eye on the OP. That's the story here. DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not POV. It was sourced. I am against dogma being promoted in this article over verifiable facts and sources. Xtremedood (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

DeCausa knocked it out of the water, though Iryna Harpy figured it out pretty fast as well. Xtremedood: give it a rest. I advised you more than once that your combative methods got you blocked for edit warring on other articles. You aren't going to get your way by attacking other editors all the time; stop seeing us as adversaries and start treating is as colleagues working together to improve articles, otherwise you're just going to be marginalized and your suggested edits will be rejected. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint is about a false accusation, stay on topic. There is no need to gang up on me if I disagree with your position or Toddy1's position. I did not send Toddy1 that message. Toddy1 should not be falsely accusing me. For the admins who may be confused about this, the dispute this user is mentioning refers to the article Salafi movement and the discussion between MezzoMezzo, Toddy1, DeCausa, and I may be viewed here: [48]. Xtremedood (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact is that you are being tendentious and nit-picking in order to get your way instead of listening to discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. You're now heading towards pushing the limits of 'they're ganging up on me'. Please pay attention and drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your accusation that I am being tendentious and nitpicking. My sources are clear and may be seen here [49] before you reverted them. However, this is not the place to discuss this. This is regarding an incident where I was falsely accused of something I did not do. This violates a multitude of wikipedia policies pertaining to civility and personal attacks. I have opened a dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard here [50] (feel free to state whatever you wish over there), however I now see that a decision should be made here before pursuing a case on the DRN. Regardless, stay on topic. Xtremedood (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is staying on what only you seem to think the topic is, Xtremedood, because your "topic" is a false premise. Nobody attacked you personally and nobody accused you of things falsely. Everybody here recognizes that and your attempt to forum shop won't help you.

Know what will help you? Stop being combative and trying to use debate tactics, and start being cooperative and trying to work together with other editors as colleagues instead of enemies. You're wasting your time doing anything else. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Cuzkatzimhut reported me for edit warring.1. However, he failed so far to provide any diffs for that claim. When admin EdJohnston asked for diffs, the editor responded, I asked the noticeboard to identify the evident pattern of systematic unconstructive editing. WP should be able to police itself, pursuant to whatever format strictures, and not leave things to the successful formatting of the appeals of complainants. Another account, YohanN7 is always present in favor of Cuzkatzimhut edits/opinion. EdJohnston saw then the need to warn of possible sanctions, Calling people idiots or crackpots isn't charming and may cause you to be sanctioned.

• References are often lacking

Initially i've asked editor Cuzkatzimhut to provide proper references for his extensive edits (i.e. recently no references for edits, or here - these edits are very extensive in his edit history, wrong way to add references or here). Additionally his edits are often not in regards to WP:TECHNICAL. Many of the talk pages of the article Cuzkatzimhut edits contain reader comments about too technical or lacking references. (i.e. 1 (See glossary), 2 (No Ref), 3(Insults reader), 4(No ref, claims everything is correct) -- These are just the most recent edits.

• Unexplained reverts

Today, he and YohanN7 begun reverting many of my edits i tagged in regards to references or for OR. An attempt to explain OR to the editors has failed so far. There is this No original research/Noticeboard discussion, where Kingsindian called the incident a classic OR.

Even though with repeated attempts to explain in length the issue of OR (article talk page , or at YohanN7's talk page to the editors, both show no sign of understanding, or willingness to except anything. Yohan's edit summary states several times, Reverting editor showing evident pattern of systematic nonconstructive editing, and Cuzkatzimhut stated about my edits, evident pattern of systematic nonconstructive editing.

• Summary

Even with extensive explanations, links to Wikipedia guidelines or the opinion of other editors, both editors do not seem to understand basic rules. Garchy cautioned in response to Cuzkatzimhut -- let's not make this about WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which is bordering on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thus, besides WP:OR, WP:CIR the editors are just not there where Wikipedia wants to be. I am not sure exactly how to proceed or what exactly should be done about the conflicts mentioned here. prokaryotes (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Yohan now makes threatening comments in response to a support question. prokaryotes (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral here, but...how is that a threatening comment? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He implies i did something wrong then states i should never do this again, implying a threat if i do it again, what the user perceives as stalking. However, if we actually look at the page on harassment (WP:HOUND) it makes clear that i wasn't stalking recent changes by user Cuzkatzimhut. My edits mostly added ref tags. prokaryotes (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is using unrelated support questions to interfere, for whatever reason. My question was unrelated to the user or any articles in question, initially. Now he hijacks my support question to explain his version of my edits, again look at those edits, which have added ref tags to a couple of articles. prokaryotes (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was briefly involved with this as an outside editor on the WP:NORN page. I have reviewed some of the diffs above. I see what is going on. The basic issue here is that Cuzkatzimhut and YohanN7 are familiar with the subject matter and assume a level of background knowledge to someone reading the article, which is not unreasonable in itself. If someone is reading these highly technical articles, it is likely they have some familiarity with the relevant background. Often they leave certain statements uncited, because of this. They are indeed cited in the general references contained at the end of the article. Prokaryotes (correct me if I'm wrong), a layman like me, is trying in good faith to have as many inline citations as possible, even for things which the other two believe are obvious to anyone who is familiar with this area.

In discussion at WP:NORN, Cuzkatzimhut did indeed understand the WP:OR issue and tried to address it, though I am not sure Yohan understands it. In my opinion, everyone is acting in good faith, though tempers have become a bit frayed because of the non-aligned expectations of reader's background knowledge. In my opinion, if everyone stays focused on content, this can still end well. I see no evidence of WP:HOUNDing, though I see how it may be perceived that way. There is nothing wrong with looking through an editor's edits and flagging similar issues in other pages. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian, you are correct, I aim for best verifiability, imho the most important part of Wikipedia is content which is properly referenced, no matter how clear cut something may or not may be. prokaryotes (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Intervention request Could someone please notify these 2 accounts here, why they post in the wrong spot, i think the accusations of both users are getting out of hands now and require some admin intervention. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both users continue a battleground behavior, and Cuzkatzimhut stated recently, in response to his edit warring request. I will try to fight the good fight away from that disappointing board Besides the continued aggressive tone(you have to read his lengthly replies), the user is unwilling to understand or accept WP rules and sees tagging of articles he edits as a threat to him.prokaryotes (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Battleground behavior"? After the the highly personalized rampage I reported and documented painstakingly, of Aug 13, UT 15:05 - 27:10?? Rolling back, in rapid-fire succession, pages I had edited last: Adjugate matrix, Fermi's golden rule, scale invariance, special unitary group, non-linear sigma model, De Sitter special relativity, Rotation formalisms in three dimensions, canonical commutation relation, wave packet, Polynomial Wigner–Ville distribution, wave packet, pauli matrices, etc, including references I put in (scale invariance) summary deleted only to be supplanted by requests for references templates? I understand. I have to play "nice". I'll leave the bellicose talk to the cold record and invite the readership to advise me on how they would have responded to the rampage. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that i reverted all above articles (only the first 2), the other articles were just reference taggings, at scale invarience Cuzkatzimhut defends a link to scholarpedia, just the page ofc, no pointers what so ever. To call this a rampage you need to ignore Wikipedia rules.prokaryotes (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aug 13, contris: UT 17:37, 17:47, 17:09, 17:33, 17:48, 18:38, 22:06, 22:38. In that streak, to unjustifiably eschew "rampage", no pages appear to have anyone but me as the last editor. I now appreciate this may well be a part of an aspirational project to tag all technical WP pages with "missing citations" tags? As for myself, I am so nice I have nothing to say. Just behold. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with tagging recent edits of articles based of 1 editors edit history.prokaryotes (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against it in WP rules, sure. Now, then, close examination of the gratuitous deletions and destruction of content and formatting (red links) accompanying those tags will also let the reader decide what is "wrong" or not. Ad hominem attacks on Yohan when he reverts your reversions is probably also within the purview of the system. The systematic pattern, however, is undeniable: I am baffled you declare yourself its anapologetic practitioner. Is that a warning to everyone here to not call your bluff on that scalar field theory reference? You think everyone will be bullied?? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prokaryotes: WP:SCG is the standing general guidance on recommended citation practice in technical science articles. Is it something you have had a chance to look at, and would you see yourself in broad agreement with it? Jheald (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SCG is exactly covering my edit motives. prokaryotes (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my feeling that Yohan and Cuzkatzimhut are thinking of their practice as falling under Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines#Uncontroversial_knowledge. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 19 August 2015 Edior YohanN7 keeps removing content and references with a battleground behavior. The editor does not assumes good faith, in his edit he states "Revert vandalism" DIF prokaryotes (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the summary peremptoriness of the original revert today, could give grounds to assume lack of courtesy. I implore, in the talkpage, to desist from reverts (and the required counter-reverts) before reaching some consensus on the talk page. Importantly, the crucial, and much needed references were just gratuitously degraded and yanked out with the bathwater. All this in the wake of hectoring, for 6 days, about the need for meticulous referencing? The changes so blandly smeared were, in fact, salutary and helped the reader. if only the reverter could explain why they hinder him instead of helping him in the talkpage? Why should the readers of the page not benefit from referenced background? Why? Why?Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A technical note: I did not state "Revert vandalism" when I did the + 1075 edit as the suspect claims. In that edit, a sole sentence (because it made no sense in the context) together with a to the article irrelevant reference was removed. I stated "revert vandalism" only when it was true, i.e. the time after the suspects revert of my edit adding solid referenced (Steven Weinberg) content. YohanN7 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another response from YohanN7, "Suspect vandal already at ANI whining. I removed one sentence of gibberish of his and a totally irrelevant "reference." DIF - Notice that he removed article structure in his recent edits and is reluctant to properly or at all, reference his edits per Wikipedia guidelines. prokaryotes (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lie to the judge my friend. As a blind monkey can see, I referenced my edit with a real reference. Weinberg QFT vol. I in one spot and Weinberg vol. II in another spot. YohanN7 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another response from YohanN7, "...the vandal would have reverted every any any edit of mine. In fact, I am almost entirely sure he never read it. As for the reference I removed, it is a "perfectly normal paper" (except it is l-o-n-g), but certainly not dedicated to scalar field theory. The whole thing is just a set-up." DIF Notice that YohanN7 has reverted around 10 edits of mien (all linked in this section), i reverted 2 or 3 edits of him. prokaryotes (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The simple reason being that none of my edits should be reverted, while most of your edits have been rubbish, needing a revert. You are vandalizing, and that is it. YohanN7 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another response from YohanN7, "Don't lie. You can lie when you cry at the ANI, but not here. My edit did not lack references." DIFprokaryotes (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the real diff of my edit my friend. Don't try such cheap tricks. The judge, even if a paper shuffler of your liking, will not like your lying. YohanN7 (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That paper, is, as YohanN asserts, definitely not an illuminating review on scalar field theory, by any scholarly standard. The recursive tendentiousness underlying these (by now) routine reverts certainly suggests a setup. The statistical counting is magnificently specious: let the reader look at the size of the reverts. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user keeps adding original research to Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, despite discussions why this is wrong on the article Talk and user's own pages. This person never acknowledges OR or synthesis, just talks about "censorship" of what he considers "common sense" and increases the complexity of his argument on the article page, adding more and more sources, none of which verifies his thesis. Person also switches to several different IP addresses (sockpuppetry?), though I have no proof this is deliberate. He has also made recent similarly contentious edits to Italian sausage, reverted by another editor.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:b8ca:e339:1f3b:7ed8 (talk · contribs) 19 June:Special:Diff/666807252/667575426

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d969:4c02:c5e0:1822 (talk · contribs) 10 July: Special:Diff/669242714/670769577

2601:4c1:c001:1878:c00f:507a:d436:ce86 (talk · contribs) 11 July: Special:Diff/670828010/670984416 Source used for the above is Astronauts Wives Club (book), on which I obtained consensus as unreliable on Reliable Sources noticeboard. After I was able to check this book, I found absolutely no reference to what the user was saying.

68.46.226.6 (talk · contribs) 17 July: Special:Diff/671287921/671805064 and following; obviously same editor starts misusing an already-used reliable source to make it appear to say what it doesn't in fact say.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:cc45:c492:4758:9370 (talk · contribs) 10 August: Special:Diff/674386723/675453615 User now starts to construct his increasingly elaborate argument with sources which don't support his claim, except by his own synthesis.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d16b:6ca7:37bb:f6b9 (talk · contribs) 13 August: Special:Diff/675506264/675856593 At this point, I have started to warn him on his own talk page.

2601:4c1:c001:1878:d16b:6ca7:37bb:f6b9 (talk · contribs) 14 August: Special:Diff/675936899/675999116

JustinTime55 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP Address 68.46.226.6 shows edits consistent with this same IP user. Same articles, same rationale. Editor located in same area too according to Geolocator. 2601:240:C501:3C40:28F3:97FF:F1E4:D19 (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, D19. But no admins seem to have weighed in yet, after four days. Can we have some more comment? Can anything be done in terms of a block of this user, or page protection, or ??? I realize there's lots more exciting drama here on other threads, but I don't want to just see this get archived with no action. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest page protection (since the IP keeps changing), and if no one further replies, just make a request at WP:RFPP. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please create-protect all the articles created by Ramzan Kadiryan, SizinGünbəzDoqquz, and MER HAYRENIK? Socks of KunoxTxa keep recreating the articles, some as many as six times. Thanks, Conifer (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Shirt58 is already on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please provide me with a list, by email if desired. I am looking at this sockmaster for other reasons. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Deletions for MER HAYRENIK here (tagged with the username), for SizinGünbəzDoqquz here (tagged G5, KunoxTxa). I don't have comprehensive list for Ramzan Kadiryan, unfortunately. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll build this information in tomorrow, semi-protecting these would be sensible instead/as well. I am picking up a lot from existing EF logs too. The red-linked players from FC Pyunic are already in the EF, even the Armenian WP does not have articles about them yet (except one). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Editor Lfstevens recently manually cut and pasted several pages. However, as i pointed out, the merging of several articles lacks in many regards (subjective content deletion, rewrite of lede per none RS, selective reference removal, just to name a few issues). The user edit history contains many summaries with merge, all appear to be not in line with WP procedure. The user also was notified on his talk page on August 12 by editor shoy to follow WP:Merge and contact admin Moonriddengirl, which he didn't. I also asked the editor to respond on his talk page. prokaryotes (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have limited time right now but have left a note at his talk page explaining the situation a bit more completely and asking him to assist with one of the recent issues. A glance shows that this may be a widespread issue in need of repair, but further assessment is needed there. I think it's worth emphasizing to people that this attribution is a legal requirement and mandatory under our Terms of Use. There is an effort to attribute at [51]; I believe this is a good faith effort, although inconsistent as this is also copied, but without attribution. It should be reparable, as long as Lfstevens is willing to assist.

I would very much like to know which administrator he has been working with and references here. I do not see edits to any user talk page other than his own in recent history, or to Wikipedia space or engagement on the issue at any article talk pages. If there is an admin who was notified of "the whole mess" and didn't advise, I'd like to be sure said admin is conscious of the legal issues as well. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I am just about through with the editing process on a bunch of articles about the Sun. Before beginning, I requested feedback on the project on the talk pages of the major articles involved. The only feedback I got was encouragement. I did not contact an administrator when requested because I had not finished and therefore was unsure of exactly what admin help was required and didn't want to waste anyone's time. I plan only a couple of additional changes at this point. In the end, three existing articles ended up as redirects, one of which has already had its history moved. Most of my changes were moves, rather than copies. Finally, most of my pastes also involved revisions along the way, if that matters.

Sorry for any violations that may have ensued. I am happy to do whatever I can to remedy any problems. I hope that doesn't involve reverting everything. I'm surprised that in all my 10ks of edits I've never run into this before (either as an editor or as an observer). Always more to learn. Lfstevens (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do the following: Tag the destination page's talk page with This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents., and the source page's talk page with . Place these tags at the top of the talk pages. -- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging#How_to_merge However, it is unclear at this point if a merge must be reverted. If you use sources, links to other wiki websites are not sufficient.

prokaryotes (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I generally retained the sources from the original articles, which generally did not use wiki sources. To summarize, for material that was copied from one article to another, I should used {{copied}} and for material that was moved, I should use {{merge-to/from}}. And for the redirects, the history should be moved. Is that correct? Lfstevens (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re other wiki websites: The edit about you adding links to wiki websites to the lede, can be found here. Someone has to go to all your related activities and assess your decisions when you removed or added content. prokaryotes (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see any use of wiki sources in that edit. The refs were to external sites (merriam webster, etc.) Are you referring to the File? Lfstevens (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both links are not reliable (they don't cite any sources, and we do not link to other dictionaries or Enceclopedia. Please read WP:RS, additionally carefully read WP:OR. The lede is wrong, Solar irradiance (also Insolation -- this is not in the cited sources and could be considered original research. prokaryotes (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Those links were in the Insolation article where I found the material. Lfstevens (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you think Insolation and Solar irradiance should be merged, do you have any source for this? According to some websites these are two different things. prokaryotes (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the version I merged: "Insolation (from Latin insolare, to expose to the sun)[1][2] is the power per unit area produced by the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation. It is also called solar irradiation." (I would so much rather have had this discussion before I did the work. Where were you then?) Lfstevens (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can hardly complain now when you did a merger without a merger discussion. I guess you just merged the pages because you thought it might be okay, but you have not researched each subject to be sure. prokaryotes (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lfstevens, no deletion should be necessary, as long as the content is properly attributed now. But it does require that you acknowledge the copying in edit summary, and it does require (where taking is extensive) acknowledgement of the copying on the talk pages of the articles. Where content is merged, the template used above is a good idea. Where it's just copied, {{copied}} is the way to go. Even if you modify the content, you have to attribute to meet the requirements of our licenses. The question of whether isolation and solar irradiance should be merged is really a content discussion and likely best at the article's talk page or at personal talk page. Administrative intervention is not need there, at least at this stage, but we do need to address the copyright issues. (Even if a merger is reverted, for attribution history, the edit summary should be used.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the user is well aware of merging, see this past edit. I'd like to point out that a merger on these solar articles is a good idea, but he needs to add the required data as mentioned above, and should respond on the talk page about his merge edits. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mergers include There is this merger from Solar variation into Solar cycle (See in particular this old content), and a merger from Insolation into Solar irradiance (See also talk page there), and moved Solar and celestial effects on climate to Orbital effects on climate and Solar and celestial effects on climate, and then moved content to new article Solar activity and climate.prokaryotes (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we're getting to closure here. If I understand the rules, what I need to do is:

- use {{merge-to}}/{{merge-from}} on Solar irradiance/Insolation and Solar phenomenon/Solar activity. Administrators will handle the history merge. - use {{copied}} on Solar cycle X, Solar cycle (to Solar phenomenon and Solar activity and climate), Solar activity and Sunspot (to Solar cycle and Solar activity and climate) and Solar irradiance to Solar activity and climate. Happy to make those changes, once they are confirmed. Please let me know of any other things needed. Lfstevens (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked more closely at the merger of 3 articles and it appears that it is basically okay, though there night be an issue with Solar irradiance and insolation, but this might be covered at one place. There are still some problems, as mentioned above, but i think this can be worked out. When you have specific questions about merging i can only point you to the guides, also linked above. You should at least add the templates to the talk pages, i guess this would resolve the copyright concerns too.prokaryotes (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks prokaryotes and Moonriddengirl for sorting this out. shoy (reactions) 13:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A number of IPs have recently, without prior discussion and support on the talk page of the article, changed every instance of the name Vladimir the Great, the common name in English, to the Ukrainian version of the name, Volodymyr in the article, and minutes ago EricLewan, who, judging by their talk page and contributions, have been repeatedly edit-warring over the name Kiev/Kyiv on multiple articles, moved the article, again without prior discussion and support on the talk page, from Vladimir the Great to Volodymyr Sviatoslavych, a name that is totally unknown to English speakers. So I request both a move back to the original name (which I can't do since it was done over a redirect), and full move protection until the matter has been settled on the talk page, the way it should have been done before the move.

I would also welcome a discussion here about both the name of the article and the, to me at least, seemingly organised attempts by several editors to both change all mentions of names that are even loosely connected to the Ukraine, both of cities and of historical persons and entities, to the modern day Ukrainian versions of them, even though for example Vladimir the Great and Kievan Rus' predate both the Ukraine and the Ukrainian language as we know it by several hundred years. Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back, per the previous talk page consensus at a requested move. You don't need admin powers to undo a page move. BethNaught (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to move it, but the system wouldn't let me do it. Moves over a redirect often require admin powers, BTW, to remove/delete the redirect and make way for the move... Thomas.W ^talk 16:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that; this case falls into the limited exception. Strange it didn't work for you though, since it worked for me and I'm not an admin. BethNaught (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirect has been edited after the move, you need to be an admin to move it back; not otherwise. I don't know how the system could have stopped you, Tom. What exactly happened? Bishonen | talk 16:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I got a message that said that the page had been moved back, even though it obviously hadn't been. (If the name of Vladimir the Great should be changed to the original name it wouldn't be the modern day Ukrainian version of the name, BTW, but to Valdemar Sveinarsson, since he was Scandinavian, not Ukrainian...) Thomas.W ^talk 16:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just guessing, but you might have hit the undo button, which will give you an erroneous "The edit appears to have already been undone." Along with "You may have attempted to undo a pagemove or protection action; these cannot be undone this way." Instead of hitting undo, you should have hit the move button. Just guessing, but that was usually what I saw happen. (Used to do a lot of page move undo's back in the day). Rgrds. --64.85.217.37 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's possible since I was a bit upset when I did it. The reason I was upset was that I very much dislike attempts to falsify history, such as the repeated attempts to make Vladimir the Great a Ukrainian, even though there was no such thing as a Ukrainian people or a Ukrainian language back then. The Ukraine is also far from the only present day country that can rightfully claim descent from the Rus'. Thomas.W ^talk 12:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently discussed at SPI, and deemed to be not feasible, but I think it needs to be revisited. Their sockpuppetry has grown to frankly ridiculous proportions since then, with no fewer than twenty-two (!!) suspected sockpuppets being blocked in the last six weeks.

This has lead to the repeated deletion, and create protection of a significant number of articles. Add to that the editor's own statement of intending to continue indefinitely, and I think we've gotten to the point were even some level of collateral damage caused by a range block is preferable to allowing the disruption from this editor to continue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these haven't edited. It would take some analysis to see the type of edits and establish if it's worth setting up an edit filter. A range block would require checkuser info, and does sound like it would not be a good idea. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Check their deleted edits. The creation of inappropriate articles is one of the hallmarks of this editor. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a limited view of deleted edits, not being an admin at the moment. I have set up a draft edit filter entitled Armenian football vandal, but there's more work needed to make it truly effective. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Is this a legal threat? I also received this note from a different, just-registered user on my talk page this morning, which may be related. The article has had legal threats made over it previously, see previous ANI thread and the recent discussion at COIN for context. SPAs and apparent COI editing has been a huge headache on this article - it was semi-protected for 6 months yesterday. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The first diff, IMO, is not a legal threat, but a request to clean up what they believe if defamatory material. The second is closer to the line, but probably still under it as there is no overt threat to go to court, nor a thinly veiled threat. It's probably connected to the COI issue, and based on the language used in all, probably socks. You may have better luck at WP:SPI. GregJackP Boomer! 22:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is now [53] and [54]. Zarcusian (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All of those comments qualify as legal threats under Wikipedia guidelines. The users posting them must be blocked. However, it would behoove someone to investigate whether the complaints have merit in terms of BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: removed some material from the article yesterday, I think (though I'm making an assumption here) in response to an OTRS complaint. Even then, I think the problem was that the general tone or balance of the article was too negative rather than that there were any BLP violations as such. Never hurts to have someone heretofore uninvolved look it over though.

As I mentioned above and at COIN, this article has a long history of someone putting a lot of effort into making it read like a PR piece, I think we are very likely dealing with that same person or persons here. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the changes were done completely in my personal volunteer capacity, as opposed to any sort of OTRS action or edit request made via that channel. Mdann52 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying Mdann52, sorry for jumping to that conclusion! Fyddlestix (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a definate legal threat. The rest of the comments have a chilling effect, intended or otherwise. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user continually ignores consensus thinking that his way is the only way. This has been discussed with him on his talk page at User talk:Mqst north#A bit of free advice and the following paragraph also applies following his incorrectly accusing editors who disagree with as sockpuppets. In Talk:Bomaderry railway station#Platform allocations discussion has been taking place concerning changes he has made to that article. He has totally ignored consensus and has continued making similar changes to other stations removing templates which are accepted as being used in stations worldwide and replacing them with his own verbage.Kiama railway station has been totally ruined by him in this way. He has added good historic information but this should not be done at the expense of other information. I believe his attitude in this and other articles such as WestConnex where he has for a third time deleted an infobox against consensus is totally unacceptable in Wikipedia.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression we were reaching agreement on the specifics at the relevant talk pages. Clearly, you regard my suspicions of sock puppetry/meatpuppetry to be a personal attack, and interpreted it as an escalation, but I think there is a reasonable prima facie case to be made there. In any case, this is not an appropriate place to litigate that issue. Mqst north (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We were close to reaching agreement on one point only and that was the non enclyclopedic nature of having full bus route lists within each station. But no agreement or consensus whatsoever on the removal of the universally used templates which define services and neighbouring stations and hence such changes should not be continued until some agreement or consensus is reached. Hence this report or your continual ignoring of wikipedia procedures. It has nothing to do with the sockpuppet allegations about me and User talk:JCN217 although they certainly do not improve our relationship.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jason_from_nyc Has violated the 1RR rule on Margret Sanger, an sanctioned article. He has reverted edits by more than three editors simultaneously. This is becoming a problem as Jason has been pushing against the controversies section for the notably controversial activist and has used his ability of completely ignoring the 1RR to seriously cripple any chance of the article maintaining any neutrality. Chrononem ☎ 12:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the complaint. I have discussed and achieved a consensus in the talk for my changes. I have objected to Chrononem's original research and others have agreed. I have left a comment on Chrononem's talk about about his original research and refusal to provide secondary sources. I will be away for most of the day but would like to know exactly what Chrononem is talking about so that I can respond Jason from nyc (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:1RR has been violated. At any rate, a report like this should be at WP:AE because the article (according to boxes at the top of Talk:Margaret Sanger) is under discretionary sanctions. I didn't examine the diff but it superficially seems ok, and Jason from nyc is making a lot of sense on the talk page. A very quick look makes me wonder if this edit is reasonable—are you sure that someone working in the early 1900s was doing anything like the bad things that a modern interpretation of "eugenics" entails? Johnuniq (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was reasonable as I was restoring two good edits along with the bad one. Arxiloxos was doing the same thing as Jason except he stopped when he was told of the 1RR in place. If you examine the diff in the articles you'll see that he reverted multiple edits by at least three editors. All I ask is that he be warned about the 1RR by someone with authority and told to restrict his reversions to one per day. Chrononem ☎ 12:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting confused by the term 1RR. Under 1RR restrictions, a person is allowed one revert in a 24-hour period; it doesn't matter how many edits were caught in that revert, they have still only reverted once. That doesn't mean that revert was correct or anything, but reverting 3 edits (as an example) in one action is not breaking 1RR. Therefore, Jason_from_nyc did not break 1RR - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is 24.216.168.184 you editing logged out? Looking at a post on your talk page where you said you reverted multiple times, it suggests that it's you. If it is, you reverted twice in 3 hours on a 1RR article... - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1RR requires that you do not make two reverting edits in a 24-hour period. As you made a revert at 22:23 on 16 August (UTC), your revert at 15:49 on 17 August was a breach of 1RR. NebY (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion made me guess that blocks would be inappropriate: like 3RR blocks, 1RR blocks should be handed out when people are reverting instead of discussing, or reverting while discussing, but here it looked like people were discussing instead of reverting. However, the page history showed me that lots of people were edit-warring, and while not too many were violating 1RR, we had a multi-sided edit war on our hands, so I just protected the whole thing (see "Content disputes" near the top of WP:FPP) for 24 hours. As I said at the talk page, just come to my talk page to request uncontroversial changes, whether typo fixes or simple factual things, or to ask me to lengthen/shorten/remove the protection. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I inadvertently made one revert logged out, you can see it was me by the summary. and I wasn't intending to have to make an additional reversion so I was not timing my edits to avoid two in 22 hours. Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding of the 1RR rule if I had understood that an editor could remove many edits I would not have made an additional reversion myself. With this new information I can see that good part of the edit war was a result of my own ignorance. Chrononem ☎ 18:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been engaged with Admin JzG/Guy (he does not have a user page - this is his talk page) over the content of two articles, one I created and one I tried to help edit. I have experienced what appears to be a suspicious pattern of behavior that I wanted to share with the group, in the hopes that I can get help and clarification, or at the very least get consensus to put this to rest. If I am wrong for posting this activity here I apologize in advance, but cannot let this go without at least trying to highlight administrative behavior that I feel is at best inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia, and at worst harmful to Wikipedia, through what can only be referred to as censorship.

I came across the Academy of Achievement article when I read this Steve Jobs article [[55]] in The Business Insider. It includes a recording of the acceptance speech he gave for an award he received from the Academy on June 26, 1982. I'd never heard of the group or the award, so of course I went right to Wikipedia to learn more. This was the state of the article when I found it: [[56]] There was no information about Steve Jobs, and after reading this article which was one of the sources, [[57]], I realized the article was missing a lot of info. But it was quickly apparent the article itself had issues. There was a history of disclosed paid editing and some patterns of what also appeared to be additional paid editing. Many of the sources were listed as PDFs on an Amazon server, which is something no independent editor would have access to. It also appeared that admin JzG/Guy had nominated the article in March 6 2007 for deletion. The motion was rejected, but I see in the talk that the idea has come up again. I naively thought that I could repair the article, replace the PDFs with proper sources and add information justifying notability, so that when I was done, there would be no question that the group was worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I added a direct quote from the Wall Street Journal to the lede "The organization hosts an annual International Achievement Summit, a gathering of speakers and panelists which the Wall Street Journal called 'perhaps the glitziest gathering of intellect and celebrity that no one has ever heard of.'" This was intended to establish the context for readers, and to show that the group eschewed publicity, which is why the group was not more familiar to us. I also wanted to put in information about the awardees and speakers, since they are all notable, are all on Wikipedia and are all mentioned in mainstream press coverage. You can see that my edits were removed, and the article was gutted to a state even more sparse than I found it. I politely asked the admin to discuss before reverting, and restored the content. Properly sourced content shouldn't be removed by an administrator who has in the past made it clear he doesn't want the article on the site. I restored the content, asked for consensus but it was removed again. Only this time JzG/Guy also added some vandalism - he put in as the Academy motto "po" which I assume was supposed to mock me for being "pissed off", only I wasn't. I restored the content, politely templated his user page and asked him to refrain from possible vandalism. He restored the content, vandalism and all, and apparently started a COI investigation into me. I spent several days defending myself against charges that my editing history suggested a non-neutral point of view. I tried to bring in another editor (a disclosed paid editor) who I thought was fair and would help me in my efforts, and to my surprise he agreed with JzG/Guy and gutted the article.

I realize now in retrospect that it is unlikely that a disclosed paid editor would stand up to an admin who has a history of striking content from the site. But is this kind of herd mentality good for Wikipedia? Nonetheless, I wrote a final note on the talk page and decided to move on.

That was apparently not enough for JzG/Guy. In what can only be considered a form of retribution, he just removed all the sources from an article I wrote last year Dave Kurlan, including Inc, Business Week and Huffington Post articles, and after waiting a few days, flagged the article for deletion, saying it had no sources. I just restored the sources and asked that the article be judged in its original form, rather than the heavily gutted version JzG/Guy wants people to see and judge. I can also look for more sources - Googling Dave Kurlan brings up a lot of content.

In the big scheme of things, these two articles aren't going to make or break Wikipedia, but admins targeting volunteers with vindictive edits and bullying cannot be in the spirit that Jimmy Wales had in mind. I bring this to the attention of the group and await consensus.TechnoTalk (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not vindictiveness; User:CorporateM was completely correct in removing the primary-sourced material from the article in question. Wikipedia only repeats content from reliable sources and doesn't work from either original research or primary sources—a Wikipedia article should only include what significant and reliable media outlets say about the topic, not what the topic says about themselves. ‑ iridescent 20:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on the situation described above, but it is wrong to say WP does not use primary sources. We fully allow primary sources, though put more value in information that extends from secondary sources and delete articles that only can be sourced to primary material. But articles can include primary along with secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this context; All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors if you want policy chapter and verse. Primary sources are valid for "He said xxx on his own website" type comments, but not for commentary. ‑ iridescent 20:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously in the case above, yes we can't use primary, but your statement implied that no primary sources may be used anywhere, which is not true; they have to be used with care and with more weight given to secondary. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the merits, but our rules require you to notify users that you report on this board. I have taken the liberty to notify JzG of this thread. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged Guy's page with the notification template - it appears on the top of his talk page. Did I not do it right? Sorry - I'm trying to follow the rules.TechnoTalk (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It usually would go at the bottom, as a new message. That's why I missed it. No worries either way. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems more like an attempt to lay a smoke screen covering your own behaviour than a legitimate complaint. Anyone and everyone who files a report here can expect to have their own behaviour scrutinised too, so let's start by informing the readers here that you received a formal notice a week ago about Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, because of being under suspicion of engaging in undisclosed paid editing. With the reason given in the notice being "You have created a series of somewhat promotional articles on companies and people, some of which have been the subject of confirmed promotional editing in the past. This is the pattern of paid editing in Wikipedia.". Just so that people here know what this is about. Thomas.W ^talk 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see evidence of bullying. I can however see evidence of experienced contributors removing poorly-sourced puffery from articles TechnoTalk has contributed to. I suggest this thread be closed for lack of evidence that JzG has done anything wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved editor comment, and several observations. The history of Academy of Achivement shows it to be under near-constant attack by COI editors and spammers. If you are not another COI editor (as you claim), then we can forgive JzG for thinking you were. A lot of your "sources" are from YouTube or their own website, and it is just a list of names that have spoken, a common spammer tactic. Furthermore, both Jytdog and CorporateM have tried to help you on your talk page and the AA talk page, and you have mostly resisted their efforts. As for JzG's part, his comment on your talk page You have virtually no history on Wikipedia. I, on the other hand, have been here a long time - see (admin toolbox). smacks of pulling rank. What we have here is essentially a slow-moving edit war where the participants are not cooperating with eachother. Bottom line: TechnoTalk: you need to become more acquainted with the rules here, and when you feel proficient, come back to the talk page with proposed changes, and do not make them to the article yet. Just put them up for discussion, and see if the others feel it needs tweaking. When there is consensus, you should add the changes. KonveyorBelt 20:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "pull rank", I posted JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which allows the user to check my entire history there and then and establish whether I genuinely do have the experience to be able to judge. Nothing else. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the community should consider a boomerang here. At least three experienced editors have tried to advise this editor that their editing is promotional and that they need to slow down and learn what NPOV means, and all that is coming back is WP:IDHT, and now this bogus ANI filing. I did not get involved in the content dispute, but did discuss COI matters with TechnoTalk and reviewed their overall edits in the course of that. I think it may take a short block to get TechnoTalk to stop and listen. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm willing to assume good faith for the moment. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone would find the topic interesting and decide to bulk it out, without realizing that promotional sources aren't usable, and "new editor gets overly defensive when their edits are reverted" would hardly be a first. If the OP is a spammer, he's just learned that Wikipedia is better at spotting them than we're commonly given credit for; if he's a good faith editor, give him a chance to prove it. ‑ iridescent 20:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My participation in this article was as a result of @TechnoTalk: asking for my input on my Talk page. He felt JzG was treating him unfairly by labeling content as promotion, whereas I felt that not nearly enough promotion had been removed. This version of the article contained language like "a gathering of speakers and panelists which the Wall Street Journal called "perhaps the glitziest gathering of intellect and celebrity that no one has ever heard of,"[2] and the Washington Post called "one of the world's most dazzling gatherings of international celebrities." I felt this was highly inappropriate for Wikipedia and mentioned the advice at Wikipedia:Quotations, that quoting sources directly are often used to introduce non-neutral language that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I was disappointed to see TechnoTalk restore this content without discussion and against consensus.

I am not sure if Techno's claims to being a disinterested party are credible. This contains many of the classic signs of promotional paid editing, such as an undue emphasis on awards and "In the News"-type information. His work on the Academy page also contains similar behavioral patterns.

I haven't seen any recent deletion discussions, so I'm confused by this reference. My only minor quip with JzG is that the way he mentioned being an admin was probably not appropriate, but this is still a boomerang situation. CorporateM (Talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just indef TechnoTalk as WP:NOTHERE and terms of use violations and move on. This is clearly an undisclosed paid editor, perfectly fitting the pattern, and a bad paid editor at that. Bonus troll points for telling Guy to "get a life." Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, looks like BOMMERANG material to me. BMK (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't "politely template" an admin's page. GAB^Hello! 21:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GAB - statements like this do concern me. Templating an admin is no different than templating another user. CorporateM (Talk) 23:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: Perhaps so. But it's not very helpful when you're trying to tell someone specifically what they did wrong. GAB^Hello! 23:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is "suspicious behavior" here, but on your part, as evidenced by some of those diffs. I suggest a boomerang is in order. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think everyone has worked out what's going on here. The history of the article pretty much speaks for itself. This request indicates the OP's poor judgment, IMO. And I am pretty confident that the OP's decision to take on this article was not a coincidence. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody except GAB has addressed the administrative vandalism (yes I see the unintended irony). I used the mildest notification template, per the template instructions, and then the next higher level when the vandalism was replicated. I think that's as polite as one can be given the circumstances. From this brief response sample, which I appreciate everyone taking the time to submit, it appears that I'm in the minority. It does not seem to bother anyone that an admin nominated an article for deletion after removing the primary sources showing notability, and that the action appears to be retaliatory for pointing out prior possible vandalism on an earlier article. If it's easier for you to reject my concerns by labeling me as a paid editor and saying I'm throwing up a smokescreen, so be it, but you can look at my edit history and see that I've had no issues with the site before this. None of my handful of articles were flagged for COI or NPOV - and everything was patrolled. Consider the context of this sudden crackdown on my site contributions. Just like that I became a bad editor?TechnoTalk (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are going to accuse someone of vandalism, you need to provide proper evidence, not a confusing wall of text. Please do as requested at the top of this page, and provide a diff so we can see what you are referring to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No, you didn't become a bad editor "just like that", your editing history shows that you've been a "bad editor" since August of last year, your early editing history also shows that you with all probability weren't a new editor when you created your account. So what other accounts have you used before you created the current one? Thomas.W ^talk 23:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since TechnoTalk has suggested that we look at his edit history, I'd like to see what contributors think of Black Book Market Research, which he also created. I'd have to suggest that it appears distinctly promotional, and over-reliant on primary sources. The claims to notability seem to be based on "rankings [that] have been mentioned and referenced" in sources, rather than on in-depth coverage of the company itself. The company might possibly meet our notability guidelines, but an article like this doesn't seem at all appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one I was thinking of when I wrote that he's been a "bad editor" since August of last year, the Black Book article was created in his sandbox on 1 August last year, with the preparations starting on 25 July 2014, when he copied an existing article and pasted it into his sandbox for use as a template. New editors with only a dozen edits don't do things like that. And before that he had spent four of that dozen edits on an article where he showed that he knew how to pipe internal links from scratch (i.e. not just modifying an existing link). Another thing new users don't do. Thomas.W ^talk 23:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't written any articles from scratch. Everything is a cut and paste. You'll see in my edit history that I've made some mistakes and forgot to replace old info. Here's where Guy put in the motto as being "po".[[58]] At first I thought it was an inadvertent typo but I pointed it out and he put it back in, and has refused to acknowledge or explain it. It seems an odd place to have a careless typo. I had moved on to other things when he started challenging my old articles - this is my reaction to system-enabled unfairness.TechnoTalk (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"At first I thought it was an inadvertent typo". Yup. "I pointed it out and he put it back in, and has refused to acknowledge or explain it"? Where? All I can find are edit summaries making vague accusations of 'vandalism', and a post to Guy's talk page doing the same thing. Where exactly did you point out to Guy that he'd added a couple of stray characters to the infobox while deleting something else? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick timeline. Typo introduced in this diff followed by TechnoTalk's removal. Guy's subsequent reversion of TechnoTalk's edits that added puffery also inadevertently reintroduced the typo, which Technotalk then removed again leading to the vandalism warning. Blackmane (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

Here I closed a discussion concerning the topic ban of Antidiskriminator with: "There is, at this point, no consensus to remove or alter Antidiskriminator's topic ban. Several editors have thrown around ideas (probation, etc.), but that is moot if Antidiskriminator cannot demonstrate that he both understands why he was topic banned in the first place (blaming others, as if they have a vendetta out for you, isn't cutting it) and presents a detailed and sensible plan on how he expects to avoid further conflict in the areas in which he is topic banned. As for appeal, Antidiskriminator is advised to not appeal until at least six months have elapsed." It's clear to me that the discussion on my talk page regarding my close is going around in circles, so I defer to the community's judgement.

If I may give some advice to Antidiskriminator, I would be more than will to reconsider my close if you would (A) stop wikilawyering, (B) state specifically what it is that you did to get yourself topic-banned, and (C) state specifically a plan that you would adhere to and other could hold you to, to prevent the behavior that got you topic-banned from recurring.

If my close is allowed to stand, I would also like to ask that Antidiskriminator be strongly advised to let the matter rest until he can appeal again in six months. --ceradon (talk • edits) 21:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your closure was appropriate and reflected the opinions expressed. On your talk page, Antid stated that it was what he wrote on the talk pages of articles that got him banned. I believe that is a serious understatement and an attempt to avoid any admission that his behaviour was unwikilike. It was his behaviour that got him banned: creating endless new threads about contentious matters, wikilawyering as soon as anyone questioned his sources or his use of untranslated quotes, tendentious carping about minor issues, creating articles with entirely generic names (like "Muslim Militia" and defending them when others tried to move them) and refusing to edit in article space to address issues he raised on the talk page when there were no objections to him doing so. That's just for starters. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) - clearly no consensus to unban: I count two supports that were "meh, I guess", one that admitted to having been canvassed, and a plurality of very strong opposes. I also don't see that there was even a weak consensus that the user should be conditionally unbanned, so there's not much point discussing what the conditions of such an unban would be. The community of editors who edit in the Macedonia topic area are not many, but their patience with this editor seems to have long been exhausted. If Antidiskriminator has been a prolific and successful editor in other subject areas, then bravo and keep up the good work, but the very fact that they're bludgeoning the talk page of the closing admin is evidence of their lack of introspection that has apparently led to the failure of these appeals. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly I don't fault your close, it follows pretty much the standard appeal close in these circumstances.

• I think there is some mileage in what Antidiskriminator (AD) said at AN namely: "I will stop people from making trouble for me by following the rules." It's a hard furrow to plough, but it need not concern (the rest of) us why they are following the rules - although it may make it harder for AD to stick to them.
• AD's successful avoidance of these problems in related areas indicates a possibility that AD can return successfully to editing in the contested area.
• A typical result of reversing such sanctions is that the behaviour recurs and the sanctions are re-imposed or increased.

Given the above, is it possible to take an innovative approach, and reduce the scope of sanctions incrementally? For example to material before 1910 instead of 1900?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Ceradon, bless your heart. There's some more of AD's wikilawyering on my talk page--and mind you, I'm one of the ones who didn't oppose a lifting of the ban. That whole discussion is sad, because no outside editors are willing to get involved, and so yeah, there's more going around in circles there. As long as no one besides the little cabal of entrenched editors speak out, we'll hear the same thing, and AD is not changing their tune either. Anywayz, I predicted a "no consensus" close a while ago, and there we are. Your close is fine. Rich, if you're willing to stick your neck and propose something else, please go for it. At the same time, yes, AD is really not helping his cause. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resent being referred to as being in an "entrenched cabal" in any way. I deal with Antid based entirely on what I get from him. I was willing to consider raising the ban in a limited way, but Antid did not respond. To my knowledge there is no collusion against Antid, just people who have actual experience of dealing with him in a rarely-traversed subject area that has more than its fair share of POV warriors and disruptive editors. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the moral of the story here is that if you're an entrenched POV warrior butting heads with editors in a sparsely populated but highly contentious topic area, it's going to be a tough uphill battle to get your editing privileges back. As an uninvolved non-admin, I'd be open to supporting an alternative unblock proposal (I quite like innovative solutions, actually) if not for two things: 1) Antid continues to avoid answering multiple questions of self-examination, but rather continues to assert that they were blocked simply because more editors were against them than with them, failing to understand (or bother trying to understand) why the behaviour that led to the block was unacceptable; and 2) probably as a result, the most recent unban request clearly didn't have consensus, and reopening that discussion here disrespects the editors who were involved in it. However, if those editors agree that some alternate solution should be tried, then I happily withdraw my objection. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that some of you others have been exposed to all this pointless toxicity, I feel both sort of satisfied that I'm not alone and then also sort of depressed that even more people have had to repeat this lesson. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that closuring administrator did not consider the lack of uninvolved input issue. Closing administrator dismissed all concerns for lack of uninvolved input as irrelevant. Even if "no consensus" closure is endorsed, the closing sentence should be amended to mention valid concerns about lack of uninvolved input. Multiple editors speculated about what I think or understand and based on that !voted against my ban. There is a freedom of thought. Article 19 of the UDHR guarantees that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference". Editors who banned me and who want to keep me banned because of what I think should think twice. What only matters is what I do. Not what I think. I respected the ban for more than a year by following the plan I presented, without anybody complaining I repeated the same behavior. That is what I did. And only that can serve as basis for decision whether I should be/remain banned or not.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The closing sentence should be amended to mention valid concerns about lack of uninvolved input - to what end? It's hardly admins' nor the community's fault that you misbehaved and got yourself topic-banned from an extremely vitriolic topic area that sane editors don't want to stick their noses into. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I resemble that remark... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, I hadn't meant to call any editors sane. ;) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that closing admin did not interpreted consensus correctly in their closing sentence. The lack of uninvolved input issue concerned some editors on both sides. That is why I said that the closing sentence should be amended to mention valid concerns about lack of uninvolved input Your comment Ivanvector can probably also be seen as confirmation that additional uninvolved input in this topic area would be beneficial, if it is really so extremely vitriolic that other editors don't want to stick their noses into. That is not completely true though. I am not afraid to stick my nose into it.
• I think that my pre-ban behavior can not be valid argument for rejection of my ban appeal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look at these edits by user_talk:Westwind273

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndrewgprout&type=revision&diff=676572096&oldid=668422379 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Westwind273

Andrewgprout (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The edits, while perhaps misguided, are hardly erratic. Westwind273 and Andrewgprout appear to be involved in a content dispute-come-talk page feud, where each editor has deleted the other's talkpage comments. I would advise both to tone down the dispute and to cease removing others' talk page comments. It's fine to do so at one's own user talk page, but nowhere else. North of Eden (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I have stopped removing Andrewgprout's comments, but he continues to try to remove mine. (See his repeated attempts today to re-delete my comments that I restored on the JAL 123 talk page. How can I prevent his repeated attempts to delete my comments? --Westwind273 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please detail where I have repeatedly and continued to remove any of your comments your statement regarding this is simply untrue. if you contested my original deletion of your content all you had to do was revert that edit.Andrewgprout (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps we should leave the situation as it lies. I just want to say I deleted one set of non constructive comments on a talk page a week or so ago - maybe that was misguided, I don't know. user:Westwind273's deleting a whole series of my previous edits on a number of talk pages with nothing to do with the original edit I made - plus the threat on my talk page this morning does to me appear "erratic" (I was picking a nicer word than I probably felt like writing) and way beyond reasonableness.Andrewgprout (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC

It was definitely misguided, and you knew it was when to did it. Do not remove my comments ever again and this matter will be over. It is in your hands. You are the erratic one. You were the one who initially decided to go in a start deleting comments, not me. Do nothing further and the matter is over. I would also note that I have also seen other Wikipedia users who are equally upset with your erratic behavior of deleting other peoples' comments. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I would also have a few choice words to say about you, Andrewgprout, if I were to write what I felt and not stick to nice words. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am concerned about this for four reasons:

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

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

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

I assume you read the FAQ? It seems that you do have to disclose your employer/client, or don't get paid for editing. On the other hand, the policy does not allow other editors to engage in outing, harassment, or other violations of policy.- MrX 02:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That FAQ could do with a copyedit (Corp?). And in this case it may not be that helpful, since Corp doesn't work for Acme, but for Hip&Hype's PR firm, so on whose behalf is he supposed to claim to be editing? I'm inclined to say Acme, still, since that's the ultimate beneficiary of Corp's work here (and all the hours I've donated to his service)--which means he wouldn't be required to name the agency he's working for. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I would say that the Terms of Use do require disclosure of the PR agency and the article-subject and my own business name, which would prohibit me from contributing anonymously entirely. However, as you indicated, I got the impression that this was just poor copyediting due to an overzealous response to Wiki-PR. I didn't think it was ever intended to be used against someone that has disclosed a conflict of interest.

Do you mean to say that my "thank yous" aren't payment enough for your time? ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 02:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Yes the FAQ needs its own FAQ. Here's the salient sentence: "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." - MrX 02:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The way CorporateM has summarized this is disturbing. First, I haven't "focused [my] efforts on finding additional negative information to add to the page." I've pointed out to CM, as has Doc James, that a Cochrane report concluded that there is insufficient information available for them to reach a conclusion about Invisalign's efficacy. This is clearly stated in the review's conclusion.

That apart, CM has been hired by a PR firm to rewrite the article. He has completed, or almost completed, the rewrite, which he had two other editors add for him. He has not disclosed who he is working for, but the terms of use require this (see WP:PAYDISCLOSE:

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

I have asked CM to abide by the terms of use. This came to my attention, by the way, because he was edit-warring with Doc James. He ought not to be editing the article directly, and getting into battles with a medical expert on a health-related article is not a good idea. Sarah ^(talk) 02:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Terms of Use are fairly clear on this topic. CM is obligated to disclose the information he objects to disclosing if he wishes to edit for pay on Wikimedia projects (other than Commons and...I think maybe Russian Wikipedia? Something like that). The choice is to disclose or to not edit in a manner that requires disclosure; while I'm sympathetic to CM feeling put-upon by this, it's really not much to ask that the community be made aware of what, exactly, the relevant COI is if someone wants us to give them the extraordinary level of trust involved in letting them edit on behalf of article subjects. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) ETA (to clarify): Employer, client, and affiliation can all be different, and thus be different COIs. If I work for PR Agency Y, which is hired by Social Media Company X, to run an ad campaign on behalf of Corporation Z, each step in that chain is relevant to the community's ability to evaluate my work for any COI about Y, X, or Z. Just saying "I have a COI" or "I work for PR Agency Y" or even "I'm editing on behalf of Z" doesn't give us enough information to figure out where all/any issues might be arising in the edits. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there is anything unclear here. The ToU require that you disclose all three "employer, client, *and* affiliation" (my emphasis). Of course if there is only the employer involved, then all you need to declare is the employer, but the PR firm is involved in this - you are affiliated with them if you accept direction from them, or you direct them, or even if you just report to the employer together. "Affiliation" is a very broad term, and we must assume that the WMF put it in the ToU intentionally. We cannot change this rule or interpret this how we feel is "fairest." We must interpret it in the most straight-forward way. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go in a slightly different direction. Our enforcement of the paid editing aspects of the ToU is erratic at best, and in practice I think the focus should be on keeping to the intent rather than the letter. We also need to balance privacy issues with disclosure. Personally, I'd be extremely happy to see clearly stated disclosures somewhere where people will actually see them, denoting that there is a paid editing COI and the nature of the COI, and if that was there I would care a lot less about knowing the client's name.

With that said, unless WP forms a clear policy on how to handle the ToU, it is going to be difficult to argue that people should enforce some aspects and not others. (Noting that it has proven hard enough to get a consistent idea on how it enforce it in the first place). - Bilby (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation's terms of use FAQ is clear about this issue: "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." See m:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure, point 1.8. Sarah ^(talk) 06:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the ToU backwards. :) My problem is that we are doing a poor job of implementing it, and the community has some radically different ideas (all the way to ArbCom) about how we should enforce it, if at all. In that scenario, I can't recommend that people ignore the ToU, but I'd like to at least be following the intent if we fail at the letter.

The question for us is how to balance our long-held principle of not requiring outing of editors and respecting their privacy, while still meeting our needs for disclosure of paid editing. I'm worried that people willing to do everything they can to meet the ToU while still retaining some privacy will get burnt, while those who ignore the ToU terms completely get away with no sanctions at all. - Bilby (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Full disclosure required per SV, Fluffernutter and Smallbones. The TOU is straightforward and clear, and that it might interfere with a particular editor's particular situation is irrelevant. CorporateM, you brought this here despite knowing precisely what the TOU says, which implies that you're looking for a personal pass on the policy. I suggest that is inappropriate, that you disclose it all per the TOU, and return to what I am assured is your excellent work for the project. BMK (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, really. I can only advise you that if you feel that revealing the client's name will in some way compromise them, that you decline the work. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Full disclosure can be, 'Subject's PR firm' I don't agree with several others. The Statement "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." is fulfilled by specifically identifying the client and stating that you are hired by "their PR firm" - that "identifies the PR firm", sufficient to fulfill the TOU obligation. Fluffernutter, who I usually agree with is only correct that we would have to know the name of the PR firm, if the user is hired to edit the article on the PR firm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• WRT the issue at hand full disclosure is required. They need to state both the PR firm and the subject paying the PR firm (some may have multiple PR firms working for them). Corporate's statements above raise additional concerns of competence and promotional editing. CorporateM states "she cited a source where all the information on Invisalign was positive" Now lets look at the conclusions of the source in question "this review has revealed that there was no evidence from RCTs to show that one intervention was superior to another". How is that a positive conclusion?

Corporate raises the concern of bullying as to why they should be exempt from the terms of use. As someone who has had 300 of their colleagues emailed by paid editors. And had tweets send to their university stating they should reprimand for their work on electronic cigarettes I sympathise. But Corporate your editing is not on your own behalf but on behalf of someone else. We the community deserve to know who is paying for your efforts so that we can appropriately address your edits. Our readers deserve to know aswell. Should CorporateM be banned from paid editing if they decide not to disclose? I would say yes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What material difference does it make whether we know the name of this PR firm, if we know that their work is being paid for by the subject of the article? I feel like we have an editor who is doing this the right way - as those good articles will attest - and we're shitting on them all the same. I don't dispute that the Terms of Use require full disclosure. Rather, I'm saying that in this case they are harming the encyclopedia by getting rid of what appears to be a good editor who is committed to following our policies and creating good content. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Full disclosure required. How the heck is this even a question? It's the Terms of Use. It is the legal agreement you agree to follow in order to use the site. It says you need to disclose. Your options are disclose or leave. Pick one. If you have a problem with those being the only options, you should be talking to the legal team, not to miscellaneous Wikipedians who are not in any way, shape or form, as a group or individually, qualified to introduce exceptions to a legal policy. This is, honestly, baffling. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have my own COI here, because I offered to be CorporateM's mentor through WP:Cooperation several years ago. I did so because CM was completely transparent about his intentions and (uniquely) asked for guidance on how to do this ethically. While our mentor/mentee relationship has been completed, I still feel a sense of responsibility (sort of as an older brother) for his growth in the project. During our association, the user has consistently demonstrated willingness to follow 5P, policies and guidelines and when seeing a contradiction, has always asked for guidance from the community, as he has in this thread. He has found his own way on the tightrope called the bright line, and is widely respected because he has not abused the privilege. It could be reasonably argued that CM wears the whitest hat of all paid editors on Wikipedia. I say all this not for any special handling, but to give context to his request in this thread. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Three issues here:[reply]

• 1. In a way, Wikipedia's (and the foundation's) rules for COI and paid editing have grown up around CorporateM. The ToU FAQ linked above is fifteen months old; CM has been editing in a paid capacity for much longer. His request here today (as noted by Bilby and Alanscottwalker above) is about balancing the ToU need for personal privacy with the ToU need for full disclosure. This is important not just to CM, but to Wikipedia. If the community makes it impossible for an honest COI editor to function under the ToU, then we're encouraging such editors to participate without full disclosure (as I suspect the vast majority of paid advocates usually do). BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think anyone is saying that CorporateM is a black hat or that he has bad intentions. But I also don't think the choice is between asking paid editors to disclose (and keep editing) or to lie to us (and keep editing). We can't stop paid editors lying to us, and I don't doubt that there are many doing so, but the ToU are in place so that if a paid editor does lie to us by failing to disclose the required information, we can revoke their ability to keep editing on that basis. That would be a loss to the project in CM's case, but the choice is the paid editor's: disclose, stop editing because you value your privacy more than your ability to accept money for edits, or don't disclose and know that when someone notices, you will lose your editing privileges and/or be restricted in some way (and thus lose at least some of your ability to accept money for edits). Either of the first two choices are entirely valid and I wouldn't blame anyone for making the second; the third choice is the road you go down if you decide you're not bound by the ToU we all agree to by using the site. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I disclose a great deal more than Corprate does and I do not accept money for editing. It is not a high bar we are requesting they meet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 2. There are many acceptable forms which balance the need for privacy with the need for disclosure. If I create a new alt account but wish to keep it off my user page for one legitimate reason or another, disclosing to a checkuser or arb is sufficient to stay within policy. When for whatever reason the foundation needs an editor to self-identify, we do it directly, not publicly. When we're dealing with BLP issues, an OTRS ticket is sufficient documentation the subject has given input. For copyright issues, an OTRS ticket can document permission from rights holders. In this case, I believe a disclosure statement (possibly through OTRS) stating complete information has been given to a responsible party (like ARBCOM or the WMF) could suffice to meet ToU. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions". "Telling arbcom" is not on that list; every single part of that list has one thing in common and that is that the disclosure is public. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 3. As to the conflict between a paid editor and MEDRS issues, I'll decline to advocate CM's position. I've been wondering when such an issue would arise. It was inevitable some client would put the paid editor in a position where the company's need for precision conflicted with existing medical documentation. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry for my delay in responding. I may have used imprecise language myself. I intended to say something along the lines of "the client's desired language versus the language used in independent peer-reviewed studies". BusterD (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The official WMF FAQ says it is sufficient to say "I work for (company)" which makes sense, Asking for precise personal details about anyone is a violation of WP:OUTING as we all know. And if the WMF example is that straightforward, so the answer here should be. [59] " For example, before saving your edits to a Wikipedia article about your client, X, you may write this note in the edit summary box: "X has hired me to update their Wikipedia article" or "I work for X."" which clearly does not say that you need do more to identify what the exact COI might be.

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

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

What we are asking for is CorporateM to state who is paying him for the article Invisalign. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly identified the company as "Align Technology" in case you missed it. " have a conflict of interest with Invisalign in that I'll be working with Align Technology' and their PR agency to help improve the article " fully complies with the WMF FAQ statement - and was posted 9 January 2014. What more did you wish to have? Collect (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the PR firm was requested. I guess the question is is this one of the PR firms that has been banned from Wikipedia? And if so is them hiring CorporateM okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where the FAQ contradicts the Terms of Use, it's likely that the TOU applies, not the FAQ. The FAQs are really shitty, but the Terms of Use are pretty unambiguous in that you need to specify employer and client, not employer or client. WilyD 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

(EC)It really is irrelevant unless you want to try to change this part of the ToU in the specified manner (e.g. notify WMF first that you are trying to modify the ToU). The ToU exist and trump all other policies, and we can only try to change them in a very specific manner (e.g. not here). I don't believe that the ToU contradict our policy on Outing (it's voluntary whether to be a paid editor after all, the ToU only state a few minimum requirements of what you have to do if you want to be a paid editor). But if the Outing policy and the ToU did contradict each other, the Outing policy would have to change.

Taken out of context, it might seem that the ToU causes some strange situations involving other rules. But I believe that the ToU are a rock. They stop some things head-on. They also might get in the way of doing certain things, but can be avoided with a bit of contortion. If the contortion seems bizarre, that is not the fault of the ToU, it is the fault of the contortionist. If people fail to follow our rules, that is not a reason to revoke the rules.

CorporateM now has a choice. He can follow the advice overwhelmingly given here, or he can stop paid editing, or he might even be able to go to WMF legal and request a waiver. (I do believe that the WMF has the power to give such a waiver, or at least to ignore what they consider petty violations of the ToU; but I don't think they would give a waiver in this case). Going to WMF legal works both ways of course. Any editor could go to WMF legal and request that the ToU be enforced in this case, which likely would result in CorpM backing down, or even being banned. I won't make such a request, but there's nothing we can do to stop somebody else from doing it. It's CorpM's choice. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do think that everybody would prefer that we take care of it ourselves. And we do have the power to enforce the WP:TOU since they are Wikipedia policy. Of course the WMF also has the power to enforce the ToU. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we do not have the power to introduce an exemption, and that is what CorporateM is asking for. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Full disclosure is required. According to the terms of use, this includes naming "employer, client, and affiliation". In the case at hand, the terms of use require CorporateM to disclose his employer (the PR firm in question), the client (which hired the PR firm), and his affiliation (as a paid editor). All three are required. The focus on "outing" is really misguided here. "Outing", in Wikipedia-speak, refers to the involuntary posting of personal information. In this case, it is completely voluntary for CorporateM to act as a paid editor. He can choose not to do so, in which case no personal information is required. Equating his ethical responsibility to disclose his employer with involuntary "outing" is just ridiculous.

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

Questionable editing by CorporateM

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

WRT canvassing

• Aug 8 5:33 CorporateM asks a single editor for "help" on a RfC I replied that while it is okay to notify an entire project, notifying a single editor is not kosher
• Aug 14 22:40 they did the same thing. They requested a single editor help them out and provided that editor with their prefered version of the article.

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

• 04:12 Aug 15 CorporateM tags the most recent systematic review we were aware of and tagging the conclusions of the best available research as undue.
• On Aug 15 16:39 I removed these tags as they appear to be an attempt to denigrate the best available literature. While there are newer reviews, commented on, these are not systematic reviews.
• I questioned these tags on the talk page Aug 15, 16:42 [60] to which Corprate replied at 17:55 stating these tags were "annotation"
• Aug 15, 17:56 they tagged the review again
• Aug 15, 18:20 I removed these tags again and commented further on talk [61] All they needed to do was provide a newer systematic review.
• Instead on Aug 15, 18:26 they re added the tags and stopped responded on talk.

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

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

• Re: canvassing accusations. I replied on my talk page: "CorporateM works by asking editors to review and approve content he's suggested / written, so that he doesn't violate COI policies adding potentially promotional or problematic content by himself. I've reviewed many of his contributions these past years, and he has taken to directly asking me if the requested edits template is taking a long time (several months) or if something requires more than adding a single sentence. I don't find this canvassing, but rather asking for help to do something which our policies suggest he'd best avoid doing himself."

I read and review things he has requested I look at as a neutral party, and my previous interactions with him allow WP:APPNOTE exceptions ("On the user talk pages of concerned editors. ... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"; i.e. his possible COI areas). He asked me to write neutral content for the article ("I know it's a big ask, but I thought if you had some time to spend doing this last leg of the article, it would be a huge help to all parties involved.") similar to what I had done on a previous situation. That is all. It's not canvassing.

I refused to write said content not because of his COI (in fact, I didn't notice the link to User:CorporateM/Invisalign until now), but because I am uncomfortable writing about medical issues. I firmly believe that if editors interested in the article discuss things, they can work everything out. I have no comment on the appropriateness of reversions, on either side. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at the edit-warring board. The article said "As of 2005," whereas there were sources on the Talk page to say "As of 2014". I tagged "As of 2005" with a "needs updating" and mentioned on Talk that there were several sources that could be used to update this to "As of 2014". I'm sorry that I reverted, but I was very frustrated by Doc's extensive efforts to prevent me from even being able to communicate such a trivial issue and prevent any contributions from me that would alter the version he wrote.

Just to be clear nobody is contesting that the last systematic review was "inconclusive", but Doc's contributions make it sound like an alt-med article. A professional in a related field verified that dentists require a lower barrier of evidence than real medicine and the sources do say that Invisalign is proven effective for certain types of cases, but is less effective than braces in some other cases. Also, that review is ten years old. This is a product that relies heavily on computer technology and ten years ago people were using floppy drives still. I don't think it should be the only thing in the lead to summarize the entire body of medical literature.

There are literally only three MEDRS sources published in the last five years, per WP:MEDDATE.^[1][2][3] If anyone wants to get involved in the article itself, I'd really encourage you to take a look at those sources. Since there are literally just three sources, it wouldn't be hard to just read three articles, add their contents to the article and get a sense of what's representative of all three. CorporateM (Talk) 16:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are stating that dentistry does not need to follow "evidence based" science? That when a systematic review concludes that there is no high quality evidence to support something, because that something is dentistry it is no longer significant and we should just include what "expert opinion" has claimed?

Alt med practitioners have also argued that they should not be held to evidence based standards but I disagree with you that the majority of dental practitioners would make this request for their profession. Some dental measures are supported by the highest quality evidence such as powered toothbrushes.[62] Stating when a measure does not have high level support is something we do equally for medical, dental and alt med topics. Just because something does not have high level support does not mean that we should not do it. But we should at least know it does not have high level evidence supporting it when we do.

Corporate is attempting to misuse WP:MEDDATE. In a poorly research areas such as this we still include older high quality sources. We specifically say "A newer source which is of lower quality does not necessarily supersede an older source of higher quality."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if someone compares the recent medical literature to the article they would find that the article needs further expansion to meet GA requirements for comprehension and is unfair. I want to encourage people to actually read the sources and make bold edits. We need more editors to get involved in the article in a sustained and in-depth manner. I don't oppose the inclusion of the 2005 item, which is mentioned in current medical literature from 2014 (hence "As of 2014" rather than "As of 2005"). I disagree with it being the only thing included to the exclusion of all else. I don't think the sources require a medical professional to interpret. CorporateM (Talk) 16:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

He has a very strong opinion about paid editing and most of his editing on this page appears to be driven by that. Again, I want to encourage folks to read the sources and edit boldly! There is so much emphasis on wanting to prove that paid editing is bad or this myth that I'm trying to censor the 2005 item. I want to encourage editors as strongly as I possibly could to just read the sources. Please read the sources! Read them! Please!

Edit boldly, add their information objectively and completely. Then from your opinion after reading the sources for yourself. This shouldn't be a competition for whos reputation is better than the other. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before this recent interaction I did not really have an opinion on disclosed paid editing. Your attempts to dissuade me from editing the article are not appreciated.[63]

That you state that "most of his editing on this page appears to be driven" by his position on paid editing is bollocks. In my initially edits I added a Cochrane review that was missing. I added the most recent systematic review at that time. I added a 2014 review of the literature. At the same time I removed a bunch of primary sources. This is what I do on thousands of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference all the MEDRS sources published in the last five years are here:

• Y, Yu; Al., Et (November 9, 2012). "Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment. - PubMed". NCBI. Retrieved August 10, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Malik, Ovals; McMullin, Allbhe; Waring, David (April 2013). "Invisible Orthodontics Part 1: Invisalign" (PDF). Dental Update. PMID 23767109.
• Kuncio, DA (March 2014). "Invisalign: current guidelines for effective treatment" (PDF). The New York state dental journal. 80 (2): 11–4. PMID 24851387.

I can also provide some older ones, if you feel there is not enough current medical literature and we need to dig older. CorporateM (Talk) 17:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CM, you're representing yourself here as the only neutral person, when the opposite is true. There are competence issues – understanding certain terms, how to read medical papers, how to use MEDRS, etc. Doc James is trying to make sure the article reflects the high-quality sources. Sarah ^(talk) 17:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just do not get it. I mentioned a new systematic review that come out in 2014 above and yet CorporateM still claims their are only three reviews? The have ignored my explanation of the difference between a literature review and a systematic review. I have brought up his misuse of WP:MEDDATE which others commented on here and yet they continue just as before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaving aside the issues of sourcing, I'm shocked by the spectacle of CorporateM repeatedly reverting Doc James on an article where CorporateM has a financial conflict of interest. According to our guidelines, he should not be editing the article at all, much less revert-warring with an unpaid volunteer. I would have blocked CorporateM if I had seen this happening in real time, and for the avoidance of doubt, I will block him the next time I see something like this happen. It's completely unacceptable. MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation for "should not be editing the article at all", please. Even WP:NOPAY says "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral", not "you are forbidden from ...". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three of these sources are currently used in the article and nobody has contested their MEDRS compliance. Though someone reading them may have to look up a term or two, they are easy to understand. @MastCell: Please accept my apologies for edit-warring. I was very frustrated by the situation. I will not do it again. It was my understanding that the benefit of COI compliance was AGF, which I did not receive. CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have long had the same concern as Doc James about CorporateM's practice of asking individual editors to review proposed edits. The way this goes is, a request is made, and sometimes an editor decides to implement the proposed edit -- and sometimes the editor decides not to implement the proposed edit. The result is that if CorporateM asks enough editors, eventually he finds someone willing to implement the proposed edit. This business of asking for favours really needs to stop. Form consensus via discussion on the article talk page, and if consensus is present then CorporateM can use the request-edit template. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Another issue that has concerned me is mixing volunteer and paid roles. I've seen CM begin work on an article as a volunteer, make edits of interest to the subject (reverting their COI edits or making edits that they like), then come into contact with the subject off-wiki and start editing on their behalf for pay. This is a difficult practice to negotiate ethically. I would like to see CM not accept a paid role once he has worked on an article as a volunteer. Sarah ^(talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WMF's position

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

Response left on Philippe's talk page by Jacob Rogers. Probably not the answer you were hoping for, CorporateM. And sadly, I think the answer will result in more and more paid editors using socks and deceptive techniques. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jrogers (WMF) has confirmed that "the Terms of Use are pretty clear on this one. You need to disclose your 'employer, client, and affiliation.' If those three things are different (say you are employed by PR company X, your client is person Y, and you are affiliated with company Z) you would need to disclose all three." [64] Sarah ^(talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not buy the arguement that we should not require proper discloser because if we do people will simply sock. One could apply this sort of rational to all sorts of rules. For example why disallow socking when we have no mechanism to prevent it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say to ignore TOU (and clearly so), I said that increased socking is surely one of the outcomes, whether we like it or not, as it makes it more difficult to be a COI editor in a legitimate way. I'm no doctor, but I've gone 1500 SPI blocks behind me, including 300 in one case alone having to do with with paid editing. The reaction by those with power was enough to make me stop working the cases altogether. We can demand all we want, but it is foolish to pretend there is no negative consequences from the policy, just as it is foolish to think the Foundation really cares about COI socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Brown yes agree there is a concern of increased socking. And yes we do have a fair number of paid editors that use through away accounts to write promotional articles. Do we know how many legitimate COI editors we have? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is a template of some kind that they can use, or would use, so to be honest, I don't think we know how many declared paid editors we have with any precision. The same with socks. I'm conservatively guessing 20k accounts created, but that is probably too low by a mile. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this is the end of the line on this question. The community certainly can help enforce Wikipedia policies, and there is no question that WP:TOU are policy. Corp has gone over our heads on this (which is his right) and the answer has come back the same. It's time to invoke WP:PAYTALK and end this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to enforce this, so be it. But more problem is that if we create an environment where it is far more favourable to engage in covert paid editing than it is to try to work within the ToU, we create a situation where we have no hope of ever managing paid editing. Prohibition on its own doesn't work. Control should have been the target. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Control-rather-than-prohibition is the point of the disclosure requirement (at least to my interpretation): we can't stop you from paid editing, and we're not necessarily seeking to ban paid editing, but if you're going to edit for pay, we require you provide us with enough information to neutrally evaluate your paid edits when you make them. If you follow this requirement, your company can send (competent) paid editors to your article and know they're not doing anything wrong. If you don't follow this requirement, your employee will find themselves blocked and you will find yourself with PR disaster on your hands. There's very little potential loss in disclosing a paid editing COI - sure, your edits might get reverted if they're bad quality, but they're just about as likely to be reverted anyway if you fly under the radar, because our patrollers are like that - and a lot of potential loss in being caught not disclosing one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should absolutely be that way. But no one has adequately explained why the identity of the PR Firm acting as a go-between is relevant, when the fact that the subject is paying the editor for their work is fully and explicitly acknowledged. That is the disclosure that seems most important, and it does not appear to have been lacking here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know if it's irrelevant, if we don't know what the other company/s involved in this is/are? We can't fully evaluate the content he (or any paid editor) is working on to see whether it's neutral with regard to the people paying him to do it if we don't know who the people paying him to do it are. Quite possibly it's irrelevant in this case and nothing CM has done has anything to do with, let's call it Jane Doe, Inc. who's the connection between places like Invisilign and him. But until we have that disclosure, we simply have no way to know if that's the case or not, so we need paid editors to disclose these connections so we're able to identify the cases where it does turn out to be relevant. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution

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

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

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

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

• I'd like you to be explicit about what you considering disclosing "more" to mean. "More" isn't really the word I would have picked here so much as "everything the ToU require me to disclose", since "more" implies "more than before...but maybe not all". Your agreements with your clients are your business, and you can word it to them however you like, but I would also point out that we're asking you to disclose the names of companies, not, like, stockholders' home addresses. If you work for "Joe RealName, Inc.", then yeah, I guess that technically requires disclosing their personal information, but generally we're looking for "I work for XYZ PR Agency, on behalf of MegaCorp Y", not "here's my bloodtype and mother's maiden name." And again, the agreement here is that if you wish to be given extra trust by the community and allowed to profit off of its work, then you are required to make those disclosures. If you don't wish to profit off the projects, then you're free to be 100% as anonymous as you wish to be. Similarly, companies that sponsor paid editors must decide whether it's more important to them to tweak content to their liking and have disclosed paid editing associated with their articles, or to stay hands-off with content and remain unassociated with Wikipedia editors. Both are ok, but it's their choice they will need to make. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused about these references to outing. Align Technology, which makes Invisalign, is a large company. It employs a PR firm. That firm has hired you to rewrite the article. This is business, and you're a PR professional who has written off-wiki about your paid work on Wikipedia. Why would naming the PR firms that pay you entail outing someone? Sarah ^(talk) 18:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the PR firm is just a single person. Given the contentious nature of the discussion, I believe there is a high probability of her being harassed/trolled off-wiki if disclosed. The whole "big company" thing is a big misnomer. I am also just a single person that does paid editing part-time. I'm a real human being and so is she. CorporateM (Talk) 19:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the statement of the obvious, but why can someone who wants to know the PR firm not find out for themselves? It took me all of fifteen seconds on Google to find out who the PR firm in question is. I don't understand the need for secrecy here. ‑ iridescent 19:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM, if someone has set up a one-person PR agency and called it "John Smith Ltd," that was their choice. There's no evidence that supplying the firm's name would lead to harassment, and disclosure has been required for over a year. Also, you're writing as though you're a Wikipedian who does some occasional paid work, but you're a PR professional and have always been here as a paid editor. If some of the firms who hire you prefer not to be named, the solution is not to take the work from those companies. Sarah ^(talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's no evidence of that. Evaluating the claim would require disclosing the name of the firm, which is precisely what they are trying to avoid - because that would OUT at least the editor and the firm's principal. And, quite frankly, given some of the comments here? No, I don't think that off-wiki harassment is an unreasonable thing to fear. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what is being claimed here. Some of the PR firms that Invisalign has worked with can be found on Google. They are established companies. CM naming the PR firm that hired him is not going to out CM. Sarah ^(talk) 20:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know? As per below, the company name might be enough to do it. But even if not, it's trivial in many countries to determine who a company's principals are, directors or shareholders or President or whoever. And just like that, his real name and address will show up on some BADSITE and he's outed. It might not be enough of a concern to warrant changes to the Terms of Use, or to policy in other ways, but to say it's not a concern is laughable and offensive. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this misses the point. If his top priority is to avoid being "outed", then he shouldn't be accepting paid editing jobs. If someone is willing to cash a PR agency's check to edit here, then they should be willing to disclose the name of that PR agency. You can't edit for pay and then stand on anonymity to avoid meeting the disclosure requirements. That's a perversion of this site's commitment to anonymity, which was never intended to protect undisclosed paid editing by PR employees. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was being dense. I saw an editor who disclosed that there was a conflict and seemed, largely, to be doing things the right way (relying on talk ages, etc). I don't get why the name of the PR firm matters at all - the conflict of interest is the subject's, not the go-between. This editor accepted the work and made a good faith effort to comply with their understanding of policy - an understanding that seems to have been flawed, if the consensus here is as clear as it seems. If we intend to require paid editors to reveal their true identities, and thus open themselves up to all of the off-site harassment that our esteemed community is famous for, then we need to be clear about that. Or just ban paid editing, which will not actually end it but just relegate it to editors who can sock effectively, who can be subtle about their edits and avoid suspicion, and who can keep their fucking mouths shut. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per "so much resistance to using anonymous data like device IDs, IP addresses and analytics to expose sock networks due to privacy concerns" I was not aware there was that much resistance to this. Is this not what checkusers do? Our primary goal here is to write a neutral encyclopdia. We must balance privacy against information required to effectively write said encyclopdia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Disclose more" is not specific. The Terms of Use are clear on what you are required to disclose. Either agree that you will disclose that - specifically that, not "more than you currently do" - or this is not a proposed solution. Let me be clear, here; anything other than what the ToU requires is an exemption to the ToU. The community is not qualified nor permitted to grant you that exception. If "more" violates the ToU it's against reason and isn't satisfactory. Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ CorporateM. When one finds one is trying to swim up hill against a down flowing river of thick (and well thought out) treacle – it could mean, that one is attempting to perform one's PR on the wrong sort of blog. Wikipedia articles - are not the drones you are looking for advertorials.--Aspro (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

CorporateM, just to be clear, no one has requested real names. The requirement is that you disclose the name of the PR company that hired you and its client. That will usually be Acme PR and the name of the company the article is about. It will only be in less common cases where no companies are involved that a real name might be exposed, but if you make this clear to the client in advance, it shouldn't be a problem. Sarah ^(talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how a voluntary topic ban from a single article solves the problem, endorsed by the community and confirmed by the WMF, that you have to fully disclose the name of the PR firm as well as the company. You've already edited the article on their behalf, so how does an ex post facto ban fulfill these requirements? Plus, I'm not sure that you're taking on board that you must disclose the information all the time, for every article you are paid to write or edit. Finally, I believe that what you're asking for is essentially an exemption, and the WMF has clearly stated above that we, the community, cannot give you an exemption, only they can. Given all this, I do not see how your suggestion can conceivably be tenable. BMK (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that CorporateM seems to have gotten a takeaway from this conversation that's very different than what (I think) people were actually saying. He's edited his userpage to say "In August 2015, there was consensus at ANI that Wikipedia's Terms of Use prohibit a sponsored editor from contributing anonymously and I was required to disclose personally identifiable information.". That's...not what this discussion, or the WMF, have concluded. A paid editor needn't disclose their name or other such "personally identifiable information"; what they're required to do is disclose who's paying for the edits they're making, all along the line. I'm actually concerned now that, because CM is so active in paid editing-related discussions, new paid editors are going to look him up, read his interpretation of this discussion on his userpage, and think that they do need to disclose their name, address, or whatever. As an oversighter, I'd rather not have to clean up after that mess. CorporateM, would you please consider re-wording what you've added to your userpage today to make it clear that editors are not required to disclose their own personal details, but rather the "corporate" details of those paying for the edits? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only way that CorporateM's userpage statement can be made to jibe with this discussion is if the one-man PR operation he is attempting very strenuously not to disclose the name of is his own, and bears his name - thus disclosing it would be outing himself. If that is so, then it was exceedingly stupid of him to name his agency after himself, but that deed is sone, and the name needs to be disclosed nevertheless, per WMF, TOU, and the consensus of this discussion. BMK (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you think the company would need to be named after CorporateM. In a number of countries open record laws mean it's often possible to find out who's a shareholder or director of even small businesses. It's sometimes possible to use various mechanisms to try and set up a company with no public connection to you, even in such countries, but while some people may have good reasons for doing so, more commonly it's actually a sign the person is up to no good, so the lack of such isn't particularly surprising. Even without the use of public records, it's fairly common for someone to disclose they are the owner of a certain business in circumstances where it's expected (like when they're looking for clients). And again, companies which don't do so will often be viewed suspiciously. Now the info which may completely out CorporateM wouldn't be on wikipedia, so anyone mentioning it here should be blocked for outing, but it's not clear CorporateM was referring to that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, CM has said that there are three companies involved in this: Align Technology, which makes Invisalign; a PR firm hired by Align Technology, which CM says is a one-woman operation; and CM's PR firm. He says that his own PR firm was hired by the one-woman company, but he won't name it, so we don't know who paid CM to have Invisalign rewritten or why they wanted the rewrite. The question now is what to do with the article. Sarah ^(talk) 17:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So that CorporateM doesn’t lead unpaid WP editors into becoming unpaid PR consultants for his client, we should just delete all his edits and let him start a fresh. He created this issue. As a self proclaimed professional, he should at least familiarised himself with our T&C first and not leave us with the problem of sorting it out for him. --Aspro (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be far safer to delete every article he has ever edited. Best to be sure. Don't forget the siteban. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely opposedto nuking-from-orbit-type suggestions. Although there have been some specific problems mentioned about specific edits on specific articles, I don't believe that the consensus here is for anything as extreme as deleting all of CM's edits, or for site banning him. Just the opposite, in fact, I see a lot of people talking about the good CM has done for the encyclopedia in his non-paid edits, and, in general, about the quality of his paid editing, especially compared to the dreck we get from some PR reps. So radical solutions wouldn't seem to be the answer. However, CM still must follow the terms of use, and if he refuses to do so, an indef block (which I presume would come from WMF, since it's their rule) would be appropriate until he agrees to do so.
  What I am confused by (once again) is why CM's response to this brouhaha was (at least as of this morning when I read his userpage) to out his RL name (which makes it child's play to find his personal PR website) and withdraw from voluntary (i.e. non-paid) editing of the encyclopedia, since this "solution" has solved nothing. If CM continues to get paid for editing he's going to have top disclose all the company names involved, and since he has (in effect) outed his own company name, and the name of the one-woman PR firm takes mere minutes to find online (so one wonders why he was so adamant about protecting it, and his userpage statement seems to be saying that he was protecting the name of his own firm), so what CM has done doesn't appear to me to be a step forward at all -- or else I'm totally misunderstanding what his intention is. BMK (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond My Ken, the only firm I'm aware of that has done PR for Align Technology is Gold PR, but that's not a one-woman company. [65] Sarah ^(talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Slim Virgin look at this page or this or this or this or a number of other pages and you'll see Ethos Commnications Inc. of Duluth, Georgia. BMK (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well his website is linked from his userpage, so it's not like you have to search to find it. Reading his userpage more carefully, unless I misunderstood, the reason why he doesn't want to continue voluntary editing on certain pages (not the entire encyclopaedia) is because he feels without the protection of anonymity, he risks too much effect on his real life from his voluntary efforts. (And once he disclosed the company name, the nature of the company meant his real name would be known, so there was little point hiding it.) So from his POV, it does solve something, it removes the, in his opinion, excessive risk he'll be harmed solely due to voluntary efforts. He may still have some degree of risk due to his paid work, I presume he's willing to accept that risk as an expected part of his job. Similarly, the risk for other areas is I presume in his opinion low enough that he's willing to accept it. As for his failure to disclose the PR firm/s who hired him on behalf of other companies in the past, I do agree it's up to the WMF to decide whether they want to ban him for it. Perhaps they will, perhaps they'll feel given the apparent misunderstanding of the requirement, according to him partially a result of some previous communication with the WMF, and his existing partial disclosure, they'll let it be provided he practices full disclosure from now on. If they chose the later, and the community here accepts that, then it seems we have a solution, perhaps not a happy one for many, but sufficient. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CorporateM, I appreciate that you are a good guy trying to do the right thing. So was Greg Kohs, but that's another story for another day. What the TOU seeks is transparency with respect to paid editing. So, yeah, who are you, who is she, and let uninvolved editors (who are not assholes trying to drum paid editing out of existence — take a number if this applies to you) review your work dispassionately to make sure that no spam has been committed. Does it increase risk of reprisal by said assholes? Yes, sadly — let us deal with them if problems arise. But the rules are very simple: disclose fully, openly, honestly. best, —Tim Davenport, 5010 NW Shasta, Corvallis, OR 97330 /// 541-745-7862 //// Carrite (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is we actually have really little ability to actual deal with them. We aren't some sort of criminal gang in a lawless country who can kill anyone who does something we don't like. All we can really do is ban the stuff from here (which doesn't help when it's elsewhere), offer legal support (which doesn't negate most of the negative effects on your life whatever it is has) and express sympathy (see earlier). Different people may have different tolerances and perceptions of these risks. It seems CorporateM is willing to disclose the info, albeit with reductions in voluntary work given their perception of the risks that come from such work without anonymity. However they're still reluctant to disclose the PR firms that hired them to work on behalf of the disclosed companies. I presume this is because they're reluctant to expose these people to the possible risks of such disclosures (which frankly we have even less ability to affect), when then weren't made aware that this would be happening when they initially hired CorporateM's firm (unlike future firms who will be made aware). If this doesn't change, the WMF should decide if this is acceptable. I think most of us agree that CM and any firms hiring him should have paid more attention to the TOS, but that still leaves open the question of what to do now. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, if there's any way we could become a lawless gang who can kill anyone who does something we don't like, I'd be all for that‍—‌with appropriate policies and guidelines in place, of course. EEng (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 76.65.166.158 (talk · contribs)

Sorry to bring this here, but a spate of misleading edit summaries always raises a flag for me. Would someone more familiar with pop music categories like to take a look at these edits? I'm not buying them, but don't feel comfortable reverting a few dozen on anything more than my gut. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like this user may have been down this road before: [66]. And here [67], so I guess this is a 'thing'.2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at WP:AIV. General Ization ^Talk 03:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that those are Canned edit summaries -- they're one of the default values for the mobile app (you could consider it similar to leaving a blank summary). Doesn't mean that their edits aren't an issue, though. (not an admin) --Pokechu22 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, Pokechu22; I didn't know that, but it makes sense now. And thanks, General Ization; I was hesitant to bring it to AIV. Unless the edits are blatant vandalism, some admins will recommend to file here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime I see an IP editor using that edit summary I revert it without question. I've not been wrong so far. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: if such reverts are standard procedure, could they be done by a bot? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine a bot request ever being approved, as some tree-hugger will find one in every 1,000 edits of that nature to be good. It doesn't happen a great deal TBH. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am one such tree-hugger. My findings are pretty much the same as Lugnuts' though. Edits from IPs and new accounts using these canned edit summaries are very, very often edits that need to be reverted. Not always necessarily vandalism, but often genre warring, adding pointless trivia, commenting on the subject of the article within the article, just generally unconstructive stuff. There's even a "canned edit summary" tag in recent changes - it almost always shows up alongside "mobile edit, mobile web edit". But assume good faith, y'all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I go down the Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper route - "I would sooner accept a few casualties through accidents rather losing the entire base and its personnel through carelessness". Not that I'm some sort of psychotic eager to start a nuclear war. Well, not yet. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur, such reverts are not standard procedure. Lugnuts simply gave a personal view. AIUI, users on mobile devices get a dropdown menu of ready-made edit summaries. As for the edits reported above, from a brief look it was spot on to revert those. In contrast, casual reversion of good-faith edits based on actual or perceived aspects of contributors rather than content is very harmful to the project; in pervasive cases doing so leads to restrictions or blocks. Basically, judge edits on their own merits and you'll be fine. –80.229.177.245 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope I will indeed be fine! Thank you, IP editor 80.229.177.245. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bingonzaga , who has a COI regarding Parents for Education ("On behalf of PARED Foundation..."),[68] has been repeatedly blanking that page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reverted the blanking and left a warning on the user's talk page. If they continue, they can always be reported to WP:AIV. ~ Rob^Talk 05:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:JJMC89 had previously warned this user about blanking, I warned this user previously about WP:COI. See also this comment at the help desk. DES ^(talk) 12:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is a behavior I have never seen before; adding an AfD notice pointing to a nonexistent Afd page.[69] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never seen that before? You haven't lived! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    
    • Delicate flower that I am, I lead a sheltered life... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nikmand (talk · contribs)
• Another sleeper account. Last activity 28 December 2013, but suddenly activated this account on 18 August 2015. He came to my talk page and wrote these personal attacks, racist comments and harassment diff1, diff2.
• He trolled Talk:Persian peoples, See his last sentence on this diff3. Obvious racist and hate speech. Then he replaced it with a forum-like comment diff4.
• The guys is not here to contribute. See his disruptive actions on Mahabad. He did them to only pass auto-confirmed user right: [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81].
• He's a sock puppet/alternative account of previous blocked users because of their disruptive actions on Persian people. He has a lot of sleeper and stale accounts. I submitted a SPI case, but it was closed without investigation. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iranmehr27.
• I want admins to find a solution to deal with this guy. He ruined both Persian people and Talk:Persian peoples since 2013–2014, a long-term abuse. --Zyma (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, this edit and the last paragraph of this edit clearly show that the editor is WP:NOTHERE for building an encyclopaedia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I should add that if User:Iranmehr2015 and User:Nikmand are not the same person, they're doing an excellent job of giving the impression that they are. Both accounts have vehemently pushed the same POV on Talk:Persian people, and both have engaged in the same unusual practice of filling in their user pages with a single letter "a" (see here and here). I think it passes the WP:DUCK test, but I'm happy to let another unrelated admin review before taking any action. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sure he's a WP:GHBH-type editor ("Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts). If it's possible to check his IP-range, I want admins find his alternative accounts or related accounts. Because I guess he uses those trollish and disruptive accounts to attack and POV-pushing, so blocking does not affect his "clean and good" account(s). It's possible he's related to some other editors who are involved in editing of Persian people. --Zyma (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm hesitant to offer the benefit of the doubt to accounts that have made comments like this individual has, there isn't any overlap between when the three accounts were used, so I'm not certain that there's an attempt to deceive. Someone not familiar with our practices might serially register accounts rather than recovering a lost password without realising that looks pretty suspicious to regulars here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• I've reverted his edits to the talk page due to their nature. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is a sock targeting the page right now. Cantoun1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note I have blocked Kamzad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring and outright vandalism as seen here. Not sure if the account is related or there's an SPI active, but it sure looks like quacking to me, so perhaps an indef as sock once more information is available would be appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If these sleepers have been lying dormant for over three years, like User:Kamzad was, then a checkuser isn't going to be of much help in flushing out any other ones that might be lying about, unfortunately. I wonder whether lodging an SPI request just so that this is noted in the records might be a good idea though? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Looking at this editor's few contributions, I think it is clear that ChahatKi (talk · contribs) is more interested in pushing points of view than contributing collegially to the encyclopedia, but I would request another few sets of eyes. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples include [82], [83], [84]. -- Avi (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction alert given. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, C.Fred. I consider myself an involved admin as respects ARBPIA, thus I wanted other sets of eyes. -- Avi (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there
I am trying to get clarification on edits I have made that user KH-1 has undone. These edits have included grammar edits, edits to company infomation, and adding a link that cites the info I was adding. It seems this user feels because I am a newer user I am clueless to the subject I am editing. Here are a few examples...

This edit is not me but its a good place to start. This user is posting links that are directly relevant to the article. [91]
In this instance I corrected the name of the company and added additional info about the company and it was undone. [92]
Here I added a reference to a website that had company documents that showed a timeline of the company during the period I edited.I did this to back up the info that I was editing. His reason is this is spam. I thought the idea of this was to be able to verify the info being submitted? [93]

On another article I get much of the same [94]

And another article [95]. On this one I did simple grammar edits. An example would be "this company" to "This company" . I also added a few weblinks that included one for the actual company in the article instead of the weblink to a website list that has the company's name and address. I also added a new manufacture to the "UK" section of the page. Again not spam but a link to a company that produces a kit car (The article is about kit cars) I have to question how that website kitcarlist.com can be referenced multiple times in the kit car article and not be considered spam but the companies own website cant be used instead. The same would go with me citing the priceofhistoys website that contained the timeline and company documents I linked above.

I tried to get in touch with the user to get clarification but I had no luck. I have been a kit car enthusiast/historian for the better part of 25 years. Any edits I have done have been to add value to the article and based on verifiable information. Not to raise spam flags of any kind.

I just want to get some clarification and perhaps resolution to this
Thanks Kitcarguy (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kitcarguy Looks like what you were adding in wasn't reliable (i.e yahoo groups, forums...etc..) Also, I note your username is very close to a website you're adding in, and this might be a COI. If you want your additions to stay, you'll need a reliable source to back them up , take a look at this as it will explain what a reliable source in on Wikipedia. In addition, it looks like KH-1 should be assuming good faith with you, his first and so far only message on your user page was a final warning, that's a bit much without anything else to back it up. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon The first edits I posted were not from me. That was just an example. Yes it did appear to be yahoo groups and such. But at the same time these groups are full of owners, builders, and more information than can be crammed into an article. I did have a look at the reliable sources link and I thank you for that. If you do not mind I would like to toss an example at you or anyone who may be reading

On the page [96] under "United States" My edit was undone. The edit was to remove the referenced page kitcarlist.com from "Acme Car Company" and replace is with the companies own website at acmecarco.com . In that same section Aldino Car Company is referenced to kitcarlist.com when they to have their own website. How is this not spam but is considered reliable info? The person who created a list that shows kit car manufacturers, and has this disclaimer on their submit page "If you do not wish to link to us, we will still post your company... We would prefer to continue to give you free advertising, but if you prefer not to link to us, all we ask is that you pay $19.99 per month for your advertising with us:" or the company that produces the product?

I also understand that "Blogs" may or may not be used as a reliable source. At the same time just going by what is said about reliable sources that can be tricky. For example I would not consider "E! News any more reliable than perez hilton, KBB any more reliable than jalopnik, and so on. Same goes with forums. Funny thing is I was going to remove a forum link from one of the articles I was editing, but I left it because it did have a lot of info about the topic at hand.

Should I change my username, or stop attempting to edit anything in regards to kit cars? I have 25+ years in the field and know it well. I can certainly write about gardening, mowing the lawn, or even physics...lol You get what I am saying. Im not trying to be a smart ass. And I was not even going to bring up the fact that he was immediate in his Final warning, banning me, yada yada, immediately. Seems like a bit of a little man complex but hey whatever. Its the internet everyone is a bad ass ..hahaha

Thanks for your help and I look forward to more insight from people who can help me be a better user and avoid this sort of frustration.
Thanks Kitcarguy (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kitcarguy Did you mean | this edit. Not sure why he did that, but your edit seems correct, the comment about your name is that it's very close to Kitcarlist.com. (I admit when I read that diff the first time, I thought it was you that inserted kitcarlist.com, that's why I made the comment about your name. And no, you don't have to change it, (I'm not a sysop or anything, so no, I can't make you do that). As far as blogs go, they're not reliable , except on what that blog writer thinks, that's it. Anything else needs to have reliable sources on it. I'm sure others will chime in here and offer more advice as well. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlonYes that was one of the edits. Simple grammar was undone? LOL Now to his defense I did ad a link to a kit car company but that was only because it was in the "Examples of UK Kit Car" Section . I live in the US and that was a new kit car company in the UK and felt it should be there. I changed a car company to reflect the website of the company instead of kitcarlist.com (which I do not own) and it was undone. Is there a reason you can think of that kitcarlist.com (a personal webpage) should be the reference to a company that has a valid website? Only one I can but hey whatever. I also referenced http://priceofhistoys.com/history-of-fiberfab/ in another edit . It is a blog but it had the history of the company, and even supporting documents that were from a former company owner. I will admit I do own priceofhistoys.com but again I only added it to the article because it contained this . http://priceofhistoys.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Fiberfab-History-842x1024.jpg . I figured if you would be citing something original company docs are hard to dispute.I know now that something from the company and provided by the former company of the owner is not considered reliable because it is on a blog.

I went back today and corrected grammar again in the article. I guess I will see if it sticks this time. What should be done about the links to kitcarlist.com ? The user seems hellbent on keeping them right as they are. If any link I have posted is "spam" surely that link is not more reliable. Am I mistaken?
Thanks again for all your helpKitcarguy (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where are the diffs that show that he has "kept on doing it"? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have taken the liberty of letting Bbindu know that you have opened an ANI case against him (which it quite explicitly states you must do, in a big orange box at the top of the edit page). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skamecrazy123: All due respect, but you sent the ANI to the wrong editor. I clearly sent one to Bbundu, who keeps making disruptive edits. You sent one to Bbindu. Similar name, but the wrong guy. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I followed the first link in the paragraph you typed, it might have been a typo on your part that sent me there. Regardless, any diffs to back up your claims would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skamecrazy123: That was on me...I saw what I did - I hit i when I meant u. Easy to do since they're right next to each other on the keyboard. But Bbundu is the focus. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Uninvolved comment - I don't think this is an edit war per se, it looks to me like Vjmlhds is trying to enforce their preferred version using the revert button: [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]. That's six reverts today. None of the edits are vandalism, Vjmlhds just disagrees with them, but has made no effort at all to communicate with the new editor Bbundu other than condescending edit summaries and filling their talk page with warnings. Two notes: 1) Summerslam (2015) has recently come off full protection, and 2) Vjmlhds has just come off an indef for gross incivility. I think a WP:3RR block is well in order here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skamecrazy123: I didn't realize it got that far. But if you look at it, it just seems as though Bbundu was going tit for tat just for the sake of going tit for tat. I was just trying to add some details to the article, and Bbundu just seemed as though he reverted for the sake of reverting (his way or the highway). Vjmlhds (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I mentioned both of you in my missive. And I don't buy the whole "I didn't realise" thing. I am sure you are able to count up to three, and this went way beyond that. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skamecrazy123: Sometimes you just get caught up in things and you lose track...happens all the time in real life, and it can certainly happen in Wikipedia. I'll refrain from editing the article as a show of good faith and a willingness to tamp things down, but as I said earlier, it was Bbundu who seemed to be hot on my heels ready to pounce after I made an edit. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: As I said, ignorance is no excuse, especially not from a user that has been around since 2008 and, whilst your offer to refrain from editing the article is appreciated, it still doesn't change the fact that both of you have breached WP:3RR. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skamecrazy123: I'll make life easy on you...if you're willing to overlook this slip up, I'll impose my own embargo on the article until Monday. And if I go against my own word, feel free to drop whatever hammer on me you see fit. I slipped up and I'm willing to go on record as saying I'll self monitor (with oversight) so that it won't happen again...no need to make a drastic decision. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Skamecrazy123: Wait..if you're not an admin, what are you doing replying to an ANI? Shouldn't that be the job of an admin? I figured you were an admin the way you responded...I kinda feel as though you duped me into thinking you were something you weren't. If you're not an admin, don't present yourself as one. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds:First thing, scroll to the top of the page. In one of the blue boxes at the top, it states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.". Note, if you would, the experienced editor part and then feel free to strike through the drivel about me not commenting on ANI. Second, nowhere do I claim to be an admin (in fact, I have a user box on my page stating that I have no wish to be an admin), so feel free to strike through that drivel about me supposedly presenting myself as an admin. Third, I would be very careful about your above attitude given that you have not long been unblocked for incivility and some quite horrific personal attacks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Vjmlhds:Fair enough (although there is still the matter of you two breaching 3RR to deal with). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skamecrazy123: I'm already on record as saying I've washed my hands of the article, and won't touch it anymore. I can't, won't ,and don't care to speculate what Bbundu will do. I can only tell you where I sit, and as far as that article is concerned, I'm done. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vjmlhds: That still doesn't absolve you of your transgression, although a reviewing admin may, or may not, take them into account when deciding what to do. We shall see. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that at this point both editors would best be let off with a stern warning. As the adage goes, blocking is preventative not punitive and issuing blocks now would definitely be punitive. Blackmane (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackmane: Maybe for Bbundu, but given that majority of Vjmlhds previous blocks have been for edit warring, I really do think something stronger than a slap on the wrist is required, in my opinion. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

disruption at WOP articles. Now User:Ricky81682 continues his campaign of harassment by deleting Koto Okubo. It's been kept for years and she was one the world's oldest women for almost a month. I mean, this wasn't random, it was also 28 days as the oldest person in the world. We need a topic ban — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.75 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done so here. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. Her page should be speedy kept too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.75 (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I initially closed this discussion since the AfD was speedily kept...but then I realized that an IP tried to close the AfD. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a rangeblock is needed, 166.170.48.0/22 would be a good place to start. --MuZemike 04:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Background history can be found here. As usual, I'm called for a topic ban (at least not a desyop). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo was closed as merge in 2012 but it was fought repeatedly and so the new discussion is to re-doing the arguments in my view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will anyone agree to a topic ban? We had three editors in support with one verbal oppose and yet it was not not imposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.49.99 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went to take a look at the Matthew C. Whitaker article as an uninvolved editor. I looked it over, and given that the article is about Whitaker's plagiarism and not Whitaker himself, and furthermore does not explain why any of said plagiarism is actually notable, and further seems to be an object of editwarring for no reason, I decided to prod it, and then opened a discussion on the talk page in order to try to figure out what was going on - I would have had no problem unprodding if something useful had been accomplished.

Instead, I'm at ANI because User:E.M.Gregory has edited my signature on a prior comment and addressed me as the article subject. I'm not going to stand for that sort of accusation, period. This isn't a content problem, it's an editor with a serious behavioral issue. It seems that the user has edited tendentiously before aside from the editwarring on the Whitaker article. I'm not even an admin; there shouldn't be any reason for me to get stuck in multiple ANI threads a week. MSJapan (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sig back and left a comment there telling E.M.Gregory not to do that. Is any more action needed at this time? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, as I didn't want to touch it myself. As for further action, I'm not sure. I definitely think this needs to remain open pending any response from EMG on the matter either here or at the talk page.

For sure, EMG is preventing any changes to the article he doesn't like, and seeing everyone else being against his way, which is classic OWN (which he was warned about before elsewhere). The use of a BLP article to be about nothing but an event (or events) is really BLP1E, and I'd almost be inclined to call it an attack page, because there's nothing else in the article (nor will there be - the subject's research is nil, and there were issues with his appointment in the department in the first place). EMG's also showing no understanding of policy relating to academics. These seem to be deeper editing behaviors that go beyond simple content disagreement. So I'm mixed; this problem may or may not be solved, but there's a pattern not being addressed if it drops. MSJapan (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non admin comment) I dropped a warning on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given EMG's responses everywhere but here, I believe further action is warranted. EMG is claiming here on BlueMoonset's page and here on the Whitaker article talk that his actions were a mistake because "he was tired." BlueMoonset's not buying it, I don't either, and EMG is not taking responsibility for his actions - he's too concerned about SPAs adding "glowing biography" (which actually is sourced from the subject's official bio - I checked). He's also not considering NOTNEWS, hasn't addressed questions/comments from either myself or David Eppstein, and is clearly engaging in OWN and violating NPOV. MSJapan (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary needs attention. the sock problem in the Gamergate neighborhood continues to grow.MarkBernstein (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user:Rojomoke removed my question on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science and called it "opinions, predictions or debate" then how come questions like An evolutionary biologist that studies biological complexity or Natural Resources and the Environment be allowed? Dannis243 (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for the name of a specific scientist isn't asking for an opinion or speculation. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 12:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, it was not removed, it was "hatted" and collapsed - I was able to read it, and I've now unhatted it. I'd suggest you could have talked to Rojomoke or the reference desk talk page, and only posted here if those avenues were not helpful in resolving the issue. In the future, please be careful not to ask for prediction at the ref desk. In this case, I provided references that I think you may find helpful. This question would have caused no problems if phrased as such - "I have read that some people think that rare earth minerals, oil, etc. will become scarce in the future, preventing widespread use of computers etc. (ideally include a representative link). Where can I read more about this? Are there any WP articles that address this subject?" As long as you make it a point to ask for references (including newspapers, scholarly journals, textbooks, WP articles, etc), most any question is allowed, and I will usually defend the right of any user to ask for any references on the reference desk :) SemanticMantis (talk)

Reverts of edits are getting more aggressive each time from a party appearing to represent a reformed "The Babys." Their edits are clumsy and unencyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stedbeat (talk • contribs) 12:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed this personal attack posted by Samsamcat (talk · contribs), and issued them a final warning, which they immediately removed. On further checking, it turns out this isn't the first time they've received (nor subsequently removed), a "final" warning for personal attacks:

• Final personal attack warning from User:Black Kite (21 February 2014)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (21 February 2014)
• Final personal attack warning from User:Tiptoety (12 July 2014)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (12 July 2014)
• Personal attack warning from User:Mrschimpf (13 July 2014)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (13 July 2014)
• Personal attack warning from User:Winkelvi (3 March 2015)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (3 March 2015)
• Final personal attack warning from User:331dot (3 March 2015)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (3 March 2015)
• Final personal attack warning from me (20 August 2015)
• Samsamcat deletes warning (20 August 2015)

Even non-attack-related warnings get met with immediate removals, and sometimes replacement with personal attacks (e.g., [105] [106]). Attacking other editors seems to be a recurring problem with Samsamcat, and one for which they try to suppress evidence in an attempt to avoid any negative consequences for themselves. I don't think this should be allowed to continue. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this guy. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samsamcat/Archive and 207.34.115.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Propose banning this user. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have had enough warnings, I have indef the account for personal attacks. -- GB fan 13:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

You can't. The closest is requesting an account vanish, which is not guaranteed and pretty much only renames your account. If you don't care about your account name, you can just leave {{retired}} at the top of your user talk page, disable your email in your preferences, change your password to random gibberish, log out, and not log back in. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Belgians in France appears to have been created using text from the one source cited put through Google Translate. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German migration to France is also a partial copy, of Germans in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take my chances here. Would someone kindly warn Eladynnus (talk · contribs) for their systematic provocation, insults and character assassination stretching back 3 years? I first came across this editor 3 years ago on the Serer religion talk page] (and other Serer articles) where persistent insults, provocation and character assassinations by he and co. drove me out of the project. I will not waste your time or mine giving details about their historic behaviour all those years ago but if you want I will. The purpose of reporting this person is their recent attack on my talk page [107]. I gave them a warning on their talk page but they did not heed my warning and left another remark on my talk page.

I have not edited Wikipedia for 3 years since I retired from this project thanks to the systematic provocation, character assassination and insults by this editor and co. Because I created a portal before, I was asked to help create other portals which I hesitantly agreed to because I did not want to go through what these people put me through 3 years ago. This editor has not been active on Wikipedia since May 16 2015 [108] (see Talk:Gamergate controversy). I find it ironic that this editor's return coincided with my return and their second edit was on my talk page [109]. Would someone kindly deal with this individual? I would like to add that there is more to this. Therefore, I would respectfully ask that only non-involved Administrators part take in this issue. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I there I was unsure to yet again bring up the issue but recent events do not leave me with no any other choice – that’s if I still want to be able to edit Nichiren Buddhist related matters. Recently I filed a question at ANI if edits by Hijiri 88 on Kokuchūkai [110] might violate the current IBAN. In the course of events they were blocked form editing Wikipedia for 72h [111]. Much to my surprise they became active on the talk page on Soka Gakkai. Prior to the 72 block they were all of a sudden active on [112] and [113]. Since Nichiren related matters are the most prominent on my watch list of about 200 articles these edits did not slip my attention: [114], [115], [116], [117], [118]. Ever since the events that led up to the IBAN I reduced my activity within articles considerably (except the odd talk page). My prime activity within Wikipedia is on Nichiren Buddhist related matters, therefore I want to file this complaint on the basis of WP:HOUND and ask for a TBAN against Hijiri 88 on articles that fall within the category of Nichiren Buddhism. The field of my activity is fairly limited but the latest activities by Hijiri 88 do seem to be aimed against me as an editor. I would also like to extend the TBAN on the article on Nippon Kaigi as this is an article that I created and do want them to give editors grief who extended the article considerably. I would also like admins to have a look at the somewhat foul language used within notes accompanying some of the edits by the editor in question. I was warned by admins and editors that an IBAN might not bring about the desired effect, but I was not prepared to what lengths some editors might go. I await admins response as I find the latest incidents to be irritating to say the least.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for purposes of clarification, this seems to be a request for a topic-ban from Nichiren Buddhism related content and pages with an additional extension of the ban to the Nippon Kaigi page? John Carter (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

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

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

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