Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948

Inez Jasper

In December, our article about Inez Jasper — a Canadian musician who clears WP:NMUSIC #8 as a two-time Juno Award nominee — was speedy deleted under criterion G5 because it was determined to have been created by a user who was evading a prior editblock. Accordingly, I reposted a new version earlier today, rewriting the whole thing as substantially as possible — quite literally the only things I left the same as the original version were standard Wikipedia templates (i.e. the infobox and the discography list) and unchangeable facts like her name, her birthdate and her album titles themselves. I rewrote and reorganized every last bit of the substance that could possibly be changed, and added several pieces of new information and new sourcing that weren't present in the original version at all, so that the only similarities left were the unavoidable things like not giving her albums imaginary alternate-timeline titles — yet even that version was speedied within minutes as a "paraphrase" of the original article.

The issue is that the substance of what there is to say about her is going to be the same as the original article regardless of how one does or doesn't phrase those facts — so if even completely rewriting every last word of the article's content (aside from the unavoidable matches on details like her name and the album titles), is still "paraphrasing" the original article, then there's literally no way left that any article about her could be recreated at all. I did write the new article differently enough from the first version that it should not be deleted as a "paraphrase" just because of some unavoidable similarities of structure — I can't make up a whole new set of alternative facts about her career or her notability claim, but rather the only thing I can actually do is write about the same facts in different words than the first version, and I did that.

Accordingly, my question is what recourse do I have to get the article reinstated? How much more different do I have to make it than I already did before it can finally be kept without being perennially redeleted as still not different enough? Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Bearcat, I've restored it. Nice work. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac, I was going to, but you beat me to it. I would say that this regarding proxying matters too from WP:PROXYING: "...unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." I think that's the case here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I say if any experienced editor wants to work on G5 that could credibly be an article, give them a heads up on the backlash they might face, and then restore it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry

Although I find the trans_title field useful for non-English references, user Vensatry vehemently opposes it and I don't understand why. I have tried everything to convince him about it's usefulness but he won't listen. Ditto with archiveurl and archivedate. In Vijay filmography (currently a FLC), many sources are in Tamil (a non-universal language), and the trans_title fields in them were removed on his suggestion. Was he right to suggest so? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Two things: 1) You'll need to notify the other user of this discussion and 2) this is really a content dispute, and not in the scope of this board. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably a discussion for elsewhere, but I always feel a bit nervous when I use trans_title (which I do), as it feels a bit like original research. I can see a user being very hesitant to do a translation, if English isn't their first language. Official translators are never supposed to translate except to their first language. Nfitz (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion may be closed as I realised ANI isn't the right place to discuss such matters. But the intention of this was to list his questionable actions and see if they were justified. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to 'question' the user directly on their talk page before calling their behaviour as 'questionable'. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

IP rangeblock for Suicide of Tyler Clementi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 172.58.184.146 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.58.216.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.58.217.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.56.3.85 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.56.23.87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.58.216.164 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 172.58.217.236 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

A very persistent IP hopper keeps posting bigoted and offensive material at Suicide of Tyler Clementi and its talk page. Most recent example: [1], which by the way should probably be rev-deled. All the edits are like that one.

A few days ago Joe Decker semi-protected the page, which certainly helps, but as the diff above shows, the IP just moves to the talk page, and seems quite determined to keep this up indefinitely. It's probably a bad idea to semi the talk page too, so I'd like to recommend a rangeblock. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've handled the revision deletion, I'll leave the rangeblock to someone who knows more about such things since I don t have access to the rangeblock calculator at the moment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Blade. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Has WP:CRD been met? If I was suicidal, I wouldn't want to be coming across those old edits in the revision summary. Nfitz (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. It would really be best to revdel all the edits to the page by the IP. I see that the most recent one was revdeled a few minutes ago, but there are older ones too. There is also this edit to a user page of an editor who reverted one of those edits: [2], and there may be others. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've cleaned out a couple more revisions too, including the one right above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

IPs have been range blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help. I suspect that this person will be persistent enough that the problem will resume sometime after 36 hours. If so, I'll come back and let you all know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I was going to close this, but am leaving it open in case the problem recurs before the bot archives the thread. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem resumes

And it's a good thing that you did. Just as soon as the 36 hours were over, the problem started up again:

• 172.58.233.106 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• [3], [4], [5].

Those 3 edits have been reverted, but I would recommend that they be rev-deled. And that individual IP has been blocked for 24 hours. But unless this ANI thread is going to become a perennial, I really think that we are going to need a long-term rangeblock. Clearly, this is not going to go away without us making it go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, you're going to have to ping the admins who helped before, to get some action. Otherwise I don't think they are noticing this. Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the edits were rev-deled just a few minutes after I made the post (and I certainly hope that some admins are monitoring this noticeboard, whether or not they are the same ones as before). I also see that another admin extended the block of this individual IP to a month, with no talkpage access. They just didn't comment on it here. But, for what it's worth, I'm pinging Oshwah, who did the previous rangeblock, because currently only the single IP is blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Bump" to any admin who knows how to calculate IP rangeblocks. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Still a need for a rangeblock. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reason that no admin is responding to this?

It's been more than three days. It's not the most glamourous thread in the world, but hopefully folks didn't sign up for adminship for glamour. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The problem is the range of all the IPs given above is a /14 block which is huge. Smaller rangeblocks were done (indicated above). Has there been further recent disruption? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you mean by "smaller" -- do you mean shorter? Oshwah range-blocked the listed range for 36 hours previously. I will let Tryptofish relate whether any extension of the rangeblock is necessary at this time. I just wanted the thread to resolve itself rather than sit here indefinitely (or until bot-archived without comment). Softlavender (talk)

If Oshwah blocked a /14 range I would be very, very surprised :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the largest range block allowed by mediawiki is a /16. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it was a /17 and a /19. The problem here is that trying to solve this with rangeblocks would require large scale, long term blocks of shared IPs (Looks like T-Mobile), which is really something we try to avoid. Sometimes there isn't a clean technical solution, and the best response is to monitor, revert, and request short term blocks or protection when necessary. Monty₈₄₅ 05:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Monty845 is correct. I applied a very short rangeblock to those ranges despite the fact that I try to avoid doing so in general. I felt that this was the best way to stop the behavior at the time. Monty845 is also right in that, yes, we do try to avoid blocking wide ranges and that we only block for a short time if we have to do so. Is this disruption still currently ongoing? Sorry for the delayed response here; I've been busy with real life and have only had a chance to catch up here now :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil, Monty, and Oshwah for the explanations. (Please understand that I know nothing about how rangeblocks work.) I think that all that anyone needed was for someone to have said what you said, and the thread could have been closed and archived at that time. It was kind of strange to just hear crickets. But I'm happy to defer to what you have said. Things have indeed been quiet from the disruptive user for a few days, but I suspect that the problems will eventually resume. When that happens, I'll be back, of course. It's fine with me to close this thread now. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Added Oshwah. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

For reference, I keep a basic guide to range blocks in my userspace which may help explain the problem with the size of the range that would be affected: User:WJBscribe/Range blocks. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd IP behavior

187.74.246.62 (talk · contribs)

Their last several edits have been adding one to three blank characters and then immediately removing from a handful of articles, within a minute. These are all whitespace edits so not vandalizing anything, but this is really really odd. I dunno if they are trying to game the system or something, or something more malicious. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please,check with blocked 200.100.71.70 (talk · contribs). Same modus operandi and same server location. PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Tropic Thunder this has been going on with various IP addresses for over a month. Other than burying something in the history, I can't think of any reason, disruptive or not, that someone would want to do this. Monty₈₄₅ 01:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If its a bury attempt, should we slap on a month on SEMI? I think it could be some little kid fooling around.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 01:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It's probably not a kid fooling around, given that they've now used three different IPs and edited at least four different wikis. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• IP 186.220.25.187 was in on it as well. Ajraddatz has blocked the reported IP for cross-wiki vandalism. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Here's another one, 191.248.153.48. Widr, you blocked the 200 IP. Do you have any light to shed on this weirdness? Drmies (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Globally blocked both of the above-mentioned ones as well. I came across this guy after a report on m:SRG - I assume it's someone who knows a bit about how wikis work, and how we can't rollback such "vandalism". It's probably just designed to be a time-waste for us. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• It's been going on for months, if not longer. They were reported at WP:AN for a while – for example, this thread. Same behavior, same geolocation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, so block on sight it is. Tirritating, but a dripping faucet is worse. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that white-space testing fellow from Brazil, has been doing this disruption (to mostly the same articles) for several months, with many IPs at his/her fingertips. No doubt getting a cheap thrill out of it. Certaintly a case of WP:NOTHERE. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Would writing an edit filter rule to stop these sorts of edits be appropriate? -- The Anome (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, please! Drmies (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Can only admins write edit filters? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: No, you can request the edit filter permission from the Edit Filter Noticeboard, but you'll need to show solid evidence you know how to write filters, such as a track record in programming regular expressions and understanding the MediaWiki API. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I definitely don't want to excuse the IP's behaviour, especially if they're as unwilling to discuss the issue as they appear to be, but I do want to point out that there may be an innocent and non-disruptive rationale behind the edits even if it's wrongheaded. I recall, several years ago, seeing a similar pattern of edits from a different user who's definitely not connected to this (he later registered a real account and he's Canadian) — after asking him about it, I was able to determine that for some reason he had it in his head that Wikipedia articles inherently had to be edited at the top of the next hour before edits made within the previous hour would actually get committed to the page history — so because he had that obviously wrong notion in his head, he was adding blank spaces and then removing them again simply to ensure that his work over the past hour wouldn't simply disappear. So I assured him that what he was worried about wasn't actually a thing, and he stopped. Again, without an explanation of why this user's doing it we can't read his mind, but I just wanted to raise this example as proof that there may be a good faith reason why somebody thinks this is a productive thing to do. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  I would generally agree with assuming good faith as far as possible, but the cross-wiki nature of the edits, as well as the IP hopping, would seem to rule this out. Plus, there are the occasional bits of explicit vandalism involved too - at least a couple of page blanks and content replaces with random characters. All of this, plus the timeframe involved (at least months), leads me away from an assumption of good faith here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by rolling IP editor, most recently 83.213.205.149

An IP editor has been disrupting Lordship of Biscay for months using IPs in the 85.84.118.* and 83.213.*.* ranges, but over the past few days has turned it Up to eleven. Actions include:

3RR violation (disguised by shifting IP) [6] [7] [8] [9]

unfounded accusations of sock puppetry (I am accused of being either User:Maragm or User:Asqueladd, though the editor can't seem to decide which): [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] (Talk page of irrelevant user)

unfounded accusation of editing for pay: [16]

violation of WP:NPA [17] ("scoundrel")

violation of AGF (or NPA if you view it that way) [18] ("playing dirty") [19] (same in Spanish)

and just general incoherent harassment: [20] (and in other diffs already given)

Prior IP used by the same editor (duck) has been subject to a block for behavior on this and another page just three days ago, but they shifted IPs and made another edit (admittedly, a productive one) within the period of the block. [21] (24 hr block) [22] (edit w/in 24 hr)

(I have made a separate request for an Oversight action regarding the same IP that I will not detail here.)

I have tried to get the editor to discuss content rather than editors, to no avail: [23] [24]

The general disruption at Talk:Lordship of Biscay alone is making a shambles out of attempts at discussion, while the knee-jerk reversions at Lordship of Biscay without coherent explanation (or with incoherent/irrelevant edit summaries in a different language) are preventing page improvement. This editor seems to have gone off the rails. 50.37.115.224 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you please give examples of the same person editing from 85.84.118.XX ? I'm not finding any such edits. The 83.213.200.0/21 range can be blocked, as all the edits from it in the last few months seem to be from the same individual, or at least they're certainly disruptive, compare [25]. I've blocked the range for 2 weeks. 50.37.117.209, have you considered creating an account? If you did, Lordship of Biscay‎ and perhaps also its talkpage could conveniently be semiprotected, but as it is, I hesitate to shut you out of the article. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC).

[26] by 85.84.118.247 on 27 Feb is a reversion (unexplained) of the same content as today's [27] by 83.213.205.149. Indeed, the edit history of 85.84.118.247 solely consists of the same pages and in some cases same edits as as User:83.213.206.197, who is clearly the same as the current IP. (by 85.84.118.247, by 83.213.77.74, by 83.213.206.197; [28][29][30][31][32][33] by 83.213.77.74 & 83.213.206.197, restoring block of edts [34] made by 85.84.118.181 & 85.84.118.247). Looks like a web-footed waterfowl to me, but YMMV.

I realize my preference not to use an account at this time makes it harder to address the situation, but it is my preference nonetheless. 50.37.115.224 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand. The 85.84.XX IPs quack, yes, but you've only given me two of them, 85.84.118.247 and 85.84.118.181. That happens to be a tiny range, 85.84.118.128/25. I don't see much point in blocking it, both because it probably actually needs to be larger, and because 85.84.118.247 only edited for a quarter of an hour on 27 February — I'm not kidding, see [35] — and 85.84.118.181 only for a few hours on 14 December 2016. So it's kind of stale; all the recent disruption has come from the now-blocked 83.213.200.0/21 range. At least as far as I can see from your information. Feel free to provide me with more 85.84.XX IPs if you should come across them. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC).

• Note to the OP: The standard (and sometimes the only) solution to repeated IP-hopping disruption to a single article is to request temporary semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP, which would prevent IPs from editing the article. Of course, you would not be able to edit it either, which is an excellent reason for you to register an account, if indeed you are an enthusiastic editor. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Update: Another IP, 85.84.115.9, has just turned up and vandalized both Lordship of Biscay and its talkpage. I was glad to see it, as it made it much easier to block the second relevant range, 85.84.112.0/21. :-) We can only hope those two rangeblocks will hold the individual. If not, I think I'd better semi despite the disadvantages. Bishonen | talk 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
• Update II: It has turned out my rangeblocks are still insufficient. I've had to semi both article (one month) and talk (two weeks). Bishonen | talk 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC).

User:Inlinetext

Inlinetext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inlinetext has been a disruptive user, in which they have accused me and other editors of being paid editors or sock-puppets, made personal attacks against me, and has edit warred with another user. This isn't the first time they have been on ANI.

Diffs
Edit warring
a long span of diffs
more reverts
more...
COI accusations
long span of diffs again
on someone else's talk page
Personal attacks
on her userpage
on a talkpage
reverts it back
confusion?
—JJBers 15:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Still investigating this. See the lengthy Q&A on my talk page for mote detail (part of the original discussion and related AN3 report). El_C 15:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the lengthy hosting of the investigation, El C. I'm not sure it needs to be carried out over several forums (i.e., here, and on your TP, and on the TPs of the two editors, etc.). In any case, my comments are: (1) Inlinetext needs to stop immediately with the personal attacks and insults (including calling someone a schoolchild), or they may be blocked from editing. (2) Inlinetext, do not edit war over a COI tag; if you suspect that there was COI editing, report the matter to WP:COIN rather than making that unilateral judgment yourself. (3) Thank you also to El_C for full-protecting the main article in question until that content dispute is resolved. Softlavender (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• More comments: Inlinetext, please stop accusations of sockpuppetry. Either file a case at WP:SPI if you have evidence, or don't. I'd also like to link the ANI filing against Inlinetext from three weeks ago: [36]. It mentions the massive deletions Inlinetext made from Swami Nithyananda, which are indeed alarming; the article previously looked like this [37] and after Inlinetext's very selective gutting it looked like this: [38] (and still does, with some added attacks), which appears to violate WP:BLP and is a borderline WP:ATTACKPAGE. — Softlavender (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• As a corollary, see also my note about Parker Conrad and BLP. El_C 16:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:BLPCRIME has bearing in both cases. Softlavender (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

BLPCRIME probably does not extend to the regulatory issues in Conrad's case. The only issue here is creation of a highly flattering article by Vipul's pyramid network of paid editors on Parker Conrad at exactly the time he was under attack for regulatory breaches. This is why the regulatory COI notices are necessary to be conspicuously embedded to caution readers, and Vipul has admitted he didn't do them. Inlinetext (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is a Wikipedia policy, and it applies to all BLPs. Moreover, you need to address the points I made on the talk page of that article, which has been full-protected because of the edit-warring. If desired, I can re-post my comments here. COI notices of declared paid editing are placed on talk-pages, not on the articles themselves, as I mentioned in my pinged notice to you on that article's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur. And note that my questions regarding BLP were left unanswered by Inlinetext. El_C 22:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I told you I am busy in real life. If the community wants to hurriedly sweep this under the carpet, fine. I reiterate that Vipul stood to make at least $600,000 (conservatively) from those out-bound links based on 'value' of those links. Another Indian paid editor 'Wifione' got away for many years under these same processes and by the community not following the ToU. 22:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inlinetext (talk • contribs)

• Inlinetext, if you continue to make these hysterical and grossly unfounded accusations, even in the face of evidence to the contrary and requests to stop, you will receive sanctions in the form of a block or topic ban. Please stick to the issues at hand here on this thread and heed what people are saying to you. Softlavender (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Hey inlinetext, I'm pretty busy in real life too! Still been trying to answer all your questions (at cost to my day job and weekend relaxation). Here's a suggestion to reduce stress for everybody: don't make ridiculous accusations and don't drag third parties unnecessarily into debates.Vipul (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Since Parker Conrad is only a symptom of a much larger problem for conflicted editing, I shall see how my editing priorites (and time) lies 'wrt' reporting this episode to WMF. I am greatly upset that this community openly condones / tolerates co-ordinated and abusive editing by packs of paid editors. Volunteer (unpaid) editors correcting errors obviously feel harassed and highly unwelcome here. This of course is a ToU issue. Inlinetext (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that BLPCRIME only covers "crimes" which can result in conviction. Regulatory contraventions like licencing may not be directly classified as crimes. There are probably under State regulators (who are not criminal judges). Inlinetext (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"I am greatly upset that this community openly condones / tolerates co-ordinated and abusive editing by packs of paid editors." There is no evidence of anything of the sort happening on that article. Vipul has explained that below. Softlavender (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many editors have tried to reverse Inlinetext's edits in Swami Nithyananda, to which his response is: re-undo and source long outdated and controversial news articles (which he also used to defiled the current page). Generally un-approachable in talks pages. Seems to be WP:GAME. 172.111.169.84 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Anybody reading the talk page of Swami Nithyananda will realise this is a gross untruth. Also the content on the article was not inserted by me and I have carefully aligned it to reflect what the sources say. And, I didn't find or insert those souurces either. Inlinetext (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I should, however, note being especially curious about inlinetext's Question no.7 regarding the possibility of: "personally stand[ing] to receive between US$600,000 to US$900,000 for out-bound links [Vipul's] team inserted into Wikipedia articles which generated those 6 million+ page views." Following the money may be prudent, too. El_C 16:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion the WP:COIN regulars need to be made aware of that entire investigation and interrogation. Pinging @Brianhe, Smartse, Doc James, and JzG: (and they can ping whoever I left out). Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Above my pay grade. I think this needs to go to the foundation. I can't see them being happy with someone operating a pyramid scheme based on paid editing! Guy (Help!) 17:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't get into it right now but brought the the matter to light at COIN (permlink). - Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, a pyramid scheme on Wikipedia, that isn't a article. Well, that's nice. —JJBers 18:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I concur with 'Guy'. The curious facts of this case need to go to the foundation and only to the foundation. It actually appears a case of a pyramid scheme based on paid editing to deliberately compromise the quality of the encyclopedia for personal profit and which thereby endangers the stability of WMF's computer servers. Inlinetext (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Parker Conrad content being reverted was not added by me or people I paid -- the main connection with me is that the ~2-year old original version of the page was created by somebody whom I subsequently paid for it. In other words, any connection with my paid editing enterprise is tangential; the people involved in the dispute aren't connected with me, and I don't even know who they are. The fact that the conversation was so easily manipulated away from a discussion of the subject at hand (inlinetext's revert patterns) to my paid editing project is sad. I'm happy to answer questions about my paid editing in an appropriate forum (public or private), but I don't appreciate how a discussion about a very different topic (namely, inlinetext's behavior) has forgotten its original purpose so easily and quickly.Vipul (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Vipul, can you identify which of your paid editors made any edits to that article or its talkpage? And also post that information on that article's talkpage (since the issue is brought up there)? That way, we could separate the issues and determine how to proceed. (Right now the article is fully locked because of the edit-warring, and cannot be edited.) Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Simfish (Alex K. Chen) created the original version of the page. His final edit to the page (based on which I paid him for it) is this. My payment to him is recorded here (it's the very bottom row of the table) and here. As you can see, the version as he created at the time was fairly small and just barely more than a stub, and most of the material under contention was added in later edits.Vipul (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, Vipul. Could you please also copy all of this (both paragraphs of explanation) to the article's talk page, adding it to the bottom of the thread about paid editing? Also note the date and year of Simfish's last edit. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Concerning 'JJbers', this ANI was only filed after I pointed out to her that she had insulted me as follows "@Inlinetext: I understand that you may be mad," [link]. The user ought to have used a neutral word like 'upset'. As Sitush has pointed out to the user, with Sitush twice telling him/her in exasperation to fuck off, this user is interjecting themselves into controversies and areas where they are incompetent and unwanted. It strikes me as very curious that this school student is so interested in rape / murder and homosexual assaults of Catholic priests on schoolboys, and edit wars to extraordinary length with me over such topics. I view such behaviour as a ToU issue and not a community issue. Is this an enclyclopedia or a Reddit ? If so, why has 'JJBers' not hauled Sitush to ANI for saying fuck off twice to him/her? I am not up to date on what has happened here in the last few years but standards, civility and basic courtesy seem to have gone down tremendously .Inlinetext (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Inlinetext, you are continuing to make personal attacks there. Personal attacks are what you are being reported for, and I have already warned you: You need to stop immediately with the personal attacks and insults, or you may be blocked from editing. Stop calling the editor a schoolchild, stop objecting to their use of American English ("mad", which merely means "angry"), stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS about their interests, stop using cursewords (quoted or your own). Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I must object here. I wonder how you presume/assume that every English speaking editor here knows that "mad" equates to "angry" or that I speak US English ? Did the filer not that know/consider that "mad" means "mentally ill/ insane" to most (other) English speakers. And imputing instanity to such other editor is definitely a personal attack. I can think of at least 10 other perfectly civil synonyms for "angry" which are probably also used in the US. Inlinetext (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You obviously knew exactly what it meant [39], as does any adult native speaker of English. El C, I think this time-sink has gone on long enough, and the community should not be forced to waste any more time on this editor. Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

When she says "mad," unless there's some kind of indication to the contrary, you should intuitively assume that it means angry rather than insane. So none of that anymore. And certainly none of these edit summaries. Take, then, this as a first and only warning about personal attacks and insinuations. El_C 01:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Inlinetext. It's all getting to be a bit much. El_C 23:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think if the editor does not calm down and start collaborating, there is a strong case to be made for CIR ... as in a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am disengaging now. to cool off Inlinetext (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

:I would like to clarify a few things, Inlinetext:
1. I'm a male, not a female.
2.The only reason I joined the AFD was because of a ANI started on that page.
3. I joined the Parker Conrad because of your contributions, not some off-wiki thing.
4. Insulting that fact that I'm younger than you, isn't really useful, and uncivil.
—JJBers 02:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyways, I completely forgot about this diff, which's edit summary is basically cursing, in a quote forum.—JJBers 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was unable to respond to anything, I was out taking photos of Norwich, Connecticut, which I will upload sooner or later.—JJBers 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I shall henceforth be responding only on the COIN thread or my user talk page. I am staying off "content" until the outstanding issues are not resolved. If I observe any urgent content issues, I will use talk pages or DR to get some other editor to resolve them. I would appreciate JrHeller1 and JJBers not communicating with me unless it is unavoidable. Regarding I am greatly upset that this community openly condones / tolerates co-ordinated and abusive editing by packs of paid editors., this aspect is now very well clarified on the COIN thread in the context of Vipul's group and was not specific to Parker Conrad. Inlinetext (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Closure

I think we should just issue out a final warning to Inlinetext and end this. Any thoughts? —JJBers 17:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. See this example. I have ignored your behaviour but when several senior editors of long standing have commented this and this and this, this on your impatience/behavior, perhaps its time to back away ? "we" ? are you an Admin ? Inlinetext (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor 'JJBers' ignores BLP / BLPCRIME and shows battleground mentality. When I deleted scandalous material inserted by the user with a clear edit summary, see this, it was restored with a frivolous edit summary. The (unpublished) source cited does not explicitly say that Reverend Charles Carr was a priest of this church's parish (it says he was then a priest in our Lady of Fatima in Wilton), nor does it explicitly say that Carr was "found guilty" in the "case" it only says he was referred to State protection authorities. Neither does the print version. Inlinetext (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Request is it possible to get a interaction ban for this filer preventing him from interjecting himself in my edits / discussion threads and from posting on my talk page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inlinetext (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• JJBers, Inlinetext was already given a final warning above this WP:POINTy and self-involved new section you opened. If you keep pursuing them and harassing them and talking about them, you will be blocked from editing.

  An interaction ban is not necessary here. What is necessary is for you both to stop tracking and commenting on each other. If evidence of tracking the other editor's edits recurs, either of you may be blocked from editing. Please go forth and edit elsewhere along you own interests. Softlavender (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • El C, JJBers is clearly continuing to follow Inlinetext around, both with his main account JJBers [40] and his alternate account JJBers Public [41], the latest locus being WP:COIN. Could you please put some meat into this and give him a final warning to desist? Softlavender (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible rangeblock

Hi. After talking to admin GiantSnowman he suggested that I should go to ANI and request a rangeblock (diff). A dynamic IP starting at 2a02:c7f:5405:1300 has been disruptive on articles related to Tranmere Rovers and reverted multiple times by multiple editors. For example look at history of Ritchie Sutton where the IP has been reverted by multiple editors. The articles involved are about 20, so they are to many for semi-protection if it can be solved with a rangeblock. Regarding to length of a block it would have to b be at least one week so the editor notices the block as he only updates after his team has played a match.Qed237 (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A /64 range block shouldn't hit any other users. However, for me, reverting an edit is not an indication of anything. In this edit they've matched the number of appearances and goals documented by soccerbase. Can you explain this or provide evidenced instances of vandalism? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Bottom of infobox states Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 00:00, 1 May 2016., so it is a factually incorrect statement to add appearances and goals after that. Many editors have been reverting these kind of edits nowadays and in many of the article there are hidden notes that the dates must be updated so readers know when infobox was last updated. Regular editors has been blocked for repeatedly failing to do this, so the IP should to. I have also notified the editor about this on many of their dynamic IP talkpages (like for example here). Qed237 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. 1 May 2016, that's like a year ago, so we are using information that's well out of date? If their only offence is not updating the update date, it's no block from me. I checked a few articles and couldn't see any hidden notes. Perhaps getting the correct information in the article, and then writing a big hidden note near the current stats will help. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: There has been talks about an editnotice for these kind of articles, as notes unfortunately are often missed. Is that a bit much? Qed237 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, the infobox for the Tranmere players are currently correct. The number of appearances and goals matches the dates at the bottom of the infobox. Qed237 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope you'll take my point that the information is still out of date. My opinion is that editors are bombarded with so many notices that edit notices rarely have any effect. A hidden note in capital letters - when placed in a relevant spot - is usually the most prominent notice available, IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of editors (and, indeed, admin) who imo overreact when an editor in GF updates the infobox but omits to update the date parameter on footballer articles. Reversions, vandalism warnings, final warnings for unsourced content, threats of blocks, you name it. Personally, I prefer to correct and move on. I wish more people would do the same. Gricehead (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Gricehead - they're clearly trying to help, not being disruptive at all, and this is the worst kind of WP:BITE. If the content is correct but doesn't match the date, why don't you just change the date to match and leave an explanatory note instead of a scary vandalism warning? ansh666 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gricehead and Ansh666: Trust me people are tired of fixing the same bullshit from editors over and over again, especially when it happens from the same editor who has already been told about it multiple times. After you have given them one, two, three or even four chances (correcting and notifying) and they still continue, there is no other way than to start warning. It is disruptive. Qed237 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Qed237: I'm still thinking on this, but whilst I'm thinking I thought I'd mention that I like the comment panels you've included in the infoboxes of the players in question. It would be interesting to see if they work - Tranmere have a game tonight, I believe. I put something much lower key in Matt Derbyshire after a spate of Europa League appearances being added. It wasn't that successful, but also wasn't as obvious as yours. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: The note seems to have worked on some articles, but far from all of them (diff). Qed237 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: More misses (diff and (diff). Qed237 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I hear your pain, but I am generally encouraged by the improvements. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Harassment Issue.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I would like to know how I could move forward with a formal harassment complaint about a specific editor? My profile page outlines the parameters of my current position as Wikipedian-in-Residence for ETCL (http://etcl.uvic.ca) and INKE (http://inke.ca). When I started with Wikipedia, I was overzealous and edited far too much too quickly and MrOllie took issue with these edits. He was correct in doing so at that time, because they were not properly balanced. I have re-assessed my approach and decided on working through various pages related to digital humanities topics and have provided further readings that are helpful for Wikipedia readers. I included *some* INKE-related articles and also included articles found through Google Scholar that are not *in any way* related to INKE. Yet MrOllie went through and reverted all of these changes without having either read the articles that I posted, or even researched them at all, and even reverted changes on the Digital Humanities Summer Institute Page, which is part of the ETCL and INKE at UVic. I would like to push these edits to another editor, as the condescending tone of the aforementioned editor has become an issue of harassment. Thenewpulp (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) You should try discussing your point of view with MrOllie on their talk page - I see no comment from you there.

(2) If and when you do discuss it, and cannot reach a meeting of the minds, and bring the complaint here, please follow the directions at the top of the page and notify MrOllie that you have started a discussion on AN/I. (I have done so for you.)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I have rectified the issue and posted a similar comment on MrOllie's page. I will leave this here, hoping that it will not need to be used. Thenewpulp (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mr.RungsunKlinkaeo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mr.RungsunKlinkaeo (talk · contribs) - appears to be using Wikipedia as a link dump. There's definitely something really peculiar going on with this account. Both user page [now deleted] and user talk page completely full of non Wikipedia-related links. There are also lots of image uploads with no copyright information, and similar text- and link-dumps in the body of the page. None of those I've checked seem to be used anywhere. -- The Anome (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Eruditescholar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Eruditescholar has a history of adding categories to BLP's without proof. See 2015 and 2016. This bad habit has reappeared here, here, here and here. The editor has been warned about this several times previously and apologized on his talk page while promising to take greater care. Requesting a long block to prevent more damage to BLP's with uncited ethnicity categories.--TM 23:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This User: TM is a disruptive editor especially on Nigerian-Yoruba related articles.

@TM If you know nothing about ethnic groups in Nigeria, you don't have to display your ignorance or attempt to use a system to suppress information for readers. We are all here to make Wikipedia a better source of infomation for readers and you shouldn't hinder it or bear your grudges against another editor.

We've had series of conflicts on this issue over many years and you happen to be the only editor who keeps editing in this manner. Aren't you tired? Eruditescholar (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Namimbia! as EruditeScholar said in the previous ANI's, In the African settings, name actually do mean a lot and it is very very possible to analyse the tribe based on that. And I must add really? Ain't you tired of all this??????? ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's very obvious and crystal clear that @Namiba: is "gaming the system" he is standing on the polices of Wikipedia and using them as a tool to quell, repress and subdue information. @Eruditescholar: is a Nigerian, and in Nigeria upon announcement of a Name, the tribe / ethnicity of that individual is deduced/known immediately. That is probably the reason Eruditescholar may forget to, at times back up these claims with citations because to be honest In my opinion there really is no need to do so. notwithstanding, I, as well as every other editor on Wikipedia, including Eruditescholar, understands the essence of citations, a review of the works by Eruditescholar shows he does proper referencing and citations, if he occasionally forgets to reference some parts shouldn't he be pardoned? i say simple warning should do and a Block is not the solution and I would suggest that Namiba focuses on things that he is really sure of and let people with in-depth knowledge of Nigeria, like Nigerian Editors focus on Nigerian related articles, as I feel and can observe that there is a form of witch-hunt or grudge from one party to the other. Celestina007 (talk) 05:05, March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is even if, we can accept the occasional mistake, this doesn't explain Eruditescholar reverting without adding references when someone has noticed their mistake. Also there's a difference between an occasional mistake and 4 mistakes in about 4 minutes. And besides reverting, Eruditescholar's response when they make mistakes, as shown here, is to complain about other people not understanding Nigerian ethnic groups rather than to either add sources and apologise for their mistake or demonstrate that they were already in the article. The community has not accepted any proposal to relax our WP:BLPCAT requirements for Nigerian people, or anyone else, based on the ability of random editors to tell their ethnicity from their names. So all that stuff is irrelevant. In BLPs, contentious information whether negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable is supposed to be "quell, repress and subdue"d if it lacks references so it's by definition not "gaming the system" to do so. Nigerian people can focus on Nigerian related articles if they desire, and they do so by finding references and adding referenced information. Not by adding information which they just know to BLPs. Other editors are not required to know a great deal about Nigerian ethnicities to be able to check additions by any party because they can check references if needed (or if the references are not easily accessible, ask for a copy of the reference). The only thing another editor really needs to know when it comes to ethnicities is complete synonyms. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: you do a make a plausible argument sir, & I very much understand your concerns, in summary what I'm saying is the mistake @Eruditescholar: makes is to a large extent involuntary, as any other Nigerian editor may make the exact mistake, and i am particular to Nigerian editors as this is a peculiar issue to most Nigerian Editors, it may on the surface look easy to resolve, but I assure you it isn't as easy as it seems, as it requires very serious conscious efforts to overcome and I do understand that Wikipedia isn't exempting nor giving Nigeria or Nigerian Editors any special privileges whatsoever, because Wikipedia's policies are flat and as so applies throughout all articles on Wikipedia irrespective of race/color/Nation.

Another reason I worry about this particular case is thus; The Given history of the subject of our discussion and his 'accuser', they seem to have a sour history, and I fear one party may be using this platform to settle scores or "try to get back at the other" so judgement should be carried out carefully and with caution so as to avoid any bad blood or personal feelings getting hurt.

Finally, From my findings sir, there is a "Last chance" policy or perhaps it's called "Final rope" , I do forget what it's called, but I think its a policy used as an alternative to blocking a user, it is said to be a way of giving a user a chance to prove himself/herself worthy, I do believe Eruditescholar deserves this "final rope" I do believe he deserves another chance, rather than be blocked because as stated earlier, any Nigerian editor could have easily made the same mistakes as he.Celestina007 (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Given the editors' persistent warnings and their apparent refusal to accept those warnings (except when faced with the threat of a block as seen in the previous instances this has come to ANI) I feel a block is in order. Otherwise, this behavior will continue and hundreds if not thousands of BLP's will be tagged with an ethnicity category for which there is no actual proof.--TM 12:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I propose that a ban on Eruditescholar adding ethnicity and ethnicity categories to Biographies of Living Persons is in order, considering: ongoing behaviour in spite of previous warnings; refusal to listen; the strong policies in place in protecting BLPs from exactly this sort of unreferenced claims. First Light (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @First Light: could you kindly read my comments above so you could understand better ? Celestina007 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I did, and it confirms my thought that a ban on adding such categories is the answer, rather than a complete block as TM is suggesting. I also don't appreciate your badgering an editor who is only trying to support an important policy on BLPs ( accusing him of "gaming the system," "a form of witch-hunt or grudge," "may be using this platform to settle scores or "try to get back at the other"," ) Better to discuss the BLP policy and why you think Eruditescholar is correct in his behaviour, according to policy—rather than making personal accusations against an editor who is trying to uphold and important policy. First Light (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not mention Namiba, I was civil & diplomatic enough to use the word "party" hence, I did not technically refer to him.

@First Light: I respect the actions of @Namiba: towards developing a Better Wikipedia and of course I also respect you as an editor and your contributions, as my superiors what you say and do means a lot and exerts much influence

As regards my comments on Namiba "gaming the system", yes, I really do believe so, it doesn't have to be correct, but based on history I have observed, its a postulation I derived which may be right or wrong, also I do strongly believe actions outside of Wikipedia are strongly affecting both editors involved.

I think your suggestion makes more sense it is preferred to blocking the user. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Celestina007, please place your signature at the end of the last line you write, not on a new line. Helpful hint: if you look at a talk page and your posts are different from everyone else's posts, try to figure out why and how to post like everyone else does. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: okay, thank you so much, Point noted. May i also suggest that you work on your tone as someday you may be addressing an editor who isn't as patient as I am and your current tone may easily be thought as and translated as sarcasm, so henceforth work thoroughly on your tone. And also next time when you are offering an unsolicited "helpful hint" always add a link to the guidelines/ policy page backing up your "helpful hint" because surely every of your "helpful hints" must abide and correlate with a current standing Wikipedia policy or guideline and that way you would really be making a notable and meaningful contribution as providing links would help educate a lot of editors rather than a "helpful" hint. By providing links you would also help in closing up the current and numerous gaps in knowledge.Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You can fix it yourself in addition to nannying the poster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: lool oh yes !! he most definitely can help me with that. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Oluwa2Chainz has joined Eruditescholar in the same pattern of editing as well, see here and here. In one edit summary, the editor reverted my removal of the uncited, unmentioned ethnicity categories because "common sense should tell you she's Yoruba".--TM 23:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to confess: I am sick and tired of TM's disruption. In a number of instances, he removed categories that have Yoruba Nigerian ethnicity-related information which he is totally ignorant about, especially when the proof is glaring to me! Even if the proof is not glaring and my editing was wrong, other editors would have corrected it. Many of the biographical articles which he removed ethnic categories from have been in that state for years while other editors edit other areas of these articles in question. Why is he always focusing on the ethnic categorizations? Why is his case always different?? TM really needs to check himself seriously because he is only using my ethnic categorizations as an excuse to get back at me regarding the long-term animosity that has developed between us over the years. It is innapropriate to allow external factors or personal experiences to influence one's editing here. If he has problems to resolve, he shouldn't let it interfere with his editing here! There are many other aspects which need more attention on these biographical articles besides ethnicity. If he is genuinely interested in Nigerian or Yoruba-related articles, then he should improve them in other areas. Wikipedia's rules are mostly general guidelines required for editors to comply and use to provide good information for users. It is wrong to use it to exploit others. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@TM: You brought another Nigerian editor User:Oluwa2Chainz to this same ANI discussion? Isn't this a sheer exposure of your ignorance? Please, this has to stop. Enough of all these desperations to fulfill your heart's desire! Eruditescholar (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why any editor feels to impugned my integrity. I simply want to follow the sensible and universal guidelines regarding BLPs and ethnicity categories. It's not personal and I hope the personal attacks will stop.--TM 00:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, if there is no source in the article attesting to the subject's ethnicity then a category listing that ethnicity should not be added. Period. Anything else is original research and blockable disruptive editing if done repeatedly. We see similar behavior with Indian editors trying to discern caste by surname and that practice is stomped on and will not spread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, that was established in both 2015 and 2016 when this same pattern of editing occurred. The question here is what are the consequences? It seems pretty clear from both the edits and comments here that Eruditescholar does not care about Wikipedia policies regarding BLPCAT's.--TM 02:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Namiba: See this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Darreg is repeating the exact behavior as well, see here and here.--TM 15:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As a first step, warn these editors about adding unsourced material and make them aware that discretionary sanctions apply to all BLPs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• smh. Dear Namiba or whatever, is this page the only article with original research? Why are you focused only on that article? --—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's like a spammer asking why I deleted his article when there are plenty more spam articles out there. If an editor's attention comes across an article for whatever reason, they are free to focus on resolving the perceived problems with that article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not want to be dragged into this ANI case, can't even understand why I was pinged. I haven't gone through all the edits of Eruditescholar, but in this case, he was spot on. I saw an article through the watchlist I follow and made edits that I believed were not only appropriate, but also factually correct. The woman in question was born in Yorubaland, had her secondary school in Yorubaland, did her university in Yorubaland, was elected as a legislator in Yorubaland, got married into a royal family in Yorubaland. All these were referenced in the article, yet you continue to remove claims that she's a Yoruba politician, even without having any valid contrary argument. I perceive that as being disrespectful to the Yoruba race. One thing I have discovered about WP is that there is a cabal of editors that once you get into their nest, they will continue to haunt you with your own words till they break you. Namiba, you can edit the article as you deem fit. I do not intend to edit that article anymore. My advice to all editors here is don't allow anything break you!, learn to let go. I will not reply to any comment here anymore. Darreg (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Darreg: You may not want to reply but I'm pinging you just so you're aware of this response. The problem you face is that Yoruba people defines Yoruba as an ethnic race. This is different from being a citizen of a country or representing a state. Nigerian categories and Mushin politician categories are fine as those can be derived from sources. But ethnicity, as obvious as it seems to you, also needs a source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Even before this ANI discussion started about two days ago, I have not been as active on Wikipedia as I used to be because of my busy schedule so I ensure that I check what is going on here at least once a day. I would like to see where this ends. TM likes making false assertions to prove his claim like this:

"It seems pretty clear from both the edits and comments here that Eruditescholar does not care about Wikipedia policies regarding BLPCAT's.--TM"

I care about Wikipedia's policies otherwise, I wouldnt value the importance of citations. Adding reliables sources is important for articles' veracity but when you can't find adequate sources and multiple information from the article can be utilized to reveal further information for readers, what do you do? Is it constructive to suppress the information due to lack of sources or to reveal it because it is valid?

If I never cared about BLP categories, why have other editors not reported me on ANI on my numerous thousands of edits I have made on blps since I joined Wikipedia in 2010? The only reason I have to come to ANI is because of TM. I have edited on several blps of ethnicities outside Nigeria including American and British people and I have not had to deal with an issue like this. I am just amused by the way TM keeps lying on me with ease. He tries to cover up his faults in an attempt to reach his goal of keeping me out of Wikipedia for reasons privy to him.

It would have been better if he keeps editing only on articles he is more knowledgeable about and stay within his comfort zone. He should keep away from editing aspects of articles he is ignorant about. Bringing a third Nigerian editor to this ANI duscussion is even more annoying. In the case of Funmi Tejuosho whose father bears a Yoruba name, has a Yoruba name, was born, raised, educated in Yorubaland and given a leadership role in Yorubaland (one of the few women to be so honoured). What other proof do you need that her ethnicity is Yoruba? Most western editors are probably unaware of the role of names in identifying someone's ethnicity in Nigeria, not mentioning other ethnic determinants. The fact that this ethnic categorization battle has been going on for years means external forces outside of Wikipedia is at play here. Looking at the edit histories of some biographical articles such as Lateef Adegbite, Ilesanmi Adesida, Babatunde Fashola and Mosun Filani some years ago reveals the desperation of the extent he has gone in the past to disrupt Yoruba Nigerian biographical articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eruditescholar: I'm surprised an editor with 25,000+ edits so misses the point of our verifiability policy. Articles are not written for readers familiar with the subject or, in this case, what is a "Yoruba name" and what it implies. As WP:V states, "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Checking does not include hunting down the editor who added the information and quizzing them about Yoruba surnames. It means checking a previously published reliable source. Please answer the question I posed on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Eruditescholar is indefinitely topic banned from adding ethnicity or ethnicity categories to BLP's. This topic ban may be appealed in six months at the administrators' noticeboard. [42] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to propose something similar (not restricted to BLPs) actually wrote it around the same time as the above reply but decided to wait and see what else people said first before posting. The discretionary sanctions avoids the need for all that jazz. Hopefully Eruditescholar learns to follow our WP:V requirements even in non BLPs. BTW, Eruditescholar I actually have some sympathy towards the problem, but as you've been told before until and unless you can change our policies, you need to follow them. And despite my sympathies I won't likely support such a change. It's not that I don't understand how obvious certain things may be, but there are reasons we shouldn't do it even if it is the norm in certain places. BTW Celestina007, I think Eruditescholar's responses here proves the point. It's not a simple case of making mistakes but rather that they seem to think they don't have to follow policies because it's better, but WP:IAR most definitely doesn't apply in a case like this and they've been told that time and time again. And yes, they have been given plenty of chances, including a last chance before. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I support this topic ban. Indiscriminate ethnic/religious categorization based only on guesswork about names rather than reliable sourcing has historically been a big problem here and we need to shut it down. Thanks, NeilN, for handling this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Facebook IPs used for vandalism/sockpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A year or two ago (IIRC) a large range of IPv6 IPs belonging to Facebook in Ireland (easily identifiable by having 'face:b00c' as part of the IP), serving as an open proxy for Facebook users who wanted to hide their real IP, was blocked because of being used for massive vandalism, yet today a Facebook IP, Special:Contributions/2A03:2880:3020:AFC8:FACE:B00C:0:8000, showed up, on an article that has been very frequently hit by socks of Najaf ali bhayo, an edit that showed all signs of being Najaf. So could someone check if it's a new range that is being used by Facebook, in addition to the old one, or if the old range block has expired? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely registered to Facebook, seems to have been allocated in 2015 (perhaps?). It also appears that any old ranges assigned to them are still validly theirs (given the number assigned to them) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• We have a whole bunch of them now, check page history of Khowar language, one of the articles being hit (there's more than a dozen different Facebook IPs on that article alone...), so would someone please block the whole darned range? It's an open proxy server! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There's some background to the (now expired) previous blocks in the archives. Ping @DMacks and JamesBWatson: who did the previous blocks. There's no non-facebook IP addresses being used in the /32 range. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a bit more here. The sock master who's active now is the exact same one (Najaf ali bhayo) who was active last time, and there's as much reason to block the entire range now, to protect en-WP, as there was last time. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

2A03:2880::/32 reblocked 1 year. DMacks (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Problem solved, so this can be closed now. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uanfala

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Uanfala is vandalism only account and must be block from editing2A03:2880:3020:AFC7:FACE:B00C:0:8000 (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Facebook_IPs_used_for_vandalism.2Fsockpuppetry --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please delete and create protect this page: Rajkumar Mishra (actor)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It looks like a create war is about to happen, i don't know where to report this, so i put this here. --DashyGames (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Or just block the user (and account creator), i just realized this option is better. --DashyGames (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh and it looks like he logged out to remove de CSD template, his IP is 2405:204:300c:9f94::24f6:18a0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DashyGames (talk • contribs) 07:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Rajkumar Mishra actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:310E:300E:0:0:4D9:10B1 (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed with a WP:CIR problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• ColeB34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need some help in dealing with User:ColeB34, a wellmeaning and productive editor who has problems with issues like notability, reliability, and verifiability.

They have created so far 155 articles, of which 21 have been deleted or redirected (after AfDs on them closed as delete, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilfred Schoenfeld). Many of the remainder are about characters of limited notability, actor of very limited notability, and episodes of TV series of no notability which should be redirected.

Multiple people have tried to discuss issues with him on his talk page. User:Diannaa discussed issues with copying text within Wikipedia and the required attribution in September 2016, and had to repeat that message only yesterday. User:Nthep, user:Wikishovel and Diannaa discussed the use of non-free images in October 2016, but since then many such images have been contributed and deleted anyway. See User talk:ColeB34#Please don't upload any more screen shots. Still in October, User:EdJohnston explained that IMDb isn't reliable and that more sources are needed.

In late October 2016, I warned them about creating articles on non notable characters, and repeated Diannaas warning against uploading screenshots: User talk:ColeB34#Character articles. Diannaa finally blocked them for one week on 31 October 2016.

In January 2017, User:DrStrauss had two of their articles deleted and informed the editor again about numerous issues (use of IMDb, notability of episodes, ...).

Yesterday, I took another look at their articles and again noticed the creation of articles on non notable episodes and actors, and worse the inclusion of seriously incorrect information in these articles. A good example is Alastair Mackenzie (actor), which mixed some unverifiable information and a small amount of correct information on a non notable child actor with the information about a different person, Alastair Mackenzie. In response to this ProD, ColeB34 removed the unverifiable personal information, but didn't change the incorrect mixup nor added a reliable source[43]. They then repeated the information on my talk page for some reason, and (much worse) proceeded to add all challenged information to The Adventures of Black Beauty[44].

So we have an editor where too many of his articles are on non notable subjects, who routinely uploads fair use images we don't want, who doesn't use reliable sources, and who spreads incorrect information on BLPs to other articles even when the problems have been explicitly pointed out to them. Advice, complaints, threats, and a block spread over the months they have been editing haven't helped one bit. Perhaps some very thorough mentoring might help, perhaps it's time to just conclude that competence is required and that the loss of this editor does more good than harm. Fram (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• The first article I looked at was wrong, and the second one had the same wrong information in as the first - despite them being about different people. I know Charlie Brooker is a genius, but I suspect even he couldn't persuade a dead actor to take a part in Black Mirror. I have blocked ColeB34 for two weeks, during which time it should be possible to sort out the mess he's created (i.e. PRODs will have time to run through). After that, if he continues with his behaviour, I suspect the next block will be indef. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I know Charlie Brooker is a genius, but I suspect even he couldn't persuade a dead actor to take a part in Black Mirror. So, a Black Mirror episode plot, then. --Calton | Talk 10:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Johnpacklambert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), who has a history of nominating articles for deletion without considering WP:BEFORE [45] [46] [47], has recently nominated a large number of sport-related articles in the same vein. The vast majority have been closed as Speedy Keep or Keep or on their way to it, due to the appropriate notability guidelines and/or GNG not being considered. Very basic research is able to prove the fallacy of his claims to players playing in non-notable leagues etc. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Requests for the editor to withdraw clearly improper nominations were ignored [60] [61] and attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page have been reverted as "rubbish" [62] [63]. Clearly the editor intends to continue this sort of disruptive behaviour and I would request some sort of warning be placed upon him to cease and desist. Not directly related to the issue of sports bio AFDs, but unfortunately has a track record of deleting any attempt to discuss his editing on his talk page rather than engaging in discussion which makes it difficult to address this without escalating the issue. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• The user also has a habit of ignoring questions to him in the AFD discussions he's started (or participated in). Recent examples are [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71] and [72]. Similarrly, questions on his talk page about these nominations are also ignored - [73] and [74] Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• I am also concerned about this user's AfD nominations and contributions, which have become increasingly spurious, and at times seems to lack any type of research or basic source searches to qualify deletion. In addition to the examples above, see this AfD discussion (full disclosure: I contributed to the discussion), where another user stated that the nominator and JPL "need remedial lessons in how to run a google search". The manner in which the user has been repeatedly asked to discuss valid concerns about their contributions on their talk page (diffs: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]), but simply deletes the posts using edit summaries such as "delete rubbish" (diffs: [84], [85], [86]) does not inspire confidence, and I view it as disrespectful and insulting to refer to valid concerns by multiple users as "rubbish". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Note that present, ongoing discussions regarding this user are occurring at User talk:Magnolia677 § Topic from User talk:Johnpacklambert and User talk:PageantUpdater § JPL, again. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• It's time some restrictions or sanctions were levied against JPL for his abuse of AfD. There are a number of disturbing things here:
  1. He's a volume editor, nominating articles faster than the community can assess or fix them,
  2. There are a disturbing number of "clear misses". I'm talking articles that almost no one in the community would ever consider deleting. Articles where a quick perusal of sources necessitates a keep vote.
  3. His editing patterns suggest contempt for certain vocations rather than actual adherence to GNG or to specific notability guidelines. Here, he announces disagreement with certain guidelines. If you're going to nominate articles at the clip he does, you need to understand and adhere to GNG and specific notability guidelines.
  4. There's pretty clearly IDHT when he ignores or deletes comments telling him to stand down.
  5. The last round of mass deletions resulted in a gentleman's agreement where he agreeing to not mass-nom in exchange for not being sanctioned. He's violated said agreement.

pbp 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ctl-Alt-Del. JPL has a habit of doing something like this periodically. It's tedious and timewasting, but the storm usually passes fairly soon, and then all goes quiet again for another 6 months or a year. So please can somebody within reach just reboot him in safe mode? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• I don't always agree with JPL, but I don't think he needs to be sanctioned. I think he is a good faith editor who disagrees with some of the notability guidelines or tries to push the limits of them on cases where the community isn't willing to play ball. Let him know that the community asks that he refrain from mass nominations and be done with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hasn't that been done before? Part of the problem, is that the community has been trying to engage him, but he ignored comments/questions on AFD pages, and ignores question on his own talk page. When really pushed on his talk page, instead of engaging he blanks. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Which achieves precisely nothing. He's already been told that and yet he continues. The issue is not only with the mass deletions - if they were all or almost all spot on there wouldn't be a problem - but with the fact that he is clearly refusing to engage with notability criteria. So if we ignore it as you suggest, this will just happen again in a few months in relation to another topic. It's never ending. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Whst everyone is hinting at here and that Drmies has mentioned below if things don't change is a topic ban from AfD. That is a big deal because AfD is a core area of our project. JPL might need to take a break from it for a while, but I would much rather that be his call than a sanction. Based on the actions and some of the comments here I do think he needs to improve, but I don't think a topic ban in necessary yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• But that is exactly where we left things in September with the pageant ANI discussion, and six months later here we are again --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oh flipping heck. I seem to remember a previous issue where JPL was nominating beauty pageant contestants and was at least having a 50/50 success rate. These footballer AfDs are failing badly; whether one believes they are notable or not, they pass our current requirements. Advice to JPL: just stop it, please. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There is precedent for the community telling even very experienced and large contributors to this project, that if they are not willing to abide by the policies and guidelines, then they can not continue to edit. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• JPL usually brings a deletionist mindset to AfD, and his contributions (both noms and !votes) often come across as lazy. It's dangerous to the 'pedia when an editor habitually pushes for deletion without giving the article in question sufficient consideration. It's also troubling that JPL has demonstrated an unwillingness to engage with those who are concerned. Lepricavark (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I will try to respond better to comments in the future. However it is often hard to respond to comments when they are down right rude and combative. I am engaging with notability criteria, despite the false claims otherwise. There are huge long lists of what makes a footballer notable, so long lists that one line articles with one internal team source other survive. It is hard to be willing to engage when some of the posts are so insulting and rude.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • John Pack Lambert, your effort is appreciated, though I note that you take back what you gave immediately by blaming other editors. If that effort fails, however, do not be surprised to see a proposal for a topic ban from AfD participation, which I will support. That area is already contentious enough. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • If you appreciate my efforts then why would you ban me?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Please read more carefully: if that effort fails. There comes a time when effort isn't enough and we start talking competence. At the risk of sounding like a jerk, your comment below, where you indicated you looked at the guidelines after these nominations, is indicative of...well, you figure it out. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
        • It indicates human fraility. I not only read multiple times through the long list of professional leagues to make sure that Farukh Abitov had not played on any, I also read through the long descriptor of what qualified as an international competition to pass the notability guidelines. It does not come out and say "if the person has been on a national team they are notable", and the sourcing and information as I read it did not seem to indicate to me that they had played in any games that met the description given in the notability for football description. I will admit I was wrong in this determination. I am trying to be calm in my consideration of this issue. I am sorry for blanking my talk page with an overly quick caustic remark. However it seemed wiser at the time than getting into a discussion on my talk page that was likely to be even more heated. I would point readers to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalie Smith as an example of the very combative arguments sometimes thrown against legitimate and well reasoned attempts to nominate an article for deletion. The general tone of such make it often feel that the best course of action in creating an AfD is to create the AfD and never read it afterword. Especially when they result the way the one on Rosalie Smith did, which was in delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

*PageantUpdater has also engaged in canvassing to try to get more participation in this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• CommentI am not the only person who was not fully aware that Kyrkystan's national team was playing at Tier-1 competition level. This caused a lot of discussion on my talk page back and forth. There is an extremely long and complex list of Fully Professional football leagues, and I have consistently tried to review it when making nominations for deletion. I have tried to find the least combative way to respond to comments left on my talk page. Sometimes that is just blanking them out, and letting the discussion on the article in question run its course without saying anything else there. It is very hard to patient and calmly read through multiple attacks on the level of time spent studying a matter. This is even more so the case when PageantUpdater speedy keep voted on some of my hockey nominations with a false assertion that a particular league gave automatic notability for playing, when I had read the explicit guidelines in the notability for hockeyplayers guidelines that explicitly list the leagues that grant such, and do not list that league at all. I will admit I should not have used the term rubbish, but I was frustrated with the harping on me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I am sorry for my mistakes. I now realize that playing on a national team is generally a sign of notability, although it is sometimes hard to tell if they were at the adult national team or a non-qualifying junior national team. I will seek to fully understand this question before acting in the future. Another issue that has come up relates to players in the Phillipine Basketball League. In those cases it is almost looking like it might be worth considering revising our guidelines since they do not include that league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If your contrition were sincere, would you not withdraw your nominations such as [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodrigue_Akl]? Jacona (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• I hope I am not coming off as a jerk with this comment as Johnpacklambert has a long and distinguished career here on Wikipedia, however if this editor is unfamiliar or feels confused over the rules of WP:NFOOTY or the notability requirements of other projects, then perhaps he shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion. AFD nominations such as these (see here 1, 2, 3,4) while possibly made in good faith aren't helpful to the project. My suggestion is that Johnpacklambert take a break from nominating articles for deletion and resume when he feels refreshed and feels s/he understands the guidelines better. Anyway that is only my opinion, hope it helps thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I wish when I had first come on Wikipedia I had realized I could put spaces in my name. Even though the way my signature now appears it has spaces, people seem to ignore this. I know this is a minor quibble, but I am part of the group that think all Wikipedia users should have to sign in and use their real names, and the fact that I do not fully comport to this bothers me. I am not sure that saying anything of substance about the issues of the notability guidelines for footballers will be helpful. I have come to better understand the issue with national teams, and have withdrawn a nomination because of this added understanding. On the other hand there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Allen (2nd nomination) which shows that there are in fact articles on non-notable footballers that I am catching.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry about your name John Pack Lambert, I'll keep it in mind the next time I address you. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to know why, for the second time in less than a year, it's taken an ANI discussion to get John Pack Lambert to come to the table and discuss his AFD editing. It shouldn't have to come to this. The exact same thing happened with the previous lengthy pageant deletion ANI in September, where numerous editors requests on his talk page to discuss the issue were ignored and/or blanked and the matter thus had to be escalated. In my view his claim to now recognises his "human frailty" etc etc is disingenuous given he showed zero desire to consider the matter until I started this report and in fact described our complaints as "rubbish". There were plenty such opportunities, such as Rikster's request here on 23 February for John Pack Lambert to withdraw a nomination of an Olympian which was ignored. The sports notability guidelines are not rocket science either, being new to the subject I all but had them grasped straight away, except for a fail with WP:NHOCKEY where I later recognised and quickly corrected my error. I'm also not happy that I've been accused of once saying "I [he] should stop commenting on the internet and go wash toilets" by John Pack Lambert which is categorically false. I know that my language over the pageant article issue wasn't appropriate on many occasions but not once did I stoop that low. I am also consistently being called a "he" instead of a "she" which I somewhat understand given it's not obvious from my user page - but I have corrected him on this before. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I thought that perhaps this discussion was coming to a closure. But at the same time, I see that User:Johnpacklambert is continuing to contribute to AFD discussions, and has even started a new one, in the midst of this; not that anything at first blush seems in appropriate, but I'd have thought that at least stopping new AFDs until people can catch up would have been appropriate, recalling WP:NORUSH. I also noticed commentary he made about this ANI [87], [88] referring to it as "an attack" and an "attempt at revenge for my success in getting so many Miss America contestant articles deleted". I can tell you, that if someone else didn't start this ANI, I was about to myself, and it's neither an attack, nor have I ever edited or even read a beauty contest wiki page; I'm concerned that you see this as some kind of vendetta, when there were several people who shared the concern, some of which have not encountered you before. At the same time, you've justified not contributing to AFD discussions you've started because is it "hard to respond to comments when they are down right rude and combative". And yet, I provided a list of explicit request from you for comment, none of which were rude or combative. You haven't indicated why you didn't respond to them. The list was [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96] and [97]. Also, questions on your talk page about these nominations are also ignored - [98] and [99]. Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen those diffs [100], [101] previously: more than anything I think this proves that he believes his behaviour has been innocent. I'm not quite sure what all the other posters who commented on his AFDs were supposed to be attacking him in vengeance for but I can assure you, other than establishing a pattern of editing the other AFDs were far from my mind, I've long since given that up as a lost cause for all but a few articles. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh and I find it amusing that I was accused of WP:CANVASSING (later struck out). All I did was notify some of the editors involved in the AFDs with "Given your comments you may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johnpacklambert in regards to his sports-related AFDs"... I'm not sure how much more neutral one can get. On the other hand, JPL alerted three editors by calling this disturbing, an act of revenge and an attack. I'd like to ask you which is more disturbing? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

And intimidation as well. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I keep trying to be calm about this, but PageantUpdater is the guy who once said I should get off the inerenet and go wash toilets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I never said anything of the sort and I find that accusation utterly disgusting. I challenge you to prove it and if you are unable to I believe you should be banned for making such an egregious accusation. And how many times do I need to tell you that I am a she not a he? Why do you persist in calling me a guy? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Not very far above she denied that she had ever said that, and tried to offer some evidence.[102] Do you have evidence she said that? She also objected to your mischaracterizing her gender. This goes to the root of the problem I think - you are not paying attention (assuming you are not doing it deliberately). Nfitz (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick search [103] indicates that you (JPL) were the only one to have ever said this in the history of the project. Nfitz (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I never said the comment was a direct quote. I should have been clear it was a paraphrase. That being said, since it was not said by PageantUpdater, it does not really matter. However it was a paraphrase, of a comment that meant the same thing but used other words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am sorry. I confused this editor with someone else. That was a mistake. However I had done that confusion some time ago, and it colored my perception of the attacks that were being thrown at me. With the notion in the back of my mind that she was the one who made that comment, which I sincerely apologize for suggesting she made, it caused frustration that caused me to know it was best not to respond to a comment from her. I also did not see the statement on the person being a she. I wish I was better at saying things right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Back in the August nomination also brought by PageantUpdater she said "I will be the first to admit I haven't always handled myself very well in this situation - I've said some things that weren't overly polite". So she herself admits being rude to me. The attempt to characterize nominating a few footballers for deletion because I failed to understand fully what was and was not a Top Tier international participation by the football teams involved as being the same as the issues involved in discussions over the nominations of beauty pageant contestants is just plain inaccurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. Sorry, JPL, but the issue kinda is the same. In both cases, you nominated a whole lot of articles for deletion in a very short amount of time, and many of them were "clear misses", articles that would never have been AfDed if you took a few minutes to read them and a few more to read policy and guidelines. You've essentially admitted that you nominated a bunch of footballers before fully reading and understanding the footballers' notability guideline. That's bad. Very bad.
  2. PageantUpdater (or anybody else) saying something you don't like doesn't excuse your actions. Especially when you often give worse than you get. Witness your struck-through comments above.

pbp 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing I have said above is meant to say that I was wise or prudent or acted in the best way in my nomination of the articles of footballers for deletion. I see now that the bar for international play and national team membership is lower than I thought at first. I am not sure there is anything I can do to help this situation. I really hate my inability to show sincerity in typing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• As I have already mentioned above, here. You still clearly fail to understand what the issue is. It's not so narrow as you failing to understand what is and isn't a Tier 1 football competition, it's that you took on a subject matter you were not familiar with and went on a nominating spree without doing appropriate research to see if your nominations were valid. I'm a football fan and even I didn't know what a Tier 1 competition was, but it was pretty easy to find out. Going beyond that one specific AFD though, there are at least ten other examples of you nominating articles which quite clearly meet the notability standards, and that even when numerous editors tried to get you to slow down and reconsider your nominations you refused to withdraw the nominations or address the editors' concerns and continued on regardless. You have a pattern of being quick to judgement, as evidenced by the accusation you made about me which was clearly false, and which I had already told you was false - and I daresay by your bringing up my comment about my behaviour as if it is some sort of new thing to sting me with, when I myself had already admitted it openly here. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not simply the notability of international players that was off. JPL's nomination of Juan Pablo Andrade showed a complete lack of research into the subject as there were two English language sources already listed in the article that showed he had played numerous times in a fully professional league to pass notability guidelines. Kosack (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – I haven't had any knowledge of or interaction with John Pack Lambert prior to the three articles on basketball players that he recently nominated, but after learning of his long history of noncompliance and his overriding unwillingness to adjust his editing behavior – or even to take meaningful responsibility for why he is the subject of an ANI, as seen in these very comments – I agree with several users above that we've reached the point where some sort of sanction that restricts his access to the AfD process is necessary. The repeated recidivism and dismissal of other editors' legitimate complaints about his anti-collaborative editing posture are very troubling. This is far from being merely a recent problem. João Do Rio (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• I have admitted I was wrong in some instances. I have said I will try to do much better in the future. I will point out that nominating an article for AfD is inherently a collaborative process. It brings the most scutiny to the article. There are other avenues to seek deletion that are much less collaborative. This is not to say my acrions in doing so we always fully thought out. It is to say that calling such nominations a non-collaborative effort is higgly questionable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's so much that the nomination isn't collaborative, but your lack of participation in the AFD, even when pinged, that is non-collaborative. Nfitz (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Also non-collaborative is dismissing concerns about AfDs as rubbish. pbp 14:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hi all, thanks for all of your input in this discussion but I feel the issues have been well addressed enough already. All the issues and concerns of John Pack Lambert's editing have already been voiced and the editor has apologized multiple times already for these instances. Whether or no John Pack Lambert changes his behavior is up to him, that is not something I or anyone else can change. I suggest per WP:DROPTHESTICK that people stop with this complaining of this editor unless it is new information. Many editors with long and dignified histories on Wikipedia are taking part in this discussion and it would be a great shame if any of them had ill feelings or stopped editing because of this discussion. Anyway that is just my opinion thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: limit JPL's AFD-rate

AFAICS, there are two problems here: a) JPL not doing enough WP:BEFORE on AFDs, b) JPL opening too many AFDs too fast.

These two problems are inter-related. The speed of operation detracts from JPL's ability to scrutinise the articles, and the lack of scrutiny helps him work fast. So it's chicken-and-egg, and it doesn't matter which is at the root of it.

Slowing down John Pack Lambert's AFD-rate will also help the community better digest whatever he does nominate.

To keep things simple, I suggest starting with a limit of 1 AFD per day. That is, JPL may nominate at AFD a maximum of 1 article in any given calendar day, determined by UTC. If JPL, wants to nominate a group of articles in one discussion, they must refrain from any further AFDs for the same number of days as the count of articles nominated.

The precise number could be reviewed upwards or downwards in future. But one per day means no more days like 26 February, where JPL started about a dozen AFDs, including about 5 or 6 inappropriate footballer AFDs. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an unreasonably low participation limit. An extremely indeoth well reasearched and fully vetted fD nomination can be done in an hour or a little more and that involves extremely well researched. I admit I acted too rashly on some of my football related AfDs. I admit I should have studied the issues in more depth. I promise to in the future seek to better understand any and all articles before I make an AfD nomination. I think creating anexplicit participation limit especially one that is so low is just plain unwise. For one tging this nomination ignores the record from my contributions back in November. There were some days that month I made quite a few deletion nominations that were well thought out, made with unquestioned understanding of the issues at hand and resulted in deletes. Formal limits like those proposed here are overly burdensome. I have been responding to each ping put on my account for the last few hours. I have been seeking to better understand our inclusion policies. I know some people look at my actions as pleading for another chance but I have to say I think it is worth giving another chance. For one thing the footb a ll nominations were made with a clear desire to understnd the scope and breadth of the meaning of fully professional leagues. I was trying to engage with the issues at hand. I have been drying to respond to every ping on my comments made over the last several hours. I think it is much better to allow editors to demonstrate a true desire to abide by the rules than to create overly restrictive limits on their activity. I think such a very soecif never ending and overly binding ban is just not reasonable. I am really, really sorry for reacting so defensively at times. I am trying to be a less contentious contributor. However a fixed limit of one AfD per day is just way way too low. I have shown an ability to create more than that that meet or exceed any demands for comprehensiveness in a day. I am the first to admit I should have acted more wisely with the football AfDs and not been so quick to take offense at my nomination being called ridiculous. I do not think a limit of one AfD per day is at all reasonable. I really think I should be given a chance to show that I have internalized a desire to do better before action ro put such stringent limits on my editing is taken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • JPL, that all sounds well-and-good, and I am sure that it is sincere ... but the problem is that this is far from being the first time that you have gone on an ill-considered AFD splurge, and far from being the first time that you have eventually given never-happen-again promises at ANI. It is now clear that the community's patience is being exhausted.
    So I proposed this as a more modest restraint than the outright AFD ban which others seek, and as one which would give you the opportunity to come back in a few months and demonstrate that you had been learnt how to use AFD responsibly. So this is giving you another chance. I don't think that unrestrained AFDing is a viable option right now; I don't see the support for it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Note that there are no restrictions in participating in other AFDs, or even PRODding articles (which might be a better option for some of the sure-fire ones such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Allen (2nd nomination). You can also always ask another editor to AFD an article - it's easy to see in a particular project which editors frequently AFD articles. I suppose bulk prodding can be a problem, but at least it's a lot easier to undo, and wouldn't create as much work as all the AFDs - and bulk prodding the wrong articles a lot could well up in a trip here. Nfitz (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Would've suggested the same thing myself if BHG hadn't. Would also consider it JPL's "last chance" to participate productively at AfD. pbp 18:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support as I think this is much more reasonable than a full topic ban, which I was afraid was going to be proposed. It will allow JPL to still participate in AfD, but also address the community's concerns. I would suggest that it be stated that JPL is free to appeal to AN at some reasonable time for the lifting of the restrictions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that JPL should be free to appeal to AN to have the limit raised or removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • But it could also go in the other direction. If he's creating AfDs at a lower volume, but continues to have the quality problems demonstrated above and in the beauty pageant fiasco, we could look at completely closing the door. pbp 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Sure. That is also true, but I think AN would be the preferred venue for any adjustment (stricter or looser) here to save the dramah. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - with the ban to be reviewed after 6 months. I think a 1 AFD/day limit is reasonable so that JPL can better concentrate on the required "Before" activity when proposing an AFD; and that he has the time to collaborate and respond to comments, questions and discussion during each AFD. Evidence of prior research and collaboration during AFDs can be provided after six months to request a lifting of the ban. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support as CactusWriter observed, this ban will enable JPL to focus more closely on each of his nominations. JPL should also be admonished to cut out the canvassing and the bogus accusations. Lepricavark (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support This sounds reasonable to me. Some sort of restriction needs to be put in place; we've heard the "I won't do it again" back in September and clearly we can't hold him at his word. The fact that he refused to discuss it or show any sign of understanding there was a problem until it came to ANI still needs to be addressed in my opinion, I believe it negates any supposed contrition he has that he is only accepting the problem here and now. Describing this ANI as an "attack", "vengeance" and "intimidation" only reinforces this. I'm not sure how it should be done but some sort of Insistence that he engage with concerns other editors have brought to his talk page, instead of blanking or ignoring it, would be helpful. And I would also appreciate some sort of recognition here (ie not by JPL) that the behaviour towards me - blanking my messages by calling them "rubbish", the false accusation here, the wording in the canvassing etc - is unacceptable. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support: As a completely involved party, on the surface this appears to be someone badly unfamiliar with the procedures of this website. At worse, this might even be some kind of prank. A lot of the protestations, claims of innocence, and pleas to other users to "support their cause" [104] are very reminiscent of other past problems we've had with some big time problem accounts (like this one, for instance). Fully support a ban on AfD activities until the user can show they know how to utilize the feature and perhaps also if the account can be verified as a legitimate editor and not an account specifically created to cause problems in this area. -O.R.^Comms 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per the above, though I would suggest that a flat one nomination per day rule would work better than balancing additional nominations with extra days of 0 nominations. Failing that, I would suggest flipping the standard - if JPL wishes to bulk nominate 5 similar articles, then they should do so only after 5 days of no nominations. Front-load the skip days, so to speak. But that all might be overly complex. My suggestion to JPL is to engage with other editors and work on better understanding our inclusion policies by discussing those policies, not by engaging in trial and error with the AFD process. There is no deadline - if no one else is nominating the articles that you would be nominating (but for the restriction), then perhaps waiting a day isn't going to hurt anything. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support - Mass-nominating over 60 articles at AfD in once day (on February 26, 2017) is beyond extreme behavior and begs the question whether those actions were part of some strategy to "right great wrongs" on Wikipedia, which is not what we are here to do. This user has also mass-nominated around or above 20-30 articles at AfD in one day several times over the last year or so...so this isn't new behavior at all. Also, it's been said many times that AfD is not cleanup - so that's not a valid defense for this kind of behavior at AfD.

The fact that this user has also basically attempted to canvass several other users about this "attack" (in his words, not mine) AN/I thread indicates to me that just about anything said by this user here in this thread that appears "contrite" is likely an act now that they've been "caught". IMO, it's past time that this user's behavior at AfD be sanctioned in order to stop this kind of disruptive behavior in the future. Guy1890 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I feel like Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. I have interacted with Johnpacklambert on hundreds of AfDs, particularly on biographies of rap musicians, and my impression is that he has an excellent grasp of notability guidelines. User:PageantUpdater left this message on Johnpacklambert's talk page where she flagged what has come to be known as the "inappropriate footballer AFDs". The first link in her comment regarded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farukh Abitov. Mr. Abitov's AfD was a speedy keep, though I shake my head to see why it was "speedy", and how Johnpacklambert was in any way negligent or vexatious with his nomination. Have a look at this subsequence discussion about Mr. Abitov's notability, which ended up on my talk page. What I found most disturbing was that PageantUpdater seemed to have voted "speedy keep" only because Johnpacklambert had initiated the nomination (see this discussion). Next, I ran "Johnpacklambert" and "PageantUpdater" through the Editor Interaction Analyser just to get a random and typical example of one of Johnpacklambert's deletion nominations. The second AfD in the list was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Addis, where he wrote 13 lines of text to support his AfD. How is this a sloppy editor? In my opinion, Johnpacklambert has chosen not to write articles about butterflies and sports cars, but has instead chosen to do tons and tons of AfD's, the dirtiest job on Wikipedia. In doing so, he has dashed the dreams of hundreds of aspiring rappers and beauty queens (and angered the authors of their articles), but he has also, in my opinion, very much strengthened the project. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I think it's inaccurate to paint this just as a feud between PageantUpdater and JPL. JPL's talk page history is riddled with numerous other editors asking him to stop his behavior at AfD. Abitov was closed as speedy keep because a lot of other editors other than PageantUpdater voted "keep" or "speedy keep" with clear, policy-based reason. As for Kristi Addis, despite JPL's nomination being long, the article was still easily kept, because, even though the nomination was long, it still didn't get an adequate grasp of the relevant policies, nor of the article's sourcing. pbp 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. These sports-related articles were/have been in large part unanimously voted to be kept, taking me out of the picture the result would be the same. As for Magnolia's accusation that "PageantUpdater seemed to have voted "speedy keep" only because Johnpacklambert had initiated the nomination"... this is a gross misunderstanding and one I have already clarified a number of times. I couldn't sleep (unrelated) and spent half the night researching sports leagues and players so I could be confident in my votes to keep or speedy keep. Certainly not all votes were speedy keep, only those where there was notability clearly established that JPL had plainly overlooked - others where my vote was based on GNG were voted !Keep. I even voted !Delete on one. Yes I looked through his nominations, because once I'd read two or three it became obvious to me that others were likely flawed as well and needed addressing. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farukh Abitov was closed as a Speedy Keep because it was clear that the article fully passed WP:NFOOTY. The discussion and its closing had nothing to do with the fact that John Pack Lambert nominated it or the editors who took part in the deletion discussion, rather just per WP:SNOW because there was obviously no point in keeping the AFD going when every body felt a speedy keep was the way to go. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Looking through his recent edits and comments, I think Johnpacklambert wants to do the right thing, though it appears he can get carried away. I don't think this has to be a particularly long restriction. And there's lots of ways to continue to participate in a similar manner to what he has been doing. He can still comment at AFD. He can ask other editors to AFD articles that he identifies. He could even Prod articles (which might save everyone some time, assuming they are arguably not notable). I'm a bit concerned that this might demoralize him and drive him away from the project, as there is value on much of what he does. But it doesn't have to be that way. Perhaps with less AFDs, he'll have more time to participate in the discussions he's already started, which makes it easier to learn from them (and we all learn from these discussion that we start). Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The article Farukh Abitov falls far short of what is expected for a BLP. There doesn't seem to be a good objective reason to give football players a free pass in this regard as compared with other professions. Compare, for example, James McCown – a far better sourced article about someone who is long dead, which is still having to justify its existence. Andrew D. (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment That is merely an opinion on the policy. You might disagree with the policy but that is not the issue here, and regardless of your opinion on it, that is what the community has agreed upon and what the AFDs currently should be judged upon. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NFOOTY is not a policy. WP:BEFORE is more debatable but deletionists usually contend that it's not a policy and AFD is full of cases where it hasn't been followed. Definite and important policies include WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The idea that football is special and so should be exempted from the general notability guideline is very much a point-of-view. It seems to be fan-based – the same sort of fan enthusiasm that has today given us Viking metal as a featured article even though that has been nominated for deletion too. The issues seem quite debatable and so editors are entitled to discuss them. See also WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:Walled Garden. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Farukh Abitov is a stub. There's nothing in there that is factually incorrect. It's referenced. It very clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The key issue that Johnpacklambert failed to apply WP:BEFORE, which requires that D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. The simplest of searches would have confirmed that he had many appearances for the Kyrgyzstan national football team easily passing WP:NFOOTBALL. But if was all about this article, we wouldn't be here. There have been many, many recent AFDs - and this is one of the better ones to tell the truth - and likely why Johnpacklambert raised this particular one in his defence, as it was referenced - unlike several other, where the references to prove notability were already in the article. Any individual AFD wasn't terrible. But the sum total of them, many not being very good, with the consistent lack of research, following WP:BEFORE, and then ignoring any issues raised in the discussion is why we are here - and why he's previously been here at ANI. The comparison to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McCown doesn't work as McCowan clearly fails WP:SOLDIER, and one has to rely on WP:GNG, which is harder to research and establish. To be comparable, McCowan would have had to have passed WP:SOLDIER but still nominated at AFD because the nominator didn't understand WP:SOLDIER despite having been in previous AFDs where WP:SOLDIER was clearly explained to him. Nfitz (talk)

Farukh Abitov is notable, but to say the article "very clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL" is disputable. This discussion shows that determining if Abitov's team met the notability standards was not so simple. I'm not convinced this was in any way a bad faith edit by Johnpacklambert. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If this was such a great nomination, why did so many people go the other direction so quickly? pbp 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia677 the issue isn't whether John Pack Lambert is making edits in bad faith, its whether the editor understands WP:BEFORE and the notability requirements of the articles that are being nominated for deletion. If s/he and/or you disagrees with WP:NFOOTY or the notability of other WikiProjects, then the issue should be raised at the WikiProject's respectful talk pages. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia677 - He had 15 caps for his nation. Unless you know nothing about international WP:FOOTBALL, it's very clear that he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Johnpacklambert has been editing for over a decade, and has contributing AFDs in the football area for months. In particular he AFDed 18 articles on August 15 and 16, 2016. In particular see - it's exactly the same thing. 15 appearances for his nation (the Solomon Islands national football team). (In the other 17, he claimed they didn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL because they hadn't played professionally - but all 17 had and were kept - we've had examples of that as well this week). So not only is he familiar with the project, not only has he encountered this criteria before, but he ALSO was reminded of this on February 21 days before he nominated Farukh Abitov for the exact same thing! The point is, that he doesn't follow WP:BEFORE, he doesn't understand the criteria he is using for nomination, and he doesn't learn from his mistakes (or does he not read the AFD discussion after he nominates?). I don't think it was a bad faith edit. But it's still Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Nfitz (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• AfD is full of cases where the nominators get it wrong. Farukh Abitov would not be considered adequate for most other types of BLP and I am far from convinced that it is based upon independent and reliable sources as it mainly seems to rely upon a self-published fan site. It is of sufficiently poor quality that any patroller might nominate it. Sanctions are therefore quite inappropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The entirety of your reasoning in opposing the proposal has thus far involved the Farukh Abitov article. JPL's nomination of that article is very, very far from being the sole basis for this ANI. João Do Rio (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I am a little hesitant to support this proposal as John Pack Lambert has a long and distinguished history here on Wikipedia and has been acting in good faith, although the editor also has a track record of nominating articles for deletion in a hasty manner. While this debate has been heated and at times personal it is important to remember that actions such as e.i. topic bans or restrictions are meant to help the project as a whole and not WP:PUNISH. I think BrownHairedGirl and Nfitz have said it best, by limiting John Pack Lambert to one AFD a day the editor will have more time to observe WP:BEFORE and less likely to make hasty AFDs. If in future John Pack Lambert has shown that he will be more careful and responsible with his AFD nominations then by all means the editor should have their full rights restored. Which ever way this is resolved I hope people take it in good faith and not personally. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I never said the leagues were not fully professional. I said they were not top tier leagues. At the time I was under the impression that a player had to have played in a league that was top tier and fully professional. I have since come to realize that is not what thezstandard is, but it is what I mistakenly thought it was at the time and it was what I was arguing. My most recent nominations have all focused on people who did not play in fully professional leagues except one where I clearly made a mistake. I am trying to hold hope that there is a way out of this draconian clamp down. One point, the claim above that finding sources that show a person played in games for a national team is not enough. They have to have played in games that are rated at a certain specific level by FIFA. The very wording of that section inplies that we need evidence of more than having been part of the national team. If being a member of a national team was defaylt enough to be notable that secrion of the description would be a lot better. I read the long desciptor of what games were needed to have been played in bedore nominating Abitov and from what I could tell at that point he had not played in such games. I admit that I was wrong. As I admit that I should have tried to engage in discussions more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support (sorry). I really wanted to not add further commentary here, but the amount of spurious nominations is too excessive. Per this AfD discussion, as well as others, such as the one I linked in my comment above (link), it comes across that this user does not have a significant comprehension of WP:N and does not engage in any source searching to determine notability, instead simply basing notability upon the state of sourcing in articles. In the discussion at the first link in my comment here, it has become obvious that the article was nominated for deletion solely based upon the state of sourcing in the article at the time of its nomination. The rationale provided was "One source will never be enough to pass GNG" (link). However, per WP:NEXIST, a part of the main Notability guideline page, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. I tried to explain this at the deletion discussion, but the user does not seem to comprehend this, replying to my comment with, "In general thegeneral notability guidelines trump sport specific guidelines. So the fact that I was aware of the notability guidelines for sports can not overcome the fact that the general notability guidelines are not met with one source." (diff). I can understand this type of error being made by a new or relatively new editor, but an editor with a high rate of AfD nominations and !votes should be aware of these basic parameters of WP:N. Topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, it's right there on the main WP:N page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support I would have supported and out-and-out block, though I can see this as a reasonable compromise. Also, I feel that this restriction should not be revisited for at least 1 year, given the long history at play here. John Pack Lambert's AfD antics have cost this community countless precious man hours, and have driven productive editors off of Wikipedia. Some of the stuff going on here is bordering on WP:NOTHERE territory. JPL, if you truly want to improve your working knowledge of the notability guidelines, I'd recommend that you take a step back from AfD nominations altogether, and instead start working from the other end - find articles that are currently sitting at Afd and start trying to source and "rescue" them. You can gain a better grasp of the relevant policies and guidlines, as well as discover how to better evaluate sources when you do this type of actual encyclopedia editing, as opposed to scatter-shotting a whole bunch of serial drive-by AfD nominations. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think thos line from the notability guidelines for baseball players needs to be considered "Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability." I probably should have posted that before things got out of hand. I probably should have posted that instead of calling other statements rubbish. My one other thought is that I have on occasion gone above and beyond to try and keep editors here. That I can demonstate. In rhe specific case the article on the foriegn minister of Mongolia had been nominated for speedy deletion. I overturned it, brought in some sources and thanked the fairly new editor for crearing it. I probably should hunt down the diffs, and it would help if I could remember said foriegn ministers name. However it did happen and would not take too much effort to dig up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • JPL, that long paragraph might be relevant in the broader discussion above, but it has nothing at all to do with this proposal. You do yourself no favours by posting such verbose irrelevancy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Lets stop wasting people's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support – My thoughts on this matter are essentially the same as those of Ejgreen77. João Do Rio (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Reading this thread and following the diffs, I am beginning to be concerned about JPL's competence to be involved in AfD at all. I suggest at least a six month hiatus before this can be appealed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I've seen John Pack Lambert's name around, but I don't believe I know him. Nevertheless these statistics, and the list of articles nominated in just the past few days I believe indicate that he's somewhat gone off the rails in regard to deletions. I think a throttle is called for, especially since his rate of the community agreeing with him is only 46%. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment on opposes. The opposes above by @Andrew Davidson and @Magnolia677 are thoughtful and worth reading. Thanks to both editors for posting them.
  I have a lot of sympathy with the points they make, particularly that AFD places too much weight on topic-specific guidelines such as NFOOTY. In particular, Andrew Davidson was right to point out that the idea that football is special and so should be exempted from the general notability guideline is very much a point-of-view. However, even that is an understatement. The topic-specific guidelines in WP:NSPORTS are all headed with a bolded sentence that topics inthat field "are presumed notable if". Note that word "presumed", because it's crucial: it does not assert notability; it just creates a disprovable assumption. This is spelled out very clearly in WP:GNG:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Sadly, some editors wrongly treat the subheads such as NFOOTY as a sort of trump card which exempts the article from WP:GNG. And this tends to be endorsed by non-admin closers, so we have a steady flow of AFDs based on a misrepresentation of the guidelines.

JPL is challenging this, and is right to do so: the guidelines support his principle.

But the problem is that the way he does it is wrong, and timewasting.

If JPL wants to challenge the mistaken use of NFOOTY etc as a trump card, the he needs to make sure that his nominations are based on the in-depth analysis required by GNG. He needs to actually disprove the assumption, and that takes a lot more than one line.

If JPL does fewer AFDs and makes a better job of them, he is more likely to succeed in reducing Wikipedia collection of permastubs which will never amount to more than glorified list entries. And other editors will avoid having to waste time on AFDs which are inadequately prepared. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If John Pack Lambert or any other editor for that matter want to challenge WP:NFOOTBALL that's well and fine but it should be done on the WikiProject's talk page or other appropriate settings, not on AFDs. I don't believe the editor was intentionally trying to do this but this might possibly fall under WP:POINT. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: please will you re-read what I posted? It is all about the guidelines as they currently stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case I must partially disagree then, none of John Pack Lambert's recent football AFDs even gathered ONE delete vote. I also do not understand Andrew Davidson's qualm with the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farukh Abitov. Sure the article is a bit lazily written and it is a stub, but it pretty comprehensively passes WP:NFOOTY. A goalkeeper who has played 15 full matches is certainly notable in football standards, and the result of the AFD is a clear indication of that. Also there were other AFDs that were closed by an admin so I don't understand this animosity with this admin-closure business. Either way this is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Wikipedia is drowning in promotional spam and non-notable BLPs, and penalising an editor for AfD contributions is counter-productive. Separately, I did not find the beauty pageant fiasco to be a correct description of JPL's contributions. Most of these articles were either redirected or deleted, and I believe the AfDs brought this area to the community attention, so many more editors have started nominating such articles; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beauty pageants. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support – if the afds are valid let others have the enjoyment of listing them. Moreover JPL will be released into more varied activities. Oculi (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least as written. AFDs initiated by editors who do not comply with WP:BEFORE are pestilential, and editors who do this regularly should be sanctioned. But that's a separate issue from the rate at which JPL initiates AFDs. Right now, the AFD tool shows that about 75% of the AFDs he starts are closed with delete outcomes.[105] That's a more than acceptable rate. If the complaint is that JPL is too fast and accurate, that should probably be rejected out of hand. That said, the number of deletion discussions JPL initiated on February 26 is greatly excessive, by any reasonable standard. Any repetition of that spree should be grounds for topic bans of increasing duration. But singling out one user for indefinite penalties merely because they stepped on some overly sensitive toes, while allowing other users with similar patterns of misbehavior to escape scot-free, is not appropriate. We ought to make a commitment to systematically enforce WP:BEFORE, which is incorporated by reference into the WP:AFD page. If we're not willing to do that, we shouldn't be targeting editors for draconian editing limits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:The afdstats are masked, as in some projects, he is doing very good. But as soon as he ventures into, sports, topics for example, he's running a lot closer to 10% than 75%. And it's not 1 AFD, it's many at once. Followed by more a few days later, ignoring all the points that were made earlier. It does though all seem to be in good faith. Is there any way to subset those afd stats by project?Nfitz (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know of any way to do that without reviewing the AFDs manually. If you could show that his AFDs in one particular field were poorly informed, a carefully tailored editing restriction -- say, requiring him to demonstrate compliance with WP:BEFORE for any AFD in the topic area -- would be a more appropriate action than this blunderbuss proposal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: In these three (see 1, 2, 3) AFD nominations John Pack Lambert nominated them with the rational that they failed WP:NFOOTY. If he said they failed WP:GNG as stated above he might have had a point (I'd disagree but that's irrelevant). The problem is that all three of those and many more of the AFD propositions well passed the WP:NSPORTS requirements, and it the mass of nominations that this user makes that are a problem. There is no rush or need for 20 to 50 AFD nominations a day that this user is known to make. If John Pack Lambert where to take more time maybe he could form better AFD proposals and arguments or maybe he wouldn't nominate articles that articles on logic or failing guidelines that they actually passed. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Atkins (basketball) closed as Snow Keep by an uninvolved editor today on basis of GNG. Appears no research was done before nominating --- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - My experience with this user at AfD is that he is following guidelines. John Pack Lambert recently nominated an article about a footballer for deletion and was quickly accused of not following WP:BEFORE by other participating editors. However, I did several searches and found no signs of "significant coverage" of the subject. I didn't take it as a disruptive nomination, and if anything lead to minor improvements in the article (and potentially the removal of an article about a non-notable subject). Jogurney (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Jogurney:It's not about the one article though. If it was just one article we wouldn't be here. If it was about one article a day, we wouldn't be here. It's 20 a day (some days at least), with the same reason they won't be deleted that the ones the previous day passed on. This just overloads the project, and ends up using a lot of people's time. If he'd only PROD them, at least we'd spend less time on them. 19:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure why people are !Voting without reading the entirety of this ANI. There are !Votes based on one or two specific AFDs without considering the entirety of the problem and the editor's other behaviour, namely refusing to discuss the issue with editors expressing concerns, blanking his talk page instead of discussing (with the description "rubbish"), pretending to show contrition here while describing this ANI as "vengeance", "an attack", "intimidation" etc, and making false accusations against me. I would draw your attention to the following:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Atkins (basketball) - SNOW keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Pablo Andrade - Keep, nom withdrawn
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahidul Alam (footballer) - Speedy keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Lambert (hurler) - Keep, nom withdrawn
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maksim Agapov - Keep, nom withdrawn
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farukh Abitov - Speedy keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Abdul-Hamid - Keep (4 votes for speedy keep, 1 for keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musa Abdul-Aleem - Keep (3 votes for speedy, 2 for keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Miller (quarterback) - Speedy Keep, this was a great example, nomination was "The sourcing is far short of GNG. Playing in the Arena Football league does not grant automatic notability, and I see no other sign of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)" as per the closer "The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. The Arena Football League is expressly covered by WP:NGRIDIRON--it is in fact first in the list of leagues named. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)"
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdoul Karim Cissé - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omneya Abdel Kawy - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Abbate (2nd nomination) - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Aafjes - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marko Arapović - Keep, Subject was an Olympian, this was overlooked
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Therry Aquino - Keep
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akane Araki - Keep
• Take a look at his history from the 20th & 26th of February - if you don't find that disturbing then I am concerned. Yes a few got deleted but mainly in other topic areas. I don't recall seeing a single !Delete vote in all those AFDs above and there were many concerns raised about him not researching or fully understanding criteria or simply overlooking some really basic stuff. The withdrawn noms only came after the ANI was started, on the 20th User:Rikster2 asked him to withdraw the nom for Maksim Agapov as " He actually does meet the WP:NBASKETBALL standard as he played in Euroleague competition last year. He also meets a second SSG (WP:NOLYMPICS) by playing for the Croatian team in last year's summer games. " ... this was ignored and until 8 days later well after the ANI was started. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose in this case because there's enough to still show the AfDs are being closed as delete, exactly with the past bundles of pageant members AfDs, so there's been the stated willing of change in the current number of nominating, which solves it; otherwise still pursuing as wanting to still nominate at AfD and limit the intake by that alone, is simply wanting to take things too far. While I concur a few of the last ones were questionable, there's still the overall helpful participation overall. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I literally can't make sense of your comment. "The stated willing of change int he current number of nominating which solves it"... which solves what? The editor in question is still making a large number of scattershot ill thought out nominations which is exactly what he was encouraged not to do last time, regardless of the no consensus close. Clearly the issue has not been "solved" given his recent history at AFD. The SNOW keep votes are piling up, at least three more since I added that list and it appears more to come given there are a number outstanding with narry a "delete" vote. Of his last 100 nominations], two thirds of the 36 currently closed have been closed as Speedy Keep or Keep. And "helpful participation"? What of his behaviour when others brought to his attention that he was making a number of incorrect nominations, when they asked him to withdraw nominations? Radio silence, and then when the issue was addressed more directly, the posts got blanked. There's clearly no willingness to be helpful and collaborative. This is a pattern of behaviour which stems back long before the last ANI discussion. He clearly is expressing an intention to do what he likes how he likes and will only be curtailed when brought to ANI. If this closes as no consensus (how much longer will this be kept open by the way?) will we have to all go through this a third time when another topic hits his sights? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • He has also recently accused an editor who voted to !Keep of "prejudicing the nomination based on alleged behavior of the nominator without considering the nomination itself." This comes after the editor in question wrote "strong keep article over qualifies WP:GNG which is basic yardstick for establishing notability on Wikipedia on second look nominator of article is currently answering a case on "his Behaviour of nominating numerous articles for deletion without taking time to read reference provided" I'm not sure what part of "On second look" JPL is unable to comprehend but this continues the pattern of assuming bad faith against those who disagree with him. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @SwisterTwister:: Several things:

1. Nominating a whole bunch of articles for deletion in the same topic within a very short period of time is generally in and of itself problematic, because it puts undue strain on the small community that specializes in that topic to try and save them (this idea is similar to WP:FAIT)
2. As PageantUpdater notes above, there was a pretty long string of articles that were kept, half of them speedily and many with not a single delete vote. pbp 14:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the post that JPL posted on SwisterTwister's page alerting the user to this discussion, along with additional commentary that has occurred in the thread there: diff, diff, diff. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I stand by what I said there, I would not have started the ANI discussion had JPL engaged in discussion with editors when the issue was first brought to his talk page. It all could have been sorted out amicably. Two tried even before I got involved, and were ignored. I know we have history but honestly I don't actually enjoy this mess and I'd much rather the previous ANI been the end of all of it. However, when I can see the same behaviour repeating itself, I feel it important to bring it to the table for discussion. It frustrates me when I see him acting the victim in similar talk page messages, because to me it reinforces the idea that he doesn't realise that he has done anything wrong - both the AFDs himself and his behaviour in (not!) discussing them. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. User cannot possibly be doing WP:BEFORE if he is nominating 60 articles per day. Not doing BEFORE wastes countless hours of editor time and ends up getting notable articles deleted. I support restriction, and support requiring WP:BEFORE, and support also requiring that he post Template:Friendly search suggestions on the talk page of each article so that he can more easily do WP:BEFORE. I also support requiring him to change his Google-search results-per-page to 100 results per page. Softlavender (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Just because you are unwilling to commit several hours of time to editing Wikipedia does not mean others are not.

• Support I feel it my duty to participate in community discussions such as XfD, and it is a waste of my time when AfD is being spammed. Just because it is a sub par article, doesn't mean it has to be AfDd NOW.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Softlavender's reasoning. If doing even a simple WP:BEFORE assessment takes a few minutes, then someone nominating 60 AfDs in a day would have had to have spent at least 3-5 hours to do the BEFORE assessment (assuming 3-5 minutes per article). This seems highly implausible and the amount of problematic AfDs seems to confirm it. Regards SoWhy 17:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I spent more hours than that editing Wikipedia on February 27th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The proposal is reasonable and appropriate, especially in view of the long-established finding by ArbCom noted at WP:Fait accompli. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I reviewed this AfD list "Very basic research is able to prove the fallacy of his claims to players playing in non-notable leagues etc. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]". If all these 12 articles were deleted -- Wikipedia would lose nothing. A league might be notable which does not mean that all the league players were automatically notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of all players of all leagues. Notability shall be proven not assumed. To review the articles contents I needed no more than 30 secs to understand their insignificance.--178.221.131.66 (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

IP, you've only made one other edit to Wikipedia, and as is very evident in your rationale, you very clearly don't understand Wikipedia's notability or deletion guidelines and policies. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that [4] to [15] are the links to near unanimous keeps in PageantUpdater's opening statement (this will be less obvious once this is archived). Needless to say, as these were well-attended near-unanimous keeps, the mass nomination of these players is disruptive. If we want to change the way we evaluate notability in this topic area, there has to be discussion and consensus in other forums first. Nfitz (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nfitz Bear in mind that some of the listed articles ([4] - [15]) are no more than two lines articles about some local athletes almost unknown to the rest of world. Consensus is a Wikipedia nonsense legalizing opinions of just a few and imposing them to the rest of world.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if your points are all valid and arguably true, that's not the issue here. The issue is the disruption of repeatedly bulking AFDs that are clearly not going to pass. If there was one or two AFDs as a test, to have a debate about it, that's fine. But to have a whole bunch clearly fail, and then do another bunch (and bunch and bunch) is not on. To be fair, some of the bunches pass. But the issue is not doing doing WP:BEFORE. There's a completely separate debate about whether and how WP:N is evaluated. But that is not this debate. Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by your "The issue is the disruption of repeatedly bulking AFDs that are clearly not going to pass." You are recycling meaningless phrases my friend. Wikipedia suffers from a very big malady - everybody is qualified to write about everything. It's enough to have five to ten plain ignorants who can write meaninglessly about, say, a drug use and prevent an educated pharmacist to remove such article from Wikipedia by just exploiting the same phrases you are playing with, plus consensus, plus notability plus before .... Pharmacists solved that problem telling us: do not read Wikipedia. In this case Johnpacklambert proposed removal a bunch completely worthless articles which do not misinform rather of no cognitive values at all.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of the worth of the articles in question could not be more irrelevant. If you're going to dismiss the consensus of multiple editors, you certainly can't expect to place any weight on your remarks. We don't delete articles just because some people find them uninteresting. I agree with Softlavender that you have no idea what you are talking about. Lepricavark (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender Anonymously I've made hundreds and hundreds edits. My ISP changes my proxy IP randomly, therefore this IP is one of many IPs I used. I'm not impressed by your understanding of the deletion guidelines and policies. Wikipedia is in dire need of people like Johnpacklambert.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid you have learned little, if anything, about Wikipedia's notability or deletion guidelines and policies. Here is the quotation from the OP you copied, with the AfDs actually linked (which you failed to provide): "Very basic research is able to prove the fallacy of his claims to players playing in non-notable leagues etc. [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]". — Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please, do not waste my time. I cannot learn much from two sentence long articles and from people who voted to keep such article. Neither of the voters ever improved the articles they voted to keep. As I mentioned before, the consensus rule is meaningless per se and in 99% manipulated.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You are indeed proving that you do not understand anything about Wikipedia's notability or deletion guidelines and policies. Softlavender (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I initially felt very negatively towards these sanctions, but time has worn on, and while JPL expressed contrition for various things above, including AfD'ing articles of players on national teams and the Phillipine Basketball Association, his contrition seems to be very superficial as he has done nothing to rectify the mistakes he admits he has made. If he believed these were mistakes, if his contrition were sincere, would he not withdraw nominations such as [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rodrigue_Akl], who was both on his national team and the PBA? As this discussion has continued, I have come to believe that JPL is not hearing, and is just annoyed that we're slowing down his progress in rashly deleting articles without being bothered by WP:BEFORE or by concensus notability guidelines he doesn't like.Jacona (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No where in the Sports notability guidelines does it say that being on a national baskketball team makes someone notable, and the PBA is not on the notability granting teams list. So the claim I should withdraw these nominations to show good faith ignores the guidelines. The guidelines that supposedly my ignoring is such a big problem. However where I have read and understand the guidelines, people seem to think I should defer to some non-binding suggestions of the project talk page, instead of the actual notability guidelines. That is not at all a reasonable demand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • You said above that you recognized AfD'ing those who played for national teams (never mind PBA for now) was a mistake. You have sat around and left those AfD's simmering though, not doing anything to rectify your mistake in spite of this discussion. If you were editing in good faith, you would review the nominations you say you regret and withdraw them. That would show respect towards the time of your fellow editors. I'm not feeling that respect. Jacona (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The statement about national teams only applied to football. I never said that players of national basketball teams were notable, because the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guidelines on basketball make no references at all to playing on national basketball teams.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The claims that prodding would be less disruptive ignores the fact that there is less notice of Prods and so it is in many ways a way to make an end run around the process of fully discussing the article before deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Several of the articles I nominated on Feb. 26th have been deleted, some of them with other users suggesting they should be speedy deleted. I will admit that the use of the term "rubbish" was a bit much. However I was under the impression I had a right to remove statements from my talk page. I was quite flustered because my attempt to post something on my talk page had been stalled because of edit conflicts. Also, people seem to be ignoring that fact that all 60 articles I nominated were BLPs, and in the case of BLPs we have a duty to have reliably sourced articles. Anything unsourced needs to be removed, so it would stand to reason an article without sources in it to justify its existence should be deleted. I intend to do a much better job at doing before investigations. But punishing someone for applying the BLP principals shows a non-belief in them, and undermines our rules against unsourced statements about living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Your statement regarding a desire to remove unreferenced BLPs doesn't really ring true though. Off the top of my head, Abdoul Karim Cissé, Gerard Aafjes and Juan Pablo Andrade all contained reliable sources that ascertained their notability when they were nominated. I'm guessing there may be more. Kosack (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There were lots of other articles, including one only sourced to a blog sport site that was a fan site, that constituted very clear violations of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, BLP is a red herring here, because a) a lot of them were sourced already, and b) you probably should have used PROD initially if unsourced BLP was the issue? pbp 23:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This comment ignores my statement above that I feel Prod deleting is a sneaky way to avoid a full discussion, and so avoid doing it. No one has even tried to respond to that statement, let alone describe a good reason my view on the matter is wrong. AfDs are more openly publicized and the most logical place to look if you expect an article you have created is about to be deleted. I create AfDs because I want to make the discussion of the areticles as open and public as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't even mention BLP in most of your athlete nominations! pbp 00:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment "wikipedia would lose nothing" is akin to saying "I don't care, they can be recreated" which is POINT or wasting the time of users. If Wikipedia loses nothing by deletion, it loses nothing by keeping. When deletionists run wild, inclusionists must responde code-3.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a major problem keeping the articles is they violate biography of living people rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @L3X1 We have to discourage users to waste their time on writing articles of no cognitive value. An encyclopaedia, therefore Wikipedia, is all about knowledge, isn't it? Actually Wikipedia would gain much by the deletions proposed by John Pack Lambert--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Who determines what articles are of cognitive value? You? Lepricavark (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

So what's happening with this?

This has run for over a week, about 30 people have participated, and roughly 70% of those who did supported JPL being sanctioned. Is it going to get enacted? pbp 23:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yet this person is perfectly willing to point out we are note voting and percentages do not matter when they not getting their way at AfD. To impose such an extraordinary sanction against someone with only 70% support and in a case of trying to punish someone for wanting to abide by BLP rules is just unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This isn't about me, and this isn't about BLP. For all this supposed crusade about BLP, precious few of your athlete deletion discussions even mention it. I feel bringing up BLP after-the-fact is a poor excuse for justifying questionable edits. pbp 00:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • An extraordinary sanction? A limit of 1/day, or 365 deletion proposals in a year is "extraordinary"?Jacona (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • In the last two and a half years, I've only nominated 50. That's, what, two a month? TenPoundHammer has 50 AfDs and MfDs combined since last summer. pbp 01:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• "Crying BLP" at this late date isn't going to accomplish anything. PRODs are a completely valid way to accomplish the same "goal" of an AfD - just through a less controversial process. If you discount the IP(s) & the two obviously canvassed opinions above, there appear to only be 4 (uninvolved?) opposes to the proposed sanction here, which will, in fact, allow this user to generate several hundred more AfDs just this calendar year alone. Maybe it would help if we asked for an uninvolved administrator to close this thread? Guy1890 (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would strongly support asking an uninvolved admin for a close. I've been trying to keep my lips zipped in regards to this thread the last couple of days as I feel I've said more than enough already, but I think it is definitely time for a resolution now. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, Guy, please request input from an admin. pbp 06:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess someone's already done that here. Let's all wait & see - unless anyone new to the discussion has something to say above. Guy1890 (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that. Unfortunately it was four days ago & still no progress but hopefully someone sees it soon. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps @Drmies: could pop in and close. He commented above, but I don't think he's involved. And put an end to this drama, one way or another. Nfitz (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Well, it's certainly enlightening to see that one day one day of pissing off Wikipedia editors obsessed with sports an/or beauty pageants will get you sanctioned, but a campaign that annoyed most of the literate women in the English-speaking world won't. Another display of warped priorirites in our otaku-dominated admin culture. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Avaya1

Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Avaya1 has continually reverted on the article Ivanka Trump, in an apparent act of article ownership. A discussion took place on the talk page in regards to the infobox photo, and there was no consensus for either keeping the current photo being used on the article, or the proposed photo that several other users have placed into the article in addition to myself. After two weeks, there has been no discussion since February 20, which indicates to me that it is a non-controversial change, and Avaya1 is simply being obstructive and trying to force their version of the article and not allowing others to contribute. After there being no discussion since the 20th of last month, I decided to be bold and re-insert the image, as there was no other significant opposition to the change. Avaya1 is exhibiting edit warring behavior, but I thought ANI would be better to file a report, as there seems to be some apparent and very serious ownership issues. Avaya1 has been blocked twice in the past, including once for edit warring behavior, according to their block log. I'd appreciate administrator input, as I believe Avaya1 to be in the wrong in being obstructive and not allowing several editors to make a change to an article despite there not being consensus per talk page discussions for their position. Calibrador (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Are Donald Trump's family members considered to fall under the American politics arbitration case? Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump and her husband are two of Donald Trump's informal advisors, who he is said to listen to somewhat more than his actual advisors, so I would say "Yes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about that, but I would note there are several notices on Avaya1's talk page warning them about edit warring behavior on several related articles as well, that do probably fall under the arbitration case. So this is probably not a lone incident. Calibrador (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion trailed off about two weeks ago and now we're at just straight up reverting. Why not try getting a firmer consensus through a RFC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just now left my opinion on the photo, in the talkpage thread. In this case, I agree with Avaya. We don't just knee-jerk go with the most-recent option. We go with the most representative. Plus are those photos the only two options? Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, due to her prominence in the Trump Administration, this does falls under ARBAP2, and as such, 1RR applies. I've added {{2016 US Election AE}} to the talk page. El_C 14:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• If you're going to add that then you should probably also note the other restriction: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, good point. El_C 14:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

IP 194.69.15.68: Kicked over from AIV

• 194.69.15.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – repeated posting of advance-fee scam messages on talk pages, including mine. What makes this a weird case is that the IP is registered to the Swedish municipality of Umeå, so I'm guessing there are numerous people behind this IP address (probably all but one being innocent of this). How do we proceed? Let the administrators of that network know? --bender235 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note: User is in the category: Wikipedia user talk pages of shared IP addresses from government agencies or facilities. HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we kick this over to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. --bender235 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone with German language skills confirm that it is a scam? My google translate doesn't really make it clear, though even the bad translation looks suspicious. Assuming its confirmed as a scam, I would actually say we just monitor it... If an IP was actively spreading the scam, we would need to block it, regardless of collateral damage. But one post of the scam, that is already half a day old, makes it a lot less clear that blocking would really be useful. Monty₈₄₅ 23:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm a native German speaker, but even I couldn't fully make sense of what he was posting. It seemed to me like a some sort of scam, that's why I reported. --bender235 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP's claim that it's a library in Umeå is credible. The user seems to be posting about Deutsche Bank's forthcoming share issue(?). I can't see the advance-fee scam. Not the most coherent editor though.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Monty845: I couldn´t find anything about that offer on the DB website, though I might have just overlooked it. Also the stock price, given at 11€+, is messed up as it gives you a 3-digit cent number ... which would change back the price to 17€+ which is almost identical to the current price on the stock market. The grammar is subpar and several words make, in context and/or sentence structure, no sense. ... GELongstreet (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the country or IP-address they are working from, they're peddling something. Scam or otherwise, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Given edits like this, this, this and this, I conclude WP:NOTHERE. I can't find a single edit by this IP that actually makes sense, in English or German. Kleuske (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just an educated guess here, but the grammar has characteristics of something which has been automatically translated multiple times. The word "elfeurosechhochsechsunddreissig" from this edit is an example: I believe it is an attempt to illiterate the phrase "Eleven Euro, six hundred thirty six", the likes of which tends to be concatenated by translation software if translated into German. I suspect that this is something they found which was written in one language, translated into a language the editor can read by software, then the result was translated into German, also by software. That being said, it doesn't look like an advanced-fee scam, but more like one of the typically vague edit requests we tend to get from new and unregistered editors at protected paged, and on admin talk pages. It seems to be making a claim about Deutsche Bank, something to do with a stock offering to existing stockholders that would drastically increase the bank's net worth. It might still be a scam, purporting to be 'insider information' to prompt editors to buy Deutsche Bank stock using a brokerage firm that the IP just happens to know is completely trustworthy... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  Well, a stock offering to existing stockholders would not drastically increase Deutsche Bank's net worth, and anyone claiming it would is possibly being dishonest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said it still could be a scam. But remember, this is the internet. We can't expect every IP editor to actually think things through. It could be a really incompetent edit request. Looking through the other edits on that account makes me lean towards the latter possibility, though the sheer level of incompetence simultaneously makes me think there might be some sort of bot at work (which would both explain the repeatedly-bot-translated grammar and re-imply the possibility of a scam). Either way, the IP address seems to be static, so I think an indef block might be in order. WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE, take your pick. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• This German has all the hallmarks of bot-generated keyword strings. Block it. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• I would argue from the content that it indeed is a German writing it, but it's bizarre political rants somewhat akin to "sovereign citizens" in the US. Not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. I'll block for three months based on how long back these rants started. Huon (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Melbourne Sock vandalizing My talk page is wearing me out

Basically since the beginning of my anti-vandal career back in January, a sockpuppet has been vandalising my talk page every week or so with fake blocked messages. This is how I met the sock: I am monitoring RCP, and see something fishy at Betty Logan's talk page; an IP giving a block notice. I go over to her page, and see that this is not the first time an IP has fake blocked her, so I rvv it with the ES "whoop whoop sound of da police". IP tries it again, and mutters buncum about "their rights" and "I have no right to rv their fake block." Standard lies we all have heard. I disabuse them of the notion. Then they try and fake block me 2 or 3 times in a row, and are blocked as a result. I forget about it. Next week, I wake up to another fake block from a different IP. As they had engaged in vandalism before blocking me, I warn them, and report them to ANI. They are blocked. Repeat all the way up today. I want to know if there is anything that can be done that isn't SEMI protecting my page. I don't want to semi my talk page because I need to be able to communicate with IPs per IPSAREHUMANSTOO. I am on AN/I instead of SPI because I heard from Vanamonde93 that you don’t hold a SPI because you can’t CHECKUSER an IP. Can you range block this thug? Or should I just suck it up as part of life in CVU and wish I had followed WP:DENY more strictly? User talk:101.161.174.12

User talk:101.175.20.105

User talk:58.166.91.10

User talk:121.217.215.56

User talk:58.164.3.42

58.164.3.68

101.175.134.41

120.155.57.155

1.144.97.90 Note from 3-7-17 performed WHOIS, all of the above source from Canberra or Melbourne. I saw on of the talk pages some admins saying that they reeked of SlitherioFan2016. I don’t know if this is true or not. The IP asked me once why I had a list of Slitherio’s socks on my user page, but I ignored them. Thanks you your time. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't pay any attention, it's only a block notice. It's a somewhat inevitable consequence of dealing with vandals. I don't think a range block is really an option here. I'd personally suggest removing the list of socks from your user page, not writing anything aimed at this user, and not reverting any edit of theirs more than once (and not at all if you can help it). Both WP:RBI and WP:DENY should indeed apply. They'll get bored eventually. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You can't possibly rangeblock all of them; they're too far apart. A rangeblock requires us to specify a range of addresses that must all be blocked, and the only way we could block all of them is blocking all addresses that begin with numbers from 58 to 121 — that's 64 of the possible 256 numbers in the first group, i.e. literally a quarter of all extant IPv4 addresses. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I kinda wish an admin would come along, not think that through and just punch in that rangeblock just so I could grab some popcorn and watch the fallout from that. That would deserve a trout so big it has a blowhole and a horizontal tail-fin. But that's beside the point.

I don't think telling a vandal fighter to back off is a good solution. Perhaps temporary semi-protection of their talk page is in order? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, MjolnirPants, that's not a "we can't do that, because it would be too much of a mess and we'd get in trouble"; it's a "we can't do that, because it's not possible". Again, this range would be about a quarter of all possible IPs. mw:Help:Range blocks says that there are 4,294,967,296 possible IPv4 addresses, so we're talking about blocking more than one billion addresses, while the same page says that it's not generally possible to rangeblock more than 65,536 addresses, and the developers would have to get involved by changing settings. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I was being facetious, but I'm not surprised there's a hard 2^16 limit on rangeblocks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Once option would be to slap indefinite semi protection on your main talk page and create a secondary talk page for IP only editors. At least you'd have better control of your primary talk page. Just leave a message at the top of your talk page telling IP editors where to go. Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Blackmane That is a really good idea! One of the reasons I was against semi'ing was this [118] vandalism edit followed a few hours later by this [119] good IP edit. The more I think about having two talk pages the more I like it. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 00:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protecting a user talk page, with an alternative, unprotected page for messages from IP editors is really a last ditch solution. This is particularly so for editors who engage in activity that is likely to result in interactions with new editors, such as anti-vandalism work. And it really doesn't accomplish much, as you are then expected to pay nearly as much attention to the alternative page, so your still running into the harassment, just in a slightly different location. Now I realize this approach isn't for everyone, but when someone vandalizes my talk page, I embrace it is a reminder that I'm being effective at stopping vandalism elsewhere. Again, not for everyone, and doesn't mitigate the fact they are harassing you, we just don't have any really good solutions for infrequent but persistent harassment that evades range blocking. Monty₈₄₅ 00:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I semi-protect mine sometimes when I'm getting IP vandalism or harassment, and I have an alternative they can use which is noted in my edit notice. But you know what? They don't use it - they generally just go away. I suspect it's because they know they're not going to get the attention they want if they attack a page that nobody other than me is watching and which I can easily blank or delete without even reading. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll watchlist your page and I hope others will too. Let's just rv and DENY. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have done so too; ping me if you need short term semi-protection for your talkpage. Lectonar (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Dude maybe you should change your your sig. "My Complaint Desk"? Well, ya got what you asked for, and how! Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Haaha.  Fixed I'll probably change it again soon to something wittier. Is it bad form to be continously changing your sig?L3X1 Distant Write 13:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Very bad form....how about teletypewriter? Lectonar (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think then people might confuse it for being part of my name, and while I know that some sigs are like that, I want it to be more obvious as I communicate with newer user often. L3X1 (distant write) 16:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should try "tell me all about it." It has a nice ring. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

But then I'd have your's and you'd have mine :) L3X1 (distant write) 22:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not here to build an encyclopaedia

An editor I hadn't seen before, Rævhuld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a word that doesn't mean anything in Danish, a slight change of the spelling produces "Røvhul", though, the Danish word for "asshole", with a pronounciation that is very similar to "Rævhuld"...) popped up on my watchlist after adding a template they had created, Template:Danish English, to an article, claiming it was written in "Danish English". A look at their contributions then showed that they had also created an article, Danish English (with fake sources, since none of the sources support the existence of such a variety), about that imaginary variety of English (imaginary since there are no native English-speakers in Denmark other than a small number of recent immigrants, and English has no official standing there), plus a whole bunch of nonsense categories, such as Category:Wikipedia articles that use Danish English, Category:European English, Category:English-Danish culture, Category:British Danish, Category:British-Danish culture, Category:European-Danish culture, and so on. In addition to adding every single award there is to their user pages, even including Vanguard Editor, in spite of the account only being two weeks old, with 60 edits; their contributions, with a very good grasp of Wikicode right from the start, also show that it's not a new editor. All of it, IMHO, signs of not being here to build an encyclopaedia, only to "have fun", but at the same time not the most blatant vandalism... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Danish English should be packed off to CSD as an A11. Blackmane (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Might I also suggest nominating all of their articles, categories and templates for deletion? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted as a blatant A11 (stuff made up one day). Will tidy up the related nonsense categories etc. now. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life on Dangerous Woman Tour

I've given multiple warnings to the user about adding out of date information to the article. I have removed the prose about Grande saying she will tour Australia several times, because she said it in September 2016 and the tour has started yet no dates have been announced or confirmed from her, her label or her tour promoter. Fan4Life keeps adding it back and reverting me. I have given several warnings, official and non-official, asking him to stop reinstating it, and to only add info about Australian dates when actually dates and venues are announced. The info is out of date, and we all know what someone, or a singer, says and what actually happens are two very different things. Henry VIII said he loved Anne Boleyn but he ended up beheading her. My point is that nothing has bene officially announced by someone who is official in charge, like a tour promoter. He is now accusing me of ownership, but it's evidently the other way around. He has already been cautioned about ownership with another matter on the article regardless info in the infobox by another editor.  — Calvin999 17:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. I don't see anything on the talk page from either of you. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Darth Mike ARV told me to come here.  — Calvin999 17:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Calvin999: You have not issued any official warnings, you have issued one caution and several general notes, but not a single official warning. Fan4Life (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a very silly thing to cause a conflict. The singer announced that she will tour Australia, though no dates have been confirmed yet. So just say that, append "...as of March 2017, no dates have been confirmed yet". People are talking about it out there with leaked sources and such, such as here. So it is going to happen, but the Wikipedia just can't list those dates until they are officially concerned. My suggestion is everyone take a breath, update the passage, and life goes on. ValarianB (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've issued several warnings, but you remove them. 17:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I went through the history of my talk page, not a single official warning pertaining to this. Fan4Life (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not there was an "official" warning, right now the best course of action is to get a third opinion. Utilize talk pages, this is what they're for. Also, you both should read WP:BRD and WP:EW, this is a slow edit war and is a blockable offence on both of your parts.--Darth Mike^(talk) 20:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, really? Here's the official one I posted the day which you removed and here is the unofficial warning which is still a warning from yesterday pertaining to this issue in particular. I can supply you with more from the other issue if you like too?  — Calvin999 23:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on the page List of European countries by average wage

Page: List of European countries by average wage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Anioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[120]] check at how he recalls me on vandalism while he deleted the official EUROSTAT source. ?¿

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [121]
2. [122]
3. [123]
4. [124]
5. [125]
6. [126]
7. [127]
8. [128]
9. [129]
10. [130]
11. [131]

and much more editions, which can be seen in his page, he just changes with redundant sources or even without sources and with fake data, for example he used a website which talks about the politicians wages in 2013, and he changed as he wanted the wage on Italy using that source? I warned him on his talk page and he fastly deleted that [132]

He also changed the economic data of the page of Italy with fake numbers even referencing the official IMF source which doesn't say and support the numbers he gave. I changed those numbers he edited to the ones from the official IMF source and he reverted here my change [133] although another user has reverted his change and from that day he didn't edit that page further.

Anioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. This user is suspected to be the same user as Sad9721, a user which was banned from Wikipedia doing the same redundant editions on the same topics/articles. This time is List of European countries by average wage. He accuses me for being "anti-italian" because I revert his non consensual changes with redundant sources (one source he used was referencing this wikipedia article of the list of european countries as the main source, Wikipedia can't be a valid source for a Wikipedia article!) then changed it to a source which talks about the politicians wages (nothing related to the article) and then putting fake numbers which can't be found even in his sources and he also said that it's data from 2013. I reverted his changes by putting the official EUROSTAT (european statistic agency, official EU organism) numbers from 2015 on it and he keeps deleting those numbers and changing the aspect of the page.

Also threatens me on the talk page of that article that he will delete any of my changes because "I make them without consensus" (while he started changing the aspect of the page in 28th of February without any kind of consensus and putting redundant sources) and because I just use the official data he calls me that i'm "anti-italian" and "aggresive" and doesn't change his mood, again today he not only changed the data of Spain and Italy in that page, he also deleted their official data from EUROSTAT and also deleted the source! Here are the proves. [[134]] this is when all started, after this edition he maded 19 editions in a row in the page List of European countries by average wage which every one of it was an redundant edition without trustworthy sources. Then I changed his editions to the official sources and all started.

In his profile can be seen that he just edits the same topics, I warned him on his talk page and he directly deleted it and keeping in the same mood. He went to warn EdJohnston about "my vandalism" and EdJohnston said the same to him, that I tried to change his mood in his talk page and he deleted it. He also maded editions on the page of Italy by faking the official IMF economic numbers of Italy and changing the numbers while the numbers are referenced with the official IMF source, he changed them even if that's not what the page of IMF says and then when I reverted his edition with fake numbers he reverted mine again! [[135]] and here is the proof when today deleted the numbers of Spain and Italy in the article mentioned before just because he wanted, deleting the official numbers from the official source. [[136]] --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

https://www.imf.org%2Fexternal%2Fpubs%2Fft%2Fweo%2F2016%2F02%2Fweodata%2Findex.aspx&usg=AFQjCNEAA0FG1b9JCMBDDzYk9ilnx3nmAg&sig2=4LDurdaFF5U_ZceXp3AvyA This is IMF outlook october 2016 that provides data that i posted for Italy(nominal GDP,GDP PPP,nominal GDP per capita,GDP PPP per capita) and all the world.And this already shows he is totally wrong.May be he posts better references but he is 0 in statistic. I never posted first the reference for Italy that justified 2029€but other people.I'm totally also against Eurostat reference that reports only 100% net earning and NOT average wages as article correctly and IN CLEAR WAY requires.Reference that isn't correct for the article like the one posted by Technician GB is vandalism.Why didn't he add the same refence to Belgim and others that haven't data from official statal sites or not official tax calculators sites?Better writing nothing for Italy and Spain if they haven't official data published by their statal statistic agencies.TechnicianGB should be banned.Anioni (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Seeing the topics he edits, the spelling of English he has, and the arguments he use (vandalising, anti-italian, etc) makes him a potential clone of User:Sad9721, which was a sockpuppet of Mediolanum Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mediolanum a well known italian user with 59 potential clones. I will also warn about sockpuppetry on this user as it's probably the same one, the reasons are clear: changing the sources to redundant sources from the same page List of European countries by average wage, then adding fake data and then finally deleting the actual data. That's exactly the same what the user Sad9721 and Ambidibody did, another sockpuppet of Mediolanum. That, added to his English skills, the arguments he use, and that he edits lots of times the same comment it's very suspecious and acts exactly the same as Sad9721 and Ambidibody, both banned from Wikipedia. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Now he personally attacks me and tells that "he taught me a lesson" and "i'm a total ignorant and I try the last bullet possible". On this edit [137] any edition is doing this user is more suspect to be a sockpuppet from the users mentioned before. Same manners, same spelling, same arguments. --TechnicianGB (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Feel free to open a Sock investigation if you have suspicions of abuse of multiple accounts. I've warned the user about personal attacks and incivility El_C 14:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

hidden vandalism

User:TechnicianGB added a reference for Italy and Spain a reference that report only 100% net earnings and NOT AVERAGE NET WAGES as the article requires.Read it well.So the article now presents creative numbers posted by him as net and gross wages.He didn't set the the reference aside Belgium and other states that haven't as reference official statl sites.Many states haven't also statal official tax calculators.Bu he didn't care of it showing a strong anti italian behaviouir (check his history in talks).He should be banned because he realizes well his propaganda vandalism.The reference for Italy and Spain must be removed because totally WRONG.Anioni (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Hi, Anioni, I moved your post here because it is part of the same discussion. Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Edited to add: Anyone can remove the subheading if desired, I don't know that this assertion needs its own subsection. Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.People must go all the way about this reference used for vandalism and propaganda.Here people look a lot to the form and not at what people writes.And vandals grow accusing others in wrong way to be sockpuppets.My sense of justice looks for a final redde rationem for this vandal that uses hidden references to make propaganda and that to defend himself uses attack and accuses others of phantom things.Anioni (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't refer to edits by users in good standing as vandalism. And please avoid incivility and personal attacks. If you are having an intractable content dispute, list an RFC, or try the Dispute Resolution Notice Board or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. El_C 14:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok,i wrote in RSN to solve the situation.Anioni (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What situation do you want to solve! this is unbelievable.

[[138]] look at this edit, you deleted the official EUROSTAT source to put a newspaper which talks about the politicians wages and clearly invented a number for Italy. Are you trolling us? Do you really accuse me of "vandalism" while you changed the consensus aspect of the page List of European countries by average wage in 28th of February? Here is the proof [[139]] your last edition on the page was deleting all the data, like Sad9721 did, someone which was editing the same articles as you, the same topics, and with the same accusations/spelling as you. It's clear that you're the same user. Now today you vandalised again the page Italy by putting fake data, an user reverted your changes and warned you in your talk page. What you did? As with my warn, you just deleted it! Here is the proof [[140]] anyone can see in your contributions which kind of contributions you make, for God's sake! You accused me to be a vandal, to be "anti-italian", to be an ignorant, anything and you're still here editing anything you want lol i'm really amazed so whatever, do whatever you want i'm tired of this! It's senseless. I proven what all you did and you still keep denying it and trying to charge me. After you changed the aspect of the page and I just reverted your changes! Unbelievable. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Spyware link on Middle-earth in film

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

see Talk:Middle-earth_in_film#Spyware_link

diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle-earth_in_film&type=revision&diff=769140782&oldid=767015122

The offending link was http://www.2719hyperion.com/2009/02/myth-of-walt-disneys-lord-of-rings.html (DO NOT ATTEMPT TO VISIT WITHOUT TAKING DRIVE BY DOWNLOAD PRECAUTIONS ETC)

I am not a regular visitor to this site. I leave this message here to bring your attention to this malicious link. I assume someone will add the offending website to your blacklist.

Thank you.83.100.174.82 (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The link was present in the article since its inception and was likely inserted in goof faith. Thanks for the report anyway. Kleuske (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The actual content is at http://2719hyperion.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/myth-of-walt-disneys-lord-of-rings.html - it does not contain a virus or other malware. Google's VirusTotal collates scans of the site by several dozen independent malware scanning services, which uniformly rate the page as "clean" . When people report hits with their own scanner for links like this, on well-managed sites like Blogspot (again a Google service), about 95% of the time it's due to the advertising network (which on this site is surely Google's own) serving a malware ad, which a blackhat has managed to sneak past the ad network's checks. Once someone at Google/Doubleclick notices, the ad is killed. So the site's author, and the person who added to Wikipedia, are blameless - and it's perfectly okay for the site to be linked from the article. In this case I've not restored it, because I'm not convinced that the person on Blogspot constitutes a WP:RS. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overt threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [141]. If it's not a death threat, it's clearly a threat of violence. Time for User:Captainbryce1's editing privileges to go away. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef by NeilN who I assume is notifying WP:911. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed, TPA removed, WMF contacted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two customers fighting in aisle seven

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is actually kind of sad -- two ten-year editors fighting over a ham sandwich, basically -- but could someone take a look a this? Over at Shield (Archie Comics), User:Tenebrae is being quite insistent and it's really getting over my pay grade, so I'm asking for advice about how to proceed.

So let's see... Shield (Archie Comics) had been stable... the first edit in 2017 was

• here, where User:HalJor (hopefully not that Hal Jordan) deleted a couple of external links, with a reasonable case and edit summary.
• I reverted here with a query.
• Editor reverted here with an explanation.

Normal so far, but time to stop communicating through edit summaries and let's talk, so I

• Opened Talk:Shield (Archie Comics)#External links for talking, and
• reverted again, citing WP:BRD and describing the talk page thread. I haven't heard from User:HalJor since I don't have a problem with him.
• Yeah but so then User:Tenebrae came in, and reverted with an edit summary of "Agree with editor who removed those links. Two editors are now against including them. They remain out until consensus is reached on talk page to include" (which is a misreading of WP:BRD I believe). To his credit he also engaged on the talk page.
• Standing on WP:BRD, I reverted again with an appeal to BRD and the talk page, and an appeal in the edit summary and talk page to not edit war]
• But then User:Tenebrae reverted anyway, with an edit summary of "You absolutely are edit-warring you are at the cusp of 3RR. One more, and you get reported and will be blocked" which I didn't necessarily find particularly collegial, a formal warning on my talk page, and no engagement on the article talk page.

So now what am I supposed to do? I'm asking. User:Tenebrae is probably entirely correct that, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS notwithstanding, he's got the whip hand here -- if I revert him I'll most probably be blocked. Don't want that! On the other hand, IMO WP:BRD is a key component of making WP:CONSENSUS (and thus the entire project) workable, but it is a weakness in that if you run into a tag team or someone willing to play chicken it breaks. I'm not particularly excited to see User:Tenebrae exploiting that weakness in order to make a change, contested on a reasonable basis, to an existing stable version of an article just because he wants to.

He's not acting like someone willing to talk about it, and he's a Master Editor IV so it's not like he's a new editor whom I can correct on that basis, and since he wants to have me blocked I don't particularly feel like entreating him anymore or believe that would help. So I'm scratching my head. Maybe I'm missing something and I'm in the wrong here. Advice solicited. Herostratus (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that Herostratus is following protocol, though I disagree with his characterization of me. In any event, not one but two editors, including me, disagree with his EL inclusion of an anonymous fan site. We two editors listened to Herostratus, did further research, and reinserted one of his two ELs. Yet he remains insistent on including the other, clearly disallowed link as well. I'm not sure why such insistence.

As for "not acting like someone willing to talk about it": After, I think, his second revert, I wrote on the talk page, "Each of us is responsible for justifying our edits and for gaining consensus when a contentious edit is challenged. When not one but two editors revert you, and you continue to insist on your edit, that absolutely is edit-warring. ... And I'm sorry you feel that an anonymous fansite, with no way of determining the credibility of the author and his or her research expertise or accuracy, is perfectly OK for an encyclopedia. That wouldn't hold muster for a print encyclopedia so to suggest that Wikipedia have lower standards is untenable."

I'm not sure why in the face of two editors finding his edit inappropriate that he would, during a discussion to seek consensus, go ahead and unilaterally keep reinserting the contentious edit.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I would recommend moving this, or starting something on the Edit warring page. This is clearly a non-3RR edit war. —JJBers 22:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh OK, right, will do. Herostratus (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non sense tags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hollyckuhno, keep putting a tags which is he/she used the word biased and not important article as it refers to notable. However I keep reminding him to look at the reliable sources from the article. But he/she seems to not look at those carefully and just put the tags as it refers to what I said on the top. But however here's the discussion where it taken place. [142] Kazaro (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: I changed the citation above to a WP:DIFF. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Then how come it is being considered for deletion? This user would like to remove tags without resolving the issues the tags are referring to. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Kazaro has a history of removing maintenance tags/templates on several articles without resolving the issues the tags are referring to.[143][144] I have talked to this user many times to no avail. It seems that this user is immune to suggestions and would rather respond negatively by reverting or talking nonsense. This user has also a history of creating articles written like advertisements with peacock and weasel words, adding unreliable references. This user has also been involved in edit warring in several occasions with the most recent being in last month. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, he keep putting tags for not reading the reliable sources from the website I provided from the article. He seems to be stalked all of my article I created, click his contributions to see.Kazaro (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And take note's I keep telling him but he's thinking the other way, to just put the articles.Kazaro (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This user does not know the guidelines of Wikipedia. This user insist that a reference from a single source (self-published) is reliable. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: These two editors have been edit-warring with each other across several articles since July 2016: [145], including this ANI report: [146]. It also appears that Hollyckuhno is tracking Kazaro's edits. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The incident wouldn't have been taken without me, but it seems he keep putting a tags without the administrators. One of the articles I have been created is on discussion, but however he keep putting those tags without reading the article and the realible sources I provided to the article. Kazaro (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This user is making his/her own guidelines. This user insists that the sources he/she provided are reliable. This user does not edit according to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. By the way, why would I track this user when obviously my interest is anything under Philippine media and entertainment? Please look at my contributions history. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment 2: Given Hollyckuhno's userpage [147], and Kazaro's general contributions [148], it seems that each of them may have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning, two different and competing media conglomerates in the Philippines. I'm wondering if an interaction ban might be in order, or a topic ban for each. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I am also wondering if you have checked my contributions because if you are justifying my capacity as a Wikipedia editor according only on my user page then it is obviously unfair considering how much I contributed for the improvement of Wikipedia. Hollyckuhno (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning, a media conglomerate in the Philippines which competes with GMA, which Kazaro seems to have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In my defense, I only edit articles that I am interested in. For example: List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines. Compare the version before my revision and you would know that I am only concern with the improvements of any articles that I am interested. Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You appear [149] [150] to have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning, ABS-CBN – a media conglomerate in the Philippines which competes with GMA, which Kazaro [151] seems to have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not deleted your post. You have actually deleted mine: "This is another proof, this time a show of GMA Network: [152] Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)" Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You have so far removed two of my posts from this thread: [153] [154]. Posting random examples of your editing does not refute the fact that you appear to have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning, ABS-CBN: [155] [156]. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If you two have a conflict of interest, please declare it publicly. El_C 11:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So just because I am interested in certain articles I will be blocked even though I have not vandalized or disruptive any articles. Furthermore, how about the many articles unrelated to ABS-CBN that I have improved? As I said earlier before and I will proudly reiterate, I only contribute to articles I am interested. I did not do anything wrong, I did not vandalize, I did not disrupted any articles and I even remove a defamatory statement in one of GMA related article.[157] Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I can assure you I have no conflict of interest. I could even disclose my personal information to administrators right away if they wanted. Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised that Hollyckunho is looking at Kazaro's contributions. Let's look at some article creations (only 10 of their 66 articles actually exist as articles, the rest have been deleted, redirected, or were created as redirects in the first place).

• Alissa Violet - BLP sourced to one flaky source. Second attempt - first one was speedy deleted.
• Super Tekla = BLP sourced only to the TV station he appears on
• List of mergers and acquisitions by GMA Network Inc. - almost completely unsourced
• Charlie Macaraeg - unsourced, not notable BLP (deleted)
• Jake Paul - this is probably marginally notable now, but was created as a practically unsourced BLP
• Alex Lange (model) - unsourced BLP, deleted
• D' Originals - TV show sourced, again, only to the channel it appears on
• List of Meant to Be characters - 95% unsourced
• List of Alyas Robin Hood characters - no reliable or independent sources
• List of Regal Entertainment films - unsourced (the one link to YouTube can be ignored)
• Unitel Pictures - no sources about the company itself
• GMA Entertainment TV - unsourced

• I have to say that I would be reviewing their contributions as well if I had noticed them. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of those should be deleted or redirected. And most of them concern GMA, which further indicates that Kazaro is a single-purpose account, and may have a strong association with, and possible conflict-of-interest concerning, the network. In addition, the competence level of the editor has not improved over time. I'm not sure what the solution should be, but it could include a topic-ban from GMA broadly construed, a restriction on new-article creations unless they go through WP:AFC, a ban on removing tags without addressing issues, etc. Softlavender (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I tend to believe Hollyckuhno when s/he says there's no conflict of interest on his or her part—I wonder if the same is true for Kazaro... But regardless, indeed, it is becoming clear that Kazaro has issues of competence that may be untenable. El_C 12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think either of them have a COI with these companies, frankly. However, I agree with Black Kite and El_C concerning Kazaro's competence issues and the need to check his edits carefully. For example, I just reduced GMA Worldwide (now at AfD) to one sentence. The entire contents had been pasted verbatim from the company's website. The text when he created Jake Paul [158] is basically verbatim from here. It wouldn't surprise me if most, if not all, of his articles show the same problems. Voceditenore (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering his English skills are very much suboptimal, that would not be surprising. The question is, what sort of sanctions or warnings should be given to the editor, even beyond the cleanup that will have to be done? Softlavender (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Kazaro has, over a long time and a number of articles, failed to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly in respect to verifiability and neutrality. He has already been advised and warned about this many times. Therefore, I think it's time for a WP:CIR block, to prevent further poorly referenced and biased content causing a lot of work for others. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, I think Kazaro's GMA stuff is incidental to his interest in Charlie Macaraeg (whose "stage name" is "Charlie Conte"), a teenage "actor and blogger" who was allegedly on one of their shows. Kazaro's first article was Charlie Conte, (a recreation of a deleted article by User:Charlieconte, who was blocked for the username issue). The recreation was speedied, but Kazaro recreated it again. It was finally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Conte (a very interesting read). Kazaro's next article was the school which Charlie Macaraeg/Conte currently attends, Iao Intermediate School (deleted as blatant copyvio). Kazaro later created both Charlie Macaraeg and Charliesite.org (young Charlie's blog). Given the repeated copyvio issues and the incredibly poorly sourced articles on the other dubious BLP internet "celebs", Kazaro should probably be restricted from article creation and required to go through AfC for at least six months. His shenanigans have already used up enormous amounts of editors' and administrators' time. Voceditenore (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that enforced use of WP:AFC for any future article submissions should be a minimum requirement, if an outright WP:CIR block is considered premature. Softlavender (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The other I'm facing about which is GMA Network Inc. as Hollyckuhno, keep putting the tags into the article. This article has no problem but s/he keeps putting the tag into that article. Kazaro (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hollyckuhno, on that particular article, GMA Network Inc., you've been editing it since November 2011 [159], but have done little to improve it, instead edit-warring to keep multiple tags at the top which have been there for five years. I would personally suggest that you take the time to improve the article, and remove the tags once you have finished. Your English is better than Kazaro's, the issues are not that hard to fix, you are familiar with the industry and the country, and the article is an important one. I personally don't see any reason that you should not assist the situation. Softlavender (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note After I removed the copyvio from GMA Worldwide, I left a warning on Kazaro's talk page [160]. Despite that warning, he has returned to the article and added more copyvio [161], from a different source with spurious references, possibly in a clumsy attempt to disguise what he was doing. I removed it, left another warning and he has proceeded to restore it. He needs a block now. Voceditenore (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Voceditenore, You have been reverting the article, did you even read the website?, it's different what I have made to that section of article. So thats not the part of copyrightvio, you were referring to.Kazaro (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

See my comment below. Voceditenore (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block

I propose an indefinite block of Kazaro for DE, CIR, repeated copyvio, IDHT, and edit-warring. Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Editor is clearly unwilling to change and unable to edit productively. Softlavender (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, The website is different of what s/he have referring to. It's not part of copyvio. You have to read those to understand what Im talking about.Kazaro (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This most recent time, you copied from yet another source http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/361685/cbb/gma-worldwide-inc-showcasing-the-kapuso-brand-to-the-world, changing one or two words. This is completely unacceptable behaviour. Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support, if nothing else for repeated copyvio despite repeated warnings, three times today alone. Whether it's simply incompetence or wilful disruption is, at this point, immaterial. Voceditenore (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Its not three times and The website what you have referring to is this ^[162], which is not part of copyright violation. I have used my own word to type those word on the section. S/he probably dont read carefully. Kazaro (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

See my comment directly above. The first time you copied from here, the second time from here, and the third time from here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Kazaro has been indefinitely blocked by El C for copyright violations. Softlavender (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, blocked indefinitely for repeated copyrights violations,^[163][164] and issue pertaining to overall competence. El_C 21:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Update: The user has since posted an unblock request, which incidentally, I had to fix (he used the {{unblocked}} template)—I'll let another admin attend to that. El_C 00:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that Huon, Boing! said Zebedee, BethNaught, and NeilN have all had their say, so that makes five admins in a row. Is that enough? Softlavender, how many admins does it take to block a user? Drmies (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• At least a few more at UTRS, I'm guessing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Update 2: Editor created a sockpuppet within an hour of being blocked. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazaro. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Lather, rinse, repeat. Apparently NeilN was correct, although he did not foresee the sock. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Socks, plural. Jeezus Christ. Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry to butt in to this ANI but can you please check out this user? (User:Kaponohillen) The user have edited a bunch of GMA Network related articles, changing the link from GMA Network to GMA Network (company) then moved the GMA Network article to GMA Network (TV channel) without discussing it to other editors. Also, check out this post on his user page (he already deleted the contents on February 20) about a certain "Charlie Randy Macaraeg". I checked out the comments above and someone mentioned that Kazaro has an obsession or has affiliation with Charlie Randy Macaraeg. -WayKurat (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, DoRD, can you check that, since you were the CU on the SPI? Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to be that one guy, but, at this point, the ANI Talk seems to be stuff that belongs at SPI. Is it time to close this thread, after a reponse from DoRD? MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 13:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Job satisfaction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two SPAs, JImmyjackFunk (talk · contribs) and Corneaterman (talk · contribs) keep reinserting a promotional blurb into "Job satisfaction" about how good manager a Richard Branson is. No answer in article and user talk pages. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Staszek Lem: Quack quack quack. That being said, JImmyjackFunk hasn't edited for a couple of days and Corneaterman for about an hour. I notice the article has been protected, so personally I'd opt to see what they do next.. Could you also notify both of them about this discussion? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Since both accounts are brand-new, semi'd for a week to see if we can solve this without resorting to blocks. If they pop up trying to insert it elsewhere, let me know. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI, this is actually an important person (see Richard Branson); it's more of an inappropriate anecdote with potential issues of promotion than it is someone sucking up to his boss. Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Crissedcrossed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

In her/his short time here, User:Crissedcrossed has done nothing but disrupt at Gilad Atzmon, the article's talk page, and the talk pages of editors who revert her/his edits. (Sorry, no diffs, but look at any edit in her/his log.) She/He is clearly not interested in learning our rules, which I have tried to explain, only to be told that I don't understand -- calling an editor dishonest and trolling another is not a personal attack. Will somebody please put an end to her/his Wiki career? More than adequate warning and notice has been given. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• After yet another revert I have blocked them indefinitely per NOTHERE, given that, besides one controversial article edit, they have shown no interest in anything but disruption. Admins, if you think this block was too harsh, and/or that the editor should be given more leeway, go ahead and unblock--but any leash should be very short, given the personal attacks. No need to consult with me: I have faith in you, and I have to finish reading Twelfth Night. They also have a rant/request on the ARCA page which I suggested should simply be removed. Malik, thanks for your patience and for reporting them here. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• In their very short time here, this editor has managed to describe me as "butt-hurt", and to accuse me of being a "crypto-Zionist", "in bed with Dershowitz", and a censor. The editor has also been trolling me with repeated unwelcome invitations to a gig, and has made a very disturbing suggestion that only "the chosen people" are being allowed to edit certain articles. And all this in a career of fewer than thirty edits. I whole-heartedly endorse the block, and hope that this disruptive editor is not permitted to return and to continue his campaign of tendentious edits and harassment. RolandR (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • RolandR, I find it interesting that all those insults start with b and c. (Throw in a d for Dershowitz, if you like.) Don't you? And what do you make of the fact that there's a z in there but not a single a? I mean, where's the Alpha? What are they trying to tell you? Drmies (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• UAA violation also, the username is reminiscent of the swastika, and is backed up by their edits. L3X1 (distant write) 18:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long term WP:SPA and WP:COI by Suranadira (relisted)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As a bot has archived this section before any administrator's answer, I revert the archiving and relist the thread. Please, answer and decide which action has to be taken. D.Lazard (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The owner of this account is clearly Armands Strazds‎, as Suranadira is the first word of the main article of Armands Strazds. All edits of this this account, created ten years ago, are devoted either to the page about himself (Armands Strazds‎), or the pages about his work (Delta numerals and Rational numerals, or, in a few cases, for pushing his work in other pages. I have nominated these three pages for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armands Strazds (3rd nomination)‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational numerals‎‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta numerals‎‎)

It seems that something must be done against this long term misuse of WP. D.Lazard (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

These AfDs promise to be exceptionally entertaining. The subject, a "composer, semiotician and computer scientist", lists the following as "influences" in his infobox, so there will be plenty of raw material to work with: Fuxi, Laozi, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Pingala, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Fibonacci, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,[1] Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottfried Herder, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Gottlob Frege,[2] Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Noam Chomsky, Umberto Eco, Modris Tenisons, Friedhelm Döhl, Frieder Nake. EEng 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as a misuse of WP at all... there are some reliable sources in there. Sure, they may need to be reminded of WP:COI, WP:YOURSELF, and WP:OR, but I can't find any evidence of bad faith per se. Even if it is an autobiography, it's an article quality problem. They're just following WP:IAR. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

More details about Suranadira's edits: the account has been created on December 16, 2006. Since then they have produced 478 edits (enwiki: 457; commons : 16; wikidata: 5). The contributions in commons are images for Rational numerals‎‎ and Delta numerals‎‎. Among the contributions to enwiki, there are 317 "top edits" in the main space, which consist of (Data provided by X!'s tools)

• 176 in Rational numerals‎‎
• 67 in Delta numerals‎‎
• 62 in Armands Strazds
• 2 in dab pages for linking to the preceding articles
• 6 for linking to Zime an article deleted on December 24, 2006 (eight days , which was about a project created by Armands Strazds, (see below)
• 4 in quantum computing (Zime was alleged to be a quantum computer)

The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zime is interesting to consider, as two deleted accounts (user:Strazds and User:Turdus) seem to be two accounts of Armands Strazds. I ignore when these accounts have been deleted, but it seems highly probable that Armands Strazds has created the account User: Suranadira for continuing editing after the closure of User:Turdus. A sockpuppett investigation seems needed.

In summary, User: Suranadira is a probable sockpupett, which is interested in Wikipedia only in promoting Armands Strazds, absolutely nothing else. For these reasons, I suggest a permanent ban. D.Lazard (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Since Armands Strazds is the main subject of my studies, I think I can contribute reliable information about him to Wikipedia, and that is what I am trying to do. I am also contributing minor improvements to other articles, where my expertise permits, but I probably not always remember to sign in before doing that. Suranadira (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

D.Lazard, you might want to check again the concept of Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. I have NEVER used multiple Wikipedia user accounts. My old account Turdus was automatically renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. After that my username was Turdus~enwiki (or similar). I couldn't sufficiently identify myself with this new username, so I applied for a new one "Suranadira", and was successful. Since then I continue to use for all my edits only this one single-user account. Suranadira (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there is no sockpuppetry here. IMO, the normal action against a WP:SPA, which is aimed only to unduly push a single living person and his work, should be a topic ban. However, in this case, it could be time consuming to verify that a topic ban is respected. As this account has never been used for other things than promoting a single living person and his work, there is no real difference between a topic ban and a permanent ban. Thus I continue to suggest a permanent ban. D.Lazard (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so remember that is just my opinion. I did vote in the AfDs, because that is something I like to do. From what I can tell as Mathnerd pointed out, you don't really tate what WP Suranadira is misusing, you are accusing Suranadira of being a SPA, with the sole intent to promote person and works of Armands Strazds. Correct me if I missed something, please. As for IAR, that is a minefield so dangerous you will never see me within 20 miles of it, so no comment. If all Suranadira wants to do is edit Strazds and Crew, that is fine with me. If it weren;'t for community work, all I would be doing is editing Elio Motors and a few other articles, once a week, for 18 months. And I basically agree with Mathnerd. L3X1 (distant write) 21:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISIS welcome in SRO23s name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I saw this scary welcome message [165] which I think may be joke, but it is inappropriate. What should I do? Take the IP 184.97.134.128 to AIV? also, it is being done in Sro23's name. L3X1 (distant write) 18:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is blocked. One of SRO's "admirers" obviously. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a sock. The same bozo was using Sandstein's Salvidrim!'s name yesterday. Blocked and about ten pages deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. What should I do next time? CSD and take the sock to AIV? Should I always ping whoever is having false messages spread in their name? L3X1 (distant write) 18:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Just take it to AIV. The patrolling admin should nuke the pages without needing a prompt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vjmlhds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A couple of days ago I blocked Vjmlhds (talk · contribs) after an escalating series of belligerent comments directed at other editors [166], [167], [168], [169], with responses to admin concerns like this [170], [171], [172], [173] and culminating in this [174].

I blocked for 24 hours to stop the cycle of escalation. It was late, I was unfamiliar with the editor and I didn't have time to do an exhaustive review of their contributions, but I did note their very extensive block log [175] which included incidents of belligerence and threats, along with pledges to reform. After some unproductive back-and-forth on their talkpage I got a sense of grievance and entitlement to retaliation against perceived slights [176].

The next day I continued to engage Vjmlhds who was only slightly less belligerent. Shortly after Cyphoidbomb left this note [177] discussing the last outburst two months ago, which was ended with a pledge to reform and to accept an indefinite block if it happened again. After some discussion with the original block running out I adjusted the block to indefinite in the literal sense pending further discussion.

Since then a number of editors who have had experience with Vjmlhds have posted either on my talkpage or on Vjmlhds's to note their own concerns about his behavior, and to some extent to express interest in a solution that doesn't involve an indefinite block for an editor of nine years' standing. Vjmlhds posted this unblock request [178] and this follow-up [179] to my comments, which claimed that the real-life issues that had set them off were now resolved and everything would be fine. After my response on my talkpage [180] to a comment by WarMachineWildThing Vjmlhds stated that they would retire [181]. Consensus of other editors and myself was that given the number of editors commenting and the sense that they were looking for a workable resolution that would allow Vjmlhds to return to editing under some circumstances it appears that it should be a community discussion at ANI. My proposal was six months off and return upon satisfactory request with strict probationary terms. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. The combined sum of all those NPA violations is egregious enough to warrant such a serious few-months block to an established user. But giving them a chance to return (contingent on strict conditions) is still worthwhile. El_C 01:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No issue here. Just needs to dial back the knee-jerk aggression on talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

After all these years, I'm not sure he can be relied upon to do anything of the sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And that is my concern, that their fuse is simply too short for good behavior to last for long. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope I'm OK to post here. I have no issue with the 6 months. I've taken time off myself at times and it does wonders. Vjmlhds can be very good with edits but if you revert him or say he's wrong it's all out war, IE: edit warring, harrassment, threats etc. But after the 6 months I'd like to see some type of stipulation if any of it happens again so none of this has to be repeated. Unfortunately after his responses on his talk and then blanking it saying we all wanted him gone, I'm not sure if he'll ever change. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've worked with Vjmlhds for years and we previously had a mostly productive relationship. At first there were rare moments when he was uncivil and edit warred, but over the past few months this became the norm, to the point where he was a total net negative. I started this ANI thread in December after watching him edit war for months; he was warned that if he continued edit warring he would be blocked. In January, he swore up and down to Cyphoidbomb that he was done edit warring for good. You can see from his history that he spent February edit warring on WWE United Kingdom Championship, List of WWE personnel and Template:WWE personnel. This most recent block came about after he edit warred on TNA World Heavyweight Championship, List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions and Alberto Del Rio. He then edit warred on another user's talk page when the issue was discussed there and went after the admins that told him to knock it off!

He talks a good game when he faces a block. You can see it in the thread I linked and you can see it from when Cyphoidbomb unblocked him in January. He promises that he's changed and that we won't have to worry about him ever again. I don't want to see him permanently blocked but I think he should have to prove that he's capable of controlling himself before he's able to fully regain all editing privileges. 1RR restriction and a topic ban on professional wrestling articles should be in place after a 6 months block is up. If he is able to fulfill his promises of editing without conflict then he should be able to appeal those after a few months.LM2000 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had hoped to avoid getting involved with Vjmlhds' latest series of outbursts, but as the only other editor mentioned by name in his block log, I suppose it was bound to happen one way or another (side note- I was totally uninvolved with the events leading to his last six blocks for edit-warring/personal attacks). I'm also not an administrator, so please weigh my comments accordingly. Like OrangeMike, I remain skeptical that Vjmlhds has the ability to change his ways. However, even if it's likely to result in yet another block/sanction, I think the community should give him one last chance to redeem himself. I support the six-month block, provided that: 1) if Vjmlhds wishes to return to editing, he specifically requests an unblock after six months and demonstrates a thorough understanding of how & why he ended up here; and 2) Vjmlhds is placed on some type a strictly enforced probationary period (1RR or 0RR limit, strict requirement to use the normal dispute resolution processes, etc.). For example, unblock Vjmlhds on the condition that "if you do X, you will be indefinitely blocked", and only unblock if he unambiguously agrees to whatever terms are clearly established beforehand. Levdr1lp / talk 02:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Given their tenure, but also taking into account their block log, I would say a 6 month block at a minimum, to be lifted upon successful appeal, followed by Sword of Damocles type restrictions for a further 3 months else, such as 0RR, some sort of civility parole (a bit like TRM's restrictions levied by arbcom) or whatver, violations of which would result in a site ban. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually may be one of his biggest defenders. I have tried to talk him down repeatedly, but he has continued to draw a line in the sand. The sad thing is that he is a thorough editor when he is on his game and doesn't lose his cool, and I've tried to explain that to him several times. I suggested he take a voluntary break a couple of days ago and return in a few weeks, but I'm willing to go with the consensus. Don't boot him for life yet, but if he follows whatever is decided with the same old, same old, then I can't say anything more. Kjscotte34 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Recommend 1-2 month block - length at Acroterion's discretion: I think it's very helpful that a few editors have spoken to his positive traits. And since they think he's a good editor when he's "up", I think we should not indef him yet. That said, I do think that he needs a significant stretch of time off to get his real life sorted out, since he explained on his talk page that he's been going through some shit. Despite his assurances that it's all been worked out, he didn't disclose earlier that he had some IRL issues, and so I'm a little skeptical about the convenient timing of his life-improving phone calls. Even assuming they are true, his attitude toward his behavior and the repercussions of his behavior are a bit too cavalier for my liking. Two months ago he pleaded very clearly that he was willing to gamble an early unblock for an indefinite block if he slipped up again:

"OK...lesson learned. No need to bring the hammer down. I see you mean business, so you have my word of honor, that I'll shape up and tone things down. Point taken. No more edit warring, no more knockdown-drag-outs, and realizing an indef block is coming if I slip, I'll mind my Ps & Qs."

"I know my history, but just consider this my new year's resolution - no more fighting on Wikipedia. I'll go on record in saying that if I slip up again, you can permanently ban me from Wikipedia. My problem is I get suckered in too easily to battles. But with a permanent ban hanging over my head, that'll give me incentive to cool it. I'm going all in here, so you know I mean what I say."

"OK...I put all my cards on the table...one more slip, and I'm permanently gone...no do-overs, no nothing. No more edit warring...if even the slightest dispute comes about, I'll play by the book to get it resolved. That's it. No need to sit and stew for a week...one more, and I'm banned."

And then he slipped up again... Now he's proposing a "strike 1 option" that his editing privileges be reinstated tomorrow. No, I think I'd oppose that. He doesn't need probation, he needs some imposed time off. If the editor cares about editing at Wikipedia, then maybe he'll care more in a month or two. I'm not a hard-ass for how long he should be blocked, but he's managed to sweet-talk his way out of a number of blocks, and my street sense tells me that our assumption of good faith is being taken advantage of here. Despite being blocked ≈10 times, the longest block he had to actually sit out was one week in 2012. Subsequent blocks, although for really awful behavior, (like his indef in 2015) were met with lenience, yet there has been no long-term improvement of behavior. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There's clearly a consensus here for continuation of the existing block. My feeling is that one month is too short, more than 6 months is too long, and I'm not in favor of the immediate reinstatement that Vjmlhds has proposed on his talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm in agreement with you here. Maybe 2 months with revert conditions (0rr? 1rr?) upon unblock for N span of time? Meaning, he has to take a hike for 2 months, and when he comes back, he's not allowed to revert (or can revert only once) for two more months? Three more months? The point here would be to get him to start discussing and encourage him to become more comfortable with leaving articles the way they are even when there is problematic content in articles. Obviously he'd have to open discussions... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok I wasn't going to comment on this any further than I have but everything he has said on his talk is what I was talking about before, he knows how to pull the strings and he gets people to say "OK maybe he'll do better now" and lift the block but it never seems to change though, he'll do good for a day or two maybe even a week and then boom were back where we were. And Im sorry but his proposal on his talk is ludicrous in my opinion. Now he's even trying to discuss about an article he edit warred over a few nights ago to try and make it look good. Even with 0rr or 1rr being implemented there is still the bigger issue which is the attacks on other editors. I'm not saying he needs to be indeffed and I'm not trying to sound like a dick but I've had real life issues too, been out of work for the last month, had to put my dog down a few months ago, thought I was having a heart attack last month and ended up in the ER, but I don't bring it here, this isn't the place for it. I take time away and that's what he needs, time away. What's going to happen the next time when his real life stuff gets to him again as he says was the issue this time? He didn't get his way and The attitude is already starting up again on his talk, surprise surprise. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I agree with the feeling one month is too short, but 2-3 months is appropriate if there are resistrictions afterwards for X amount of months. It appears this editor believes he can negotiate himself out of a long-term block and then continue to carry on with the bad behavior. I will trust what others have said here, that Vjmlhds is a solid editor when he focuses, but a stand needs to be taken on the behavior that pops up between those periods of helpful editing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Chris that Vjmlhds' proposal is "ludicrous". He has taken advantage of our good faith multiple times in the past when he has faced similar predicaments, and has even made similar agreements to accept an indeff ban if he continued being disruptive. Edits like this (since blanked) also give me plenty of reason to worry. It's vintage Vjmlhds to continue edit warring after bringing new sources into the mix. Blocks should never be punitive, they should be to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. From the evidence I submitted in my December ANI thread, he has been consistently edit warring since September. A 2-6 month block is really essential, and I think the lighter bans (such as 0RR/1RR) should be in place for a much more extended period of time.LM2000 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is going to change clearly Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

<outdent>The latest comment noted just above is disappointing. I'd decided on a three month block starting at the latest block, followed by three months of 0RR (1RR can be a trap) and a year's civility probation. Their last comment on their talkpage is already edging back into "don't tell me what to do" territory and their proposal for immediate reinstatementis a non-starter, and I'm not interested in finalizing a path back to editing as long as the problematic behavior keeps reappearing. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support After being pinged/tagged constantly with this crap, youll get no objections from me. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Acroterion's proposed 3-month block, followed by 3-month 0RR... but only if/when Vjmlhds ever stops digging. Levdr1lp / talk 02:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support These measures should put a hold on disruption and that's all we should be aiming for. As I've said before, I respect him and have had mostly positive experiences until recently. I look forward to working with him again and being able to put this behind us.LM2000 (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support That is some serious WP:NOTTHEM behaviour on his talk page (&history). 3 month block followed by indef 0RR & indef civility parole - to be possibly repealed at the communities discretion at some future date.--79.71.0.201 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Based on the consensus above and Vjmlhds' implicit acceptance on their talkpage I've formalized the sanction and changed the block [182] Acroterion (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible WP:LTA case

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

98th Century (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing is quite suspicious; all edits are regarding years far into the future, and I recall an instance of this happening before. I suspect this is a sock or long-term abuse case but I cannot recall who this is. Home Lander (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I AM NOT A VANDAL. I AM HELPING IMPROVE THE SITE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98th Century (talk • contribs) 00:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You smell like a . Home Lander (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brookerbs? Sro23 (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that articles like 9797 are improvements. Smells an awful lot like Brookerbs to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

@Home Lander and Lankiveil: Should we ask at WP:SPI? Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 01:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done here. Home Lander (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged this account as a suspected sockpuppet. I think there's enough evidence here for an administrator to block per WP:QUACKING. Home Lander (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Obvious sock of Brookerbs/User:22nd Century and Beyond. Blocked and page creations mass-deleted. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Acroterion, a good call. Pretty obvious duck case doesn't need CU. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

Thanks everyone. All other edits reverted. I'm not sure if there's any other accounts, though. Home Lander (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like there was a couple of others. All addressed, so this can be closed. Home Lander (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass creation of mostly empty articles

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing. User:Xfactor1234 appears to have created over 750 articles of YEAR in COUNTRY television, most of which appear to be almost entirely empty articles, and on the face of it, seem like they should at best be categories. We may need an orbital nuclear solution here. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood: I agree. Several weeks ago, after a discussion with several administrators on IRC including Oshwah it was decided that Xfactor1234's articles on "<YEAR> in French television" would be deleted. Unfortunately this spate of useless article creation is repeating itself. I suggest deleting the articles and ensuring that they cannot be created again, at least by the user in question. We need to nip this in the bud before it escalates to a Sander.v.Ginkel scale problem. DrStrauss talk 15:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be on board with this, but I have a "devil's advocate" question - are we deleting only their creations, or similar ones like 1986 in television which are virtually identical but created by others? Primefac (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh god. So that...exists. Personally I think the whole lot should probably be categories, but I may not have a majority opinion on that. They pretty well qualify as indiscriminate lists, and don't seem to serve any purpose other than duplicating a category in mainspace. TimothyJosephWood 15:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I am seriously concerned that the user does not engage in the discussions whereas they continue editing. May be they should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

This may be a pretty serious ABF, but I did wonder for a second if it might not be automated. TimothyJosephWood 15:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If not completely automated, relatively easy to make semi-automated. Copy/paste and then change the dates with find/replace. I don't think it's ABF to assume that they're not really paying a lot of attention to what they're doing. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

[183]--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the user's talk page suggests that they are unwilling to engage in discussions concerning problems with their editing and therefore it is fair to assume that they are uninterested in learning how to improve their contributions. In response to your question Primefac, I would say that because such articles, although light in content, are not country-specific and therefore offer global coverage adding to its value in an encyclopedia. I think a block and a deletion of all relevant page creations by the user in question would be a fair and just measure, particularly considering that they appear to offer little dissent. DrStrauss talk 16:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Primefac also in response to the global question exemplified with the link you put forward I think it would be astute to note that other nation-based year-TV articles rarely go earlier than 1990 as there is little content to provide while Xfactor1234's articles go back quite far and act as mere placeholders. DrStrauss talk 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. User talk:Xfactor1234

@Ymblanter: I think that the flippant message immediately above shows how uninterested this editor is in sensible discourse. DrStrauss talk 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Let us wait a bit. I do not think our primary goal is to block the editor, it is to solve the problem. If they are not interested to be a part of the solution, fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Commenting mainly in response to Primefac's question re: cases like 1986 in television: those should be relatively easy to deal with on a case-by-case basis via PROD, and if it becomes controversial, via an RfC. On the case of these articles, what we are essentially talking about is another CSD X criterion, which I am not sure you could find broad consensus for because in theory, these articles could actually be useful if they weren't created in what appears to be a semi-automated way. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's determined to be a detriment, the mass deletion of their creations can simple link here. No need to have a new CSD criteria. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. I wouldn't oppose that so long as it was clear that the mass deletion was in response to these specific creations of the articles in a mass unsustainable way. I still think that PROD would be the best way to deal with dab pages mainly linking to these articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. the trivialization continues. The editor just drops stuff in--if a show ran in 1983, that's apparently good enough to count as an "event" in the article of that year. A fascination with the Eurovision Song Contest is always questionable, and that's much of the content of the articles I looked at--I don't even consider that a "television-related" event; it's an event on television. By extension each and every single thing that happened on TV would be worthy of inclusion. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I agree, I think lots of these types of article are very flimsy in their interpretations of WP:OUTLINE. DrStrauss talk 18:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: PRODs would be unnecessary as the consensus here is akin to a mass AfD. DrStrauss talk 18:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

For articles by Xfactor1234, yes. For articles like 1986 in television which have edit histories from significantly before Xfactor, no. You'd need to either PROD them on a case-by-case basis or have an RfC on "Years in television" to deal with them more generally. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: ah... yep. Read that too quickly. DrStrauss talk 18:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that the other articles should be deleted, but I also agree that this is probably the wrong venue for that discussion. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Redflag A quick search of their contribs reveals this user is employing a "fly under the radar" technique which many other have used to continue editing in ways that are not helpful. They just don't respond. The adding of the word "hi" to this page was the first time they have ever edited in project space, and the fist time they have spoken to another user at all in nearly two years. They have never edited their own talk page to reply to the 67 different tissues brought up there over the course of the last ten years. You can't edit in a collaboratie environment if you refuse to speak to anyone or consider that your creations may not be desirable. A block seems overdue, as is often the case witht users who employ this tactic. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Given the above, someone block, we can wait to see if there is dissent on the deletion. TimothyJosephWood 02:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The flippant remark is unhelpful, but they haven't edited since then. I'm going to hold off on the block button in the hopes that their next edits will begin to address some of these legitimate questions. If they return to business as usual without doing so, any admin will have my support for blocking. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

• @Timothyjosephwood, Primefac, and Ymblanter: how is this deletion scheme going to materialise then? DrStrauss talk 11:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  As much as I hate proposals, I think the best way is to get a simple yes/no poll going on whether these edits are helpful or harmful. If we can get some sort of supermajority in the "yes" camp, then we can just go through and mass-delete. If there's serious opposition, then we'll probably have to go through AFD. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  I would go for WP:AfD--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: straight away? If so, is this a manual process or is there some whizz-user who can use the API somehow? DrStrauss talk 18:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Call for dissent

I'm not asking for support for mass deletion, because I think that seems fairly common sense. Instead I'm asking if anyone, at all, has any argument whatsoever for not deleting these. This is one of the most watched pages on the project, and so surely if someone can formulate a coherent argument, this would be the most favorable place to preserve the articles. If not, then I think we can probably push the big red button and be done here. TimothyJosephWood 00:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, an AfD would be unnecessary in my opinion and considering the magnitude of the situation I think this onus shift is a good idea. DrStrauss talk 08:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac and Ymblanter: ^thoughts? I was going to ping you in in the first message but because of the limitation of the template a new message was necessary. DrStrauss talk 12:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Asking for dissent is a good idea. 1 week deadline? Primefac (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Primefac: Monday 13th high noon? DrStrauss talk 13:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I posted a notice at WT:AFD in case anyone there wants to weigh in. TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• No Objection, with the caveat that only the articles created by this editor are subject to mass deletion. Obviously, the other similar articles that predate Xfactor's articles should be evaluated on the merits, individually. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• If we are only talking about articles created by one user I am fine, but even in this case I would advise users to be reasonable and to not delete articles if they are not supershort stubs.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• Objection - Sorry gang, I get the annoyance here, but this absolutely seems like the wrong venue for this. This wasn't a ban evasion. It wasn't vandalism. It wasn't sock puppetry, COI, POV-pushing, etc. Mass creation without discussion is a baaaad idea, but there has to be a really good reason for deleting them all that isn't simply that the same user created a lot of them and that they're or poor quality. This user contributed based on an existing format -- one that's perfectly sensible within the context of the thousands and thousands of years-based and country-based navigational lists. That they are incomplete isn't a reason for deletion, nevermind deletion without discussion at the regular venue(s). Honestly I don't know if I would support deletion if I saw this at AfD or an RfC, but this isn't the place for it (i.e. not a good place to make calls about whether a particular type of page -- one that preexists this user -- should not exist if it's incomplete or if the same user started lots of them. At least not when the behavioral aspect of the scenario doesn't absolutely call for deletion of hundreds of articles). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually let me clarify something. If the user was explicitly warned to slow down and/or asked to engage in discussion before continuing, and pushed forward nonetheless, I don't object to the subsequent creations being deleted. That, to me, would place this in the domain of behavior rather than content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Upon further review (which, admittedly, I should've done before tacking on this clarification), there wasn't such a warning. Some users gave advice, but he/she wasn't asked to stop/slow down. I also note that it seems like this user is being characterized as having [possibly semi-automatedly] created these 750ish articles in a short span of time. 17 were created on 3/4, 30 on 2/20, 27 on 2/18, 74 between 1/25-1/26, 15 on 1/16, 19 on 1/15, 17 on 1/9, and so on, with the activity starting more than two years ago. That's a lot of page creations and a lot of time that has gone by to now say "too many of them aren't good and should be deleted". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is two fold:

1. The issue is not that the articles are of poor quality per se; it's that they're basically empty, for the most part are merely duplications of their own empty categories, and for the most part are duplications of each other, empty as they are. They are almost certainly semi-automated in at least as much as copy/pasting is a type of automation. More so, looking back more than a year to 2003 in Turkish television or 2016 in Israeli television the articles are basically being created and abandoned, and languishing in their own walled garden, which is probably exactly how this went on so long without someone finding it.
2. Although the user has edited since this thread was started, and are definitely aware of the discussion, and been asked twice on their talk to contribute here, not only have they said nothing, but they literally have never engaged in an article talk page discussion in ten years, and have never contributed to any discussion ever other than their single one word comment on this thread, and a single post three years ago.

The two of those combined indicate there is likely a larger issue here. The articles are probably the largest walled garden I've personally seen so far, and the user doesn't seem willing to communicate with...anyone...about anything. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's empty, it can be CSDed. If it's not empty, and does in fact contain scant encyclopedic or navigational content, then it's, well, not empty but rather a stub, incomplete, poor quality, or whatever we want to call it. It's not automation to copy/paste for the purposes that are relevant here -- it's just an obvious part of creating many similarly formatted articles. If you're going to set about creating such pages, what sense would it make not to copy/paste? Of course, copy/pasting content beyond data, structure, etc. brings with it other procedural issues. Regarding abandonment, as with any other page, there's no policy that says that if you create a low quality article/stub, you must go back to improve it. Agreed that #2 is super problematic, and I'm not weighing in on what measures should be taken based on the behavioral issues here. I'm just saying that the scenario is not one in which mass deletion of all of this user's work is called for. IMO the best course of action would be one that addresses this type of article in general (probably via the Years or Television WikiProject) and establishes criteria for their creation. I would certainly endorse a route that required higher standards to justify this sort of thing, and in that case these could be deleted. I'm very familiar with the woes of sprawling, poorly maintained lists; my point here isn't to say "these are good" -- just that deletion isn't justified by the behavioral issues, so typical deletion criteria/procedure should apply. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to slap a RFC banner on this discussion to try to attract more participants, or start a AFD discussion if the venue is problematic. Would either of these fixes address your concerns adequately? Tazerdadog (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think mass AFDs would be more productive than a month-long discussion that will invariably end with no consensus except to send everything to AFD. Some of the categories would be straight-forward "delete as empty" (such as the pages in List of years in Israeli television), so if the consensus is largely that they should be deleted, but not here and not now, then I'll start working on the mass-noms. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends. mass AfD nominations often go sideways and wind up wasting a lot of time. As I mentioned above, the best thing to do would be to address the creation of low quality navigational articles in general and to establish guidelines for their creation such that it isn't acceptable in the future to create such a page to house one or two factoids. To me, an RfC (at another venue, since it's not actually about the user that is the subject of this thread) makes the most sense, or at least a non-RfC discussion framed as such (rather than around a problem user, who is a problem user but not such that it should affect deletion [at this point]). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, let me double-check this - you think it's better to ask "should we create articles like this?", and only mass-AFD after said discussion comes to a conclusion? I mean, it makes sense, and I know there's no deadline, but it sounds like unnecessary bureaucracy. I don't particularly care either way (I have a funny feeling one way or another the vast majority will be deleted), just want to make sure I don't waste my time (via either route). Primefac (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: To be clear, I'm not saying that I see AfD as an inappropriate avenue. I'm skeptical that it will yield a useful outcome, but I may well be wrong. I do think it's unlikely AfD will address [what I see as] the most important issue, though, which is how to set minimum standards for this sort of article (and, by implication, the fact that many were created with quite low standards). I think people should proceed exactly as they would if these were problematic articles that weren't created by the same user, because I don't think the user's behavior lends to deletion of all his/her work at this point (and saying "well they're not very good, either" as though multiple not-so-great-but-not-that-bad problems compound to effectively undoing the entirety of a user's contributions. I.e. if the behavioral aspect doesn't demand deletion (and I argue it does not), then there's not much point to consider this user's articles in isolation when there are a whole lot of various year/subject/country sorts of pages that are similarly underdeveloped. There are many ways it could go, of course, but IMO if AfD, it should really be the lot of these sort of pages with this sort of problem (not just created by this user). If I create some year/country combination that this user didn't create, and do so in a similarly lackluster fashion, that should be the subject of what happens next, too, because the problem is having these pages, regardless of how they were created and who created them. That's why I say coming up with some criteria would be useful, such that it not only addresses these articles but potentially this format other year/subject/country format articles and the creation of those articles in the future. But anyway, I appreciate that just deleting them is considerably easier/more straightforward, but there needs to be a really compelling reason. "They kind of suck, and now that we say they suck you're not saying anything" is not a compelling reason. I'm ranting a bit, I know. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Good points, and I can see where you're coming from. From an AFD perspective, I wasn't going to say "this user created these pages and they're terrible," but something more along the lines of "The pages listed in List of years in Spanish television are empty, and are generic lists, blah blah blah". Having seen plenty of mass-noms, though, I can appreciate the extra "oomph" of saying "<link> discussion said these types of pages aren't practical, hence I'm nominating for deletion." I'll start thinking about the options. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in Israeli television. TimothyJosephWood 18:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks against an RFC poster

Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15#Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use is an RFC posted by an IP editor. The RFC is brief and neutrally worded. Editors who oppose the proposed text have posted personal attacks on the IP editor, claiming on the one hand that he is a an illegitimate sock and on the other hand that he is a single purpose editor. @Springee: has had a long battle with this IP editor. Sockpuppet investigations were closed without conclusion. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive). These comments have no bearing on the issue or the content discussion, so I deleted them. I was reverted by @Niteshift36: and I deleted them a second time, with an explanation.[184] My question here is: Are purely personal comments and SPA tags appropriate in a content RFC? Was I wrong to delete them? Felsic2 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As a result of another clumsy revert, my comments have been deleted and the RFC has been deactivated.[185] I don't want to edit war on a talk page, but this is unhelpful. Felsic2 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's no personal attack. The RfC was never properly completed any way, so it's not accidentally deactivated. And I've restored the proper discussion to the talk page and warn Felsic to stop removing others comments from a talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Are purely personal comments and SPA tags appropriate in a content RFC? Generally, if the editors had issues with the IP, or suspected them of being a sock, they should have gone to SPI or somewhere like here, not disparage them on an article talk page. Since the IP was an open proxy, and since AFAIK most people use dynamic IPs anyway, having their first edit being an RfC is...well...actually pretty meaningless either way. Even the IP had a lengthy anon editing history, it just as well may have been different people editing on the same IP in the absence of more compelling behavioral evidence.

Was I wrong to delete them? A lot of times that's an individual judgement call. Even in cases where personal attacks are obvious and even egregious, edit warring over removing them often exacerbates the situation more than the personal attacks themselves. Per guidance at WP:NPA, Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it.

But at the end of the day, the botched reversion that closed the RfC has been reverted, and I'm not sure there's much needed in this thread other than advice. May want to keep Wikipedia:Help desk in mind in the future, unless you are seeking specific sanctions that require broad community input and/or administrator tools. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• The SPA tag was wholly proper and should never have been removed. The fact was that was the ONLY article the IP had edited. The SPA tag simply states they've made edits in only that or few articles. Again, entirely proper. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It was an open proxy. The tag was meaningless. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if it's "meaningless" or not. It shows the casual reader that it's an SPA. In addition, the tag was not incorrect or inappropriate. There was zero reason for the removal, let alone the repeated removal. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead. TimothyJosephWood 10:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Gee Timothy, that's a great, unnecessarily long piped link. How about if you link me to the policy or guideline that says it is improper to use it and should be removed by an editor, multiple times. Do you have that? Because refactoring other editors on talk pages has a pretty narrow scope. Until you do have something that fits that scope, the placement was proper, the removal was improper and no amount of "probably" and "should" will change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

m:Don't be a jerk ... no piping. Just for you. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you're "triggered" because someone doesn't buy your smoke and mirror show. I'm sorry that you feel the need to be right, even when you actually aren't right. If you don't want people to treat you like a jerk, don't treat them like a jerk. Long piped link, just for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the editor did file an SPI and it was closed without reaching a conclusion. Making the same charge repeatedly, and even routinely reverting edits and talk page posts, seems like a case of casting aspersions, which the ArbCom has disciplined for violating. WP:ASPERSIONS.

Adding personal attacks, and repeatedly restoring them, doesn't seem like a good way to conduct an RFC. The talk page guidelines WP:TPG, specifically cover this issue and those guidelines say to avoid talking about other editors. Felsic2 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• It wasn't a personal attack, so your excuse fails. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me put this another way: An editor editing through an open proxy IP address may (in fact almost certainly given the circumstances) have an editing history unrelated to that IP address. As you cannot prove one way or the other if the editor was solely focused on that subject, you cannot label them a single-purpose-account as you have no clue what their editing history is. An open-proxy IP is not an account. And in fact, by indicating they are a sockpuppet of another user, unless that user is demonstratably an SPA, its an unfounded personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Even if they only have that history for a day, it's still their history. I can show that IP has only edited that article. They are, demonstrably, a SPA. You can't show they've edited anywhere else. I didn't post the sockpuppet allegation under discussion, but I did post the SPA tag. You can't show that editor edited anywhere else. (BTW, the tag says this or "few other" topics). This is exactly why registration should be required. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Admin guidance please

I am really not sure how this situation should be handled, but I am uncomfortable with people striking RFC !votes [186], adding SPA tags [187] (especially when the discussion above shows very little support for that), removing comments [188], and cluttering up an RFC with off-topic accusations of sockpuppetry [189] when there has been no positive SPI and no official determination that the IP is HughD. Is this how we normally do things?

For context, there is some discussion here where The Wordsmith seems to have been convinced that the IP might be HughD, and there was an inconclusive SPI here but nothing "official" as far as I can tell. Can we get an uninvolved admin to take a look and decide whether or not this IP's contributions are a case of WP:DUCK or a case of WP:AGF? Seems like this needs to get settled one way or another. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• The SPA tag has nothing to do with SPI or a sock allegation. There doesn't have to be a finding of anything. It merely shows that the IP has edited in no or few topics other than this one. That is factually correct. None of you have shown it's not true, so put the whip away. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you've already (and repeatedly) stated your opinion on this above. But my question involved more than just an spa tag (ie, striking votes, deleting comments, sock accusations), and I'm asking for someone who is not already involved in this dispute to comment. No "whip" here, whatever that was supposed to mean. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Whip means stop beating the dead horse. There's no violation or policy prohibiting the tag. So making it part of your "concerns" looks like trying to stack the complaint to make it seem more than it is. (Much like listing a lot of sources that don't address the topic under discussion.) Since you included it, I'm addressing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you always this combative? You're being way more adversarial than the situation warrants, both here and in the RFC. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Do you really want to start making this a conversation about personalities? You can ask that, but when I ask if you understand the issue, you lecture me about civility? [190]Would be happy to discuss your hypocrisy if you want to start discussing personalities. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That comment was a response to your behaviour in the RFC as a whole, and in this ANI thread, not just your reply to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• So? You act like you're being civil, yet you feel free to comment on the editor and not the issue, acting like it's fine. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• If it's really an open proxy, the !votes and comments should be struck, whether or not the {{SPA}} tag is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Really? I looked at WP:PROXY and while it does suggest that proxies can/should be blocked, it also says that "while this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Hence the question (ie, is this is a "legitimate" editor or not). Fyddlestix (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• The proxy is blocked. So what is the point of that comment? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I explained that pretty clearly in the post you're replying to: WP:PROXY does not suggest that someone's comments/!votes should be struck because they were editing through a proxy. In fact, it seems to suggest the opposite (that their contributions should be presumed valid, assuming its not vandalism or block evasion). If I have missed some guideline/policy that says otherwise, please point it out to me - if not, and in the absence of an SPI/admin finding that the IP is HughD, then this should be reverted, the IP should be allowed their !vote, and people should not be removing their comments. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• If the IP is blocked, the vote should be struck. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors here seem to be confusing WP:BLOCK with WP:BAN. They are two different things. The open proxies have been blocked, but there's no confirmation that the editor using the IP has been banned. Comments by banned editors may be removed. Comments from merely blocked editors should not be. Felsic2 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• So lets see if I can sum up where we seem to be here:

1. The SPA tags probably weren't necessary
2. Removing them probably wasn't either
3. Neither is probably worth this drawn out conversation
4. Either party could and should have dropped the stick, regardless of where it fell
5. The RfC seems to be steaming along nicely, despite the apparently Earth shattering crises of an SPA tag
6. Unlike this conversation which is pretty clearly going nowhere, and should probably be closed before people wind up getting gratuitous links to essays on civility, which will probably only make things worse.

Did I miss anything? TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• You forgot the part when you jumped into commenting on the editor instead of the issue yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations abound at List of Intervention episodes

Hi, any assistance here would be appreciated. The copyvio issues are pretty well embedded in the edit history, but it appears that much of the episode summary going back years has been cut and pasted from the network's or other websites. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:D5FA:9AFC:6E2B:8DD (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yawn, not another one of these articles loaded with copyvio. I took out a chunk, plenty remains. I don't know where the "Epilogue" bits come from... could someone watch the show and check against the narration? MER-C 12:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MER-C. It looks damn tedious, and like a lot of these articles, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the summaries were copied. Somewhere a TV Guide writer is missing a royalties check. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Iran Air Beijing and Kuala Lumpur routes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi

I attempted to present this case on the right page (Iran Air Destinations's talk page) but I was banned and told I'm a sock of some person. Therefore someone needs to address this issue immediately as it is a blatant mistake:

As of the time of writing this edit request, Iran Air has not resumed services to Beijing and Kuala Lumpur, therefore the two pertinent rows on Iran Air destinations need to be deleted from the table.

Source: http://www.aviationiran.com/2017/03/10/iranairs-first-a330-arrives-in-tehran-on-11-march-0900/

The second paragraph clearly explains that the freshly acquired aircraft were supposed to be used to resume those routes but for the time being they'll be flying European destinations.

Yes, Iran Air planned and submitted GDS entries for those 2 routes thrice but they never actually started. (First:http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/269829/iran-air-proposes-dec-2016-east-asia-service-resumptions/ Second: http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/269983/iran-air-moves-east-asia-service-resumption-to-jan-2017/ And third: http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/270615/iran-air-moves-east-asia-service-resumption-to-mar-2017/

Thanks

183.107.126.32 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This has previously been dealt with here. This is blocked vandal, Theeasytarget (talk · contribs). I'll go and block the IP address now. I strongly encourage other editors not to proxy-edit on behalf of this blocked user. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This sound like a jarring mistake to me, holds little relevance that a blocked user has been first to spot this. Needs to be corrected as soon as possible. The two routes got removed from IKA's page too a few days ago because they never actually started.

51.175.211.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that we previously had to semi-protect WP:ANI to deal with the flurry of block-evasion and vandalism from Theeasytarget (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that this time my edit request is just as legitimate and factually backed-up as the last time, and you're now being given a chance to play it clean and apply the edit peacefully so that we don't have to resort to the use of brute force :D Not as if I even care, a legitimate request will eventually find its way through, wait and watch. 1.36.204.51 (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the edit seems to be fully substantiated, the two routes got removed from Imam Khomeini Airport's list of destinations too by a reputable member of Wikipedia (here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tehran_Imam_Khomeini_International_Airport&diff=768025025&oldid=768006071)

Someone correct this glaring blunder please. 103.192.207.234 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

What an embarrassing mistake by Iridescent, admins ought to do better than this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.219.70 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The link provided, www.airportia.com/flights/ir800/tehran/beijing/ rather clearly rebukes your claim. How did the administrator make a mistake? ValarianB (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully Valarian, don't feed them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infinite block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If you block me, you lick nuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Quite old account but, all accounts related are blocked except this account. Shall I request a global lock for this account? Jerrykim306 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I blocked it here, for a global lock you need to ask on Meta.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unwarranted aggression to other editors from Digitallymade

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

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

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

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

Yet this is from an editor who can't even spell the name of their own new articles IMR Lendary Powders, opposed the deletion of the mis-spelled version after it was renamed, then PRODs the original article before their WP:CFORK: Talk:Improved Military Rifle. As to their "merge all firearm articles to one" suggestion [191], that was fortunately rebuffed early and without too much waste of time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long term, repeated, false allegations by Activist

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

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

• "...you operating in the interest of those executives, officials or stockholders who deserve no confidence or respect."[192]
• "...essentially and exclusively mounting a corporate reputation defense, whether or not you have a COI." and "If you have some alternate explanation, why it is that rather than contributing useful information, you consistently and exclusively delete massive quantities of data that may in any way be construed to reflect poorly, particularly on GEO, but also upon those others whom you've chosen to champion."[193]
• "You've presented yourself as a neutral editor, in the spirit of Wikipedia, but in fact you seem to be adamantly opposed to balanced presentations of this corporation, and you minimize the corporate whitewashing engaged in by others for GEO"[194]
• "I note, Niteshift36 that you've made 38 of the last 107 or so edits to the GEO page, since Cohen was outed. If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us?"[195]
• "I further note that you've made 32 edits to the GEO Group main article, with the last signed edit by Abraham Cohen being made February 20th, 2013, though the GEO IPN was used to make subsequent sock puppet edits not long after but before you started your signed edits." (note: I've always signed my edits and never edited as a IP)[196]
• "I should have noted that since you began editing the GEO Group article, almost four years ago, after GEO employees using their own names or making IPN edits were outed, you've made about 80 edits to the article."[197]
• "You're desperately trying to whitewash and obscure the corporation's sordid history and to lead people away from any solid understanding of GEO's business mode" [198]

Some examples of a clear denial of COI editing:

• "I do not work for GEO or any of their subsidiaries, never have and have NEVER made an edit on behalf of ANY company." [199]
• "I am stating, very clearly, that I have never worked for GEO in any way shape or form."[200]

Aside from denials, warnings and invitations to go to ANI if he had evidence of the allegation, Activist was warned [201] on his talk page. Yet this continues. I hope that Activist doesn't turn this into a wall of text complaining about content issues and actually sticks to the issue: Can an editor repeatedly make an allegation, either directly or by aspersion, over a long period of time and get away with it?Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Notified of ANI here [202]. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not familiar with Activist, but, FWIW, I've repeatedly had to ask Niteshift36 to stop making personal comments and, ironically, casting aspersions.[203][204][205] Felsic2 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

−

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

−

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

−

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

−

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

−

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

−

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

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

• It's probably worth noting that I'm not the only one who feels like the allegation has been repeated: "You repeat the allegations of COI even as you deny you have been doing that" [206]Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Unfortunately, you can't remove the post. Per WP:REDACT, once the post was responded to, you can't just remove it. You may strike through it, but since subsequent responses by others refer to what you said, removal changes their responses. Your removal was reverted by another editor [207]. That editor came to your talk page and told you that he reverted it and why [208]. After a discussion, you came back and removed it again [209] with an edit summary that wasn't exactly accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision delete

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

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

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

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

User:Reggiewray01's bad page moves

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

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

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

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

Aaaand blocked three days to prevent further disruptive editing. [210] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Community Sanction Violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user unfairly keeps reverting my changes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi

I feel that user Alexbrn is unfair in reverting two minor changes that I made - which are, I feel significant in keeping a NPOV character in the article Biodynamic agriculture.

The two changes can hopefully be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biodynamic_agriculture&type=revision&diff=770067192&oldid=769759013

and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biodynamic_agriculture&type=revision&diff=770068503&oldid=77006770

Ironically he left an editing note accusing me of editwarring when reverting my changes.

A quick look into the history of the article seems to show that he did it before. Looking at his Talk page seems like he also does this in other articles.

What is your opinion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.216.105.154 (talk • contribs)

This dosen't seem to be an issue for ANI—and it is rather short on evidence. For content disputes, list a Request for comment or try the Dispute resolution noticeboard. El_C 10:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The OP's wording (in both edits) includes weasel words, a word spelled in the wrong EngVar for that article, and is likely OR since the edit summaries admitted to being based on "NPOV" rather than what it says in the source. But yeah, this doesn't belong on ANI anyway. Someone should close this, and if the OP has a problem with that then a boomerang is in order. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is basically a quarrel over whether something is pseudoscience or whether something is merely considered to be it. The best way to tackle this is to go to the talk page (which you have done) and present your WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to make your claim. In the meantime, you were both edit-warring, but I'm not interested in bean-counting who has reverted whom, so for now just keep the discussion going on the talk page and see where it leads you. You can always ask a third opinion as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try your suggestions. You can close this I don't know how.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People are now LAUGHING at Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4307480/Writers-reveal-Wikipedia-s-insidious-Kafkaesque-control.html [partial quote follows] "An investigation by this paper has revealed how Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as a source after just 53 out of its 30 million editors voted to do so. Their spurious argument was that the Mail could not be trusted to be accurate. But — as the internet’s inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee says online ‘fake news’ must be tackled — what about the accuracy of information on Wikipedia? Here, two writers describe their Kafkaesque experiences when they found their entries were littered with mistakes . . . The call from a friend one quiet Sunday afternoon last summer was disturbing to say the least. ‘You’re not going to like this,’ she said — and she was right. Someone had set up a Wikipedia page about me, and I didn’t like it one little bit. In fact, I hated it. It might seem quaint, in the remorselessly selfie-taking, soul-baring, fame-craving culture in which we now find ourselves, for anyone to object to being thrust into the public eye, but it felt like a rude intrusion. Admittedly, I’d been a Fellow at Cambridge, and I’d written a few books, mostly about popular culture, but I was hardly a public figure. And that was how I liked it. I’ve never made multiple applications to appear on Big Brother, Britain’s Got Talent or Gogglebox. I don’t use Twitter, Snapchat or Instagram. I don’t alert the world to all of my prosaic daily thoughts via Facebook." [end partial quote] 216.161.93.21 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that the Daily Mail has apparently followed up on their promise to collect stories from people who felt treated badly by Wikipedia. I'd shrug it off and certainly wouldn't have reinserted this anon posting here, if it wasn't for the fact that I briefly looked at the story they picked. It's about a BLP on one Graham McCann, and the treatment this BLP subject got from an aggressive gang of Wikipedia authors (well-respected, well-connected wikipedia authors at that), turns out to have been truly horrible and embarrassing. I would have blocked the culprits on the spot, had I noticed it back then. I do feel we need to discuss some consequences of this case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, if I'd known that you wanted to look into the editors who behaved badly on that article I would've left this section alone. I removed the IPs post as it didn't seem this board was the place to rehash the Daily Mail argument. ValarianB (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I closed this thread. Fut.Perf. re-opened for more drama(?) Have at it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

one of Wikipedia replies. --Moxy (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

wrong information of user name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Thomas.W was claimed that he has been a Wikipedian since 15 December 2006.But it is wrong information

Global account information Username: Thomas.W Registered: 10:39, 26 June 2012 (4 years ago) Total edit count: 44,125 Number of attached accounts: 119 (Hjuiiii (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC))

• What have you been smoking? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Brand new account, very first edit to ANI? Who's sock is this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It could be connected to the section above, it could also be Nsmutte, or any one of a dozen other sock masters who don't like me... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I am regular wikipedia reader..i found a mistake,i kept here (Hjuiiii (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC))

It's not a mistake, it's global information, showing that I have edited, or at least visited, 119 different versions of Wikipedia, one of them (da.wikipedia.org = "SUL: Account attached at 17:06, 26 Jun 2012") on 26 June 2012... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Who ever they are they don't seem to know alot about Wikipedia or they would know about IP Addresses and socks .... they can't hide behind a fake account Jena (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please verify following link for full information :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth&target=Thomas.W (Hjuiiii (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC))

Why does this even matter? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. If any admin doesn't think this account was not created to avoid scrutiny or a block, they can unblock. And for reference - [211] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is Nsmutte. GAB^gab 00:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've just had a legal threat from a representative of A.F.C. Totton. Would someone mind dealing with it? Cheers, Number 57 16:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editor signing another user's name in AFD discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

106.76.2.215 (talk · contribs) has twice today signed another user's name (in addition to their own IP signature) on AFD discussions: here and here. In both cases, they used the name ENpeeOHvee, a user who has been inactive for almost 11 years. While it's possible that this user has awoken from an 11 year nap, it seems unlikely. I think this merits some admin attention. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It's Nsmutte. One of his usual IP ranges, and his latest trolling tactics in the posts. --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)..

Oh, right, that was that fool who had a few socks pinging me the other day. They're so incompetent that I keep forgetting their name. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could use help with a range block

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wonderful little edit war going on at Stephon Gilmore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deciduous Maple - off-wiki recruiting, edit warring, and other problematic behaviours

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

ChiveFungi mentioned on Deciduous Maple's (DM) user talk page a /pol/ thread where it appears DM is recruiting users to change the lead on white supremacy. DM confirmed the post was made by them, as well as one on 8ch ([212]).

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

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

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

Gave Deciduous_Maple a few options. [213] Gave ChiveFungi a pointer to WP:OUTING. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jason Zhuwao

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jason Zhuwao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this a recreation of the page Jason zhuwao which was speedy-deleted earlier?

I wasn't sure if the new page would qualify as "A7", because I guess being a politician is a sort of claim of significance; posting here because I think admins can assess it better, in context of the deleted version/s.

Thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit: it has now got a BLP-PROD, added literally the same minute I was adding the above message. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It's also an autobiography, as per the creator of the article's name. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I put BLPPROD on it because, as it stands now, there's not enough material for it to be G11'd like it was last time... and it's just above the threshold of A7. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 20:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How? I don't see any vague claim of notability in the article. Saying someone is a politician doesn't do it I'd think. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not all politicians are notable. For all we know, this could be a a member of a town council, which does not satisfy WP:NPOL. The author has not given enough information to determine who this individual is. I would say it deserves to be speedied. Scr★pIron^IV 21:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it could have been speedied, not per WP:G11 as last time, but WP:A7. No, saying somebody is a politician isn't a claim to notability and being born in 1993 isn't either, and that was the sum of the information in the article. I've speedied it. (If I get another edit conflict, I give up.) Bishonen | talk 21:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I'll just mention that A7 specifically says, "a lower standard than notability". Anway - thanks for sorting things out. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Yosoloeditocosasporarreglar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does this entry on their talk page warrant an indefinite block? [214] They made the entry after they got blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks (and a lot of their recent edit summaries in their contributions show a clear lack of civility). Plus that entry looks like a threat to me.

I don't know if I should notify them about this report. First, they are currently blocked and couldn't respond anyway during that time, and even if they did, they will just continue their profanity-laced ranting here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Their talk-page access has already been removed (before you posted) [215].

I don't think that's a credible threat, or anything to worry about. It's common for blocked users to be frustrated, and vent a bit.

They can't do anything today; if they continue tomorrow, I'm sure our friendly admins will notice and take swift action. (Non-admin comment/opinion) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, never mind, nobody likes being blocked. Excirial has already revoked talkpage access, without extending the block. I think you can dispense with the usual alert about being discussed on ANI too, per IAR. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hamad olatunde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account on 5 February. Their first edit was made two days later to the help desk, where they asked about some sort of job submission (diff). Ian.thomson left them a message on their talk page telling them that Wikipedia is not for that type of thing (diff). On 25 February, Hamad went to the help desk again, this time to ask about logging into Facebook (diff), followed by two more job inquiries on 26 February (diff) and on 3 March (diff). Also on 3 March, they asked about travelling abroad at WP:LOCEMB (diff), and then posted a fourth job question, at the talk page of the food and drink WikiProject, on 9 March (diff). On the same day, they posted a fifth job question, again at the help desk (diff), before asking about some sort of internet experience on their user talk page (diff). Huon replied stating, just like Ian, that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to help with jobs. On 10 March, they asked for help with work on their user talk page (diff) and created an article in which they asked for help with work (filter log). They received warnings from Iridescent (diff), Dodger (diff) and Dbfirs (diff) about this behaviour, before being blocked by Dodger for 31 hours on 11 March (WP:NOTHERE) (block log). Before being blocked, Hamad asked at their user sandbox whether Wikipedia is payable, submitting the draft (diff), before it was declined by Dodger67 (diff). Yesterday, after the block expired, they submitted the same sandbox draft again (diff), before it was declined by David.moreno72 (diff), and then posted again about an online job at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities (diff). I believe this sort of NOTHERE behaviour, continued after a block, may warrant an indef block. Linguist^talk|contribs 00:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a WP:CIR situation. They will need to formulate a coherent response to get unblocked now. [216] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I also believe it could have been CIR, if it wasn't NOTHERE. Linguist^talk|contribs 00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had the block window open since his last post, and was waiting for something else. Certainly not going to unblock him, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerning userpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure how exactly to handle this, but this userpage of a new user is concerning. Would appreciate administrator advice or intervention. Home Lander (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I'd recommend you follow the instructions at WP:SUICIDE, and leave the page and the user alone for now and let WMF deal with it. Linguist^talk|contribs 00:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another possible suicide threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yoshiumaru&oldid=770194875

Emergency have been informed. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit that should probably be rev-deled at an AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Bhimaraju is an AfD that is subject to WP:BLP. An IP made these edits: [217], [218], [219], and [220]. The comments are on the borderline between AfD discussion and BLP violation, and some editors are objecting. In my opinion, the 4th edit (the one with "yuck" as the edit summary) should probably be rev-deled. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another concerning userpage?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here. I'm not certain what's being implied, and I'd rather not take any chances, so I'm posting here. Adam9007 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If there is admin action for anyone saying 'My Life sucks', there will not be a Wikipedia.86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd do something but guess what. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your life is awesome! El_C 02:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• And if we didn't allow editors whose lives otherwise suck, we'd have no editors. EEng 03:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mystic Ballet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've asked for a block of Mystic Ballet (talk · contribs) at AIV, to no avail. The account has existed as a blatantly COI user for promotional purposes since 2008, and I'm now engaged in an edit war to remove advert content and restore maintenance templates. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, you were referred to UAA, which is valid. Anyway, done deal. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I know, but a nine year history that was predicated on promotional intent seemed to me a lot more than just a username issue. Thank you, Drmies. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright violations, sock?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gyles82 was blocked by MER-C for persistent copyright violation, and I subsequently removed substantial copyvios he'd added to Helaine Blumenfeld and Erwin Blumenfeld. RECONDITEONE has restored the same (or closely similar) copyvio to those two articles, which I've again removed.

Gyles82 had five principal areas of interest: Helaine, Erwin, Yorick and Remy Blumenfeld, and Capel Manor House, the home of the last-named (yes, there's probably some COI at play here, too). RECONDITEONE has edited (only) four of those five pages. There's little room for doubt that they are one and the same editor. Would some kind admin oblige, or do you want me to take this to WP:SPI (which I understand is somewhat overloaded)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed (quack quack). -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to delete my talk page...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If I am unable to delete my talk page that is ok; but I though I would ask. If you have the time, would some of you bureaucrats and administrators comment here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:My Core Competency is Competency. Thanks. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That should not happen. Unless it contains any material strongly breaching either policy or statute, the talk page hstory needs to be preserved- if only because other people have commented on it. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @My Core Competency is Competency:. Without a compelling reason talk pages are not deleted. "Going out with a bang" does not qualify as compelling. Tiderolls 16:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What appears to be threats by User:Caula

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Envale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reversion of a delete of contentious material Perse School

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

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

Disruptive editing at AfD

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

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

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

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

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

WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

• I was about to refer this. I'm confident that whoever looks into this will understand my position. Please also check the talk pages of myself, and the other two involved, and also [221].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this can be closed if anyone has a mind to. The editor in question was blocked, the block has run out, they've changed their account name (to "L.R. Wormwood") and have pledged to Bishonen to change their talk page behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikihounding, personal attacks, incivility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Arianewiki1 apparently has nothing better to do than follow me around Wikipedia to harass me and make flagrant breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS. This mess started when I created a requested move on this nebula article. The RM was a proposal to rename the article from the long catalog name to the more used common name. After one editor supported the proposal Arianewiki1 jumps in, guns blazing, with a large obnoxious screed about how they hate "people who name nebulae". In it they declare with no evidence that I have a COI over naming astronomy articles and say that I am "grooming" editors. They are told by an uninvolved editor (User:Elphion) to "dial it back" [222], to which they respond with another large screed and say I am ignorant and one of the "blind following the blind". Attempting to bait me, they tell me to "assume good faith" and call me "sunshine". They then post on my talk page, with the header "Poor Behaviour"; stating that I need to stop with my "fanatic" editing. The diff they give is me adding a source to an astronomy website!

By this point I decided that I had enough and should just back off. I removed the articles from my watchlist and their very uncivil rant from my talk page. Around this point I get a message that an article I nommed for GA is being reviewed. Happily I look at the review page, and what I see is a capital bolded "OPPOSE" from the usual suspect and another lengthy screed that I can't be bothered to read. Arianewiki1 states that the review should be immediately thrown out and once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI. [223] The article in question is Bic Cristal, about a ballpoint pen. Arianewiki1 says they are "seriously concerned" that I edited the article before nominating it (WTF?!) and states the article should be merged into ballpoint pen (akin to saying that iPhone should be merged into Phone). After I responded here telling them to stop calling me a COI editor or I will take them to AN/I they accuse me of personal attacks, call me a "bully" (after stalking me to a random article) and ask "How does such indignation feel?". They post another message to my talk page (despite my telling them not to) stating they have renamed and rewritten an entire article which I moved to its common name according to their POV; saying "Look, I'm not trying to start a fight" – as if I'm stalking them. I wonder if they are trying to turn over a new leaf with this but immediately after they revert my removal of their rant from my talk page (against WP:OWNTALK) with the edit summary: "Any contrition yet or is the ego just too bruised?". [224] This user has been blocked before and they were warned just a few days ago by administrator Lankiveil about personal attacks in an RfC, where they called the starting editor a "groomer" again and referred to them as a "stinking filthy lawyer"! [225] Please look into this. Thanks, Laurdecl ^talk 09:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I followed the link from the document WP:GA nomination[226] to Bic Cristal, and found a series of edits by Laurdecl. My comments were mostly objective; I.e. Point 1b written by David Eppstein says what I said. It is quite unclear where the actual objections are. I.e. The now collapsed initial text of mine or in what comes after it? Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find your comments at the GA review to be a personal attack more than a review; from the beginning you focus on Laurdecl rather than on the edits. If you were cross at the time, perhaps that explains the tone, but if you were "cross" you probably shouldn't have a. followed Laurdecl to a GA nomination and b. commented on a GA review. I do not wish to point at examples of poor writing in that review (or in this thread); they should be obvious. The poor source I noticed was this one. Also, please be more concise. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Response 1

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

Comments on Grooming

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

The actual edits in question is here [227] As I said: "The word 'grooming' clearly means "prepare or train someone for a particular purpose", and my comment was specifically to the Wittylama's unnecessary replies asking opinion - influencing others to a particular point of view." Mitch Ames pointed out saying "you linked to Child grooming, effectively implying that Arianewiki1 was making a quite serious allegation. However Arianewiki1's post had no such link, and could quite likely have referred to "coaching" or "mentoring" (eg as used in Mentorship)."

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

Regardless, the link to child grooming was removed and the accusation withdrawn. As far as I'm concerned, the matter was settled. I will be careful next time, sure, but 'grooming' is a legitimate and common word. (The silly suggestion here not to use the word at all is basically politically driven censorship. Do you want to ban all these subjects now?[228])

But what has this to do with Laurdecl at all?

He said "... but an administrator warned you here to stop with your personal attacks, calling the editor who stated the RfC a "groomer"! "[229]

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

Yet again the same accusation appear above, when Laurdecl says "This user has been blocked before and they were warned just a few days ago by administrator Lankiveil about personal attacks in an RfC, where they called the starting editor a "groomer" again and referred to them as a "stinking filthy lawyer"! [230]

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

2) Another misnomer is: "As for "Arianewiki1 states that the review should be immediately thrown out and once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI. [231]"

Yet here, I admit my own mistake [232], where the edit title say "I have removed the wrongful implication of Laurdecl was WP:COI. I mean the article that was already WP:COI. My sincere apologies for unintended wording.)" I also said in the formal response to Laurdecl; " My immediate apologies any inference of WP:COI, which was an unintended mistake by me. I meant, as the way the whole article reads, as shown since the first edits in 2006 till now. I have now struck out the wrongful implication. My sincere apologies for unintended wording, which I do mean."

I also struck the offending words out.

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

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

This is completely emotive and deliberately deceptive.

• If you can't be bother to read it, how did you know about the COI? Complaining
• "I see is a capital bolded "OPPOSE", don't all comments seeking consensus respond SUPPORT of OPPOSE. (Even Laurdecl did so here.[233] !)
• "usual suspect." Oh I've done this before are you implying? My user name is Arianewiki1 actually.
• "once again blatantly asserts that I have a COI." Where? I never said anywhere "YOU have COI" 'implication' does not equal 'assert', and worst didn't I retract this as stated above?

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

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

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

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

Secondly, there is some pretty poor behaviour coming my way too. Everything I write too Laurdecl comes back just nit-picking every little fault or inference they can find. Best example is the talk page on Sh-155[234]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) What is my motive here?

Really. Editing is difficult enough, and the problem is we all make mistakes. My personality might be a bit aggressive at times, but I'm at least willing to encourage others, sort out the problems, and will withdraw without reservation (as clearly shown above.). Even before I knew of this AN/I, I informed Laurdecl about the changes in my edits (I didn't have too) here.[235] in respect to their earlier contributions.

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

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

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

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

complaint 1

I have been reading through the initial AN/I complaint here and am greatly disturbed by the extent of the allegations. To defend and explain my position would take a long time, and it is difficult to recall so many edits and search for all the edit differences. Also the negative and biassed language used by Laurdecl is effectively written to character assassinate rather than deal with the facts. Worse the complainant has given only four edit differences, but some of the admins here are exploring well beyond the purview levelled against me.

Could we please limit the allegations to those claimed to have affected Laurdecl or me, and remove the erroneous problems that have nothing to do with it. I.e. Laurdecl says "After one editor supported the proposal Arianewiki1 jumps in, guns blazing, with a large obnoxious screed about how they hate "people who name nebulae"." Where is this presumed long tedious text located then? (Honestly, I can't remember and don't know where this text is located!) Why use subjective words of supposition like "jumps in", "guns blazing", "obnioxious", "hate", which are surely just their opinion. Notably too, the repeated use of the word 'screed' also prejudicial against me (meaning 'tedious long piece of writing') Tedious to whom? (Even Demies here is now describing "tasteless screed")

If I have attacked another editor, this might be a problem, but if I present it as an argument to support getting a consensus, what is wrong with that? Do I deserve the threat of reduced editing capabilities for writing too much?

Regarding the problem with the word grooming Laurdecl so far in the complaint says ""grooming" editors" (the quotes implying I might mean something else?), but then tries to allege and link that I did so in an unrelated incident nothing to do with Laurdecl implying that I did mean child grooming. Worst still the complain link goes here [236] when the actual uncited changed edit [237] by Lankiveil actually saying "especially the (hopefully hyperbolic) accusation of grooming." (which notably has no formal comment explaining the edit, but it takes ages to find - 20 mins for me.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That was not briefly. (How did I know?) Anyway, I can't see the word "grooming" not having extraordinary negative connotations vis-a-vis child grooming. If you use it in ordinary speech, my suggestion is that you don't. (If there is a causal way to use that word, I am not familiar with it.) As for the rest written at length, I'm not sure how it came to be that you two have developed this personal animosity, but I would suggest just giving each other a break from one another. There are plenty of articles out there (science and otherwise). If you do find something glaring in each other's edits that you somehow must comment on, seek a third opinion or use the Dispute resolution noticeboard, instead of becoming involved directly. El_C 22:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

El_C, I think we should make that involuntary, and tell Arianewiki1 to stay away from Laurdecl. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I ought to have phrased that more firmly. After all, s/he's the one who seems to end up in Laurdecl's orbit rather than the other way around. I'll drop them a note. El_C 00:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In the end, I did set up an interaction ban for Arianewiki1 to avoid Laurdecl. As Drmies suggested I make it mandatory, just to be on the safe side and ensure further conflict is avoided, I did so. To reiterate, I think the two of them can continue to make quality edits and make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia entirely without interacting with and thereby coming into conflict with one another again, as that was based on personal animosity rather than on ideological differences. El_C 00:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this El_C and Drmies. I genuinely have no problem with Arianewiki1 and they obviously do excellent work with astronomy articles, though I am bewildered as to why their first interaction with me was so negative. Despite my interest, I seldom edit science-related articles anyway (the last article I created was this, about civil rights legalisation). I did react rudely a few times, but always after they started casting aspersions, etc. I just wanted them to stop following me around for no apparent reason. Thanks again. Laurdecl ^talk 06:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Response 2

@El C: @Drmies: I think this decision is very unfair, harsh and mostly one way, because it openly ignores the whole editing behaviour and gamesmanship of Laurdecl. Not once has there been a single criticism even though some of his contentious are either dubious or unfounded, yet they are left uncommented. The present complaint for this ANI is nearly impossible to defend in any brevity because it is mixed with false accusations, bias and deliberate fabrications, which are both uncited and look like a deliberate personal assassination. (You even mock me for it.) The response here to the used of the word 'grooming' seems the only criteria in which this aberrant decision was made and not just based on the stated contentions.

The latest rather lackluster response by Laurdecl says it all, especially in saying "I am bewildered as to why their first interaction with me was so negative." and then El_C saying "I'm not sure how it came to be that you two have developed this personal animosity..."

Really, you should have known this first before considering any course of action. (Here: Motive is the key to behaviour, "where beliefs are influenced by our inner drive to succeed." [238]

It was this edit[239] in which Laurdecl had made without consensus nor properly understanding the problem. Saying as a reason "Laurdecl moved page NGC 1973, NGC 1975 and NGC 1977 to Running Man Nebula over redirect: Use common name." is wrong. The issue is the naming is complicated, as "Sh2-279", "NGC 1973, NGC 1975 and NGC 1977", "NGC 1977", "Running Man Nebula" (and a few others) mean different descriptions of the structure. The article named "Running Man Nebula" is a small part of the larger structure. This is a common problem with edits of this nature, which I have come across many times be before over edits made over the years. (The Italian version of Wikipedia calls this "NGC 1977" for example.)

I reverted the text in the article here [240], commenting "There is no evidence for this. Name isn't recognised in SIMBAD. Other fixes." [[User:Laurdecl|Laurdecl] then made this edit[241], which I undid saying "This is not the main name so it isn't bold. You have no consensus for this edit." [242] These edits collectively made the article to need corrections, which I attempted to do. The whole aeries of edits are here: [243].

My complaint was then made under the "Non consensus change article title" is here[244], which I did in an attempt to get needed consensus as required by normal procedures via the Talkpage.

Clearly my initial response is because of the article name change WITHOUT consensus in the statements in the earlier edits.

Laurdecl saying " I am bewildered as to why their first interaction with me was so negative." is self-explanatory because of the avoidance getting consensus. The rest of the discussion - good or bad - is mostly understanding this contention. This explains all the reactions here.

Sh2-279 is the correct designation of the object because its the largest structure in which the "Running Man Nebula" is just a smaller part.

The initial error is that I wrote "This is yet another example of individuals gaining notoriety...", which I think Laurdecl may have thought that 'individuals' was targeted at him. It was not meant like that and I my apologies if it was construed this way. I was talking about general observers /astrophotographers who name some object - then attempt to promote that name.

In retrospect, I did perhaps act hastily, but I did say in balance "Without bothering to consensus rightfully this should be reversed now, yet we should await Laurdeci response to hear any justification." [245]

The issue was further exacerbated with the request to change Sh2-155 article, which Laurdecl says above in the ANI; "This mess started when I created a requested move on this nebula article." which was written at 13:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[246] note the revert was done on the name change on "Running Man Nebula" at 23:40, 5 March 2017‎. OtterAM explained why Sh2-155 should not be changed which was on 01:43, 7 March 2017.[247]

It comes down to the way the change at 23:40, 5 March 2017 with now Sh2-279 (Running Man Nebula was changed. [[248]]

My fear was that Laurdecl was going to start changing all the 'unnamed' articles systematically, which is why I responded as I did. Dealing with significant page changes at once is a logistic nightmare which I was trying to bud. With Laurdecl uncompromising attitude and the Laurdecl seemingly changes of the ref names of an article that I was in the midst of editing; became plainly infuriating. Even if this wasn't a deliberate act by Laurdecl, Laurdecl should have shown some remorse or contrition, but instead starts unfriendly and disrespectful acts against even reasonable WP:GF.

Now you'd probably really think just a little "sorry about that" for the inconvenience might have gone a long way in settling things down, instead you get completely overrun. Frankly, it made me feel like a piece of sh*t!

I've dedicated much of time in stabilising lots of astronomy articles from unjustified changes, most done innocently by Users who lack wisdom to understand why things are done in a certain way. If you start changing article titles as you like, the single precedent can cause a rippling effect across hundreds of other articles. (If we had followed the edits of Laurdecl here, it would have caused a lot of heartache for me and other editors to correct them.)

Lack of any normal respect shown by Laurdecl towards me and other editors in these articles has been utterly deplorable. (Not one word appears on my talkpage!) Any decent person, especially when I made an apology like the COI mistake, would acknowledge it. All I see is arrogance and the air of superiority, twisting rules and regulations just to enforce their will - and treat with contempt anyone who disagrees with them. Moreover, mutual respect is earned by cooperation, and in light of our human failings, decent editors who do something useful should heed their wisdom or confirm their views. If they react strongly, it is usually for a good reason. Problem solving is difficult enough, but deliberate distractions on multiple fronts just to prove a point - that's what Laurdecl did in a nutshell.

So, yes, I'll avoid Laurdecl is the future, and I expect they will do the same, but if they do attempt to make drastic changes without gaining formal consensus of other editors, another ANI will quickly follow.

IMO, this very complex complaint could of been handled much better, especially in light of the presentation of the given complaint. One instant of proven falsehood should have instantly closed the complaint (I've shown four instances of false claims), because you have no idea which statements are true, false or exaggerated. Also there was only four links in the complaint, and the examination of these four claims weren't even presented. Worst there is a dubious statements that should have been struck, especially the nonsense: ""After one editor supported the proposal Arianewiki1 jumps in, guns blazing, with a large obnoxious screed about how they hate "people who name nebulae"."" This angers me the most, because it is not what I believe, and it shows a complete lack of understanding in how things work, and yet;

This whole matter could have been avoided if they asked around before they changed and article title without WP:CON and avoiding WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

Note: I am female with bring up a teenager, and I too worry about possible child grooming. However, the actual meaning of the word 'grooming' isn't bad nor controversial and can only be evaluated in terms of context. (Another I heard yesterday was 'barking", which was assumed to infer that they it was a derogatory word calling another "a dog", when it was actually referring to the way they were speaking. Does this mean it is now a controversial word too?) Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no proper way to use that word in reference to another editor influencing others. Three admins have told you this already, so just don't do it. El_C 04:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1:, @El C: and @Drmies: I'll try and make it brief, for everyone involved:

• 1) Please stop pinging me constantly, and saying that I am somehow gaming the system.

• 1.1) I doubt that the other editors only marginally involved in this dispute appreciate these pings either.

• 2) This complaint is not about your use of the word "grooming", and never was. I filed this for the sole reason that you followed me, through the message on my talk page, to a GA review that had nothing to do with you, for the sole purpose of attempting to fail it.
• 3) You respond to my comment above as "lacklustre", in which I said you were a great editor and was thankful this was over with. If you see comments intended to diffuse the situation as lacklustre, that reflects more on your interactions here than anything.
• 4) I didn't post on your talk page because I prefer to focus on content, not contributors (thus the article talk page is the right place). I could easily have posted lengthy screeds in an attempt to bait you – as you did – but I refrained and kept my discussion to the RM.
• 5) My undiscussed move of the nebula article was in the spirit of WP:BOLD, as I did not think it was controversial, though I did start an RM for the article I thought could be. I did not see your discussions at the talk page because your pings were malformed. Whatever you thought I was going to do, none of it justifies your reaction at the RM. You then say that I failed to AGF, very hypocritical directly after you expressed your fears that I would move every astronomy article ever (because of my COI, obviously)
• 6) It took an AN/I threat to make you strike out your COI aspersions; I had asked you before the GA to not make such claims. Also, I do not see what you want me to apologise for, editing articles you WP:OWN?
• 7) You still have not stopped casting aspersions. Below you accuse Lankiveil, then me as socking with an IP to make you look bad. I am not out to get you, or to "silence" you, and I have barely commented in this AN/I at all.
• 8) Above you state "So, yes, I'll avoid Laurdecl is the future, and I expect they will do the same, but if they do attempt to make drastic changes without gaining formal consensus of other editors, another ANI will quickly follow." I assume "drastic changes" is renaming one article and then starting an RM? Firstly, please stop making threats. Secondly, the IBAN is on you, not me, not that I have any intention of following you around as you apparently have with me. Thirdly, creating an AN/I about me would be a violation of the interaction ban (read WP:IBAN); If my edits are so bad then I am confident someone else can start such discussions.
• 9) I'm not going to read your blather about how to "gain mutual respect" and how I twist rules.
• 10) Contrition is defined as showing "repentance for one's actions". No, I do not repent for my sins of starting a requested move; you appear to be quite keen on hyperbole.
• 11) I do not see that you have uncovered any of my deliberate deceptions (assuming they exist). About the phenomenon of people naming nebulae you say, and I quote, "This is the true evil I am against". This is more of a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude more than anything else.
• 12) Why do you persist in writing these? You are not being blocked or sanctioned here, and an IBAN says nothing about the merit of your contributions. If you are here to help Wikipedia then do so, instead of trying to get this overturned (why? So you can continue to follow me and cast aspersions?). Perhaps you should use your obvious passion for writing to start a novel, instead of linking to random psychology websites and talking about "motive". Warm regards, Laurdecl ^talk 06:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I also note that despite the length of the above, you have not addressed your violation of WP:OWNTALK and your deliberately inflammatory edit summary about my ego being bruised. Laurdecl ^talk 07:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I care about is Item 10, the rest I couldn't give a toss. I'll concede everything everything else and extend apologies wholeheartedly, do anything you want, but I will not backdown one iota without you shown a inkling of contrition. Why don't you get that? Thta is all I'm asking. I doesn't make you as a weak person, it actually makes you infinitely stronger. The whole basis of Wikipedia is to work together collaboratively, and not once have you shown a willingness to do so. It is clear the admins are dancing around what to do here, and they are trying to balance between presumably wrongdoing by me and supporting your own claims. They don't want to intervene, but the issue will be forced to be enacted on merely on unwavering ego. The matter here is not right or wrong but principle. Break this principle, and I will not waver. If I'm banned, so what, but I will not cow-down to ultimately hostile disrespect. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write that for you to "not give a toss". It is an answer to your lies and accusations above. The fact that you don't see fit to respond is evidence enough that you can't even defend your own accusations and personal attacks, which you see fit to keep making, including accusing me of socking with an IP. Laurdecl ^talk 09:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: @Drmies: How is this awful response here even acceptable even in an AN/I? Did I tell lies? Did I accuse Laurdecl of socking with an IP? This is bulling on a scale I've never ever seen before. This kind of attack has just got to stop. If this is not an WP:PA, then what is? Disagreement is one thing but gross intimidation like this is surely unacceptable! Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You said it was "suspicious" so I guess he took that as an accusation. Laurdecl, you don't really need to respond to every comment Arianewiki1 makes. How about you both take a break from ANI for a while. I don't see how continuing this helps either of you, except in adding to the animosity. Go edit some articles and forget about one another. El_C 11:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the word "grooming"

For what it's worth I stand my original comment that the use of the specific word "grooming", in the context which it appeared, did not in any way imply "child grooming". In the context in which it appears, it seems clear that it means "coaching" - in the sense of "The act of teaching someone...", "coaching, mentoring", eg as used ("groom") in the mentorship article - although in this case more of "persuasion to my point of view"

I'm not saying that Arianewiki1's assertions of grooming/coaching were reasonable, but any sexual connotations drawn reflect more on the mindset of the reader than the writer. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The term is inflammatory and in this case used deliberately to antagonise. His screed(!) above (seriously, where do you guys find the time to write all this meaningless waffle?) does nothing to suggest it was used innocently with ignorance of the impact it would have. If Arianewiki1 really isn't concerned with duality of meaning, I'm guessing they would be totes fine with us referring to this case as his/her molestation of Lankiveil? Yeah, thought not. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: and @Drmies:. Please investigate this edit by 62.255.118.6 which is uncalled for and is suspicious odd in its defense of Lankiveil Laurdecl and looks like a possible revenge attack - possibly hoping for another reaction or for a further deliberate diversion. (Painting me as a 'molester' is despicable - and if I argue either way it just supports the contention using 'grooming'.) Notably, this same editor has seemingly made equally outrageous claims before. I'm particular disgusted that this ANI has been sidelined in the complaint of me using the word 'grooming' rather than some of the questionable accusations made by Lankiveil Laurdecl . Do I need to start another AN/I here? Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have a regular's alternate account there. I don't think the comment meant to paint you as a molester, I think it's just some bad acerbic humor. El_C 01:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Really comforting. You threaten me with "perhaps an interaction ban or block is in order" and now its " it's just some bad acerbic humor." The source of this seems to be an IP Wokingham Borough Council (A library perhaps?) I am more frustrated that Laurdecl has used this as an very effective weapon feinting outrage in the ANI to distract from real presumed complaint. This making me having to defend on multiple fronts diminishes my focus - making this more like a game - and an effective deterrent to fight back. Funny 'molester' can be twisted in connotation too. "I don't think the comment meant to paint you as a molester" isn't really the point. It was meant to silence me. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

And what would you have me do? I doubt you'll end up interacting with that IP ever again (unless I just jingsed it). El_C 05:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the IP comment was not me; the IP geolocates to the other side of the world and it was posted in the middle of the night at my local time. If I have something to say to Arianewiki1 I'll say it using my own name. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

@Lankiveil:My humble apologies Lankiveil, as your and Laurdecl are fairly similar looking names, and I have been caught once or twice before. I corrected the text above. I see no connect with the other user and you. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: If it was an honest mistake then no apology is necessary, however I do appreciate your having offered it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

Yeah I got nothing to add to the above comments. Maybe this: that IP sounds like many we've seen here and there, with a mixture of seriousness and trolliness that some find amusing. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Obvious feigning of mock horror at a straw man there. I didn't call you (Arianewiki1) a 'molester'. Think about it: throwing around the term "grooming" with ease and scoffing at the offence caused by duality of meaning, while at the same time recoiling in shock at someone describing your treatment of Lankiveil as "molestation" (a word which used to mean "harrass" or "pester")? I think my point about double standards has been rather vindicated, don't you think? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User:62.255.118.6, I understand the point you are trying to make, but could you please leave me out of this? I've said everything that I've got to say about this matter. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

No worries, though the discussion isn't really about you. It's about the term "grooming" saintly folk like Mitch Ames are so chill with using, conjuring as it does for them images of ruffling one's hair or tickling one's chin; without sparing a thought for the rest of us filth... 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Complaint 2

The Admins here have not been taking my responses seriously, because the focus is only on the point of my legitimate use of the word 'grooming.' Whilst I disagree, I will try and heed their advice. However, the obsession with this point is not addressing the principle complaints made by Laurdecl, who have mostly been seemingly trivialised and whose objectivity I now openly question.

I will accept any ban or action they deem fit, but they must address the accusations - false or not - and my given defense. So far absolute no comment has been made against Laurdecl at all, even though the proof has shown many of his complains as either false, invalid or fabrications.

I'll happily prepare a counter complaint against Laurdecl, who initially defied the required need to gain consensus, and by their poor behaviour, have escalated the problem and not reduced them.

If I've proven to have defied the expectations of editing, so be it, but sitting on the fence with Laurdecl deliberate falsity and defamation is intolerable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: what would you have us do? What admin action are you actually seeking? El_C 06:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use the word defamation again. We have a policy against legal threats. Even implying legal action can see you blocked indefinitely. So don't even go there. El_C 06:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"You didn't answer my question: what would you have us do?" Good question. Your are the admins, so judge me on ts merits. It is clear to me, regardless of the legalise of words such as 'defamation', that Laurdecl has made claims that I have properly pointed out, are not actually true. I am not defying what you are saying, I am trying to get my accusations verified. Falsity here is making me as the victim, regardless of any point of view, which I feel is placing me in a very narrow box. Laurdecl has made false and misleading accusations here, which is openly deleterious on my character - defamation by exact definition.

I want just one thing. some sign of contrition. I've fought like hell to defend a stable article, but instead I'm defending making a legitimate opinion based on another who is avoiding consensus. If I must be pillared, it should be based on fact not fictions. Laurdecl here is playing gamesmanship, which is seemingly being supported. This is what I feel.

What disturbs me more is the narrowing box I'm being placed in. The game is ultimately who is the better to present an argument. Laurdecl argument here is deliberately divisive and my defense inadequate (or just being ignored). Dealing with principles are difficult, but I want acknowledgement I'm just not solely at fault here. If not true, then I'm wasting my time. Your judgement so far has been based on my usefulness to the project, and not to the motivation on why I edit. My experiences and contributions are to improve knowledge on astronomy, something I've dedicated my life too. Laurdecl open trivialises that based on some unexplained delusion. All they do by my behaviour is mock me is some sick little game. If I fight for this so hard, then clearly I must care about it. Thanks for the doubt. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop derailing this with lengthy screeds and appeals to emotion. You are not getting an apology from me after following me around to hound me and cast aspersion; you are indeed wasting your time. I have made a point by point response to your accusations above, so please reply to that. Laurdecl ^talk 07:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: There is only one person here following the other around to make "false and misleading" allegations, and it is not me. I don't see how dedicating your life to astronomy involves following me and attacking my character. By the way, you can use the mention template i.e. {{u|Laurdecl}} instead of [[User:Laurdecl|Laurdecl]]. Laurdecl ^talk 08:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Quote "You are not getting an apology from me after following me around to hound me and cast aspersion;" This is no what I'm asking for at all. I'm just asking for an inkling of actual kindness. All you do is keep spitting in my face. Your response so far is rhetoric BS. Keep acting as you are doing and will end in tears. all this could of been avoid if you were not so merciless. Why can't you see that? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Merciless"? What I see is Laurdecl requesting a move, but was refused. Out of nowhere, you have the guts to follow them around to a random pen article, which you have never edited before, and respond to the GA review. That's wikihouding. And you want to talk about being "merciless"? You have been so vague and unclear, and more importantly very lengthy in your response (WP:TLDR). And you're painting yourself as the victim. All I see is you following a user around to do God knows what. If anything, you're the one in the wrong. You don't specify how they have been "merciless" at all. You point to a behaviour that doesn't seem to exist unless you're interpreting something into something else. You're making this ANI worse for yourself. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 08:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote in a much larger response above, there is no "need" to gain consensus before modifying an article; read WP:BRD. Indeed, this AN/I is not about article content, but about your behaviour and wikihounding. I, for one, have had enough of your extremely lengthy and mostly off topic (you even started to quote a paper on psychology above) "counter complaint"s already. Laurdecl ^talk 07:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a principle here, in which I will not back down. It is your open brutality of your behaviour that I openly question. You seemingly do not giving a sh*t about editing or causing inconvenience to other editors. I have asked for even a hint of contrition, and your arrogance shows you will not backdown even one iota. You have two possibilities here. Act like a part of a community or go away. You seem to be willing to act with utter falsity, make outrageous claims, then pretend indignation. I content YOUR behaviour is deplorable, and even though the ANI has ended in your favour, you are still willing to push the point. Either show an inkling of contrition, or this problem just keeps escalating. If everything is my fault all the time, then you or I being totally banned is the final option. It is your dismal lack of any humanism that I find most offensive. Do so, and this immediately evaporates, and none of this BS has to happen. Wake up. Its not that hard! Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You are the one escalating this. You could just walk away and go about your business on Wikipedia, never giving this another thought. And I told you not to mention defamation again, that wasn't a suggestion. I can't tell how Laurdecl has wronged you, you have not made that clear. You have not been concise, and all of our time is precious. In any case, it ought not be important. The dispute should be resolved with the interaction ban, but you keep picking at it. To what end? El_C 08:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's put this all on the final line... The gaming stops now. Either show some contrition Laurdecl or the admins must ban me. This is the only way to finally end this impasse. No joke. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think an ultimatum like that is helpful to anyone. Just go do something else. Why do you need contrition from someone you're going to avoid anyway? El_C 08:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who told you to back off. But no, you continued to rant on my talk page and follow me around, so we are here. You are not being "banned", and there is no gaming, nor "impasse"; please illustrate your point without hyperbole. I notice that you still refuse to reply to what I wrote above, again derailing this thread and ignoring my responses. You then say "act like a part of a community or go away". El_C, if I may ask, are "You seemingly don't give a sh*t about editing" and "your dismal lack of any humanism" personal attacks? Also, is their accusation of me socking with an IP above, calling it a "possible revenge attack", yet another breach of WP:ASPERSIONS? Thanks. Laurdecl ^talk 08:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that the first one is just incivility. The second one I am not sure. Also, if a user were to call out on another's user supposed socking without providing evidence, it's considered a personal attack. Hope I helped. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 08:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I definitely am unhappy with the, indeed, hyperbolic and at times, uncivil comments, but I presume the editor is just a bit overworked. El_C 08:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's make this even simpler. I am appalled at the total lack of wisdom here. Either what I saying is a deliberate lie or Laurdecl says in the ANI against me is absolutely true. Sitting on the fence here is not solving the problem. I've stated the facts as I see it, and I have been confronted with a totally impossible set of qualifiers which an individual has no means of properly defending. Frankly, it is absolute mess. I propose you ban me for a month, then let me post a counter WP:AN/I, whereas I have time to comprehend the problem. All I want is an inkling that I even matter by Laurdecl. Instantly, this problem will evaporate. To me at the moment, nothing else is important. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh. And you wonder why there are few female editors.... Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Give me a break. Laurdecl ^talk 09:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If anything, you've been treated extremely gently here. You have still not proven wrongdoing by Laurdecl. Your complaints have been lengthy and tendentious. El_C 09:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't play the sex card, it has no bearing here. Anyway, I thought you were a man, because Ariane sounds like a man's name (English is not my 1st language). El_C 09:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you do not get a grace period in which to compose even more personal attacks than you already have. One month; can you imagine the size? A screed to end all screeds; my broadband data would be used up in a single download. The point of an IBAN is that you stop following me, commenting on me, making AN/I threads about me. Such a hypothetical thread would be removed and you blocked for violating your ban. Callmemirela, thanks for your input. I have no idea why this user persists when they could happily ignore me and go back to editing, since I have never once said they should be blocked, simply that they stop following me.

Admins here are being very generous towards you, seeing as you continue to cast aspersions and suggest that I am socking, state that there is a "total lack of wisdom" coming from them, make very blatant personal attacks such as , and continue to refer to me in third person; you have been warned twice in less than two weeks! Laurdecl ^talk 09:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I point out ""your dismal lack of any humanism"" in me requesting some kindness, and the blunt blade is to beat me into submission (as the comments above.) The final insult. Why would anyone follow someone with such utter contempt? Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As an example today, I received a very simple kindness by User:EndercaseEndrcase saying they appreciated this edit.[249] I needed it. It cost me nothing, especially because I disagreed strongly against the person who asked me a question. This is an example of contrition, showing I'm not totally heartless. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I point out ""your dismal lack of any humanism"" in me requesting some kindness, and the blunt blade is to beat me into submission (as the comments above.) The final insult. Why would anyone follow someone with such utter contempt? Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh please WP:BAN me now, because I'm emotionally spent. Ariane[250]. Even the Admins are avoiding WP:GF. Enough said. As for "You have still not proven wrongdoing by Laurdecl." Really. Laurdecl is just playing around. The wrongdoing is clearly in their clearly false claims in this AN/I, which I've already proven, but no one is listening. Every infliction has another deeper infliction. God help me if I have true emotions. Please. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you're so upset over this; to me it seems, for naught. I can only keep suggesting you go do something else. Do you really need to be banned from ANI for a while? El_C 10:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:13lasagnae

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please delete his userpage! It's offensive! 89.71.21.41 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't offend....well ever honestly, but it's vandalism and I deleted the page (and it's the only edit the user has too). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User is also indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vipul's paid editing enterprise

NOTE: references to a blacklisted website have been replaced with v***pro.com here so that the thread could be archived. The website is vi$apro.com (replace the $ with an "s".)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vipul works in the SEO business. I assume many of these links are to his clients. Which if that is the case would definately not make this altruism but simply business. In this edit they add a link to v***pro.com. One of the people they pay also used the link[251]. We than have v***prolaw.com, v***pro.in, and v***pro.com all owned by the same entity. The company v***pro.in does SEO.

This is definitely not cool.[252]. One adds content than has people you pay try to edit war it into the article. In this edit history we have Vipul and Riceissa involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As a regular at WP:COIN, this seems to be a subtle form of SEO-type activity. See timeline of colorectal cancer. There was a reference to "lifeextension.com", which sells nutritional supplements. (Removed that.[253]). Most links seem legitimate, but a few are promotional. So that's the way in which this abuses Wikipedia. I haven't looked at more of these articles yet, but they may be content created as coatracks upon which outbound links can be hung. In terms of article repair, the Vipul-related articles need to be identified and purged of references that are not WP:RS reliable sources. Does anyone have a full article list? That really should appear at the beginning of this AN/I discussion. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm surprised at how many editors just can't believe that someone with a bit of money would want to improve Wikipedia with it, rather than (for example) donating it to a school or a homeless shelter or a food bank. Is that really so hard to believe? I even once considered it myself, just before the TOU changed to make paid editing more complicated. Another editor had suggested a particularly excellent and comprehensive source to identify rare diseases, and it was on my to-do-for-Wikipedia list for literally years, without me making any progress on it. I thought about how little it cost to hire people through Amazon's Mechanical Turk, and that I could probably hire someone to add Category:Rare disease to all the listed articles for less than what some of you spend on restaurants in a week.

But, okay, if you're unable to believe that anyone could want to spend some money to help the world instead of helping themselves, then could you perhaps try to believe that it could make their lives easier? Maybe, like me, he was thinking about ways to reduce his task list. Maybe he wanted those articles on companies to save himself the trouble of looking up all the information himself. Given the average hourly wage in San Francisco (which is US $30 per hour), if you paid someone $25 to collect the information, and that saved you an hour's time in preparing a presentation, then maybe you'd consider it cost-effective. And if you're going to pay someone $25 to collect information so that you can give a talk, maybe you might as well publish that information on Wikipedia, too, since none of this seems to be private or sensitive.

It's a truism in finance that money is fungible, and I suggest to you that the resources needed to improve Wikipedia are fungible, too. Some of us are literally spending thousands of hours on Wikipedia each year, and some of that time could easily be substituted by hiring another editor. (The US federal government values your time at approximately $12 per hour, in case you were wondering.) So why do we think it so suspicious that a highly paid person pays cash to get some Wikipedia editing done, but we don't think that it's the least bit strange or suspicious that some of us have literally quit our jobs or reduced our hours to be able to contribute more to Wikipedia?

(And now I encourage you to take Jytdog's advice about focusing on current policies.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

General thoughts about ToU etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a statement on your user page,

a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or

a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TParis, thanks. I'll try to think of the best WMF person to ask and take it from there. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I'd start with the community engagement folks: Moonriddengirl and James Alexander.--v/r - TP 00:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I no longer even see where this was meant to go because this section has been reorganized so much (my own doing too)--v/r - TP 23:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jesus fucking Christ this is exactly what I was talking about above. This site has lots it's shit. You people literally cannot handle a fact of humanity that is going to persist no matter what we do without blowing the fuck up and having a giant cluster fuck of mouth vomit.--v/r - TP 16:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

distraction and a mess Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposals (in draft) Proposals specific to Vipul, by 'Jytdog' a) that Vipul put a moratorium on this operation. b) that Vipul formulate a clear mission for what he is doing and consider going through the GLAM on-boarding process before re-starting. That the "technology" focus be eliminated. I reckon the GLAM folks will think through other aspects of the mission with him. (I hope) c) that Vipul provide a single list of articles his team has worked on for him, and a list of all the editors he has paid. (we don't need to see how much he has paid them) d) That Vipul obligate his editors via the contracts he has with them, to follow the PAID policy and the COI guideline. Posting those contract templates would be great. e) That his team 1) puts PAID disclosures on the Talk pages of articles they work on, and 2) follows the COI guideline, putting content through peer review via AfC for new articles, and through Talk page postings for existing articles f) the community should agree to have zero tolerance for MEAT/TEAM editing by his team against other editors. additional proposals for Vipul g) that all articles edited by Vipul or his team members shall either be deleted or carry prominent disclosures within them cautioning readers and be reviewed for compliance with other core community policies, h) That all Vipul's 'Timeline of ' articles be deleted forthwith Inlinetext (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Gist of some proposed amendments / clarifications of present policy pursuant to experience of Vipul's enterprise Paid editors must disclose their verifiable real world identity / affiliation / employers on their user page Paid editor accounts must not be used for non-paid edits. Paid editors shall comply with all community policies and guidelines on discussion pages or their user pages Paid editors shall not create or edit articles directly but may request edits or that AfC be done with volunteer review Paid editors cannot campaign or promote causess for their employers (or anyone else) but must confine themselves to suggestions for non-controversial improvements and correctiions of obvious errors to specific articles. Correspondingly it is incumbent on community volunteers to respect such requests and promptly review them in accordance with the ToU and community policies.. Every article containing promotional or commercial content suggested by a paid editor shall carry a prominent/conspicuous notice cautioning readers within the article and such notice shall be directly visible even for mobile users or print readers even if such content is removed subsequently. Paid editor accounts shall incorporate a distinctive symbol (eg. '[P]:') visible in their signature(s) and in their edit summaries Paid editors cannot operate in teams / relays but may nominate a single similarly identified "alternate" in their stead Sustained paid editing or as a profession / income source is discouraged. Paid editing is expected to be occasional and confined to improving the encyclopedia and to also discourage undeclared paid editing and sockpuppetry. Suggested by Inlinetext (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC) What you are doing here is derailing this discussion by constantly bringing up larger issues that cannot be handled here. You also didn't sign each subsection above, which makes it unclear who wrote them. I am hatting this entire mess Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia may be overly bureaucratic about some things but it has to be bureaucratic about article deletion. In general there are too many people who want articles struck out for the wrong reasons, and it's worth putting up with a lot of crap in order to make sure we preserve good content. We can't let admins nuke articles whenever they feel like - so there are rigid criteria for speedy deletion. I think we can't let a mob of editors get carried away and nuke a list of articles sight unseen in an emotional vote on an unrelated noticeboard, even when there are very good reasons to be suspicious of profit motives. We have to post the articles on the site's standard list of deletions so that every user theoretically can have a say in them if they're attentive enough, we have to list them, we have to decide what's wrong with them by policy, not just that we distrust them, and we have to notify the actual editors involved so that they can make a fair defense and in order to show them the basic sort of collegiality to which all editors in a shared project for human knowledge ought to be entitled, despite any doctrinal differences we have. Wnt (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note An AfD has been started - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Amazon.com - if I'm out of line starting it, well firstly show me a policy/guideline that says I'm out of line and then apply WP:IAR to it. Let's get this whole mess cleaned up, with fire or nuclear weapons or something. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's great - and once I had it to work from, I already noticed something I want expert feedback about: Wnt (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Question -- is @Ottawahitech: or Timeline of Yahoo! in any way associated with @Vipul: or his network of paid editors? I was looking at a few companies on Template:Technology company timelines that weren't in the proposed AFD, and saw a purple link for Ottawahitech in the Timeline of Yahoo! history. I had clicked the name before because Ottawahitech was one of the editors on Form 1040, which came up here before. He added that navbox to many of the other Timeline articles in the network, though he didn't create it. But Vipul's contributions to Timeline of Yahoo were from 2014, before Vipul's index of contributions, and Timeline of Yahoo is not on his list of projects. Ottawahitech is currently blocked over something, I didn't look to see what; I noticed some edits to his talk page with detailed statistics of how many articles and edits he donated to Wikipedia. [254] Could a knowledgeable admin take a look and see if I'm just seeing patterns in noise? Wnt (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Wnt: No connection that I'm aware of. But he's been indeffed for about a month so it's kind of a moot question. See Archive 945 thread #3. - Bri (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am no longer following this thread. This is completely derailed and uncloseable. People insisting on using this thread to soapbox against paid editing don't seem to understand that the constant derailments make this uncloseable - uncloseable means no decision and no action taken. I am considering other routes to get a community decision on Vipul's activities. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a simple issue, deflected by shills, with a simple and effective remedy. Ban / Indef (for their seriously conflicted externally co-ordinated well-documented self-admitted disruptive paid Meat puppetry which has plagued this project) on Vipul, Riceissa, Simfish, Ethanbas and it should be done here on this most watched noticeboard of Wikipedia and immediately. Inlinetext (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral notification of a related Articles for Deletion discussion

An Articles for Deletion discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Amazon.com. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The 'Team' has simultaneously begun forking all the deleted Timeline articles to their own wikis with claims they "inherit" Wikipedia's licence. example. Somebody will have to explain to them that fraud vitiates everything (including CC licences). Inlinetext (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That is dead right -- putting content on Wikipedia means anyone can use it. That's absolutely the way it's supposed to work. When it's also content they paid for I really don't see any room to talk. ;) Wnt (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fashion Architecture Taste

BLOCKED:

Per NLT, sock master and poppet tagged. --QEDK (愛) 06:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

User:Emmasomersetdavis who is adding promotional material about herself at Fashion Architecture Taste has threatened legal action here [[255]]. Theroadislong (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a fairly obvious legal threat so blocked. Still worth reviewing the article to make sure its sourced appropriately though. Amortias (T)(C) 20:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The sourcing is solid. I've cleaned up the refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Amortias: She has now created a new account here User:EmmaSomDavis Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emmasomersetdavis. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The sock account has been blocked for evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk)

---

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

Percy Allen De Zylva Karunaratne

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Jamesesquire has repeatedly removed a speedy deletion notice from the article, Percy Allen De Zylva Karunaratne, without providing any valid reason or addressing the fundamental issue of notability. I have warned him about the removing the deletion notice on each occasion however he has continued to ignore these warnings. A search of his talk history reveals that the article has previously been deleted - during the process he also removed the speedy deletion notice. The same draft article was declined at article creation for the issue of notability, or lack thereof however the user has created the article anyway. Dan arndt (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like his biggest claim to fame is becoming part of Gray's Inn, however there's nothing in the article to back this up and the article doesn't say anything about him practicing in England and Wales. It says that he was sworn in after he returned to Ceylon, which is most certainly not in England. From what I can see, the Brits haven't ruled over Sri Lanka since the 40s so there's no reason why he would be sworn in to a British Inn of Court for a company that is currently independent and was at the time of his alleged swearing in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• It looks like a foreign person may be able to join, but a look at the website for Gray's Inn shows that it's not something that would give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• I ended up just blocking them after seeing that they were vandalizing Dan's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Might want to remove talk page access [256]. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

TPA revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats yet again from the same IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

194.176.105.142 has been blocked on numerous occasions for legal threats, but he's back again doing the same in this edit. It seems to be a static IP, so an ever longer block seems appropriate. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And revdelled. Zero^talk 12:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban for Wiki-Pharaoh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wiki-Pharaoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wiki-Impartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I propose that this user (recently renamed from Wiki-Coffee) be banned from introducing new policy proposals as they have been making a variety of poorly thought out proposals that have have been strongly rejected by the community.

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC - The creation of a simplified and unified policy document for editing Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC Inclusion of WP:1 Rule as a guideline, policy or process for the English Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Dealing with unreliable news sources

These are all from just the past few days. The community has tried to talk to this user, as you can see in these discussions, to explain what is wrong ith their approach, and the only response has been more terrible proposals. Edits like this one [257] lead one to question whether they are even serious or just trolling. I therefore propose the following: Wiki-Pharaoh is banned from posting new proposals, essays, or other new pages anywhere in project space for a period of six months, and that any and all current proposal pages they have created be userfied and any and all shortcuts links to these proposal pages be deleted.

We've wasted anough time on this nonsense, it is time to stop it and it seems highly unlikely they will stop voluntarily. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note Proposal modified slightly from original to include all new pages in project space. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support at minimum; those listed above are just the tip of the iceberg, as there are also "your laws do not apply to me" rants like Wikipedia:Inform for guidance and Wikipedia:Wikipedia's bureaucracy, and all the timewasting crap that has already been deleted like the saga documented here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Validate credentials or his RFA (admin only: sample quote Q: What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? A: Nothing, everyone's contributions are the same and all my contibs are the same as each other. They are all contribs.). For the record, he's recently received a level 4 warning from me for his constant recent disruption. ‑ Iridescent 19:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And the "inform for guidance" page has twenty shortcuts listed.... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Twenty? I think you mean 24. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Also, for the record any sanction reached here should explicitly apply to his Wiki-Impartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account and to any other account he has now or chooses to make in the future. ‑ Iridescent 20:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oh holy crap. I had no idea that Wiki-Pharaoh was Wiki-Impartial. Any further nonsense anywhere on the project should result in a good long block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Geez. I don't know what this is, but it's not coherent. User fairly evidently needs to learn how to contribute themselves before putting so much effort into trying to tell others how to. TimothyJosephWood
• Support the proposals, apparent use of them for a research project (I would love to see how this ANI features in the final paper), and rant like behavior are borderline NOTHERE, but I think a TBAN is good enough for now. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. There is no sense in allowing this user to fritter away more of the community's time with these policy antics. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. User writes: "All of my work on or with Wikipedia is in some way related to the research goals". Work on Wikipedia should benefit Wikipedia or, at the very least, not waste the time of unwitting editors involuntarily participating in "research". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Possibly a porovocation; or simply misguided and a diatribe. That said, sentences like: the quiddity of current policy might be to débarrer the subsistence of capricious...ravaged by conjectural and suppositious detritus derived from unbecoming ... panacea for this Mephistophelian problem is the fashioning of a versatile policy that is verily enforced... are just pure fun-in-the-sun! El_C 19:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Silly policy proposals waste everyone's time, and do not serve to improve the encyclopedia. I should note that the proposal as written would also prohibit the user from creating AFD's, which may or may not be intended. I also suggest that userfication be extended to all non-process pages in project space, to cover such things as this. — Train2104 (t • c) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out—off to MFD they go. ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• That works, too. — Train2104 (t • c) 20:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I've tried patiently to nudge Wiki-Pharaoh in the right direction, suggesting more content work would benefit their project space endeavours, but those suggestion were met with the claim that all of their work is somehow related to this mysterious research project they're conducting (but which they can't tell us about because of various bias issues).
  I'm fairly convinced there's no research project and we're all being played, the butt of some bizarre joke or trolling attempt; the research proposal I was sent consisted of some barely relevant nonsense copied and pasted from some student revision websites. The claim of conducting a research project is also curious as Wiki-Pharaoh was making frankly absurd proposals prior to their courtesy vanishing and subsequent return (admins can see Wikipedia:No religion - and it's worse than it sounds).
  There was also the absurd behaviour concerning the Virgin Killer album cover a couple of months ago, where Wiki-Pharaoh tried to censor the album cover by uploading a partially blacked out variant of the album cover.
  I support the topic ban, and I'd suggest we show Wiki-Pharaoh the door (blocking the account) if there's any further disruption resulting from their activities. Nick (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia community members,

I would like to make one comment which seems inconsequential to this discussion, as frankly I bare no hope of countering the decisions of those whose mind is already made up.

The example set online by some select editors here has prompted a notion, that men who must surpass the prisons of their computer screens have created something that is utmost despicable, something that history ought to have changed, something that individual experiences of each one of us ought to have changed; That thing created is a tyranny. A tyranny that has surfaced its ugly head at the heart of a virtual place which is alive in the protection of what man calls liberty.

Though my voice and thoughts be merely a single speck of what is just in a place of arbitrary rule, what is greater is reality which surpasses my every word. I would say if it had not been for my understanding of human nature, I perhaps would stand more enraged. But nay will I bow to ill feelings against anything quite so truly powerless as a tyranny. My dignity is far above any person who so say it is his right to tell another how he may think.

So, if you stand, I will remain seated. The will of this oppressive majority surely will prevail here but any man with honour may not say I did not dignify him with the truth. Be happy with the power you have, but do not deceive yourself to say that you are wiser or any greater man than a typical bully.

I need not be told of the door as I will take myself through it, I will no longer play on your stage of debauchery, arrogance and tyrannical control of “free knowledge.” Good day.

For those who have nothing left in this world than their edits to Wikipedia, I am truly and earnestly sorry. Whatever challenges you have faced in the past it should never justify the arbitrary misuse of power.

Sincerely, →ὦiki-Pharaoh^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - enough is enough. I'd also support an indeff, but topic ban is what is at hand. John from Idegon (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as proposed. For mo better tyranny and bullying, I also support an indefinite block. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC).

• Indef please, for complete failure to get the point. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oof. Given that, supporting indef as well. — Train2104 (t • c) 21:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and a total waste of everyone's time. Hell, the "I'm a lawyer" claims (which are as dubious as the first spray of summer is long) are even a low grade form of legal intimidation. Get him out of here, he's a waste of time. oknazevad (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I really enjoy it when someone assumes that they are being restricted because WP is the entire life of everyone else involved and they love to abuse the awesome power of an editing restriction. It may surprise such persons to find out that many of us have a lot of other things going on in our lives, which is why we don't want what time we do have for WP bing taken up countering absurd, useless proposals thought up by someone who is almost certainly lying about being a lawyer involved a research project. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's also telling that immediately after posting the above screed they posted at Jimbo's talk page, apparently hoping he will step in and personally ban me. Doesn't quite jive with what they are saying above. At this point I also support an indef block, this is ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban or indef block - whichever has more support. The comment from the subject above was the proverbial straw. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• support TBAN from new pages etc in WP space. Would not object to indef. Somebody this new who wants to change everything before they understand everything is likely to continue being disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support After the above and a casual perusing of the referenced screeds, indef per a combination of WP:NOTHERE, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CIR. The latter since he is either incapable of unwilling to grasp the goal of the project and the detrimental effect of his behavior, but sees the project as an opportunity to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Kleuske (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah given the above, I'm not opposed to an indef. They can appeal the block if they can...elucidate in the banal vernacular of those mortal habitants who merely till the soil of articles from which we dost common grow an encyclopedia...why they are actually here to do the same. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Supporting indefinite block now, if this doesn't pass, I'm still supporting the topic ban. Nick (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jytdog linking users to names....again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So this is close enough to outing that it needs to be looked at by an admin since sanctions were just lifted: [[258]]. 2607:FEA8:2CA0:251:4035:5735:5002:280B (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Bullshit. The username matches the name. A user Sbelknap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making edits citing Steven Belknap? That's not outing, that's a rather obvious COI. Also: please sign in with your regular account, because it is implausible that you don't have one. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Seems like a standard COI notice. What do you expect him to do in this case? El_C 12:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• It does not look like outing to me. It is a valid concern based on on-wiki evidence. ~ GB fan 12:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Not outing. Either a COI issue (which can be discussed further), or an impersonation that needs ending. Either way there is enough cause for concern. Zero^talk 12:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Looking at the IP's past edits, I see they've been targeting Jytdog from almost the start and have been blocked twice. Blocked for another six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• And looking at the contribs from the range provides more evidence of wikihounding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just so folks know, I cleared that before i posted it, to be sure it was OK. and please note that i did not actually say that the user is the person. it might be a case of IMPERSONATE. I am being careful. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

NotTheFakeJTP at Sasha Banks talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

NotTheFakeJTP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing my edit request at the Sasha Banks talk page (diff 1, diff 2.

There is a unsourced (as I have repeatedly pointed out, the reference provided does not source that 34 minutes is the longest women's match) sentence in the introduction of the article that is not true. "Together they also set the new record for a women's match at Roadblock: End of the Line in December 2016 at over 34 minutes". Many matches have taken places outside of WWE (where Sasha Banks wrestles) that are longer than 34 minutes, I provided reliable sources for two of them in this diff and this diff.

NotTheFakeJTP responded with this. Granted I did not prove it was the longest WWE women's match of all time, but I did prove it was not the longest women's match of all time. Fair enough, so I file a new edit request asking for the incorrect and unsourced sentence to be removed. Yet this is being repeatedly removed, bizarrely on the grounds that " Please provide sources in your first request that proves that it is the longest women's match in WWE history". I do not need to provide any sources that it is the longest women's match in WWE history, as I am not asking for that change to be made any more.

Please could someone remove the incorrect sentence and issue appropriate guidance to NotTheFakeJTP. Thank you. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A8AF:E235:1649:94DE (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed you did suggest that it was the longest WWE women's match of all time by requesting that "the qualifier "WWE" between 'a' and 'women's'" be added. Your second request was contradictory, which is why I removed it. In addition, you were very quick to take this to ANI without attempting to discuss this on my talk page, as noted in the criterion at the top of this page. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not contradictory. I object to the sentence "Together they also set the new record for a women's match at Roadblock: End of the Line in December 2016 at over 34 minutes", as I have repeatedly stated (and provided sources to prove) longer matches have taken place outside of WWE. My first request was for the *addition* of WWE to, my second request was for the removal of the sentence in its entirety, when you refused to add WWE. Those requests were not contradictory, they both had the aim of the removal (in the first instance by correction) of incorrect information. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A8AF:E235:1649:94DE (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and not a matter for ANI. Please take this to the article talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

He keeps removing my posts from the talk page, as I have provided diffs for! 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A8AF:E235:1649:94DE (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There is my latest protected edit request. I asked for the removal of an unsourced (since the source provided doesn't claim it's the longest match) and incorrect (I provided two sources that prove longer matcher have taken place elsewhere) sentence. This has twice been removed, that is not a content dispute, 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A8AF:E235:1649:94DE (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sasha Banks has been semi'd, we can take this to my talk page. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Murder of James Bulger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please could someone lose this edit and possibly block the user.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible promo editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Edit4wiki1993 smells very fishy to me. However, I felt like reporting them to AIV straightaway didn't feel appropriate. I figured I should get input from the community. The user has created EnergyLogic and has contributed most, if not all of their edits to that article. The article is improperly formatted and attributes sources to Wikipedia or its own website which it's written about. Additionally, it lists its own products which makes it look even more like a promotional page wrapped up in slightly wikified format.

I'd like to know your thoughts and what we should do. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:A7. That's the second creation of the article. First was by Clareannem which was worse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Druddigon Requests a Standard Offer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Druddigon is requesting a standard offer on their talk page. This user has a long history including as a prolific sock-master. However someone at UTRS, after checking with CU has concluded that their request deserves some consideration and has restored their ability to edit their talk page for the purposes of this appeal. Druddigon claims they have not socked in more than two years, and expresses remorse for past behavior. Additionally they claim to have been a constructive contributor at Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. As far as I am aware they are indefinitely blocked, not banned, but given their background I am unwilling to grant this request unilaterally. Therefore I am placing this before the community for a final decision. Please be aware that Druddigon does not have the ability to post anywhere other than on their talk page. Questions should be posted there though in order to keep things somewhat orderly it would be best if actual discussion was kept here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note: For those who aren't aware, this account was previously known as Mr Wiki Pro, and was renamed in 2015. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• The admin who imposed the block — JzG — may have comments. Neutrality^talk 05:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Just Chilling: To clarify, does CU evidence suggest that there was no evident socking? @Ad Orientem: I trust you've verified all their claims? --QEDK (愛) 05:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

CU support the user being enabled to make this application and would not have done so if there was evidence of recent socking. However, it is not possible for anyone to prove a negative. Just Chilling (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am skeptical, but have no fundamental objections. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Although I am extremely hesitant when it comes to unblocking editors who have a significant history of profilic socking, this does appear to be a case where accepting the standard offer could be beneficial for the encyclopedia. Druddigon now has over 800 edits on Commons and over 11k on Simple and I don't see any significant problems on either wiki that would result in us declining their appeal. So I would support an unblock with the caveat that a reblock would be swift if there is any subsequent disruption.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm sceptical but I wouldn't mind this user getting a second chance. Put simply, I'm in support of an unblock.--QEDK (愛) 05:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• I note reservations expressed above, but would be willing to give a second chance; unblock therefore supported, with the proviso that further behavior which led to the current block would result in an immediate re-imposition of block.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Having done a lot of the cleaning up back when the socking was going on, I am also quite skeptical. However, I've looked at some of their work on other projects, and though I still see a bit of immaturity, it's no worse than what I sometimes see out of productive editors here. I supported the return of their talk page[259], and for the moment, I can't in good faith stand in the way of unblocking. As mentioned above, though, any disruption will lead to a swift reblock. Good luck. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I plan to leave this discussion open for at least the rest of the day, but so far there seems no opposition. If that remains the case I will likely unblock them either tonight or tomorrow. The unblock will be conditional on good behavior and with a stipulation that any return to disruptive editing/socking will result in an immediate re-block (indefinite). For the record, I also support unblocking subject to already discussed conditions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• I support unblocking. Since other editors have brought up his work on Commons and Simple, this shows to me that at least the user is serious about contributing. Any further disruption, however, should be met with an indefinite block or a site ban if he's caught socking again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ban and Block Conditionally Lifted per STNDARDOFFER. I have conditionally lifted the block and ban per the clear consensus of this discussion. You can read the full unblocking statement on their talk page, but the upshot is that they are on a form of strict parole for one year. Any admin can summarily reinstate their CBAN and block during the next 12 months if they believe there has been serious misconduct. After the one year point I think we have to move on and any further issues will be dealt with in the normal manner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vipul's paid editing enterprise archived?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not seeing it in the archives. El_C 23:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a user tried to archive it, but it didn't go to the archives. Valeince (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Who? What? When? Where? Snuh? Link? El_C 23:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. What happened was that a website referenced in the discussion was added to the spam blacklist, so that when the user tried to archive it using One Click Archiver, it was rejected by the spam filter (but still deleted from ANI). I've changed the website name in the discussion and added a note to the top of the discussion, and copied it manually to Archive 948.Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not to hip to all this linking to diffs or anything, but if you look at the history of this page and scroll down you can see user SwisterTwister using 'Oneclick Archiver' to try and archive it. I tried to undo it, but it got caught in a website black list for visapro.in. I'm thinking this website was recently black listed and caused an error in the archiving? Never mind, handled. Valeince (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue with editor making unfounded accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Boomer Vial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Toddst1 left a message on my talk page not but a short while ago regarding my archiving of ancient discussions on talk pages[260]. I explained to him that my only intentions in doing so were experimenting with Wikipedia, as well as following the guidelines of OneClickArchive in paying attention to potentially active discussions, as well as trimming down talk pages to under 75,00 bytes.[261]. He then accused me of trying to "pad my edit count for administrator criteria", based on the fact that I have an LiveEditCounter userbox which I update regularly, failing to see that I've been doing so since early in my days here on Wikipedia[262]. I tried to explain this to him[263], included with diffs of my earlier updates to the userbox in question[264]. He then switched accusations, claiming that I somehow fit the criteria of a sockpuppet[265], as well as that I am gaming the system. That really got under my skin, and I removed the entire section, asking them to please stay off my talk page.[266] Now he's reverting all of my edits, and nominating the archived pages I created for deletion, based on these false accusations. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Boomer, could you restore the discussion that you blanked on your talk page so that folks can easily see it? I think it says more than any response I could make here. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Archiving other user's talk pages is not ok. Each user maintains their own talk page as they see fit. Some people never archive their page, preferring instead to keep everything on one page or simply remove old discussions. Bottom line: there's no reason to be doing this and Toddst1 is right that it is ridiculous to be making 100 edits on another user's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Then, I guess I read the instructions wrong for the OneClickArchive tool. I still do not appreciate having such accusations levied against myself, especially when no evidence is brought forth. I did mention that I was following the instructions of above said tool, but obviously WP:AGF means look past any honest mistakes, as well as good-faith or constructive contributions, and jump to the worst case scenario. Yes, Toddst1, I will restore the discussion. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Boomer, the evidence was clearly presented on your talk page. You saying no evidence was brought forth is disingenuous. Nobody wishes you any malice here but the first law of holes applies. Take the feedback and move on. Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with Toddst1 that it was against policy to archive the talkpage of another editor and I can also agree it was hardly a constructive exercise. But I'm sorry, I can similarly not find it constructive to accuse him of gaming the system to gain adminship when boomer may have simply gotten carried away. A link to WP:NOBAN and a simple request to stop it was all that was nessecary. —Frosty ☃ 01:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just recently started using one-click archived myself. I don't recall seeeing anything in the instructions about archiving other user's talk pages. And WP:NOBAN certainly does apply here: "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. ". Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you provided no evidence of any to back your accusation of sockpuppetry, as well as my "padding of my edit count to meet sysop criteria". I admit that I was wrong in the case of archiving, and that I didn't not read the instructions closely enough. That is why I filed this AIV in the first place. Not to find out whether or not I was correct in archiving, but to see an end to these unfair, baseless accusations. I explained to you, and am explaining again, that I; am experimenting with different aspects of Wikipedia, and have had an LiveEditCount userbox that I keep updated regularly, as well as a few userboxes pertaining to my general interest in sysop. I'm not looking to rush into it at all, and already explained earlier that I understand that I am not in any way close to being perficient in contributing to Wikipedia to be nominated adminship. What I really don't understand is how my willingness to take part in different aspects of Wikipedia, such as; anti-vandalism, AfCs, AfDs, AfC/Rs, the Star Wars WikiProject, etc., translates to any close to gaming the system. You never did elaborate on that one. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 01:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've added a clarification to the OneClick documenation [267]. Can we close this now? Stop with the crybabying. EEng 01:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Now, now. Be nice. El_C 01:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Check on David Rozenblatt

I was about to log off when i ran into this highly promotional revision of the page David Rozenblatt and ended up cleaning it up a bit. A quick check of the content indicates there is a lot of BLPRelated though: quite a few claim to notability seem to be unrelated to David Rozenblatt as a person (eg: He wrote the music for a ballet piece that won the "Best Actress" award or he was a member of an ensemble that was nominated for an award). The added sources - aside from self-published ones - seem to dedicate a line to him at most and a quick google search seems to turn up absolutely nothing which is quite unusual seeing the sheer amount of notability claims in the article.

The article on my list to look into sometime later this week, but if someone would happen to have a few spare minutes to have a look at this (If just for a sanity check - it IS rather later for me after all!) it'd be appreciated. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ivankola block evasion

User:Ivankola was blocked on 26 February for spamming, but they had also been warned for BLP violations (by me), verifiability, disruptive editing, and vandalism. It appears that after being blocked, they continued editing while logged out as User:145.236.37.151: the Editor Interaction Analyser shows edits on dozens of pages in common. I'm not surprised to see that User talk:145.236.37.151 is also filled with warnings going back to 14 October 2016. They also appear to be editing as User:109.121.243.26 (dozens of articles in common), so I'm sure there are more. Since check user can't connect editors with IP addresses, is there a better way to find and block these IPs? Would this be a case for WP:SI even without CU, or WP:RFPP? Woodroar (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUCK might be of help to this one, if it's as obvious as you suggest. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 11:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ivankola and 145.236.37.151 have the same method of playing around with BLPs. For example, Ivankola fills in an unsourced birth_place, changes the location, and removes it. 145.236.37.151 adds, changes, removes on the same article. I am less sure about 109.121.243.26. Even though they have edited literally dozens of the same articles, they have dissimilar types of edits so any proof is coincidental. I struck that accusation accordingly. Woodroar (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

ODEL

PROTECTED:

Dealt with by EI_C. --QEDK (愛) 15:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

---

• ODEL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An editor is trying to rewrite the history of the article on ODEL to allegedly match the views of the current owner of the company. I have tried to reason/explain to the editor that Wikipedia is independent and not prescribed by private companies dictates. However they continue to disregard my advice and remove properly referenced material. In fact is now threatening that the company will take action to enforce its views of the history of the company. Dan arndt (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected for a period of one day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also, it is coming a bit too close to a legal threat, but we'll see if they can be reasoned with. El_C 11:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I warned the user in question about NLT and COI policies. Hope that helps. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Extra points for saying this store is "attracting unprecedented footfalls". EEng 18:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• And I learn a new word. El_C 18:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is the name of the company "ODEL" or "Odel"? If the former, than that should be used throughout the article. If that's just a stylization, and the actual name is "Odel", then the article should be moved to "Odel", and that form should be used throughout, including in the lede and infobox. Right now ths mixture of forms is confusing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, article should be moved to Odel.--Darth Mike^(talk) 19:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and made that move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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

ProDuct0339 WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ProDuct0339 (talk · contribs)

Likes making userboxes, which is OK, but is creating large amounts of categories and does not see why it's not appropriate and why there are getting nominated. WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR.

Created categories include:

• People who makes Userboxes.
• People who doesn't make Userboxes.
• People who tries to, but not good at making Userboxes.
• God of Userboxes making.
• People who basicly has Userboxitis.
• Etcetera ad nauseam. See contribs for more examples. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Two edits to articlespace- 236 to userspace???? Wow... That does beg an explanation. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I dunno, I will participate to real Wikipedia soon. just now, waiting while I am collecting informations. ProDuct0339 (talk ♪ Contribbbs) 01:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not see a serious attempt to discuss the problems with new user (new, unless it is true that he lost the passwords of his three prior accounts. And did not get blocked on them.) The Banner talk 14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I found my Old (second) Korean account. :p ProDuct0339 (talk ♪ Contribbbs) 01:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Can non-administrators comment here? Whatever. I'd just like to point out that this user has only been editing Wikipedia for exactly one day and 4 minutes; and they are already making category pages left and right? Perhaps this shows sockpuppetry or previous accounts? I think creating categories is a little advanced for a new user. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think if we are to believe that they actually had legitimate previous accounts, they should name said accounts as proof. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

At 09:15 this morning announced 'FUNNY STORY : this is my 4th account, I lost my previous account's passwords. oh well.' — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - I know that we are supposed to AGF, but honestly I don't believe them (or really anybody who says that) without some kind of proof. I think it's especially suspicious because they wrote it after they created useless categories that were obviously going to bring controversy. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In any case, they did say it well before this thread was started. Since that seems to be the crux of the matter- has anyone asked what these previous accounts were? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to assume good faith but I'm going to assume bad faith. </thread>. TimothyJosephWood 14:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. My earliest edits, back in 2004-2005 when I was an impressionable youth, were categorizing and subcategorizing chemistry articles. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's nothing saying that it isn't a long time IP user who created an account specifically to have access to user space. That's not WP:NOTHERE; that's WP:BENEFITS. Besides, it looks like they have blanked the lot of their user categories, so we can probably mass G7 and move on with our lives, all else being equal. TimothyJosephWood 14:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Looking at this users edits, it is pretty clear that the user lacks competence and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps if they really wanted to do work in article space they could address this in an unblock request or give the user a final warning. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Is this user getting notified or are we not going to for a specific reason? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

They were notified. TimothyJosephWood 14:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification. Kleuske (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see that in the history and went ahead and renotified them as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops. They collapsed it (probably deliberately, but I have to AGF) as to make it so nobody would see. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no point clogging CfD with nominations for these frivolous categories. I've mass deleted the lot of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for speedying the categories without further ceremony, NeilN. This is a simple troll IMO, and if it wasn't for the fact that they've had the benefit of warnings stating that they'll be blocked if they continue to create nonsense categories, I would already have blocked. Note that they've had two alerts to this discussion (one of which they collapsed — very clever for a new account) plus one extra call for answering questions here on ANI. If they continue to "edit" without coming here, and without answering my question on their page,[268] I believe they should be blocked. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC).

Yes. Paul August ☎ 17:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Quack!. Kleuske (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest we close this without action now, because ProDuct0339 appears to have stopped editing — they're neither creating new nonsense categories nor responding to awkward questions. Perhaps their silence is a bona fide busy-in-real-life-silence, or perhaps it's because they feel cornered. (Or perhaps it's because they've lost yet another password.) Unless there are firm objections, or unless the user turns up, I propose to close in a few hours with "No action as the user has currently stopped editing. If they return with further disruption and/or with failure to answer pertinent question, admins are encouraged to block without further ado." Thoughts? Bishonen | talk 21:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
  • Since NeilN has kindly carpet-bombed the offending categories into oblivion at least one goal was achieved and the above seems fair enough. Kleuske (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't know about previous accounts, but User:217.118.78.103 is pretty obviously them and was active yesterday. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I should add that as an IP they have spent a lot of time mucking around in other users' sandboxes and user space. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay guys, I'll clear things up.
  • First, I just made those categories by memories what they were looked like.
  • Second, this happened, I was seriously concerned: I didn't even study that day, oh well.
  • Third, So I tried to fix it by copying other categories' form, I gave only my Extended-Babel categories as Category:UBX and so on.
  • Fourth, that didn't work, by the way, I copied Category:Wikipedian guitarists.
  • Fifth, I was not intended to do that and.. don't be harsh :(
  • Sixth, I'm not that much of a newbie, Secont account, this is fourth
  • Seventh, I feel cincerely sorry, and I will continue my previous work (not user pages, what I did when I has the third account) after I got all informations.

ProDuct0339 (talk ♪ Contribbbs) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• • • Finally, that weird IP guy Isn't me. I don't even know who he is.

ProDuct0339 (talk ♪ Contribbbs) 09:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• @ProDuct0339 and Albireo93: Thanks for trying, but it's still not very clear. "I will continue my previous work... what I did when I has the third account" is not informative unless we know what that third account was and what you did with it. Come on, please give actual info about what you intend to do instead of mysterious hints about your previous accounts. You mention User:Albireo93 as your second account; it exists; but User:kyine0339Or, that you also mention, does not. You obviously have access to Albireo93's password now, as you're using Albireo93 simultaneously with ProDuct0339.[269][270] For example, those two accounts have both edited this thread! That seems a strange game to play, especially while asking us to 'not be harsh'. You're not allowed to have more than one account, except for good reasons and connecting them on the userpages. And of course in any case not to use them simultaneously, and without signing, yet. I don't necessary want to shut you off from English Wikipedia — I realize you're very young — but I have blocked both ProDuct0339 and Albireo93 for now. Please state on one of the userpages which one you want to use going forward and what kind of editing you plan to do. Not in a roundabout way like 'continuing your previous work when you had the third account', but straighforwardly: what you intend to do. Then one of the accounts may be unblocked. Incidentally, please stop moving stuff around on your talkpage and hiding it in collapseboxes, as it's very confusing. The content of talkpages should normally be in chronological order. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And again the Tube Challenge vandal with his legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

82.7.244.131 today, but obviously same person as the one we saw yesterday and many times before. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Envale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following their 72 hour block (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#User:Envale), Envale is back, cranking out the same poor biographies, Not a single lesson learnt from the block and cautions. Not a single acknowledgement that anything was awry for the 72 hours. Next step? Cabayi (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

eg This version, as created today by Envale, of George Algernon Fothergill. PamD 22:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

See also Francis Buekenhout. The source cited (there is only one, despite two links) doesn't support the material it is supposed to be cited for. 86.191.152.11 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• For all practical purposes it looks like they just ignored everything entirely. I'd support a longer, possibly indefinite block as it looks like they're either unable or unwilling to write articles according to guidelines. Trying to coach them looks to be a futile effort, given that they don't seem to be listening to anyone. In my experience people who act in this manner typically never respond at all until they receive a permanent block.

The basic problem is this: this editor's articles are poorly made and require the work of others to clean up and source the article. Not everyone is interested in doing this and in some cases the topic doesn't meet notability guidelines and has to be removed. There are also instances where he's posted copyvio that had to be cleaned out of the article and I don't see where he's paid much attention to those warnings, given that he's been issued warnings for four different pages. The first warning came about on January 20th, however he was still posting copyvio to Richard Huloet about a week later. Given that he's ignored other warnings and advice, it's likely that he's probably still posting copyvio that hasn't been found yet. I'd recommend an indefinite block here, as I think that's the only way he'd actually respond to anything or take any of the warnings seriously. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like NeilN has already done just that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I wouldn't re-block for George Algernon Fothergill but I will for Francis Buekenhout. This time they will have to engage in discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:WilliamJE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest that someone takes a long, hard look at this individual's input including his talk page. Seems to me he is being deliberately obstructive and effectively failing to observe WP:AGF. I notice that he is particularly keen on deleting content without requesting citations or discussing his concerns. That sort of attitude does not help the encyclopaedia. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This complaint is hilariously bad as some of their recent edits. If you take someone to ANI you are supposed to supply proof....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: Could you elaborate on what exactly the issue is with this user's behaviour that you think requires administrator action? Sam Walton (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, BlackJack seems to have simply gone around reverting a whole bunch of WilliamJE's edits that BlackJack simply disagreed with, but which were in no way contrary to any actual Wikipedia policy. Policy does not, for instance, require us to always retain uncited information, and merely add a {{cn}} template rather than removing it outright — policy in fact does permit us to remove uncited information if it's potentially problematic (as, for instance, unsourced aspersions on Michael Ellison's skill as a cricket player). So no, there's no actionable issue here — WilliamJE didn't do anything wrong, but merely did some things BlackJack didn't like. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: You are an extremely experienced editor, and should know that you don't come to ANI with such a vague complaint. I have taken a long hard look at Williams contributions, and while I don't totally see eye to eye with him on all issues, I can assure you he is not being "deliberately obstructive."

I also draw your attention to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. William has over 85,000 edits and deserves more than a templated claim of disruption.

@WilliamJE: In my opinion, best practices are that you should include a citation needed tag rather than simply removing the unreferenced claim (in most cases there may be exceptions but they don't seem to apply here). If a citation is not forthcoming in a reasonable period of time then removal is warranted. I accept the policy permits the outright removal but in the case of good faith inclusion of material, a request for a reference would be a more polite first step.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary here is a breach of WP:CIVIL and this edit is disruptive because (a) he is again rude in the edit summary; (b) the issue should be raised at the talk page and not summarily removed. He has already been blocked, only a few months ago, for disruptive editing and the comments he has made on his own talk page about that block are questionable to say the least. He is too eager to remove content when the "cn" tag should be deployed.

By the way, re Michael Ellison, the necessary citation (i.e., Hodgson, page 16) was already in the article but I had forgotten to add it to that paragraph so he was right that the sole citation there did not cover the entire statement. I would have thought, though, that as he could see the article had been created by "a very experienced editor", it would be polite if nothing else to simply place the tag. But, no, he has to remove the content.

I'm happy to accept the advice given above but, in my opinion, the attitude of this editor leaves much to be desired and he does need to start using the "cn" tag instead of removing content. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

How dare you mention civil when you wrote in a edit summary here "restored useful information that had been removed by someone with no knowledge of the subject who should have placed a citation needed tag there"[271] and also reverts[272] on another User's removal of edits from their talk page which they have a right to under WP:OWNTALK. Your not knowing what to do at ANI, failing to know what WP:DISRUPT is and falsely claiming without proof another editor has violated it, the things I cite immediately above, your failure[273] to read my edit summary[274] when it doesn't convenience you, Your going to another edit of mine[275] and reverting[276] seems like a blatant case of WP:STALKING are appalling and should have a WP:BOOMERANG headed your way....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you calm down. If you do know anything about cricket, then I apologise for the comment that you do not. I have already explained above about Ellison and the fact remains that you need to stop removing content and show some respect towards other editors by placing the "cn" tag or going to the talk page. As for "stalking", it's funny how you appeared in the Ellison article exactly three minutes after I replied to your message on my talk page, or was that one of those coincidences. In case you haven't noticed, I've contacted the main editor of the Berlin Township article to ask him about Miss Dawson so that he can resolve the issue which you are unwilling to discuss. While I was on his page, I noticed that you have challenged several categories created by him and, as per my right, I have place my view about them at CfD. I have nothing further to say to you. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You clearly don't know anything about community people categories at CFD as seen by my reply here[277]. I can cite three dozen (and maybe as high as ten dozen) at least similar CFD results. As for the Ellison article, I do new page patrolling all the time. The Ellison article was created this morning and was listed as a new page. @Sphilbrick:, who commented above, knows I am active in that as I have sometimes addressed him[278] on his talk page in the past about problems in newly created articles. How many United States community notable people sections have you worked on?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please, can you both chill a bit. (I think this should be closed, hint, hint, as nothing more needs to be said, but I prefer not to close discussions in which I am a participant.)

I would like William to use cn more often, and I would like Jack to engage in discussion, without a dismissive template, when attempting to communicate with a regular. Neither of these are policy requirements, so I'm requesting, not insisting, but both would allow each of you to do what you each do very well—improve this encyclopedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sanity check , Spanish speakers definetly welcomed for this one

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm requesting a Sanity check, over here at 2016-17_CA_Osasuna_season User:Crowsus and I both are at 3rr. During my usual valdalism patrols I spotted what I thought was a questionable wiki link to a soccer players name | this one . Notice he has "Kike" linked before and after the players name. Because it's wikilinked it would take you to the actual entry for "Kike" which is a pretty offensive term. I removed it. After which I recieved a rather upset | revert with an upset edit summary (Actually I found it funny, since I haven't had a drink in 27 years :) ). Crowsus explanation is that "Kike" is a common spanish nickname, however, the piping he's doing would case our page to come up which doesn't mention "Kike" as a spanish anything. So, any Spanish speakers want to chime in? Is Crowsus right or is he trying to pull my leg ? Thanks for your assistance К Ф Ƽ Ħ 19:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? Kike is an extremely common name, and there are numerous professional footballers going by that name. As it would have taken you all of three seconds to check. Or less if you'd actually bothered to click the link in question or view the diff, which clearly pointed (correctly) at Kike (footballer, born November 1989). ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

please see my explanation for this mix up on Talk:2016–17 CA Osasuna season. Crowsus (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe you are looking not for Kike (rhymes with pike) but for Kike or Kiké, pronounced "Kee Kay", short for Enrique. TimothyJosephWood 19:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated edits and reverts against consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mandruss:@WildCowboy: I'm sorry, what do you mean? This user is clearly WP:SOCK ("Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address") and WP:CIVIL ("belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts") and is in violation. How is that not sanctionable? Endercase (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Comment Just want to note for the record that the user being discussed here deleted this ANI discussion and then proceeded to continue disrupting brackets yesterday. We've been able to achieve additional consensus on how brackets should flow. I suppose no direct action is needed at the moment, and hopefully things will wind down as the conference tournaments are now over, but I think it's important to have everything documented here should disruptive editing resume. -- WildCowboy (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Winstonview repeatedly advertising his firm

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

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

1 2 3 4

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

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

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

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

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

After he's unblocked, he reverted the edit again to his version. I've reverted his edit based on what User:ScrapIronIV told him to not restore the content without adding source. I've responded to his comment at my user talk page about this situation. --Stylez995 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If he reinserts the text again without getting consensus, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

FkpCascais and 23 editor.

A while ago I participated in a RfC [279] along with two other editors, FkpCascais and 23 editor. RfC's topic was whether Djokovic parents' ethnicity should be included in the article. The mentioned two editors voted against inclusion with the following reasons.

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

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

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

What is troublesome is what I found recently. They both went against their previous stand and introduce parents' ethnicity to [280] article. One IP objected and did some reverts. I noticed and I reverted them also and opened a discussion.

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

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

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

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

Also, Vanjagenije was of no help either [281]. He knew all about what those 2 editors did on Novak Djokovic's page (he even deleted some of their personal attacks to other editors), yet he didn't see anything wrong with their POV pushing on Branimir Stulic article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All veterans here know that you edit as IP because you can't create an account because your accounts end up blocked because you are a sockpoppeteer evading indef-ban. Your harassment and repetitive atempts to present me as bad guy and get me blocked are very borring. You have been doing that for some two years now, ever since you confronted me at Nikola Tesla article and got yourself banned. You are becoming quite an unique case here on the project and your case may well be used as exemple on how nowadays we lack proper mechanisms to sucessfully deal with socks and IP editing of indef-banned users. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice This IP [282] has targeted my edits. This IP is currently reported by another editor. They asked FkpCascais to have a look on my edit at Kosovo War and the later editor undid my changes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

For God sake, please take atention, this is a totally different case unrelated to Kosovo and Albania. FkpCascais (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

IP 2405:204:C...

User:2405:204:C005:B703:9DC2:251F:B6FE:2648 / User:2405:204:C280:3B2A:F92D:DBDC:356F:9734 / User:2405:204:C601:2A58:D0AD:97BC:F13D:B2EF has been adding and subtracting spaces. [283][284][285][286][287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298] It is annoying seeing these show up on my watchlist, plus I suspect that he is doing the same thing using other IP addresses. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see a trickle of edits on the range now that the block timed out, but none of them seem to be this user. 24 hours without any disruption is a good sign. However, I haven't been as active in the past few days, so you might have to ping me to get my attention if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality and establishing reliable sources for article that address possible mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm writing you to receive guidance in how to deal with a dispute I have with the editor Zefr regarding my contribution to the High-fructose corn syrup article. I have attempted to resolve this using the High Fructose Corn Syrup talk page and Wikipedia’s third opinion, with little success and now would like to turn to you for help.

In the past weeks or so I have tried to contribute multiple times (March 8, March 11, March 14) to an article about High-fructose corn syrup in the section titled "Safety and Manufacturing Concerns" (original title was Manufacturing Contaminants). This section discusses the possible of mercury contamination of HFCS. I tried to remain neutral’' in my contribution by presenting "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" In this case it was towards contamination of mercury in products that contain HFCS. I wrote about research that both has found traces of mercury, as well as research that has found no traces of mercury. The research that found traces were conducted in 2009 [299] [300] and 2010 [301] and were supported by Scientific journals’’ . The research that has found no traces of mercury is the "Duke study" [302] The "Duke study" is A) a Popular press’’ and not Scientific journals’' B) not the most recent study in this debate C) Somewhat biased for it was commissioned on behalf of the Corn Refiners Association. I have tried multiple times to add meaningful contribution to this article that takes all this science into account. Yet at each time an editor by the name Zefr would revert my work (reverted on March 8, reverted on march 11,reverted on march 14). I will admit that initially I added a lot and went into details about the studies, and I understand that Wikipedia is not WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. But I thought my most recent contributions was succinct and addressed all concerns brought up by Zefr on Talk:High-fructose_corn_syrup. Yet each time he reverts my contribution with the exception of the Duke study [303] which is I contend is biased, not recent and not supported by a proper citation.

He recently redid the entire section changing the name from “manufacturing contaminants” to “safety and manufacturing concerns”. He has added the Duke Citations to the text twice, with a preface that HFCS is safe for consumption, and has added text that is not supported by citations. He won’t allow me to add peer-reviewed studies with relevant information to this article.

The editor Zefr, in my view, is not maintaining a neutral. He has reverted all of my additions dealing with mercury contamination in HFCS, and I would like help resolving this situation so that Wikipedia can provide readers a fair point of view on this controversial topic. Thatwhoiswise (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, this is the Administrative Incidents noticeboard—we generally don't weigh on content disputes here. From what I gather, you are being reverted due to your sources not being at par with the Identifying reliable sources in medicine guideline. So, you can look for better sources while you continue to discuss the issue on the talk page; you can also try listing an RFC (and anything else on the dispute resolution spectrum). El_C 04:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral Point of View Noticeboard and/or Reliable Sources Noticeboard are the places you probably want. I would try RSN first as it appears your content additions are being reverted based on the sources used, and RSN has a number of experienced editors who can assess the material used in context with the sources provided. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• It's a sticky situation. EEng 05:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Like corn syrup (hold the mercury!). El_C 10:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Did I unthinkingly deploy the expression 'sticky situation' in a thread which just happens to be about a substance that actually is sticky? I didn't realize. EEng 10:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't think too hard on it, or the seriousness of this board may become unstuck. Blackmane (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are some sweet puns, yall! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Corny ones, at least. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm good points all, I will vegetate on this. Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term disruptive IP hopping on The Simpsons-related articles

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

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

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

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

What are the IP ranges used? It looks like 2602:306:37eb:47e0::/64 and 205.213.104.0/24. Is this correct? I can semi-protect the season 28 article for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirateYes, that is correct. Occasionally, other ranges have been used but not for a while. That would be great if you could protect the season 28 article, however, the List of the Simpsons episodes article is an equally common target of this vandalism. I would potentially suggest maybe blocking both of those ranges as well so they don't simply switch to other season articles after that one is blocked. Thanks! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 01:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake, just saw that you protected both those articles already. Thank you! I would still suggest those two ranges you list above be blocked to prevent the other season pages from getting targeted.

Also, if the vandalism/disruption resumes after the semi-protection elapses, should I re-report back here or somewhere else? Thanks! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 01:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I semi-protected both articles. I also blocked both IP ranges for a month. Let me know if there are other IP addresses that perform that same disruption. I might be able to do something about that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will definitely let you know if I see any more disruption after the protection has elapsed. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 02:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Mlpearc, edit warring and communication style

Mlpearc (talk · contribs) is a long standing and prolific editor who works in anti-vandalism and maintenance areas of articles. Over time, I have become frustrated that he turns innocuous and mild content disputes into heated edit wars by reverting content without explanation and leaving little to no discussion beyond the standard Twinkle boilerplate and inaccurate accusations of vandalism. These issues were present in his RfA in 2012 (eg: oppose #3) and I brought up some examples at his ORCP about six months ago. Most recently, I have seen him getting into an unnecessary quarrel on User talk:SquidandStag, where he accused the other party of harrassment and filed an AIV report over it, leading me to decline the report, explain the edits weren't vandalism, and calm everybody down.

The latest feud is in Atom Heart Mother; now having done significant work on this article, including the original GA review, I fully get that IPs turning up and changing the "genre" field in the infobox again, again, again and again is worthy of WP:LAME, and I'm not exactly a saint in this regard, as I have tended to revert with occasional "not this again" edit summaries (I'd argue "not this again" is at least a reason, albeit a bad one; whereas the Twinkle "reverted edits by" message isn't). However, as soon as somebody presents the Daily Telegraph as a source justifying a change, that is sufficient grounds for leaving it and having a discussion. But this doesn't seem to be enough for Mlpearc, who wanders in and reverts it. Elsewhere, I see he's picking a fight with an IP over an edit on Electric guitar which I felt was a reasonable copyedit. Then there's the thread below it, discussing whether it's appropriate to say that Syd Barrett remained a professional musician as late as 1974, which is brushed off without assuming as much good faith as I'd like.

I have attempted to discuss this with Mlpearc in the past, as his talk page asserts he is only human and opened to reasoned debate about possible errors (which is good). Unfortunately, my edits got reverted, so I've given up. Now I find Mlpearc has created a page User:Mlpearc/Admin stalkers with a link to one of my comments on it; I don't know whether he's keeping a handy record of archived conversations, collecting "evidence" to drag me to ANI himself, or something else.

I'm not looking for any blocks or bans (they have a tendency to boomerang and he works in the same topic areas as me so I'd trip up on an interaction ban all over the place); indeed, most of the time I'd say Mlpearc's article-space edits are right, or at least justifiable on their merits. Rather I've just got a bit frazzled trying to explain to Mlpearc how he can be a better editor all-round, and I'd like to ask the community what we can do about this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, he's been struggling with SPI/Iloveartrock, but that subpage, which I deleted, is definitely inappropriate. I'll drop him a note. El_C 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• On the narrow issue of the "Electric guitar" revert--I agree that the IP's edit was positive. It is true that no sources were added, but most of it was copyediting, and I didn't really see "opinion" in there, so the edit summary, "unsourced personal opinions", was not correct. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I must say, I have always found Mlpearc to be courteous and reasonable. Are there any examples of others taking issue with his conduct? If not, I'm wondering if this may just be a personal issue between the two of you. Sometimes people just don't get along. Might it be that Mlpearc doesn't think you're the right person to be giving him advice on "how he can be a better editor all-round", which does sound a little patronising? Although I agree that the page deleted by El C bore an unfortunate title, it does reflect that Mlpearc is (rightly or wrongly) being made uncomfortable by the attention he is receiving form you. I don't think an interaction ban makes sense either, but maybe you should disengage for a while? WJBscribe (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any examples of others taking issue with his conduct? Absolutely; here are some recent examples :

• Im fed up with being victimised on wiki when all i want to do is help!!
• It's on YouTube look at his Documents and his Biography Shine On You Crazy Diamond. (reply : "YouTube is not a reliable source, either find a good source or leave it out, simple" - YouTube is usually not a reliable source but can be in some context eg: official channels for speech transcript; no comment was made on the book)
• For your information, I have been an admin in former times, and at one time was in the top few hundred contributors and so am more than experienced at WP editing. I am not current with the present editorial politics, and, indeed, it was changes in those politics which caused me to go on an extended Wiki-vacation. If those changes have continued the trend I noticed then, I suspect I am likely to vacation myself again.
• Mlpearc, you're ignorant; You've done this more than once; Stop disrupting my editing or I'll report you. (Incivil, yes, but with a legitimate point behind this)
• I do not know what I have been doing to articles that is upsetting you, but I suggest you stop trying to attack me. There is really no need for this bombardment.

And that's just from the past week! I want to emphasise that I personally have never had issue with Mlpearc; I don't believe he's ever reverted any mainspace edits of mine and indeed on occasion I have been happy for him to make an edit so I didn't have to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than taking the above diffs at face value, editors should look at the complaining editors' edits and decide if Mlpearc's responses were reasonable. Active recent change patrollers are going to get many complaints like these. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly what I did; had I concluded every comment was in response to a bad-faith or disruptive edit, I would not have come here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So, for example, making this revert and asking for sources is a legitimate conduct issue? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a note: Not a feud, I call it maintaining the project - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here, editors make bad, poor, or questionable edits, and they get removed, then they complain. There seems to be a lot of warring over music genres by throwaway IP users, like what's going on at Atom Heart Mother right now, they have to get their favorite sub-sub-sub-genre in because one writer used a word in one article. ValarianB (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Bad, poor or questionable" in whose view? Yours? Mine? Jimbo Wales? The Daily Mail's? Let me try and explain where I'm coming on in one of the examples here : Atom Heart Mother is assessed as GA, but looking at it now it probably doesn't actually meet the GA criteria - in fairness it was one of my first GAs back in 2012 and so obviously doesn't come up to the standard I would deploy these days. The most obvious problem is the snippets of unsourced content; most of the claims can be cited to the various Floyd biographies relatively easily. The prose needs tidying up a bit, there are a few buzz-words like "notable" that I don't really like to see in prose. The citation format is inconsistent, particularly in the "Live performances" section where there are citations given as bare URL links, and what does "performances by other forces" mean? Elsewhere, I would prefer all of the book sources to use {{sfn}} / {{harvnb}} as it means pulling out citations to multiple pages in the same book source is more convenient. All of the above is more important than reverting back and forth over the "genre" field in the infobox (and yes ValarianB, you are edit-warring in that article, mind you don't do 4 reverts inside 24 hours and get blocked for it!), for which I do not personally give a flying toss what is in the field as long as it looks vaguely sensible. I think Beyond My Ken said it best here : "Start with an article that looks like shit and reads like it was written by a high-school dropout. A hundred edits later, take another look at the article – and it still looks and reads like shit. .... This is the problem with eventualism: it assumes that, somewhere along the way, someone's actually going to fix the real problems and not just niggle around the edges." I appreciate it's unfair to lump this entire problem at Mlpearc's door as he can't be held responsible for the entire ills of Wikipedia, but I do wonder sometimes if I'm just talking like a batshit insane lunatic for having these views? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, you're not batshit insane; I mean, you're on the spectrum somewhere but so am I. Big deal. I sense frustration on everyone's part here and we're pretty much all on the same side. I'm thinking some time off...concentrating on other areas...the usual (or only) therapies available to us. I'm not dismissing your concerns, Ritchie, but none of us that spend a lot of time here have it easy. Again, general observation(s); dodging the crux 'cause I see both sides have merit. Tiderolls 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree @Tide rolls: my honey-do lists get longer in the summer so I'll have some time off and thank you @Ritchie333: for starting this thread, seems we'll all benefit . ValarianB I agree, there are sooo many new sub-genre's popping up everyday it seems and everyone want's their favorite bands and genre to get married, there were some sub-genre's being added to Pink Floyd that weren't even thought of when their music was released, anyway, Cheers all, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruption from IP range on race related articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Range here

IPs from this range have been disruptive on race-related articles. E.g., [304], [305], [306]. Most recently, edits here. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 address range blocked for 36 hours for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The latest IP also made a number of edits attempting to brand a British author as "liberal" without proof (in two articles), and to remove a section from Enemy of the people regarding the aborted Nazi plan to ship Jews off to Madagascar. Strong with POV is this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh joy. Well the IP is under the /64 range block I threw, which is good. If you see any more edits like this from another IPv6 range like this, do let me know and I'll put the kibosh to it ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for some Administrator assistance at Bon Secours Sisters...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's an increasingly edit-war like pattern of behaviour going on at Bon Secours Sisters - the calming intervention of an admin before it gets out of hand would probably be valuable. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. But next time, AN3 is that-a-way. El_C 08:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Baseball Bugs and Widr failing to AGF

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd like to file a complaint against Baseball Bugs and Widr for failing to assume good faith. My previous IP address was blocked for supposedly trolling the Refdesk when in fact I was just asking a simple question at the Refdesk. Baseball Bugs was the one who reported me to AIV. And since Widr didn't check to see if my question was reasonable or not before deciding to block me, he's also guilty of not assuming good faith.75.109.48.189 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please respond with the diff to the edit you made to the reference desk, and I'll be happy to take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Here it is:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=next&oldid=770945962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.48.189 (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The follow-up question made it pretty clear that this is an effort to troll, not a legitimate quest for knowledge. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

OP blocked. Block evasion and more trolling. Future appearances should really be reverted on sight and blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jayboyspecker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nasty little schoolboy running a lame campaign of harassment (by some definitions, sexual harassment) against an acquaintance or classmate (presumably). All edits by the account should be suppressed and userspace pages deleted expeditiously. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Movies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

79.168.157.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding films to the soft-redirected category Category:Movies, and occasionally removing the redirect from the category. Has been warned numerous times, and previously blocked for this behavior. Trivialist (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam on my information

Dear Administrator

I am Dr. Rola Dashti and every time I change the info on my page to update it, a user keeps on changing it back to old information stating he knows me. I confirm to you that this person has no relationship with me and ask you to block him and return my update information on the site.

Thank you,

Dr. Rola Dashti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdashti (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPSELF and also WP:COI. It's not advised to edit articles about yourself except to fix obvious errors. Instead use the talk page. Notably while it's best not to add information period, you definitely should not be adding information without a WP:Reliable source supporting that info. It doesn't matter that you know it to be correct because it's about yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I've given Arjayay a shout about this as he's tried to give SDashi a hand with this. [307] [308] standard appears to have been done for this situation, I think. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 12:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I have removed all unsourced information from the article per WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"); if anybody wants to re-add the information, include an in-line citation to a reliable source. When a living person complains about an article on Wikipedia they had no hand in creating, it's best to go easy and not Twinkle spam them, as it can be contentious and upsetting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sdashti claims "a user keeps on changing it back to old information stating he knows me. I confirm to you that this person has no relationship with me" - Could she please show where anyone has stated that they know her? - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Per WP:REALNAME I have blocked the thread starter until they provide identification that they are in fact Rola Dashti. Since the subject is a government minister, I think it's best to be careful when someone claims to be her. Regards SoWhy 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• And first female MP elected to the Kuwaiti parliament, no less. Good call. El_C 04:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The responses to this thread and the messages on the users talk page are a wonderful example of the complete and utter disrespect with which potential article subjects are treated (see Jimbo's talk page for a long discussion and prepare for another daily mail article). The first response encourages the user to read a couple unhelpful essays, the talk page is splattered with impersonal templates (2 of them right in a row!), and finally the user is blocked, with a note to appeal to a volunteer-run email system. Now of course there are genuine concerns of gaming, but this type of situation needs an immediate improvement from the community. More of Yngvadottir's approach is needed. 2600:100C:B225:377D:7829:F085:9E40:D72 (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody was disrespected. Instead we respect Dr Dashti and want to make sure she's not being impersonated. You cannot expect that a) editors take any claim of identity on face value (that would open all floodgates to abuse) and b) a site run by volunteers to run a non-volunteer email system. Kleuske (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've now updated the article; it had gathered some dust. I'm tempted to try to e-mail Rola Dashti. But since I have used up my IAR unblocks for this lifetime, could I request admin consideration of unblocking Sdashti? There is a vanishingly small likelihood she is not who she says she is, the user name is by no means an obvious impersonation, the user can always be blocked in future should there be any threat to the encyclopedia, and I would really like her to help us out with Arabic references for her career, quite apart from the help she could give us with other Kuwaiti figures (Hind Sabih Al-Sabih is still a red link, for one). Yngvadottir (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

BLPSELF is not an essay and explicitly deals with the situation of people editing articles on themselves. And I also explicitly summarised the key points here, namely that they should not be directly editing articles about themselves. Like it or not, people editing articles on themselves often leads to trouble for them so there are good reasons why it's strongly discouraged. I did explicitly check their contrib history and noticed that they were adding information without sources hence my last comment.

I did consider saying something like "I know this may be frustrating and confusing, but it doesn't matter...." And similarly I did consider repeating what I'd already said namely the need for reliable sources but I can be very repetitive and know it doesn't always help. Especially when my message gets too long and there's something else it'll probably be better they read (or they're just not going to read the whole thing), this is perhaps a good example of that. Likewise I did consider mentioning something like their hopeful knowledge of reliable sources covering them but wasn't sure this was that useful, after all plenty of people know a fair a bit about them but probably don't really know what reliable sources cover that info. Especially reliable sources we will accept, since for example if a person received an award they may a photo of the award or them receiving it, but it's not generally something we will accept. (And yes I have seen similar things before e.g. someone wanting to use their passport to show something.)

Perhaps the most significant point is that there's no easy way to tell people "as much as you may understandably hate it, the article on you will only generally contain what info we can reliably source". I'm unconvinced being gentle about it is necessarily better than being direct. Notably there is always a risk an editor may feel your being patronising or treating them like an idiot who can't read or understand stuff for themselves if you specify in great deal what what they should and shouldn't do. (This doesn't mean I'm discouraging anyone from acting in a certain way, rather simply pointing out it's always difficult to say what works best since it's going to depend on the individual.)

The only thing I do agree is I'm not sure there's a need for the block here. Unless things have seriously changed since I used to frequent WP:BLP/N, we do not block people when they claim to be the subject when they are editing under a different name or as is commonly the case, an IP. While I can understand the need for the general policy on usernames, I don't see the need for it to apply here considering the only thing the editor is doing is basically the same thing namely dealing with an article on themselves. There's no reason why someone with part of their likely real name editing an article on themselves or talking about it creates significantly more risk of harm to the real life reputation than someone editing with an IP but who has also declared so. (There may be some minor greater risk in that lazy media are more likely to notice it.) Of course if the editor starts making questionable edits elsewhere we can re-visit.

Besides that, the one thing we hopefully all agree we do need to do when dealing with article subjects is as far as possible, make sure we address any concerns they do have as reasonably as possible. This means of course we should make sure info in article is well sources. I admit I didn't do that here, I didn't feel I had the time. But I don't think we should expect people only reply when they do so, that could easily leave subjects with zero help. In a volunteer run project there are always going to be limits of how much help a person receives in cleaning up an article on themselves. For example, a week or 2 ago, I dealt with this article Branimir Štulić as best I could by removing the info which seemed unsourced after complaints from someone who said they were representing the article's subject. It seemed and still seems a lot of the other info is disputed, unfortunately since it appears sourced and most of it is in Serbian or Croatian neither of which I understand, it's difficult for me to deal with the rest. This may not be a satisfactory outcome, but until and unless someone with the necessary knowledge (to check sources and confirms their sufficiently reliable especially for a BLP) helps, there's not much more that can be done.

I'd note that while the article on a government minister from Kuwait is probably more important to wikipedia than an article on a singer who's a cult hit in the former Yugoslavia but not so well known elsewhere, from the subject's POV it's equally important that they're dealt with. And in fact the problems in the article I dealt with seem to be more pressing since it seems the subject actively disputes them rather than the info just being outdated. Again this doesn't mean I'm faulting anyone for what they have and haven't done but rather pointing out as a volunteer run project there are always going to be limits on our help which will be understandably frustrating to subjects.

Incidentally, while I can't be sure, I get the feeling that at least some aspects of the other BLP dispute I mentioned are never going to be dealt with to the satisfaction of the subject simply because of our requirements and even if I'm wrong about that case the general principle definitely isn't namely there can never be an entirely satisfactory outcome for all subjects.

Finally while it's always helpful to look at a situation which seems to have gone wrong, e.g. by media reports, we also have to take care not to read too much into something just because there was a big fuss. Sure in that case maybe things would have been better if handled differently, in other cases maybe that other option would have been the worse choice. Relying on outliers to decide on what should be done tends to lead to bad outcomes. Instead you need a more wholesale analysis and also need to accept that whatever option you choose there's always going to be a case where if fails even if you follow it perfectly simply because that solution doesn't work for everyone and it's impossible to entirely accurately predict what will work.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Socking, COI, repeated article creation/deletion

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

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

Closed sockpuppet investigation here shows prior socks:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RAJ_KUMAR_MISHRA

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

And they continue:

• dif
• dif

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

And more:

• dif]

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

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

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

Our sock is not done, it seems:

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

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

Everything above has been taken care of, now we have this user adding the name to List of Indian television actors: Block for IP, please,[309] and that article could be put under protection since it's a favorite target. First Light (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Another IP spamming this supposed actor's name:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now "Raja Mishra

• Raja Mishra Actor (talk · contribs)

Could an admin please block this latest sockpuppet? First Light (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

More socks, additional name

• Mahant Lal(actor) (talk · contribs)
• Rajkumar Mishra(telefilms) (talk · contribs)
• 2405:204:308A:C765:0:0:1186:E8A0) (talk · contribs)

Also created the article Mahant Lal ("sources" are broken links), using a photo that had been previously uploaded by Rajkumar Mishra, in case you want to know what our friend looks like. First Light (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Mdalifmondol self-publicity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user's one activity since November 2015 has been to insert his name and photograph into his userspace. At present we have identical content at User:Mdalifmondol, User talk:Mdalifmondol, and User:Mdalifmondol/sandbox. If these pages are deleted he recreates them and if indexing is removed he restores it.[310] [311] [312] He has been warned on his talk page. This was his one edit outside userspace. I think these activities should be stopped as they are wasting our time and contributing nothing to Wikipedia: Noyster (talk), 16:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Riceissa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Riceissa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of Vipul's paid editing ring. One of the concerns about this ring is SEO spamming. Vipul's editing ring is compensated on number of clicks and Vipul's firm is LiftIgniter, a company selling click-through rate improvement (see WP:COIN).

Riceissa created a number of articles, several of which were deleted. Some were userfied at his request. It appears that Riceissa then added __INDEX__ tags to these. He has also created numerous WP:FAKEARTICLEs in userspace, again with index tags.

• [313] added as part of a series of contiguous edits post userfication; removed by JJMC89 and re-added: [314]
• User:Riceissa/ICWATCH created with {{index}}, removed here: [315]
• User:Riceissa/Triplebyte created with {{index}}
• User:Riceissa/Laura and John Arnold Foundation grants tables created with index tags
• User:Riceissa/The GiveWell Blog created with index tags
• User:Riceissa/Slate Star Codex created with index tags

It looks very likely that these are paid content from Vipul's activities. Their intent is clearly promotional. I think this justifies either an editing restriction or an outright ban. Bluntly, Riceissa appears to be here to spam. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody wants to touch this. How would you phrase this editing restriction? El_C 15:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't. I'd just block them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, if there's consensus they're not doing anything useful... El_C 15:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

They have declared their COI and that they are no longer working for Vipul, so I'd be wary to block them if no further disruption is to be expected (since blocks are not punitive). The last ANI thread about this paid editing ring contained a mention of a RfC how to deal with those pages and the users involved, I think that would be the right place to discuss whether to sanction this user. Regards SoWhy 16:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I note that Riceissa is still editing articles they were paid to create, to revert the removal of link-spam. But I suppose nobody is going to do anything. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What would a restriction look like? That's the tricky bit for me too. Riceissa seems to me to be young and zealous, and many good Wikipedians have got off to a highly unpromising start, but for the life of me I can't think of what we can do. I guess if he was to withdraw all the articles he wrote for pay, moving them to userspace and blanking? There are two problems: the SEO, and the backlog of work he's created for others, not helped by the usual suspects fighting deletion. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• support indef The more I look at the editing of Riceissa the more a very clear pattern of advocacy (promotional edits using bad sources or no sources, and edit warring etc to maintain them) appears. That they are continuing this without pay demonstrates that this is what they are here to do, and that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. We can handle this now and don't need to wait for the broader RfC on the paid editing enterprise. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Indef per WP:NOTHERE. Obvious. Keri (t · c) 18:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Indefinite block Violating TOU. Coretheapple (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear there is no evidence of violating the ToU. That is not something to be written lightly. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block enough of this promotional rubbish. Blackmane (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Indefinite block and remove pages in their User space. Frankly, the hands-off, "they should be blocked but not by me", gun-shy approach to this paid editing ring has clearly made these editors think they can act with impunity. Flushing their contributions through the nearest airlock is the most effective way to discourage people engaged in SEO-based editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TBAN for Korvex from biblical archeology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Korvex is a pure WP:SPA for biblical archeology topics, who brings a strong POV of Biblical maximalism to Wikipedia (the view that the narratives in the Bible are actual history).

Per their edit count they have 364 edits since they opened their account in October 2016. ~200 of them are to article Talk and ~90 are to articles themselves.

Korvex almost exclusively cites things by Bryant G. Wood published on the website of Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) where Wood is research director. ABR describes itself as a ministry and links to the "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" in its "about" page.

Others have added bad content cited to ABR as well. For instance an IP added content here sourced to this page at the ABR website, which has a video explaining why their work is essential -- namely "This (uncertainty) has led scholars to reject the historicity of the account of the capture of Ai, the Conquest in general, the Exodus by implication, and ultimately, the Gospel of God's Son." (clears throat)

Sample edits:

• first edit was to The Exodus, added content arguing for historicity of the event, citing 2 postings by Wood at the ABR website. That edit was reverted.

• second edit was to Book of Exodus, removing the word "myth", changing BCE to BC (oy), adding content that makes the argument that the whole Torah must be very old because of a very old tiny scroll with a few verses found on it, adding some OR cited to some bible verses. It was reverted.

• next edits were to Talk:Exodus (a disambig page) arguing for their edits at The Exodus.

• next edits added content to the The Exodus "proving" that it happened, which was reverted. Korvex restored. It was reverted again. An IP then showed up the next day and blanked 2 sections on archeology. Which was reverted.
• next edit argued for that change on the correct Talk page. and also went to the User talk pages of two editors who had reverted them, User:Isambard Kingdom (diff) and User:Doug Weller (diff), in each of which he argues to support his edit with a blog posting on.... the ABR website.

You are getting the picture. The rest is more of the same.

This posting is prompted by Korvex's recent fixing on Ai (Canaan), a city discussed in the bible as being conquered by Joshua, which scholars/archeologists have not been able to find any definitive RW site for. Korvex's hero Bryant Wood believes that Ai is current day Khirbet el-Maqatir; hardly anybody else thinks so, but Korvex wants to give significant WEIGHT to that (like this (reverted by Guy here; restored in part by Korvex here (mentioning Wood in the edit note); reverted here by me.

Korvex showed up a month later and added another Wood ref here out of an edited book, trying to argue that this was independent of ABR. I reverted, Korvex restored, I removed again.

We rejected that source, as edited book chapters are often not solid scholarly works and after a lot of drama on Talk we encouraged him to go RSN, which he did, and where the source was shot down.

Korvex showed up again 2 days ago and did this, reverted by Doug Weller here, restored by Korvex here, reverted by User:Drmies here, restored by Korvex here, reverted by me here.

All though this Korvex has been BLUDGEONing the heck out of the talk page (talk page revision stats here; just their contribs here) not to mention leaving notes on my user Talk page like this (about a bogus edit war warning from another misguided editor).

Korvex is becoming a time sink. They are not WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but are a SPA Advocate for biblical historicity in biblical archeology, and are doing the typical things like bringing poor sources, edit warring to try to keep them, and battering the talk page. Am asking the community to consider a TBAN from biblical archeology.Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Biblical archaeology is far from something I know a great deal about, but I will note that Korvex does seem to be editing with a strong POV. For instance, they changed the fact that Richard Dawkins is separated from his wife to their being divorced, when the source says, quite specifically, that they're separated. He also used a citation from an open access journal, the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, to make a point, without identifying the source, just the author and title of the paper. (An open access journal, of course, would not be acceptable as an RS for anything except the existence of the journal and whatever editorial comments they may make, not for the material published by the journal.) Whether he did that out of ignorance or to hide the source, I don't know. Numerous other edits of his which seemed dicey to me have been reverted by other editors. I think folks who know something about their subject matter should take a closer look at Korvex's editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog makes many obvious errors. Jytdog apparently believes that the "only person" I cite is my "hero" Bryant Wood, but the enormity of this error is great. I've cited countless scholars in my Wiki history in conversations and edits, including 1) George Mendenhall, 2) Christopher Theis, 3) Joshua Berman, 4) Koert Van Bekkum, etc, etc, etc. Jytdog thinking that Wood is the only guy I cite is simply false.

Jytdog then states that my only edits have to do with advancing my narrative on biblical archaeology -- an obvious error. I've made edits that have nothing to do with proving biblical archaeology, including 1) William F. Albright's page (fixing sentences) 2) Eilat Mazar's page and expanding her discoveries 3) Finkelstein's book Bible Unearthed 4) encyclopedia list of online encyclopedias 6) page of Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 7) Yaki Yerushalayim page, etc, etc, etc. Jytdog also makes another funny error when he states I try to source virtually everything Wood has published, but the only work I have ever referred to from Wood is his work on Khirbet el-Maqatir. It is true though, that the majority of my work on Wikipedia has to do with the religion and political state of Israel, as well as Israeli archaeologists. Jytdog's only research seems to be limited to the talk page of Ai (Canaan). Jytdog also makes another grand error when he says no one asides from Wood considers the identification of Ai as Khirbet el-Maqatir, but that's an error for a different page to discuss.

It should be obvious that Jytdog's accusations come from his personal vendetta against me. His post advocating for my ban is full of mockery, and has many personal attacks (that I'm a "sinking time ship"). Jytdog has an obvious personal vendetta, where he believes a few selectively chosen edits of mine being reverted constitutes a ban.

As for Beyond My Ken, someone who is obviously neutral because he posts his comment in a calm tone and tries to judge the situation accordingly, makes good points. I did in fact seem to make an error with the open source journal JHS, and as for Dawkins' page, whether or not the source says "divorce" or "separated", Dawkins was in fact divorced with his third wife. If the source fails to reflect that, we need to get a new source that makes it clear to the reader of Wikipedia that Dawkins wasn't just "separated", a rather ambiguous term, but did in fact get divorced from Lalla Ward. See this for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3694202/Britain-s-highest-profile-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-announces-end-24-year-marriage-Dr-actress-Lalla-Ward.html Korvex (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If a source says something, we report it. If you don't agree with it, you find a different reliable source and then debate it. You don't change it and then try to find a source to fit the claim. Also DM has been determined not to be a reliable source. Try again. --Tarage (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why is Journal of Hebrew Scriptures a problem?

And why is, "(An open access journal, of course, would not be acceptable as an RS for anything except the existence of the journal and whatever editorial comments they may make, not for the material published by the journal."? You appear to be conflating open access journal with predatory open access journal. Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• They are the academic equivalent of a blog, with no guarantee of accuracy or fact checking, despite the claim to be "peer reviewed". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have extensive experience with this editor, but my brief interaction has been unpleasant: I think this editor adheres to fringe scholarship and it seems to me that they try to favor those fringey viewpoints in article space. They also seem to lack a basic understanding of how the editing process here works (note their latest revert and their comment, on Ai (Canaan) and Talk:Ai (Canaan)). Finally OH MY GOD the amount of verbiage they put on these talk pages is enough to drive one insane--and I find such verbosity typical of POV warriors and other tendentious editors/hobbyists/fringe inhabitants. So sure, I support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • PS If Korvex would only refrain from edit warring (it may be that they just don't really understand how that BRD thing works, or consensus, or whatever) they'd be in a lot less trouble. If they figure that out, or make certain promises, I might reconsider. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• In line with what the other editors here have said, Korvex's editing history has created a large amount of work for other editors. Most of Korvex's edits are not to wikipedia pages themselves, but to talk pages, where (in most cases) the result is a long and unproductive disagreement, with Korvex on one side and every other editor on the other. I have several times been one of the "other editors" in the long, drawn-out "Korvex contra mundum sessions." Korvex is focused either exclusively or almost exclusively on topics related to religion, and in general edits in an attempt to move the articles further in line with a maximalist (i.e. religiously conservative) position. In general, discussions between Korvex and other editors do not reach a resolution, and are filled with long, tedious, and consistently disrespectful posts by Korvex, in which Korvex frequently (I assume accidentally) misrepresents the contents of various cited sources and misrepresents the meaning of Wikipedia policy pages. Korvex probably has the ability to contribute to Wikipedia constructively outside of fields related to the historicity of the Bible, but given that their editing history is one long campaign of POV-pushing, often with a tone that appears to be uncivil filibustering, a TBAN would be appropriate. Otherwise, Korvex is likely to prove disruptive in the future and distract from the goal of building an encyclopaedia. If they continue editing in the present manner, other editors will be faced with the choice of either (1) repeatedly having long fruitless discussions with an angry editor, or (2) simply giving up and allowing biased editing to avoid drama. Alephb (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I support a TBAN for religion (best) but if that's determined to be too broad, I would support a TBAN for biblical history, biblical historicity, biblical studies, and/or biblical archaeology. Alephb (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC) PS: and/or ancient Egypt and the near East, broadly constructed. That would work too. Alephb (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support for TBAN Removing neutral dating and adding christocentric dating in an article on Judaism would be enough in itself to warrant a ban, even without all the other stuff. IMO, we have far too much tolerance for both civil and uncivil POV-pushers in this particular area. He doesn't like me naming him, but everyone probably knows who I'm talking about when I say we had a massively disruptive POV-pusher operating in this area for far longer than he should have been, with the admin corps apparently afraid to do much about him until he started calling evolutionists and secularists Nazis. (In case anyone doesn't know, ask Bishonen.) As far as I am concerned, the sooner problems involving the early books of the Hebrew Bible and their relationship to archeology, geology, biology and history are discovered and dealt with, the better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I think the ban should be from ancient Egypt and the Near East, broadly construed. The TBAN parameters as proposed by Jytdog are far too narrow, and actually wouldn't cover a significant amount of the disruptive behaviour described. Richard Dawkins' marital status is so far removed from the rest that I think the only way it could be covered is with a TBAN from "religion", if that's seen as necessary, but most of the other stuff appears to fall within "ancient Egypt and the Near East", though not necessarily biblical archeology. Bickering over the definition of the word "myth", for instance, has nothing whatsoever to do with archeology, and he was doing it on an article about an ancient text, which would not necessarily fall within the proposed parameters either. Ditto for the christocentric dating in an article on a Jewish topic, in contravention of WP:ERA (which has nothing whatsoever to do with archeology, and he could easily keep doing it under the proposed ban). That, plus I'm not a fan of the term "biblical archeology" to begin with -- it's dated terminology that cedes too much ground to users with the same POV as Korvex: as Christine Hayes says And it was explicitly referred to as biblical archaeology — an interesting name, because it suggests that the archaeologists were out there searching for evidence that would verify the details of the biblical text. We're doing biblical archaeology; archeology in support of the biblical text. [...] Increasingly, practitioners of what was now being termed Palestinian archaeology, or Ancient Near Eastern archaeology, or archaeology of the Levant, rather than biblical archaeology — some of these archaeologists grew disinterested in pointing out the correlations between the archaeological data and the biblical stories or in trying to explain away any discrepancies in order to keep the biblical text intact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: @Alephb: @Drmies: @Jytdog: Per my post above and Doug Weller's below, the original proposed TBAN parameter (in the thread title) doesn't appear to be broad/clear enough. Could you clarify what topic (Near Eastern [biblical] archeology; biblical history; ancient Egypt and the Near East; religion) you think Korvex should be banned from? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Consider the other side These "long and unproductive" debates have only happened with me on three single pages so far as I'm concerned. 1) Exodus 2) Ai (Canaan) 3) Book of Deuteronomy. In my initial post, I've shown 6 pages where I have made edits with either zero debate on the talk page or at most, 2 short responses, which shows the good majority of my edits have gone smoothly. I can show much more than 6, of course. Regarding my "bickering" over the word myth, that is actually a serious issue where Aleph insists on literally labeling the position of Wikipedia as the first five biblical books as fiction. This to me is unacceptable, an error, and of COURSE I have responded to it. It's hard to imagine I'd be banned from all discussion on religion because of drawn-out discussion on three pages (seriously) that have almost all ended. Lastly, if Tarage can direct me to a place where Daily Mail was deduced as unreliable, by Wikipedia standards, I would accept that. But again, producing a ban because of drawn out discussion on three pages (where two of it has entirely ceased for some time) seems rather unnecessary. Someone said I should be banned "just" for switching BCE to BC, but that was literally my first or second edit in the entirety of my Wikipedia account where I had just started editing and did not know about WP:ERA. I'd also accept from refraining edits in those 3 pages where I'm prone to engaging in debates for the next month or so, if that makes a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

For anyone trying to follow along, the reference to "Aleph" in the paragraph above is about this edit by Korvex [316], which I reverted [317]. This has spawned the latest exchange here, which went on while this ANI was already in progress: Talk:Mosaic authorship#Charter myth and recent undid edit. Alephb (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, if you push a fringe theory or make antisemitic, offensive, or non-NPOV edits, it doesn't matter how often other users have challenged you and you have fought back, resulting in "long and unproductive debates". Twice should be enough, but even by your own admission it has happened on three separate pages. If you are not a POV-pushing SPA, that should be the easiest thing in the world for you to prove; yet you have to resort to counting the number of articles on which you have gotten in massive blowouts with other editors -- what does this say? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, here´s the Daily Mail thing you wanted: [318]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've had the opportunity to interact with Korvex on one of the pages in question. I'm sure some of you are waiting for me to waffle about how he's not that bad, and a stern warning should be enough. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint, but based on what I've seen I must strongly Support a TBAN from articles on biblical history or ancient Egypt and the near East. I crossed the line of "give them another chance" when I saw them say "The exodus happened, end of discussion." And if you think that's bad (and you have any knowledge of the subject), take a look at the logic they used to arrive at that conclusion. It makes my brain itch to know that someone actually thought that was a compelling argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor MjolnirPants: It seems as if my ban on 'religion' is inevitable, but I have without question established my case for the exodus. You were unable to refute my contentions, and using our personal debate to ban me seems unproductive. You have 1) Tried to explain the Book of Exodus' vast knowledge on the geography and customs of Egypt with "maps" 2) Spent an unfortunate amount of time trying to defend the claim that nomadic migrations leave remains, after being conclusively shown to be false 3) Called Petrovich a "fringe scholar" until of course I brought up his actual credentials and 4) Conflated the abandonment of Avaris during the reign of Ahmose I with the abandonment of Avaris in the reign of Amenhotep II. So, you were indeed wrong about that, but again, this conversation had nothing to do with any actual edits -- I specifically stated my debate with you was to show your claims were wrong and that I also had no intention of adding the content I espoused into the Wiki page. You were simply incorrect about the historicity of the Exodus with me, as I was incorrect about the validity of Murdock's quote or whatnot on that mythicism page. I have offered you an opportunity to defend your responses on my Talk Page, but you were unable to because of points 1-4 that I mentioned here. And for the third time, using a personal conversation with someone to ban them from edits is not the way to do things (but again, the ban looks inevitable as of now). If you want to ever claim that I was speaking any factual errors in our personal conversation, you're going to have to bring the evidence to my Talk Page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Take a look at the above: Aside from disruptive formatting and a really frequent problem with signing their posts, the POV problems are made obvious by this apparently willful inability to distinguish between a refusal to engage and an failure to rebut. Note also that they continue to insist upon the historicity of the Exodus, not just in terms of their own belief but in terms of fact, a statement which is flatly at odds with the overwhelming scholarly consensus.

Korvex: In case you don't get it, understand that I'm not going to engage with anyone who claims they've proven me wrong by claiming I'm wrong. Every single point of fact we've discussed has been supported by citations to evidence by myself and by bald assertions by you. You have, not once in the entire brief discussion we had, provided a single shred of evidence to support any of the assertions that you claim have proven me wrong. Indeed, I see below where you continue to make wildly unsupported claims right here in this very discussion. If you think I'm going to waste any more time trying to prove you wrong when you clearly believe that it's impossible for you to be wrong, you're sadly mistaken. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Mjolnir:, you're taking this too personally. Sit back for a second. All my claims have in fact been supported by references. I gave you quotations from world-renowned scholars like Richard Hess. I've given you references to excavations by scholars like Manfred Bietak. Why does this disappear from your memory immediately after I post it? It seems you are not very open to evidence that may challenge your view on the exodus. You gave very few citations, if any. You gave some citations to some nomadic settlements, but as I repeatedly pointed out, we were discussing nomadic migrations, not nomadic settlements. You state that the overwhelming scholarly consensus is against me. Something tells me you only read minimalist literature, Mjolnir. Grand scholars like Richard Hess, James Hoffmeir, Eugene Merrill, Kenneth Kitchen would dismiss exodus ahistoricity on any day of the week. This "consensus" seems to exist only in minimalistic imagination, I plead with you not to take up the minimalist agenda as this is very self-detrimental. Again, I have provided overwhelming evidence for my positions. I am getting tired of being constantly insulted by you, being told I am making "bald assertions" and that discussion with me is a "waste of time". All the evidence is on my side. You say that you simply are not willing to respond to me, not that you actually cannot respond to me. This is rather strange, considering you posted 3 hefty responses to me earlier, and then stopped when the evidence became too overwhelming to rebut. You have called people like Petrovich "fringe scholars" in order to maintain your hypothesis. These claims are indefensible. You will not be able to defeat me regarding exodus historicity. We likely will not converse again after this, so I will give you the last word. You can either attempt to defend the historical veracity of your claims, or you can resort to name-calling again. Go ahead.Korvex (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Mjolnir:, you're taking this too personally. Sit back for a second. All my claims have in fact been supported by references. I rest my case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In light of MP's ("MPs'"?) comments in another discussion further up this page, the above should be taken pretty seriously. I'm sure some of you are waiting for me to waffle about how he's not that bad, and a stern warning should be enough is right. MP is one of the most patient, forgiving users I have seen editing in this area, so his coming down as he is here is noteworthy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

MP's would be the correct choice. MPs would be something completely different. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor MjolnirPants: Your most recent personal attacks against me are getting out of hand. You state I am "trivial to disprove" despite the fact that you were wrong on everything in our personal discussion. You are crossing the line when it comes to respect and not even backing up your statements with any evidence, I am attempting to take all your attacks against me without insulting you however you seem to think that my limiting time on Wikipedia warrants you replace your fruitless arguments in our previous discussions by attacking my character. This is absolutely not the way to have a coherent debate, you must treat your opponent with respect regardless of whether or not you have faired successfully in a debate with them. You also make an innumerable number of errors regarding your latest personal attacks on Petrovich as well. I have told you Petrovich has a PhD in syro-Palestinian Archaeology and is a professor of ancient Egypt at Wilfred Laurier University. Yet you attack him. I have shown that the book has been peer reviewed, and apparently the fact that he needed a Kickstarter to raise money to be able to find his research (Petrovich is nothing near rich) apparently disqualified that. Furthermore, fringe hypotheses are not presented at ASOR, obviously Despite all this you attack Petrovich personally. You ignore the endorsement of his book from grand scholars like Eugene Merrill and other scholars like Sarah Doherty, and conclude not only is it fringe but you warrant personal attacks against him. Your behaviour reflects that when you cannot substantively address someone, whether it is me or a scholar, you attack them. Coincidentally, Petrovich's book speaks exactly about a priori rejection of a thesis that does not affirm to ones presuppositions. When you become a professor of Ancient Egypt at Wilfrid Laurier University (funny how a supposedly fringe scholar is a professor in one of the best universities in Canada), maybe your a priori dismissal can be considered. My session on Wikipedia is nearing its end, I am happy that the large majority of my edits on numerous pages have been accepted and have mixed ideas about this coming to an end.

And this is a perfect example why a siteban is necessary. Despite your continued insistence, Petrovich's book is NOT peer reviewed. You don't seem to understand what peer review means when it comes to scholarly papers or publications. Secondly, fringe hypotheses are indeed presented at the ASOR annual meeting. They will let just about anyone who is paying ASOR member, including students, to do presentations at the annual meeting. Here's their rules: http://www.asor.org/am/2017/rules.html which no way confer any scholarly reliability to the participants. The chairs just have to find it interesting enough to present and they have a TON of slots to fill. Finally, Eugene Merrill is not a "Grand Scholar" in any way. He's a Biblical literalist who only publishes in Biblical literalist theology journals. Really only one to be frank. The one published by the seminary he was a part of. He's as fringe as fringe gets. Biblical inerrancy is fringe. That's why they have to make their own journals because their "evidence" for inerrancy would never pass the peer review of actual scholarly journals. Capeo (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Capeo: Capeo, what analysis do you speak from? EUGENE H Merill being fringe? Two of his works have been cited over a hundred times, many others with a large amount as well. Definitely a renowned Old Testament scholar by every thing I've seen about him and the influence of his academic work. Wikipedia actually has a page on him (that you did not consult) noting he is distinguished professor at Dallas Theological Seminary (a major academic institution with other leading scholars in New and Old Testament scholarship as professors like Darrel Bock and Daniel freaking Wallace). He's definitely a literalist, but so are so many other leading scholars in Old Testament scholarship that this couldn't possibly qualify as fringe. In my opinion, the top New Testament scholar in the world is N.T. Wright (search up the citations to his works and try not to explode) -- a literalist by almost any definition. So of course, a work with Merrill's name on it is by definition one that cannot be dismissed, even if found to be incorrect a year later, although I'm not aware of any scholars to have ever been correct on everything.Korvex (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved in the Petrovich stuff any more, but I am tired of being told that he is a Professor at Wilfrid Laurier. Yes, he manages to get called this in the media, but he isn't one. His academic.edu site[319] calls him an adjunct teaching Ancient Egypt(something I've told Korvex before), and the University doesn't call him professor. See this and scroll down to HI299E: ANCIENT EGYPT (WINTER) where is is given no title. But at HI121: ANCIENT HISTORY IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT (WINTER) you'll see a real professor with the title. And the course he is teaching is not a standard part of the curriculum. Note its number if HI299E, and "Courses carrying special numbers (HI299, HI346, HI496) are established when a faculty member has an interest in pursuing a topic of study that is not part of our regular course offerings." Doug Weller talk 14:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight, Doug, I don't think I would've picked up on that. I also have to say, yourself and other editors involved on the talkpages of the articles in question have shown a level of patience that goes above and beyond what I could ever do. That Exodus talkpage in particular is an example of bludgeoning on a level rarely seen. No editors should have to put up with such endless repetition of OR, SYNTH and baseless refuted claims lacking RS. It's that talkpage in particular that has me convinced that a TBAN is insufficient. Korvex doesn't seem interested in trying to understand even the most basic sourcing policies and guidelines. Capeo (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. This kind of user causes burnout because they are here to mould the encyclopaedia to fit their own worldview, and they don't permit of the possibility that their worldview is wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support a TBAN from articles on biblical history or ancient Egypt and the near East. and given his edits at Dawkins, religion. One of the issues I've had with him is misrepresenting sources. His Dawkins edits are a good example of that. First he changes "separated" to "divorced" with an edit summary "Separation is an ambiguous term and fails to reflect it was an actual divorce)". This despite the fact that the source makes no mention of divorce. He even misrepresents himself. On being accused of pushing Wood he replied that he cites other sources, such as Koert van Bekkum. Now van Bekkum seems to be a reliable source and indeed Korvex did use him, but he used him to add " "However,scholars are not entirely certain that Et-Tell is the location of Ai. Koert van Bekkum says that there is scholarly discussion on the location of several biblical cities, including Ai,[1] citing Bryant G. Wood who has recently come to identify Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir." The paragraph already mentioned Wood, stating that " Bryant G. Wood's identification has been accepted by some[12] although rejected by others." so this simply added another mention of Wood. Not only that, the mention of Wood was in a footnote which said "For literature concerning Ai and the related discussion about the identification of Bethel with el-Bireh in stead of with Beitin (172.148), see D. Livingston, ‘Further Considerations on the Location of Bethel and El-Bireh’, PEQ 126 (1994), 154-9; B.G. Wood, ‘Khirbet el-Maqatir’, IEJ 50 (2000), 123-30; 249-54; for Tel el-Umeiri and Tel Jalul as candidates for Heshbon, see S.H. Horn, ‘Heshbon’, IDBS, 410; Idem, Hesban in the Bible and in Archaeology, Berrien Springs, MI 1982, 10-1; R.D. Ibach, ‘An Intensive Survey at Jalul’, Andrews University Seminary Studies 16 (1978), 215-22; Geraty, ‘Heshbon’, 626." And given that the article was about the city of Ai, the failure to mention what van Bekkum actually said about Ai, "Et-Tell, identified by most scholars with the city of Ai, was not settled between the Early Bronze and Iron Age I." but only use a footnote mentioning Wood seemed to me, in this context, to misrepresent the source. He certainly only used it in order to get another mention fo Wood into the article, making his statement "Jytdog thinking that Wood is the only guy I cite is simply false." looking a bit - well, a bit something. He then at the talk page accused me of suggesting he was lying, something I didn't do. Which is another big problem, his continual personalisation of discussions and attacks on other editors during talk page discussions. These range from accusing User:Tgeorgescu 2 months ago of lying[320] to more recent accusations of slander[321] and another attack on Tgeorgescu[322]. He also accused User:Zero0000 of pov pushihng and misrepresenting our policies and guidelines at Talk:Ai (Canaan)#Bryant Wood and the Associates for Biblical Research.

I could provide more detail about misrepresentation, use of poor sources, WP:UNDUE, personal attacks etc but unless asked I don't want to waste even more time here. They're mentioned or discussed on the talk pages anyway. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• • I just noticed his comments last night at Talk:Mosaic authorship#Charter myth and recent undid edit which are more evidence of his unwillingness to AGF and an evident battleground mentality. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral That's now, but if nothing changes in his behavior, Korvex will receive a TBAN sooner or later, that's unavoidable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The above was advice, but seen his subsequent edits, it seems that he does not comprehend what the problem is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support for an indefinite topic ban for this persistent POV-pusher, from biblical archeology — or from biblical history and ancient Egypt and the near East and religion — indeed from any areas that otherwise gain consensus here. I'd ban him on my own responsibility if the subject was under discretionary sanctions, but since it's not, I hope the community will take care of it. The time and energy of constructive editors is Wikipedia's main resource, and is not to be squandered like that. (I know, I'm like a grammophone with that, but it's true.) As JzG says above, this kind of user causes burnout. Bishonen | talk 10:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC). Adding: After reading the further comments below, I'll support an indefinite block, too. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I hope you don't mind, but I corrected what looked like a really obvious misprint in the above comment. I guess "bibliographical archeology" is a thing (digging up ancient books like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Codices and the Dunhuang Manuscripts?), but I was 100% certain that wasn't what you meant to write. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Just at Talk:The Exodus he has written close to 20,000 words and shows no sign of slowing down. Moreover, his argumentation is rife with illogic, sophism and misrepresentation of sources. He believes what he believes and arguing against him is useless. He needs to be disappeared from any topic connected to religion and the bible, which includes archaeology of the Middle East and the history of languages. Zero^talk 12:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Zero. That I show "no sign of slowing down" is, I find to be not correct, as all my conversations on the Talk Page of the Exodus have finished. As for the history of languages, I understand religions, but history of languages? Are you referring to Doug's book again, in which the thesis of it has been peer-reviewed and presented to the American Schools of Oriental Research, as well as confirmed by grand scholars like Eugene Merrill? You seem to be trying to take this ban thing from religion and trying to extend over topics that you have not conformed with your personal disagreements with me, and are attempting to extend it over topics that I have made not a single attempt to edit for. Korvex (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• It looks as if the ban is inevitable with so many people against me. I have already admitted that I have had drawn-out conversations (that have all ended by the timing of this post) on three different pages, and perhaps that warrants the ban. But I will in fact defend myself from accusations of actual errors and illogical content that I wanted to add in the edit, as I considered my edits to be true, and therefore wanted to add them into Wikipedia (for examples, Dawkins did in fact get divorced from Lalla, but because the sources used the synonymous word 'separated' in this event, this edit of mine was blocked, and is now considered evidence I'm a POV-pusher). This is not the place to defend my edits, so if anyone thinks I have made factual errors regarding the truth of what I actually wanted to add in Wikipedia can discuss that with me on my talk page. Anyways, I do have a point of view (everybody does), and maybe I have indeed taken it too far twice or thrice. I will accept the verdict of the admins on this issue.Korvex (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Korvex, my question to you is whether this criticism (and I know it's not easy to handle so much of it, sorry) makes any sense to you. Specifically, do you see how the totality of your edits seem to evidence a POV, and how that particular POV is considered fringe? or at least not neutral? or, maybe, less neutral than the non-biblical archeological perspectives? Drmies (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • For me the problem with the Dawkins edits are not so much that you are for some reason now looking at atheists and atheism (given your post at Talk:Atheism) but that you are still misrepresenting sources. We do not decide for ourself what a source "really means" (you didn't say those words but you implied them). This type of use of sources is a constant problem with you. And your reply to Zero about Douglas Petrovich's book is another. You keep making exaggerated statements. His "thesis" has not been peer-reviewed in any way that I recognise, his book has so far not received a review so far as I know other than this one and you haven't produced one, and his thesis, that Hebrew is the basis of the world's oldest alphabet[323][324] is definitely not widely accepted. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, yes, I understand and admit that 2-3 of my edits did in fact POV push. I fully admit this and if I receive a ban, I accept the ban I will be given. I can do nothing my past actions except for admit my mistakes. As for Petrovich, I don't know what this has to do with discussion on my ban but I will respond. Regarding Petrovich as not having his work peer-reviewed, this is incorrect -- Petrovich's publishers have peer-reviewed it. I even found some of his discussion with supporters of the funding of his book to be published that this is correct. It has also been presented to the American Schools of Oriental Research - see pages 105-106 - which is significant and definitely makes it "reliable", because the prestige of the ASOR is not easily equaled by most journals. Doug, you also point out the book only has one 'review' -- but it has already spurred discussion from people who accept it (Eugene Merrill, Sarah Doherty, I think that new chronology guy David Rohl also accepts it, Carr) and from those who do not accept it (Christopher Rollston, Thomas Shneider). Some of these names are pretty big, Doug. If you actually take a look at the current debate existing on the subject, you'll see that the evidence is heavily stacked in favor of Petrovich's side -- I have read all the positive and negative discussion. The proto-consonantal script has names only attested to in the Hebrew language (like Ahisemech), for example. Lastly, I don't know if express.co.uk is considered reliable by Wikipedia, but I found an article there that uses the phrase "their 24-year marriage is at an end" to describe what happened between Dawkins and Lalla. I will not use it to try to make an edit considered the current situation I'm in, but if express.co.uk is considered a reliable source, I will happily send the source to the editor who wants to add it in to Dawkins' page.Korvex (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, the problem with your edits and behavior to date, as my OP lays out, is that you have abused your editing privileges to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX, to promote your view that the Bible presents history. Every one of your edits to religious-related article is about that one POV. This is not OK in WP -- WP:SOAPBOX is fundamental WP policy. This is what many WP:SPA accounts do, and they end up wasting everyone's time with endless wrangles on Talk pages. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here to advocate for a specific point of view. That is the problem. Yes as you noted, everybody has a point of view but we ask everyone to set that aside when they log in, and edit neutrally. (This is discussed in the NPOV policy at WP:YESPOV) People who cannot do that, get topic banned. Please read those three wikilinks already in this post, along with the essays WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:Civil POV pushing. You have been doing all those things. Drmies is hopeful that you can have the self-insight to see this and the follow-on hope that having seen it, you might be able to rectify it. So far you are not seeing the problem, nor acknowledging the problem, and I realize that I didn't link to any of those in my OP, hence my providing them here. Please do read them and reflect on them, and then read what people have written here again, and then reply here again. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Korvex is using this forum to try and rehash the entire Petrovich controversy is exactly why this TBAN is appropriate. There have already been long discussions in which a number of editors have discussed why they dismiss Petrovich as not being WP:RELIABLE. Korvex wrote long angry essays, misrepresenting the situation repeatedly, and got nowhere in convincing anyone else to accept the reliability of Petrovich's book that he himself hadn't even seen yet and which has never been reviewed in any scholarly outlet. The fact that he would use this discussion of his behavior to begin beating that dead horse again is a perfect illustration of how he operates and continues to show no sign of moving in a more productive direction. He has said nothing new here that he hasn't already said, at much greater length and with a harsher tone, on the talk pages already discussed above. Alephb (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

To editor Alephb: I request you scroll up, considering I was absolutely not the one who brought up Petrovich. I quite literally said Petrovich had nothing to do with this discussion before responding. Again, I did not bring this up. I have admitted to the POV pushing already. Couldn't be bothered going through contribs to find the date and time, but this was obviously Korvex (talk · contribs). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Does it look to anyone else like Korvex is now deliberately trolling this ANI thread? I "Ctrl+F"ed Petrovich's name, and unless someone else strategically misspelled it, Korvex was indeed the first to bring him up here. And even if that was not the case, mentioning Petrovich's name isn't even the problem; it's the continued arguing over it (which again, only Korvex has been doing). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed site ban

• Based on my interactions with Korvex at Talk:The Exodus and here, I'm also going to have to propose and support an indefinite site ban. Korvex repeatedly makes statements of fact which are trivial to disprove, doesn't bother to provide sources for the vast majority of their claims, generally provides poor sources when they do, misinterprets those few acceptable sources they use, laces their comments with hyperbole, and continuously makes bad faith accusations against any and all who disagree with them. Those problems might be most apparent in one particular topic, but they are problems which have the potential to affect any article they work on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• After looking into this a bit more I have to agree with MP above that a site ban is what's needed though I'd support a very broad TBAN as well. On the Ai page Korvex showed no understanding of BRD or consensus and somehow thought because they disagreed with an edit, and brought it to the talk page, that somehow gave them impunity to repeatedly revert against consensus. That talk page and the responses above also display that they have no grasp of what an RS is and resort to OR and SYNTH continuously. Just in the response to Drmies above there is a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes a scholarly RS. Petrovich had to resort to a Kickstarter campaign to get his book published and in no way shape or form do publishers do scholarly peer review. The OR about reading some discussion somewhere about it is meaningless. Korvex then links to the program for the ASOR annual meeting, not either of the actual journals ASOR publishes, but a program. Giving a presentation (among hundreds) at the ASOR annual meeting in no way confers reliability to the presenter or indicates that their views represent the scholarly consensus. Having other fringe pushing scholars (with no sources to back that up BTW) support a fringe view in no way confers reliability either. Petrovich has articles on Creation Ministries International's website claiming proof of Biblical inerrancy. His views are extremely fringe. That Korvex doesn't see that gives me little hope they will every understand WP sourcing requirements. Capeo (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban - I really don't think a topic ban, even if it covers multiple subjects, if going to be sufficient. My observation is that this editor appears to be incapable of editing in the manner that Wikipedia requires, and will do so in whatever topic he moves on to. His problem -- as is true with many FRINGErs and POV-pushers -- is in his mindset, and no topic ban is going to change that. For the benefit of the closer, my support for a site ban should be considered to be inclusive of support for topic bans for all the subjects noted here, should the site ban not become the consensus choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban mainly based on behaviour in this thread. Accuse other Wikipedians of "personal attacks" for pointing out that this or that scholar holds a fringe view is simply unacceptable. I also think that, if he ever wants to come back and appeal the site ban, he should still be subject to the topic ban, so consider me a support for both separately. Would that it were this easy to deal with all users who falsely and repeatedly claim All my claims have in fact been supported by references. at ANI. I guess some topics aren't as sexy as so-called biblical archeology. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban - moved to this from my original topic ban support after seeing the further discussions - this should be inclusive of the topic bans. He continually ignores other editors and repeats the same arguments no matter what others have said, and as others have said above this behavior would simply spread to other areas if he remains as an editor. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support for TBAN or site ban-This is an obvious and blatant POV pusher who is not here to build an encyclopedia but to fight for the truth. Editors such as this drive away others who are more productive by wearing patience to the bone, imo it is ridiculous how long such editors are tolerated in these areas, no wonder actual scholars do not spend time on WP, who wants to deal with such timesinks over and over?Smeat75 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban - for the reasons I previously stated in my support of a TBAN. At the time, I did not know the site ban was an option, so I supported the TBAN. Because of Korvex's history and his behavior here, I think a site ban would be an even better option, allowing us to focus on building an encyclopedia again, instead of having to repeatedly clear up the half-dozen misrepresentations / personal attacks per paragraph, multiplied across seemingly unending discussions, that we have seen so far from Korvex. Alephb (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• I don't object Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban mainly based on Korvex' inability/unwillingness to understand what is required in order for a source to be considered reliable. For instance, what is and isn't a "peer review" was explained in this discussion in early February and yet Korvex claims that he has "shown that (Petrovich's) book has been peer reviewed", basing his definition of a "peer review" on the same premise that was shown to be faulty in the previous discussion. I can't help thinking that Korvex doesn't want to hear about some rather central concepts, such as verifiability and consensus discussions, not to mention civility - and that is not something that can easily be confined by a topic ban. I have not ran across Korvex before, but have devoted some time to reading back on previous discussions, in particular the ones from the past few months, and so my opinion is based on that. --bonadea contributions talk 23:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.