Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    WP:COP-related CfD closure review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Similar

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

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

    Forward

    Are we in agreement about these points:

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

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

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

    False accusation and personal attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mass salting

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

    I think User:Shirt58 is already on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please provide me with a list, by email if desired. I am looking at this sockmaster for other reasons. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    @Rich Farmbrough: Deletions for MER HAYRENIK here (tagged with the username), for SizinGünbəzDoqquz here (tagged G5, KunoxTxa). I don't have comprehensive list for Ramzan Kadiryan, unfortunately. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll build this information in tomorrow, semi-protecting these would be sensible instead/as well. I am picking up a lot from existing EF logs too. The red-linked players from FC Pyunic are already in the EF, even the Armenian WP does not have articles about them yet (except one). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Rangeblock request to contain excessive sockpuppetry by User:KunoxTxa

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

    Recent socks
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    1. Aslan Tkhakushinyan (talk · contribs) no contribs
    2. Axırıncı Dayananadamov (talk · contribs) no contribs
    3. Beynəlxalq Oğraşov (talk · contribs) no contribs
    4. Dometoyanine (talk · contribs)
    5. Doqquz Sizingünbəzov (talk · contribs)
    6. Fortytoyadome (talk · contribs)
    7. Hasan Alakhverdov (talk · contribs)
    8. Kek69 (talk · contribs)
    9. Mənimyemək Böyükdöşlərov (talk · contribs) no contribs
    10. MER HAYRENIK (talk · contribs) no contribs
    11. MherHzzor (talk · contribs) no contribs
    12. Ninetoyodome (talk · contribs) no contribs
    13. Onehittaquitta (talk · contribs)
    14. PyunikToghik (talk · contribs)
    15. Qalın Pişikov (talk · contribs)
    16. Quru Yanğınov (talk · contribs) no contribs
    17. Ramazan Abdulatipyan (talk · contribs)
    18. Ramzan Kadiryan (talk · contribs) no contribs
    19. SizinGünbəzDoqquz (talk · contribs) no contribs
    20. TheNinetoyadomeKilla (talk · contribs)
    21. Vəhşi Həyatov (talk · contribs)
    22. Yunus-bek Yevkuryan (talk · contribs) no contribs

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

    Many of these haven't edited. It would take some analysis to see the type of edits and establish if it's worth setting up an edit filter. A range block would require checkuser info, and does sound like it would not be a good idea. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    @Rich Farmbrough: Check their deleted edits. The creation of inappropriate articles is one of the hallmarks of this editor. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a limited view of deleted edits, not being an admin at the moment. I have set up a draft edit filter entitled Armenian football vandal, but there's more work needed to make it truly effective. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Terms of Use

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

    I am concerned about this for four reasons:

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

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

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

    I assume you read the FAQ? It seems that you do have to disclose your employer/client, or don't get paid for editing. On the other hand, the policy does not allow other editors to engage in outing, harassment, or other violations of policy.- MrX 02:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. That FAQ could do with a copyedit (Corp?). And in this case it may not be that helpful, since Corp doesn't work for Acme, but for Hip&Hype's PR firm, so on whose behalf is he supposed to claim to be editing? I'm inclined to say Acme, still, since that's the ultimate beneficiary of Corp's work here (and all the hours I've donated to his service)--which means he wouldn't be required to name the agency he's working for. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: I would say that the Terms of Use do require disclosure of the PR agency and the article-subject and my own business name, which would prohibit me from contributing anonymously entirely. However, as you indicated, I got the impression that this was just poor copyediting due to an overzealous response to Wiki-PR. I didn't think it was ever intended to be used against someone that has disclosed a conflict of interest.
    Do you mean to say that my "thank yous" aren't payment enough for your time? ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 02:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Yes the FAQ needs its own FAQ. Here's the salient sentence: "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." - MrX 02:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way CorporateM has summarized this is disturbing. First, I haven't "focused [my] efforts on finding additional negative information to add to the page." I've pointed out to CM, as has Doc James, that a Cochrane report concluded that there is insufficient information available for them to reach a conclusion about Invisalign's efficacy. This is clearly stated in the review's conclusion.
    That apart, CM has been hired by a PR firm to rewrite the article. He has completed, or almost completed, the rewrite, which he had two other editors add for him. He has not disclosed who he is working for, but the terms of use require this (see WP:PAYDISCLOSE:

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

    I have asked CM to abide by the terms of use. This came to my attention, by the way, because he was edit-warring with Doc James. He ought not to be editing the article directly, and getting into battles with a medical expert on a health-related article is not a good idea. Sarah (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Terms of Use are fairly clear on this topic. CM is obligated to disclose the information he objects to disclosing if he wishes to edit for pay on Wikimedia projects (other than Commons and...I think maybe Russian Wikipedia? Something like that). The choice is to disclose or to not edit in a manner that requires disclosure; while I'm sympathetic to CM feeling put-upon by this, it's really not much to ask that the community be made aware of what, exactly, the relevant COI is if someone wants us to give them the extraordinary level of trust involved in letting them edit on behalf of article subjects. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) ETA (to clarify): Employer, client, and affiliation can all be different, and thus be different COIs. If I work for PR Agency Y, which is hired by Social Media Company X, to run an ad campaign on behalf of Corporation Z, each step in that chain is relevant to the community's ability to evaluate my work for any COI about Y, X, or Z. Just saying "I have a COI" or "I work for PR Agency Y" or even "I'm editing on behalf of Z" doesn't give us enough information to figure out where all/any issues might be arising in the edits. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that there is anything unclear here. The ToU require that you disclose all three "employer, client, *and* affiliation" (my emphasis). Of course if there is only the employer involved, then all you need to declare is the employer, but the PR firm is involved in this - you are affiliated with them if you accept direction from them, or you direct them, or even if you just report to the employer together. "Affiliation" is a very broad term, and we must assume that the WMF put it in the ToU intentionally. We cannot change this rule or interpret this how we feel is "fairest." We must interpret it in the most straight-forward way. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to go in a slightly different direction. Our enforcement of the paid editing aspects of the ToU is erratic at best, and in practice I think the focus should be on keeping to the intent rather than the letter. We also need to balance privacy issues with disclosure. Personally, I'd be extremely happy to see clearly stated disclosures somewhere where people will actually see them, denoting that there is a paid editing COI and the nature of the COI, and if that was there I would care a lot less about knowing the client's name.
    With that said, unless WP forms a clear policy on how to handle the ToU, it is going to be difficult to argue that people should enforce some aspects and not others. (Noting that it has proven hard enough to get a consistent idea on how it enforce it in the first place). - Bilby (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Foundation's terms of use FAQ is clear about this issue: "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." See m:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure, point 1.8. Sarah (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the ToU backwards. :) My problem is that we are doing a poor job of implementing it, and the community has some radically different ideas (all the way to ArbCom) about how we should enforce it, if at all. In that scenario, I can't recommend that people ignore the ToU, but I'd like to at least be following the intent if we fail at the letter.
    The question for us is how to balance our long-held principle of not requiring outing of editors and respecting their privacy, while still meeting our needs for disclosure of paid editing. I'm worried that people willing to do everything they can to meet the ToU while still retaining some privacy will get burnt, while those who ignore the ToU terms completely get away with no sanctions at all. - Bilby (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full disclosure required per SV, Fluffernutter and Smallbones. The TOU is straightforward and clear, and that it might interfere with a particular editor's particular situation is irrelevant. CorporateM, you brought this here despite knowing precisely what the TOU says, which implies that you're looking for a personal pass on the policy. I suggest that is inappropriate, that you disclose it all per the TOU, and return to what I am assured is your excellent work for the project. BMK (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above, really. I can only advise you that if you feel that revealing the client's name will in some way compromise them, that you decline the work. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full disclosure can be, 'Subject's PR firm' I don't agree with several others. The Statement "If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client." is fulfilled by specifically identifying the client and stating that you are hired by "their PR firm" - that "identifies the PR firm", sufficient to fulfill the TOU obligation. Fluffernutter, who I usually agree with is only correct that we would have to know the name of the PR firm, if the user is hired to edit the article on the PR firm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WRT the issue at hand full disclosure is required. They need to state both the PR firm and the subject paying the PR firm (some may have multiple PR firms working for them). Corporate's statements above raise additional concerns of competence and promotional editing. CorporateM states "she cited a source where all the information on Invisalign was positive" Now lets look at the conclusions of the source in question "this review has revealed that there was no evidence from RCTs to show that one intervention was superior to another". How is that a positive conclusion?
    Corporate raises the concern of bullying as to why they should be exempt from the terms of use. As someone who has had 300 of their colleagues emailed by paid editors. And had tweets send to their university stating they should reprimand for their work on electronic cigarettes I sympathise. But Corporate your editing is not on your own behalf but on behalf of someone else. We the community deserve to know who is paying for your efforts so that we can appropriately address your edits. Our readers deserve to know aswell. Should CorporateM be banned from paid editing if they decide not to disclose? I would say yes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What material difference does it make whether we know the name of this PR firm, if we know that their work is being paid for by the subject of the article? I feel like we have an editor who is doing this the right way - as those good articles will attest - and we're shitting on them all the same. I don't dispute that the Terms of Use require full disclosure. Rather, I'm saying that in this case they are harming the encyclopedia by getting rid of what appears to be a good editor who is committed to following our policies and creating good content. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full disclosure required. How the heck is this even a question? It's the Terms of Use. It is the legal agreement you agree to follow in order to use the site. It says you need to disclose. Your options are disclose or leave. Pick one. If you have a problem with those being the only options, you should be talking to the legal team, not to miscellaneous Wikipedians who are not in any way, shape or form, as a group or individually, qualified to introduce exceptions to a legal policy. This is, honestly, baffling. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have my own COI here, because I offered to be CorporateM's mentor through WP:Cooperation several years ago. I did so because CM was completely transparent about his intentions and (uniquely) asked for guidance on how to do this ethically. While our mentor/mentee relationship has been completed, I still feel a sense of responsibility (sort of as an older brother) for his growth in the project. During our association, the user has consistently demonstrated willingness to follow 5P, policies and guidelines and when seeing a contradiction, has always asked for guidance from the community, as he has in this thread. He has found his own way on the tightrope called the bright line, and is widely respected because he has not abused the privilege. It could be reasonably argued that CM wears the whitest hat of all paid editors on Wikipedia. I say all this not for any special handling, but to give context to his request in this thread. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Three issues here:[reply]
    • 1. In a way, Wikipedia's (and the foundation's) rules for COI and paid editing have grown up around CorporateM. The ToU FAQ linked above is fifteen months old; CM has been editing in a paid capacity for much longer. His request here today (as noted by Bilby and Alanscottwalker above) is about balancing the ToU need for personal privacy with the ToU need for full disclosure. This is important not just to CM, but to Wikipedia. If the community makes it impossible for an honest COI editor to function under the ToU, then we're encouraging such editors to participate without full disclosure (as I suspect the vast majority of paid advocates usually do). BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone is saying that CorporateM is a black hat or that he has bad intentions. But I also don't think the choice is between asking paid editors to disclose (and keep editing) or to lie to us (and keep editing). We can't stop paid editors lying to us, and I don't doubt that there are many doing so, but the ToU are in place so that if a paid editor does lie to us by failing to disclose the required information, we can revoke their ability to keep editing on that basis. That would be a loss to the project in CM's case, but the choice is the paid editor's: disclose, stop editing because you value your privacy more than your ability to accept money for edits, or don't disclose and know that when someone notices, you will lose your editing privileges and/or be restricted in some way (and thus lose at least some of your ability to accept money for edits). Either of the first two choices are entirely valid and I wouldn't blame anyone for making the second; the third choice is the road you go down if you decide you're not bound by the ToU we all agree to by using the site. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2. There are many acceptable forms which balance the need for privacy with the need for disclosure. If I create a new alt account but wish to keep it off my user page for one legitimate reason or another, disclosing to a checkuser or arb is sufficient to stay within policy. When for whatever reason the foundation needs an editor to self-identify, we do it directly, not publicly. When we're dealing with BLP issues, an OTRS ticket is sufficient documentation the subject has given input. For copyright issues, an OTRS ticket can document permission from rights holders. In this case, I believe a disclosure statement (possibly through OTRS) stating complete information has been given to a responsible party (like ARBCOM or the WMF) could suffice to meet ToU. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions". "Telling arbcom" is not on that list; every single part of that list has one thing in common and that is that the disclosure is public. Ironholds (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3. As to the conflict between a paid editor and MEDRS issues, I'll decline to advocate CM's position. I've been wondering when such an issue would arise. It was inevitable some client would put the paid editor in a position where the company's need for precision conflicted with existing medical documentation. BusterD (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "need for precision conflicted with existing medical documentation"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for my delay in responding. I may have used imprecise language myself. I intended to say something along the lines of "the client's desired language versus the language used in independent peer-reviewed studies". BusterD (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The official WMF FAQ says it is sufficient to say "I work for (company)" which makes sense, Asking for precise personal details about anyone is a violation of WP:OUTING as we all know. And if the WMF example is that straightforward, so the answer here should be. [15] " For example, before saving your edits to a Wikipedia article about your client, X, you may write this note in the edit summary box: "X has hired me to update their Wikipedia article" or "I work for X."" which clearly does not say that you need do more to identify what the exact COI might be.

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

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

    What we are asking for is CorporateM to state who is paying him for the article Invisalign. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He clearly identified the company as "Align Technology" in case you missed it. " have a conflict of interest with Invisalign in that I'll be working with Align Technology' and their PR agency to help improve the article " fully complies with the WMF FAQ statement - and was posted 9 January 2014. What more did you wish to have? Collect (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of the PR firm was requested. I guess the question is is this one of the PR firms that has been banned from Wikipedia? And if so is them hiring CorporateM okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where the FAQ contradicts the Terms of Use, it's likely that the TOU applies, not the FAQ. The FAQs are really shitty, but the Terms of Use are pretty unambiguous in that you need to specify employer and client, not employer or client. WilyD 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (EC)It really is irrelevant unless you want to try to change this part of the ToU in the specified manner (e.g. notify WMF first that you are trying to modify the ToU). The ToU exist and trump all other policies, and we can only try to change them in a very specific manner (e.g. not here). I don't believe that the ToU contradict our policy on Outing (it's voluntary whether to be a paid editor after all, the ToU only state a few minimum requirements of what you have to do if you want to be a paid editor). But if the Outing policy and the ToU did contradict each other, the Outing policy would have to change.
    Taken out of context, it might seem that the ToU causes some strange situations involving other rules. But I believe that the ToU are a rock. They stop some things head-on. They also might get in the way of doing certain things, but can be avoided with a bit of contortion. If the contortion seems bizarre, that is not the fault of the ToU, it is the fault of the contortionist. If people fail to follow our rules, that is not a reason to revoke the rules.
    CorporateM now has a choice. He can follow the advice overwhelmingly given here, or he can stop paid editing, or he might even be able to go to WMF legal and request a waiver. (I do believe that the WMF has the power to give such a waiver, or at least to ignore what they consider petty violations of the ToU; but I don't think they would give a waiver in this case). Going to WMF legal works both ways of course. Any editor could go to WMF legal and request that the ToU be enforced in this case, which likely would result in CorpM backing down, or even being banned. I won't make such a request, but there's nothing we can do to stop somebody else from doing it. It's CorpM's choice. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I do think that everybody would prefer that we take care of it ourselves. And we do have the power to enforce the WP:TOU since they are Wikipedia policy. Of course the WMF also has the power to enforce the ToU. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we do not have the power to introduce an exemption, and that is what CorporateM is asking for. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full disclosure is required. According to the terms of use, this includes naming "employer, client, and affiliation". In the case at hand, the terms of use require CorporateM to disclose his employer (the PR firm in question), the client (which hired the PR firm), and his affiliation (as a paid editor). All three are required. The focus on "outing" is really misguided here. "Outing", in Wikipedia-speak, refers to the involuntary posting of personal information. In this case, it is completely voluntary for CorporateM to act as a paid editor. He can choose not to do so, in which case no personal information is required. Equating his ethical responsibility to disclose his employer with involuntary "outing" is just ridiculous.

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

    Questionable editing by CorporateM

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

    WRT canvassing

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

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

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

    • Re: canvassing accusations. I replied on my talk page: "CorporateM works by asking editors to review and approve content he's suggested / written, so that he doesn't violate COI policies adding potentially promotional or problematic content by himself. I've reviewed many of his contributions these past years, and he has taken to directly asking me if the requested edits template is taking a long time (several months) or if something requires more than adding a single sentence. I don't find this canvassing, but rather asking for help to do something which our policies suggest he'd best avoid doing himself."
    I read and review things he has requested I look at as a neutral party, and my previous interactions with him allow WP:APPNOTE exceptions ("On the user talk pages of concerned editors. ... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)"; i.e. his possible COI areas). He asked me to write neutral content for the article ("I know it's a big ask, but I thought if you had some time to spend doing this last leg of the article, it would be a huge help to all parties involved.") similar to what I had done on a previous situation. That is all. It's not canvassing.
    I refused to write said content not because of his COI (in fact, I didn't notice the link to User:CorporateM/Invisalign until now), but because I am uncomfortable writing about medical issues. I firmly believe that if editors interested in the article discuss things, they can work everything out. I have no comment on the appropriateness of reversions, on either side. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This was discussed at the edit-warring board. The article said "As of 2005," whereas there were sources on the Talk page to say "As of 2014". I tagged "As of 2005" with a "needs updating" and mentioned on Talk that there were several sources that could be used to update this to "As of 2014". I'm sorry that I reverted, but I was very frustrated by Doc's extensive efforts to prevent me from even being able to communicate such a trivial issue and prevent any contributions from me that would alter the version he wrote.
    Just to be clear nobody is contesting that the last systematic review was "inconclusive", but Doc's contributions make it sound like an alt-med article. A professional in a related field verified that dentists require a lower barrier of evidence than real medicine and the sources do say that Invisalign is proven effective for certain types of cases, but is less effective than braces in some other cases. Also, that review is ten years old. This is a product that relies heavily on computer technology and ten years ago people were using floppy drives still. I don't think it should be the only thing in the lead to summarize the entire body of medical literature.
    There are literally only three MEDRS sources published in the last five years, per WP:MEDDATE.[1][2][3] If anyone wants to get involved in the article itself, I'd really encourage you to take a look at those sources. Since there are literally just three sources, it wouldn't be hard to just read three articles, add their contents to the article and get a sense of what's representative of all three. CorporateM (Talk) 16:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Y, Yu; Al., Et (November 9, 2012). "Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment. - PubMed". NCBI. Retrieved August 10, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
    2. ^ Malik, Ovals; McMullin, Allbhe; Waring, David (April 2013). "Invisible Orthodontics Part 1: Invisalign" (PDF). Dental Update. PMID 23767109.
    3. ^ Kuncio, DA (March 2014). "Invisalign: current guidelines for effective treatment". The New York state dental journal. 80 (2): 11–4. PMID 24851387.
    So you are stating that dentistry does not need to follow "evidence based" science? That when a systematic review concludes that there is no high quality evidence to support something, because that something is dentistry it is no longer significant and we should just include what "expert opinion" has claimed?
    Alt med practitioners have also argued that they should not be held to evidence based standards but I disagree with you that the majority of dental practitioners would make this request for their profession. Some dental measures are supported by the highest quality evidence such as powered toothbrushes.[18] Stating when a measure does not have high level support is something we do equally for medical, dental and alt med topics. Just because something does not have high level support does not mean that we should not do it. But we should at least know it does not have high level evidence supporting it when we do.
    Corporate is attempting to misuse WP:MEDDATE. In a poorly research areas such as this we still include older high quality sources. We specifically say "A newer source which is of lower quality does not necessarily supersede an older source of higher quality."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe if someone compares the recent medical literature to the article they would find that the article needs further expansion to meet GA requirements for comprehension and is unfair. I want to encourage people to actually read the sources and make bold edits. We need more editors to get involved in the article in a sustained and in-depth manner. I don't oppose the inclusion of the 2005 item, which is mentioned in current medical literature from 2014 (hence "As of 2014" rather than "As of 2005"). I disagree with it being the only thing included to the exclusion of all else. I don't think the sources require a medical professional to interpret. CorporateM (Talk) 16:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    He has a very strong opinion about paid editing and most of his editing on this page appears to be driven by that. Again, I want to encourage folks to read the sources and edit boldly! There is so much emphasis on wanting to prove that paid editing is bad or this myth that I'm trying to censor the 2005 item. I want to encourage editors as strongly as I possibly could to just read the sources. Please read the sources! Read them! Please!
    Edit boldly, add their information objectively and completely. Then from your opinion after reading the sources for yourself. This shouldn't be a competition for whos reputation is better than the other. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this recent interaction I did not really have an opinion on disclosed paid editing. Your attempts to dissuade me from editing the article are not appreciated.[19]
    That you state that "most of his editing on this page appears to be driven" by his position on paid editing is bollocks. In my initially edits I added a Cochrane review that was missing. I added the most recent systematic review at that time. I added a 2014 review of the literature. At the same time I removed a bunch of primary sources. This is what I do on thousands of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference all the MEDRS sources published in the last five years are here:
    I can also provide some older ones, if you feel there is not enough current medical literature and we need to dig older. CorporateM (Talk) 17:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CM, you're representing yourself here as the only neutral person, when the opposite is true. There are competence issues – understanding certain terms, how to read medical papers, how to use MEDRS, etc. Doc James is trying to make sure the article reflects the high-quality sources. Sarah (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just do not get it. I mentioned a new systematic review that come out in 2014 above and yet CorporateM still claims their are only three reviews? The have ignored my explanation of the difference between a literature review and a systematic review. I have brought up his misuse of WP:MEDDATE which others commented on here and yet they continue just as before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaving aside the issues of sourcing, I'm shocked by the spectacle of CorporateM repeatedly reverting Doc James on an article where CorporateM has a financial conflict of interest. According to our guidelines, he should not be editing the article at all, much less revert-warring with an unpaid volunteer. I would have blocked CorporateM if I had seen this happening in real time, and for the avoidance of doubt, I will block him the next time I see something like this happen. It's completely unacceptable. MastCell Talk 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citation for "should not be editing the article at all", please. Even WP:NOPAY says "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral", not "you are forbidden from ...". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All three of these sources are currently used in the article and nobody has contested their MEDRS compliance. Though someone reading them may have to look up a term or two, they are easy to understand. @MastCell: Please accept my apologies for edit-warring. I was very frustrated by the situation. I will not do it again. It was my understanding that the benefit of COI compliance was AGF, which I did not receive. CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have long had the same concern as Doc James about CorporateM's practice of asking individual editors to review proposed edits. The way this goes is, a request is made, and sometimes an editor decides to implement the proposed edit -- and sometimes the editor decides not to implement the proposed edit. The result is that if CorporateM asks enough editors, eventually he finds someone willing to implement the proposed edit. This business of asking for favours really needs to stop. Form consensus via discussion on the article talk page, and if consensus is present then CorporateM can use the request-edit template. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another issue that has concerned me is mixing volunteer and paid roles. I've seen CM begin work on an article as a volunteer, make edits of interest to the subject (reverting their COI edits or making edits that they like), then come into contact with the subject off-wiki and start editing on their behalf for pay. This is a difficult practice to negotiate ethically. I would like to see CM not accept a paid role once he has worked on an article as a volunteer. Sarah (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WMF's position

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

    Response left on Philippe's talk page by Jacob Rogers. Probably not the answer you were hoping for, CorporateM. And sadly, I think the answer will result in more and more paid editors using socks and deceptive techniques. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jrogers (WMF) has confirmed that "the Terms of Use are pretty clear on this one. You need to disclose your 'employer, client, and affiliation.' If those three things are different (say you are employed by PR company X, your client is person Y, and you are affiliated with company Z) you would need to disclose all three." [20] Sarah (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not buy the arguement that we should not require proper discloser because if we do people will simply sock. One could apply this sort of rational to all sorts of rules. For example why disallow socking when we have no mechanism to prevent it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say to ignore TOU (and clearly so), I said that increased socking is surely one of the outcomes, whether we like it or not, as it makes it more difficult to be a COI editor in a legitimate way. I'm no doctor, but I've gone 1500 SPI blocks behind me, including 300 in one case alone having to do with with paid editing. The reaction by those with power was enough to make me stop working the cases altogether. We can demand all we want, but it is foolish to pretend there is no negative consequences from the policy, just as it is foolish to think the Foundation really cares about COI socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dennis Brown yes agree there is a concern of increased socking. And yes we do have a fair number of paid editors that use through away accounts to write promotional articles. Do we know how many legitimate COI editors we have? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if there is a template of some kind that they can use, or would use, so to be honest, I don't think we know how many declared paid editors we have with any precision. The same with socks. I'm conservatively guessing 20k accounts created, but that is probably too low by a mile. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that this is the end of the line on this question. The community certainly can help enforce Wikipedia policies, and there is no question that WP:TOU are policy. Corp has gone over our heads on this (which is his right) and the answer has come back the same. It's time to invoke WP:PAYTALK and end this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are going to enforce this, so be it. But more problem is that if we create an environment where it is far more favourable to engage in covert paid editing than it is to try to work within the ToU, we create a situation where we have no hope of ever managing paid editing. Prohibition on its own doesn't work. Control should have been the target. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Control-rather-than-prohibition is the point of the disclosure requirement (at least to my interpretation): we can't stop you from paid editing, and we're not necessarily seeking to ban paid editing, but if you're going to edit for pay, we require you provide us with enough information to neutrally evaluate your paid edits when you make them. If you follow this requirement, your company can send (competent) paid editors to your article and know they're not doing anything wrong. If you don't follow this requirement, your employee will find themselves blocked and you will find yourself with PR disaster on your hands. There's very little potential loss in disclosing a paid editing COI - sure, your edits might get reverted if they're bad quality, but they're just about as likely to be reverted anyway if you fly under the radar, because our patrollers are like that - and a lot of potential loss in being caught not disclosing one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It should absolutely be that way. But no one has adequately explained why the identity of the PR Firm acting as a go-between is relevant, when the fact that the subject is paying the editor for their work is fully and explicitly acknowledged. That is the disclosure that seems most important, and it does not appear to have been lacking here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know if it's irrelevant, if we don't know what the other company/s involved in this is/are? We can't fully evaluate the content he (or any paid editor) is working on to see whether it's neutral with regard to the people paying him to do it if we don't know who the people paying him to do it are. Quite possibly it's irrelevant in this case and nothing CM has done has anything to do with, let's call it Jane Doe, Inc. who's the connection between places like Invisilign and him. But until we have that disclosure, we simply have no way to know if that's the case or not, so we need paid editors to disclose these connections so we're able to identify the cases where it does turn out to be relevant. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed solution

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

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

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

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

    • I'd like you to be explicit about what you considering disclosing "more" to mean. "More" isn't really the word I would have picked here so much as "everything the ToU require me to disclose", since "more" implies "more than before...but maybe not all". Your agreements with your clients are your business, and you can word it to them however you like, but I would also point out that we're asking you to disclose the names of companies, not, like, stockholders' home addresses. If you work for "Joe RealName, Inc.", then yeah, I guess that technically requires disclosing their personal information, but generally we're looking for "I work for XYZ PR Agency, on behalf of MegaCorp Y", not "here's my bloodtype and mother's maiden name." And again, the agreement here is that if you wish to be given extra trust by the community and allowed to profit off of its work, then you are required to make those disclosures. If you don't wish to profit off the projects, then you're free to be 100% as anonymous as you wish to be. Similarly, companies that sponsor paid editors must decide whether it's more important to them to tweak content to their liking and have disclosed paid editing associated with their articles, or to stay hands-off with content and remain unassociated with Wikipedia editors. Both are ok, but it's their choice they will need to make. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused about these references to outing. Align Technology, which makes Invisalign, is a large company. It employs a PR firm. That firm has hired you to rewrite the article. This is business, and you're a PR professional who has written off-wiki about your paid work on Wikipedia. Why would naming the PR firms that pay you entail outing someone? Sarah (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the PR firm is just a single person. Given the contentious nature of the discussion, I believe there is a high probability of her being harassed/trolled off-wiki if disclosed. The whole "big company" thing is a big misnomer. I am also just a single person that does paid editing part-time. I'm a real human being and so is she. CorporateM (Talk) 19:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive the statement of the obvious, but why can someone who wants to know the PR firm not find out for themselves? It took me all of fifteen seconds on Google to find out who the PR firm in question is. I don't understand the need for secrecy here. ‑ iridescent 19:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CorporateM, if someone has set up a one-person PR agency and called it "John Smith Ltd," that was their choice. There's no evidence that supplying the firm's name would lead to harassment, and disclosure has been required for over a year. Also, you're writing as though you're a Wikipedian who does some occasional paid work, but you're a PR professional and have always been here as a paid editor. If some of the firms who hire you prefer not to be named, the solution is not to take the work from those companies. Sarah (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there's no evidence of that. Evaluating the claim would require disclosing the name of the firm, which is precisely what they are trying to avoid - because that would OUT at least the editor and the firm's principal. And, quite frankly, given some of the comments here? No, I don't think that off-wiki harassment is an unreasonable thing to fear. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what is being claimed here. Some of the PR firms that Invisalign has worked with can be found on Google. They are established companies. CM naming the PR firm that hired him is not going to out CM. Sarah (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you know? As per below, the company name might be enough to do it. But even if not, it's trivial in many countries to determine who a company's principals are, directors or shareholders or President or whoever. And just like that, his real name and address will show up on some BADSITE and he's outed. It might not be enough of a concern to warrant changes to the Terms of Use, or to policy in other ways, but to say it's not a concern is laughable and offensive. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this misses the point. If his top priority is to avoid being "outed", then he shouldn't be accepting paid editing jobs. If someone is willing to cash a PR agency's check to edit here, then they should be willing to disclose the name of that PR agency. You can't edit for pay and then stand on anonymity to avoid meeting the disclosure requirements. That's a perversion of this site's commitment to anonymity, which was never intended to protect undisclosed paid editing by PR employees. MastCell Talk 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I was being dense. I saw an editor who disclosed that there was a conflict and seemed, largely, to be doing things the right way (relying on talk ages, etc). I don't get why the name of the PR firm matters at all - the conflict of interest is the subject's, not the go-between. This editor accepted the work and made a good faith effort to comply with their understanding of policy - an understanding that seems to have been flawed, if the consensus here is as clear as it seems. If we intend to require paid editors to reveal their true identities, and thus open themselves up to all of the off-site harassment that our esteemed community is famous for, then we need to be clear about that. Or just ban paid editing, which will not actually end it but just relegate it to editors who can sock effectively, who can be subtle about their edits and avoid suspicion, and who can keep their fucking mouths shut. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per "so much resistance to using anonymous data like device IDs, IP addresses and analytics to expose sock networks due to privacy concerns" I was not aware there was that much resistance to this. Is this not what checkusers do? Our primary goal here is to write a neutral encyclopdia. We must balance privacy against information required to effectively write said encyclopdia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Disclose more" is not specific. The Terms of Use are clear on what you are required to disclose. Either agree that you will disclose that - specifically that, not "more than you currently do" - or this is not a proposed solution. Let me be clear, here; anything other than what the ToU requires is an exemption to the ToU. The community is not qualified nor permitted to grant you that exception. If "more" violates the ToU it's against reason and isn't satisfactory. Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ CorporateM. When one finds one is trying to swim up hill against a down flowing river of thick (and well thought out) treacle – it could mean, that one is attempting to perform one's PR on the wrong sort of blog. Wikipedia articles - are not the drones you are looking for advertorials.--Aspro (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    CorporateM, just to be clear, no one has requested real names. The requirement is that you disclose the name of the PR company that hired you and its client. That will usually be Acme PR and the name of the company the article is about. It will only be in less common cases where no companies are involved that a real name might be exposed, but if you make this clear to the client in advance, it shouldn't be a problem. Sarah (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how a voluntary topic ban from a single article solves the problem, endorsed by the community and confirmed by the WMF, that you have to fully disclose the name of the PR firm as well as the company. You've already edited the article on their behalf, so how does an ex post facto ban fulfill these requirements? Plus, I'm not sure that you're taking on board that you must disclose the information all the time, for every article you are paid to write or edit. Finally, I believe that what you're asking for is essentially an exemption, and the WMF has clearly stated above that we, the community, cannot give you an exemption, only they can. Given all this, I do not see how your suggestion can conceivably be tenable. BMK (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that CorporateM seems to have gotten a takeaway from this conversation that's very different than what (I think) people were actually saying. He's edited his userpage to say "In August 2015, there was consensus at ANI that Wikipedia's Terms of Use prohibit a sponsored editor from contributing anonymously and I was required to disclose personally identifiable information.". That's...not what this discussion, or the WMF, have concluded. A paid editor needn't disclose their name or other such "personally identifiable information"; what they're required to do is disclose who's paying for the edits they're making, all along the line. I'm actually concerned now that, because CM is so active in paid editing-related discussions, new paid editors are going to look him up, read his interpretation of this discussion on his userpage, and think that they do need to disclose their name, address, or whatever. As an oversighter, I'd rather not have to clean up after that mess. CorporateM, would you please consider re-wording what you've added to your userpage today to make it clear that editors are not required to disclose their own personal details, but rather the "corporate" details of those paying for the edits? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, CM. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way that CorporateM's userpage statement can be made to jibe with this discussion is if the one-man PR operation he is attempting very strenuously not to disclose the name of is his own, and bears his name - thus disclosing it would be outing himself. If that is so, then it was exceedingly stupid of him to name his agency after himself, but that deed is sone, and the name needs to be disclosed nevertheless, per WMF, TOU, and the consensus of this discussion. BMK (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you think the company would need to be named after CorporateM. In a number of countries open record laws mean it's often possible to find out who's a shareholder or director of even small businesses. It's sometimes possible to use various mechanisms to try and set up a company with no public connection to you, even in such countries, but while some people may have good reasons for doing so, more commonly it's actually a sign the person is up to no good, so the lack of such isn't particularly surprising. Even without the use of public records, it's fairly common for someone to disclose they are the owner of a certain business in circumstances where it's expected (like when they're looking for clients). And again, companies which don't do so will often be viewed suspiciously. Now the info which may completely out CorporateM wouldn't be on wikipedia, so anyone mentioning it here should be blocked for outing, but it's not clear CorporateM was referring to that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, CM has said that there are three companies involved in this: Align Technology, which makes Invisalign; a PR firm hired by Align Technology, which CM says is a one-woman operation; and CM's PR firm. He says that his own PR firm was hired by the one-woman company, but he won't name it, so we don't know who paid CM to have Invisalign rewritten or why they wanted the rewrite. The question now is what to do with the article. Sarah (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So that CorporateM doesn’t lead unpaid WP editors into becoming unpaid PR consultants for his client, we should just delete all his edits and let him start a fresh. He created this issue. As a self proclaimed professional, he should at least familiarised himself with our T&C first and not leave us with the problem of sorting it out for him. --Aspro (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be far safer to delete every article he has ever edited. Best to be sure. Don't forget the siteban. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extremely opposedto nuking-from-orbit-type suggestions. Although there have been some specific problems mentioned about specific edits on specific articles, I don't believe that the consensus here is for anything as extreme as deleting all of CM's edits, or for site banning him. Just the opposite, in fact, I see a lot of people talking about the good CM has done for the encyclopedia in his non-paid edits, and, in general, about the quality of his paid editing, especially compared to the dreck we get from some PR reps. So radical solutions wouldn't seem to be the answer. However, CM still must follow the terms of use, and if he refuses to do so, an indef block (which I presume would come from WMF, since it's their rule) would be appropriate until he agrees to do so.
      What I am confused by (once again) is why CM's response to this brouhaha was (at least as of this morning when I read his userpage) to out his RL name (which makes it child's play to find his personal PR website) and withdraw from voluntary (i.e. non-paid) editing of the encyclopedia, since this "solution" has solved nothing. If CM continues to get paid for editing he's going to have top disclose all the company names involved, and since he has (in effect) outed his own company name, and the name of the one-woman PR firm takes mere minutes to find online (so one wonders why he was so adamant about protecting it, and his userpage statement seems to be saying that he was protecting the name of his own firm), so what CM has done doesn't appear to me to be a step forward at all -- or else I'm totally misunderstanding what his intention is. BMK (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well his website is linked from his userpage, so it's not like you have to search to find it. Reading his userpage more carefully, unless I misunderstood, the reason why he doesn't want to continue voluntary editing on certain pages (not the entire encyclopaedia) is because he feels without the protection of anonymity, he risks too much effect on his real life from his voluntary efforts. (And once he disclosed the company name, the nature of the company meant his real name would be known, so there was little point hiding it.) So from his POV, it does solve something, it removes the, in his opinion, excessive risk he'll be harmed solely due to voluntary efforts. He may still have some degree of risk due to his paid work, I presume he's willing to accept that risk as an expected part of his job. Similarly, the risk for other areas is I presume in his opinion low enough that he's willing to accept it. As for his failure to disclose the PR firm/s who hired him on behalf of other companies in the past, I do agree it's up to the WMF to decide whether they want to ban him for it. Perhaps they will, perhaps they'll feel given the apparent misunderstanding of the requirement, according to him partially a result of some previous communication with the WMF, and his existing partial disclosure, they'll let it be provided he practices full disclosure from now on. If they chose the later, and the community here accepts that, then it seems we have a solution, perhaps not a happy one for many, but sufficient. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • CorporateM, I appreciate that you are a good guy trying to do the right thing. So was Greg Kohs, but that's another story for another day. What the TOU seeks is transparency with respect to paid editing. So, yeah, who are you, who is she, and let uninvolved editors (who are not assholes trying to drum paid editing out of existence — take a number if this applies to you) review your work dispassionately to make sure that no spam has been committed. Does it increase risk of reprisal by said assholes? Yes, sadly — let us deal with them if problems arise. But the rules are very simple: disclose fully, openly, honestly. best, —Tim Davenport, 5010 NW Shasta, Corvallis, OR 97330 /// 541-745-7862 //// Carrite (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is we actually have really little ability to actual deal with them. We aren't some sort of criminal gang in a lawless country who can kill anyone who does something we don't like. All we can really do is ban the stuff from here (which doesn't help when it's elsewhere), offer legal support (which doesn't negate most of the negative effects on your life whatever it is has) and express sympathy (see earlier). Different people may have different tolerances and perceptions of these risks. It seems CorporateM is willing to disclose the info, albeit with reductions in voluntary work given their perception of the risks that come from such work without anonymity. However they're still reluctant to disclose the PR firms that hired them to work on behalf of the disclosed companies. I presume this is because they're reluctant to expose these people to the possible risks of such disclosures (which frankly we have even less ability to affect), when then weren't made aware that this would be happening when they initially hired CorporateM's firm (unlike future firms who will be made aware). If this doesn't change, the WMF should decide if this is acceptable. I think most of us agree that CM and any firms hiring him should have paid more attention to the TOS, but that still leaves open the question of what to do now. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For some of the folks puzzled by CM not retroactively disclosing the name of some of the PR firms involved, this may be outside of the realm of their personal experience, but it is very likely that this is due to contractual terms he had signed with his clients including confidentiality requirements. Which means that if he's trying to do the right thing, he's currently talking to them to rectify the situation in order to comply. That takes time. The random assorted ANI crowd is ill-equipped to handle this, which should be, at this point, a WMF matter. MLauba (Talk) 09:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, if there's any way we could become a lawless gang who can kill anyone who does something we don't like, I'd be all for that‍—‌with appropriate policies and guidelines in place, of course. EEng (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carrite: I disagree that Kohs was a good guy trying to do the right thing. He saw Wikipedia and his first thought appears to have been: "how can I make money from this". I do not think CorporateM is the same. Apart fomr anythign else, I don't see CorporateM trying to get the project's charitable status revoked if he doesn't get what he wants. I do not see the two as similar. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually do the digging, Greg came up with the idea of paid editing — taking money to help those not capable or not willing to navigate the markup language or the culture to establish pages — and was rewarded for his efforts to find out how to do things the right way with a ban at the hands of Jimmy Wales himself. This has evolved into a Hatfields v. McCoys feud with JW that has lasted for going on a decade and will finally end when one of them eats one too many corndogs and croaks it. It was a lost opportunity. Kohs back then and CorporateM now are exactly the same in the way they are trying to do the right thing and bumping into immovable objects in the process. Of course, Kohs has been driven underground — those who think he doesn't edit at WP are idiots. He does and you don't notice because he minds things like sourcing and NPOV. As long as we have instant accounts for anyone with a click of the fingers, this is always going to be an option for paid editors who want to do the right thing but can't because of the blinkered dipshits who want to drive paid editing away with a stick. News flash: you can either be reasonable and negotiate content with declared paid editors or they will move underground and you won't have the opportunity to negotiate. You wanna change that world? End IP editing and make registration at least a little difficult — I'm on that train. Until then: a little reality, please. Kohs is a good guy. I like him. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corporate should not be forced to identify his employer - you say the issue is he is editing on behalf of someone else so therefore he must disclose who that is. Why? People who edit on behalf of themselves do not have to tell you who they are or what their motives are, so what difference does it make? As long as he discloses a conflict of interest on that subject, his employer and the company that hired are worthless. Demanding this information as policy is only going to result with paid editors who, unlike Corporate, do not ever reveal a COI. Is that what you want? Be realistic. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure

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

    • Proposed. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Well, there's nothing wrong with his having recused himself from future edits, except that it doesn't solve the problem which he himself raised at the start of the thread, and he still hasn't done the required full disclosure for the edits on the article he's already done. Given that, I'm not sure that closure is where we're at. CM brought his question here hoping for one answer, got another he didn't want, and then "solved" the problem by actions which do not appear to have fulfilled the requirements of that answer. I'm confused by that, and would like to hear more from him as to what the rationale for his "solution" is, and what he plans to do going forward. I'm not denigrating his contributions to the project, nor am I accusing him of anything nefarious, I simply do not understand why he did what he did, and why he isn't doing what seems (at least to me) to be the clear requirement for an editor in his position. BMK (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    'fixed typos'

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

    Reported at WP:AIV. General Ization Talk 03:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that those are Canned edit summaries -- they're one of the default values for the mobile app (you could consider it similar to leaving a blank summary). Doesn't mean that their edits aren't an issue, though. (not an admin) --Pokechu22 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation, Pokechu22; I didn't know that, but it makes sense now. And thanks, General Ization; I was hesitant to bring it to AIV. Unless the edits are blatant vandalism, some admins will recommend to file here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anytime I see an IP editor using that edit summary I revert it without question. I've not been wrong so far. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lugnuts: if such reverts are standard procedure, could they be done by a bot? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't imagine a bot request ever being approved, as some tree-hugger will find one in every 1,000 edits of that nature to be good. It doesn't happen a great deal TBH. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am one such tree-hugger. My findings are pretty much the same as Lugnuts' though. Edits from IPs and new accounts using these canned edit summaries are very, very often edits that need to be reverted. Not always necessarily vandalism, but often genre warring, adding pointless trivia, commenting on the subject of the article within the article, just generally unconstructive stuff. There's even a "canned edit summary" tag in recent changes - it almost always shows up alongside "mobile edit, mobile web edit". But assume good faith, y'all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I go down the Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper route - "I would sooner accept a few casualties through accidents rather losing the entire base and its personnel through carelessness". Not that I'm some sort of psychotic eager to start a nuclear war. Well, not yet. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arthur, such reverts are not standard procedure. Lugnuts simply gave a personal view. AIUI, users on mobile devices get a dropdown menu of ready-made edit summaries. As for the edits reported above, from a brief look it was spot on to revert those. In contrast, casual reversion of good-faith edits based on actual or perceived aspects of contributors rather than content is very harmful to the project; in pervasive cases doing so leads to restrictions or blocks. Basically, judge edits on their own merits and you'll be fine. –80.229.177.245 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly hope I will indeed be fine! Thank you, IP editor 80.229.177.245. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Blocked, this edit and the last paragraph of this edit clearly show that the editor is WP:NOTHERE for building an encyclopaedia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I should add that if User:Iranmehr2015 and User:Nikmand are not the same person, they're doing an excellent job of giving the impression that they are. Both accounts have vehemently pushed the same POV on Talk:Persian people, and both have engaged in the same unusual practice of filling in their user pages with a single letter "a" (see here and here). I think it passes the WP:DUCK test, but I'm happy to let another unrelated admin review before taking any action. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm sure he's a WP:GHBH-type editor ("Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts). If it's possible to check his IP-range, I want admins find his alternative accounts or related accounts. Because I guess he uses those trollish and disruptive accounts to attack and POV-pushing, so blocking does not affect his "clean and good" account(s). It's possible he's related to some other editors who are involved in editing of Persian people. --Zyma (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm hesitant to offer the benefit of the doubt to accounts that have made comments like this individual has, there isn't any overlap between when the three accounts were used, so I'm not certain that there's an attempt to deceive. Someone not familiar with our practices might serially register accounts rather than recovering a lost password without realising that looks pretty suspicious to regulars here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    It appears that there is a sock targeting the page right now. Cantoun1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Orduin Discuss 19:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Bbundu

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

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

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

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

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

    • Uninvolved comment - I don't think this is an edit war per se, it looks to me like Vjmlhds is trying to enforce their preferred version using the revert button: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. That's six reverts today. None of the edits are vandalism, Vjmlhds just disagrees with them, but has made no effort at all to communicate with the new editor Bbundu other than condescending edit summaries and filling their talk page with warnings. Two notes: 1) Summerslam (2015) has recently come off full protection, and 2) Vjmlhds has just come off an indef for gross incivility. I think a WP:3RR block is well in order here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: I didn't realize it got that far. But if you look at it, it just seems as though Bbundu was going tit for tat just for the sake of going tit for tat. I was just trying to add some details to the article, and Bbundu just seemed as though he reverted for the sake of reverting (his way or the highway). Vjmlhds (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why I mentioned both of you in my missive. And I don't buy the whole "I didn't realise" thing. I am sure you are able to count up to three, and this went way beyond that. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: Sometimes you just get caught up in things and you lose track...happens all the time in real life, and it can certainly happen in Wikipedia. I'll refrain from editing the article as a show of good faith and a willingness to tamp things down, but as I said earlier, it was Bbundu who seemed to be hot on my heels ready to pounce after I made an edit. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vjmlhds: As I said, ignorance is no excuse, especially not from a user that has been around since 2008 and, whilst your offer to refrain from editing the article is appreciated, it still doesn't change the fact that both of you have breached WP:3RR. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skamecrazy123: I'll make life easy on you...if you're willing to overlook this slip up, I'll impose my own embargo on the article until Monday. And if I go against my own word, feel free to drop whatever hammer on me you see fit. I slipped up and I'm willing to go on record as saying I'll self monitor (with oversight) so that it won't happen again...no need to make a drastic decision. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Further disruption at WOP articles

    (non-admin closure) I believe this has been dealt with by the OP being blocked. BMK (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Procedural note: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done so here. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry. Her page should be speedy kept too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.75 (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially closed this discussion since the AfD was speedily kept...but then I realized that an IP tried to close the AfD. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    If you mean a topic ban for you, I think that may be in the cards, yes. EEng (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the second IP the same as the first IP? The range is clearly the same (I know that doesn't automatically lead to the pond, but...). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't need to pick on that guy. 166.170.48.93 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And now a third IP from the same range? Okay, now it's duck season. (word to Baseball Bugs)... Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The WOP project is clearly toxic. The behavior of this serial IP editor is symptomatic, as is that of more than one previous member. A range block of the IP is clearly required. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not fair to paint every WOP project member under the same brush. This person isn't even a member of the project, they're an anonymous IP. A block would be most welcome. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:E.M.Gregory

    Seemingly resolved. The "lessons learned" here appear to involve trying to avoid any controversial editing or commenting on little sleep, and trying to discuss controversial edits with the editor in question before heading straight to ANI. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I changed the sig back and left a comment there telling E.M.Gregory not to do that. Is any more action needed at this time? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, as I didn't want to touch it myself. As for further action, I'm not sure. I definitely think this needs to remain open pending any response from EMG on the matter either here or at the talk page.
    For sure, EMG is preventing any changes to the article he doesn't like, and seeing everyone else being against his way, which is classic OWN (which he was warned about before elsewhere). The use of a BLP article to be about nothing but an event (or events) is really BLP1E, and I'd almost be inclined to call it an attack page, because there's nothing else in the article (nor will there be - the subject's research is nil, and there were issues with his appointment in the department in the first place). EMG's also showing no understanding of policy relating to academics. These seem to be deeper editing behaviors that go beyond simple content disagreement. So I'm mixed; this problem may or may not be solved, but there's a pattern not being addressed if it drops. MSJapan (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non admin comment) I dropped a warning on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given EMG's responses everywhere but here, I believe further action is warranted. EMG is claiming here on BlueMoonset's page and here on the Whitaker article talk that his actions were a mistake because "he was tired." BlueMoonset's not buying it, I don't either, and EMG is not taking responsibility for his actions - he's too concerned about SPAs adding "glowing biography" (which actually is sourced from the subject's official bio - I checked). He's also not considering NOTNEWS, hasn't addressed questions/comments from either myself or David Eppstein, and is clearly engaging in OWN and violating NPOV. MSJapan (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So I felt we had actually made some headway to at least have a discussion. I outlined every point where notability was not met, and we ended up with, while my points were valid, it's national news because it makes Inside Higher Ed and Wikipedia is "not censored". Somebody else is going to need to deal with this at this juncture. MSJapan (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i just removed a prod tag--the place to discuss notability is AfD, & if it brought there I'll give my opinion. Similar situations have come up before. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This looks like a copy/paste error to me. EMG probably meant to copy MSJapan but instead pasted and again (my "command/CTRL" key was not working consistently recently, I kept doing the same thing, I would hit CTRL-C and think it copied but it didn't, and then I would do CTRL V and it would paste what I previously had on the keyboard. So I can see this happened. EMG is an active editor and is clearly not a troll or a vandal, so I see no legitimate reason why he/she would have messed with your signature. This is most definitely an occasion to WP:AGF. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I only just noticed the notice on my user page. I was indeed editing-while-sleep-deprived. Foolish. And I apologized. As I explained elsewhere, it was the first time I had encountered an SPA repeatedly blanking a page to replace it with a bio so rich in personal detail and laudatory that it cold only have been written by someone very close to the subject - I knew this because I had tried to source that page and although this guy writes op-eds and goes on talk shows, I could find no profiles or in-depth articles about his background. I did get annoyed and revert it more than once, but I had not understood that the 3RR applies to all topics, not just to contentious ones. It takes a while to learn the rulebook, I am really good on a few things, like sourcing and notability. But I didn't know this. I asked an administrator for help and posted the SPA and the IP of the page blankers on a noticeboard. Hours later when I went to see if the page had been protected in some way, I found that I was being attacked by an editoyr I had never heard of before, Aggressively attacked, I thought, when all I had tried to do was to stop an SPA from blanking a page and replacing it with a hagiography. I then committed the crime of editing while groggy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user:rojomoke

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

    Asking for the name of a specific scientist isn't asking for an opinion or speculation. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 12:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, it was not removed, it was "hatted" and collapsed - I was able to read it, and I've now unhatted it. I'd suggest you could have talked to Rojomoke or the reference desk talk page, and only posted here if those avenues were not helpful in resolving the issue. In the future, please be careful not to ask for prediction at the ref desk. In this case, I provided references that I think you may find helpful. This question would have caused no problems if phrased as such - "I have read that some people think that rare earth minerals, oil, etc. will become scarce in the future, preventing widespread use of computers etc. (ideally include a representative link). Where can I read more about this? Are there any WP articles that address this subject?" As long as you make it a point to ask for references (including newspapers, scholarly journals, textbooks, WP articles, etc), most any question is allowed, and I will usually defend the right of any user to ask for any references on the reference desk :) SemanticMantis (talk)

    The Babys

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

    To give some background here, The Babys has an IP address with some aggressive editing regarding the rights to the name at the moment among the band members (and some sort of revival) [42] including adding a link to the USPTO office search function which doesn't actually work. Article has since been semi-protected so I think we're done at the moment here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Account Deactivation/Deletion

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

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

    Ghumen1 copy-pasting articles

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

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

    Provocation and character assassination by User:Eladynnus

    I will take my chances here. Would someone kindly warn Eladynnus (talk · contribs) for their systematic provocation, insults and character assassination stretching back 3 years? I first came across this editor 3 years ago on the Serer religion talk page] (and other Serer articles) where persistent insults, provocation and character assassinations by he and co. drove me out of the project. I will not waste your time or mine giving details about their historic behaviour all those years ago but if you want I will. The purpose of reporting this person is their recent attack on my talk page [43]. I gave them a warning on their talk page but they did not heed my warning and left another remark on my talk page.

    I have not edited Wikipedia for 3 years since I retired from this project thanks to the systematic provocation, character assassination and insults by this editor and co. Because I created a portal before, I was asked to help create other portals which I hesitantly agreed to because I did not want to go through what these people put me through 3 years ago. This editor has not been active on Wikipedia since May 16 2015 [44] (see Talk:Gamergate controversy). I find it ironic that this editor's return coincided with my return and their second edit was on my talk page [45]. Would someone kindly deal with this individual? I would like to add that there is more to this. Therefore, I would respectfully ask that only non-involved Administrators part take in this issue. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tamsier blocked indefinitely. Disclosure: I have never had anything to do with Tamsier or Eladynnus or the articles in question. I took a look, and Tamsier, for a start, I'm not impressed by the way you run your talkpage. Anybody interested should read the history rather than merely the page. Tamsier has removed comments from Drmies and Eladynnus as "insults,"[46] and has removed Doug Weller's response to his comprehensive attack ("Ha ha ha! This doesn't look good for Doug Weller does it?" etc) as "irrelevant".[47] It's "permitted" to remove comments ad lib, but those removals are what I'd call uncollaborative, and downright misleading for readers who don't study the history, because, well, the comments really aren't irrelevant. That said, I'm inclined, on principle, to give blocked users a lot of leeway wrt venting during a block.

    However. Taking a look at your battleground editing of Talk:Serer history, Talk:Saloum, Talk:Serer people and Talk:Kingdom of Sine, I'm astonished that Drmies merely blocked you for 72 hours. You have inserted this egregious attack on Doug Weller, header and edit summary "User:Doug Weller and his POV pushing on Serer and African related article" on all four talkpages, all four screenfuls of it on my good big oldfashioned monitor — you're a fine one to talk about "character assassination". It is also notable that, although Tamsier took a 3-year break from wiki from August 2012 to August 2015, he left something of a trail of disruption behind in his 2011 — 2012 editing, with 6 blocks of increasing length in just over a year[48]. The last one was for three months, and after that he retired, for what he describes as being hounded off wiki. These blocks were for disruptive/pov editing, harassment, personal attacks and sockpuppetry (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamsier/Archive). Has he turned over a new leaf in 2015? No, it doesn't look like it. It's also worth noting the little handful of angry edits in 2013, showing that he was keeping his resentment agains Drmies and in particular Dougweller simmering, with accusations of racism etc etc: "You (Doug Weller) are the biggest POV editor I have ever seen on Wiki. Not only do you insert POV, but you are also a liar. … You use one source as scripture and plaster it all over Serer related articles. You take his writing as scripture just because he is a White American like yourself…You were more interested in peddling your POV and lying about me in talk pages…What a joke you are… However you were not interested in that, you were interested in your POV and vendetta. This appears to be a user with still, in August 2015, no interest in collaborative editing but only in changing Wikipedia to fit his beliefs, and thinking it can be done through series of intemperate attacks against the good faith and veracity of others. Now he has made the classic mistake of thinking an ANI review will only address his own complaint ("This report is about the recent provocation of this editor (Eladynnus)"), not his own conduct. No, typically, on all noticeboards, the reporters own actions will also be scrutinised. I have done so, and have blocked Tamsier indefinitely as not being here to create an encyclopedia. Considering the background I've outlined, I see no point in starting over with the piddling blocks as soon as this disruptive user returns from his self-imposed exile. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Drmies, with your 72 hours.) However, I believe Tamsier has knowledge and skills that could potentially help the encyclopedia; if he writes a reasonable unblock request, which shows some awareness of the problems with his own editing, it should certainly be entertained. As for Eladynnus, the way Tamsier has exploded because E posted on his page and retaliated with furious WARNINGs (original capitalisation) as well as this ANI report seems merely a characteristic overreaction. Bishonen | talk 08:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

    Hounding by Hijiri 88

    Hi, I there I was unsure to yet again bring up the issue but recent events do not leave me with no any other choice – that’s if I still want to be able to edit Nichiren Buddhist related matters. Recently I filed a question at ANI if edits by Hijiri 88 on Kokuchūkai [49] might violate the current IBAN. In the course of events they were blocked form editing Wikipedia for 72h [50]. Much to my surprise they became active on the talk page on Soka Gakkai. Prior to the 72 block they were all of a sudden active on [51] and [52]. Since Nichiren related matters are the most prominent on my watch list of about 200 articles these edits did not slip my attention: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. Ever since the events that led up to the IBAN I reduced my activity within articles considerably (except the odd talk page). My prime activity within Wikipedia is on Nichiren Buddhist related matters, therefore I want to file this complaint on the basis of WP:HOUND and ask for a TBAN against Hijiri 88 on articles that fall within the category of Nichiren Buddhism. The field of my activity is fairly limited but the latest activities by Hijiri 88 do seem to be aimed against me as an editor. I would also like to extend the TBAN on the article on Nippon Kaigi as this is an article that I created and do want them to give editors grief who extended the article considerably. I would also like admins to have a look at the somewhat foul language used within notes accompanying some of the edits by the editor in question. I was warned by admins and editors that an IBAN might not bring about the desired effect, but I was not prepared to what lengths some editors might go. I await admins response as I find the latest incidents to be irritating to say the least.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for purposes of clarification, this seems to be a request for a topic-ban from Nichiren Buddhism related content and pages with an additional extension of the ban to the Nippon Kaigi page? John Carter (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ John Carter Yes! I do not think that anybody owns an article and since I initiated the one on Nippon Kaigi and since I believe the editor in question actions are aimed against me I’d hate to see the work and effort by editors on Nippon Kaigi to be affected just because an editor holds grudges against me. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Catflap08 You both edit the same pages and the same topics, as we all know. How is it WP:HOUND exactly? It seems Hijiri88 is just editing those pages still. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: I think the above statement might be a bit perhaps oversimplified and not necessarily supported by the evidence. From my own, admittedly weak, memory, given the time elapsed, I don't remember having ever seen Hijiri particularly editing content related to Nichiren Buddhism until the argument at Kenji Miyazawa between Catflap and Hijiri. While I myself have not been the most active in those pages myself, I only remember seeing Hijiri showning up since then. Certainly, I think a review of the statistics indicate that Hijiri did not edit the Soka Gakkai talkpage until August 16 as seen here and he has yet to edit the article itself at all, at least under the name Hijiri88. That being the case, I think there reason to believe that, in terms of at least this article, there is some reason to think that Hijiri88 may be stalking/hounding Catflap, who has been involved in discussion and editing of that particular article for some years now. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oversimplified like, say, slyly leaving out a huge chunk of timeline in order to imply that I was blocked for 72 hours for my edits to the Kokuchukai article, when in fact what happened was an extremely dubious string of events that saw an ANI proposal to dissolve the IBAN slipping onto a user talk page and me inadvertently typing the name "Catflap08" on said user talk page, when Catflap08 had previously gotten away with writing extensive criticism of me ("the other user") on his own talk page? Please could someone other than me and Wikimandia notice that Catflap08 has been lying through his teeth about the nature of this dispute for months on end, now, which is probably what led to the confusion that our "common ground" from which we should probably both, at this point, be TBANned is "Japanese culture"? This is getting utterly ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for admitting you have broken the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 06:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh is that what I did? AlbinoFerret, if that's what you genuinely think my above comment then you need to read WP:LAWYER and seriously consider your place in this community. My using Catflap08's name on a user talk page discussion of the IBAN was a dubious violation at worst because (a) Catflap08 had done the same thing previously, (b) where I said "Catflap08" in an otherwise reserved and inoffensive comments, Catflap's included extensive commentary on the literary tastes and religious affiliations of "the other user", and (c) the blocking admin later (after the block had expired) outright encouraged me to discuss the IBAN and Catflap's edits on my talkpage, assuring me that as long as I didn't use Catflap's name he wouldn't block me again.
    But all of this is irrelevant. Even if what I did was a violation, I have already done my time. What my above comment was trying to point out was that Catflap's above claim that I was blocked because my edits to the Kokuchukai article constituted an IBAN was a lie. I was blocked because I used Catflap's name on a talk page; Catflap's AN report on my Kokuchukai edits resulted not in me getting blocked but in several users calling for a boomerang against him.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

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

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

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

    Please, could any closing admin note that BMK has been corrected on this point numerous times and has not amended his proposal: "their common ground" properly refers to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, an area that comprises probably 80% of Catflap08's edits and 5% of mine. "Japanese culture" is an area that comprises probably 80% of Catflap08's edits and probably 95% of mine. Japanese culture minus Nichiren Buddhist NRMs is an area that comprises 0% of Catflap08's edits, and 90% of mine. The unaccounted 20% of Catflap08's edits appear to mostly relate to German geography and religion in Germany; the unaccounted 5% of my edits are random articles I happen to be reading and decide to touch up a bit. Do the math and you'll see that the proposed topic-ban is both (a) ridiculously broad compared to the super-narrow "common ground" Catflap08 and I share, and (b) appears to have been chosen to disproportionately affect me, despite the unanimous agreement among impartial observers that there is plenty of blame to go around. I have no interest in limiting my Wikipedia activity to "random articles I happen to be reading and decide to touch up a bit", so the TBAN as proposed would amount to a de facto site-ban for me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It might, maybe, be worth reviewing the history of the editors in question relating to their interactions with other editors. If one (or both) of them act similarly in terms of their interactions with other editors, that might be potentially grounds for thinking that the problems might be more due to one than to the other. Also, I think it might be worth noting that Catflap above has more or less indicated that he is limiting his input to Japanese culture, or at least Nichiren Buddhism, which probably falls within the broad scope of Japanese culture, and that, I think, Hijiri may also be if not an SPA particularly focused on Japanese culture. If true, then the proposal might, in a sense, be considered tantamount to a site ban for one or both, if the defined field is, effectively, their primary or sole area of interest. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    John Carter, if you mean what you earlier implied (that we should unblock Juzumaru, JoshuSasori and so on, and unban Tristan noir) you are clearly insane, and are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Please drop the stick and grow the hell up already. Stop following me, and stop trying to go back through the archives and bring back every user who has ever harassed me. You hounded me in this way from March to May, then disappeared for three months and then immediately come straight back after me -- what gives? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose @ BMK: I have been active here for a quite number of years my area of activity is limited and I do admit the issues are sometimes controversial. I neither support a complete ban on issues regarding Japanese culture against Hijiri 88 nor against me (that would be stupid) as my activities are limited. I do believe that I am fairly neutral on Nichiren related matters, but if you ban us both this will not resolve matters, but just make your job easier and therefore negate current guidelines. Please do keep in mind that all what led here was mentioning a so called poet’s religious affiliation. Banning us, effectively, wont’t help the project and its content. All I am asking is to decide if current guidelines are affected or not. If current guidelines are found not be affected I will piss off anyway (please do note I do not usually use this language usually).--Catflap08 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I will refrain from !voting in this matter given my own history with both editors. Having said that, I have to agree with Catflap above that, in the time I have been to varying degrees involved in Soka Gakkai and NB related content, he has impressed me as being primarily interested in keeping the material from resembling advertorials, which is generally a good thing. I also note that the specific nature of the dubious interaction does seem, as per the initial statement, to be related to Nichiren related content. While Nichiren related content is very significant in the history of Japanese culture, I think limiting the scope of potential sanctions to NB rather than Japanese culture would probably be called for, given the history of this interaction, and I at least would very strongly hope that Catflap not be sanctioned to basically remove himself from his primary field of editing, in which he has been successful and productive in preventing POV pushing by supporters of groups, who often outnumber the less biased editors in those areas by a great number. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I've read a lot recently from a wide variety of editors about how relentless POV warriors create toxic editing environments which drive quality editors away from the site, and just a couple of days ago we lost one of our best admins to a sockpuppeting troll with a throwaway account. Above, Drmies has asked you both to lay off, and you obviously haven't. Listen to Drmies!! If they were to come by here and block both of you right now, I don't think there's anyone here who would object, saving maybe John Carter who makes a compelling argument about Catflap's persistent NPOV in this topic area. WP:CIR applies: if the contributions you make aren't worth the "ever-increasing exasperation of the rest of the editors", you shouldn't be here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: Who's a relentless POV warrior? I think you would be hard-pressed to identify any kind of "POV" on my part in any aspect of my interactions with Catflap08 -- I am not a Soka Gakkai member (I don't even much like the group), nor a member of the Kokuchukai, and it wouldn't change my life even a bit if it turned out that Miyazawa Kenji was in fact a "nationalist". I just want Wikipedia to accurately reflect what the best scholarly sources say. The only relentless POV-pusher here is Catflap08, who has been spending years distorting sources and jumping through hoops to make Wikipedia say what he wants it to about various neo-Nichiren groups, both ones he likes (Nichiren-shoushuu) and doesn't (SG, etc.). If your argument is that we should both be TBANned because we are relentless POV warriors, I would ask for evidence of this. Additionally, which "topic" should we/just Catflap08/just me be banned from? "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad, as it bears no relation whatsoever to Catflap08's disputes with me -- "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism" would be a much better proposal, and if the TBAN were mutual I would actually support it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This thread is utter nonsense. I have been editing the area of Japanese Buddhism since before Catflap08 even registered an account, and have indisputably contributed more to the area in recent months than he has -- simply editing in the area is not an IBAN-violation, as was decided by AN-consensus when Catflap08 wasn't blocked for doing the same thing (as well as directly reverting my edits). BMK's assertion that our common ground is "Japanese culture" is equally ridiculous. I have only ever been interested in editing articles on "Japanese culture", and 99% of users who share this area with me would vehemently oppose the idea that I be TBANned from this area: just ask @Nishidani: @Shii: @Sturmgewehr88: ... (almost none of whom agree with me 100%, but all of whom legitimately understand this area as well as my contributions to it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (non admin observation) Enough is enough. This continued disruption is never ending and ongoing where one or the other is on one of the boards giving enough evidence for either of them needing a ban. It doesnt matter what good they have done or how nice the things they have added. This is a behaviour issue. One my new essay WP:NOTABOVE covers nicely without a lot of words. AlbinoFerret 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC) I would also support separate or single bans. AlbinoFerret 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Albinoferret: Please explain how arbitrarily banning me from every article I have ever edited will help end disruption and improve the project? You are the one who needs to drop the stick in this situation, as you have had it in for me for months, every time this or another issue in which I have been involved comes up on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I watch and contribute on AN/I in discussions, I think more community members should do this. This isnt hounding you, its the community saying enough is enough. If more people frequented this board regularly they would be saying the same thing. The topic ban will just remove an area of WP. You will still be able to edit and show that you are a constructive member of the community, or use it as rope. AlbinoFerret 23:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that you should be indefinitely banned from every article you show an interest in editing because you post on ANI regularly? Your argument makes no sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support I have ANI on my watch list and 2/3 of the time it has something to do with Hijiri. Frankly, I am annoyed and I had to peek into it all. It's nothing but disruption and lack of dropping the stick by the file reporter and possibly hounding them as well but that's another matter. It's best that these two editors get topic-banned to end this drama-filled editing between them. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Callmemirelal: Excuse me? You claim it's always me, but in reality all the times you are referring to it is me and Catflap08, and you above refer to me as the "file reporter" -- you very clearly have not read this thread very closely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhmmm... Way to give it a go. Please search up who filed this report, hence "file reporter". I have never claimed it was always you. I said what I saw as new sections had something to do with you. Never have I ever claimed it was always you at fault. Please reread my post. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Callmemirela: (sorry for the bad ping previously -- this whole thing has me super stressed out, as what is essentially being discussed here is a one-way de facto SBAN for me) If you do not think that I am always the one at fault, then why are you supporting a TBAN that is tailor-made to force me, not Catflap08, off Wikipedia? Catflap08's main area of interest (Soka Gakkai International) arguably does not fit into "Japanese culture", but is a part of this dispute; my main area of interest (classical Japanese poetry) most certainly fits into "Japanese culture" and has nothing whatsoever to do with this dispute. The proposed TBAN would block both Catflap08 and myself from every article I have ever shown any interest in editing, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my long-running dispute with Catflap08 regarding Nichiren Buddhist NRMs. If the TBAN for which you above expressed "Strong support" were to pass, I would be forced to retire from Wikipedia, since I would be TBANned from the only (very broad) topic area I am interested in. The TBAN would also negatively affect Catflap08, but so would a TBAN on Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, which is the area actually under dispute. If the TBAN was worded properly, it would effectively solve the dispute between me and Catflap08, and allow other users to eventually work out all the kinks in the very narrow group of articles in question; as worded now, it disproportionately affects me by randomly banning me from the thousands upon thousands of articles that are in my area of interest/expertise but have nothing whatsoever to do with my dispute with Catflap08. If you sincerely meant that you support "some kind of two-way topic-ban" for myself and Catflap08, then you and I are actually in agreement, but I would ask that you clarify this position in light of the actual (very narrow) area covered by this dispute (see full list of article Catflap08 and I have disputed on below). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. Why? Well, it's like this...although I also have pretty much had my fill of these two editors' antics, the conflict between them seems to go far beyond the subject of Japanese culture (or any other topic). I mean, there's an IBAN in place and they still won't cut it out? Maybe general blocks for both of them (length to be determined by closing admin) is in order instead. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support topic ban for Hijiri88 on Japanese culture and history-related topics - I said what needed to be said the last time a topic ban was proposed on Hijiri88. I noted Hijiri88's disruptive and uncooperative pattern of editing in this field and all Hijiri could do in response was openly threaten me with "harsh repercussions". This is Hijiri88's typical reaction to anyone he disagrees with. Catflap and I are just the latest to take this sort of abuse. I'm sorry Catflap has gotten tied up in yet another one of Hijiri's never-ending crusades. This is now the FOURTH time this year (at least) that this kind of sanction has been proposed against Hijiri88. When is the Wikipedia community or an admin finally going to say, "enough is enough"?TH1980 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of the above, it might not be unreasonable to perhaps break the proposed sanction down into separate proposed sanctions for the two as individuals, and, perhaps, if others see fit, to specify the exact nature of the scope of the proposed sanctions. It seems to me that the scope of the disagreement is Japanese Buddhism, not Japanese culture (but, like with most historical religions, the distinction between the religion and the culture gets blurry), and it might make sense, maybe, to consider limiting the scope to Japanese Buddhism or Nichiren Buddhism. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly object to any alteration of this proposal. If you want to make two additional separate proposals, one for each editor, go ahead and do so in separate sections, not this one, but I guarantee you'll only muddy up the waters, which will end up once again with a continuation of the status quo. In any case my proposal stands as is, clear, equal treatment for both editors, who are equally responsible for the IBan between them not working. BMK (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beyond My Ken:: The proposed variation was only made in light of the !vote above supporting sanctions against one editor only. I have a feeling that such variant !votes might lead to the result Blackmane mentions below, no consensus and ArbCom. Not that ArbCom would, necessarily, necessarily be a bad place to thrash out the whole histories of all involved here, to see if there are any differential levels of guilt as some indicate they see above. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, closers are intelligent enough to figure these things out without having to slice up the conversation for them. Probably best to leave it alone. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After a moment's thought, I'll expand on this. Both are substantial contributors in the content but seem to be unable to restrain themselves when they get together, much like 2 like magnetic poles constantly repelling each other. To remove one without the other could be seen as a validation of either one. I believe BMK's proposal is less about their content contributions than it is their collective behaviour towards each other on articles they have in common. Given they have little in common outside of this single field, it is at least my hope that this will stop. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blackmane is correct. The ideal here would have been for the IBan to have worked. We'd get the advantage of both editor's contributions, and there would peace across the land. But, unfortunately, for whatever reason (I won't hazard guesses as to why), these two people just cannot get along without bringing their conflicts to the community again and again. My feeling is that the only way to get through to them is with a topic ban. "Indefinite" does not mean permanent. My hope would be that when the two combatants start to tire of not being able to edit in an area they both really enjoy working in, they may begin to see the value of cooperating with the terms of the IBan. Obviouslyt, right now, it means more to the both of them to keep fighting then it does to keep editing. This would change that, and provoke (I hope) a change of heart for both of them. I don't expect them to ever be bosom buddies, but the community does expect them to follow the rules of the IBan. They clearly can't do that, so this is the next available option. BMK (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you were proposing to block them both outright, and my earlier comment reflects that. I'll also support a double topic ban, although I expect we'll see them back here again very soon and be discussing blocks for violating the topic ban. I don't support only banning one of them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban is much easier to enforce than the IBAN. Any activity in the topic would be a violation of the ban. But in the IBAN there is the ability to game the system. Making it more difficult to enforce as evident by the sections that have happened in the recent past. But I plan to collect the names of oppose votes and ping them every time this pops up again if the topic ban doesnt pass. The way I see it is they only see part of the problem, whereas most of the supporters recognise this isnt an isolated incident and that its an ongoing problem that never seems to be taken care of. My support of the topic ban isnt tied to this one section, but many going back months.AlbinoFerret 19:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As a stray thought we could use an edit filter to enforce an IBAN, up to a point. I have created an example filter in 1 (logging only). It could be refined to ignore specific name-spaces, or noticeboards. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose (for now) What did Hijiri 88 do? I don't see how he is hounding Catflap08 or why this ANI has any merit. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry Beyond My Ken, but I do not support a topic ban for Catflap. A narrow topic ban for Hijiri, who has broad interests, would not take Catflap out of the Wikipedia picture, and while the case for hounding isn't airtight, I do think that Hijiri is following Catflap--Wikimandia, in the two or three of the articles that I looked, Catflap has edited for a long time and Hijiri is a recent visitor, as on Talk:Soka Gakkai. In other words, I support John Carter's clarification, in the section above. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the edits and it seems they all pertain (mostly) to the Japanese language, etc, which is I think is one of H88's interests. The edits H88 made appear to my eyes to be helpful. I fail to see a solid case for hounding. It seems IMHO that this is more of a "stay out of my area" type of thing ie "I edited here first so it's mine." —МандичкаYO 😜 22:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Catflap08 is being paranoid, and Drmies (despite my history with him) has not looked closely enough at my edit history. I am interested in Japanese religion, and probably know more about Japanese Buddhism than Catflap08 does; my very first edit to Wikipedia back in 2005 was about Shinto. In fact, I think if you went through all of Catflap08's edits and checked his sources, you would find that I have actually contributed more over the years to this particular topic area than he has. TBAN me from NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism except for the Kokuchukai and Miyazawa Kenji (which I would guess accounts for roughly 80% of Catflap08's edits but a relatively small proportion of mine; the two exceptions are to allow me to contrinue to work on two articles to which I am essentially the sole contributor) if need be. Catflap08 hardly ever edits articles related to Nichiren Buddhism before 1900, and almost never edits any articles related to Japanese Buddhism other than Nichiren Buddhism. The "disruption" between the two of us was exclusively in the area of "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism"; the TBAN proposal of "Japanese culture" seems to be a slight against me specifically, since TBANning both of us from "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism" would likely force Catflap08 off Wikipedia, but not me; "Japanese culture" seems to be specifically designed to spite/SBAN me, since the present "disruption" has hardly anything to with "Japanese culture". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban everyone - God knows his own. Although I see the threat of topic banning them both has actually got them to agree. From past experience of their work - Hijari's would actually be a loss to the encyclopedia, however if they cannot learn to work together, at this point its a hit WP might have to take. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: Your comment clearly shows you haven't read the thread. Why did you misspell my user name? Why do you think Catflap08 and I need to learn to "work together"? We are already IBANned! What topic do you propose? "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad, and seems to be tailor-made to drive me off Wikipedia; the actual topic area under discussion is "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism". If you had actually been following this dispute long enough to be as frustrated with it as you claim to be, you would not be making these mistakes. Sorry to pick on you, but it's difficult to follow all of this. It seems that a whole bunch of people (friends of BMK?) are ust showing up to support a ridiculous proposal, when virtually everyone who actually understands the dispute in question oppose it. Please read through the past thread if you are taking the "this is incredibly draining on the community" argument to heart, and please consider what topic area you are talking about when you say "topic ban everyone". If it is mutual, I would actually support a topic ban on both of us from the area of "NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism"; but the proposed "Japanese culture" has absolutely no logical basis, and no support whatsoever from the community of editors who actually contribute to the area of "Japanese culture". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Whatever past irritants, I do not see what the latest matter is about. What is the evidence of hounding on which Hijiri is supposed to be banned? I do not see any evidence of breach of IBAN either, or at least none has been provided. This kind of reminds me of Alice in Wonderland: "Sentence first, verdict later" (or perhaps not at all?) Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As far as I can see it the mood is towards topic banning us both. Fine go ahead that will leave me out of the game, an outcome H88 has previously hoped for as I “dared” to highlight Kenji-man’s religious affiliation and nationalist tendencies. I wonder these days what ever happened to good faith vs bad faith edits. The diffs I showed in the beginning of this thread had no other purpose than to piss me off – and they did. I can well understand that admins are annoyed about this carry-on but I tried to adhere as much as possible to current guidelines … call it hounding or Wikimandia, but please do be so kind and ditch all current guidelines and means (such as ANI) to highlight a problem and turn to a thumbs up or thumbs down policy only. If the latest edits by H88, keeping in mind the IBAN, are found to be okay and thereby effectively disabling me to edit articles on Nichiren Buddhism – as I would then myself violate the IBAN – fine, so be it. Please do have the guts to admit that the strategy used by H88 then does seem to work, congrats to you H88 btw. Due to the articles I edit I am used to conflict and disagreement but this is an issue I am sure not willing to use my spare time on any longer. In the guideline on hounding it says: “The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. …” Ever since this conflict started I was insulted, followed around even some smearing remark left while H88 edited the article on my hometown (Oh yes SURE he did not know it was my hometown … yea right). I created a few articles, in my books had a more or less neutral input on Nichiren Buddhist related articles, but there is no enjoyment being part of this project anymore. Conflicts can be productive or unproductive - this one is unproductive. I am no longer willing to participate and the “enjoyment” of dealing with H88 is here to stay, bad faith edits, insults and foul language do seem to work then. I guess they will continue to be an issue here in days to come. Good riddance!-- 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Catflap08, you don't know a damned thing about Kenji Miyazawa; everyone who has ever contributed anything to the new and improved version of that article has agreed with this. Your edits were highly disruptive, and did not "highlight" anything other than your own hatred of any form of Nichiren Buddhism other than Nichiren-shoushuu. Please drop the damn stick -- it's been more than a frickin' year! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri, I thank you for so clearly indicating in the above comment your habit of almost instantly taking recourse to irrational, probably unsupportable, insults and obscenities directed against those with whom you are in disagreement, a habit of yours which I have noted repeatedly. One could just as easily say that, after the 9 years of being an editor that you so regularly boast of, you don't know a damn thing about the policies and guidelines of this site. The fact that you so regularly engage in purely counterproductive personal attacks, as per the above, is one reason why I think that the concept of some sort of stronger sanctions against you is getting a lot of support, whether alone or in tandem with Catflap. You are in control of your own actions and vulgarity, and cannot blame anyone for your own regular displays of obnoxious arrogance, which, as Drmies has said elsewhere in this thread, would decidedly wear on him too. John Carter (talk)
    @Catflap08: - I have no idea what this means - "please do be so kind and ditch all current guidelines and means (such as ANI) to highlight a problem and turn to a thumbs up or thumbs down policy only" What are you talking about? —МандичкаYO 😜 04:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: I think he means that he wishes that there wasn't all this beauracratic mess to push through just to establish that there's a problem, or to have that problem delt with? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what edit you mean. It was a while ago, when both of you were up at arbitration, and it is very, very hard to escape the impression that it was done to get a rise out of you, since I don't think Hijiri edits a lot of those articles. All the more reason for me to reiterate that a. both editors have something to contribute to Wikipedia and b. topic-banning Hijiri from some narrowly construed area, the area that Catflap is most active in (I understand it might not be easy to demarcate this, but we could try) keeps both editors on board. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Catflap08 and another user were in off-wiki communication about the edit in question. And I think consensus should be gathered on whether only myself or both of us should be TBANned from Catflap08's preferred area (NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism) -- I think the broad consensus from users involved in editing this area would be that Catflap08 has been highly disruptive over the years, while my relatively few edits have mostly been quite good. I would be happy to take a hit, though, if it meant less disruption to the project from Catflap08, who after years of lectures from me and others still doesn't know how to properly cite sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My dear Hijiri, if I'd had to sit through years of your lectures I'd be exasperated too. Now, it looks as if BMK's proposal, for a topic ban for the both of you, is gaining plenty of traction; if "take a hit" means you'll accept a limited topic ban, then you're probably making a wise choice. Now, Catflap wasn't in email communication about that edit with me but it didn't take me long to find it. It's a while ago, and it was made at a time that was stressful for the both of you, but it just signifies that...well, what editors here have been saying, editors who want the both of you gone. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88 Do you have diffs that expressly prove that there was off wiki communication that goes against PAG? Also please tell us what PAG they violate. AlbinoFerret 00:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AlbinoFerret
    19:56, 25 March 2015: John Carter makes his first ever edit remotely related to the poet/children's author Kenji Miyazawa, making a flawed analogy that show his ignorance of (lack of interest in?) the topic.
    03:50, 11 April 2015: I make an edit to an article on a German city I happen to be reading (it was over four months ago; I don't remember why).
    20:27, 15 April 2015: Catflap08 claims, on-wiki, for the first time ever, almost five days after my edit, that the city in question is where he "currently resides".
    21:25, 15 April 2015: John Carter refers to the city as Catflap08's "home town", despite Catflap08 never posting this information on-wiki. Note that during the intervening five days, I never touched the article, and Catflap08, John Carter and I were relatively active in editing, making 10, 217 and 33 edits respectively, and interacting with each other constantly. Catflap08's suddenly noticing my edit several days later and John Carter's immediately picking up on it (having also, apparently, failed to notice it for for five days), and the two of them making it their main talking point all of a sudden, is extremely suspicious. John Carter's knowing a piece of information about Catflap related to this dispute that Catflap never stated on-wiki means he heard it from him off-wiki. John Carter was at the time engaged in off-wiki contact about me with at least two users, and Catflap was engaged in off-wiki contact about me with at least one user, User:Sturmgewehr88, who graciously forwarded said contact to me.
    05:14, 17 April 2015: IBAN between Catflap08 and myself put in place.
    01:26, 19 April 2015 and 01:27, 19 April 2015: Drmies, at the request of John Carter (why does he care?), reminds both Catflap08 and myself that we are subject to an IBAN.
    14:23, 22 April 2015: I make a self-revert to the Kenji Miyazawa article in line with previously-established consensus (my earlier edit of 27-28 March 2015 had been a conditional concession to a vocal minority in an RFC -- who later violated said conditions -- but was never claimed as the "consensus" until 14:14, 15 April 2015, which claim was overruled within a few days). Two hours later, my edit is reverted by John Carter, who has never edited the article before.
    16:26, 22 April 2015 - 17:56, 1 May 2015: John Carter suddenly posts 52 times on the Kenji Miyazawa talk page, and reverts me five times in a 31-hour period. Why the sudden interest in Kenji Miyazawa? And why the curious knowledge of how the dispute had gone from June 2014 to March 2015 but with certain key features that didn't support Catflap08's story left out? Did he go through the talk page and read everything that had been posted previously? If so, why did he not know that a unanimous RFC had determined that Kenji should not be referred to as a "nationalist" without further evidence? Or did he receive a summary of the dispute from Catflap08 that left out those details? I of course don't have any conclusive evidence that John Carter definitely was acting as an IBAN-violation proxy for Catflap08, but his suddenly developing an enormous interest in this article that falls so far out of his normal editing area, immediately after the imposition of the IBAN, and his knowing obscure details about the dispute before he joined in but completely missing the massive, unanimous RFC seems highly suspicious, don't you agree?
    21:08, 28 April 2015: Catflap08 shows up suddenly on the talk page discussion between John Carter and myself (in what by Drmies' recently-stated definition almost certainly qualifies as a borderline IBAN-violation and "hounding" of me) indicating that he was aware of it (more aware than John Carter, in fact) and following it quite closely, which supports my belief that he had been in contact with John Carter about it prior to his showing up.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot the most important part, what PAG do they violate? Dont go into pages of dialogue, just present the PAG. Seconddly, all I see is circumstantial possibilities that you have jumped to ABF and are casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I want a diff where they admitted emailing each other in order to harass you, again without long explinations from you on how it couldnt be any other way. Present the evidence and let others draw the conclusions. AlbinoFerret 04:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ Drmies As much as I welcome your support for finding a solution to all this I still believe that the willingness to come to an agreement has to be present on all sides. I once hoped that the IBAN would resolve matters as the issues I am dealing with are fairly limited. But there is no winning when dealing with an editor on a complete different agenda – an agenda I am unwilling to understand. Me retiring is the only way that the editor in question will be preoccupied with other topics – and conflicts, and in future other, hopefully unbiased, editors will tend to Nichiren Buddhist related matters. I do care about the subjects I edited on and welcome input as long as it is constructive. H88 has so many conflicts going on that I can only hope that articles on Nichiren Buddhsim will continue to grow and flourish without me being part of it. In the end the reader should be informed. I am sure that admins will be kept busy dealing with H88. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WOW! This battle has been raging for over half a year. By this point in time, a far-reaching topic ban is probably the only reasonable solution, or else this will go on forever. I see disruptive behavior on both sides. Ahiroy (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahiroy: Who are you? You have never been involved in this dispute before, so I'm curious as to why you are using an arbitrary (and inaccurate) start-point for the dispute to justify your assertion that a two-way, super-broad topic ban is the way to solve it. So far, virtually everyone who has actually been involved in this dispute for at least several months believes (1) the proposed TBAN is far too broad (the topic-area under dispute is NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism, not "Japanese culture") and (2) the aggressor throughout 90% of the fourteen months this dispute has been running (throughout this time strictly confined to articles related to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs) has been Catflap08, and my "disruptive behavior" has been mostly reactionary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad. I would agree to a week-long block for both users, a TBAN from Nichiren Buddhism for Hijiri, and a page ban from any and all articles that Catflap has been disruptive on (Kenji Miyazawa is the only one I can think of off the top of my head) for Catflap. No more and no less is appropriate. And for those above users who !voted "support" because they got annoyed at seeing either of these editors names a few times here: go do something besides hanging out at ANI. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Japanese culture" (and I actually should have written "Japanese history and culture", but it's too late to go back now) is no broader than "U.S. Politics", which ArbCom used as a topic ban not too long ago. I don't think that anything will come of this unless the editors really start to feel that they're missing out on something they really want to be involved in, and that means that the topic ban needs to be substantial and the time period needs to be indef so they can't just wait it out and then return to the same behavior, as has happened before. If you read this thread, you'll see that some people think Catflap is at fault and some think that Hijiri is at fault -- and, of course, both of them think that the other is the bad guy. This circumstance is the very reason why it must be an equal sanction, with no determination of percentage of blame (pace Drmies). They're clearly both at fault, in one way or another, to one extent or another, and the ongoing tangoing has to stop. Blocks and IBans haven't worked, this is the next step. If this fails, it's either ArbCom or mutual indef blocks -- at some point the net value of the editor just drops below zero. We're not there yet, but that's the direction we're heading in. BMK (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @BMK: "Japanese culture" is ridiculously broad. The disruption in question has taken place exclusively on articles related to NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism. To extrapolate from this that a mutual TBAN from "Japanese culture" is warranted is equivalent to proposing a TBAN on "U.S. politics" for two users who have been fighting over articles related to Hillary Clinton. Or rather, it is equivalent to proposing such for two users who have been fighting over Hillary, when one of those users is an SPA whose every edit on Wikipedia has been to insert BLP violations against the woman, and the other user has been making a large number of constructive edits to the broad topic area of "U.S. politics" for years. Such a proposal would be an obvious attempt to needlessly spite the latter user. So far as I can see, Sturmgewehr88 is the only user to so far way in here with any interest in or knowledge of "Japanese culture", and he says the proposal is too broad: ask any other user in WikiProject Japan and they will say the same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The part of that post , which is not neutral, But I find it interesting Hijiri 88 said Another user and I are up for a mutual topic ban from "Japanese culture" because our mutual interaction ban has been an absolute failure. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: @AlbinoFerret: How was my pointer not neutral? How could it possibly violate WP:CANVAS? The only member of WikiProject Japan to express any opinion at all so far has been User:Sturmgewehr88, who thanked me. Was our mutual interaction ban not an absolute failure? And why do I not have a right to quit Wikipedia if I am indefinitely forced out of the only topic area in which I have any interest? It's not a "threat" -- it's an observation that I frankly have no interest in contributing to areas of this project that don't interest me and in which I have very little knowledge. I don't see why I should have to explain why I would want to leave the project if I was forced out of the project, when thus far BMK has made no effort whatsoever to explain his ridiculously-broad TBAN parameters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Its as far from neutral as can be with a threat to have to leave WP, what else do you expect people who agree with you to do other than come here and defend you? AlbinoFerret 04:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isnt annoyance that they have shown up a few time, its more than a few. Its that their behaviour over the span of months is bad. Constant problems with one or the other and nothing is done and I think some editors think it will all go away if we just get past the most recent blow up. Well it hasnt, and I think that the problem is that nothing has happened to them other than an IBAN that they both game. I think when nothing happens it emboldens one or both making them believe that nothing will happen this time, they got away before, and the project suffers. As for telling editors to go someplace else, we all help the project in our own way. This board is open to all members of the community to post on. AlbinoFerret 15:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, are you going to take it to Arbcom? If not who is? If no one is willing to step forward, Arbcom isnt realistic. AlbinoFerret 16:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember Catflap already sought input from ArbCom once, prior to the i-ban. That being the case, I think that if this thread closes without a clear decision to do something here, he might do so again, or, failing that, I certainly would be willing to do so. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Such a topic ban would be too broad, and the quarrel in question doesn't concern "Japanese history and culture", it concerns a much smaller subset. If the topic ban is re-scoped towards Nichiren Buddhist topics, I wouldn't find it as concerning, however there is a net loss of benefit from a topic ban for "Japanese history and culture" to the project, especially in regards to the improvements made to articles outside of the realms of this current dispute. Don't get me wrong: I can see the wrongdoings, I'm just looking at the long term effects, and weighing out the pros and cons of such a topic ban. There is definitely a better way to handle this. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "quarrel in question" is simply the specific instance at this moment in time of a battle between the two editors that has been going on for over a year, and has wound up on the noticeboards at least a dozen times. Use the search box at the top of the page and put in each of their names (one at a time) and feast your eyes on the time and energy these two have sucked out of the community because they cannot get along. It is their mutual long-term behavior which sparks this proposal, not this relatively minor dispute. BMK (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Benlisquare: Please don't listen to him. The "quarrel in question" is simply the specific instance at this moment in time of a battle between the two editors that has been going on for over a year that has always been confined to a small group of articles related Nichiren Buddhist NRMs. User:Beyond My Ken and others supporting the proposal are simply showing their ignorance of "Japanese culture" (or perhaps their ignorance of my dispute with Catflap08 -- BMK has only been involved in two of the "dozen times" it has appeared on noticeboards, and most of the others even less so) by claiming otherwise. The full (not especially long considering the dispute has been going on for fourteen months) list of articles on which I have disputed with Catflap08 is as follows:
    1. Kenji Miyazawa (in a very narrow capacity concerning the subject's relationship with the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
    2. Kokuchūkai (a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
    3. Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō (I still don't know what Catflap's problems with my edits were, since all I did was RM the page per WP:COMMONNAME and cut down several very long quotations that bore no relation to the article text, but Catflap apparently thought I was editing the article to be more amenable to the POV of Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; note that I was hiding from an off-wiki stalker at the time so my edits were made under the IP "126.0.96.220")
    4. Daisaku Ikeda (a figure notable as the leader of Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
    5. Nichiren Buddhism (in a talk page discussion of the Nichiren Buddhist NRM Soka Gakkai's status within Nichiren Buddhism)
    6. Karlsruhe (say what you want about me editing our article on a city that Catflap08 claimed was his current residence five days after my edit -- how on earth could I have known this when he never stated it on-wiki!? -- but it apparently is what Catflap08 and some others are discussing further up this thread as "evidence" that I was hounding him; additionally, the timeline of these events was highly suspicious and seems to prove pretty handilly that Catflap08 was engaged in off-wiki contact with another to violate our IBAN by proxy both before and immediately after it came into effect; given this information, I think most good-faith Wikipedians would conclude that Catflap08 was hounding me, not the other way round)
    7. Korean influence on Japanese culture (Catflap08 violated the IBAN by showing up suddenly in an ANI discussion and supporting a PAGEBAN for me -- not really relevant, though)
    8. Gyōson (as part of a massive drive by me to complete Wikipedia's coverage of the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu poets, I recently created an article on this prelate of Tendai Buddhism; in a manner of speaking, Tendai Buddhism looks kinda-sorta like Nichiren Buddhism, since they both revere the Lotus Sutra; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my creating an article on a monk with a super-vague relationship to a sect of Buddhism that arose centuries after his death, which centuries later still gave rise to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs like Soka Gakkai and Kokuchūkai, may have possibly contributed to Catflap08's, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    9. Nichiren Shōshū (recent edits by me related the group's relationship with Soka Gakkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM, apparently led Catflap08 to believe that I am "hounding" him, although we have not directly interacted on the page and to the best of my knowledge the text I edited was never edited by him)
    10. Nichiren Shū (I RMed the page recently in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME; three years ago Catflap08 was involved in a dispute with another editor on the page about the groups relationship with Soka Gakkai International, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    11. Soka Gakkai (a Nichiren Buddhist NRM)
    12. Nichirenism (a religio-political philosophy espoused by followers of the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist NRM; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    13. Shakubuku (not exclusively about Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but the way Catflap wrote the article it certainly looked that way; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently what led Catflap08 to the assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    14. Criticism of Buddhism (nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but also nothing to do with this dispute; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page, but my recent activity here is apparently part of what led Catflap08 to the, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    15. Nichiren (my recent edits here do not relate to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs specifically, and no rational observer can claim to see any problem with said edits in and of themselves -- I was just trying to reformat the references so the tag at the top of the page could be removed -- but Catflap08 apparently believes that I am "hounding" him because I have been interested in Nichiren Buddhism since 2007 and have recently started editing Wikipedia articles relating to it; if someone thinks my edits to this page have been "disruptive", then please PAGEBAN me from this specific article, and TBAN me from NRMs based on Nichiren Buddhism)
    16. Muju County (nothing to do with Nichiren Buddhist NRMs, but also nothing to do with this dispute; I inserted a disambig note linking to our article on Mujū, a Buddhist monk and contemporary/enemy of Nichiren; Catflap08 and I have not directly interacted on the page -- Catflap08 has never edited either page -- but my recent activity in an area even remotely related to Nichiren Buddhist NRMs is apparently part of what led Catflap08 to the, rather absurd, assertion that I am "hounding" him)
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Law of holes BMK (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken Are you insane? Why have you not fixed your TBAN proposal to accurately reflect the "common ground" between myself and Catflap08? Why do you insist on trying to get me indefinitely banned from the 90% of articles I regularly edit that have nothing whatsoever to do with Catflap08? Are you illiterate? Or am I missing some major area of this dispute that I have been involved in for over a year and you have only shown up recently to and pretended like you understand it better than I do? Or User:Sturmgewehr88? Or User:Wikimandia? Or User:Ubikwit? Or User:Nishidani? Or any of the other countless editors of Japan-related articles who have commented on this dispute and would be flabbergasted by your proposals? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: I don't think it's particularly helpful to you or to the civility of this discussion to call me (and another editor) "insane", or to ask if I'm "illiterate" (especially since I'm quite obviously not - all these letter going together into words that make coherent sentences is rather proof of that). Your characterization of my motivations and actions is similarly incorrect, as anyone who reads this thread can verify. It's not about your content work, it's about your behavior and your attitude which are clearly a significant part of the reason why you and Catflap cannot get along. That this suggested topic ban would take you away from a subject area you really want to edit is no one's fault but that of the two of you, who could not exist under the previous IBan. In fact, the topic ban is devised to make you want to return to editing the subject area so much that you're willing to behave better to do so. Both of you. BMK (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand BMK's reasoning for "Japanese culture" (although I see it like killing a fly with a cannon), but his comparison with a TBAN from "US politics" by ArbCom recently is a little flawed; were the circumstances around that TBAN at all similar? I'm just guessing but I'm assuming that that case was an editor who caused problems across a random swath of articles that could only be grouped by "US politics". In this case, where the problem occurs specifically within articles related to Nichiren Buddhism, such a broad TBAN is unnecessary and overkill. You said that their net value as editors hasn't dropped to zero yet, so why treat them that way? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri, you're kind of making it more difficult to argue for you here. I know you're feeling frustrated, but please try easing up on the attacks, they don't reflect well on you. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a quick look through each of the different article rating categories of WikiProject Japan, I'd estimate that a topic ban on Buddhist topics, even if enforced with a wide filter, would constitute 15-20% of all Japanese historical culture articles. That leaves around 80% of the remaining articles for Hijiri88 to continue working on, hopefully without any further violations of their interaction bans with other users. Hijiri88's ANI shenanigans don't appear to significantly fall outside of these realms, so it seems reasonable to provide a few inches of breathing space. You could even try working with a carrot-and-stick approach here; if, by any chance, the problem continues to worsen and their behaviour continues on articles outside of Buddhist topics, the response can be made more severe in reasonable and logical increments. If you allow them to dig deeper into their hole, you can justify further sanctions against them ("give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves"), and if they do end up having less conflict working outside of Nichiren Buddhist topics, then it's a victory for everyone, is it not?

      I'm trying to point out the implications of a wide-filter topic ban on an extremely broad topic, from an outside perspective. A topic ban on Japanese culture would prohibit them from editing articles such as Guadalcanal Campaign, Enka, Bonsai and History of Toyota, topics which are completely unrelated to the string of ANI issues in question. Then there's the issue of proportions: I'll use myself as an example. These days I tend to steer clear of topics and articles on Wikipedia that I anticipate will bring me into a large conflict against another editor, however assume that I have caused a huge debacle, and needed to be topic banned. There are many different areas that I am involved with on Wikipedia; if I was topic banned from China-related articles I wouldn't be too overly concerned, since they only constitute around 20% of articles that I'm involved with today; the same applies for videogame articles, military history articles and language articles, each of which spanning anywhere between 20-25% of all content that I write. Now in regards to Hijiri88, it isn't far-fetched to state that 95% of what he writes is related to the topic of Japanese culture. After a topic ban, what would you like him to write about? I'm not arguing that he should be "let off", of course they'll need to learn from these long chains of ANI events, and take full responsibility like any adult should. My point is that the punishment needs to suit the circumstance, and a topic ban for Japanese culture doesn't seem to be the most constructive solution that will benefit everyone. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is, if the ban isnt wide, it just moves to a different set of articles in a different area Japanese culture. There needs to be a wide area, so that if one of them follows to an area outside of their normal area its easy to spot. Otherwise its an area they both want to edit in. AlbinoFerret 04:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in narrowing the proposal myself, I'm satisfied that, if there is sufficient support for the proposal, the closing admin can evaluate the discussion and decide on that basis if the topic ban should be narrowed or expanded, or kept as originally set. BMK (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AlbinoFerret, BMK: Where is the evidence that the dispute will move onto a different area of "Japanese culture"? It started fourteen months ago with a Nichiren Buddhist NRM, it was about a Nichiren Buddhist NRM when the IBAN was put in place, and is about a Nichiren Buddhist NRM now. Additionally, could you please define "Japanese culture"? Would I be banned from writing articles on 12th-century waka poets? If so: why? Catflap08 has never edited in this area, and he and I have never disputed over it. If the claim is that if a mutual TBAN were placed on "Nichiren Buddhist NRMs" then Catflap08 would follow me to 12th-century waka poets: AGF obliges me to disagree, and even if such a thing happened it would be a clear IBAN violation and could be dealt with if and when it happens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It seems both editors have failed to get the message from the IBAN. The underlying problem is not that the sanctions aren't well framed; the underlying problem is that these two editors refuse to grow up and learn to edit constructively. Then crying, "But... but... a TBAN will hurt my editing!" is missing the point. The easy way to keep editing where you want to edit was to cut the crap out and get on with it. That point is past. GoldenRing (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Counterproposal

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

    • It does not require community consensus to file a case request at ArbCom, but as long as this AN/I report is open, ArbCOm is unlikely to take the case. Their recent history has been to allow the community to handle the problem first. BMK (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Janson again

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

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

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

    Problematic editor

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

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

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

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

    I suppose Liverpool fans have to cling to something now that they're no longer a force in English football. As for User:Davefelmer, I agree with his sentiments, but his actions are completely inappropriate. I know I can talk, but this is getting to be rather disruptive. Per WP:POINT, I'd agree a short block is in order. – PeeJay 09:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User claims to share an account

    User indeffed by Tokyogirl79. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On 18 August, user Stopedits11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stated on his Talk page that he shares an account. I don’t know the details (he didn’t offer any, and blanked the page on further inquiry), but it’s my understanding that account-sharing is generally forbidden here per WP:ROLE. I’m not asking for any action on my behalf, just thought it should be brought to administrator attention. If there’s no violation, then cool, but that policy page may need updating in that case. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right and the account had been blocked accordingly. Good catch, thanks! Swarm ♠ 06:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's against policy, so I've blocked them. It also looks like they were previously blocked for personal attacks, so that won't really look good for them if they want to be unblocked since the edit about "I share accounts" seems to be sort of done in an argumentative format. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like the account was also being nasty towards the IP that reported this, so I'm going to just say that it's going to be nearly impossible for this person to be unblocked, since it's pretty much impossible to prove that only one person is operating an account after someone claims otherwise AND they'd have to show that they wouldn't act like this again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:99.109.125.16

    IP blocked for block evasion. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 08:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User is adding unnecessary blank lines on many different pages.[58][59][60] In addition, user has undid a rollback by User:Arthur Rubin here[61] that was undone for block evasion. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:BRD. 99.109.125.16 (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the 2¢ of a random passerby, but I see no problems with adding a single line of whitespace that doesn’t affect layout. On the latter issue, this user may want to act on the “D” part of “BRD”; It appears only Arthur has attempted to. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look deeper, a potential starting place. 99.109.125.16 (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Regardless of whether Arthur may need his own ANI thread, it seems this user has some sort of vendetta against him, whether justified or not. But I’ll take my big nose out of this now. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Quite the opposite. All about WikiLove here. (",) 99.109.125.16 (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An IP user who is doing the same exact thing (adding and deleting blank lines on multiple articles in a short time span) as multiple previously blocked IP users who were all blocked for evasion. Per WP:DUCK that looks like a block evasion attempt to me. In addition, the user's IP address is in the same range and traces to the same general location as previously documented IPs that have all been blocked for evasion. That is my reasoning for reporting it. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User was blocked so this is now a moot point and I am not entirely sure if I am allowed to non-admin close my own thread. If anyone else would like to do that I would appreciate it. Thanks! --Stabila711 (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Nyanchoka

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

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

    User talk:Sriabhaya hospital

    Talk page access revoked by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The editor keeps adding inappropriate/spammy content to their talk page even after being blocked for spamming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've revoked talk page access Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    71.167.102.150

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

    Which article(s) are you referring to? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Report an inconsiderate User.

    Duplicate of 3th thread above this, please copy your statement to that thread (non-admin closure) --TL22 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've been editting in Wikipedia for quite sometime now.But one user User:Philip J Fry,hss been disagreeing with all my edits.Even in obvious staff he still rejects.It all started when he reportedly editing filmography sections of Latin actors by Changing Protagonist/Antagonist to Lead role/Co-lead role.On explaining to him the subject he was noting was a Telenovela,he blantantly refused.In the issue of Wild at Heart (telenovela) he repeatedly undid my edit since I changed title card with original name and moved page to the original spanish name.Surprisingly I also moved the page,The Stray Cat to "La Gata"(2014 telenovela) he moved it back to The Stray Cat with an explanation that the title card was in English.So I was asking you to please assist me on how to handle such a User that is giving me a hell of time with my edits which I think he is taking it personal.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyanchoka (talk • contribs) 12:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nyanchoka, you MUST notify the user on their talk page when starting a discussion here about them. And why have you started a different thread for exactly the same topic just three discussions above this? This seems most unconstructive. JZCL 14:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing against the user, that's a lie. The user makes changes without reaching a concessive and sometimes reversed my edits without any explanation, as you can see here and here.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rangeblock needed for Kenny Loggins vandal

    Rangeblocked by NeilN. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The very disruptive person described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kenny Loggins vandal has been at it again. The recent IP6 addresses appear to be vulnerable to a rangeblock:

    All of these share the sequence 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0. Can we rangeblock 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0? Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64 blocked 3 months. --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I updated the LTA case page. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

    here are some examples of his soapboxing / censoring / pushing POV and violating WP:NPOV

    This user was actually reprimanded for edit warring and disruptive editing only two days ago yet he is at it again!

    I kindly ask that you deal with this user in an appropriate way because it is a headache to have to undo all of the damage he is causing Sakimonk talk 17:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And after FreeatlastChitchat you, you reverted him to be reverted in turn by User:Rothorpe. You've made it pretty clear at Template talk:Islam that you are editing with the pov that Sunni Islam is the original and orthodox form of Islam, and that " The only sects in Islam are Sunni'ism and some shia groups, khawarij and sufis. The rest of the groups mentioned here are mostly not actually part of the religion of islam but are offshoot religions." This seems for you to particularly include the Ahmadiyyah. Doug Weller (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Defence, and Proposal to T-Ban Sakimonk from Islam and related topics

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

    How ironic, you're using my argument against me? You're the one who is offended by my edits and you are the only one who is censoring information on wikipedia. You're the one who has been warned several times by multiple users for edit warring. The only time I've ever had a problem with editing in recent history is on the Israel page because I accidentally violated the 1 revert policy on Arab/Israeli articles. By the way Doug Weller, if you had even bothered to read what I had actually said you would have realised that I made a clear distinction between my POV which is indeed biased and my intention to have a template which is in line with WP:NPOV guidelines. I do personally believe that the tenets of Islam are violated by groups such as Ahmadiyyah and Mahdavia (as do the vast majority of Muslims) however all I wanted to do was make a clear distinction between mainstream Islam (which literally over 90% of the circa 1.5 billion Muslims follow) and fringe groups who are messianic in nature. How on earth is it POV to call ahmadiyyah messianic? Furthermore, their ideology is actually based on their conviction that Ghulam Mirza is the messiah. I believe that my edits are the most informative and true to the topic's nature whereas removal of this content is simply being politically correct and censoring wikipedia just to not offend Ahmadis. Freeatlastchitchat and Peaceworld are both ahmadis and strongly utilise all means to push their POV and censor wikipedia. You're just enabling them. I've made clear what my personal beliefs are on the matter and I made a clear distinction between my personal feelings on the matter and what I believe that wikipedia should say. Sakimonk talk 04:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahahaha, I just have to point out the hilarity of FreeatlastChitchat 's opening statement. His edits are antithetical to every word he has said. It reminds me of the Hosni mubarak trial. Sakimonk talk 04:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Sakimonk/Archive 1 has multiple edit-war templated warnings, several other notices about various disruptive editing, and indications of multiple times being hauled to WP:AN*. His saying "You're the one who has been warned several times by multiple users for edit warring" about someone else might be true, but it doesn't lessen his apparent involvement and history of the same behaviors. Pot/kettle, etc. DMacks (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that User:Drmies has given a Sakimonk a final warning at Template talk:Islam regarding edit-warring on that template. Other admins have full-protected multiple other pages in which he was involved in edit-wars on Islam-related articles. The general theme is as others have noted: Sakimonk taking an editorial position on what is the "true" Islam based on majority/mainstream and various political/governmental pronouncements, rather than just what is majority/mainstream with more academic sources. That's a series of pretty bad patterns, which don't usually lead to the user's desired outcome. DMacks (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • DMacks, thanks for the ping. I was not aware of this thread, though after I warned the editor I saw that they were edit warring in a number of other articles. Had I seen this thread and dug deeper I might have blocked them on the spot. I don't have to take an opinion on the content of the edits; the edit warring and the budding consensus here about POV editing is probably enough for the next admin to make a swift decision if their editing behavior continues in this vein. But I'll leave that for someone else, perhaps you, DMacks, since I'm done for the day. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply not true. I actually find it quite insulting that you insinuate that I am (sic) taking an editorial position on what is the "true" Islam based on majority/mainstream and various political/governmental pronouncements, rather than just what is majority/mainstream with more academic sources. Time and time again I've made it brutally clear what I believe is my personal POV on the talk pages but I've also made it clear that I don't edit with this POV, I always intend on simply providing an accurate and balanced edit in line with WP:NPOV guidelines. We all have our own biases, at least I am honest unlike other users who do the opposite - hide their agenda and wreck articles with the false pretext of asserting NPOV. Sakimonk talk 05:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LesVegas

    (non-admin closure) LesVegas blocked under DS for 1 week for "persistent disruptive editing" by Drmies Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:LesVegas primarily / only edits acupuncture. Today they added an incredible statement:

    acupuncture to be a safe and effective treatment for supraventricular tachycardia[62]

    The source supporting it is in Chinese from the Journal Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. This journal has an impact factor of zero.[63] The SJR is 0.12 which is very low.[64] After being reverted they added 5 tags to the article three times [65], [66], [67].

    They continue not see see anything wrong with the content or source they added.[68][69]

    On Aug 20th they were warned by User:Manul for using a misleading edit summary in this edit here [70]. To which they replied Thanks for the advice. Here is some for you: Wikipedia:KETTLE

    The user has already been warned as I just noticed that this article is also under discretionary sanctions.[71]

    To summary I do not think this user can properly edit in this topic area. Have also reported this user to 3RR here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for clarification, are you requesting a topic ban? If so, AE might be the best way to go, as the discretionary sanctions were imposed by ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks yes User:John Carter we do have [72]. We could consider community sanctions here or move it their? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think AE sanctions are both harder to overturn, and maybe easier to follow up on, so maybe moving it there would be more effective. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (non admin observation) There is currently a open section on WP:AN/3 on this same dispute. AlbinoFerret 18:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes which I mention above in my opening remarks. The issue goes beyond the 3RR however. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Must have missed that, sorry. But that section on WP:AN/3 is showing that there were only two reverts by LesVegas to your three. AlbinoFerret 18:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Only, LesVegas didnt edit war, he made two reverts, that isnt edit warring. 3 reverts, which Doc James did [78][79][80] is closer, perhaps its enough for a WP:BOOMERANG when the fact is included he posted this to two boards WP:FORUMSHOP. The other edits you point out are a content disgreement, not something that is discussed normally on this board. AlbinoFerret 19:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with AlbinoFerret on some counts, and frankly LasVegas clearly and extensively explained the tags, so I have no problems with them. However, James has legitimate concerns about a safety issue in terms of content. The way to deal with that for both editors is to take the issues to the appropriate dispute resolution board, and have the community input. Its better to err on the side of extreme caution in MEDRS related content. Boomerang is not necessary nor is the labeling of an editor, just get more input(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    I do suggest that accusations of edit warring be carefully documented and accurate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    Previous POV tag added to the top of the page.[81][82][83][84][85][86] Even more tags added to the top of the page.[87][88][89] Does anyone think this is appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, all I can say is I made the reverts primarily because several of the templates being reverted say "do not remove until the disputes have been resolved". I added a rather lengthy section on the talk page regarding the issues on Acupuncture such as self-published sources being used in the lede of all places, weasel words, miscellaneous POV issues in the lede and throughout the article, and systemic bias issues since Chinese sources have had a long history of being kept off the article. What I hoped the tags would do is attract new editors to the article to help solve the numerous issues. Do we really not want to have new editors looking at the article? I want to make it clear: after DocJames reverted the two sources, I did not edit war and add them back in. I respect the talk page process. If he has objections I want to hear them, and I hope he will hear me. But what I respect even more is signaling new editors to the talk page rather than entrenched ones determined to keep the article the way it is. Hence the purpose of the tags. When I do everything required to add tags to an article and tags that say "do not remove until disputes have been resolved" are removed, it's disruptive. That article really needs to get looked at by a wider audience, checked for its neutrality, or something. It's a shame some editors seem to fear that. LesVegas (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @QuackGuru The diffs are about a year apart. The recent set accompanied a talk section, so the addition of tags is appropriate. But edit warring to remove them is not the case. These were the 2 and 3rd reverts Doc James made to edits by LesVegas today. I notice that Doc has stopped digging, Im not so sure he would like to see you pick up the shovel and make the hole deeper. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree the best way forward is not to remove the tags. and in a sense they provide a level of protection for the reader on such articles. The article does need input but it needs input from editors who can read and understand research which is not always the editor who wanders over. At the same time, the Chinese research is contentious. What is not needed in the mix is knee jerk reaction from either skeptics or others rather than careful analysis of each source. It can be hard to tell the legitimate editor from the ones with agendas, and the reaction on Wikipedia can be to burn them all at the stake. I don't know what the answer is but safety first is my preferred underlying principle, and that the punitive model is archaic and useless in the long run.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    • strongly support admin-administered DS for LesVegas - this edit] is outrageous on an article with discretionary sanctions in place. The edit added way FRINGE content (not a little bit FRINGE but rather way, way outside the medical mainstream), to a highly contested article without prior discussion. The subsequent tag-bombing was clearly retaliatory. This is exactly what DS are for and it is time to kick them in, and ANI is a place to alert admins to activity where their actions are needed. I would propose a week-long block from Acupuncture but the sanctions are discretionary, of course. DS do not need community consensus. In case anybody is unclear, the edit said that a review (in a crap journal) found "acupuncture to be a safe and effective treatment for supraventricular tachycardia" -- that is a complex medical condition where your heart is driving itself to beat too fast - it takes serious drugs, a pacemaker, or defibrillation (clear!) to treat. POV-pushing edits of content like this is the biggest reason why this article is a BATTLEGROUND - why the quackfighters need to stay alert and deal with this kind of lunatic charlatan editing. Really. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In a similar situation in the past, when I saw what was clearly a violation of arbitration sanctions at ANI, I was told that the appropriate way to proceed would be to take the matter to AE. On the basis of that previous discussion, and taking into account some of the other matters raised here, I really think it would be best to refer this to AE, although, after a discussion of this length here, I am unsure exactly how to present it to them there. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is baloney. Any admin can administer DS. I will wait a day and see if an admin takes action. If no one does, I will ask Doc James to close this thread and will open the AE myself. The edit and tag-bombing are way out of line. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Any admin can impose DS, but most admins are (not without reason) afraid to act in controversial areas. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is another case of MEDRS being used to close off an article from other opinions. Sad. The Banner talk 20:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Using MEDRS to "close off an article from other opinions" seems similar to me to using RS to close off an article from claims or "facts" that are not supported by a reliable source. And that is bad.... why? BMK (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think MEDRS applies to acupuncture, you truly are a lost cause. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of the merits of this journal or that, or this needle or that, LesVegas was clearly guilty of pointy editing, esp. when they said, on the talk page after their edits were reverted and their opinion on the Chinese journal was gaining no traction, "In order to gain an outside point of view by more neutral, third-party Wikipedians, I have added tags outlining multiple issues on the article." I do not think there's enough edit warring for a block (I looked at the 3R report), unless LesVegas has a history of edit warring. Whether there is enough for a block for DS/disruption, that I cannot determine based on these edits alone, but I'll have a look later. In the meantime I welcome others' opinions. In the other meantime, can we stop running to ArbCom all the time? Those poor guys have it hard enough already, what with all the necessary emergency desysops. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, regrettably. As the consensus against uncritical coverage has become clearer, LesVegas seems to me to have become more aggressive and more inclined to push the envelope of what is acceptable. This is Wikipedia, our articles on topics related to medicine are dominated by the scientific perspective, and this is by design. The lack of scienctific support for the bulk of what acupuncturists claim is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Support per JzG and Drmies above. I would think ArbCom has enough on their plate to deal with at this time. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  23:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Given that this is under DS, and given that the user has been notified of those, and considering that this user has before made rather pointy edits (tagging as a weapon), and given that considering all that tagging and re-tagging is certainly disruptive, I will block LesVegas for a week. Now, if one of you can add it to the log, I can get back to other things. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry to see this. If there was one sanction being handed out per the discretionary sanctions there should have been many. Again and again an editor who has the tenacity to hang in with the skeptics and much less experience is brought to a NB and is sanctioned while other behaviours are not looked at. This whole article is contentious and that was not created by one editor nor was it appropriate for an admin to bring this issue to a NB while using inaccurate information. I know having watched this article for along time that LesVegas intent was not to be pointy but a desperate attempt to bring in new blood to a muddy controlled, environment. I didn't want to see anyone sanctioned here. I had hope Doc and LesVegas could discuss this themselves. Anyway my view such as it is, and I do respect your work Drmies.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
      • Littleolive oil, such blocks give me no pleasure. The edit, followed by the tag bomb, followed by again the tag bomb, that's too much. I understand the talk page is a mire, and obviously something needs to be done/decided about those Chinese-language sources, but pushing the envelope is not the right way. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I disagree with the view of what happened; I respect you decision and position.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Lg16spears

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

    I got it now! Lg16spears (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bizarre Cyberbot II edit

    The odd edit was caused by an edit conflict. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 07:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would someone please look at this bizarre edit by Cyberbot II at Ferguson unrest? I fear the bot has been compromised. General Ization Talk 02:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified cyberpower678 of this thread. --NeilN talk to me 02:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually notifying cyberpower678 of the issue (not this thread since Cyberbot II is not a human editor) at the same time you posted on their Talk page, but I appreciate your having done so. However, cyberpower678's Talk page does suggest that they may be unavailable for some time. Is there anyone else familiar with the bot who could take a look and try to figure out how this happened? General Ization Talk 02:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like MediaWiki failed to catch an edit conflict. No issue with the bot here. This is what it was trying to do.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick reply. General Ization Talk 02:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User repeatedly introduces false precision errors from an account and 3 IP addresses

    Christina1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    89.132.19.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    89.134.28.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    89.134.20.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    As can be seen from the history of Gustave (crocodile), the above user keeps changing "2,000 pounds (900 kg)" to "2,000 pounds (907 kg)" (as .154, as .238, as .54, as Christina1969). The source says "2,000 pounds" so this introduces an error via false precision. Myself and other editors have repeatedly tried to explain this concept (here, here, here, here), but there seems to be a WP:IDHT/WP:CIR problem.

    Note this person has a history of block evasion (see here). I've delivered {{ANI-notice}} to User talk:Christina1969. Pinging admin JamesBWatson who has dealt with this person before. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User FkpCascais modifying and removing my comments.

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

    Here is the talk page: [90]

    Here are the edits: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]

    He continues to remove my edits even after I reported [97] and notified him:

    [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]


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

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

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

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

    Unfounded allegations and deliberately preventing the accused from answering them

    An SPI case has been raised here against a user unrelated to this case. JoeSperrazza (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has added another IP address editor 86.153.131.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to the list claiming that it is a sock of the same investigation and JoeSperrazza has used the allegation as an excuse to revert this IP's edits under WP:BE example. The examples of edits that he has provided appear to have little to with the case as given. In addition, the case page has been semi-protected to ensure that none of the IP addresses accused can respond to the case (a request for removal has been filed).

    It is worth noting that there has been a flurry of editing activity at Prime meridian (Greenwich) within which two editors are attempting to WP:OWN the article by objecting to what others are editing in. I have to note that Jc3s5h (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) who is also attempting to own the article has also chimed in and reverting the same good faith (and correct) edits. I would therefore suggest that these two may even be sockpuppets ofeach other. 86.145.209.15 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see WP:ANI Community ban proposal: Vote (X) for Change: closing -- banned:
    JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I have been deliberately prevented from responding at the SPI. According to the evidence put up by Jc3s5h (talk · contribs), everyone who edits Wikipedia and lives in London must be sockpuppets of each other. That is his sole evidence. With a population of 8.6 million people, I await all the future SPI cases whenever he dislikes anyone's editing. 86.145.209.15 (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Prime meridian (Greenwich). Jc3s5h (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That is nothing more than your determined attempt to make sure that I cannot respond to your malicious allegations where you made them. I note that you continue to add irelevances secure in the knowledge that they cannot be answered.


    It is now very clear that Jc3s5h (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and JoeSperrazza (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) are sockpuppets of each other. Both are intent on reverting the IP address editors without any case having been proven (diff1 and diff2 AND using an identical edit summary].

    Both users have also redacted good faith discussion atempts left on their talk pages, diff3 and diff4. It is unusual to find two editors who both clean such comments off their talk pages, even less so, two who claim to be doing it for alleged sockpuppets of banned users before they have even produced a viable case let alone proven the point.

    And both users, are intent on proving sockpuppetry relying solely on the fact that the accused happens to geolocate to London. Problem is: that the case falls down because this IP address does not geolocate to London, but around 10 miles or so east of where I am (though it probably will do if my IP address changes - something over which I have no control). 86.145.209.15 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=677464527"